A Critical Evaluation Of Impact Prediction Practices Environmental Sciences Essay

As the growth of urbanization enhanced year by year, this leads to environmental degradations and pollutants. The rapid growth gives much adverse impacts to the environment, particularly water. This work leads to a detailed study and evaluation of EIA process by examining impact prediction practices upon water quality of three different development proposals in UK in last few years. It reviews the statements against a set of robust evaluation criteria to determine its strengths and weaknesses. However, issues such as how to do EIA follow-up, good practice and future directions have been covered far less. It seems that the theory is quite clear but that its practice is still rather misty.

Introduction

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is one of the principal tools established to minimize an anthropogenic impact on the environment. The main motive is to describe the environmental effects (both positive and negative) of development proposals and thereby prevent, reduce and offset any contrary impacts. EIA is a participatory process employed to identify and evaluate the probable environmental consequences of development proposals in order to facilitate informed decision-making and sustainable development (Glasson et al., 1999; Morgan, 1998; Sadler, 1996).

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

EIA can be defined as “a process by which information about the environmental effects of a project is collected, both by the developer and from other sources, and taken into account by the relevant decision-making body before a decision is given on whether the development should go ahead.”

This paper does a critical review of the one environmental component – water quality assessment of three Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). A critical analysis of the impact prediction practice was performed in all the three EIS. The impact prediction stage consists of four stages:

Impact Identification

Impact Assessment

Significance evaluation

Mitigation

EIS’s were analyzed based on these case studies. The EIS’s under scrutiny are:

Berkley Nuclear Power Station,2007

Barrow Offshore Windfarm,2002

Edinburgh Airport Rail Link,2005

Impacts on water

Impacts on water quality and quantity need to be assessed in both fresh water and marine environment. It results from chemical, biological and thermal pollution. Quality and quantity can be affected by erosion and siltation. Increase or decrease in surface water and grunt water flows and availability, changes in ground water level, flood risks, and risks of drought include quantity impacts. Consequential impacts include water logging and or salination of agricultural land, damage to benthic species or wetland ecosystem, and other effects on ecology and human health, including the creation of breeding sites for mosquitoes and other disease carriers (Lee and George, 2000).

Any EIA consists of three key stages. The first stage (preliminary assessment) involves the identification and collection of relevant information, which is called screening. During this step the decision is made on whether an EIA is required for the project. If an EIA is required, then the second stage starts. The second stage, called scoping identifies what constitutes relevant information to be identified and assessed with respect to key impacts of the proposed development. The results from scoping process are reported to the relevant decision-makers in an ‘environmental impact statement’ (EIS). The final stage comprises the review of the EIS and its adequacy as a basis for the competent/approving authority to make the decision on ‘development conditions’.

The preparation of competent environmental impact statement (EIS) is a necessary step in an environmental impact assessment (EIA) process. This article provides guidance on the key elements of the EIS. The most complicated part of EIA process and also the most crucial is the identification of potential impacts of proposed activity. This article is focused on the identification of the most common potential impacts of a hydropower dam and a bridge construction and use. Impacts on physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments are identified as well as some mitigation measures which can minimize negative impacts.

Legislation

European Legislation

In earlier times, European Union (EU) Directives relevant to environment component (water) of EIAs have been focused on quality objectives for receiving waters and source based controls. Due to the disadvantages identified on these approaches, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (EC 2000), which sets out a timetable for both initial transposition into laws of Member States and for the implementation of necessities. It subsequently adopted two daughter directives at European level. The first one aimed at protecting ground water (2007) where the second directive focused on reducing pollution of surface waters by pollutants on a number of priority substances.

National legislation

The legislation relevant to water assessment in England and Wales include: – Water Resources Act (1991) which aimed at protection of quantity and quality of water resources and aquatic habitats and Water Act (2003) which strengthens the EA’s abilities for the sustainable management of water resources. The policy responsibility for the implementation of WFD in UK is on Defra and the Developed Administrations where most of the work is being undertaken by the competent authorities of Environment Protection Agencies.

Policy and Guidance

The policy on water quality of UK government includes declaration of designated and controlled waters, Water Quality Objectives, River Quality Objectives and Sensitive Areas. The EA’s policy on ground water pollution control (EA 1998b, 2007b) stresses prevention by discharge controlling and by protecting vulnerable aquifers and ground water abstraction sites (Morris 2009).

