Integrating environmental impact assessment with master planning: lessons from the US Army
Introduction
The vision of US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was that agencies could use EIA as a strategic planning tool, integrating environmental factors directly into policies and plans that influence subsequent projects.1 The NEPA implementing guidance reinforces that “agencies shall integrate the NEPA process with other planning at the earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions reflect environmental values.”2 Studies on EIA effectiveness echo the need for agencies to apply EIA early in their decision-making process, which ultimately can help to fulfill the substantive promise of NEPA Clark and Canter, 1997, CEQ (Council of Environmental Quality), 1997.
Yet this vision has been blurred, and relatively few agencies have embraced NEPA for strategic planning. More commonly, agencies conduct EIA for projects, rather than for earlier strategic decisions, thus depriving NEPA of its substantive potential in planning. Consequently, NEPA has been criticized for being an exercise to justify decisions already made, resulting in major paperwork but only minor changes in projects. And even though EIA is widely regarded as a planning tool, agencies often keep it separate from their internal planning processes.
This “integration problem”—the lack of early integration between EIA and agency planning—is not just one of requirements, as NEPA is already required for plans and other strategic decisions3, and for proposals in early stages of decision-making.4 Rather, the problem is often one of implementation. Agencies may be reluctant to integrate EIA into early stages of decision-making for fear of delays, increased costs, liability, or that “microscopic detail will be expected, even when such depth of analysis is not possible that early in the proposal development stage” (CEQ, 1997: 12). In addition, because agencies retain considerable discretion in determining when NEPA should be applied,5 they often wait until the project is well defined and likely to survive the NEPA process. These reasons and others are provided in Table 1, which summarizes findings from the literature to explain the lack of integration.
On the other hand, some federal agencies have made progress toward integration of NEPA and planning, realizing that EIA “helps them to do their jobs” (CEQ, 1997: 12). In addition, the international experience in “strategic environmental assessment” (SEA) illustrates that agencies can and do integrate EIA with strategic planning (e.g., European Commission, 2001, Partidário, 2000, Partidário and Clark, 2000, Brown and Therivel, 1999, Sadler and Verheem, 1996, Therivel and Partidário, 1996). These studies suggest that early and effective integration depends not only on legal or procedural requirements, but also on organizational factors, and benefits perceived and realized.
This paper examines the efforts of the US Army to integrate EIA within the framework of master planning. In this context, “master planning” involves a systematic process for managing activities at Army installations. The outcome of this process is a document, a “Real Property Master Plan” that guides decision-making: it charts the strategy for achieving the installation commander's goals, supports the Army's vision for current and future missions, and coordinates functions and facilities at installations (US Army, 1993). The US Army has also established its own set of NEPA implementing regulations (US Army, 1988), AR 200-2, which is currently under revision (DoD, 2000). Both the current and revised versions stress the need for early incorporation of NEPA into planning.
This research investigated the issue of integration through two primary questions. (1) To what extent is EIA integrated with master planning at Army installations? (2) What are the factors that promote or impede such integration? To answer these questions, a case study analysis was conducted of Army installations that recently had prepared NEPA documentation on master planning or other land use planning activities. Each possible case was pursued, and 16 were identified that fulfilled the criteria of this research. The case study protocol involved analysis of NEPA documents on land use planning activities and interviews with more than 50 individuals, including those responsible for NEPA compliance and document preparation at Army installations, Army master planners, Army environmental policy staff, and Army NEPA legal advisors.
Initially, this research examined “integration” according to its traditional concept of concurrence: the synchronized preparation of the NEPA document and the master plan would indicate successful integration and, in contrast, the preparation of the NEPA document after the completion of the master plan would not. As this research proceeded, however, it revealed that elements of integration could occur, even if the NEPA document were prepared after the planning document, or even without a planning document. One reason is that agency planning can occur, even without a formal plan—and EIA can influence that planning process. Thus, this research extends the traditional concept of integration by including dimensions of the influence of the EIA process on the agency and its planning activities.
This paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 details Army regulations for both master planning and NEPA implementation, and summarizes Army reasons in support of early integration. Section 3 details the research approach and methods, which proceeded in four phases during the years 2000–2001. Section 4 presents the results, explaining the varying degrees of integration, and the factors that promote or impede NEPA integration with master planning at Army installations. This section also discusses the implications of the results, which can advance our understanding of integration and the effective implementation of EIA.
Section snippets
Installation master planning and plans
To provide an understanding of the planning process that is the subject of this research, this section briefly describes the Army Regulation (AR) 210-20 Master Planning For Army Installations (US Army, 1993). This regulation details a systematic planning process for installation level management, and the outcome of the process is the Real Property Master Plan (RPMP).
The master planning process and resulting RPMP are designed to “chart a long-term investment strategy for achieving the
Research approach and methods
This study investigated two primary issues: (1) the extent to which NEPA and master planning processes are integrated at Army installations, and (2) the factors that promote or impede such integration. The research progressed in four phases over two years (2000–2001), and each phase is detailed herein.
