Transcript Environmental Impact Assessment a spatial DSS application K.Fedra ‘97

Environmental
Impact Assessment
a spatial DSS application
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
• the history
• its philosophy
• the legislation
• the procedure
• case examples
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
is intended as an instrument of
preventive environmental
management. It provides a
framework and an information
basis for decision making on
activities affecting the
environment.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
as a procedure, it provides a
prototypical example of a
practical application of
geomatics in a well defined
regulatory framework.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
• the history
• its philosophy
• the legislation
• the procedure
• case examples
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
was first introduced in the
USA within the framework of
the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969,
which became law on
January 1, 19971.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
European implementation: 1985
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
France
Greece
Ireland
1985
1989
1990
1976
1990
1990
Italy
Luxemb. -Netherlands
Portugal
Spain
UK
1988
1986
1990
1986
1990
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
European implementation:
Council of the European Communities,
Directive of 27 June 1985 on the
Assessment of the Effects of Certain
Public and Private Projects on the
Environment (85/337/EEC),
Official Journal of the European
Communities, No. L 175/40.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
• the history
• its philosophy
• the legislation
• the procedure
• case examples
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
The philosophy:
impact assessment is designed as a
preventive measure.
It should give environmental
considerations equal weight with
technical and economic aspects.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
The philosophy:
environmental considerations should
be introduced early on in the
planning processes.
Broad and public participation should
ensure wide acceptance of projects
implemented.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
• the history
• its philosophy
• the legislation
• the procedure
• case examples
K.Fedra ‘97
NEPA (USA, 1971)
National Environmental Policy Act
Key Provisions:
• Established environmental quality
as a leading national priority by
stating a national policy for the
environment;
K.Fedra ‘97
NEPA (USA, 1971)
• Made environmental protection
part of the mandate of all federal
agencies, establishing procedures
for the incorporation of
environmental concerns into
agency decision making.
K.Fedra ‘97
NEPA (USA, 1971)
• In particular, it requires federal
agencies to prepare an
environmental impact statement
for major actions or projects that
can affect the environment;
K.Fedra ‘97
NEPA (USA, 1971)
• Established a Council on
Environmental Quality in the
Executive Office of the President to
oversee and coordinate all federal
environmental effort.
K.Fedra ‘97
NEPA (USA, 1971)
impact statements must contain:
• A description of the proposed action,
its purpose, and a description of the
environment affected
• The relationship to land use plans,
policies, and controls for the affected
areas;
K.Fedra ‘97
NEPA (USA, 1971)
• The probable environmental impacts,
positive and negative, direct and
indirect, and possible international
implications;
• A discussion of alternatives;
• The probable negative impacts that
cannot be avoided or mitigated;
K.Fedra ‘97
NEPA (USA, 1971)
• The relationship between local and
short-term use and long-term
considerations;
• An irreversible commitments of
resources;
• A description of federal actions to
mitigate and offset adverse effects and
• Comments from reviewers.
K.Fedra ‘97
EIA (85/337/EEC)
applies to the assessment of the
environmental effects of those public
and private projects which are likely to
have significant effects on the
environment.
K.Fedra ‘97
EIA (85/337/EEC)
Project means:
• the execution of construction works or
of other installations or schemes
• other interventions in the natural
surroundings and landscape including
those involving the extraction of
minerals.
K.Fedra ‘97
EIA (85/337/EEC)
Development consent means:
• the decision of the competent
authorities which entitles the developer
to proceed with the project.
K.Fedra ‘97
EIA (85/337/EEC)
….. have significant effects on the
environment by virtue inter alia,
of their:
nature, size, location.
K.Fedra ‘97
EIA (85/337/EEC)
… direct and indirect effects of a project
on the following factors:
• human beings, fauna and flora
• soil, water, air, climate and the landscape
• the inter-action between the factors
mentioned in the first and second indents
• material assets and the cultural heritage.
K.Fedra ‘97
EIA (85/337/EEC)
information to be provided by the developer
• a description of the project: site, design, size
• a description of the measures to avoid, reduce,
and if possible remedy significant adverse effects
• data required to identify and assess the main
effects on the environment
• a non-technical summary of this information.
K.Fedra ‘97
EIA (85/337/EEC)
Mandatory assessment:
• crude-oil refineries (excluding lubricants),
gasification and liquefaction of coal or bituminous
shale (> 500 tons per day)
• thermal power stations and combustion
installations (> 300 MW) and nuclear power
stations (except research reactors < 1kW)
K.Fedra ‘97
EIA (85/337/EEC)
Mandatory assessment:
• permanent storage and final disposal of
radioactive waste
• cast iron and steel works
• extraction, processing and transformation of
asbestos (various size limits)
• integrated chemical installations
K.Fedra ‘97
EIA (85/337/EEC)
Mandatory assessment:
• construction of motorways, express roads and
lines for long-distance railway traffic, airports with
basic runways > 2100 m.
