ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IS AN ASSESSMENT OF THE POSSIBLE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE IMPACTS THAT A PROPOSED PROJECT MAY HAVE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, TOGETHER CONSISTING OF THE NATURAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS

 THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT IS TO ENSURE THAT DECISION MAKERS CONSIDER THE ENSUING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHEN DECIDING WHETHER TO PROCEED WITH A PROJECT OR NOT. STARTED IN 1960S

 AS WELL AS DIRECT EFFECTS, DEVELOPMENTS CAUSE A MULTITUDE OF INDIRECT EFFECTS THROUGH CONSUMPTION OF GOODS AND SERVICES, PRODUCTION OF BUILDING MATERIALS AND MACHINERY, ADDITIONAL LAND USE FOR ACTIVITIES OF VARIOUS MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, MINING OF RESOURCES ETC .

 THE INDIRECT EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENTS ARE OFTEN AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER THAN THE DIRECT EFFECTS ASSESSED BY EIA. LARGE PROPOSALS SUCH AS HIGHWAYS,RIVER VALLEY PROJECTS, AIRPORTS OR SHIP YARDS CAUSE WIDE RANGING NATIONAL AS WELL AS INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

 1976 PLANNING COMMISSION ASKED THE THEN DEPT. OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TO EXAMINE RIVER VALLEY PROJECTS FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANGLE.

 THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS OF INDIA HAVE MADE EFFORTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN INDIA. THE MAIN LAWS IN INDIA ARE WATER ACT(1974), THE INDIAN WILDLIFE (PROTECTION) ACT (1972),

 THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT (1981) FOREST PROTECTION ACT THE ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION) ACT (1986). THE RESPONSIBLE BODIES FOR THESE are MOEF, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND SPCBS

 MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS NOTIFICATION OF 27TH Jan. 1994 under ENV. PROTECTION RULES ANY PERSON WHO DESIRES TO UNDERTAKE ANY NEW PROJECTS ABOVE RS. 50 CR. IN ANY PART OF INDIA OR THE EXPANSION OR MODERNIZATION OF ANY EXISTING INDUSTRY OR PROJECT LISTED IN THE SCHEDULE-I SHALL SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS, NEW DELHI.

SCHEDULE I
1. NUCLEAR POWER AND RELATED PROJECTS SUCH AS HEAVY WATER PLANTS, NUCLEAR FUEL COMPLEX, RARE EARTHS. 2. RIVER VALLEY PROJECTS 3. PORTS, HARBOURS, AIRPORTS 4. PETROLEUM REFINERIES INCLUDING CRUDE AND PRODUCT PIPELINES.

5. CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS 6. PESTICIDES (TECHNICAL). 7. PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEXES AND OTHERS ( IN ALL 30 ENTRIES) PROJECTS COSTING MORE THAN 50 CRORES

 THERE ARE OTHER NOTIFICATIONS, LIMITED TO SPECIFIC AREAS, E.G. REGULATING ACTIVITIES IN COASTAL STRETCHES OF THE COUNTRY UNDER COASTAL REGULATION ZONE RESTRICTING MINING ACTIVITIES IN DOON VALLEY RESTRICTING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES IN SPECIFIED AREAS OF ARAVALLLI RANGE IN GURGAON AND ALWAR DISTRICTS

 MOEF DEVELOPING MANUALS AND GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF EIA AND EMP WITH SUPPORT FROM WORLD BANK

PAUCITY OF DATA
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) EXPERIENCE IN INDIA INDICATES THAT THE LACK OF TIMELY AVAILABILITY OF RELIABLE AND AUTHENTIC ENVIRONMENTAL DATA HAS BEEN A MAJOR BOTTLENECK IN ACHIEVING THE FULL BENEFITS OF EIA.

