Identifying and Evaluating Impacts - Mining and the Environment: From Ore to Metal - page 429

An alternative to quantitative modelling is the less formal qualitative approach, which
is based on expert advice, experience drawn from historical and scientii c evidences, or
conceptual models. Professional judgement based on the experience of a single expert
from activities of other mining operations under similar environmental settings is the most
informal method of qualitative impact assessment. From this starting point, formality can
be increased by:
●

substantiating the expert opinion with written or mathematical descriptions of source-
pathway-receptor relationships, and/or supporting the i ndings by reference to histori-
cal and scientii c evidence;

●

relying on a group of experts for their individual opinions and taking a view of their
overall conclusions; or

●

consulting with a group of experts to i nd consensus in some formal structure and
agree on their opinion of likely environmental effects. Joint workshops with mine pro-
ponent, environmental study team, and invited task specialists or community mem-
bers, may provide the best approach to quantifying impacts, and to develop impact
mitigation or enhancement measures.

It would be overly optimistic to expect a single environmental generalist is able to assess all
impacts of a major project, such as a mine development. To understand project activities
that potentially interact with the environment, mining engineers should be involved. If a
river is potentially impacted, inputs from an aquatic biologist or i sh biologist are required.
If resettlement is involved, then an anthropologist or sociologist experienced in resettle-
ment and land use planning will be essential. Involvement of social and community devel-
opment specialists is essential, commencing with project disclosure. Biodiversity specialists
are needed if tropical rainforests or other sensitive habitats may be affected, and so on.
It is generally accepted that a major mining project located in a relatively natural envi-
ronment will require input from a number of specialists on the environmental assessment
team over a period of two years or more while impacts are evaluated and management
measures devised.
Prediction by analogy is where environmental impacts are predicted by direct extrapola-
tion from similar activities at an existing mine site. Conclusions may be adjusted to accom-
modate different conditions at the site of the proposed activity. The analogy between
an existing mine and a new project depends on the extent to which the sites are similar.
Predictions based on comparable experiences are always preferred to estimates with no
basis of direct observations.
Impact prediction, of course, is made easier if the proposed development is an expansion
of an existing mine operation. However, extrapolation of existing impacts still needs care
and understanding, since trends and correlations may not be linear and continuous. The
mine expansion, for example, may reach into new and sensitive watershed areas previously
unaffected by mining, with a new suite of potential changes to the environment.
Direct impacts on plants and animals can be evaluated by comparing areas of habitat
destroyed with total areas of these habitats in the vicinity. In this connection the territories or
ranges occupied by mammal and bird species of concern is also an important consideration.
For most threatened or endangered mammal and bird species, the home ranges occupied by
males, females and/or family groups are well known, as are the habitat requirements. The
requirements of other, less conspicuous species may not have been studied and can only be
assessed by comparison with similar organisms. Indirect impacts are more difi cult to pre-
dict. A case in point is the effect of project operations and the associated noise, vibration,
and lights at night, on wildlife living in nearby areas. Opponents of a project typically claim
that the impacts of these activities cause damage to animal populations well beyond the

It would be overly optimistic to
expect a single environmental
generalist is able to assess all
impacts of a major project.

Predictions based on comparable
experiences are always preferred
to estimates with no basis of
direct observations.