Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:15:42.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: Decision Making in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2015

Robert Evans
Robert Evans*
Affiliation:
Robert Evans, PhD, PE, CHP, Senior Health Physicist, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV Office, Arlington, Texas.
*
Address correspondence to: Robert Evans, Senior Health Physicist, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IV Office, 1600 East Lamar Boulevard, Arlington, TX 76011; (telephone) 817-200-1234; (fax 817-200-1188; (e-mail) robert.evans@nrc.gov.
Get access

Abstract

This article analyzes the decision-making processes used by government agencies when trying to decide whether to approve or reject projects that impact the environment. This article examines some of the real-life inputs into the decision, as well as the influences on the decision maker. For example, some academics suggest that decision makers are more influenced by the environmental impact assessment process itself than by the conclusions of the assessment. Three case studies are presented. I provide an overview of each project and the various influences on the respective decision maker. I demonstrate that decision makers tend to elevate social, cultural, and political concerns over the natural environment. I also demonstrate that each decision maker was influenced by a particular social, cultural, or political aspect unique to each situation. I recommend further research in the expanding use of analytical tools and models in environmental decision making. These tools may encourage the decision maker to give more consideration to the results of the environmental impact assessment versus other external influences.

Environmental Practice 16: 290–301 (2014)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 290 - 301
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arvai, J.L. 2003. Using Risk Communication to Disclose the Outcome of a Participatory Decision-Making Process: Effects on the Perceived Acceptability of Risk-Policy Decisions. Risk Analysis 23(2):281–289.Google Scholar
Bartlett, R.V. 1997. The Rationality and Logic of NEPA Revisited. In Environmental Policy and NEPA: Past, Present, and Future, R. Clark and L. Canter, eds. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL, 51–60.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C., Little, J., and Chavkin, T.. 2003. The Production of Information for Genre Activity Spaces: Information Motives and Consequences of the Environmental Impact Statement. Written Communication 20(4):455–477.Google Scholar
Berzok, L.A. 1986. The Role of Impact Assessment in Environmental Decision Making in New England: A Ten-Year Retrospective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 6(2):103–133.Google Scholar
Brady, T. 1990. “But Most of It Belongs to Those Yet to Be born”: The Public Trust Doctrine, NEPA, and the Stewardship Ethic. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 17(3):621–646. Available at http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1536&context=ealr.Google Scholar
Bronstein, D.A., Baer, D., Bryan, H., DiMento, J.F.C., and Narayan, S.. 2005. National Environmental Policy Act at 35. Science 307(5710):674–675.Google Scholar
Bushbaum, L. 2011. Back from the Brink: Dragline Miner Westmoreland Coal Looks Forward. Coal Age 116(8):48–52.Google Scholar
Coppola, N.W. 2000. Rhetorical Analysis of Stakeholders in Environmental Communication: A Model. In Technical Communication, Deliberative Rhetoric, and Environmental Discourse: Connections and Directions, N. Coppola and B. Karis, eds. Ablex, Stamford, CT, 21–36.Google Scholar
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1978. November 28; amended 2011, July 11. 40 CFR: Protection of Environment—Index to Parts 1500 through 1508. CEQ, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2011-title40-vol33/ CFR-2011-title40-vol33-part-id1102/ content-detail.html.Google Scholar
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. January. The National Environmental Policy Act: A Study of Its Effectiveness after Twenty-five Years. CEQ, Washington, DC, 60 pp. Available at http://www.blm.gov/or/regulations/files/nepa25fn.pdf.Google Scholar
Deelstra, Y., Nooteboom, S.G., Kohlmann, H.R., van den Berg, J., and Innanen, S.. 2003. Using Knowledge for Decision-Making Purposes in the Context of Large Projects in the Netherlands. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 23(5):517–541.Google Scholar
Dietz, T., and Stern, P.C.. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 322 pp.Google Scholar
Hansen, A.M., Kornov, L., Cashmore, M., and Richardson, T.. 2013. The Significance of Structural Power in Strategic Environmental Assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 39:37–45.Google Scholar
Huang, I.B., Keisler, J., and Linkov, I.. 2011. Multi-criteria Decision Analysis in Environmental Sciences: Ten Years of Applications and Trends. Science of the Total Environment 409(19):3578–3594.Google Scholar
Kreske, D.L. 1996. Environmental Impact Statements: A Practical Guide for Agencies, Citizens, and Consultants. Wiley, New York, 480 pp.Google Scholar