Phase One involved a review and analysis of Army NEPA and Master Planning regulations and the scholarly literature on NEPA integration with agency planning. This phase also included an initial
Extent of integration based on timing
For the initial purposes of this study, “integration” of EIA and agency planning was based on timing. A concurrent preparation of the installation master plan (the RPMP) and its required NEPA document (an EA or EIS) would indicate successful integration, and, in contrast, a NEPA document prepared after the master plan would not. This follows the concept that environmental documents prepared concurrently with the master plan can influence and modify strategic land use decisions, whereas
Conclusion
Timing alone cannot indicate the degree of integration between NEPA and installation land use planning. Other measures must be employed. This study extended the traditional concept of integration by examining the influence of EIA on the agency and its decision-making. Even though only one installation prepared a NEPA document concurrently with its master plan, other installations revealed ways that environmental factors are integrated into plans and planning, even without concurrent document
Acknowledgements
We thank Ron Webster and David Eady for their valuable comments throughout this study and on this paper. We are grateful to the very helpful comments from two reviewers. This research was supported in part by an appointment to the Student Environmental Management Participation Program at the US Army Environmental Center (USAEC) administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the US Department of Energy and USAEC. This research also
References (26)
Strategic environmental assessment: key issues emerging from recent practice
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
(1996)Elements of an SEA framework: improving the added value of SEA
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
(2000)Improving alternatives development
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
(2001)The unfinished business of national environmental policy
- et al.
Principles to guide the development of strategic environmental assessment methodology
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal
(1999) - CEQ (Council of Environmental Quality), 1986. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National...
The National Environmental Policy Act: A Study of Its Effectiveness After Twenty-Five Years
(1997)Environmental analysis of army actions; proposed rule
Federal Register
(2000)The NEPA Planning Process: A Comprehensive Guide With Emphasis on Efficiency
(1999)
Reasons and strategies for more effective NEPA implementation
The Environmental Professional
Guide to the National Environmental Policy Act: Interpretations, Applications and Compliance
Cited by (16)
Understanding the long-term influence of EIA on organisational learning and transformation
2017, Environmental Impact Assessment ReviewIntegration of environmental assessment with planning and policy-making on a regional scale: a literature review
2016, Environmental Impact Assessment ReviewCitation Excerpt :These implications are transactional in nature, meaning that the timing and coordination of important activities that occur in EA, planning, and policy-making matters significantly. Some studies suggest that early timing of EA within regional planning studies is a primary determinant of a successful regional EA process (Keysar and Steinemann, 2002; Noble and Harriman, 2008; D'Auria and Cinneide, 2009). This has for instance been proved to be important in managing diverse interests and expectations across domains (Che et al., 2011), as well as a means to more easily determine the nature and scope of alternative projects, initiatives, and actions acceptable to those interests (Tang, 2008).
Integration of environmental impact assessment into decision-making process: Practice of urban and rural planning in China
2014, Journal of Cleaner ProductionCitation Excerpt :Keysar argues that integration typically has been regarded as concurrence, meaning that the EIA and planning processes are conducted together. It can also be viewed as the influence of the EIA process on agency planning and decision-making (Keysar and Steinemann, 2002). Although the vision of SEA mechanism is that agencies could use SEA as a strategic planning tool, integrating environmental factors directly into policies and plans, this vision has been blurred, unfortunately.
Integration of reclamation and tailings management in oil sands surface mine planning
2014, Environmental Modelling and SoftwareCitation Excerpt :The proposed framework here is applicable in many environmental problems that inherit the concept of planning over a period of time, such as environmental planning (Dickert and Tuttle, 1985). There are other examples that shows how environmental considerations can be included in planning, such as in US army master planning (Keysar and Steinemann, 2002), strategic land-use planning (Tao et al., 2007), and development of integrated decision-support systems (Delden et al., 2011). The proposed integrated model in this paper is extendable by considering uncertainty in planning, through randomness and fuzziness.
Informal knowledge processes: the underpinning for sustainability outcomes in EIA?
2010, Journal of Cleaner ProductionCitation Excerpt :Egler [14], Glasson and Salvador [15], Rohde [16], Moreira [17], Kvaerner et al. [18] and Bina [19] identify a number of problems with the incorporation of NEPA's principles into impact assessment. Typically, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is the written report of the EIA process, has been seen as a functional document [17,20,21], or a decision-making tool [22–29]. From a functional perspective, criticism of EIA focuses on its lack of the information necessary for decision-making and/or excessive unnecessary data; language organization problems; failure to identify locational and technological alternatives to the proposed projects; lack of experts' experience and specific knowledge; mitigatory and compensatory programs not included or not developed at all; lack of consideration of cumulative impact analysis [14,15,30–35].
Evaluating the implementation of environmental review mitigation in local planning and development processes
2008, Environmental Impact Assessment Review