Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

In this article we will discuss about:- 1. Definition of Environmental Impact Assessment 2. Background of EIA 3. Elements 4. Design 5. International EIAs 6. Criticisms 7. Case Studies. 

Definition of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA):

An environmental impact assessment (EIA) is defined as an activity designed to identify and predict the impact on the bio-geophysical environment and on human health and well-being, of legislative proposals, policies, programs, projects, and opera­tional procedures and to interpret and com­municate information about the impacts.

Before going into the details of EIA, the following definitions are essential:

1. Environmental impact statement (EIS) is the resulting public document writ­ten in a format specialised by authorised national, state, and/or local agencies.

2. Environmental inventory is a des­cription of the environment as it exists in an area where a particular proposed action is being considered.

3. Post-construction audit is the study carried out several years or decades later to check the accuracy of the EIA. 

Background of EIA:

Environmental impact assessment was undertaken as early as 1950s in North America, Europe and Japan. It was under­taken to ensure that public health and safety were adequately protected. During early 1960s and early 1970s environmental groups become politically active in many countries and the government was made to accept that citizens organisation should have an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

Since the early 1970s the EIA process began to evolve and the emphasis was on measurable physical factors having stan­dards and codes (like air quality, water qua­lity, solid waste disposal etc.) Gradually, in subsequent years, it included biological and ecological factors, socio-economic factors (employment opportunities, cultural impacts, recreation etc.) and evaluation of class actions (ban of pesticides, lead regulation in gasoline etc.).

The EIA system was welcomed in prin­ciple by scientists, engineers, citizens’ groups etc. However, EIAs have posed problems as they are too long and too technical and do not deal with the environment in a holistic way.

Elements of the Environmental Impact Assess­ment Process:

In the EIA process the first step is to determine whether a project falls within the relevant regulation or act and whether it is likely to create any significant environmental disruption. In such cases, an assessment is undertaken leading to the preparation of an EIS. The EIS would be open for public scruti­ny and may be reviewed.

Ultimately a deci­sion is made at the political level on any one of the following:

1. Accept the development.

2. Accept an amended form of the pro­posed development.

3. Accept an alternative proposal.

4. Reject the development.

Time frames:

The following time frames are covered by EIA:

1. The present (baseline report).

2. The construction phase.

3. The time immediately after the comple­tion of the project.

4. Several decades later.

During construction the disruptions occu­rring are temporary. However, the impacts such as noise, dust etc. may be severe. Larger projects, in some cases, may bring about long term environmental and social changes.

Also, in the distant future, the project may attract secondary industry or there may be a long-term build-up of solid or toxic wastes which will have to be disposed. At the same time, large-scale adverse effects may have adverse effects on the local development (rise in sea level etc.).

Space frame:

The space frame referred to should enclose an area larger than the area proposed in the original plan. It must take into account the downstream effect of effluents discharged into the air and water. Similarly, putting a boundary on socioeconomic impacts may be more difficult. In any case, the area of the project should be bounded in some way; even though arguments may exist that there will be effects over larger regions.

Determination of factors for inclusion:

At the time of assessment the number of factors to be considered in the EIS should be determined. At first the factors to be consi­dered should be reduced to a reasonable number which is referred to as pre-screening or scoping.

The factors selected should con­tain not only those of specialists but also those considered by citizens. Thus, to make the EIS a useful document, the scope of the assessment should be limited to time, space and number of factors.

Weighting Factors:

Once the factors to be included in the EIS have been selected, their future magnitude is to be predicted and a weight system devised to facilitate compari­son of different kinds of impacts. The Delphi method is to be implemented for the estima­tion of weights.

In this method each member of a group of people is asked to rank the importance of various factors on effects. Each person is then advised of the answers of the others and subsequently invited to review or amend his or her own responses and thus a group consensus is achieved.

Design of an Environmental Impact Assess­ment:

Persons, interested in designing an EIA should consult the available references and similar kinds of projects prepared by earlier workers.

