Environmental Impact Assessment for the Forth Replacement Crossing Project - Case Study Example

Environmental Impact Assessment For The Forth Replacement Crossing Project Name: Instructor: Course: Institution: Date: Critical Analysis of the FRC’s Environmental Statement Introduction The FRC is a project proposed by the Scotland Transport Agency as part of the road infrastructure. The project is founded on the perceived uncertainty in connection with the viability of the Forth Road Bridge that connects the Scotland’s transport network. The FRC is not meant to complement the Forth Road Bridge by allowing passage of private and heavy goods traffic. Emergency vehicles will be in a position to choose the route that best addresses their needs. The Forth Road Bridge will be open for pedestrians, cyclists, buses, and taxis as usual (FRC Team, 2009). The FRC project is already in progress and expected to be ready for use this year, 2016 (Transport Scotland, 2016). The FRC team submitted their proposal and environmental statement to the relevant authorities and had the project approved. The Requirements of an Environmental Statement In an environmental statement to be considered, there are various elements that must be addressed, particularly with regard to environmental impacts. Every project has its positive and negative impacts. While most projects are likely getting approved as part of the development process of a given region, at times the negative environmental impacts may outweigh the benefits thus leading to the disapproval. According to the Friends of the Earth (2005), there are important elements that need to be considered when drawing an environmental statement: Identification of alternatives, scoping, a consideration of the effects against the baseline conditions, and consultation. In formatting the environmental statement, the description of the project is critical and includes the physical characteristics and the land-use prerequisites, essential attributes of the production processes and, an estimate of the emissions and residues estimated. The emissions may include water, noise, air, vibration, radiation, heat, noise, light and any other kind of pollution (Friends of the Earth, 2005). The effects of the proposed project on the environment may be direct or indirect; short-term, medium and long-term; temporary and permanent; secondary; cumulative; and positive and negative effects. These effects may emerge as outcomes of the project’s existence, usage of the natural resources, or emission of pollutants in the course of specific processes (Friends of the Earth, 2005). The applicant should be cautious in drawing the environmental statement so that to avoid the omission of significant sections that could lead to disapproval. Any environmental statement that will be submitted from this year onwards has to adhere to the amendments that were passed by the EU legislative. These include an integration of topics on biodiversity, human health, land, disasters and accidents, efficiency in the utilization of the natural resources and, climate change (Fothergill, 2014). Other amendments entail the monitory process of the projects proposed, the definition of EIA and cumulative effects and, specifications of expertise requirements in designing the EIA report authorizing the development (Fothergill, 2014).. The FRC Environmental Statement The FRC environmental statement was drawn in the year 2009 before the proposal of the aforementioned amendments to the requirements of an environmental statement. Its overview depicts a comprehensive consideration of the various elements included in the current EU environmental directive under which it was assessed and approved. The statement commences with a brief description of the proposed project and a diagrammatic representation of the same. It then delves into the EIA, identifies the need for the project and the objectives and then provides a description of the alternatives. The statement integrates consultation and scoping as per the requirements by the EU legislative. The impacts described in the statements are categorized under various elements, including land use; water environment; cultural heritage; terrestrial and freshwater ecology; air quality; noise and vibrations; effects of pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, and the community; disruptions during the construction; effects on vehicle travelers and, cumulative impact assessment, among others (FRC Team, 2009). The statement also gives a directive to those who may have a reason to object to the construction of the FRC. There are also details on the accessibility of the environmental statement for those who may need it. Strengths of the FRC Environmental Statement The FRC statement has focused on the major details needed for a comprehensive environmental statement. The team has substantively addressed the various elements of the environment as per the requirements of the EU legislative. The statement depicts that the team had undertaken a research whose findings reinforced the need for the FRC. Of all the options considered, the feasibility of the FRC construction is founded on the need to enhance the durability of the Forth Road Bridge which is currently the main route for travelers and traffic (FRC Team, 2009). The statement describes the impacts of the proposed project in various sections, a factor that enhances its credibility. As part of the baseline conditions, the FRC Team reports that the Forth Road Bridge and the existing road network would continue serving the public in case the FRC project is disapproved. The FRC Team also reports that several disruptive repairs will be required for the Forth Road Bridge if the FRC project is rejected (FRC Team, 2009). These two arguments strengthen the proposal as the assessors of the environmental statement get the view that the team involved is attentive to various aspects. Objectivity is a major attribute that emerges in the FRC Team’s presentation of the environmental statement. The European Commission (2015) argues that there is a need for such objectivity as it reduces the chances for a conflict of interest. The scoping and consultation process also present a major strength as it depicts the engagement of the public and the community as key stakeholders. With the input from the major stakeholders, the environmental statement depicts that the proposal is not only meant to benefit the FRC Team but also the community at large. Integration of knowledge from the community members and experts enables the developers to come up with ways of mitigating the risks likely to be incurred. Incorporation of the feedback from various stakeholders also informs the decision-makers and provides the assessors with a foundation for either approving or disapproving the proposal. The Fabian Society (2013) argues that the local community should be included in drawing proposals for development projects as resistance may emerge where such stakeholders are ignored. The surveys undertaken also informed the FRC Team about the existence of various species of birds, some of which are protected by the EU legislative (FRC Team, 2009). Such information is critical in devising strategies for mitigating the nuisances