]]
Publications
Griffith University and the Department of the Environment, Sport & Territories, 1997
ISBN 0 868 57655 7
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a methodological framework within which development impact predictions are investigated and reported. Through such processes, more informed decisions on whether to modify, or even prevent development proposals, are possible.
During this workshop participants will:
The environmental impacts of new developments must be considered in development proposals. EIA processes enables decisions to be made as to whether the development should proceed or if it should be modified.
The Newport Power Station case study is used to discuss the potential and actual impacts of this development.
A mini-lecture that explores definitions of EIA, how EIA arose out of environmental concern, the EIA process, methodology and the need for community involvement.
A group activity to explore potential problems with EIA and community involvement.
A mini-lecture that explores different methodologies for development assessment.
Group activities to evaluate a number of development proposals and outline impact predictions.
Group presentation of the results of the previous activity.
A group discussion on: Can environmental assessment help achieve sustainability?
A group activity on teaching EIA in the classroom.
Overhead Transparency Masters
OHT 1: Newport Power Station Environmental Decisions
OHT 2: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
OHT 3: EIA Methodology
OHT 4: Community Participation Strategies
OHT 5: Likely Problems with EIA Process
OHT 6: Tools for Controlling Environmental Impact
OHT 7: Relationships Between Environmental Assessment and Development Planning
OHT 8: ESD and EIA
OHT 9: Issues and Problems with Implementing EIA and ESD
Resources
Resource 1: Case Study: Newport Power Station
Resource 2: Environmental Impact Assessment
Resource 3: EIA Methodology
Resource 4: Tools for Controlling Environmental Impact
Resource 5: EIA, ESD and Development Planning
Resource 6: Project Proposal Outlines
Resource 7: Instructions for Proposal Evaluation
Resource 8: Scoping Checklist
Resource 9: Prediction/Evaluation/Mitigation Tabulation Sheet
Resource 10: Can EIA Assist ESD?
ANZECC (1991) A National Approach to Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia, ANZECC, Canberra City.
Brown, A.L. and McDonald, G.T. (1989) To Make Environmental Assessment Work More Effectively, Institute of Applied Environmental Research, Griffith University, Nathan.
Chu C., and Simpson R. (1994) Ecological Public Health: From Vision to Practice, Institute of Applied Environmental Research, Griffith University, Nathan.
Cocks, D. (1992) Use with Care, Managing Australia's National Resources in the Twenty-first Century, NSW University Press, Kensington.
Fischoff, B. et al. (1981) Acceptable Risk, New York: Cambridge University Press USA.
Gilpin, A. (1979) The Australian Environment, 12 Controversial Issues, Sun Books, Melbourne.
NHMRC (1994) National Framework for Environmental and Health Impact Assessment, AGPS, Canberra.
Rickson, R.E., Burdge, R., Hundloe, T. and McDonald, G.T. (1990) Social Impacts of Development, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 10, no. 1 and 2.
Rickson, R.E., Burdge, R. J. and Armour, A. (1989) Integrating Impact Assessment into the Planning Process, Impact Assessment Bulletin, vol. 8, no. 1 and 2. (Special Issue).
World Commission on Environment and Development (1990) Our Common Future (Brundtland Report) Australian Edition, O.U.P., Melbourne.
Briefly introduce the workshop by stating it addresses frameworks within which the impact of development proposals are investigated and reported. These EIA processes enable a decision to be made as to whether or not the development should proceed. Today, ecologically sustainable development (ESD) requires the impact of new developments to be at levels and of a nature that sustains environmental systems.
A proposal to build a gas-fired power station in Melbourne was put forward in 1971 before a formal evaluation system had been developed by the state government.
Working in small groups, distribute copies of Resource 1. After reading it, ask participants to brainstorm what should have been done to ensure minimal damage to the environment. Display OHT 1 to show what did happen. Explain that since then, procedures have been put into place which formally control development proposals.
Present a mini-lecture using Resource 2 and Resource 3 and OHT 2, OHT 3 and OHT 4.
Before outlining community involvement, ask participants to identify any proposals or events involving the practice of a community group which they have participated in.
Working in small groups, ask participants to consider what they think are likely problems with the process and community involvement. Display OHT 5 and distribute copies of the OHT. Ask participants to tick those problems they think occur.