 THE ENVIRONMENT BEING A MULTIDISCIPLINARY SUBJECT, A MULTITUDE OF AGENCIES IS INVOLVED IN COLLECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA. BUT NO SINGLE AGENCY TO COLLATE AND COMPILE DATA IN A USABLE FORM

 FURTHER, THE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE IN VALUE ADDED FORMS THAT CAN ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF THE EIA. THIS IN TURN ADVERSELY AFFECTS THE TIME AND EFFORTS REQUIRED FOR CONDUCTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (EIAS)

 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTRE (EIC) HAS BEEN SET UP TO SERVE AS A PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED CLEARINGHOUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION THAT CAN BE USED BY MOEF, PROJECT PROPONENTS, CONSULTANTS, NGOS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS

 EIC STORES DATA IN GIS FORMAT AND MAKES IT AVAILABLE TO ALL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDIES AND TO EIA STAKEHOLDERS IN A COST EFFECTIVE AND TIMELY MANNER

 A DETAILED EIA IS OFTEN REQUIRED FOR MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, SUCH AS LARGE DAMS OR POWER GENERATION PLANTS . FOR RELATIVELY SMALL PROJECTS, SIMPLIFIED EIA MAY BE WARRANTED DUE TO THE LIMITED POTENTIAL OF THE PROJECT TO CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

DESALINATION PLANTS
TO COPE WITH WATER SCARCITY, MANY COMMUNITIES AROUND THE WORLD TURN TO NONTYPICAL SOURCE WATERS AND TREATMENT TECHNIQUES, SUCH AS RAIN WATER HARVESTING, WATER REUSE OR DESALINATION OF SEA AND BRACKISH WATER.

 THE WORLD'S OCEANS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A SOURCE OF FOOD AND OTHER GOODS. THE INDUSTRIAL SCALE PRODUCTION OF DRINKING WATER FROM THE SEA, HOWEVER, HAS ONLY BECOME POSSIBLE SINCE THE 1950S.

 TODAY THE WORLDWIDE NUMBER OF DESALINATION PLANTS INCREASES AT A RAPID PACE, AS PRODUCTION COSTS OF DESALINATED WATER HAVE DECLINED AND MANY REGIONS TURN TO DESALINATION IN ORDER TO ALLEVIATE THE BURDENS OF WATER SCARCITY. HOWEVER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT SUCH PROJECTS

 IN 2004, THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZA TION INITIATED A PROCESS TO PREPARE A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON DESALINATION FOR SAFE WATER SUPPLY

 COMBINED PRODUCTION OF ALL DESALINATION PLANTS WORLDWIDE, WAS 44.1 MILLION M3 PER DAY BY THE END OF 2006. WASTEWATER DESALINATION ACCOUNTED FOR 5% OF THIS PRODUCTION, RIVER WATER FOR 8 %, BRACKISH WATER FOR 19% AND SEAWATER FOR 63%

 THE MOST IMPORTANT PROCESS IN THE GULF REGION HAS BEEN MULTISTAGE FLASH (MSF) DISTILLATION, DONE AT HIGH TEMPERATURES BY WHICH 90% OF WATER IS PRODUCED. OTHER METHODS ARE MULTIEFFECT DISTILLATION (MED) AND REVERSE OSMOSIS (RO) WHICH IS MOST ENERGY EFFICIENT

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS,COST /M3

FOR MSF PLANTS, 12 KWH OF HEAT AND 3.5KWH OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY ;$1235 MED PLANTS 6KWH OF HEAT AND 1.5 KWH OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY; $916 RO PLANTS 4 TO 7 KWH OF ELECTRICITY; $641

 EUROPEAN COMMUNITY HAS DECIDED TO FOSTER THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF DESALINATION PROCESSES IN THE EU BY FINANCING THE RESEARCH PROJECT MEDINA (MEMBRANEBASED DESALINATION: AN INTEGRATED APPROACH)

 THE PROJECTS OVERALL OBJECTIVE IS TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF MEMBRANEBASED WATER DESALINATION PROCESSES BY: DEVELOPING ADVANCED ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR FEEDWATER CHARACTERIZA TION OPTIMIZING INTEGRATED MEMBRANE SYSTEMS

 REDUCING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF BRINE DISPOSAL AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION DEVELOPING STRATEGIES FOR EIA STUDIES.

