Environmental Impact Assessment On High Way Hazards

ABSTRACT

The roads and highway projects are lifeline of any country. They are also important for the building the nation and are mirror of country’s development. However, most of these road and highway projects on account of their location, route alignment and associated activities are invariably accompanied by significant environmental and social impacts during different phases (viz., Pre-construction, Construction and Operational phase) of the project. The nature of these impacts could be either positive or negative depending upon their potential to favourably or adversely affect the surrounding environment and also the resident community. While favourably viewing the positive impacts on the environment and community, it is also imperative to develop an appropriate and sound Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and execute it on the field/impacted area of the project to minimise and mitigate various adverse environmental and social impacts. In view of their significant environmental implications, roads and highway projects have been brought under the purview of the EIA Notification dated Sept. 14^th, 2006 requiring “Environmental Clearance” (EC) either from Central Government (i.e., Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) (Category ‘A’ Project) or at State Level from State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) (Category ‘B’ Project) if they meet certain conditions specified under the EIA Notification. As per the requirement of EIA, the project has to follow specified procedures which amongst other requirements also include conducting “Public Consultation” including “Public Hearing” to include and incorporate views of various stakeholders into decision making process. The EIA ensures that various Acts, Rules and Regulations for preservation, conservation and management of the environment along with R & R (Resettlement & Rehabilitation) issue are appropriately taken care of in the suggested EMP. Recently, the role of EIA of Roads and Highways have become more important as Central Government is undertaking widening and upgrading of various National Highways throughout the country under the different phases of National Highway Development Programme (NHDP). The present paper briefly describes provisions and procedure for carrying out EIA for the Roads and highways along with the EMP for mitigating various negative environmental impacts during different phases of the project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER PAGE

TITLE PAGE

APPROVAL PAGE

DEDICATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ABSTRACT

CHAPTER ONE

1.0      INTRODUCTION

1.1      BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

1.2      PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

1.3     OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1.4  ADVANTAGES OF THE STUDY

1.5     BENEFITS OF THE STUDY

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

• THE HIGHWAYS (ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS) REGULATIONS 1994
• HIGHWAYS (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2007

2.3     OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

CHAPTER THREE

3.0     METHODOLOGY

3.1      ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF ROADS

3.2      AIR QUALITY

3.3     NEGATIVE IMPACTS

3.4    NOISE

3.5     NEGATIVE IMPACTS

3.6     POSITIVE IMPACTS

3.7     DESCRIPTION OF HAZARD

3.8     TYPES OF HAZARD

3.9    CLASSIFYING HAZARDS

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0       ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) PROCESS

4.1       COSTS OF AN ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ACCESSMENT

4.2       INTERNATIONAL TRENDS IN ROAD TRAFFIC INJURY CONTROL

4.3       BLACKSPOTS AND QUALITY OF ROADS

4.4       SAFE DRIVING TIPS

CHAPTER FIVE

5.1     SUMMARY

5.2     CONCLUSION

5.3     REFERENCES

CHAPTER ONE

• INTRODUCTION

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure ensures that the potential environmental impacts of project are identified, assessed, managed and reduced to acceptable levels before consent is given by the regulatory authority. We firmly believe that this is a process which, when integrated into our business, should identify and minimize the potential environmental impact of the proposed development. The Environmental Statement (ES) used to support the consent application records the EIA process that Mainstream has undertaken.

The EU EIA Directive requires that the direct and indirect effects of the project on the following factors are assessed:

• human beings, fauna and flora;
• soil, water, air, climate and the landscape;
• material assets and the cultural heritage;

Consultation is a crucial and ongoing element of the EIA process. The public can give its opinion and all results are taken into account in the authorization procedure of the project.

1.2                                           BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Environmental Assessment is covered by European Council Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

This directive is implemented in Highways Agency Projects through Section 105A of the Highways Act 1980 as amended by the The Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1994 and by the Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999 as amended by the Highways (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007.

1.3                                                PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This guidance note (GN) serves to provide general reference for practitioners to prepare Road Traffic Noise Impact Assessment (RTNIA) for designated projects (DPs) under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO).

This GN is advisory in nature and is designed to facilitate the practitioners to prepare the RTNIA. It should not be construed in anyway as to supersede the relevant requirements in the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM). The principles set out in the EIAO-TM are to avoid (which should be given the highest priority) and minimize the potential adverse environmental impacts by alternative land use arrangements, alignments, siting and other measures, and should be followed when preparing the RTNIA.

This GN may be updated and supplemented by other advice from the Environmental Protection Department from time to time to take into account changing circumstances.

