Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

ISSN: 1461-5517 (Print) 1471-5465 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap20

Application of mitigation and its resolution within

environmental impact assessment: an industrial
perspective

Ross Marshall

To cite this article: Ross Marshall (2001) Application of mitigation and its resolution within
environmental impact assessment: an industrial perspective, Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal, 19:3, 195-204, DOI: 10.3152/147154601781767050

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154601781767050

Published online: 20 Feb 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7460

View related articles

Citing articles: 15 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tiap20
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal , volume 19, number 3, September 2001, pages 195–204, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, UK
Mitigation in EIA
Application of mitigation and its resolution
within environmental impact assessment: an
industrial perspective
Ross Marshall
Mitigation represents any process, activity or ac-
tion designed to avoid, reduce or remedy signifi-
cant adverse environmental effects likely to be
caused by a developmental project. In concept it
is an integral regulatory procedure within all
international interpretations of environmental
impact assessment (EIA), and the applicant’s
inclusion of mitigation has become a material
part of the UK planning process. This article
seeks to set out the conceptual approach adopted
by ScottishPower’s Power Systems business, a
UK electrical transmission and distribution com-
pany, to the identification of mitigation within
EIA. The paper also identifies those factors per-
ceived by the company to be critical to mitigation
resolution during the EIA process.
Keywords: environmental impact assessment; development
projects; mitigation
Ross Marshall is Environment Manager, Power Systems, Scot-
tishPower, New Alderston House, Dove Wynd, Strathclyde
Business Park, Bellshill, Scotland, ML4 3AD, UK; Tel: +44
1698 413272; E-mail: ross.marshall@scottishpower.com.
The contents of this paper were presented in summary as a
session paper originally during the IAIA 2000 Back to the Fu-
ture conference, Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre,
19–23 June. A close version of this abstract was published
within the latter proceedings of that conference. The details in
this paper originate partially from a PhD thesis (Marshall, 2000).
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2001
ITIGATION IS AN INTEGRAL regula-
M tory procedure in all international interpre-
tations of environmental impact assessment
(EIA), and the applicant’s inclusion of mitigation is
a material component of the UK’s land-use planning
process, but to what extent do we understand the
role of mitigation in EIA and its application in
current practice?
ScottishPower’s Power Systems business is one
of the UK’s leading electricity transmission and dis-
tribution companies; subject to strict regulatory con-
trol and service requirements it has constantly to
update and maintain its electrical networks to ensure
levels of supply and demand. It is expected that at
least 200 new overhead line supply projects will be
required each year; between two and four of these
schemes will be major projects and subject to EIA
requirement.
These major projects often bring the company
into confrontation with the very people whose
electricity supply it seeks to guarantee. In practice,
EIA for linear electrical infrastructure projects is an
intricate process, requiring a balance to be struck
between statutory obligations, engineering require-
ments, economic viability, land use and the
environment.
In application, mitigation should result in either
the total avoidance of an anticipated effect, its
reduction to an acceptable level of impact or its
remediation. Mitigation will be practised in or sur-
rounding the site of development. It will affect the
development, its construction and operation, and in
specific cases its products and processes.
Outside a duty upon UK statutory electricity
1461-5517/01/030195-10 US$08.00  IAIA 2001 195
Mitigation in industrial EIA
licence holders under the Electricity Act 1989 when
formulating relevant proposals ‘to mitigate’ adverse
effect, few other articles of UK environmental or
planning legislation contain direct reference to the
term. Nevertheless, it is a term recognised by all en-
vironmental and planning professionals associated
with EIA and is a concept commonly applied during
land-use planning.
This paper examines a basic concept at the heart
of the EIA process and how Power Systems, an in-
dustrial practitioner, has developed conceptual
frameworks to strengthen mitigation practice within
its operational decision-making. The paper does not
seek to provide a description of site-specific mitiga-
tion measures applied during development, but
rather an outline of the concepts and frameworks by
which ScottishPower develops mitigation strategy
and resolves conflict arising during formal EIA
process.
Conceptual origins of mitigation within EIA
Deriving from within the US National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 1969), the con-
cept of mitigation has become a central component
in the European Community’s model of EIA. How-
ever, the term ‘mitigation’ does not appear in any of
the UK’s EIA regulations, nor is the expression used
in the English translation of the parent legislation,
EU Directive 97/11 (the EIA Directive). Where sig-
nificant adverse effects are identified through EIA,
the UK’s regulations require the applicant to propose
measures “to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy”
such effects.
Mitigation represents any process, action, sched-
ule, or control designed to avoid, reduce, or remedy
significant adverse environmental effects likely to be
caused by a developmental project. The legislative
terminology that relates to the requirement for, and
role of, mitigation in UK EIA practice takes up just
18 words, however the concept of mitigation spans
the entire EIA process and methodology. Through
good environmental design and the application of
effective mitigation, applicants accord with one of
the primary objectives and aspirations of EIA — to
consider the adverse environmental effects of devel-
opment before construction, and to prevent degrada-
tion of the local environment.
Several authors and organisations have com-
mented previously on the purpose of mitigation in
EIA (CIRIA, 1994; Glasson et al, 1994; Petts and
Eduljee, 1994; Weston, 1997), or have sought to
provide generic examples of how it can be applied in
practice (Fortlage, 1990; Morris and Therivel, 1995).
Others have observed that mitigation involved no
more than the application of sound construction
techniques (Jakimchuk et al, 1985; Moncrieff et al,
1985; Spencer, 1985). However, few have been as
forthright as Munro (Munro et al, 1986) who stated
that:
196
“The most important result of an Environ-
mental Impact Assessment, unless it leads to
the cancellation of the project is the design and
implementation of measures to mitigate adverse
environmental effects of the project.”
If interpreted in these terms, the perceived objective
of any major development should be the absence or
reduction of all significant adverse effects.
A brief anthology of published UK governmental
guidance on mitigation is contained in the public a-
tion Mitigation Measures in Environmental State-
ments (DETR, 1997). This research project into the
treatment of mitigation in EIA defined mitigation as:
“any measures which are incorporated into the
design or implementation of a development
project for the purpose of avoiding, reducing,
remedying or compensating for its adverse en-
vironmental impacts. It may also include meas-
ures to create environmental benefits.”
Reflecting the UK’s experience of EIA, the
researchers are optimistic in their findings that dev-
elopers actively consider mitigation during EIA and
that consideration is being given to the most opti-
mum phase of mitigation application. However,
concern was raised regarding:
• the restricted range of options for mitigation con-
sidered in most environmental statements (ESs);
• lack of consideration of strategic, location or
process alternatives;
• the focus of attention on physical measures rather
than on operational or management controls;
• lack of attention to mitigation of the construction
phase of projects;
• imprecise descriptions and unclear undertakings
on the part of the developer; and
• the attention given to the residual impacts of pro-
jects after mitigation, leaving uncertainty about
whether a significant impact would still occur.
The authors suggested that there was scope for im-
provement in the treatment of mitigation in ESs and
value in provision of best-practice guidance to pro-
mote greater consideration of the full range of possi-
ble physical and management mitigation measures
throughout the design process. Although the
DETR’s research attempts to set out a framework for
mitigation, it provides little detail on how this is to
be applied in practice by developers.
Interpretation of mitigation
In the UK, the town and country planning system
controls not only the use of the land but also the de-
sign and form of the built environment. It is a so-
phisticated anticipatory process, and plays a central
role in environmental policy because of its powers in
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2001