 FOR RO PLANTS, ENERGY DEMAND VARIES BETWEEN 4 TO 7 KWH/M3 A MEDIUMSIZED RO PLANT WITH A CAPACITY OF ABOUT 25,000 M3 PER DAY AND AN ENERGY DEMAND OF 5 KWH PER M3 WOULD CONSUME ABOUT 125,000 KWH PER DAY. THE PLANT COULD SUPPLY MORE THAN 41,000 FOURPERSON HOUSEHOLDS WITH WATER

 BUT THE ENERGY THAT IS USED FOR THE DESALINATION PROCESS COULD SUPPLY MORE THAN 9,000 HOUSEHOLDS WITH ELECTRICITY (ASSUMING A DAILY WATER CONSUMPTION OF 150 LITERS PER PERSON AND AVERAGE ELECTRICITY DEMAND OF 5000 KWH/YEAR FOR A 4 PERSON HOUSEHOLD).

 ENERGY DEMAND IS THUS A MAJOR ISSUE IN THE PLANNING AND PROCESS OF NEW DESALINATION PLANTS AND IS CLOSELY INTERLINKED WITH POWER SUPPLY AND POWER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES.

 FOR LARGE PLANTS, COMPENSATION SEEMS TO BE A MORE SUITABLE APPROACH. FOR EXAMPLE, A 144,000 M3 PER DAY RO PLANT IN PERTH, AUSTRALIA, WAS ASSOCIATED WITH AN 80 MW WIND FARM TO COMPENSATE FOR THE ELECTRICITY DEMAND OF THE PLANT, AND THE 140,000 M3 PER DAY THAMES WATER PLANT NEAR LONDON WAS PROPOSED TO BE RUN ON BIODIESEL

 RENEWABLE ENERGY DRIVEN DESALINATION TECHNOLOGIES USING WIND OR SOLAR THERMAL ENERGY EXIST BUT ARE MOSTLY LIMITED TO SMALL UNITS OR DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

 DESALINATION PROJECTS LIKE OTHER WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS CONSUME CONSIDERABLE COMMUNITY RESOURCES WHICH MAY NOT BE REFLECTED IN THE INVESTMENT AND OPERATING COSTS.

 THESE MAY BE IN THE FORM OF FINANCIAL SUBSIDIES, ACCESS TO COASTAL LAND, OR THE PROVISION OF SUPPORTING OR CONNECTING INFRASTRUCTURE. HENCE DESALINATED WATER SHOULD BE VALUED AS A COMMUNITY ASSET

 AS THE PRODUCTION OF DESALINATED WATER REQUIRES CONSIDERABLE ENERGY AND CAPITAL, IT INCREASES ENERGY DEPENDENCE WITH CONSQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IT IS OFTEN USED AS A SUPPLEMENTAL RESOURCE ONLY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1.THESE ARE MAINLY ATTRIBUTED TO THE DISCHARGES TO THE SEA, WHICH MAY IMPAIR COASTAL WATER QUALITY AND AFFECT MARINE LIFE. CONSTRUCTION MAY ALSO DISTURB AND IMPACT LOCAL ENVIRONMENT AND MAY DISPLACE SOME POPULATION. DISTURBANCE, DEBRIS CLEARANCE POST CONSTRUCTION, WORKERS CONDITIONS

 2.AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ENERGY USE MAY IMPAIR LOCAL AIR QUALITY AND FOIL ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. 3.DESALINATION MAY ALSO LEAD TO CONFLICTS WITH OTHER HUMAN OR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES IN THE COASTAL ZONE.