Present a mini-lecture on different methodologies in use in Australia using Resource 4 and Resource 5, and OHT 6 and OHT 7.
Break participants into four groups and allocate each a project from Resource 6. Distribute copies of Resources 7, Resource 8 and Resource 9 to participants. Resource 7 details workshop instructions.
Study the project details.
Identify those impacts listed on the check list (Resource 8) which may be relevant to this situation (additional impacts not included on the list may be added).
Refine this list to no more than six major impacts and record these on your tabulation sheets. (Resource 9 copied as an OHT).
Prepare short notes (in point form) on prediction and evaluation of your nominated most important impacts in the spaces provided on Resource 9. These notes should encompass the impact predictions and evaluations considered as central by your group.
For each nominated impact, prepare point form notes for possible mitigation strategies, and record on Resource 9.
Select one group member who will present to the whole group during the next activity.
Each group presents their OHT summary of the likely impacts, and their proposed mitigation schemes, to the whole group. Allow time for questions and clarification with each group.
Conduct a group discussion on 'Can the EIA process help achieve ecological sustainability?' using OHT 5, OHT 7, OHT 8 and OHT 9, and Resource 10. Participants may reach a conclusion that the EIA process is but one of a range of procedures to be used when considering development.
Ask participants: How and when could they teach EIA in a subject? How could they convert the Newport Power Station case study into a series of lessons? Working in small groups, ask them to develop lesson plans using the case study.
How were the environmental impacts of the proposed Newport Power Station evaluated?
The evaluation of potential environmental impacts associated with a development proposal, programme or policy - with the emphasis on development (Boer et al., 1990). EIA includes assessment for:
EIA methodology includes a series of stages between which strong feedback loops are usually present.
Stages include the following:
Community participation occurs throughout a number of the above stages.
Community participation is essential in most phases of the assessment and planning process:
Scoping is essential in identifying key issues and stakeholders.
Estimation of community information is critical, especially where scientific information is weak (as in risk assessment procedures; acceptable risk is a subjective decision).
Implementation requires public co-operation and acceptance.
Monitoring requires ongoing public input into the effectiveness of the planning and management process
Check those problems which you think would apply to the EIA process at both federal and state level.
Source: Brown, A.L. and McDonald, G.T. (1988) To Make Environmental Assessment Work More Effectively, Institute of Applied Environmental Research, Griffith University.
| Planning Activity | Role of Environmental Assessment | Role of Other Bodies and Laws |
| Feasibility studies | Required in stage of initial screening and selection of projects | |
| Technology assessment | Required for all new technologies before they can be safely introduced | |
| Project design | Required to determine scale, methods of construction, waste management, input uses | |
| Siting decisions | Town plan legislation | |
| Project evaluations | Local authority by-laws | |
| Land use plans | Local authority and some state departments | |
| Management plans | Required to determine operational management for resource development | |
| Compensation | State government, some LGA departments | |
| Monitoring | Required to determine effective monitoring strategies which will provide relevant baseline information as well as early warning systems |
ANZECC (1991) have noted the following major connecting points where EIA can assist in attaining ESD:
Government departments in charge of the environment and sectors such as housing, economic policy, transport and industry, have to co-operate together in applying ESD principles. This will ensure:
Institutional difficulties in developing the required levels of co-operation include:
Focus question: Should the power station be built?
Summary: Newport lies on the northern end of Port Phillip Bay, some 7 km from Central Melbourne. Three brown-coal-fired power stations were operating there by the 1960s. During the 1960s the State Electricity Commission (SEC) reviewed the site with a view to further development. In 1971, a Bill was passed authorising the construction of a new power station. At the time, all political parties supported the Bill. This station would be natural-gas-fired, though a low-sulphur fuel oil might be used for starting and emergency purposes at times. The station would operate from day to day as needed, supplying peak load. Its cooling water could be drawn from the deep-water shipping channels of the River Yarra, and would be returned back to the channel at a slightly higher temperature (some 5°C higher that the receiving water, which varied in temperature from 9°C in mid winter to above 22°C in summer). Waste gases, (mainly NOx and some ozone SOx hydrocarbons) would be emitted to the atmosphere through a single chimney of 188 metres.
