PLAGIARISM FREE WRITING SERVICE
We accept
MONEY BACK GUARANTEE
100%
QUALITY

A Critical Analysis Of Impact Prediction Methods Environmental Sciences Essay

As the growth of urbanization increased year by season, this brings about environmental degradations and pollutants. The rapid expansion offers much adverse influences to the environment, particularly water. This work contributes to a detailed analysis and evaluation of EIA process by examining impact prediction procedures upon water quality of three different development proposals in UK in last couple of years. It reviews the assertions 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 idea is quite clear but that its practice continues to be alternatively misty.

Introduction

Environmental impact examination (EIA) is one of the main tools established to reduce an anthropogenic effect on the environment. The main motive is to spell it out the environmental results (both negative and positive) of development proposals and thereby prevent, reduce and offset any contrary impacts. EIA is a participatory process hired to recognize and measure the probable environmental results of development proposals to be able to facilitate informed decision-making and sustainable development (Glasson et al. , 1999; Morgan, 1998; Sadler, 1996).

EIA can be explained as "an activity where information about environmentally friendly effects of a project is accumulated, both by the programmer and from other resources, and taken into account by the relevant decision-making body before a choice is given on whether the development is going ahead. "

This paper will a critical overview of the one environmental element - water quality diagnosis of three Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). A crucial research of the impact prediction practice was performed in every the three EIS. The impact prediction level includes four phases:

Impact Identification

Impact Assessment

Significance evaluation

Mitigation

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

Berkley Nuclear Electric power Station, 2007

Barrow Offshore Windfarm, 2002

Edinburgh Air port Rail Link, 2005

Impacts on water

Impacts on drinking water quality and variety have to be evaluated in both fresh normal water and marine environment. It results from substance, natural and thermal air pollution. Quality and volume can be influenced by erosion and siltation. Increase or reduction in surface drinking water and grunt normal water flows and availableness, changes in floor water level, flood risks, and risks of drought include volume impacts. Consequential effects include drinking water logging and or salination of agricultural land, damage to benthic kinds or wetland ecosystem, and other results on ecology and human being health, like the creation of mating sites for mosquitoes and other disease providers (Lee and George, 2000).

Any EIA involves three key stages. The first stage (preliminary analysis) requires the identification and collection of relevant information, to create screening. In this step the decision is made on whether an EIA is necessary for the job. If an EIA is necessary, then your second stage starts. The second level, called scoping identifies what constitutes relevant information to be identified and assessed with respect to key influences of the suggested development. The results from scoping process are reported to the relevant decision-makers within an 'environmental impact assertion' (EIS). The final stage comprises the review of the EIS and its own adequacy as a basis for the experienced/approving authority to make the decision on 'development conditions'.

The prep of competent environmental impact assertion (EIS) is a necessary part of an environmental impact evaluation (EIA) process. This article provides guidance on the key components of the EIS. One of the most complicated part of EIA process as well as the most important is the recognition of potential influences of suggested activity. This article is focused on the recognition of the most frequent potential impacts of any hydropower dam and a bridge structure and use. Impacts on physical, natural, and socioeconomic environments are determined as well as some mitigation steps which can decrease negative effects.

Legislation

European Legislation

In the earlier days, European Union (European union) Directives highly relevant to environment aspect (water) of EIAs have been focused on quality goals for getting waters and source founded controls. Due to the disadvantages determined on these strategies, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (EC 2000), which models out a timetable for both preliminary transposition into regulations of Member Areas and then for the execution of essentials. It subsequently adopted two princess directives at Western level. The first one aimed at protecting ground drinking 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 highly relevant to water diagnosis in England and Wales include: - Drinking water Resources Work (1991) which aimed at protection of amount and quality of normal water resources and aquatic habitats and Water Take action (2003) which strengthens the EA's talents for the ecological management of normal water resources. The insurance plan responsibility for the execution of WFD in UK is on Defra and the Developed Administrations where almost all of the work has been carried out by the competent government bodies of Environment Protection Agencies.

Policy and Guidance

The coverage on normal water quality of UK government includes declaration of selected and handled waters, Water Quality Targets, River Quality Targets and Sensitive Areas. The EA's insurance policy on ground drinking water pollution control (EA 1998b, 2007b) strains prevention by release managing and by guarding vulnerable aquifers and earth drinking water abstraction sites (Morris 2009).