 4. IT MAY LEAD TO GENERATION OF FURTHER DEMAND AND STIMULATION OF WASTEFUL USE (AS SALT AND BRACKISH WATER PROVIDE A GREAT RESERVOIR FOR PRODUCING FRESHWATER);

 5. IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON THE ABILITY OF COMMUNITIES TO DEVELOP OTHER WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE SHORT, MEDIUM AND LONG TERM; DISREGARD FOR OR POSTPONEMENT OF WATER SAVING MEASURES AND TECHNIQUES; OR WATER RECYCLING SCHEMES;

 6.ONE HAS TO BE SKEPTICAL WHETHER IT CAN HAVE MUCH EFFECT ON POVERTY REDUCTION IN ECONOMICALLY LESS DEVELOPED COUNTRIES. THE COSTS OF BUILDING AND OPERATING LARGE DESALINATION PLANT ARE UNATTAINABLE FOR MANY OF THE POOREST COUNTRIES

 FURTHERMORE,SUCH A FACILITY REQUIRES TECHNICAL EFFORTS AND EXPERTISE NOT READILY AVAILABLE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

 EVEN IF INVESTMENT AND OPERATING COSTS FOR A DESALINATION PLANT CAN BE PROCURED, THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE POOREST IN A SOCIETY WILL GET AN EQUITABLE SHARE OF THE BENEFITS. A CENTRAL PROBLEM OF WATER POVERTY IN MANY COUNTRIES IS AFTER ALL THE INEQUITABLE ALLOCATION OF CIVIC WATER AMONG CONSUMERS

 DECISIONS ABOUT DESALINATION DEVELOPMENTS HAVE TO REVOLVE AROUND COMPLEX EVALUATIONS OF LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES : DEMAND, FINANCING, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS. AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR COSTS AND BENEFITS ALSO NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS EVALUATION.

POSITIVR IMPACTS
7. FOLLOWING POSITIVE IMPACTS ARE POSSIBLE PROVISION OF A CONSTANT AND SAFE WATER SUPPLY EVEN IN TIMES OF DROUGHT; REDUCED PRESSURE ON NATURAL FRESHWATER RESOURCES (AQUIFERS) AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS VIZ. LAKES AND RIVERS

 THE CONTINUED USE OF COASTAL AQUIFERS MAY RESULT IN A LARGE INCREASE IN GROUNDWATER SALINITY, OR THE TRANSFERS OF WATER FROM A RIVER OR LAKE MAY RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO THAT ECOSYSTEM.

 IN SUCH CASES, THE IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTING AND OPERATING A DESALINATION PLANT MAY BE MORE ACCEPTABLE THAN THE CONSEQUENCES FROM CONTINUATION OR EXPANSION OF EXITING OR ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY PRACTICES.

SELECTION OF THE PROJECT SITE

ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIOECONOMIC AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS LARGELY DEPEND ON LOCATION OF THE FACILITY AND ITS ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE. PROPER SITE SELECTION DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS IS ESSENTIAL FOR MINIMIZING THESE IMPACTS.

BIOTIC ENVIRONMENT
ECOSYSTEMS OR HABITATS SHOULD BE AVOIDED WHERE POSSIBLE IF THEY ARE UNIQUE WITHIN A REGION WORTH PROTECTING ON A GLOBAL SCALE ( E.G. CORAL REEFS, MANGROVES); IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF PRODUCTIVITY OR BIODIVERSITY;

 INHABITED BY PROTECTED, ENDANGERED OR RARE SPECIES (EVEN IF TEMPORARILY); IMPORTANT FEEDING GROUNDS OR REPRODUCTIVE AREAS FOR A LARGE NUMBER OF SPECIES OR CERTAIN KEY SPECIES WITHIN A REGION; IMPORTANT FOR FOOD PRODUCTION.

ABIOTIC ENVIRONMENT
GENERALLY, IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER FOLLOWING SITE FEATURES: GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS: SITES SHOULD PROVIDE STABLE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS AND LITTLE RISK THAT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PLANT WILL AFFECT SOIL AND SEDIMENT STABILITY.

OCEANOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS:
THE SITE SHOULD PROVIDE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TO DILUTE AND DISPERSE THE SALT CONCENTRATE AND TO DILUTE, DISPERSE AND DEGRADE ANY RESIDUAL CHEMICALS.

