A quantitative method to analyze the quality of EIA information in wind energy development and avian/bat assessments

The environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been a tool for decision makers since the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Since that time, few analyses have been performed to verify the quality of information and content within EIAs. High quality information within assessments is vital in order for decision makers, stake holders, and the public to understand the potential impact of proposed actions on the ecosystem and wildlife species. Low quality information has been a major cause for litigation and economic loss. Since 1999, wind energy development has seen an exponential growth with unknown levels of impact on wildlife species, in particular bird and bat species. The purpose of this article is to: (1) develop, validate, and apply a quantitative index to review avian/bat assessment quality for wind energy EIAs; and (2) assess the trends and status of avian/bat assessment quality in a sample of wind energy EIAs.This research presents the development and testing of the Avian and Bat Assessment Quality Index (ABAQI), a new approach to quantify information quality of ecological assessments within wind energy development EIAs in relation to avian and bat species based on review areas and factors derived from 23 state wind/wildlife siting guidance documents. The ABAQI was tested through a review of 49 publicly available EIA documents and validated by identifying high variation in avian and bat assessments quality for wind energy developments. Of all the reviewed EIAs, 66% failed to provide high levels of preconstruction avian and bat survey information, compared to recommended factors from state guidelines. This suggests the need for greater consistency from recommended guidelines by state, and mandatory compliance by EIA preparers to avoid possible habitat and species loss, wind energy development shut down, and future lawsuits.     

Documentation of cumulative impacts in environmental impact statements

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations in the United States require federal agencies to apply an environmental impact assessment (EIA) in decision-making related to their actions. One aspect requires an examination of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts (CIs). Historically, cumulative impact assessment (CIA) has been given limited attention in EIA and resultant environmental impact statements (EISs), not because of its lack of importance, but owing to limitations in methodologies and procedures, including documentation consistency. The objectives of this study were to identify deficiencies in the documentation of CIs and CIA in EISs and to formulate appropriate recommendations (potential solutions) related to such deficiencies. The study involved the systematic review of 33 EISs (11 each from the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Forest Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration). The results indicate that improvements have been made in documentation practices since 1990; however, inconsistencies and inadequacies still exist. Therefore, the following recommendations were developed: (1) CIs should be reported in a separate part of the “Environmental Consequences” section, and they should be addressed for each pertinent environmental resource; (2) a summary of CIs should be included; (3) any CIs considered not significant should be mentioned plus the reason(s) for their non-significance; (4) spatial and temporal boundaries addressed within the CIA process should be defined for pertinent environmental resources; and (5) utilized guidelines and methodologies should be described.     

Environmental impact assessment: National approaches and international needs

This paper examines the spread and development of ‘environmental impact assessment’ (EIA) since the enactment of the U.S. Environmental Policy Act on January 1, 1970, which established for the first time under any jurisdiction the formal requirement that an EIA be made and that an ‘environmental impact statement’ (EIS) be filed prior to implementation of certain major development projects. The paper is divided into three parts. In the first part, we briefly review the forms of EIA introduced in the western industrial countries and contrast these with developments in the socialist countries of Eastern Europe, and in the Third World. The approaches to EIA adopted by five countries — the United States, Australia, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Soviet Union — are used to illustrate the types of national approaches that have been followed. In the second part of the paper, we use some questions raised by impact assessments as codified in legislation or regulations at the national level to highlight some of the limitations of impact assessment. Finally, we turn to international impact assessments and describe the modest progress made to date. Key impediments to the development of appropriate conceptual and institutional frameworks and methodologies for international EIAs are noted. In conclusion, we offer some suggestions about needed actions at both the national and international levels.     

