Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Environmental Impact Assessment and Decisionmaking for Infrastructure Management

  • Chapter
Environmental Infrastructure Management

Part of the book series: NATO ASI Series ((ASEN2,volume 37))

  • 67 Accesses

Abstract

Due to the growing recognition of the importance of natural resources to a healthy economy as well as a safe living environment, environmental impact assessment (EIA) has become an essential tool for wise governmental decisionmaking at the international, national, and local levels. Natural resources are as essential as man-made infrastructure is in maintaining a vibrant, sustainable economy. Even ‘environmental infrastructure’ (i.e.; waste water treatment facilities, water supply purification, solid waste disposal, and air pollution control), which is typically thought to be environmentally friendly, needs to undergo a thorough EIA process in conjunction with benefit cost analysis (BCA). The EIA process can be thought of as simply as a parallel or complementary BCA for environmental goods and services. The National Environmental Policy Act of the United States in 1969 was the first example of a framework for integrating EIA into the decisionmaking process. NEPA is well intentioned, but it has spawned an assessment process that is unstructured, incomplete, inconsistent, and not well integrated with all facets of the governmental decisionmaking process. Other models of integrating environmental impact assessment into multiobjective decisionmaking are available and should be drawn upon in order to develop the means for integrating EIA into an overall infrastructure management framework. These models include the U.S. Water Resources Council’s Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, multiobjective and multiattribute utility theory analytical techniques, and the ecosystem management approach. EIA should be an integral element of the infrastructure management toolkit, and a well-structured framework is needed to assure its coherent implementation, particularly in view of the need to evaluate alternative strategies for watershed and ecosystem management and sustainable development options.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) (1992) Intergovernmental Decisionmaking for Environmental Protection and Public Works,ACIR, A-122.

    Google Scholar 

  2. ACIR (1993) High Performance Public Works: A New Federal Infrastructure Investment Strategy for America,SR-16.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ahmad, Y.J., EI Serafy, S., and Lutz, E. (eds.) (1989) Environmental Accounting for Sustainable Development,The World Bank, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bass, RE.and Herson,AI. (1994) Mastering NEPA: A Step-by-Step Approach,Solano Press, Point Arena, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Beattie, R.B. (1995) Everything you already know about EIA (But don’t often admit), Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15 (2), 109–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bernard, D.P., Hunsaker, D.B. and Marmorek, D.R. (1993) Tools for improving predictive capabilities of environmental impact assessments: Structured hypotheses, audits, and monitoring, in Hildebrand, S.G. and J.B. Cannon (eds.), Environmental Analysis: The NEPA Experience, Lewis Publishers; Boca Raton, pp. 547–564.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Caldwell, L.K. (1993) Achieving the NEPA intent: New directions in politics, science, and law, in S.G. Hildebrand and J.B. Cannon (eds.), Environmental Analysis: The NEPA Experience, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp. 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Caldwell, L.K. (1982) Sciences and the National Environmental Policy Act: Redirecting Policy Through Procedural Reform, University of Alabama Press, Birmingham.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Conner, H.J. (1976) A case analysis of policy implementation: The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Natural Resources Journal 16(2), 323–338.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (1993) 1993 Annual Report,GPO.