In the designing of an EIS, indi­viduals should consider the following list of questions:

Project design and construction:

1. What type of project is being considered?

2. What are the physical domains of the area under consideration?

3. How much time will be required for implementing the project?

4. Is there an irretrievable commitment of land?

5. Is the project a critical phase of a large development?

6. What are the longer-term plans of the proponent?

7. Does the project make optimal use of local workers, renewable resources and other benefits?

8. Will there be serious environmental dis­ruptions during construction?

Project operations:

1. How will hazardous wastes and waste products be handled?

2. What provisions have been made for training employees in environmental pro­tection?

3. What contingency plans have been developed to cope with accidents?

4. What plans have been made for environ­mental monitoring?

5. Will safety equipment be checked regu­larly?

Site characteristics:

1. Is the terrain complex creating difficul­ties in predicting ground water quality, soil characteristics and air pollution transport?

2. Is the site likely to be particularly sus­ceptible to natural disasters?

3. Will the project displace many people?

4. Will the project interfere with the move­ment of migratory animals and aquatic populations?

5. What are the main attributes of the local flora and fauna?

6. Is the local environment suitable for the project?

Institutional and socio-political framework:

1. What are the relevant governmental and intergovernmental regulations and pro­cedures?

2. What are the political factors to be consi­dered?

3. Are the participants in the EIA process clearly identified?

4. What implementation difficulties can be expected during construction and opera­tion of the project?

Possible impacts:

1. What are the possible impacts on the environment for this class of project?

2. Who would be affected by these impacts?

Socio-economic analysis:

1. Who all will gain and who all will lose by the project?

2. What are the trade-offs?

3. Will the project reduce inequalities between occupational, ethnic, gender and age groups?

4. Will it enhance or blend with valuable elements and patterns in the local, national or regional culture?

Alternatives:

1. Could the project proposal be modified to reduce the environmental impacts?

2. Is an alternative site for the same project possible or a different project at the same site?

Availability of information:

1. What are the relevant environmental stan­dards, criteria, objectives and by-laws?

2. Is their information’s of the impact of similar projects?

3. What are the sources of relevant environ­mental data?

4. What are the views about the project proposal by the general public and spe­cialist groups?

Availability of resources:

1. Are there local experts from whom advice and guidelines can be sought with respect to specific impacts?

2. Is there possibility of seeking outside advice from a specialist?

3. Are there any publications that would help in identifying possible impacts for the particular type of project?

After the above factors have been deter­mined, the EIA is essentially complete. The final phase is making the commendation as to whether the project should be accepted, rejected or accepted with modifications, which is the responsibility of the board esta­blished to carry out the public hearings.

International ElAs:

Some actions may sometimes cause envi­ronmental impacts in more than one area or country or in international waters. For exam­ple the industrial and municipal wastes dis­charged into rivers that may pass through several countries, the long-range acid rain, food import and export, global CO₂, climate warming etc.

Moreover, environmental standards may not be uniform across the various jurisdictions involved. Many internationally existing EIAs have had little impact on decision makers because of a lack of under­standing of the ways in which international consensus is achieved. To compound the problem, there frequently is no single decision-­maker. Also, the benefits will accrue to one country and disadvantages to another.

Scientific problems such as questions of risk need to be examined at a global scale. Some of the outcomes (such as CO₂ induced climate warming, EL Nino etc.) are very uncertain and if no action is taken within a particular time period, it may be too late to prevent irreversible trend.

These trends, moreover, may be harmful to some countries and beneficial to another. Thus, a need is felt to form a framework for intergovernmental EIAs, including the development of guide­lines for research priorities.

Criticisms of EIA:

Major objectives of an EIS are the reconci­liation of environment and socioeconomic development. Theoretically the EIA system is a potentially useful component of good environmental management. However, the correctly practiced EIA is far from perfect.

Some of the criticisms and their counter­arguments are given:

1. The EIA system delays projects, particu­larly if there are public hearing and court appeals.

2. The preparation of an EIS is costly.

3. The prediction of EISs are too uncertain.

4. The EIS is a glossy document written to impress or educate citizens’ group.

5. The EIS is prepared too quickly and is not subject to peer review.

Counter-arguments:

1. This applies particularly in jurisdictions where legislative bodies feel strongly about citizens’ rights.

2. Direct and indirect costs are very high but it is only about 0.1% of capital costs. By con­trast engineering and feasibility design stu­dies may cost as much as 10% of capital costs.

3. There is a real need of post construction audits.

4. This is a fair criticism in some cases. However, if a public hearing is planned, the assessor should present the environmental case as objectively as possible, seeking to avoid jargon.