relation to the location and siting of development.
Several authors have pointed out that proposed
developments are always in the ‘wrong’ place and
many have no right place (O’Hare et al, 1983;
Winter and Conner, 1978). In theory, an EIA could
identify such extreme adverse effects that abandon-
ment or complete redesign of the proposed devel-
opment is the only effective mitigating measure.
However, in reality, no environmental ES presented
by an applicant is likely to propose such a radical
step.
In the framework of the UK’s increasingly adver-
sarial land-use planning system, a developer is well
advised to pay close attention to mitigation when
seeking to minimise conflict with stakeholders.
Whilst the avoidance of effect through strategic sit-
ing, design or developmental control will eliminate
potential areas of conflict, where effect is unavoid-
able, a developer can only adopt strategies that
reduce or remediate the significance of the residual
effect.
No specific methodology for mitigation applic a-
tion is contained in the existing legislative base for
EIA, and in most ESs mitigation is simply presented
as a colle ction of design and construction proposals.
However, Power Systems views the process of mit i-
gation as one of the central aspects of EIA and a key
area that rewards careful consideration when pro-
moting new electrical transmission and distribution
infrastructure.
Mitigation in EIA practice
EIA is a sophisticated risk assessment process, of
which the ultimate aim is the identification of likely
adverse effects associated with development, and
their mitigation. In this context, ‘adverse effect’ can
be defined as an effect perceived by the developer or
by stakeholders to cause destruction or deterioration
to an environmental parameter affected by the
development, either directly or indirectly. In
practice, the potential for adverse effect arising is
conditional on three related components:
• the source of the effect (for instance, noise-
emitting equipment, a toxicant, a tall structure);
• the receptor (that is, the environmental entity
likely to be adversely affected); and
• the pathway (the route by which a receptor could
be exposed to the effect).
Adverse effect can only occur when all three
components are simultaneously present in the
PATHWAY
SOURCE RECEPTOR
Figure 1. Source–receptor pathway
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2001
Mitigation in industrial EIA
The potential for adverse effect arising
is conditional on three related
components: source (for instance,
noise-emitting equipment); receptor
(the entity likely to be affected); and
pathway (the route by which a
receptor could be exposed to the effect)
surrounding environment, as is demonstrated in
Figure 1.
From this model it can be concluded that the spe-
cific role of any mitigation measure is to prevent or
minimise the formation of the source–receptor
pathway. If linkage cannot be established, adverse
effect cannot occur, and thus mitigation will be ei-
ther ineffective or superfluous. This approach,
commonly applied in contaminated land manage-
ment, has been called either a source-approach or an
effects-approach (Morel, 1996).
The specific actions envisaged as mitigation by
the EIA practitioner give structure to what can be
termed the ‘mitigation form’. These actions may be
directed against the proposed development, its pro-
cesses, the end product of its processes, the by-
products of the process, or even the structure or
essence of the development.
However, mitigation strategies require two
additional components in their execution and
performance:
• the phase of the project or timing when mitigation
is applied — its ‘implementation phase’; and
• ‘how to do it’ or the means by which the action
envisaged is to be enacted — the ‘methodology’.
In practice, all mitigation proposals will be a combi-
nation of all three aspects, for instance, the planting
of a woodland (the methodology) along the western
perimeter during construction (implementation
phase) to act as a future visual screen (mitigation
form) to local residents.
Mitigation form
eg avoidance
Implementation phase
eg design
reduction construction
remediation commissioning
follow up
operation
decommissioning
restoration,
Methodology afteruse/af tercare
eg pre-determination
strategic alternatives
physical design measures
project management
measures
communication
Figure 2. Mitigation triangle
197
Mitigation in industrial EIA