Methodology

The methodology was developed to systematically assess and contrast the impact prediction stages of water quality assessment in three different EIS’s. This is based on methodological approach and hierarchical structure of the Lee and Colley EIS Review Package (Lee et al., 1999).

Water Impact Assessment is a process of evaluating impacts on water quantity and quality, with implications for other environmental components (e.g., Morris et al., 2001; DoE, 1995). The review checklist developed is referred to as IPRCWQ (Impact Prediction Review Checklist for Water Quality) which can evaluate the impact prediction process of three EIS’s. The framework for IPRCWQ is developed from an extensive review of literature on water quality assessment of Water Framework Directive 2000/EC on security of water against pollution and the Daughter Directive 2007/EC with an aim on protecting groundwater. The National Legislation included are Water Resources Act (1999) and Water Act (2003) for England and Wales with an aim of strengthening and protecting quality of water resources in UK; Competent Authorities 2008. Environment Protection Agencies; Planning Policy Statement 25 – development and flood risk (PPS25); DETR 1998; Groundwater pollution control (EA 1998, 2007); Internal Drainage Board (IDB).

The four review areas are chosen and review criteria is developed for each review area grounded on the Lee and Colley review package (1992). The basis of IPRCWQ review criterion is a conventional conception how an ideal air quality assessment would be performed of each stage. The review areas are Impact Identification; Impact Assessment; Significance Evaluation; and Mitigation. Each review criteria is assessed and given an overall score and then graded on Assessment Grades (A-F) based on the table below and based on the quality of impact prediction ,each EIS is given an overall score.

Table 1: Assessment Grades

Grade

Explanation

A

Excellent assessment quality

B

Generally acceptable with minor shortcomings

C

Parts are well performed but some shortcomings

D

Fairly acceptable

E

Below acceptable levels

F

Very unsatisfactory

Impact Identification

It combines the project characteristics and baseline environmental features to ensure that all potentially significant environmental impacts are identified. This stage is divided into criteria of effects of project on water quality, difference between project phases, recognition of impacts from each phase and baseline characteristics. The checklists are designed to ensure that, all potential areas are considered and a structural approach is provided for identifying key impacts (Harrop 1999). The major sources of contaminants and pathways through which they reach the receptor are to be identified. That is, a source-pathway-receptor is to be demonstrated. The potential impacts like increase in surface runoff change in flow velocities, erosion, increased flood risk and level and concentration of pollutants have to be identified in different phases of the project.

Impact Assessment

Quantitative measurements are required to permit the assessment of water quality and quantity impacts from a proposed development. The quality of water can be assessed by chemical, biological and aesthetic methods which require a wide range of variables and techniques. The choice of assessment method is different for every case as it depends on the task involved (Morris 2009). The assessment can be performed by using mathematical and computer-based models. The review criteria used in checklist focuses on prediction of the magnitude of impacts, quantification of that impact magnitude, indirect impacts quantification and nature of public involvement.

Significance Evaluation

Impact magnitude and the sensitivity and value of receptors are the ones which will depend on impact significance. It is important to assess the relative significance of impacts to inform decision makers whether the impacts may be considered acceptable and the standards include magnitude and likelihood of the impact, it’s spatial and temporary extent, the value of the affected environment and level of public concern (Glasson 2005). The criteria used in the checklist stresses on impacts on affected community, nature of impact and method of assessing the impact.

Mitigation

There are several laws which aim to avoid, reduce, and remedy the likely adverse activities that would arise as a result of the proposed project. The activities suggested must be free from problems in the future. Some measures related to water impact issues are control runoff, increase capacity and/or sewage treatment level, minimize soil compaction and erosion and use sustainable urban drainage systems. The mitigation process is divided into construction stage and operation stage. The consideration of mitigation measures at various stages, extent to which mitigation methods are effective and consideration of residual effects are the criterion used in the checklist.

Results

The EIS selected are from different time period which helps to create a comparison of how it has improved during this period. The proportion of three EISs in their entirety that were graded as satisfactory (i.e., those receiving a grade of A, B or C) and unsatisfactory (i.e., those receiving a grade of D, E or F) is summarized in Table 1.