Integrating environmental impact assessment with master planning: lessons from the US Army

The US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires agencies to consider environmental impacts in the early stages of planning and decision-making. Despite this mandate, agencies typically conduct EIA for projects, rather than for earlier and more strategic decisions, such as plans. This research investigated the extent to which a large federal agency, the US Army, has integrated NEPA analyses with master planning for their installations. Using in-depth case studies of 16 installations, we investigated how and why EIA was (or was not) integrated with planning, and identified the factors that promote or impede integration. Typically, integration has been regarded as concurrence, meaning that the EIA and planning processes are conducted together. Results of this research show, however, that integration can occur, even if the NEPA documents and master plans are not concurrently prepared. In this sense, integration can be viewed as the influence of the EIA process on agency planning and decision-making. Results also indicate that regulations are only one factor, and that several other factors influence the extent of integration, such as agency leadership and organizational incentives. Lessons from this study can help improve both the integration and the substantive implementation of EIA.     

Biodiversity and bird surveys in Finnish environmental impact assessments and follow-up monitoring

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) that are applied in the planning phases of large land-use and construction projects are aimed at aiding decision-making and mitigating significant environmental impacts. In light of the global biodiversity crisis, conducting high-quality biodiversity impact assessments is important, as biodiversity information, among other factors, has the potential to influence how projects will be implemented in the end. We investigated the biodiversity and bird surveys conducted and the number of bird species of conservation concern in peat extraction and wind farm projects to which an EIA was applied to in 1995–2016 in Finland and compared whether these factors differed between the project types and between implemented and unimplemented projects. We also studied the availability of follow-up monitoring data of biodiversity impacts within the two project types. The number of nationally threatened breeding birds was significantly lower in implemented than in unimplemented peat extraction projects. The overall probability of being implemented was significantly negatively associated with the year the EIA began for both project types. All permitted peat extraction projects and 22% of wind farm projects conducted post-construction biodiversity monitoring; however, only some projects enabled before-after comparisons. Our results are in line with earlier findings that demonstrate the difficulty of showing the direct impacts of biodiversity information on EIA decision-making and to what extent it is related to project approval or rejection. The role of follow-up monitoring in the EIA and project development could also be strengthened.     

Environmental impacts of decommissioning: Onshore versus offshore wind farms

Increasing concerns over climate change have prompted rapid growth of renewable energy over the past few decades, particularly wind energy. However, as the installation of wind farms rises, so will the need for decommissioning and analysis of the environmental impacts associated with decommissioning. This paper investigates how Environmental Impacts Assessments (EIA) identify, estimate and manage potential impacts of decommissioning. EIAs from 12 onshore and offshore windfarms consented between 2009 and 2014 in England and Scotland were analysed and compared. Attributes of these windfarms' Environmental Statements (ES) were scored under six categories: decommissioning in EIA stages, definitions of decommissioning, amount of analysis, depth of analysis, impacts identified, and proactive planning. Onshore windfarms generally tended to investigate the impacts of decommissioning less than offshore windfarms, even those which gained consent in the same year. The investigation of the impact of decommissioning improved for windfarms consented in the latter years of the study period. Across the ESs there was a lack of analysis of potential impacts from decommissioning in their own right: not simply as a reversal of the construction process. The impacts of different end of life scenarios were not analysed in any of the ESs studied. There is evidence to suggest the presence of windfarms, especially offshore, could in some cases be environmentally beneficial for certain species. However, the ecological impact of removing offshore structures at the end of life is unknown and is currently not investigated nor predicted in EIAs. Understanding the potential implications of full or partial removal of marine structures, or alternatives to decommissioning, could ensure that appropriate mitigation is considered at an early stage by both developer and consenting authority. That being said, it is also important to update the assessment of potential impacts over the life of the project as more information on the environment is gathered and end of life plans develop.     

