ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is an activity designed to identify
and predict the impact on the biogeophysical environment and on human
health and well-being, of legislative proposals, policies, programs, projects,
and operational procedures, and to interpret and communicate information
about the impacts (Munn, 1979)

An environmental impact statement (EIS) is the resulting public document

written in a format specified by authorized national, state, and/or local
agencies.

An environmental inventory is description of the environment as it exists in an

area where a particular proposed action is being considered.

A postconstruction audit is a study carried out several years or decades later

to check the accuracy of the EIA predictions.
 Historical Perspective
When a new project or development is planned that might affect
environmental quality, an environmental assessment (EIA) may be carried
out. In most jurisdiction, an EIA is mandatory before permission is given to
proceed with designated classes of engineering works. This is certainly the
case for major developments such as power station, flood-control system,
and smelters.

As early as the 1950s, EIAs of major developments were undertaken,

particularly in North America, Europe and Japan. The main objective was
to ensure that public safety and health were adequately protected.
Separate documents were submitted to each of the regulatory involved
(e.g., water authority, air pollution control branch, etc.), and no attempt
was made to prepare a comprehensive overview.
 The first comprehensive environmental legislation in the United
States, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), came into force
of January 1, 1970. The act contains three main section:

1) A declaration of national policy, and with it, a prescription of

environmental good that the federal government was to pursue.

2) A specification that federal agencies must prepare EISs on those

federal action significantly affecting he quality of the human
environment.

3) The institutionalization of the EIA process in the Executive Office Of

the President through the establishment of the Council on
Environmental Quality.
 In Canada, the federal government establish an Environmental
Assessment and Review Process in 1973 to ensure that:

1.) Environmental effects would be taken into account early in the

planning of new federal projects, programs, and activities.

2.) An environmental assessment would be carried out before

commitments or irrevocable decision were made, for all projects that
might have an adverse effect the environment (projects with potential
significant environmental affects would be submitted to Environmental
Canada for review.)

3.)The results of the assessments would be used in planning, decision

making, implementation.
 The EIA system has been welcomed in principle by many
scientists, engineers ,citizens’ groups and others. In practice,
however, the process has left much to be desired. For
example, EISs are often too long and too technical (for the
citizens groups) and do not deal with the environment in a
holistic way. However, a learning process is taking place,
which is improving the usefulness of EIAs. In some cases,
intervener citizen groups are provided with the financial
support to help them prepare their submissions to the public
hearings.
 ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
The first step in the EIA process is to determine whether a project
falls within the relevant act or regulations, and whether the
development is likely to create significant environmental disruption. If
so, an assessment is undertaken, leading to the preparation of an EIS.
In most jurisdictions, the EIS is open to public scrutiny and may be
reviewed at public hearings. Eventually, a decision is made at the
political level as to whether to (1) accept the development, (2)
accept an amended form of the proposed development, (3) accept
an alternative proposal, or (4) reject the development.
Contents. The EIS should:

1. Describe a proposed action, as well as alternatives (including that

of no action).
2. Estimate the nature and magnitude of the likely environmental
effects of all alternatives.
3. Identify the relevant human concerns.
4. Define the criteria to be used in measuring the significance of
environmental changes, including the relative weights to be assigned
in comparing different kinds of changes.
5. Estimate the significance of the predicted environmental changes
(i.e., estimate the impacts of the proposed action).
6. Make recommendations for monitoring procedures to be followed
during and after implementation of the action.
Often a baseline report must be prepared for submission in
advance of or at the same time as the EIS. The baseline report
contains an environmental inventory, that is, a factual account
of environmental conditions in the region at the time of the
report, together with the trends that may have recently
occurred.

An important consideration is the selection of alternatives to the

proposed action. The alternatives should include different ways
of building and operating the projects. The EIS may describe the
project at only one specific site. However, it is easier to compare
impacts at a variety of sites than it is to determine the absolute
value of any impact at one site.
The nature and magnitude of the environmental changes that are likely to
occur and that must be estimated and included in the EIS fall into three main
classes:

1. Physical: for example, earthquake probabilities; water quality in

groundwater, rivers, and lakes; soil and air quality
2. Biological: for example, vegetation; wildfire; sport and commercial fish
species and endangered species
3. Socioeconomic: for example, demographic; economic; and social values
and attitudes

Where socioeconomic impacts are not included in an EIS, they are usually
on a “hidden agenda” of the participants at public hearings and at the political
level.
Using good scientific practice, predictions of physical impacts are relatively
easy to make; several methods have been described in earlier chapters.
Predictions of biological and ecological impacts are much more uncertain.
 Predictions of socioeconomic impacts are extremely uncertain even
in a qualitative sense. Nevertheless, these impacts are of fundamental
importance to the persons affected and may cause biological and/or
ecological changes over and above those cause by the project itself.

