Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Horseshoe Bay, Texas, United States

Canter L.,Environmental Impact Training | Canter L.,University of Oklahoma | Atkinson S.F.,University of North Texas | Sadler B.,1631 Barksdale Drive
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal | Year: 2010

This issue of Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal focuses on recent developments in cumulative effects assessment and management (CEAM). It brings together selected papers on this approach from the special topic meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment (Calgary, 8-11 November 2008) held to take stock of the effectiveness of current approaches. At the meeting, over 400 members and other interested practitioners reviewed North American and international experience in addressing cumulative effects. More than 130 papers were presented in some 20 sessions, covering many aspects and issues of CEAM practice and with particular attention to the procedures, methods and tools that are used in environmental impact assessment (EIA) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA). This issue contains six papers that were developed out of the discussions held during the Calgary conference. © IAIA 2010. Source


Canter L.,Environmental Impact Training | Canter L.,University of Oklahoma | Ross B.,University of Calgary
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal | Year: 2010

The historical, current and future international practice of cumulative effects assessment and management (CEAM) is addressed. The 'context' of CEAM is explained and challenges from scientific and policy issues and numerous uncertainties are described. A six-step generic process for carrying out CEAM is provided. Opportunities for mitigation and management are highlighted, with emphasis given to 'collaboration' as a foundational element for dealing with cumulative effects. This state-of-practice review concludes by noting six 'ugly lessons' which result from lack of appropriate attention, eight 'bad lessons' which reflect practices that need improvement, and 12 'good lessons' which can be used to articulate good practice principles related to CEAM. In many situations some modification of EIA methods and tools may be necessary. In summary, the practice of CEAM is growing out of its infancy. As experience is accrued, it is anticipated that good practice principles will be further articulated and utilized on an international basis. © IAIA 2010. Source


Keys D.L.,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | Canter L.,Environmental Impact Training | Senner R.,CH2M HILL
Environmental Practice | Year: 2011

The main concept in this article is that the federal government has fallen behind in implementing its basic law for protecting the environment, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Public Law 91-190, as amended. This idea is not new, as pointed out in our overview. This report is a broad-brush approach to a series of critical NEPA implementation issues. Any one of these issues warrants more in depth research and analysis. Our dual purpose is to broach these issues to spur further discourse so that NEPA can be strengthened. Environmental Practice 13:1-11 (2011) © Copyright National Association of Environmental Professionals 2011. Source


Canter L.,Environmental Impact Training | Canter L.,University of Oklahoma | Atkinson S.F.,University of North Texas
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal | Year: 2010

Adaptive management (AM) is being used as a follow-up tool within EIA/CEAM. Such uses include reducing cumulative effects uncertainties, and informing decision making on practices to minimize the incremental effects of proposed actions and the management of regional cumulative effects resulting from multiple contributors. Based upon a review of fundamental concepts, practices and case studies, the following key lessons have been identified: (1) AM can be a useful tool for coping with uncertainty in CEAM, improving the knowledge base and enhancing the effectiveness of cumulative effects mitigation and management at the project and regional level respectively; (2) decision flowcharts can facilitate the learning and necessary adaptations associated with AM programs, and such flowcharts should be both understandable and integrative in relation to developing an holistic perspective on management choices and their environmental implications; and (3) there is a primary need for comparative case studies illustrating how AM has been incorporated in NEPA compliance documents which address cumulative effects management. © IAIA 2010. Source


Atkinson S.F.,University of North Texas | Canter L.W.,Environmental Impact Training
Environmental Impact Assessment Review | Year: 2011

Systems that allow users to store and retrieve spatial data, provide for analyses of spatial data, and offer highly detailed display of spatial data are referred to as geographic information systems, or more typically, GIS. Since their initial usage in the 1960s, GISs have evolved as a means of assembling and analyzing diverse data pertaining to specific geographical areas, with spatial locations of the data serving as the organizational basis for the information systems. The structure of GISs is built around spatial identifiers and the methods used to encode data for storage and manipulation. This paper examines how GIS has been used in typical environmental assessment, its use for cumulative impact assessment, and explores litigation that occurred in the United States Federal court system where GIS was used in some aspect of cumulative effects. The paper also summarizes fifteen case studies that range from area wide transportation planning to wildlife and habitat impacts, and draws together a few lessons learned from this review of literature and litigation. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. Source

Discover hidden collaborations