Methodology

The methodology was developed to systematically evaluate and contrast the impact prediction stages of normal water quality analysis in three different EIS's. That is based on methodological approach and hierarchical structure of the Lee and Colley EIS Review Offer (Lee et al. , 1999).

Water Impact Diagnosis is an activity of evaluating influences on water amount 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 Drinking water Quality) which can measure the impact prediction process of three EIS's. The construction for IPRCWQ is developed from an intensive review of books on drinking water quality diagnosis of Water Platform Directive 2000/EC on security of water against air pollution and the Princess Directive 2007/EC with an goal on guarding groundwater. The National Legislation included are Normal water Resources Act (1999) and Water Take action (2003) for Britain and Wales with an aim of strengthening and guarding quality of water resources in UK; Competent Regulators 2008. Environment Safeguard Agencies; Planning Coverage Assertion 25 - development and overflow risk (PPS25); DETR 1998; Groundwater pollution control (EA 1998, 2007); Internal Drainage Panel (IDB).

The four review areas are chosen and review conditions is developed for every single review area grounded on the Lee and Colley review program (1992). The foundation of IPRCWQ review criterion is a typical conception how a great air quality assessment would be performed of every stage. The review areas are Impact Id; Impact Assessment; Relevance Evaluation; and Mitigation. Each review requirements is assessed and given a standard report and then graded on Evaluation Grades (A-F) based on the table below and predicated on the quality of impact prediction, each EIS is given an overall score.

Table 1: Assessment Grades

Grade

Explanation

A

Excellent evaluation quality

B

Generally acceptable with minimal shortcomings

C

Parts are well performed but some shortcomings

D

Fairly acceptable

E

Below satisfactory levels

F

Very unsatisfactory

Impact Identification

It combines the project characteristics and baseline environmental features to ensure that possibly significant environmental impacts are revealed. This stage is divided into criteria of effects of project on drinking water quality, difference between project phases, popularity of influences from each stage and baseline characteristics. The checklists are made to ensure that, all potential areas are considered and a structural strategy is provided for figuring out key effects (Harrop 1999). The major sources of impurities and pathways by which they reach the receptor are to be determined. That's, a source-pathway-receptor is to be demonstrated. The potential impacts like increase in surface runoff change in stream velocities, erosion, increased overflow risk and level and attentiveness of pollutants have to be identified in various stages of the task.

Impact Assessment

Quantitative measurements must permit the assessment of water quality and variety effects from a proposed development. The grade of drinking water can be evaluated by chemical, natural and aesthetic methods which require a variety of factors and techniques. The decision of analysis method differs for every circumstance as it depends on the task involved (Morris 2009). The diagnosis can be carried out by using mathematical and computer-based models. The review criteria used in checklist focuses on prediction of the magnitude of influences, quantification of this impact magnitude, indirect impacts quantification and nature of public participation.

Significance Evaluation

Impact magnitude and the sensitivity and value of receptors are the ones that will depend on impact significance. It's important to determine the relative significance of impacts to inform decision makers if the impacts may be looked at appropriate and the expectations include magnitude and probability of the impact, it's spatial and momentary extent, the worthiness of the damaged environment and level of public concern (Glasson 2005). The conditions found in the checklist strains on influences on damaged community, mother nature of impact and approach to examining the impact.

Mitigation

There are several laws which aim to avoid, reduce, and solution the likely adverse activities that could arise consequently of the proposed task. The activities recommended must get rid problems in the foreseeable future. Some actions related to water impact issues are control runoff, increase capacity and/or sewage treatment level, reduce ground compaction and erosion and use sustainable metropolitan drainage systems. The mitigation process is split into construction level and operation level. The concern of mitigation measures at various levels, magnitude to which mitigation methods are effective and awareness of residual results will be the criterion found in the checklist.

Results

The EIS picked are from different time frame which really helps to create a comparability of how it has improved during this period. The percentage of three EISs in their entirety that were graded as adequate (i. e. , those acquiring a grade of an, B or C) and unsatisfactory (i. e. , those getting a class of D, E or F) is summarized in Table 1.