 THE LOAD AND TRANSPORT CAPACITY OF A SITE WILL PRIMARILY DEPEND ON WATER CIRCULATION AND EXCHANGE RATE AS A FUNCTION OF CURRENTS, TIDES, SURF, WATER DEPTH AND BOTTOM/ SHORELINE MORPHOLOGY.

 IN GENERAL, EXPOSED ROCKY OR SANDY SHORELINES WITH STRONG CURRENTS AND SURF MAY BE PREFERRED OVER SHALLOW, SHELTERED SITES WITH LIMITED WATER EXCHANGE.

CONFLICTS WITH OTHER USES AND ACTIVITIES:

THE SITE SHOULD IDEALLY PROVIDE NO CONFLICT OR AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE WITH OTHER EXISTING OR PLANNED USES AND ACTIVITIES, ESPECIALLY RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL USES, SHIPPING, OR NATURE CONSERVATION EFFORTS.

RAW WATER QUALITY AND PROXIMITY:

THE INTAKE LOCATION SHOULD IDEALLY PROVIDE A GOOD AND RELIABLE WATER QUALITY, TAKING SEASONAL CHANGES INTO ACCOUNT, WITH MINIMUM DANGER OF POLLUTION OR CONTAMINATION, LOW IMPACTS ON PRODUCT WATER QUALITY.

 THE PLANT SITE SHOULD IDEALLY BE CLOSE TO THE SOURCE WATER INTAKE TO MINIMIZE LAND USE FOR PIPELINES AND TO AVOID PASSAGE OF PIPES THROUGH AGRICULTURAL LAND, SETTLEMENTS, ETC THE SITE SHOULD IDEALLY BE CLOSE TO EXISTING DISTRIBUTION NETWORKS AND CONSUMERS TO AVOID CONSTRUCTION AND LANDUSE OF PIPELINES AND PUMPING EFFORTS

ELEMENTS OF EIA
THE THREE CENTRAL ELEMENTS OF AN EIA ARE: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH BASELINE DATA FOR THE PROJECT SITE BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. A PROGNOSIS OF THE ZERO ALTERNATIVE IS GIVEN, WHICH IS THE EXPECTED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT SITE WITHOUT PROJECT REALIZATION.

 THE PREDICTION AND EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT.

MITIGATION
THE IDENTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION MEASURES TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, REMEDIATE OR COMPENSATE FOR ANY ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIOECONOMIC, AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS RESULTING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE PROJECT.

PROCESS OF EIA
A 11 STEP PROCESS IS PROPOSED FOR CONDUCTING EIAS IN GENERAL STEP 1: PROJECT SCREENING IS A FULLFLEDGED EIA REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT? MAY FOLLOW A STANDARDIZED OR CUSTOMIZED APPROACH ? MAY INVOLVE AN INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ?

 IT SHALL ENSURE THAT A FULL EIA IS ONLY PERFORMED FOR PROJECTS WITH POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS OR WHERE IMPACTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY KNOWN. CRITERIA: SCALE OF INVESTMENT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT LOCATION

 EACH SPCB HAS DEVISED ITS OWN PROCEDURE FOR ENV. CLEARANCE OF PROJECTS COSTING MORE THAN 50 CR. RAPID EIA DETAILED EIA IN SOME CASES

STEP 2: SCOPING OF THE PROJECT

WHAT IS THE SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE EIA? PRERATION OF THE TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR) SCOPING DONE BY AUTHORIZED PROFESSIONALS IN CONSULTATION WITH PROJECT PROPONENTS

 MOEF GUIDELINES FOR DIFFERENT SECTORS , OUTLINING SIGNIFICANT ISSUES QUANTIFIABLE IMPACTS TO BE ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF MAGNITUDE, PREVALENCE, FREQUENCY AND DURATION NON-QUANTIFIABLE IMPACTS SUCH AS AESTHETIC OR RECREATIONAL VALUE ALSO TO BE INDICATED

 STEP 3: POLICY / ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS WHICH POLICIES AND REGULATIONS APPLY AND WHICH PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR THE PROJECT? CONSIDERATION OF EIA LAWS AND REQUIREMENTS AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES AND REGULATIONS