These gases would mix with emissions from vehicles, and at times, during subsidence, inversion conditions could contribute to smog. Noise in construction and operation would have some effect on nearby houses.
Alternative sites were briefly reviewed by the SEC. One was close to Werribee Sewage Farm, and there was a risk that warm water mixing with sewage effluent would adversely affect the eastern bay.
Another site on Westernport Bay, close to the gas pipeline from Bass Strait, was abandoned, as again water polluting could adversely affect marine ecology. In 1977, a Review Panel recommended that a 500 mw gas-fired station be constructed at Newport.
Defining EIA
The definition of environmental impact assessment (EIA) in the Australian context has come to mean 'the evaluation of potential environmental impacts associated with a particular development proposal, programme or policy - with the emphasis on development projects' (Boer et al., 1990). In recent times, it has been increasingly recognised that cultural and socio-economic factors are included with those of a bio-physical nature in these assessments (Rickson et al., 1989; Rickson et al., 1990). EIA should be seen as an interactive and iterative process, rather than simply a statement of impact document, as is commonly the view.
The EIA process, itself often unwieldy and poorly planned, has evolved through the myriad of relevant public agencies as a reaction to heightened public awareness of the environment. As a consequence, the process has become cumbersome, dependent on integrated communication networks and information access and subject to policy variations between authorities involved in the decision-making process. EIA is but one methodology available to public agencies in controlling the environmental impact of development.
Environmental Concern and the Advent of EIA
In 1970, the USA became the first country to make EIA a legal requirement for major development projects. Since this time, many countries in the world, including Australia, have instituted various legislative requirements for EIA procedures. The growth of environmental concern subsequent to Rachel Carson's 1962 publication of 'Silent Spring' was a clear catalyst for the legislating for EIA. In the early 1960s, state governments introduced, first, air pollution control legislation, then water pollution controls. The trade union movement became more involved as public concern rose. The Australian Conservation Foundation flourished in Melbourne and numerous other non-governmental conservation groups formed.
Since the early days of strong and radical environmental advocacy, non-government environmental groups have been able to participate in EIA processes by improved processes which permit or require such involvement. Conservation groups are today characterised by better organisation and co-ordination, greater political and public influence, and a greater resource base to carry out their activities. However, this does not suggest that decisions now result in less conflict and increased environmental protection, as society still includes individuals with quite different views in the area of economic development and ecological sustainability. It may be fair to say that the current processes have permitted the realisation of common ground where it exists in development proposals. However, areas of opinion which do not converge are then left open to processes of political influence which can lead to political decisions on development proposals.
The EIA Process
The environmental impact assessment concept was first introduced by the federal Whitlam government in 1974 with the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974-75. State legislation followed in Victoria, NSW and South Australia. Other states also provide for EIA but not under special Acts of Parliament. Process of assessment varies between the states especially, as to who decides when an EIA is needed, whether an appeal is possible, who is responsible for its preparation, and the nature and extent of public participation.
The EIA process is not widely used as one of many tools with which public agencies can control the environmental impact of projects and policies. In practice, less than one project in 1,000 is stopped as a result of such assessment. The process of actually identifying major impacts leads to modifications to the original proposals by the developer, and eventual acceptance of the altered proposal.
However, there are times when an EIA may be less appropriate in considering impacts of a certain proposal. The Tasmanian woodchip controversy in the 1980s appeared to be a major issue which was too complex and too contentious to be resolved using the EIA process. In such cases, a public inquiry may be able to better clarify the issues. The woodchip issue was resolved by the federal government imposing its control via the imposition of export licences, effectively short-circuiting any outcome which may have been reached by the EIA process. This discretionary rein available to governments, both state and federal ministers and administrators is a further mechanism which may be used to control development to achieve sustainability. However, such impositions are in principle quite different from the EIA process. Other mechanisms which could be considered alternatives to EIA are detailed later on.
EIA methodology can be considered as a process with several stages. Ideally it is not a linear process, but one that includes numerous feedback opportunities between the various stages. The methodology begins with the scoping of a project nearly always achieved via the preparation of terms of reference by the relevant public agency. The terms of reference set out the list of issues to be addressed in the ensuing EIA process. This stage identifies the potential effects of a project.