• trading ports and inland waterways which permit
vessels > 1,350 tons.
• waste disposal (incineration, chemical treatment
or land fill) of toxic and dangerous wastes.
K.Fedra ‘97
EIA (85/337/EEC)
Optional
• agriculture
• extractive industry
• energy industry
• processing of
metals
• manufacture of
glass
• chemical industry
• food industry
• textile, leather,
wood and paper
• rubber industry
• infrastructure
projects
• others
K.Fedra ‘97
EIA (85/337/EEC)
infrastructure projects:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
industrial estate development projects
urban development projects
ski lifts and cable cars
construction of roads, harbors, and airfields
canalisation, flood relief works
dams and other water storage
tramways, railways, underground
oil and gas pipelines …. etc.
K.Fedra ‘97
Information requirements
(85/337/EEC)
Description of the project:
• physical characteristics, land-use
requirements during construction and
operation
• production processes, materials used
• estimate of expected residues and
emissions (water, air, soil pollution, noise,
vibrations, light, heat, radiation, etc.)
K.Fedra ‘97
Information requirements
(85/337/EEC)
Alternatives:
• outline of the main alternatives
• main reasons for choice, including
environmental effects
K.Fedra ‘97
Information requirements
(85/337/EEC)
Impacts on:
• population, fauna, flora, soils, water, air,
climatic factors, material assets incl.
architectural and archeological heritage,
landscape
• interrelationship between these factors
K.Fedra ‘97
Information requirements
(85/337/EEC)
Likely significant effects from:
• existence of the project
• use of natural resources
• emission of pollutants, creation of
nuisances, elimination of waste
and the description of the methods
used to assess the effects.
K.Fedra ‘97
Information requirements
(85/337/EEC)
Description of measures:
• to prevent, reduce, and where
possible to offset any significant
adverse effects on the
environment.
K.Fedra ‘97
Information requirements
(85/337/EEC)
Summary:
• a non-technical summary of the
information provided
K.Fedra ‘97
Information requirements
(85/337/EEC)
Difficulties:
• an indication of the difficulties
(technical deficiencies or lack of
know-how) encountered by the
developer in compiling the required
information.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
• the history
• its philosophy
• the legislation
• the procedure
• case examples
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
procedure:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
deciding whether an EIA is required (Screening)
determining the scope of EIA (Scoping)
preparing of the impact statement (EIS)
consultations, public participation
evaluating EIA results and consultations
reaching a decision
monitoring impacts after project implementation
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
procedural steps:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
description of the project
description of the environment
identification of environmental impacts
evaluation of environmental impacts
management and control of impacts
presentation of the study
public participation
judgment by authorities
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Phase I: description of the project
Objective: identification and characterisation
of the proposed project
Sources: developer, planners, technicians
Software: GIS, DBMS, spreadsheet,
graphics, statistics
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Phase I: description of the project
Input:
project phases, processes,
products and materials, risks
Output: site (alternatives), emissions,
resource consumption, scheduling,
technical solutions, relation to plans
Problems: uncertainties, technical limitations
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Phase 2: description of the environment
Objective: identification and characterisation
of the affected environment
Sources: government, public, specialists
Software: GIS, DBMS, spreadsheet,
graphics, statistics
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Phase 2: description of the environment
Input:
local/regional environments, human
concerns, standards, background
pollution levels
Output: current state, sensitive elements
Problems: data and resource limitations
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Phase 3: identification of effects
Objective: identification of likely interactions
between project and environment
Sources: specialists, stake holders
Software: expert systems, conceptual and
qualitative models
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Phase 3: identification of effects
Input:
phases 1 and 2, checklists,
cross-impact analysis
Output: list of potentially important effects
Problems: criteria, qualitative judgement,
completeness of coverage
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Phase 4: evaluation of effects
Objective: estimate magnitudes and
characteristics of impacts
Sources: specialists, stake holders
Software: GIS, expert systems,
environmental simulation models
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Phase 4: evaluation of effects
Input:
phases 1,2 and 3, scientific
literature, expert knowledge,
analysis tools
Output: description and classification or
ranking of impacts
Problems: criteria, model and data uncertainty
subjective judgement
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
subjective judgement:
the Delphi method
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Phase 5: Management and control
of the environmental effects
Objective: mitigation, compensation, and
monitoring measures
Sources: specialist, developer, government
Software: GIS, DBMS, visualisation
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Phase 5: management and control
of the environmental effects