All mitigation measures proposed by Power Sys-
tems in its ESs are required to consider this close
inter-linkage, and the concept is referred to in-house
as the ‘mitigation triangle’ (Figure 2). A prerequisite
for any proposed mitigation measure is that it must
consider all three aspects, as effectiveness in situ
will be dependent on the optimum selection from all
three component options by the EIA project
manager (Marshall, 2000).
The EIA Directive recognises three distinct cat-
egories of mitigation measure: those that completely
‘avoid/prevent’ effect; those that ‘reduce’ an antic i-
pated effect from an envisaged maximum; and those
that ‘remedy/offset’ the residual outcome of devel-
opmental effect. The EIA Directive thus sets out a
clearly defined framework for the application of
what constitutes mitigation. Each of the three classes
is capable of forming a basic test as to whether the
applicant, in respect of significant adverse effects,
can demonstrate a lessening in environmental effect.
Importance of consultation with stakeholders
Since the introduction of EIA into the UK, Power
Systems has attached great importance and com-
mitment to consultation with those parties that have
a statutory right to consultation and with those
stakeholders whose interests are likely to be af-
fected. There is no requirement for widespread
consultation within the provisions of the EIA
Regulations nor the Electricity Act 1989, however,
the company believes that a formal and on-going
consultation process assists all parties to identify the
likely impacts, and then to discuss the options pro-
posed to mitigate significant adverse impacts (Mar-
shall and Baxter, 2001).
Development of a preferred mitigation option
When discussing or defending developmental pro-
posals contained in a particular application for
developmental consent, Power Systems is often
requested by stakeholders to justify and support the
logic for a particular mitigation option. In doing so,
it became apparent that EIA-accompanied projects
were assisted where the company had already exam-
ined two important attributes:
• how the ‘significance of effect’ had been deter-
mined in the EIA process, that is, the trigger
for mitigation requirement under the EU’s EIA
Directive, and
• what were the practical grounds that rendered any
proposed mit igation measure ‘feasible’.
To assist Power Systems’ EIA project managers to
identify impact sig nificance and to select feasible
mitigation options, the following framework was
developed for use. In practice, it is believed that any
procedure for establishing an appropriate impact-
specific mitigation option would have to include at
least the steps outlined in Table 1.
The framework outlined in Table 1 does not seek
to give a prescriptive route to the establishment of a
preferred mitigation option. Work by other practi-
tioners constantly demonstrates the value in a cyclic
ongoing assessment of environmental effect, and it
is stressed to project managers that no EIA proce-
dure should be prescriptive in its application when
the project data on which it is based is subject to
change or amendment.
Instead, recognition is given to how mitigation
options must logically be developed from the initial
baseline and impact assessments of the EIA process

Table 1. Identifying significant adverse effect and development of a preferred mitigation response