Finally, cumulative impacts may be important in some cases, with

many small impacts leading to a major crisis many years later (Munn,
1994).

Determining which environmental changes are relevant is critical to

the validity and credibility of the impact assessment process. To ensure
that an EIS will be a useful document, it is necessary at the very outset
to keep the assessment bounded in time, space, and number of
factors to be considered
Time frames. In most cases, the EIA covers the following time frames:

1. The present (baseline report or environmental inventory)

2. The construction phase
3. The time immediately after completion of the project
4. Several decades later (What will happen to the environment when the
development outlives its usefulness and is decommissioned?)

Space frame. The spatial reference frame should enclose an area larger
than the area immediately encompassed by the proposed action.
Downstream effects of effluents discharged to the air and water must be
taken into account. Putting a boundary on socioeconomic impacts may be
more difficult. The major priority should be given to those impacts that are
directly related to the project. The establishment of a sanitary landfill would
have fairly local boundaries.
Factors to be considered for inclusion. The number of factors to be
considered in the EIS should be determined very early in the assessment
process. A desirable first step is prescreening (sometimes called scoping),
in which the factors to be considered are reduced to a reasonable
number. The resulting list should contain not only factors selected by
specialists, but also factors considered to be important by citizens. In
particular, low-probability, high-impact concerns should be considered in
the EIS.

There are two extreme points of view on the scope of an EIS. On the one
side, there are traditionalists who believe that an EISs should concentrate
on factors for which there are laws or regulations(emission standards,
building codes, or city bylaws).This view often results in EIS, being merely a
collection of prediction conveniently brought together in one publication.
Certainly, the EIS should have a wider scope than this.
 At the other extreme are those who assert than an EIS should be all-
inclusive. This often results in an documents hundreds of pages long
which is read by very few, if any Schindler (1976, p. 509) refers to the
great EIS “boondoggle” arising from the creation of a “gray literature is
diffuse, so voluminous, and so limited in distribution, that its conclusion
and recommendation are never scrutinized by the scientific community
at large”

It is the essential to include relevant factors other than those

presently covered by law and regulation, but it is also an important to
limit the scope of the assessment in time, space, and number of factors
to make the EIS a useful document.
 Weighting Factors: Once that factors to be included in an EIS have
been selected their future magnitudes must be predicted, even if only
on a qualitative scale. A weighting system may be devised to facilitate
comparison of different kinds of impact. The weights may be estimated
by the Delphi method, in which each member of a group of people is
asked to rank in the importance of various factors or effect. Each person
is there advised to answer of other member and is invited to review and
amend his or her own responses; group consensus is sometime achieved
by this process.
 Design of an Environmental Impact Assessment
The following is a practical list of question to consider in the design of an EIA.

PROJECTS DESIGN AND CONTRUCTION

• What type of projects is being considered?

• What are the physical dimensions of the areas under consideration?
• How much time will be required to implement the project?
• Is there an irretrievable commitment of land?
• Is the project a critical phase of a larger development?
• What are the longer-term plans of the proponent?
• Does the project make optimal use of local workers, renewable resources,
and other benefits?
• Will there be serious environmental disruption during construction?
 PROJECT OPERATION

• How will hazardous wastes and waste product be handled?

• What provision have been made for training employees in
environmental protection?
• What contingency plans have been developed to cope with
accidents?
• What plans have been made for environmental monitoring?
• Will safety equipment be checked regularly?
 SITE CHARACTERISTICS

• Is the terrain complex, creating difficulties in predicting such things as

groundwater quality, soil characteristics, and air pollution transport?
• Is the site likely to be particularly susceptible to natural disasters (e.g.,
floods or earthquakes)?
• Will many people be displaced by the project?
• Will historic sites or traditional thoroughness be endangered?
• Will the project interfere with the movements of important
migratory animal and fish populations?
• What are the main attributes of local flora and fauna?
Conway and O’Connell (1978) suggest the following list of
attributes: protein or energy content, weed or pest status,
domesticity, carnivorousness, rarity of species.
• Is the local environment unsuitable for the project to be
complete success?
 INSTITUTIONAL AND SOCIOPOLITICAL FRAMEWORK

• What are the relevant governmental and intergovernmental

regulations and procedures?
• What are the political factors to be considered?
• Are the participants in the EIA process clearly identified?
• What implementation difficulties can be expected during
construction and operation of the project?
 SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS

• Who will gain and who will lose by the project?