Monitoring: The missing piece: A critique of NEPA monitoring

The U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 heralded in an era of more robust attention to environmental impacts resulting from larger scale federal projects. The number of other countries that have adopted NEPA's framework is evidence of the appeal of this type of environmental legislation. Mandates to review environmental impacts, identify alternatives, and provide mitigation plans before commencement of the project are at the heart of NEPA. Such project reviews have resulted in the development of a vast number of reports and large volumes of project-specific data that potentially can be used to better understand the components and processes of the natural environment and provide guidance for improved and efficient environmental protection. However, the environmental assessment (EA) or the more robust and intensive environmental impact statement (EIS) that are required for most major projects more frequently than not are developed to satisfy the procedural aspects of the NEPA legislation while they fail to provide the needed guidance for improved decision-making. While NEPA legislation recommends monitoring of project activities, this activity is not mandated, and in those situations where it has been incorporated, the monitoring showed that the EIS was inaccurate in direction and/or magnitude of the impact. Many reviews of NEPA have suggested that monitoring all project phases, from the design through the decommissioning, should be incorporated. Information gathered though a well-developed monitoring program can be managed in databases and benefit not only the specific project but would provide guidance how to better design and implement future activities designed to protect and enhance the natural environment.     

The adequacy of training for EIA in the United States of America

The well-established environmental impact assessment requirements in the United States have given rise to a number of training needs within federal and state agencies. Requirements for training vary for EIA project managers, technical specialists, senior managers and others involved in EIA. Information needs about EIA vary also, but include general awareness, procedural knowledge, substantive methodological knowledge and technical knowledge. While EIA training is provided in short courses, on the job, and in universities there remain deficiencies in the training of specialists, senior managers, and others. Proposals are made here to help overcome these. This paper examines the needs and provisions for training in environmental impact assessment (EIA) in the USA federal system and in the system created by the California Environmental Quality Act. The investigation is based on the very limited literature on training, on responses to letters, on the printed material requested from agencies and, most importantly, on the results of a series of interviews of personnel in various federal agencies at central and regional levels, in California, and elsewhere. A recent report by the Environmental Law Institute (1981) furnished invaluable background information on EIA training in the federal agencies. The list of liaison officers printed by the Council on Environmental Quality (1982a) was used to request interviews and information.     

The most important but least understood semicolon in environmental literature

This paper examines implications of the first semicolon appearing in paragraph 4321 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL-91-190 U.S.A.) and suggests a broader meaning for the concept of environment.     

Contemplating the Assessment of Great River Ecosystems

The science and practice of assessing the status and trends of ecological conditions in great rivers have not kept pace with perturbation wrought on these systems. Participants at a symposium sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Council of State Governments concluded that useful and efficient assessments of great river ecosystems require thoughtful alignment of sampling designs, spatial and temporal scales, indicators, management needs, and ecosystem characteristics. Site-specific physical, chemical, and biological data long accumulated by monitoring programs have value but fail to provide the integrated system-wide perspective required for adaptive management and the Clean Water Act. Use of existing data may be limited by methodological incompatibilities, access difficulties, and the exclusive applicability of data to specific habitats or sites. The transition from site-specific to system-wide assessments benefits from research being done by USEPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) and other programs that use probability surveys and biological indicators. Indicators of various taxa (in particular fish, algae, and benthic invertebrates) have been successfully developed for great rivers. However, optimizing the information these ecological indicators convey to managers and the public is the subject of ongoing research.     

Environmental impact assessment in the Philippines: 1977–1985

During 1977 a Philippine environmental impact statement (EIS) system was established and the National Environmental Protection Council (NEPC) was formed to develop environmental policy. Several months after its creation, NEPC was given responsibility to certify that proposed projects met EIS system regulations. With few exceptions, this requirement to gain NEPC's approval was not taken seriously by agencies. The poor record of agency compliance with the EIS system is explained by the absence of ‘controls’ to force thorough assessments. Judicial controls are absent. Procedural and evaluative controls are in place, but NEPC has neither the budget nor the political power to enforce them. Although the national EIS system is ineffective, agencies sometimes conduct informal, ad hoc environmental assessments in response to instrumental controls exercised by international funding organizations, professional controls exerted by planners, and public controls brought about by individuals and groups who would be adversely affected by projects.     