 STEP 4: PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROVISION OF RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT WHICH IS REQUIRED TO EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

 STEP 5: BASELINE DATA COLLECTION ESTABLISHMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIOECONOMIC AND PUBLIC HEALTH BASELINE DATA FOR THE PROJECT AREA BEFORE CONSTRUCTION FOR COMPARISON FOR EXAMPLE AIR POLLUTANTS CONCENTRATION OFTEN INVOLVES MONITORING ACTIVITIES AND SURVEYS

 STEP 6: EVALUATION OF IMPACTS DESCRIPTION OF ALL ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIOECONOMIC AND PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS AND EVALUATION OF THEIR SIGNIFICANCE AIR : CHANGES IN AMBIENT LEVELS AND GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATION EFFECT ON SOIL, MATERIALS, VEGETATION, FAUNA AND HUMAN HEALTH

 NOISE WATER; availability to competing users CHANGES IN WATER QUALITY SEDIMENT TRANSPORT INGRESS OF SALINE WATER LAND : CHANGES IN LAND USE CHANGES IN LAND QUALITY SPECIALLY DUE TO WASTE DISPOSAL CHANGES IN SHORELINE/RIVERBANK, THEIR STABILITY

BIOTIC ENVIRONMENT
DEFORESTATION AND SHRINKING OF WILD LIFE HABITAT IMPACT ON FLORA/FAUNA, RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, ENDEMIC SPECIES, MIGRATORY ROUTES OF ANIMALS AND BIRDS IMPACT ON BREEDING AND NESTING GROUNDS

SOCIO-ECONOMIC
IMPACT ON LOCAL COMMUNITY, DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES, SOCIAL AND ETHNIC AFFILIATIONS GENDERSPECIFIC EFFECTS ECONOMIC STATUS HUMAN HEALTH INCREASED TRAFFIC

STEP 7: IMPACT MITIGATION

ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING NO PROJECT OPTION IDENTIFICATION OF MEASURES TO MAXIMIZE PROJECT BENEFITS AND PREVENT , MINIMIZE OR REMEDY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO ACCEPTABLE LEVELS

STEP8: PUBLIC HEARING

MOEF AMENDED EIA NOTIFICATION IN 1997 MAKING PUBLIC HEARING MANDATORY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE . STATE PCBS ARE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE SUBMITTING THE PROJECT TO MOEF . IT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A CRITICAL STEP IN EIA PROCESS HOWEVER, OFTEN INVOLVES LONG DELAYS

 ANYONE LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS ENTITLED TO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EIA THE AFFECTED PERSON MAY INCLUDE * PAPS *LOCAL RESIDENTS *LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS, *ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS

STEP 9:EMP
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE MAIN FINDINGS OF STEPS 58 IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED PROJECT CONFIGURATION ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN: MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION MEASURES DELINEATION OF UNMITIGATED IMPACTS

 PHYSICAL PLANNING INCLUDING WORK PROGRAMME, TIME SCHEDULES AND LOCATION FOR PUTTING MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION SYSTEMS IN PLACE BUDGETARY ESTIMATES FOR THE SAME AND THEIR INCLUSION IN THE PROJECT COST

STEP 10: REVIEW & DECISION MAKING

REVIEW OF THE EIA PROCESS AND EIA DOCUMENTS TO VERIFY THE COMPLETENESS AND QUALITY OF THE EIA APPROVAL OR REJECTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IMPOSITION OF IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES

STEP 11: MONITORING CLEARANCE CONDITIONS

MANAGEMENT/MONITORING PLAN SPECIFICATION OF MONITORING, SURVEILLANCE AND AUDITING ACTIVITIES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION

A LONG WAY TO GO
BEFORE EIAS FACILITATE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LARGE EIA REPORTS LESS CONTENT PROCESS OF EIA AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE GETS IMPLEMENTED HALFHEARTEDLY AND FIXING OF RESULTS CREATES GENERAL DISTRUST OF REGULATORY AGENCY DABHOL POWER PROJECT IMPROVEMENT OVER THE YEARS