Stage Description

1. Catalogue of potential effects Identification of potential developmental, operational and ancillary activity effects on
environmental parameters
⇓
2. Evaluation of ‘adverse’ effect Subjective assessment of likely effects
⇓ Identification of those effects likely to be regarded as adverse in terms of the human
and natural environments
3. Identification of ‘significant adverse e ffect’ Review of predicted consequences
⇓ Assessment of those effects likely to be regarded as significant adverse effects
4. Identification of ‘mitigation potential’ Identification of mitigation alternatives
⇓ Evaluation of design and likely management controls over mitigation implementation or
management
Review of the potential environmental, social and economic consequences of each
mitigation alternative in terms of spatial and temporal dimensions
5. Selection of ‘preferred mitigation option’ Establishment of mitigation proposal suitability
⇓ Evaluation of implementation in the local environment effects on capacity, resilience
and resources
6. Methodology establishment Establishment of objectives/targets for preferred mitigation proposal
Establishment of a predefined course of implementation

198 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2001


(stages 1–3) and how a preferred mitigation option
should develop within the cycle of EIA assessment
and consultation (stages 4–6). In addition, whilst a
logical mitigation option may often readily present
itself, the EIA project manager is warned to give
detailed consideration to all aspects of the design
process as it develops, their myriad environmental
effects, and the possibility for future conflict with
the first-choice mitigation option as the EIA process
progresses.
The following sections examine in detail each of
the individual stages outlined in Table 1.
Stage 1: Catalogue of potential effects
Anticipation of likely developmental impact path-
ways and the identification of all negative and posi-
tive environmental effects. This approach accords
with the regulatory requirement for evaluation of the
“the aspects of the environment likely to be signif i-
cantly affected by the development (Schedule 4.3)”
(HMSO, 1999).
Stage 2: Evaluation of adverse effect
The identification of perceived adversity, according
with the requirement of the EIA Regulations that
where “a description of the measures envisaged to
prevent, reduce and where possible offset any sig-
nificant adverse effects on the environment (Sched-
ule 4.5)” (HMSO, 1999) is required.
The assessment of whether the likely effects of a
development on existing environmental resources
are adverse or positive will be a matter of profes-
sional judgement. The question to be asked by the
EIA project manager and his consultants is whether
the essential characteristics of the existing envi-
ronment, and its environmental parameters, are
strengthened or weakened as a result of the pre-
dicted changes brought about if the development
proceeds.
Stage 3: Identification of ‘significant adverse effect’
This stage of the assessment process seeks to draws
a distinction between those effects which are ‘sig-
nificantly adverse’ in terms of the EIA Regulations
and those that are merely ‘adverse’ or of material
consideration within the planning process. The ques-
tion as to what is, or is not, a significant adverse ef-
fect has been accepted by other commentators as one
of the most difficult areas of EIA to define (Fortlage,
1990) and it is often inevitable that developmental
impact significance will reflect the anthropocentric
bias of EIA. Assessing significance is perceived by
Power Systems to be a three-stage process:
• selecting the criteria against which effects will be
assessed (the assessment criteria);
• establishing thresholds of significance (signif i-
cance thresholds); and
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2001
Mitigation in industrial EIA
Table 2. Factors influencing mitigation selection
Technical and administrative restrictions
Engineers preference
Previously taken design decisions
Adopted environmental standards
Implementation costs
Legal requirements
Operational guarantees
Public and consultee concerns
• comparing effect characteristics with the thresh-
olds for each criterion.
Specific EIA topics of assessment, such as air qual-
ity and noise, have established international or
national guidelines or legislative criteria which may
be used to identify threshold values for signif icance
determination. However, for more subjective envi-
ronmental parameters, such as visual effect or amen-
ity, significance assessment is often more difficult.
In such circumstances, effect has to be measured
using a combination of quantitative and qualitative
criteria.
This approach necessarily involves the use of pro-
fessional judgement, based on criteria that are often
applied on a case-by-case basis. An important com-
ponent of the in-house EIA process is ensuring that
the reporting of significance criteria throughout
the ES follows a standard template across all
environmental parameters, a template that is easily
understood by stakeholders and decision-makers.
Stage 4: Identification of mitigation potential
The identification of potential mitigation options
accords with the “description of the measures envis-
aged to … (Schedule 4.5)” (HMSO, 1999) required
within an ES. Ideally these options should reflect a
basic hierarchy of mitigation, that is, the preference
