An overview of UK practice to date - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 235

above, material assets and cultural heritage.
6. Considers the mitigation of all significant negative impacts.

68 92

7. Mitigation measures include the modification of the project, the
replacement of facilities and the creation of new resources.

60 92

8. There is a non-technical summary, which contains at least a brief
description of the project and environment, the main mitigation
measures and a description of any remaining impacts.

64 80

9. The summary presents the main findings of the assessment and covers
all the main issues raised.

52 72

All criteria 36 44

( Source: DoE 1996.)

Table 8.7 Disaggregated EIS quality based on IAU
criteria (average marks)

Criterion 25 pre-1991 EISs 25 post-1991 EISs

1 . Description of the development C/D C

2. Description of the environment C/D C

3. Scoping, consultation and impact identification D C/D

4. Prediction and evaluation of impacts D C

5. Alternatives E D

6. Mitigation and monitoring C/D C/D

7. Non-technical summary D C/D

8. Organization and presentation of information C/D C

Overall mark D c

% satisfactory (A-C) 36 60

% marginal (C-D) 12 4

% unsatisfactory (D-F) 52 36

( Source: DoE 1996.)

Prenton-Jones for pig and poultry developments (Weston 1996), Radcliff & Edward-
Jones (1995) for clinical waste incinerators and Davison (1992) and Zambellas (1995) for
roads. These studies also broadly suggest that EIS quality is not very good, but
improving.
In terms of disaggregated approaches, Lee & Dancey (1993) analysed 83 EISs and
found 60 per cent to be satisfactory in terms of their description of the development, local
environment and baseline conditions, 36 per cent in terms of identification of key
impacts, 47 per cent in terms of alternatives and mitigation, and 49 per cent in terms of