Participation, presentation and review - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 180

Wrong: As the proposed development will extend below any potential
[archaeological] remains, it should be possible to establish a method of
working which could allow adequate archaeological examinations to take
place.
Right: For each operation an assumption has been made of the type and
number of plant involved. These are:
Demolition: 2 pneumatic breakers, tracked loader
Excavation: backacter excavator, tracked shovel…
The EIS should be specific . Although it is easier and more defensible to claim that an
impact is significant or likely, the resulting EIS will be little more than a vague collection
of possible future trends.
Wrong: The landscape will be protected by the flexibility of the proposed
[monorail] to be positioned and designed to merge in both location and
scale into and with the existing environment.
Right: From these [specified] sections of road, large numbers of proposed
wind turbines would be visible on the skyline, where the towers would
appear as either small or indistinct objects and the movement of rotors
would attract the attention of road users. The change in the scenery caused
by the proposals would constitute a major visual impact, mainly due to the
density of visible wind turbine rotors.
Predicted impacts should be quantified if possible, perhaps with a range, and the use of
non-quantified descriptions, such as severe or minimal, should be explained:
Wrong: The effect on residential properties will be minimal with the
nearest properties…at least 200 m from the closest area of filling.
Right: Without the bypass, traffic in the town centre can be expected to
increase by about 50-75% by the year 2008. With the bypass, however,
the overall reduction to 65-75% of the 1986 level can be achieved.
Even better, predictions should give an indication of the probability that an impact will
occur, and the degree of confidence with which the prediction can be made. In cases of
uncertainty, the EIS should propose worst-case scenarios:
Right. In terms of traffic generation, the “worst case” scenario would be
for 100% usage of the car park… For a more realistic analysis, a
redistribution of 50% has been assumed.
Finally, an EIS should be honest and unbiased . A review of local authorities noted that
“[a] number of respondents felt that the Environmental Statement concentrated too much
on supporting the proposal rather than focusing on its impacts and was therefore not
sufficiently objective” (Kenyan 1991). Ginger & Mohai (1993) suggest that lack of
objectivity is a problem in the US as well, and that EISs are used to justify, not assess,
decisions. Developers cannot be expected to conclude that their projects have such major