Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
incomplete analysis or noncompliance. Also, incorporation of environmen-
tal review under existing, often agency-specific, legislation and environmen-
tal review as part of an agency's administrative procedure with no broader
requirement, created potential for conflict of interest. With the same entity
proposing an action and having sole responsibility for environmental review,
there can be pressure to avoid a hard look at environmental concerns that
could delay, alter, or prevent project implementation. While NEPA and state
programs like California inherently have these same limitations, the prac-
tice of public disclosure and litigation largely negate these constraints. With
time, many countries recognized the weakness and marginal achievement of
environmental protection using existing legislation and administrative pro-
cedures (Clark and Canter 1997). The resultant experience from their own
environmental regulations and the maturation of NEPA has led many coun-
tries and states to adopt modified and refined EIA systems, and it is remark-
able how much they have come to resemble the full NEPA model.
One difference compared with NEPA is that the environmental analysis
requirements in many situations identify specific thresholds (e.g., length
of roadway, volume of water withdrawn, size of development) and specific
types of action (e.g., power plant, airport expansion) requiring various lev-
els of environmental analysis. NEPA does not specify such thresholds or
project types but relies on a more ambiguous likelihood of a “significant
environmental impact” caused by an agency action to determine whether
and what type of environmental analysis is required. However, U.S. federal
agencies do take advantage of the CATEX provision in NEPA guidance (see
Section 3.1.2) to accomplish what other countries have achieved by includ-
ing thresholds and specific projects mandating analysis in their legislation.
The inclusion of environmental analysis and environmental approval/
permits is another concept that is integral to most environmental policies
and programs. The integration is institutionalized in many programs, like
CEQA, and less formal in others, such as NEPA. But the combination of the
two provides multiple tools for addressing environmental protection, even
if there is opposition or inattention to one of the two as is in the EU at times.
California probably has the most comprehensive and environmentally
protective environmental impact analysis policy and regulations. Approval
based on no alternative with less impact, stringent mitigation requirements,
and monitoring of mitigation has produced significant environmental sus-
tainability. However, it has come at a cost of extreme complexity in regula-
tions and procedures, which in turn has generated significant opposition.
References
Association of Environmental Professionals. 2012. California Environmental Quality
Act statute and guidelines. Available from: http://leginfo.ca.gov.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search