Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
within the allocated funding for the analysis. Frequently, they can convince
the stakeholders that the selected methods are appropriate, but the presenta-
tion of the selected methods should absolutely be made before the investi-
gation is concluded, or even started. If the team presents the methods and
approaches used in impact prediction or any other aspect of the analysis
after the results are in, particularly if the results are contrary to some stake-
holders' previously held views and interests, the potential for stakeholder
constructive support is diminished.
A preferable and more productive approach is to present the proposed meth-
ods before the investigation is initiated. This has multiple benefits, including
giving stakeholders the opportunity to understand and inquire about the
methods before they know and can take exception to the results. Also once they
have accepted the methods, the stakeholders are much more likely to accept
the results of the investigations and thus the conclusions of the environmen-
tal impact analysis even if they are not in line with their specific interests or
preconceived conclusions. Advance presentation of methods is another oppor-
tunity to foster stakeholder trust and participation that is positive and active.
Probably the greatest benefit of opening the discussion of impact analysis
methods to technical stakeholders is the identification of methods frequently
used and accepted in the local setting. Often the technical stakeholders are
just as familiar with the technical aspects of the project (e.g., wastewater
treatment, power generation, bridge construction) as the project team. They
may also be even more familiar with the local setting and thus can suggest
alternative methods of impact analysis or description of existing conditions
that are just as technically sound as those selected by the environmental
analysis team but better adapted to the local situation.
Methods identified by stakeholders have the added advantage of gen-
erating even more stakeholder support and cooperation. If a stakeholder's
method is used, the results will obviously have that stakeholder's support,
but also typically the results will be viewed by other stakeholders as unbi-
ased and have their support also. It is not an uncommon practice to use mul-
tiple methods for impact prediction and analysis (see Chapter 5, particularly
the USCG dry cargo residue EIS example) in a Weight-of-Evidence approach
(Maughan 1993 and Menzie et al. 1996) to address uncertainty in predictions,
and the approach can be used to accommodate multiple methods suggested
by stakeholders. The multimethod approach can require more funds, but
often the input data for several methods is the same so the added cost can be
minimal. Also the inclusion of key stakeholder identified methods can sub-
stantially increase the acceptance of the results so the environmental analysis
team must weigh the cost of adding the analysis at the outset against the
benefits and likelihood of having to conduct the analysis later in response
to comments. In any event, it is incumbent on the environmental analysis
team to consider any methods suggested during scoping and if the suggested
method is not used in the detailed impact analysis, the scoping statement
(see Section 4.3.3) should explain why it is not used as part of the full analysis.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search