    Google Scholar 

  11. CEQ (1991). Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act,43 FR 55978–56007, 40 CFR Parts 1500–1508.

    Google Scholar 

  12. El Serafy, S., and Lutz, E. (1989) Environmental and resource accounting: An overview, in Y.J. Ahmad, S. El Serafy and E. Lutz (eds.), Environmental Accounting for Sustainable Development, The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Erickson, P.A. (1994)A Practical Guide to Environmental Impact Assessment,Academic Press, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  14. General Accounting Office (1994) Ecosystems Management: Additional Actions Needed to Adequately Test a Promising Approach,Chapter Report, RCED-94–111.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gerrard, M.B. (1993) Judicial review of scientific evidence in environmental impact statements, in S.G. Hildebrand and J.B. Cannon (eds.), Environmental Analysis: The NEPA Experience, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp. 30–41.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gershon, M.. and Duckstein. L. (1983) Multiobjective approaches to river basin planning, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 109 (1), 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Goiooed ea, A., Stakhiv, E.Z. and Li, F. (1992) Experimental evaluation of multiple criteria decision models for application to water resources planning, Water Resources Bulletin 28 (1), 89–102.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gregory, R, Keeney, R. and von Winterfeldt. D. (1992) Adapting the environmental impact statement process to inform decisionmakers, Journal ofPolicy Analysis and Management 11(1), 58–75.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hobbs, B.F., Chankong, V., Hamadeh, W. and Stakhiv, E. (1992) Does choice of multicriteria method matter? An experiment in water resources planning, Water Resources Research 28 (7), 1767–1779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hobbs, B.F., Stakhiv, E. and Grayman, W.M. (1989) Impact evaluation procedures: Theory, practice, and needs, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 115 (1) 2–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hobbs, B.F. (1984) Discussion of “Multiobjective approaches to river basin planning.” by M. Gershon and L. Duckstein, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 110(1) 123–124.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Institute for Water Resources (1995a) Evaluation of Environmental Investments Procedures Manual, Interim: Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses,IWR Report 95-R-1.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Institute for Water Resources (1995b)Living Within Constraints: An Emerging vision for High Performance Public Works,IWR Report 95-FIS-20.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Institute for Water Resources (1994a) Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Environmental Planning: Nine EASY Steps,IWR Report 94-PS-2.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Institute for Water Resources (1994b) Managing Water for Drought: National Study of Water Management During Drought,draft report, IWR Report 94-NDS-8.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force (1995) The Ecosystem Approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies, Volume I-Overview, Report of the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Knetsch, J.L. and Freeman, P.H. (1979) Environmental and economic assessments in development project planning, Journal ofEnvironmental Planning 9 (3), 237–246.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Leon, B.F. (1993) Survey of analyses in environmental impact statements, in S.G. Hildebrand and J.B. Cannon (eds.), Environmental Analysis: The NEPA Experience, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp. 653–659.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lord, W.B. (1986) Evolutionary perspective on social values, in W. Viessman and K.E. Schilling (eds.), Social and Environmental Objectives in Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE, New York, pp. 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mandelkar, D.R (1992)NEPA Law and Litigation,Second Edition, Clark Boardman Callaghan, Deerfield, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  31. McAllister, D.M. (1980) Evaluation in Environmental Planning: Assessing Environmental, Social, Economic, and Political Trade-Offs,MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  32. National Research Council (1995)Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance,National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  33. National Science Foundation (1979) A Study of Ways to Improve the Scientific Context and Methodology of Environmental Impact Analysis, Prepared by School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana Univ., Bloomington.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nelson, R.E. (1993) A call for a return to rational comprehensive planning and design, in S.G. Hildebrand and J.B. Cannon (eds.), Environmental Analysis: The NEPA Experience, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp. 66–70.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nichols, R. and Hyman, E. (1982) Evaluation of environmental assessment methods, ASCE Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 108, 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Stakhiv, E.Z. (1993) Water Resources Planning and Evaluation Principles Applied to ICZM, An introductory paper for the World Coast Conference 1993, Preparatory Workshop on Integrated Coastal Zone Management and Responses to Climate Change, New Orleans, LA.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Stakhiv, E.Z. (1989) The role of the EIS in water resources planning, from the proceedings of the 16°i Annual Conference of the Water Resources Planning and Management Division, May 21–25, 1989, pp. 361–364.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Stakhiv, E.Z. (1988) An evaluation paradigm for cumulative impact analysis, Environmental Management 12 (5), 725–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Stakhiv, E.Z. (1987) Environmental analysis in water resources planning, in W.O. Wunderlich and J.E. Prins (eds.), Water for the Future: Water Resources Development in Perspective, A.A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp. 441–452.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Thomas, J.W. (1995) Statement to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources “Oversight Hearing into the Application of the NEPA” Wed., June 7, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wichelman, A.F. (1976) Administrative agency implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: A conceptual framework for explaining differential response, Natural Resources Journal 16 (2), 263–300.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Williamson, S.C. (1993) Cumulative impacts assessment and management, in S.G. Hildebrand and J.B. Cannon (eds.), Environmental Analysis: The NEPA Experience, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, 391–407.

    Google Scholar 

  43. United Nations (1993) Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting, United Nations, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  44. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1980)Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP), Ecological Services Manual 102,Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  45. U.S. Senate Committee of Energy and Natural Resources (1995) Hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, June 7, 1995, GPO, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bonneville Power Authority (1994) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Hermiston Generating Project.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Federal Aviation Administration (1993) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Memphis International Airport, Memphis, TN.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Federal Aviation Administration (1992) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Salt Lake City International Airport Expansion.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1992) Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Supplementary DEIS, Shelley Hydroelectric Project (FERC 5090).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Federal Highway Administration (1994a) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Route 146/Massachusetts Turnpike Interchange Project.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Federal Highway Administration ation (1994b) Final Environmental Impact Statement, State Trunk Highway 29, I94Greenbay (Abbotsford-Marathon City).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Federal Highway Administration (1993a) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Route 168 Between Route 180 and Temperence Ave., Fresno, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Federal Highway Administration (19936) Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft EIS, SalemtowneOrchard Heights Road, Salem-Dayton Hwy, State Route 221, Salem, OR.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Federal Highway Administration (1993c) Final Environmental Impact Statement, State Route 87 Upgrading Project, Saguaro Lake Road to Gila County Line.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Federal Transit Administration (1994) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Phase I Airport Busway/Wabash HOV Facility in Allegheny Cty., PA.

    Google Scholar 

  56. General Services Administration (1993) Final Environmental Impact Statement, New Federal Building, U.S. Courthouse, Hammond, Indiana.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Minerals Management Service (1993) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Gulf of Mexico Sales 147 and 150, Central and Western Planning Areas.

    Google Scholar 

  58. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1992) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Delaware National Estuarine Research Reserve (Draft Management Plan).

    Google Scholar 

  59. National Park Service (1993) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Petrified Forest National Park, Final General Management Plan/Development Concept Plans.