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

Case A - Berkley Nuclear Electric power Station (2007)

Case B - Barrow Offshore Breeze farm (2002)

Case C - Edinburgh International airport Rail Hyperlink (2005)

Impact Identification - Review Area 1 (Grade)

Project explanation and effects on environment

A

B

C

Distinct stages of the project

B

B

C

Identification of effects from each phase

C

C

D

Impacts from non-standard operating conditions

C

C

D

Description of baseline studies

B

B

B

Impact Diagnosis - Review Area 2 (Level)

Prediction of the magnitude of impacts

B

B

D

Quantification of impact magnitude

A

B

C

Indirect impact quantification

D

D

E

Nature of general population involvement

B

C

D

Significance Evaluation - Review Area 3 (Level)

Impact significance on community

B

B

C

Nature of impact

C

C

C

Method of assessing significance

B

C

D

Mitigation - Review Area 4 (Class)

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 - Class B Overall

Case B - Grade C Overall

Case C - Grade D Overall

Individual Score

Impact Id - Level B Overall

Impact Evaluation - Level C Overall

Significance Analysis - Grade C Overall

Mitigation - Quality C Overall

Discussion

Review Area 1 - (Overall credit score B)

In Case A, the development stage is divided into parts of construction phase and operation phase. They have identified the effects on surface normal water quality and pollutants from those stages and also focused on consequences because of this development. This is almost similar in the event B but, in the event C the resources of air pollution and the likely results produced on receptors aren't clearly brought up. The influences from non-standard operating conditions and influences identified from particular phases are poorly regarded. Almost 46% of EIS considered the effects from non-standard operating conditions (Lee and Colley, 1992).

Review Area 2 - (Overall report C)

Case A and Circumstance B are suffering from a standard qualitative examination on water pollutants emitted during construction phase. As per PPS25, Case A undertaken Flood Risk Assessment for trends in regions of overflow risk and building is manufactured at an elevation of 10m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum). The details about development activities created by Circumstance C are not satisfactory. The analysis principally covers influences during the works period (i. e. engineering and procedure), as it offers the greatest potential for influences on surface waters.

Case A has assessed the effects during procedure at degrees of local, local and ecologically substantive receptors where Circumstance C monitors only the neighborhood outcomes in the delicate areas. Circumstance A obtained this inflatable water quality information presented by Environment Agency for surface water features inside a 5km radius of the website and defined how to manage the liquid throw away on the operation phase. The reference point made by Case B about the analysis on work phase procedure is nebulous and the uncertainties in carrying out the assessment are not mentioned.

Review Area 3 - (Overall report C)

Every potential impact desired for detailed assessment is first assessed with respect to impact magnitude standards, and then its magnitude is known as together with lots of other issues to determine its value. The analysis of impact value had not been performed in the event A and Circumstance B because the development effects and drinking water quality influences were studied as not significant, as both these are local and temporary in nature. It had been primarily a subject of professional judgement but, in Case C the significance evaluation is not properly stated at work phase construction.

Case A utilizes Environment Quality Requirements and Environment Action Levels to look for the significant effects on drinking water quality during operation phase. Circumstance A has set the standards for giving significance to impact magnitudes whereas Circumstance B and Case C have added only a straightforward quantified methodology without talking about the criteria. In Case A, the importance criteria is categorized into major, average, little and negligible impact although it is grouped into large, medium and small in Case B.

Review Area 4 - (Overall rating C)

The relevant mitigation steps for Case A are used from Environment Company pollution prevention advice records. The mitigation measure depends on the potential impact and sensitivity of the receptor. The strategies for mitigation are believed in all three cases but, there exists lack of procedures for evaluating the efficiency of the followed measures. The factor of residual results is normally more acceptable in Case A and Case B as compared to Case C.

The results of research study on conversation of mitigation within EIA (DETR 1997) found that UK practice evolved considerably. There was more concentrate on physical measures instead of functional or management adjustments and a lack of attention to influences of construction and also to residual influences after mitigation (Glasson 2005).

Conclusion

Finally, a critical analysis of impact prediction practice for three EIS was performed. There is some key variance in id and examination process and the most litigious part of EIA process is the determination of need for environmental effects. The quality of impact prediction, especially the id and mitigation, is bettering with legislative standards and exercises. However, EIA has been criticised for focusing excessively on impact mitigation, alternatively than avoiding influences initially, in particular, through the complete examination of alternatives (McDonald and Dark brown, 1995). Having less scientific asperity, frustrating and cost of the analysis have been recognized as significant problems in prediction routines. Nevertheless, the quality of impact prediction process will improve to a satisfactory level, at a satisfactory rate for it to fulfil its theoretical and sensible potential for contributing to the designer and stakeholder maxim of lasting development.

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
PLACE AN ORDER
Check the price
for your assignment
FREE