of avoidance strategies over remedial solutions, and
should encompass consideration of anticipated ad-
verse effect across all potential life-cycle phases of
development.
An important component of the in-
house EIA process is ensuring that the
reporting of significance criteria
follows a standard template across all
environmental parameters, a template
that is easily understood by
stakeholders and decision-makers
199
Mitigation in industrial EIA
Stage 5: Selection of preferred mitigation option
The decision to select a particular mitigation option
is often based on the information previously gath-
ered. In EIA, mitigation preference is often not a
matter of any one mitigation option being ‘right’ and
the others being ‘wrong’, rather that choice has often
to be made on the specificity of a proposed option to
a developmental effect on the local environment.
Factors perceived to influence decision-making
processes are outlined in Table 2.
Stage 6: Methodology establishment
The final consideration involves the establishment of
detailed implementation criteria for the selected
mitigation option, as it is without doubt to a devel-
oper’s advantage if reasonable objectives and targets
for the proposed measure can be established. A
perceived fault in many of the ESs examined is that
mitigation options are often selected because they
appeared to present the most appealing solution at
the outset; latter assessment and final analysis is
then ‘back-filled’ to support this earlier decision.
Framework for the resolution of mitigation
The methodology outlined above has been used to
assist ScottishPower establish a preferred mitigation
in response to signif icant adverse effect. However,
in practice any mitigation proposal is of limited
value if at first it runs contrary to the preferred
solutions of stakeholders or the decision-making
body (DMB), that is, local planning authorities, gov-
ernment agencies or the Secretary of State.
Few researchers and EIA publications have
sought to guide applicants and EIA practitioners on
‘how conflicts or issues regarding mitigation can be
resolved between parties in the EIA process’. The
lack of such guidance in EIA literature and its ab-
sence from governmental guidance, against the
background of what is increasingly an adversarial
planning system for large-scale development, re-
flects an apparent area of weakness in existing UK
EIA methodologies.
The ES for an overhead transmission line or grid
substation will be scrutinised by a variety of inter-
ested parties, and the information it contains will
influence subsequent opinions and ultimately the
decisions made by stakeholders regarding the desir-
ability of the proposal. Power Systems perceives that
objective and qualified mitigation statements regard-
ing performance or design can be important attrib-
utes that make the information contained in the ES
useful to the reviewer. In more cryptic terms,
‘usefulness’ must ultimately be associated with
‘relevance’ on the basis that any information re-
garding mitigation will not be relevant to an ES
reader unless it is useful for their decision-making
purposes.
200
In seeking to establish and develop a useful
framework to assist EIA project managers resolve
mitigation proposals with interested parties, consid-
eration has been given to what parameters are likely
to be of greatest importance in resolving mitigation.
Seven distinct attributes have been identified. Each
one is believed to be critical to the process. The at-
tributes, or mitigation tests, take note of the earlier
US experience gained in legal challenges to the EIA
process, but are generally specific to the European
model of EIA.
The seven tests are:
• specificity to the predicted effect;
• feasibility;
• significance of effect;
• effectiveness;
• proposal conformity;
• verification; and
• enforceability.
Specificity to the predicted effect
Legal challenge in the USA to developmental pro-
posals has established that an essential link, or
‘nexus’, must be evident between the mitigation
proposal and the effect it addresses (Herson, 1986).
This rule si also applicable in the context of the
UK’s concept of planning materiality and in the
wording of the EA and EIA regulations. Unless the
link between adverse effects and mitigation propos-
als can be demonstrated, measures which do not di-
rectly attend to the avoidance, reduction or
remediation of an envisaged effect must be
considered as compensation or enhancement, or as
inappropriate proposals for mitigation. Any signif i-
cant aspects of development that remain unmitigated
may subsequently form the justification for refusal
by a DMB.
Feasibility
The issue of feasibility has been considered
previously as an aspect to be considered in the sele c-
tion of a preferred mitigation option. In practice,
mitigation measures must be tested in terms of
their:
• operational feasibility: whether the proposed solu-
tion will work;
• technical feasibility: the practicality of a specific
technical solution and the availability of technical
resources and expertise;
• programme feasibility: whether the proposed im-
plementation or establishment timetable for a pro-
posed solution is acceptable after consideration of
the operational life of the development; and
• economic feasibility: whether the proposal is
likely to be cost-effective in relationship to the
perceived environmental value of the aspect
mitigated.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2001