that may cause disruption and eventual loss of such species. Inclusion of climatic changes in connection with the implementation of the FRC project is a major step in strengthening the environmental statement. Climatic considerations are not included in the current EU environmental directive. However, it is included as part of the 2016 EIA amendments. This implies that the FRC Team was very cautious in identifying the impacts of the proposed project. The FRC Team argues that the proposed project fails to align with the requirements of the Climate Change Scotland Act 2009 which targets a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 42%. The team also reports that it is not possible to prevent the emission of carbon dioxide and, therefore, there is a need to offset it through greater reductions of the same emissions elsewhere in Scotland (FRC Team, 2009). The team anticipates that the project will result in 0.16% of the carbon dioxide emitted in the entire Scotland transport sector. Weaknesses of the FRC Environmental Statement Though the FRC environmental statement is commendable in the way it has presented various environmental issues, both positive and negative, there are some aspects that require improvement. The EU legislative requires an environmental statement to provide estimates of the pollution anticipated in connection with a given project (Friends of the Earth, 2005). Other than the data on carbon dioxide emissions, the FRC Team has ignored this requirement and has overused the term ‘not significant.’ There is a need to offer statistics even when the quantities are deemed insignificant. For instance, the FRC Team reports that the proposed project will increase air pollution in some areas. There are no statistics on which one can judge the significance or insignificance of the pollution caused. The types of pollutants are included in the report, but the quantities have been omitted. Omission of the quantities creates the perception that the FRC Team only focuses on the approval of the project while the negative effects of the proposed project could be great. Secondly, the FRC Team tends to ignore some information probably with the hope that one may comprehend about such and get the answer. For instance, when presenting the information on the visual effects of the project, the team reports that the visual problems likely to be caused by the proposed project will be reduced through the implementation of the proposed landscape mitigation (FRC Team, 2009). One would expect that not all the landscape adjustment would provide a solution to visual problems. As such, the team could have listed the most significant of the proposed landscape mitigation which would be helpful under the visual sub-topic. Third, the FRC Team presents a possibility of reducing some emissions through the FRC construction. However, the reduction is connected with the undertakings of the car manufacturers who are making efforts in producing fuel-efficient vehicles and built-in technologies. The team is not clear about how emissions are likely to reduce during the FRC construction and its feasibility raises questions. It would have been better to exclude the possibilities of reducing emissions where the explanation appears vague. The only explanation that seems applicable in reducing emissions, such as CO2, is the one where traffic congestion will reduce after completion of the FRC. The FRC Team claims that traffic congestion increases CO2 emissions through additional distance. The Effects of the New EIA Regulations The new EIA regulations will affect the design of the environmental statement in various ways. If the FRC Team was to revise the statement to cater for the amendments, there are various elements that they would include and which were not required during the time of their proposal. The effects of a proposed project on human health, land, and biodiversity would be added. Again, the environmental statement would have to take note of risks and disasters likely to emerge in the course of executing the project, and devise risk and disaster management strategies. Again, the cumulative effects would integrate the environmental impacts associated with the use of natural resources. The process of monitoring the project and mitigating negative impacts would also be described in the environmental statement (Fothergill, 2014). This would mean that the environmental statement of the FRC would be more diverse than it appears. While climatic changes have readily been included in the FRC’s environmental statement, there are some of its elements that would appear more relevant than the ones described in the current statement. Conclusion An environmental statement should address various elements associated with positive and negative impacts of a proposed project on the environment. The FRC environmental statement presented in the year 2009 was comprehensive and adhered to the various elements as stipulated by the EU environmental legislation of the time. The statement had its strengths and weaknesses in the way it was designed. The objectivity of the FRC Team contributed to the strength of the statement as the team did not lean to one side, but presented both the positives and negatives of the project without emphasizing any of the elements. Consultation of the key stakeholders is also a major strength of the statement as it provided the assessors with insights that could inform the approval or disapproval of the project. A major weakness of the statement was the omission of relevant statistics that could enable one to perceive the impacts as significant or not significant as per the claims of the FRC Team. Secondly, the team presented mitigation strategies for some impacts in a general manner. Third, the possibility of reducing emissions through FRC construction is not explained in a clear manner. Eventually, if the FRC environmental statement was designed with a focus on the current amendments, there are elements that would be added, such as the impacts on human health, land, and biodiversity, among others. Bibliography European Commission, 2015. Review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive [online]. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/review.htm [Accessed 29 January 2016]. Fabian Society, 2013. The public and practical politics of major development projects: Rebalancing community risk and reward [online]. Available at http://www.fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/infrastructure_research_summary.pdf [Accessed 29 January 2016]. Fothergill, J. (2014). Built to assess impacts. p.16-18 FRC Team (2009). Environmental statement non technical summary [online]. Transport Scotland, Scottish Government. Available at http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/rrd_reports/uploaded_reports/j11351/j11351-01.pdf Friends of the Earth, 2005. Environmental impact assessment (EIA); a campaigner’s guide [online]. Available at https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/environmental_impact_asses1.pdf Transport Scotland, 2016. Forth Replacement Crossing [online]. Available at http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/project/forth-replacement-crossing [Accessed 29 January 2016]. Read More