The next stage could be seen as prediction. Further information may be gathered to enable some level of prediction of what impacts will occur. The result of this stage would enable the direction of limited funds towards gathering more information to enable meaningful evaluation of the predicted impacts.
Evaluation of the predicted impacts then allows proponents of a project to address those issues which, following this assessment, are shown to be the most important issues.
Mitigation by design may arise out of the evaluation deliberations to arrive at more appropriate designs in the original proposal to minimise environmental impact.
The reporting of environmental impact via a draft environmental impact statement could occur at this stage. Following review of the draft EIS and project designs, changes to the proposal, including the possibility of no development, may occur. Construction or implementation may then begin.
An important element of the EIA process often neglected is the monitoring process. This helps to determine if impacts occur as predicted, and if so, appropriate mitigation measures may be proposed. An important aspect which is included in many of the above stages is community participation.
Community Involvement
The EIA should be made available to the public for comment. The benefits to the community of a dangerous process need clearly to be indicated and an extensive education program carried out on how to avoid serious problems, particularly in the workplace. It should be remembered that the likelihood of health risks from a proposal may prove a more difficult task to communicate than scientific assessment of risks.
There are a number of community involvement strategies which can be used: (a) public meetings (usually preceded by public notices, mail-outs); (b) public surveys (either general, or as a follow-up to meetings); (c) workshops (usually by invitation); and (d) inviting public comment on planning documentation.
Community involvement is essential in most phases of the assessment and planning process. In the scoping phase it is essential in identifying key issues and stakeholders. In the estimation of impacts, community information is critical, especially where scientific information is weak (as in risk assessment procedures; acceptable risk is a subjective decision). Implementation strategies will often require public co-operation and acceptance. Finally, monitoring requires ongoing public input into the effectiveness of the planning and management process. Certainly in identifying key environmental health issues, community involvement and resources become extremely important.
All community involvement programs should be interactive allowing for an iterative process of arriving at goals and strategies and allowing ongoing feedback from important sectors of the community. One serious problem is that scientific and technical information is often available in a form which only experts can understand. Successful community involvement will not occur unless all relevant information is in a form all groups can understand. Also community groups usually do not have the resources to assess and analyse all relevant information, nor the time to become involved, unless resources are made available to community groups to successfully participate in the process.
Many impacts threatening the environment take place in areas of urban development. Quite often a large number of small individual projects will contribute to significant overall impact. Local authority town planning regulations such as those embodied or conveyed through Strategic Plans, Town Planning Schemes, Zoning Schemes, Planning Scheme Provisions, Development Control Plans and others offer avenues for environmental control for issues which cannot be dealt with by the EIA process. Environmental legislation such as that for clean air, water and soil also represents mechanisms to mitigate against the impact of development. Legislation for single projects may be enacted by governments because a proposal is considered so significant that it could be made less feasible or slowed down by EIA processes. Such legislation usually incorporates 'fast-tracking' and is increasingly not accepted by the community.
Economic incentives and the market itself are largely under-utilised in Australia. Governments have the power to use taxes, royalties, subsidies and other assistance to encourage environmentally sensitive behaviour. With calls for sustainable development in the 1990s, more solutions are being considered. Australia has to meet its obligations under international conventions and treaties relating to the environment. These include hazardous waste, ozone depletion, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity protection.
Recently, there has been increasing use of licensing to control threatened adverse environmental impacts of industrial processes. Licences from appropriate public authorities are provided for those industries likely to pollute. This process allows evaluation of relevant factors such as environmental, technical, economic and social, and can take account of technological developments. The cost of environmental regulation shifts to the private sector.
Environmental performance bonds may provide added incentives for compliance to licences, and to laws, trade waste agreements and improvement plans. An integrated land-use planning and EIA process is now used in New South Wales. This allows the cumulative impact of numerous developments to be assessed and plans considered for the future.
Project specific legislation may involve the creation of a statutory authority which has specific legislative powers (e.g. the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority). Other developments can proceed under an agreement between a government department and a developer which exempts the proposal from certain environmental controls. Used in the past, this later procedure is often not now accepted by a more informed public.
The concept of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) came to prominence because of the Brundtland Report (1987) but it was first developed at the United Nations Stockholm Conference in 1972. It was the impetus behind preparations for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in 1992.