Significance of effect (to the stakeholder)
The domination of an EIA by a small number of fac-
tors whose importance is regarded as significantly
greater than other attributes, termed ‘issue attention’
by Downs (1972) is a recognised concept amongst
EIA practitioners. It is the perceived significance of
such issues that results in initial opposition by deci-
sion-makers and stakeholders to a development pro-
posal. Regardless of their true environmental effect,
these issues may polarise parties over the perceived
environmental consequences. An essential factor in
the final analysis of a development will thus be the
degree to which mitigation resolves such issues and
minimises controversy.
Evaluation is thus directed at testing the extent to
which a mitigation option has a positive impact on
factors of concern to stakeholders and the DMB.
Effectiveness
Effectiveness in respect of EIA and land-use plan-
ning can be deemed to encompass the extent to
which mitigation as a whole, and its component
mitigation strategies, achieves the objective of
avoiding, reducing or remedying significant adverse
effect. Although a DMB is likely to be concerned
about the significance of an adverse effect, the im-
portance of a predicted effect in terms of, for exam-
ple, a legal standard, may determine the basic degree
of mitigation and the level of effectiveness required.
A mistake, perceived in many reviewed ESs, is an
apparent failure by applicants to state clearly what
the effectiveness of mitigation is likely to be. Often
the applicant’s assumption is only that mitigation
will be successful. Evidence may be required to
demonstrate this point in the ES.
Thus the basic parameter tested is the degree of
proof that allows a decision to be made concerning
whether mitigation will reduce effects to ‘less than
significant’ levels.
In addition, the effectiveness of mitigation pro-
posals involving landscaping, habitat creation and
soil remediation may take several years to achieve.
In such cases it should be stated in the ES that
mitigation will not be immediately effective and a
timeframe for mitigation effectiveness predicted.
Proposal conformity
Advantage accrues when mitigation is free of con-
troversy, especially where negative environmental
aspects are nullified in the face of public or political
opposition. Conformity of opinion between the re-
spective parties is harder to achieve when the likely
effectiveness of the proposed measure is associated
with uncertainty. In many cases, the provision of
conclusive proof of mitigation effectiveness may
only be proven many years after implementation of
the measure, for instance, in the extent of screening
provided through landscaping.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2001
Mitigation in industrial EIA
Participation in dialogue with stakeholders per-
mits the start of mitigation consideration during the
earliest stages of project design, while sensitivity in
the consideration of socio-economic, visual or
conservation mitigation may offset opposition and
develop a greater degree of conformity in those par-
ties willing to support the scheme. However, assess-
ing the future consequences of development is by
necessity a value-laden process.
In testing this attribute, predictions of adverse ef-
fect and the resulting mitigation effectiveness (as
stated in the ES or in dialogue with stakeholders)
have to be made against the backdrop of current val-
ues and beliefs. Each step in the EIA and planning
process demands the exercise of professionalism and
objective judgement by either the EIA project man-
ager, his consultants or the DMB, and it is in the
exercise of this judgement that opposing views may
render charges of bias. Proposal conformity is
greatly assisted where a developer promotes a posi-
tive dialogue with the stakeholders involved, and
sets out clearly and objectively the thought pro-
cesses, justification and effectiveness of a proposed
mitigation option in practice.
Verification
EIA is a predictive tool, thus, by default, proposals
concerning mitigation are submitted in advance of
their in-situ evaluation. On occasions, situations will
arise for which true effect data are unobtainable, the
significance of residual effect is uncertain, mitiga-
tion cannot be resolved, or statements regarding
likely effectiveness cannot be substantiated. In an
extension of the test for proposal conformity, where
doubts remain in the minds of stakeholders or the
DMB as to the effectiveness of mit igation proposals,
the mitigation option is tested against EIA follow-up
practices that could deliver the required data or justi-
fication for the mitigation option choice.
The UK’s Town and Country Planning system
provides, in some circumstances, for the principle of
a development to be agreed, subject to certain
detailed matters left for subsequent approval. In such
circumstances, unresolved issues concerning the ve-
racity of the proposal and the means of its verific a-
tion have to be resolved through detailed follow-up
proposals in the ES outlining:
• systematic monitoring strategies of effect against
agreed parameters;
• the range of options open to the applicant; or
• a ‘precautionary approach’ by which it is intended
to address the issue.
Only measures developed during the assessment
process, or that represent realistic worst-case ap-
proaches, can be truly appropr iate to the developer at
this point. No DMB would wish to set reliance on
future technology or yet-to-be-determined condi-
tions. It is in the applicant’s interest to provide
201
Mitigation in industrial EIA
information that will assist the DMB in coming to a
conclusion that the mitigation strategy pr oposed is
sufficiently durable.
Durability in these circumstances will relate to the
extent that the strategy proposed would continue to
be effective over the time period that the significant
adverse effect is likely to exist or occur. For many
technical mitigation options, the durability of the
action will be a measure of the extent to which it
will continue to be effective in meeting the purpose
for which it was proposed. Verification should thus
take into account normal maintenance, repair, or re-
calibration requirements.
Enforceability
An apparent contradiction of the UK’s planning
process is that, although an ES may be a regulatory
requirement in support of the application for devel-
opment, there is no statutory requirement for mitiga-
tion measures outlined in the ES to be implemented.
No further action is legally required unless the miti-
gation measures proposed are clearly identified as
consenting conditions or are clearly marked within
the site plans approved by the DMB.
This is of particular concern to stakeholders
where the inclusion of the proposed mitigation
measures may have influenced their final decision
regarding the acceptability of the entire develop-
ment. The UK’s EIA Regulations, mirroring those of
the EC Directive, only require applicants to identify
what mitigation is envisaged as possible or desirable
in response to identified significant adverse effects.
The point of note is that information pertaining to
mitigation provided in the original application or
accompanying documentation, such as the ES, is not
part of the consent or planning permission unless it
is expressly incorporated into it by the respective
DMB. The onus is apparently on the DMB to in-
clude those aspects of mit igation that are considered
appropriate and effective to the amelioration of ad-
verse effect, in the wording or documentation asso-
ciated with planning permission or consent.
Only through these means is the DMB provided
with a clear legal mandate for declaring that the de-
velopment is not in accordance with the consent if
the applicant subsequently ignores those aspects of
The onus is apparently on the decision-
making body to include those aspects
of mitigation that are considered
appropriate and effective to the
amelioration of adverse effect, in the
wording or documentation associated
with planning permission or consent
202
mitigation. The importance of this fact is not often
clearly spelt out within associated UK planning
guidance.
In seeking to develop EIA best practice, espe-
cially for proponents such as Power Systems who
have a statutory responsibility to maintain and re-
develop their ele ctrical systems, there is a necessity
that mitigation measures stated in the ES and
accepted as material considerations by the decision-
making body are implemented. The company is
aware that advantage lies in clearly stating in the ES
exactly what measures will be imple mented, the
company’s commitment to these actions and their
agreement to the setting of specific consent condi-
tions. This develops trust between the company, the
DMB and stakeholders that mitigation linkage to the
final development occurs.
In situations in which uncertainty still exists re-
garding the final approach to mitigation, that is, in
the form and structure of buildings as yet undeter-
mined, or the precise design of oil containment tanks
or reservoirs. Project engineers are encouraged to
consult and work through design principles with
stakeholders, and to present scheme plans that can
be submitted and approved in writing by the DMB
prior to the commencement of construction.
Increasing advantage has also been made of envi-
ronmental management plans (EMPs) incorporated
through the company’s ISO 14001 compliant envi-
ronmental management system (Marshall, 2001;
Marshall et al, 2001). The strategy is to demonstrate
openly that mitigation proposals are bound into
the management structure, and will be taken for-
ward into the construction or operational life of the
development.
Resolving mitigation in practice
EIA as both a regulatory process and an anticipatory
impact assessment methodology is becoming in-
creasingly complex, it is also increasingly difficult
for the proponents to achieve business objectives
without some degree of stakeholders’ concern or
conflict. In seeking to examine the conceptual basis
of mitigation and to set frameworks that explore the
development of mitigation options and the resolution
of mitigation during consultation during the EIA
process, Power Systems has attempted to ensure that
its in-house EIA project managers and engineers are
aware of how mitigation strategies can be strength-
ened and developed as concise, defendable but envi-
ronmentally sympathetic proposals.
Figure 3 sets out to link the concepts developed in
Figure 1 with the tests attributes discussed above.
The strategy outlined will not be applicable for all
mitigation scenarios, and whilst considerate of the
sensitivity with which adverse effects should be
ameliorated, does not demand a slavish following of
the identified princ iples, rather an awareness by the
practitioner that individual aspects may need to be
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2001

