Participation, presentation and review - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 184

• assess the validity and accuracy of information contained in the EIS;
• quickly become familiar with the proposed project and consider whether additional
information is needed;
• assess the significance of the project's environmental effects;
• evaluate the need for mitigation and monitoring of environmental impacts; and
• advise on whether a project should be allowed to proceed (Tomlinson 1989).

Lee & Colley (1990) developed a hierarchical review framework. At the top of the
hierarchy is a comprehensive mark (A=well-performed and complete, through to F=very
unsatisfactory) for the entire report. This mark is based on marks given to four broad sub-
headings: description of the development, local environment and baseline conditions;
identification and evaluation of key impacts; alternatives and mitigation of impacts; and
communication of results. Each of these, in turn, is based on two further layers of
increasingly specific topics or questions. Lee and Colley's criteria have been used either
directly or in a modified form (e.g. by the IEMA) to review a range of EISs in the UK. It
is the most commonly used review method in the UK. Appendix 3 gives the Lee &
Colley framework.
The European Commission has also published review criteria (CEC 2001a). These are
similar to Lee & Colley's, but use seven sub-headings instead of four, include a longer
list of specific questions, and judge the information based on relevance to the project
context and importance for decision-making as well as presence/absence in the EIS.
The review criteria given in Appendix 4 are an amalgamation and extension of Lee
and Colley's and the EC's criteria, developed by the Impacts Assessment Unit at Oxford
Brookes University. See also Rodriguez-Bachiller with Glasson (2003) for an expert
system approach to EIS review. It is unlikely that any EIS will fulfil all the criteria.
Similarly, some criteria may not apply to all projects. However, they should act as a
checklist of good practice for both those preparing and those reviewing EISs. Table 6.5
shows a number of possible ways of using these criteria. Example (a), which relates to
minimum requirements, amplifies the presence or otherwise of key information. Example
(b) includes a simple grading, which could be on the A-F scale used by Lee and Colley,
for each criterion (only one of which is shown here). Example (c) takes the format of the
EC criteria, which appraise the relevance of the information and then judge whether it is
complete, adequate (not complete but need not prevent decision-making from
proceeding) or inadequate for decision-making.
Table 6.5 Examples of possible uses for EIS review
criteria

(a)

Criterion Presence/absence

(page number)

Information Key information

absent

Describes the proposed
development, including its
design, and size or scale

Location (in plans),
existing operations,
access

Working method,
vehicle movements,
restoration plans

(p. 5)

Indicates the physical
presence of the

X Site buildings

(location, size),