Understanding water quality trading: the basics

The United States has entered a new era in water quality protection: the era of market-based incentives. In January 2003, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its National Water Quality Trading Policy (Trading Policy) (USEPA, 2003). This action has generated greater interest in water quality trading and has prompted EPA to develop tools and training to assist interested parties in understanding what water quality trading is and what constitutes a successful trading program.     

A Procedure for NEPA Assessment of Selenium Hazards Associated With Mining

This paper gives step-by-step instructions for assessing aquatic selenium hazards associated with mining. The procedure was developed to provide the U.S. Forest Service with a proactive capability for determining the risk of selenium pollution when it reviews mine permit applications in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The procedural framework is constructed in a decision-tree format in order to guide users through the various steps, provide a logical sequence for completing individual tasks, and identify key decision points. There are five major components designed to gather information on operational parameters of the proposed mine as well as key aspects of the physical, chemical, and biological environment surrounding it — geological assessment, mine operation assessment, hydrological assessment, biological assessment, and hazard assessment. Validation tests conducted at three mines where selenium pollution has occurred confirmed that the procedure will accurately predict ecological risks. In each case, it correctly identified and quantified selenium hazard, and indicated the steps needed to reduce this hazard to an acceptable level. By utilizing the procedure, NEPA workers can be confident in their ability to understand the risk of aquatic selenium pollution and take appropriate action. Although the procedure was developed for the Forest Service it should also be useful to other federal land management agencies that conduct NEPA assessments, as well as regulatory agencies responsible for issuing coal mining permits under the authority of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and associated Section 401 water quality certification under the Clean Water Act. Mining companies will also benefit from the application of this procedure because priority selenium sources can be identified in relation to specific mine operating parameters. The procedure will reveal the point(s) at which there is a need to modify operating conditions to meet environmental quality goals. By recognizing concerns early in the NEPA process, it may be possible for a mining company to match operational parameters with environmental requirements, thereby increasing the likelihood that the permit application will be approved.     

How does stakeholder involvement affect environmental impact assessment?

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes are grounded on the assumption that producing information about environmental impacts will yield better environmental decisions. Despite the ubiquity of EIA as a policy tool, there is scant evidence of its environmental, social, or economic impacts. Focusing on Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) prepared for water and energy-related projects under the US National Environmental Policy Act, this analysis addresses two questions: (1) What is the balance of environmental impacts associated with infrastructure decisions?; and (2) How does the content of stakeholder feedback received during the review phase differ from draft EIS content, and does this correspond to any changes in the final EIS? We demonstrate the use of automated text mining approaches to identify the distribution of impacts, measure the content of public comments, and observe whether values reflected in comments are associated with a shift in emphases between the draft and final EIS. EISs are shown to convey evenly distributed focus across multiple impact areas. However, we observe no substantive change in focal emphasis between draft and final issuances. This calls into question assumptions about the role that public participation plays in bringing new information to light or changing the course of action.     

Integrating community perceptions and cultural diversity in social impact assessment in Nigeria

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act of 1992 aimed to make the environment a central theme in development in Nigeria. Nevertheless, the extent of engagement with local cultures in the Nigerian EIA process is not statutorily guaranteed. While most EIAs in Nigeria have been for oil and gas projects in the Niger Delta, and have focused strongly on the biophysical environment, socio-economic and cultural aspects have remained marginal. The palpable neglect of community perceptions and cultural diversity in social impact assessment (SIA) in this region prone to conflict has tended to alienate the people in the decision-making process. Thus, despite claims to compliance with regulatory requirements for EIAs, and numerous purported sustainable development initiatives by international oil companies (IOCs), the region continues to face multiple sustainability challenges. This paper situates local perceptions and cultural diversity in participatory development and canvasses the integration of community perceptions and cultural diversity into SIA in the Niger Delta region. It is argued that doing this would be critical to ensuring acceptance and success of development actions within the context of local culture while also contributing to sustainable development policy in the region.     