In July 1989, the Prime Minister issued a statement on the Environment: Our Country, Our Future. The federal government established nine Working Groups to consider the implementation of ESD principles in sectors of Australia's economy which have significant inter-relationships with the environment, namely agriculture, forest use, fishing, mining, energy production, energy use, manufacturing, tourism, and transport.
The Working Groups were guided by four fundamental goals to which the government was firmly committed:
The acceptance of the Brundtland Report allows for a sustainable development strategy based on using renewable resources 'within the limits of regeneration and natural growth'; using nonrenewable resources at rates taking into account critically, technology, and substitutes becoming available; conserving biodiversity and minimising adverse impacts on the quality of air, water and other elements. The federal (Labour) government released Our Country, Our Future in 1989 to put into place plans for ESD but avoiding specific plans.
Project 1. Future World
There is a proposal for a theme park and associated infrastructure to be located immediately adjacent to a small (population 5,000) coastal town north of Brisbane in south-east Queensland. The theme park proposal is typical of a number of other tourist attractions in this region (Sea World, Dreamworld) and is proposed to be on a similar scale. The theme of the attraction is the future, with the shows and rides to reflect typical futuristic concepts (space travel, futuristic lifestyles, high technology). The park proposes to attract one million visitors per year when in operation.
The town is on a minor coastal highway, with the main national arterial route located 10 km inland. It currently receives local traffic (including day visit and longer term tourists from other nearby coastal centres). 70% of residents of the town are opposed to the development; 20% are in favour and the other 10% are undecided. There are projections that this coastal area will receive a 100% increase in tourist visitations (up from 200,000 total/year). The proponent expects that many further people will be attracted to attend Future World.
The proposed site of 200 ha straddles two local authorities. One administration is supportive of the proposal, the other is undecided. The land covers several terrain types and plant communities. One of the plant communities (heathland) represents the habitat of a rare and locally endangered bird species. The bird (ground parrot) is a green, ground-dwelling bird which is rarely seen. The proposal would obstruct the heathland corridor, which is presently intact, running parallel to the coast for a distance of 5 km south and 15 km north.
Owing to the low lying nature of the land, the proposal includes excavation for canals and lakes. The construction phase would take 18 months, employing 110 full time workers over this period. Following this, the park would employ 55 full time workers during normal operations, with an additional part-time workforce of up to 80 for the peak periods.
Project 2. Water Supply Reservoir
The projected demand for urban (and industrial) water use in a rapidly developing region is such that the existing available water supplies would only provide 70% of that capacity anticipated to be required by the year 2010. The existing supplies include four reservoirs, each of which could be extended to increase its own capacity to meet this demand. The project cost to do so (including land acquisition) would exceed that proposed for the single new reservoir.
There is one further proposal to supply viable water and that is 'sustainable' pumping of groundwater (i.e. not running out of water) from the extremely large natural sand mass in the area. This sand mass, however, has World Heritage listing and supports a large variety of plant communities on a wide variety of terrain types. It includes a system of creeks and wetlands which would be affected to some extent by groundwater harvesting.
The site of the proposed new reservoir would require the acquisition and subsequent inundation of 10 km2 of highly productive agricultural land. The 27 affected dairy farmers are opposed to the project and do not wish to change their lifestyle. There is a local township of 1,200 inhabitants which is also opposed to the dam, as there is a concern about the viability of the dairy product factory as well as other businesses being affected by the loss of dairy farmers.
Project 3: New Highway Development
There is a proposal to develop a transport corridor situated west of a major highway, linking a capital city to a popular coastal resort area. The coastal resort area population is booming and the land development between the resort and the capital city is undergoing rapid change. A government study concluded that the number of long and short distance trips along the present highway is likely to increase, resulting in transport capacity deficiencies by 2010. A major proportion of the traffic increase will result from the expanding urban area of the corridor.
Several broad options were selected to address the emerging transport deficiencies. These were:
Railway construction was not considered because of the costs involved.
Each of these options is to be investigated using environmental impact assessment to allow a decision on which option is preferred. The new corridor development will require the resumption of property and there is strong community opposition. It will also affect breeding grounds of native wildlife significantly.
Local industry groups, on the other hand, oppose either of the first two options by arguing they lead to further heavy traffic congestion, which would slow the movement of goods and services to an unacceptable degree. People commuting to and from the two urban centres also oppose the first two options.