• What are the trade-offs?
• Will the project reduce inequalities between occupational, ethnic,
gender, and age groups?
• Will it blend with or enhance valuable elements and patterns in the
local, national, or regional culture?
 POSSIBLE IMPACTS

• For this class of project, what are the possible impacts on the
environment? (During construction? After construction? Long
term?)
• Who would be affected by these impacts?

ALTERNATIVES

• Could the project proposal be modified to reduce the

environmental impacts?
• Is an alternative possible? (e.g., the same project at a different
site? A different project at the same time?)
 AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

• What are the relevant environmental standards, criteria, objectives,

and bylaws?
• Is there information on the impacts of similar projects?
• What are the sources of relevant environmental data?
• What are the views of the general public and of specialist groups
about the project proposal?
 AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES

• Are there local experts from whom advice can be sought with respect
to specific impacts?
• Is there a possibility of seeking outside advice from a specialist?
• Are there publications (technical memoranda, guidelines, etc.) that
would help in identifying possible impacts for the particular type of
project?
 After the magnitude and the significance of the impacts have
been determined, the EIA is essentially complete. The final step of
making recommendations as to whether the project should be
accepted, rejected, or accepted with alterations is usually the
responsibility of the board established to carry out the public
hearings.
 INTERNATIONAL EIAs

Some actions may cause environmental impacts in more than

one jurisdiction or country or in international waters.
Many existing international EIAs are interesting treatises but have
had little impact on decision makers because of a lack of focus or a
lack of understanding of the rarely identified and the benefits and
disadvantages are rarely compared. A special problem is that there
frequently is no single decision maker. Also, often the benefits will
accrue to one country and the disadvantages to another. Finally,
the environmental standards may not be uniform across the various
jurisdictions involved.
 The scientific problems are equally intractable, particularly on
the global scale. Questions of risks need to be examined in special
ways in an international context. Some of the outcomes (e.g.,CO2
induced climate warming and stratospheric ozone depletion)are
very uncertain. Yet if no action is taken within a particular time
period, it may be too late to prevent an irreversible trend. This idea
is encapsulated in the so called “Precautionary Principle”. To
complicate the assessment further, the trend may be harmful to
some countries and/or economic sectors but beneficial to others.
There is thus a need for framework for intergovernmental EIAs ,
including the development of guidelines for research priorities.
 CONCLUSIONS

The main objective of an EIS is the reconciliation of

environmental and socioeconomic considerations with
respect to development and other proposed actions.
Accordingly, the EIS system is a potentially useful
component of good environmental management;
however, as currently practiced, it is far from perfect.
Some of the criticisms that have been leveled against it, and (in
brackets) the counterarguments, are as follow:

1.) The EIA system delays project, particularly if there are public hearing
and court appeals. (This applies especially in jurisdiction where
legislative bodies feel strongly about citizen’s rights.)

2.) The preparation of EIS is costly. (Direct and indirect costs may
exceed $1 million on large projects; however, this is often only about
0.1% of capital costs. By contrast engineering and feasibility design
studies may costs as much as 10% of capital costs.)
3.)The predictions of EISs are too uncertain. (There is areal need for
postconstruction audits.)

4.)The EIS is a glossy document written to impress or educate citizen’s

groups. (This is a fair criticism in some cases. If a public hearing is
planned, the assessor should present the environmental case as
objectively as possible, seeking to avoid jargon.)

5.) The EIS is prepared too quickly and is not subject to peer view. (As
the EIS concept develops, increasing numbers of EISs of improved
quality should result.)
 Because large engineering works are usually designed to
operate for at least 50 years, a long-term environmental
perspective must be adopted in EIAs, even though uncertainties
concerning the socioeconomic fabric and environmental
condition will magnify after several decades. Emphasis should be
placed on maintaining the economic feasibility of the operation,
while in turn taking care to preserve the ecological sustainability
of the region.
 THE END

Hanggang dito na lang…

GIO FUGOSO
EMMERY LIDA

Kagaya ng kwento nating hindi natuloy, lahat may hangganan

Kagaya ng pagmamahal na sinabi mo’y panghabang-buhay, lahat may hangganan
#bakitumalisngwalangsabi #bakitdisiyalumabankahitkonti #bakitdimaitamaangtadhana