도로 건설사업 환경영향 예측과 사후모니터링의 비교·분석

Abstract

We studied the road construction projects which were carried under the environmental impact assessment act(EIAA). We analyzed the prediction of the environmental impact and the on-site state of the construction stage which earned compliance for the projects. Korea Environment Institute(KEI), a legal review institute for the environmental impact statement(EIS) in Korea, gives its review opinion to the Ministry of Environment for all the EIS. But the post-project management, which is regarded as monitoring or follow-up of EIAA in Korea, is not within the hand of review institute. So there may be some discrepancies between the review opinion and the on-site state of the road construction. Generally speaking, the reviewers tend to consider the project as an ideal condition, but the real projects are quite different from the description of the EIS. This study is a trial to enhance the quality of review opinion for the road construction projects by analyzing the on-site real construction. During the study, we realized that there are still large gaps on the environmental issues among the interested groups: the officials of the ministry of the environment and the ministry of construction and transportation, the members of Korea road construction corporation, engineering designers, road construction workers, managers, and auditors, the writers of EIS, the specialists in road construction and transportation etc., therefore many unsolved issues are still remained. South Korea peninsula proper is divided into 80 fragments by the 7×9 trunk roads. The degree of fragmentation will be increased if other linear structures such as railway, defence fencing, power line etc. are included. So the physical state of the land, as a habitat for the biological community, is quite aggravated and almost isolated by central dividers of roads in terms of natural environment. Furthermore, as the air quality of most mega cities, Seoul, Daegu, Busan, and Incheon etc., which have large populations over two millions, already roared up to the national and local environmental standards, so it can be vulnerable to impact the people seriously. But the number of road construction projects does not decrease; the EISs for the road construction proposals are about 40-45% of the governments actions per year that are under the EIAA. The problem is not the road construction itself but the lack of environmental consciousness of proponents. They are reluctant to consult with environmental parties, allocate money to reduce the environmental impact, and involve public etc. In chapter 3, we took a look at the on-site of the road construction. The conclusion is that: almost perfect by document but too many loopholes in reality. First of all, the concepts of prediction such as the discharge of soil particles to the streams, the emission by vehicles during operation of roads, the degree of landform change etc. shall be re-designed as a whole because they used unrealistic prediction method. At present, the prediction of the impact to the ecosystem especially the corridor for the animals is inadequate; almost neglected. As most EISs do not fully describe or predict the future state of the ecosystem, so there is no serious consideration for the mitigation measures such as tunnels, bridges, eco-bridges, small boxes etc. We think that the reports of follow-ups or monitoring after EIS should be reviewed by expert groups to wholly implement the mitigation measures described in the final EIS consultation documents. This may be feedbacked to enhance the review opinion. We suggest that the EIA system needs an improvement by incorporation the record of decision(ROD), tiering, social impact assessment etc. into the EIAA. We developed some environmental impact indices, a comprehensive environmental impact assessment, criteria for the significance etc. to apply to EIA. We will test these materials to some road construction projects in near days for their refinements. In summary, current EIA system for the road construction projects should be wholly reformulated up to the EIAA because it does not properly treat and solve the pending environmental issues.