Project 4: The Construction of a Chemical Factory
The project consists of the instalment, maintenance and operation of a chemical producing and manufacturing plant.
The complex is a two section plant. The first section will produce 16,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of sodium cyanide, of which 13,000 tpa will be sold as solid and the remaining 20% in solution. The second section of the plant will produce 9,000 tpa of caustic soda and 11,000 tpa of chlorine. 70% of the chlorine will be sold as liquid and the remainder will be used to produce hydrochloric acid and sodium hypochlorite. Sodium cyanide, which is presently being imported, will be used for gold processing. Chlorine will be used for drinking water and sewerage treatment. Sodium hypochlorite will be consumed on-site.
The complex will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The average employment during construction phase will be 70. During the operation phase the complex will employ over 90. The proposed site of the project is situated seven km west of an industrial town on government land.
The nearest resident is three km from the site, on government land. A football club is situated within 500 metres of the site, on government land. The lease for both these properties require only two months' notice from the Lands Department.
A small town is five km to the north-west.
Adjacent land uses include fruit production, forestry and cattle grazing. The closest fruit production (pawpaws, mangoes and bananas) is situated five km from the site. Forestry is two km to the north-west of the site, cattle grazing occurs on this land. There are also mangroves two km to the north-west.
The raw materials required for the project include: water, electricity, salt, natural gas, ammonia gas and small quantities of minor chemicals. The products of the plant will be: sodium cyanide, caustic soda, chlorine, hydrochloric acid and sodium hypochlorite (to be used on site). The by-products will be wastewater, stormwater run-off, effluent and sludge. The raw materials required and the products of the manufacturing will be transported to and from the site by road.
| Physical Environment | Biological Environment | Social Environment | |
| Environmental Components | |||
| Industry/Project Components | |||
| Site - location | |||
| Industry - type | |||
| Industry - products and markets | |||
| Industry - transportation requirements | |||
| Industry - energy requirements | |||
| Industry - resource recovery | |||
| Industry - effluent controls | |||
| Work force - sources | |||
| Work force - facilities and services | |||
| Work force support | |||
| Construction -methods/materials | |||
| Construction - wastes | |||
| Plant maintenance | |||
| Waste monitoring/control | |||
| Energy conservation | |||
| Resource conservation | |||
| Labour training |
Key: Beneficial Adverse
High = 1 High = *1
Middle = 2 Middle = *2
Low = 3 Low = *3
| Project Activity Causing Impact | Predicted Type of Impact | Evaluation of Impact (i.e Nature and Severity of Impact) | Suggested Mitigation Measures | Other Comments |
| 1. | ||||
| 2. | ||||
| 3. | ||||
| 4. | ||||
| 5. | ||||
| 6. |
ANZECC (1991) has noted the following major connecting points where EIA can assist in attaining ecologically sustainable development (ESD) OHT 8. The use of resources by present generations is achieved while protecting the interests of future generations (such as by minimising waste, avoiding over-exploitation of renewable resources, and maintaining and enhancing natural resources capital - uncontaminated air, soil and water) by:
Environmental assessment is relevant to a wide range of planning activities (OHT 7). There is a need for all these activities to integrate the process of environmental assessment with the decision-making process that already includes political, legal, financial and technical dimensions, rather than being 'added on' later. There are a number of difficulties in attempting this process, as already noted. (Refer back to OHT 5.)
The Decision-making Process
Decisions have to be made about development projects even with uncertain information, so the balance between technical and political approaches to environmental assessment then becomes important. The type of planning style appropriate also becomes critical in defining the role of environmental assessment (see OHT 7 again).
In addition, the numerous levels of government in Australia add to the problem. Refer to OHT 9. Environmental assessment becomes part of a political process involving negotiation and bargaining between different interest groups, with scientists assuming the role of experts advocating positions on various development scenarios. Unless this process is recognised, the scientific information used in EIAs is often too technical for effective public input and the debate becomes a 'battle of the experts'. This may generate community alienation, leading to suspicion and complete distrust of all 'expert' information.
Consequently, it may be preferable to increase funding to community groups to broaden their participation (and scientific input), to consider 'conservation planning' and use other 'tools' to ensure ecologically sustainable development.
