Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:39:32.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Environmental Planning and Permitting: City of Seattle Elliott Bay Seawall Project Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2015

Heather A. Page
Affiliation:
Anchor QEA, LLC, Seattle, Washington
Joshua W. Jensen*
Affiliation:
Anchor QEA, LLC, Seattle, Washington
*
*Address correspondence to: Joshua W. Jensen, Anchor QEA, LLC, 720 Olive Way, Suite 1900, Seattle, WA 98101; (phone) 206-287-9130; (e-mail) [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

Creating and implementing effective tools for navigating the regulatory process is becoming increasingly important to the success of simple to complex projects, particularly those in urban settings. To guide a project through the planning and permitting processes, a skilled and coordinated team equipped with a practical and easily implementable toolkit is required. Tools must be integrated into the design development phase of a project and throughout the permitting phase to adequately meet complex regulatory requirements and begin the project’s construction in a timely and cost-effective manner. This article discusses the importance of defining a project, effective project communication, developing an Environmental Approvals Approach (EAA), and proper project scheduling to improve the environmental planning and permitting processes. The City of Seattle’s Elliott Bay Seawall Project is presented as a case study of these qualities.

Environmental Practice 17: 270–277 (2015)

Type
Features
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bean, M.J. 2009. The Endangered Species Act, Science, Policy, and Politics. The Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology, 2009 1162(1):369391.Google ScholarPubMed
Berkun, S. 2008. Making Things Happen: Mastering Project Management. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol, CA, 392 pp.Google Scholar
Caughron, J.J., and Mumford., M.D. 2008. Project Planning: The Effects of Using Formal Planning Techniques on Creative Problem-Solving. Creativity and Innovation Management 7(3):204215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1981. Memorandum to Agencies: Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, March 23, 1981, as amended. Executive Office of the President, CEQ, Washington, DC, 29 pp.Google Scholar
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2012. Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. March. Executive Office of the President, CEQ, Washington, DC, 15 pp.Google Scholar
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2014. Effective Use of Programmatic National Environmental Policy Act Reviews. December. Executive Office of the President, CEQ, Washington, DC, 55 pp.Google Scholar
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2015. CEQ Initiatives. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives (accessed September 11, 2015).Google Scholar
Clean Water Act of 1972. 33 U.S.C. 1251–1376, Chapter 758. 1972.Google Scholar
Clean Water Rule. 2015. Definition of “Waters of the United States”. 40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116, 117, 122, 230, 232, 300, 302, and 401.Google Scholar
Eccleston, C.H. 2008. NEPA and Environmental Planning: Tools, Techniques, and Approaches for Practitioners. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 390 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544, 87 Stat. 884. December 28, 1973.Google Scholar
Governor’s Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance (ORIA). 2015. The Regulatory Handbook. Available at http://apps.oria.wa.gov/permithandbook (accessed May 31, 2015).Google Scholar
Hansen, R.P., Wolff, T.A., and Melcher., A.G. 2007. Commentary: NEPA and Environmental Streamlining: Risks and Benefits. Environmental Practice 9(2):8395.Google Scholar
McFarland, C.K. 1966. The Federal Government and Water Power, 1901–1913: A Legislative Study in the Nascence of Regulation. Land Economics 42(4):441452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, E.W., and Gray., C.F. 2010. Project Management: The Managerial Process, 5th Edition. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York, NY, 608 pp.Google Scholar
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321; Pub. L. 91–190, 42 U.S.C. 4321–4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94–52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94–83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97–258, § 4(b), Sept. 13, 1982.Google Scholar
Rapanos et ux., et al. v. United States. 547 U.S. 715 2006.Google Scholar
Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 43.21C.Google Scholar
Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of. 1899. 33 U.S.C. 403; Chapter 425; 30 Stat. 1151. March 3, 1899.Google Scholar
Scoping. 2012. 40 Code of Federal Regulations, 1501.7.Google Scholar
Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). 2012. Elliott Bay Seawall Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. November. SDOT, Seattle, WA, 396 pp.Google Scholar
Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). 2013. Elliott Bay Seawall Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. March. SDOT, Seattle, WA, 692 pp.Google Scholar
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers et al. 531 U.S. 159 2001.Google Scholar
Sullivan, P.J., Acheson, J.M., Angermeier, P.L., Faast, T., Flemma, J., Jones, C.M., Knudsen, E.E., Minello, T.J., Secor, D.H., Wunderlich, R., and Zanetell., B.A. 2006. Defining and Implementing Best Available Science for Fisheries and Environmental Science, Policy, and Management. Fisheries 31(9):460465.Google Scholar
United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. 474 U.S. 121 1985.Google Scholar
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2014. Environmental Manual M 31-11.13, June. Engineering and Regional Operations, Development Division, Environmental Services Office, Olympia, WA, 286 pp.Google Scholar