Input:
phases 1,2 and 4, standards,
methods and technologies
Output: procedures, measures (monitoring
plan, mitigation measures)
Problems: criteria, resources, judgement
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Phase 6: presentation of the study
Objective: report preparation
Sources: specialist (risk communication)
developer, government
Software: visualisation, GIS, DBMS,
text processing, multi-media
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Phase 6: presentation of the study
Input:
phases 1,2,3,4,5, formal regulatory
requirements
Output: report (consensus)
Problems: communication, vested interests
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Phase 7: public participation (hearings)
Objective: negotiation with public, interest
groups, stake holders (actors)
Sources: all actors involved, media
Software: visualisation, GIS, DBMS,
text processing, multi-media
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Phase 7: public participation
Input:
Output:
phases 1,2,3,4,5,6
opinions, comments, position
statements
Problems: communication, conflicting
objectives, plural rationalities,
subjectivity, hidden agenda
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Phase 8: formal decision making
Objective: decision making, communication,
implementation
Sources: government regulations,
specialists
Software: DSS, KBS
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Phase 8: formal decision making
Input:
phase 6,7
Output: formal decisions, commitments
Problems: communication, political trade-offs,
legal challenges
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
• Tools and Methods
• Example application:
the Mekong water
resources development
system MEXSES
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Tools and Methods
• Graphic overlay methods (McHarg,
1968; Dooley and Newkirk, 1976)
• USGS Matrix (Leopold, Clarke,
Hanshaw et al., 1971)
• Network Analysis (Sorensen, 1971;
Sorensen, 1972)
• Cross-impact Simulation (Kane, 1972)
• EES: Environmental Evaluation System
(Dee et al., 1973)
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
• HEP: Habitat Evaluation Procedures (US
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1976)
• Decision Analysis (Keeney and Raiffa,
1976)
• WRAM: Water Resources Assessment
(Solomon, Colbert, Hansen et al., 1977;
Richardson, Hansen, Solomon et al., 1977
• EQA: Environmental Quality Assessment
(Duke et al., 1977)
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
• METLUND Landscape Planning Model
(Fabos et al., 1978)
• Goals Achievement Matrix (Hill, 1968)
• WES: Wetland Evaluation System
(Galloway, 1978)
• AEAM: Adaptive Environmental
Assessment (Holling, 1978)
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
• EQEP: Environmental Quality
Evaluation Procedure (Duke, 1979)
• CBA: Cost--Benefit Analysis and related
methods: numerous authors
• Interactive Systems Analysis and
Decision Support (Fedra, Li, Wang et
al., 1987; Fedra, Karhu, Rys et al.,
1987; Fedra, 1988; Fedra, 1991).
• Expert Systems (Fedra et al., 1991;
Hushon (1992).
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Classification of methods:
• Ad hoc
• Checklists
• Matrices
• Networks
• Overlays (GIS)
• Cost/benefit analysis
• Modeling (AEAM)
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Requirements:
• systematic, comprehensive, flexible
• organize large amounts of
heterogeneous data
• quantitative, accurate, objective
• participatory, easy to communicate
• fast, easy, and cheap
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Impact measurement:
• Comprehensive but specific
(isolate project effects)
• Explicit, quantitative, commensurate
• Objective, reproducible
• Easy to aggregate
• Incorporate risk and uncertainty
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Checklists consist of a list of
environmental parameters to be
investigated for potential impacts.
They therefore ensure complete
coverage of environmental aspects to
be investigated.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
• Earth: mineral resources; construction material;
soils; land form; force fields and background
radiation; unique physical features;
• Water: surface (rivers, lakes and reservoirs,
estuaries); coastal seas and ocean,
underground; quality; temperature; recharge;
snow, ice, and permafrost;
• Atmosphere: quality (gases, particles); climate
(micro, macro); temperature;
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
• Flora: trees; shrubs; grass; crops;
microflora; aquatic plants; endangered
species; barriers; corridors;
• Fauna: birds; land animals including
reptiles; fish and shellfish; benthic
organisms; insects; microfauna;
endangered species; barriers; corridors;
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
• Land use: wilderness and open
space; wetlands; forestry; grazing;
agriculture; residential; commercial;
industrial; mining and quarrying;
• Recreation: hunting; fishing; boating;
swimming; camping and hiking;
picnicking; resorts.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Checklists
• do carry a geographical, as well as
cultural, bias ;
• maybe only project type specific;
• or, if universal, carry a large number
of mutually exclusive categories.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Impact matrices combine a checklist of
environmental conditions likely to be
affected with a list of project
activities, the two lists arranged in the
form of a matrix. The possible cause-effect relationships between
activities and environmental features
are then identified and evaluated cell
by cell.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Matrices can be very detailed and
large, the classical Leopold matrix
contains 100 by 88 cells, and is thus
somewhat cumbersome to handle.