Bottom-up responses to environmental and social impact assessments: A case study from Guatemala

In this article we take a closer look at resistance to the practice of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in mining and energy projects in Guatemala. Collectivities resisting mining and hydropower projects in Guatemala are increasingly using the evaluations of EIAs conducted by international independent professionals. Reaching out to international experts is facilitated by local communities' engagements in transnational networks bringing together activists, NGOs, scientists, journalists and others. We argue that resistance movements resort to international professionals to challenge the limits imposed on them by the national legislation and institutional arrangements as well as by the way in which EIAs are performed in the country. Further, the engagements in networks that facilitate access to knowledge contribute to strengthen the legitimacy of communities' claims. Challenges to and complaints about EIAs are ways in which affected communities try to reclaim their right to participate in decision-making related to their local environment and the development of their communities. Both complaints about EIAs and the use of transnational networks to attain better participation in decision making processes at local levels, illustrated in this study for Guatemala, are common responses to the advancement of extractive industries and hydropower development across Latin America. The widespread of initiatives to challenge EIAs involving international experts in the region show that EIAs have become a sort of a transnational battleground.     

A review of EIAs on trade policy in China: Exploring the way for economic policy EIAs

During the discussion on the “Environmental Protection Law Amendment (draft)” in 2011, it was decided to drop the proposed clauses related to environmental impact assessments (EIAs) on policy, which means that there remained no provisions for policy EIAs, and China's strategic environmental assessment system stayed limited to the planning level. However, considering that economic policy making is causing significant direct and indirect environmental problems and that almost every aspect of governmental policy has an economic aspect, EIAs on economic policies are of the utmost urgency. The purpose of this study is to review the EIA work that has been carried out on trade policy in China through four case studies, and illustrate how trade policy EIAs can be helpful in achieving better environmental outcomes in the area of trade. Through the trade policy EIA case studies we try to argue for the feasibility of conducting EIAs on economic policies in China. We also discuss the implications of the case studies from the point of view of how to proceed with EIAs on economic policy and how to promote their practice.     

Terrestrial vertebrate fauna surveys for the preparation of environmental impact assessments; how can we do it better? A Western Australian example

The Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in 2002 released Position Statement, No. 3, Terrestrial Biological Surveys as an Element of Biodiversity Protection outlining how terrestrial fauna survey data are to be used and interpreted in the preparation of environmental impact assessments (EIA). In 2004, the EPA released its Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors, Terrestrial Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia, No. 56. This paper briefly assesses the adequacy of recent terrestrial fauna surveys undertaken to support publicly released EIAs and indicates that the EPA is not always adhering to its own position and guidance statements. This paper argues that the current fauna survey guidelines are in need of improvement. The approach and requirements of some other Australian states are briefly assessed to identify similarities and where improvements can be made to the Western Australian (WA) guidelines. This paper concludes with suggestions on how the process and the guidelines in WA can be revised to more adequately assess the impact of developments on terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity and ecosystem function. These suggestions may have relevance for other areas where fauna surveys are undertaken to support EIAs.     

Approaching population thresholds in presence of uncertainty: Assessing displacement of seabirds from offshore wind farms

Assessment of the displacement impacts of offshore wind farms on seabirds is impeded by a lack of evidence regarding species-specific reactions to developed sites and the potential ecological consequences faced by displaced individuals. In this study, we present a method that makes best use of the currently limited understanding of displacement impacts. The combination of a matrix table displaying the full range of potential displacement and mortality levels together with seasonal potential biological removal (PBR) assessments provides a tool that increases confidence in the conclusions of impact assessments. If unrealistic displacement levels and/or mortality rates are required to equal or approach seasonal PBRs, this gives an indication of the likeliness of adverse impacts on the assessed population. This approach is demonstrated by assessing the displacement impacts of an offshore wind farm cluster in the German North Sea on the local common guillemot (Uria aalge) population.