5. As the EIS concept develops, increasing num­bers of EIS of improved quality should result.

Case Studies on EIA:

I. Case Study 1:

Atmospheric component of an EIA for a Coal- fired Power Station:

For preparing the atmospheric compo­nent of an EIA the illustration of a coal-fired power station is taken as an example. Three possible sites have been put forward. The example given here will give an idea of the factors involved for a non-specialist in the field as atmospheric assessments should be undertaken by specialists.

Phase I:

Information gathering:

Various types of information will be required for beginning the assessment as given:

1. Engineering design characteristics

2. Site characteristics (topography, proxi­mity to water bodies etc.)

3. Federal and state regulations

4. Meteorological data

5. Air quality data.

Phase II:

Defining the issue:

The atmos­pheric related impacts are:

1. Air pollution

2. Acidic deposition

3. Climatic impacts

4. Noise

5. Ecological effects of high-voltage trans­mission lines

6. Safety considerations

7. Impairment of the natural beauty of the area

8. Possible impacts of long-term climate change.

Phase III:

Defining the meso-climate:

Meso-climate refers to variations in climate that occur over distances of 10 to 100 kms. Power stations are generally built in river valleys, along coasts or in urban areas. The meteorology of the area needs careful atten­tion.

The causes of high ground-level concentrations downwind of a tall chimney in the area should be identified, such as:

1. Limited mining of air near ground level due to a temperature inversion

2. Strong and steady winds

3. Fumigation due to the breakup of night time radiation inversions and of inver­sions due to daytime coastal sea breezes (if the site is near a sea)

4. Light-wind strong daytime convective looping.

Where current meteorological informa­tion is clearly deficient, field studies should be undertaken during periods likely to be associated with high ground-level pollution concentrations.

Phase IV:

Estimating the ground-level pollution concentration field:

Prior to the construction of the new power station it is essential as a first step to estimate the back­ground concentration fields. If existing infor­mation are inadequate then 2-3 additional monitoring stations should be established. The next step is to diffuse the plume rise and downwind dispersion through appropriate calculations.

Finally the predicted concentra­tions are compared with the air quality stan­dards mandated for the region. If it exceeds the standard then the planned emission will need to be reduced or the location will have to be dropped from the list of possible sites.

Phase V:

Analysis of other atmospheric impacts:

1. Acid deposition:

Acid deposition is likely to be an issue, although a single power station con­tributes negligible fraction (1% or less) of the wet deposition falling on the sur­rounding countryside.

2. Climate impacts:

Climate impacts are not likely to be sig­nificant in the case of coal-fired power stations.

3. Noise:

Only during construction.

4. Safety considerations:

Safety considerations dealt with only in the engineering section of an EIA.

5. Long-term climate change:

Long-term climate change is an issue of increasing importance, particularly at public hearings.

Application of these ideas to the pro­posed station:

The application of the above ideas to the proposed power station will be helpful to identify the air pollution situations of most interest at each of the following pro­posed sites:

Site 1:

Open coastal site:

1. Daytime sea-breeze fumigations in spring and summer

2. Light-wind daytime convective looping

3. Strong and persistently steady winds.

Site 2:

In a Valley:

1. Limited mixing of air at the valley floor

2. Morning fumigation

3. Cross-valley strong-wind downwash.

Site 3:

Near a tidal flat within a built-up area:

1. Daytime sea-breeze fumigations in spring and summer

2. Aerodynamic downwash around tall apartment buildings

3. Strong and persistently strong winds.

II. Case Study 2:

Land development projects – probable impact categories:

Land Economy:

Public fiscal balance

Employment

Wealth

Natural Environment:

Air quality

Water quality

Noise

Wildlife and vegetation

Natural disasters

Public and Private services:

Housing

Water supplies

Sewage

Police and crime

Public transport

Motor vehicle movements

Municipal council-wastes

Energy services

Shopping centres

Hospital services and care

Fire protection

Recreational facilities

Aesthetic and cultural values:

Attractiveness

View opportunities

Landmarks

Social impacts:

People displacements

Special hazards

Sociability/Friendliness

Privacy

Ethnic/Racial groupings

Normally physical impacts attract oppo­sition on the visual quality of a landscape, the pollution and disturbance of the ecology of the area and the effect of new infrastruc­ture on human activities.