Numerous extensions and
modifications have been proposed.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Networks are designed to explicitly
consider higher order, i.e., secondary
and even tertiary consequences in
addition to the primary cause--effect
relations addressed by matrices.
They consist of linked impacts
including chained multiple effects and
feedbacks.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Cost--benefit analysis (CBA) is an
attempt to monetize all effects for
direct comparison in monetary terms:
• provides a clear answer and basis for
the comparison of alternatives;
• but the monetization of many
environmental problems is
sometimes extremely difficult.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Case study:
Water resources development in the
Lower Mekong Basin.
Mekong river: 475,000 Mill.m3/year
• China, Burma, Laos, Thailand,
Kampuchea and Viet Nam,
• delta into the South China Sea
southwest of Ho Chi Minh City.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
The lower Mekong basin covers an area of
611,000 km2 (77%) of the total river basin.
It includes nearly the whole of the Lao PDR
(202,400 km2), the northern tip and the
northeast area of Thailand (180,240 km2)
nine-tenths of Kampuchea (154,000 km2)
and the western flank and southern tip of
Viet Nam (65,200 km2).
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Development potential:
hydroelectric power resources of the
lower Mekong basin at 58,000 MW
installed capacity and 505,000 GWh
per year. The estimated potential for
year round irrigation with the help of
storage and flood plain reservoirs is of
the order of 6.4 million ha.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Development problems:
• Watershed degradation, erosion and
sedimentation;
• Acidification of soils in the delta;
• Soil salinization in the Korat plateau;
• Problem soils (desertification);
• Inundation control effects on fisheries;
• Waterborne diseases;
• Rural water supply (saline and acid).
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
MEXSES:
Rule-based expert system with GIS
Combines project type specific
checklists, matrices, and network
analysis in an interactive system.
Individual impacts are classified as
not significant - small - moderate - major
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Assessment proceeds in stages for:
• site selection
• project design
• construction phase
• operational phase
• mitigation measures
• cost-benefit analysis
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Summary assessment in terms of:
•
•
•
•
•
Losses in precious natural resources;
Accelerated use of natural resources;
Hazards to ecology and endangered species
Unrealized resource utilization potential;
Undesirable land use development,
urbanization;
• Increased disparity in income;
• Unrealized socio-economic enhancements.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Project Types:
• Multi-purpose Projects
• Hydropower (with Dam/Reservoir)
• Dams and Reservoirs
• Irrigation Projects
• Pump Irrigation Projects
• Fisheries and Aquaculture
• Navigation Projects
• Flood Protection
• Power Transmission Lines.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Checklist example: location problems
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Resettlement
Watershed degradation
Encroachment upon precious ecosystems
Encroachment on historical/cultural values
Watershed erosion
Reservoir siltation
Impairment of navigation
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Checklist example: location problems
• Changes in groundwater hydrology,
waterlogging
• Seepage and evaporation losses
• Migration of valuable fish species
• Inundation of mineral resources/forests
• Other inundation losses and adverse effects
• Earthquake hazards
• Local climatic change.
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Rule-based assessment:
Rules consist of two basic parts:
• Premise: the list of conditions which are
to be tested (connected by AND or OR)
• Conclusion: the actions to be
performed, if all conditions of the
premise have been fulfilled
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Rule-based assessment:
RULE 1010101 #country dependency
IF
project_country == Thailand
AND
people_to_resettle >= 25,000
THEN impact = major
ENDRULE
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Rule-based assessment:
RULE 1010129 # project size
IF
project_area == very_large
AND [ population_density == high
OR population_density == medium ]
OR project_area INCLUDES settlement
THEN people_to_resettle = very_many
K.Fedra ‘97
Environmental Impact Assessment
Rule-based assessment:
RULE 1010582 #USLE final round: erosion_potential
IF
[ rain_factor
== low
OR rain_factor
== very_low ]
AND [ soil_slope_factor == high
OR soil_slope_factor == very_high ]
AND [ vegetation_factor == very_high
OR vegetation_factor == high ]
THEN erosion_potential = medium
ENDRULE
K.Fedra ‘97