applied on a case-by-case or impact-by-impact basis
dependent on the specific nature of the development.
The framework has adopted a hierarchical ap-
proach to the resolution of each of the attributes, as
they are perceived to occur during the EIA process.
However, at each level, the EIA project manager is
able to revie w specific aspects of mitigation per-
formance and resolve whether to proceed further
into the framework or to reassess earlier assumptions
or strategies.
References
CIRIA, Construction Industry Research and Information Associa-
tion (1994), CIRIA Special Publication No. 96: Environmental
Assessment (CIRIA , Thomas Telford Associates , London).
DETR, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Re-
gions (1997), Mitigation Measures in Environmental State-
ments (HMSO, London).
A Downs (1972), “Up and down with ecology: the ‘issue attention
cycle’”, The Public Interest, 28, pages 38–50.
C Fortlage (1990), Environmental Assessment - A Practical Guide
(Gower Technical, Aldershot).
J Glasson, R Therivel and A Chadwick (1994), “Introduction to
environmental assessment — principles and procedures,
process, practice and prospects”, The Natural and Built Envi-
ronment, Series no 1 (UCL Press Limited, London).
A Herson (1986), “Project mitigation revisited: most courts ap-
prove findings of no significant impact justified by mitigation”,
Ecology Law Quarterly, 13, pages 51–72.
HMSO (1999), The Town & Country Planning (Environmental
Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999,
Statutory instrument 1999 No. 293 (HMSO, London).
R D Jakimchuk, C D Schick, L G Sopuck and Y R Olyn (1985),
Follow-up to Environmental Assessments for Selected Pr o-
jects in Canada, Report to Federal Environmental Review
Office, Hull, Quebec.
R Marshall (2000), The Concept and Role of Mitigation in Envi-
ronmental Impact Assessment, with particular reference to
Scottish Legislation and Practice, PhD thesis, University of
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2001
Mitigation in industrial EIA
Strathclyde Library, February.
R Marshall (2001), “Mitigation linkage — EIA follow up through
the application of environmental management plans in trans-
mission construction projects”, paper presented at the 21st
Conference of the International Association for Impact
Assessment, Cartagena, Columbia, 29 May–1 June.
R Marshall and R Baxter (2001), “Routeing and EIA for overhead
transmission lines”, paper presented at the 21st Conferenc e of
the International Association for Impact Assessment, Cart-
agena, Columbia, 29 May–1 June.
R Marshall, N Smith and R Wright (2001), “A new challenge for
industry: integrating EIA within operational EMS”, paper pre-
sented at the 21st Conference of the International Association
for Impact Assessment, Cartagena, Columbia, 29 May–1
June.
I Moncrieff, L Torrens, and E Mackintosh (1985), An Environ-
mental Performance Audit for Selected Pipeline Projects in
Southern Ontario, Report to Environment Canada, Hull,
Quebec.
S A Morel (1996), “Success of EIA in preventing, mitigating and
compensating negative environmental impacts of projects in
Commission for Environmental Impact Assessment”,
Environmental Impact Assessment in the Netherlands:
Experiences and Views Presented by and to the Commission
for EIA (Commission for Environmental Impact Assessment,
Utrecht).
P Morris and R Therivel (1995), Methods of Environmental Impact
Assessment (UCL Press Ltd, London).
D A Munro, T J Bryant, and A Matte-Baker (1986), “Learning from
experience: a state of the art review and evaluation of env i-
ronmental impact assessment audits”, a background paper
prepared for the Canadian Environmental Assessment
Research Council, Ministry of Supply and Service Canada.
NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act (1969), Pub. L. 91-190,
42 U.S.C. 4321-4327, 1 January 1970.
M O’Hare, L Bacow, and D Sanderson (1983), Facility Siting and
Public Opposition (Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New
York).
J Petts and G Eduljee (1994), Environmental Impact As sessment
for Waste Treatment and Disposal Facilities (J Wiley and
Sons, Chichester).
R B Spencer (1985), “Shakwak follow up investigation”, report to
Environment Canada, Hull, Quebec.
J Weston (editor) (1997), Planning and Environmental Impact
Assessment i n Practice (Addison Wesley Longman Ltd, UK).
J Winter and D Conner (1978), Power Plant Siting (Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, London).
203
 Catalogue of
Potential Effects