Table 2: (Source: Lee and Colley, 1992)

Case A – Berkley Nuclear Power Station (2007)

Case B – Barrow Offshore Wind farm (2002)

Case C – Edinburgh Airport Rail Link (2005)

Impact Identification – Review Area 1 (Grade)

Project description and effects on environment

A

B

C

Distinct phases of the project

B

B

C

Identification of impacts from each phase

C

C

D

Impacts from non-standard operating conditions

C

C

D

Description of baseline studies

B

B

B

Impact Assessment – Review Area 2 (Grade)

Prediction of the magnitude of impacts

B

B

D

Quantification of impact magnitude

A

B

C

Indirect impact quantification

D

D

E

Nature of public involvement

B

C

D

Significance Evaluation – Review Area 3 (Grade)

Impact significance on community

B

B

C

Nature of impact

C

C

C

Method of assessing significance

B

C

D

Mitigation – Review Area 4 (Grade)

Consideration of mitigation measures

B

C

C

Extent to which mitigation methods are effective

C

D

D

Consideration of residual effects

B

C

D

Overall Score

Case A – Grade B Overall

Case B – Grade C Overall

Case C – Grade D Overall

Individual Score

Impact Identification – Grade B Overall

Impact Assessment – Grade C Overall

Significance Evaluation – Grade C Overall

Mitigation – Grade C Overall

Discussion

Review Area 1 – (Overall score B)

In Case A, the development stage is divided into parts of construction phase and operation phase. It has identified the potential impacts on surface water quality and pollutants from those phases and also concentrated on after effects due to this development. This is almost similar in Case B but, in Case C the sources of pollution and the likely effects produced on receptors are not clearly mentioned. The impacts from non-standard operating conditions and impacts identified from distinct phases are poorly regarded. Nearly 46% of EIS considered the impacts from non-standard operating conditions (Lee and Colley, 1992).

Review Area 2 – (Overall score C)

Case A and Case B have developed an overall qualitative assessment on water pollutants emitted during construction phase. As per PPS25, Case A undertaken Flood Risk Assessment for developments in areas of flood risk and construction is made at an elevation of 10m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum). The details about construction activities formed by Case C are not satisfactory. The assessment principally covers impacts during the works phase (i.e. construction and operation), as it includes the greatest potential for impacts on surface waters.

Case A has assessed the effects during operation at levels of local, regional and ecologically substantial receptors where Case C monitors only the local consequences in the sensitive areas. Case A obtained the water quality information held by Environment Agency for surface water features within a 5km radius of the site and described how to manage the liquid waste on the operation phase. The reference made by Case B regarding the assessment on work phase operation is nebulous and the uncertainties in carrying out the assessment are not mentioned.

Review Area 3 – (Overall score C)

Every potential impact desirable for detailed assessment is first evaluated with respect to impact magnitude criteria, and then its magnitude is considered together with a number of other issues to determine its significance. The evaluation of impact significance was not performed in Case A and Case B because the construction effects and water quality impacts were studied as not substantial, as both of these are local and temporary in nature. It was primarily a matter of professional judgement but, in Case C the significance evaluation is not properly mentioned at work phase construction.

Case A utilizes Environment Quality Standards and Environment Action Levels to determine the significant effects on water quality during operation phase. Case A has set the criteria for giving significance to impact magnitudes whereas Case B and Case C have contributed only a simple quantified approach without describing the criteria. In Case A, the significance criteria is classified into major, moderate, slight and negligible impact while it is categorized into large, medium and small in Case B.

Review Area 4 – (Overall score C)

The relevant mitigation measures for Case A are adopted from Environment Agency pollution prevention guidance notes. The mitigation measure depends on the potential impact and sensitivity of the receptor. The strategies for mitigation are considered in all three cases but, there is lack of provisions for testing the efficiency of the adopted measures. The consideration of residual effects is generally more acceptable in Case A and Case B as compared to Case C.

The results of research project on discussion of mitigation within EIA (DETR 1997) found that UK practice changed considerably. There was more focus on physical measures instead of operational or management controls and a lack of attention to impacts of construction and to residual impacts after mitigation (Glasson 2005).

Conclusion

Finally, a critical evaluation of impact prediction practice for three EIS was performed. There exists some key variance in identification and assessment process and the most litigious part of EIA process is the determination of significance of environmental effects. The quality of impact prediction, especially the identification and mitigation, is bettering with legislative standards and exercises. However, EIA has been criticised for focusing excessively on impact mitigation, rather than avoiding impacts initially, in particular, through the comprehensive assessment of alternatives (McDonald and Brown, 1995). The lack of scientific asperity, time consuming and cost of the analysis have been recognized as significant problems in prediction practices. Nevertheless, the quality of impact prediction process will improve to a satisfactory level, at a satisfactory rate for it to fulfil its theoretical and practical potential for contributing to the developer and stakeholder maxim of sustainable development.