Krueger, F.L. 2011. Decision on the Appeal. US Forest Service, Washington, DC, 2 pp. Available at US Forest Service NEPA Information, http://data.ecosystem-management.org/appeals/displayDoc.php?doc=VjFab1EyUXhjRmh TYms1cVpXNU9OVlJXVWxkYWF6RnhWMVJXVDFwNk1Eaz0.Google Scholar
Milholland, S. 2010. In the Eyes of the Beholder: Understanding and Resolving Incompatible Ideologies and Languages in US Environmental and Cultural Laws in Relationship to Navajo Sacred Lands. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 34(2):103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, S.L. 2001. Army Faces Fierce Fight on Historic Hawaii Valley. New York Times, April 1. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/01/us/army-faces-fierce-fight-on-historic-hawaii-valley.html.Google Scholar
Noller, B. 2009. Timely Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act Process Aids Project Success. Cost Engineering 51(4):20–23.Google Scholar
Nowlin, M.B., and Henry, T.D.. 2008, April 30–May 2. Environmental Law: An Environmentalist’s Perspective on NEPA. Paper presented at the American Law Institute–American Bar Association, Washington, DC, 28 pp.Google Scholar
Rude, C.D. 1995. The Report for Decision Making: Genre and Inquiry. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 9(2):170–205.Google Scholar
Shepard, R.B. 2005. Introduction to Quantifying Environmental Impact Assessments Using Fuzzy Logic. Springer Science+Business Media, New York, 1–8.Google Scholar
Stern, M.J., and Predmore, S.A.. 2011. Decision Making, Procedural Compliance, and Outcomes Definition in U.S. Forest Service Planning Processes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 31(3):271–278.Google Scholar
US Congress. 1970, January 1. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Available at http://www.epw.senate.gov/nepa69.pdf.Google Scholar
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009, May. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Designation of the Proposed Rinconada Communication Site: Cibola National Forest Cibola County, New Mexico T.11N, R.7W, Section 17. USDA, Washington, DC, 51 pp. Available at http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/31940_FSPLT2_048735.pdf.Google Scholar
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2011a, January. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Designation of the Proposed Rinconada Communication Site: Cibola National Forest Cibola County, New Mexico T.11N, R.7W, Section 17. USDA, Washington, DC, 63 pp. Available at http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/31940_FSPLT2_051573.pdf.Google Scholar
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2011b. Record of Decision Designation of the Proposed Rinconada Communication Site: Cibola National Forest, Cibola County, New Mexico. USDA, Washington, DC, 11 pp. Available at http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa /31940_FSPLT2_048868.pdf.Google Scholar
US Department of the Army (DA). 2008. Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Military Training Activities at Makua Military Reservation, Hawaii. DA, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.garrison.hawaii.army.mil/makua/draft.htm.Google Scholar
US Department of the Army (DA). 2009a. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Military Training Activities at Makua Military Reservation, Hawaii (Executive Summary). DA, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.garrison.hawaii.army.mil/makua/final.htm.Google Scholar
US Department of the Army (DA). 2009b, July 16. Record of Decision: Military Training Activities at Makua Military Reservation, Hawaii. DA, Washington, DC, 58 pp. Available at http://www.garrison.hawaii.army.mil/makua/default.htm.Google Scholar
US Department of the Interior. 2006. Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Extension of the Absaloka Coal Mine on the Crow Indian Reservation, Big Horn County, MT. Federal Register 71(228):68831–68833. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-2006-11-28/E6-20152/content-detail.html.Google Scholar
US Department of the Interior (USDOI). 2008a, March. Draft: Environmental Impact Statement for the Absaloka Mine Crow Indian Reservation South Extension Coal Lease Approval, Proposed Mine Development Plan, and Related Federal and State Permitting Actions. USDOI, Washington, DC, 424 pp. Available at http://deq.mt.gov/eis.mcpx.Google Scholar
US Department of the Interior (USDOI). 2008b, October. Final: Environmental Impact Statement for the Absaloka Mine Crow Reservation South Extension Coal Lease Approval, Proposed Mine Development Plan, and Related Federal and State Permitting Actions. USDOI, Washington, DC, 149 pp. Available at http://deq.mt.gov/eis.mcpx.Google Scholar
US Department of the Interior (USDOI). 2008c, October. Record of Decision: Absaloka Mine South Extension Coal Lease Crow Indian Reservation. USDOI, Washington, DC, 17 pp. Available at http://deq.mt.gov/eis.mcpx.Google Scholar
van Breda, L.M., and Dijkema, G.P.J.. 1998. EIA’s Contribution to Environmental Decision-Making on Large Chemical Plants. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 18(4):391–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., and Henkemans, F.S.. 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 440 pp.Google Scholar