Proposed Mitigation Measure

Initial mitigation proposal development

Evaluation of
'Adverse' Effect
Review of Mitigation Feedback
Review Design and
Proposal Management Parameters
Identification of
'Significant No
Adverse Effect'
Significance of Effect
Does the proposed measure reduce the predicted
No
effect to a level less than significant?
Re-assess
Identification of
Effectiveness Criteria
'Mitigation No or Timing of
Yes Potential' Effectiveness of Measure
Consider Performance Criteria
Can the measures be shown to be demonstrably
effective?
Specificity of Measure Re-assess Design
Is the proposed measure specific to Set Effectiveness
Yes No
the predicted adverse effect? Criteria or Timing
Consider Yes Consider
Reassess Criteria
Selection of Proposal Conformity
Mitigation Does the proposed option have all party agreement?
Aims and No 'Preferred
Objectives Mitigation Option'
No
Consider
Feasibility
Can the proposed measure be Methodology Verification of Mitigation
Yes Can the Conclusions regarding efficacy be verified at a
accomplished in a successful manner Establishment future date? Consider Set in Place EIA
within a reasonable timeframe?
Follow-Up (e.g.
No Monitoring & Audit)
Schedule

Rank as 'Significant Enforceability of Measure

Has a valid commitment been made to ensure
Adverse Effect' within ES implementation?
Consider
or discard Option
Set Planning or
Mitigation Resolution Section Consents

Figure 3. Framework for the resolution of mitigation proposals