1.3                                              OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

• ensuring environmental factors are considered in the decision-making process
• ensuring that possible adverse environmental impacts are identified and avoided or minimized
• informing the public about the proposal

1.4                                            ADVANTAGES OF THE STUDY

• facilitates the design of a monitoring programme
• allows people to examine the underlying need for a project
• gives people the opportunity to identify problems
• helps a developer to design a more publicly acceptable project
• exploration of alternatives can help identify cost-saving and other beneficial changes

According to a United Nations Environment Program Training Resource Manual the main advantages and benefits of EIA are:

• improved project design/siting;
• more informed decision-making;
• more environmentally sensitive decisions;
• increased accountability and transparency during the development process;
• improved integration of projects into their environmental and social setting;
• reduced environmental damage;
• more effective projects in terms of meeting their financial and/or socio-economic objectives; and
• a positive contribution toward achieving sustainability.

1.5                                                BENEFITS OF THE STUDY

The benefits of EIA can be direct, such as the improved design or location of a project, or indirect, such as better quality EIA work or raised environmental awareness of the personnel involved in the project. In these cases, there will be with flow-on effects in their future work. As mentioned above, these potential gains from EIA increase the earlier the process is applied in the design process.

In general the benefits of EIA include:

• Better environmental planning and design of a proposal. Carrying out an EIA entails an analysis of alternatives in the design and location of projects. This can result in the selection of an improved technology, which lowers waste outputs or an environmentally optimum location for a project. A well-designed project can minimize risks and impacts on the environment and people, and thereby avoid associated costs of remedial treatment or compensation for damage.
• Ensuring compliance with environmental standards. Compliance with environmental standards reduces damage to the environment and disruption to communities. It also avoids the likelihood of penalties, fines and loss of trust and credibility.
• Savings in capital and operating costs. EIA can avoid the undue costs of unanticipated impacts. These can escalate if environmental problems have not been considered from the start of proposal design and require rectification later. An ‘anticipate and avoid’ approach is much cheaper than ‘react and cure’. Generally, changes which must be made late in the project cycle are the most expensive.
• Reduced time and costs of approvals of development applications. If all environmental concerns have been taken into account properly before submission for project approval, then it is unlikely that delays will occur as a result of decision-makers asking for additional information or alterations to mitigation measures. Increased project acceptance by the public.

This is achieved by an open and transparent EIA process, with provision of opportunities for public involvement of people who are most directly affected by and interested in the proposal, in an appropriate way that suits their needs

CHAPTER FIVE

5.1                                                             SUMMARY

This Second Edition of Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies covers basic concepts and important methodologies. It details the prediction and assessment of impacts on soil and groundwater management, surface water management, biological environment, air environment, the impact of noise on the environment, and of socio-economic and human health impacts. This new edition contains an additional chapter on environmental risk assessment and risk management, a chapter on the application of remote sensing and GIS in EIA and a chapter with EIA case studies. Written clearly and concisely, it presents the fundamentals of EIA and how to apply these in practice. This volume is intended for a global audience of advanced students and practitioners in environmental management and planning.

5.2                                                           CONCLUSION

As per Jay et al., EIA is used as a decision aiding tool rather than decision making tool. There is growing dissent about them as their influence on decisions is limited. Improved training for practitioners, guidance on best practice and continuing research have all been proposed.

EIAs have been criticized for excessively limiting their scope in space and time. No accepted procedure exists for determining such boundaries. The boundary refers to ‘the spatial and temporal boundary of the proposal’s effects’. This boundary is determined by the applicant and the lead assessor, but in practice, almost all EIAs address only direct and immediate on-site effects.

Development causes both direct and indirect effects. Consumption of goods and services, production, use and disposal of building materials and machinery, additional land use for activities of manufacturing and services, mining and refining, etc., all have environmental impacts. The indirect effects of development can be much higher than the direct effects examined by an EIA. Proposals such as airports or shipyards cause wide-ranging national and international effects, which should be covered in EIAs.

Broadening the scope of EIA can benefit the conservation of threatened species. Instead of concentrating on the project site, some EIAs employed a habitat-based approach that focused on much broader relationships among humans and the environment. As a result, alternatives that reduce the negative effects to the population of whole species, rather than local subpopulations, can be assessed.

The patterns of road traffic and road traffic injuries are very different in high-income countries compared to those in less-motorized countries. High-income countries have not experienced the situation obtained in less-motorized countries in the past. Vulnerable road user injuries and involvement of buses and trucks dominate the scene in many less-motorized countries. Since very little work has been done to develop vulnerable road user-friendly highway and urban street designs, all construction work sponsored by international agencies in less-motorized countries follows international designs or some scaled down version of the same. These designs produce inefficiencies and make the lives of local people more difficult by introducing fast transport without facilities for local needs.

Therefore, transportation planning, exposure control, intelligent separation of non-motorized traffic on major roads, and traffic calming are likely to play a much more important role in less-motorized countries. All vehicle and infrastructure designs need to be much more vulnerable road user friendly. Designs and policies for such interventions which are likely to succeed are not entirely clear or available. Research programmes and demonstration projects need to be funded and started immediately. The above will not be possible unless methods are devised to educate national policy makers and executives in multilateral agencies like the Word Bank about modern methods of road traffic injury control. Most of them are still operating on principles that were discredited over three decades ago.