Thanks, Shannon, for bringing up this perspective. I have also been involved in writing and editing Biological Evaluations, Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. As you point out, we had to be careful when using the words "significant" and "impact" just because these terms have specific meanings in those documents. I don't know how many times I had to adjust usage of "impact" or "significant" to make sure it fit EIS criteria.
Nevertheless (and perhaps because of this), there is just too much usage of "impact" in agency publications and communications outside of the EIS context. One reason I don't like to see this is that "impact" without a modifier implies a negative effect, but that is not always the case. As you know, evaluated actions can have a positive "impact" in the EIS context. "Our incomplete data show an important negative effect on loon recruitment oriented toward eagles preying on eggs, suggesting preventive action." (Better word usage, but still not perfect.) Warren Aney -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Shannon Torrence Sent: Wednesday, 11 July, 2007 06:23 To: [email protected] Subject: English language Warren: =20 A comment about the words "impact" and "significant:" =20 I recently moved from an academic institution to a state agency. While I was always careful with my use of the words "influence" and "effect" when writing Results sections of papers, now I must use the word "impact" at work for the simple reason this is the language used in environmental policies (e.g., Environmental IMPACT Statement EIS). If Company X has mitigation requirements for filling wetlands, I have to use the word "impact" in my recommendations for this reason. "Significant" takes on a different meaning than it does in the scientific literature concerning NEPA requirements. "Significant" impacts require an EIS and ROD (record of decision) while non-significant impacts only require an EA (Environmental Assessment) and a FONSI (Finding of no significant impact). =20 This took some adjusting for me. However, because non-scientists often read what I write, I have to use the language in the way they understand it. =20 =20 =20 =20 My apologies to Karen: it has been pointed out to me that "predate" is a proper synonym for "to prey upon" according to the Oxford English Dictionary (my Webster New World College Dictionary Fourth Edition does not recognize this usage). =20 It was also pointed out to me that there was considerable discussion about this on Ecolog-L in 2004 followed by a 2006 article in the Bulletin of the ESA. This article reported that the OED accepted this usage in 1974, that "depredate" is the oldest synonym and that published papers in our field used all three verbs. For the papers surveyed, "predate" was used in 7 articles, "depredate" in 10 articles and "prey upon" in 18 articles. =20 Now, it has been pointed out to me that there are other technical misusages or overusages, such as: "data is" instead of "data are" "impact" instead of "effect" or "affect" "orientate" instead of "orient" "preventative" instead of "preventive" "significant" used in a non-statistical sense =20 All of these can be found in my dictionary, so should I be using any and all of them? What would ecology journal editors do with a sentence such as this -- ? =20 "The incomplete data shows a significant impact on loon recruitment orientated toward eagle predating on eggs, thusly suggesting preventative action." =20 Ain't English wonderful? =20 =20 Shannon Torrence Upper Coast Conservation Program Coastal Fisheries Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 1502 F.M. 517 East Dickinson, Texas 77539 =20 281-534-0136 office 281-534-0122 fax =20