    Google Scholar 

  60. U.S. Air Force (1994) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal and Reuse of Lowry Air Force Base, Denver County, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  61. U.S. Air Force (1993) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Program, Particle Bed Reactor Propulsion Technology, Development and Validation..

    Google Scholar 

  62. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1995a) Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Anacostia River and Tributaries, District of Columbia and Maryland, Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement.

    Google Scholar 

  63. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1995b) Final Environmental Impact Statement and Feasibility Report, Humboldt Harbor and Bay (Deepening).

    Google Scholar 

  64. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1994a) Environmental Assessment and Feasibility Report, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Bridge Replacement at Great Bridge, Chesapeake, VA..

    Google Scholar 

  65. U.S. Arany Corps of Engineers (1994b) Final Environmental Impact Statement and Feasibility Report, West Bank of the Mississippi River in the Vicinity of New Orleans, LA (East of the Harvey Canal).

    Google Scholar 

  66. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1994c) Final Environmental Impact Statement and Feasibility Report, Wilmington Harbor Channel Widening.

    Google Scholar 

  67. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1993a) Environmental Assessment and Feasibility Report, Illinois Shoreline Erosion, Interim I II: Wilmette to Illinois/Indiana State Line, Storm Damage Reduction.

    Google Scholar 

  68. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1993b) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Myrtle Beach and Vicinity Shoreline Protection Project.

    Google Scholar 

  69. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (1994a) Final Environmental hnspact Statement and Record of Decision, Enron Burly Area (Oil and Gas Leasing).

    Google Scholar 

  70. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (1994b) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Fort Greely Proposed Resource Management Plan.

    Google Scholar 

  71. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (1993a) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Dark Canyon Well Drilling.

    Google Scholar 

  72. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (19936) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Diamond Mountain Area Resource Management Plan.

    Google Scholar 

  73. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (1993c) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision, Lower Deschutes River Management Plan.

    Google Scholar 

  74. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (1993d) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Southwest Intertie Project.

    Google Scholar 

  75. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (1992) Record of Decision. Trans Colorado Gas Transmission Project.

    Google Scholar 

  76. U.S. Bureau of Land Management (1989) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Bull Mountains Exchange.

    Google Scholar 

  77. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1993) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Price and San Rafael Rivers Unit-Utah.

    Google Scholar 

  78. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1994) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Black Footed Ferret Reintroduction.

    Google Scholar 

  79. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1993a) Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Federal Aid in Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program.

    Google Scholar 

  80. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (19936) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Modification of Lake Ilo Dam.

    Google Scholar 

  81. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1992) Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, Two Ponds Wetland Preserve.

    Google Scholar 

  82. U.S. Forest Service (1994a) Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement, Grade/Dukes Timber Sale.

    Google Scholar 

  83. U.S. Forest Service (1994b) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Olympic Whitewater Slalom Venue, Ocoee River.

    Google Scholar 

  84. U.S. Forest Service (1994c) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision, Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area Management Plan.

    Google Scholar 

  85. U.S. Forest Service (1994d) Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision, Ushk Bay Timber Sale.

    Google Scholar 

  86. U.S. Forest Service (1993a) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Big Eightmile, North Fork of Timber and Alder Creek Timber Sale.

    Google Scholar 

  87. U.S. Forest Service (1993b) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision, Bomite Project: An Underground Copper Mine.

    Google Scholar 

  88. U.S. Forest Service (1993c) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.

    Google Scholar 

  89. U.S. Forest Service (1993d) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Moyer Satt Timber Sale.

    Google Scholar 

  90. U.S. Forest Service (1993e) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Nursery Pest Management, National Forests in Mississippi.

    Google Scholar 

  91. U.S. Forest Service (1993f) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Oil and Gas Leasing Analysis: Routt National Forest.

    Google Scholar 

  92. U.S. Forest Service (1993g) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Trout Mountain Timber Sale.

    Google Scholar 

  93. U.S. Forest Service (1992a) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Breezin Timber Sales.

    Google Scholar 

  94. U.S. Forest Service (1992b) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Oil and Gas Leasing on the Thunder Basin National Grassland.

    Google Scholar 

  95. U.S. Forest Service (1991) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision, Augur Creek Timber Sale.

    Google Scholar 

  96. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (1994) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Construction and Operation of Claibome Enrichment Center.

    Google Scholar 

  97. U.S. NRC (1993) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Construction and Operation of Facility to Receive, Store and Dispose of 11E(2) Byproduct Material near Clive, UT.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, VA, 2215-3868, USA

    Eugene Z. Stakhiv

  2. Department of Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USA

    Eric M. Winslow

Authors
  1. Eugene Z. Stakhiv
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric M. Winslow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

    J. J. Boland

  2. MEB Associates, Inc., Kensington, MD, USA

    M. E. Bell

  3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA, USA

    E. Z. Stakhiv

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stakhiv, E.Z., Winslow, E.M. (1997). Environmental Impact Assessment and Decisionmaking for Infrastructure Management. In: Boland, J.J., Bell, M.E., Stakhiv, E.Z. (eds) Environmental Infrastructure Management. NATO ASI Series, vol 37. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8841-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8841-6_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4958-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-8841-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation