Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
is to compare the impacts of alternatives and incorporate environmental con-
sideration into decision making; this is mirrored by the 404(b)(1) require-
ments to consider any “practicable alternative… which would have less
adverse impact” and an “alternative… which will involve less… impacts.”
The requirements to avoid violation of state water quality standards or
threaten special status species are prime examples of impact significance
criteria employed as part of a well-planned and executed environmental
impact analysis. Also the assessment concept of mitigation is included in
the 404(b)(1) requirements and should be accomplished during the analysis
phase rather than after the fact during application for the wetlands permit.
Thus, including these concepts and procedures in the environmental analy-
sis and making the required demonstrations for the proposed action is a
tremendous head start on acquiring the 404 wetlands permit. Alternatively,
neglecting these critical thresholds and demonstrations in the environmental
analysis can lead to the necessity to revisit the entire environmental impact
analysis process as part of the 404 permit procedures.
The necessity to integrate permits, particularly Clean Water Act permits
and analysis is demonstrated by the King William Reservoir EIS/404 Permit
in Newport News, Virginia (see Section 6.4 for additional discussion of the
project). Development of the reservoir required both an environmental impact
statement (EIS) and a 404 wetlands permit because it involved federal action
(i.e., issuance of a permit) and affected approximately 160 hectares of valu-
able wetlands. The analysis and permit application processes were decoupled
because the purpose and need changed between the issuance of the EIS and
the permit application. The volume of water needed decreased by approxi-
mately half between the EIS and permit application because water conser-
vation practices were above predictions and population growth was below
predictions presented in the EIS. Thus alternatives were dismissed in the EIS
because they could not supply the projected water need, and as ruled by the
courts (
Alliance to Save the Mattaponi, et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, et al.
,
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case 06-01268 HHK; March
2009), the EIS analysis did not support the alternative analysis and other con-
siderations required under 404(b)(1). Thus an entirely new alternative devel-
opment, impact analysis, and comparison were required for the wetlands
permit, and if it reached a different conclusion, a supplemental EIS would
be required. Since the project proponent had already spent over 25 years and
$50 million on the planning and environmental analysis, they took this court
decision as the death knell and abandoned the project.
The “Big Dig” in Boston, Massachusetts, represents an interesting,
although extreme, example of environmental analysis and permitting inte-
gration. The project was the largest public works project at a single location
that was ever envisioned in the United States. The planning, environmental
analysis, design, and construction spanned three decades, and the final cost
was approximately $16 billion. The purpose for the project was to replace
the aging and deteriorating elevated highway through the center of Boston
Search WWH ::
Custom Search