2. EIA processes/stages Flashcards
typical stages
- Planning (need, problem)
- Screening (EA required?)
- Scoping (what EA will adress?)
- Assessment (baseline, prediciton, impacts)
- Review/recommendations
- Decision
- Follow-up/monitoring/compliance
For every project?
NO, depends size, location, some sectors might excluded (separate acts). EIA processes change with governments + evolve with society
all projects will require,
some sort of government approvals
Stage 1: need/problem
clarifying details at this stage = efficient
what info needed, why?
how consult?
what needed for approval?
alternatives (to project or ways of doing it-priject design) should be considered, how?
Stage 2: screening
what need to do EIA, level of complexity?
EIA required-regulations, sufficient public concern?
Stage 3: scoping
regulatory requirement?
people’s concerns?
VECS
spatial + temporal boundaries of project
We need … for screening and assessment
project description
location
purpose
alternatives to, means
major project components
activities for each component
activity most likely cause impacts
stage 4: assessment
understand affected environment (baseline conditions)
possible effects on the environment, how project will change it?
how mitigate adverse effects + evaluate significance of residual effects?
=report can be used in decision-making
Stage 5: reviewing EA
by agency, provides info to
a) proponent: plan, comply rules, law, regulations
b)agency/public/decision-makers: completeness, accuracy, effects, mitigation, necessity. helps inform if proposal should approved, what conditions?
Stage 6: decision
EIA process provide recommendation or makes decision?
Criteria + limitations on decision-makers?
Stage 7: follow-up/monitoring/compliance
verify accuracy of EA, effectiveness/implementation mitigation measures, compliance with EIA approval conditions + other regulatory requirements
independent auditing, monitoring
Recommendation vs decision
Recommendation:
what we know, what we think about EIA and proposal, what should do/can do/might do
Decision:
here is it
Why rejection happens?
project conepts (location, design, idea)
not compatible with public policy objectives
strategic problems (poor understanding approval/review process/assessment requirements, poor consultation/communication/consensus with INDG, little public acceptance)
RARE
Baseline conditions
data/info already existing
what need collect?
consult experts/communities
major enviro. components (+ ones subject to changes)
VECs
timeframe for baseline?
Project effects
link project activities to environmental characteristics
identify project-environment interactions/linkages (qualitative + quantitative)
determine effects of alternatives
effects as changes in enviro. (+/-, direct/indirect, cumulative/additive/synergistic), risks, scenarios, effects enviro. on project
Assessing effects
determine adverse enviro. effects (which one significant, which one needing mitigation)
magnitude, frequency, duration, risks
regulatory?
public concerns?
how determine significance?
significance = jusgement based on an understanding of ecological dynamics and social definitions of significance (socially-constructed, subjective)
evaluation criteria: ecological/geographic/magnitude/frequency/duration/reversibility/public perception/importance to people context
significant?
adverse effects likely?
residual effects adverse?
Not insignificant vs significant?
Not insignificant:
less direct way of stating importance (understatement)
suggest ucertainties, implies subtle or unexpected impacts possibility
still suggest importance
might be used to downplay initial perception of something while still acknowledging its relevance (being cautious in stating just how impactful)
Significant:
directly states impact is considerable, undeniable, directly communicates effect is notable/meaningful/substantial
Mitigation hierarchy
- Avoid
- Minimize
3, Restor/rehabilitate - Compensate (least desirable)
consider effectiveness of measures (likely/probable), feasibility, costs
how can completely avoid impacts?
how can eliminate risk?
Calculating equivalency
- Quantify losses (relative to baseline conditions or reference state)
- Quantify anticipated gains from the offsets
- Scale the offset so the total increase in services from it = service losses from the impact
(want to achieve no net loss of productivity)
–> consider time (time lag before offset is where it needs to be)
Who gets the EIA?
public registry (provides info for participation, agency reviews)
used by agencies/proponents to
-make decision
-set approval conditions
-licenses/permit processes
-planning (construction, operations, closure)
-follow-up
Bias challenge
Assessor should document the methods, results, conclusions, rationale, reproducibility, standardization
EAs format
a) predetermined: assessor completing table/format to ensure adheres to legislation. Content standardized, but still tailored to project/industry/context/location
b) open: prepare report suing experience, professional judgement, flexible, but adheres to information/content requirements
Mitigation hierarchy examples
Avoid: timing, location of temporary activities modified
(construction not when migration)
Minimize: period, intensity, scale of impacts (ecological corridors)
Restore: project site rehabilitated/protected/restored so no net loss or net gain in enviro. quality (plant trees)
Compensate: biophysical enhanecements at another location, replacement infrastructure, financial compensation (may be not acceptable-habitat)-based
Equivalency
impacts compared to benefits of offsetting activity
comparison of losses from the impacts to expected gains from the offset
ecological (resource-to-resource, service-to-service), economic (values-to-value, value-to-cost)
balance losses/gains with an impact + resulting offsetting
can include methods to deal with uncertainty + time lags
uncertainty should be acknowledged, assessed, managed
–> concept = integral part of mitigation hierarchy if no net loss of service is policy goal
offset policies may require that offsets be larger than … to account for uncertainty and time delays
anticipated impacts
Uncertainty in equivalency analyses
inherent in impact predictions
time delays associated with offset methods
measurement uncertainty related to metric chosen (should chose appropraite ones, multiple ones)
uncertainty in efficacy of offset
enviro. natural variability
Time lag
often required for the offset to be fully functional. NOT good to compensate an immediate loss by hypothetical equivalent gains only realized in the future
Climate change + invasive species can lead to unexpected offsetting outcomes
any mgmt action = unexpected and undesired consequences, which no equivalency calculation can take into account
–> need for robust monitoring programs with ability to allow for adaptation of offsetting program
Best practice
deal with uncertainties and risks individually with a wide variety of mgmt options
Equivalency +/-
+
allows for differing offsetting options to be explored utilizing resource-based metric
greater flexibility in offsetting
provides costing info, informs monitoring requirements
-
requires detailed knwoledge/data of resource being managed (need experts, local data..)
