Post-project Monitoring Research Articles

Mandated monitoring of post-project impacts in the Czech EIA

Altogether, 801 documents of consent (50% of all) issued under the EIA Act No. 244/1992 by the competent authorities in the Czech Republic between 1993 and 2001 were studied. The aim of the analysis was to find and characterize conditions prescribing to the developer to perform ex-ante and ex-post monitoring of potential impacts of projects submitted for approval. It was found that each of the studied documents (standpoints) contained on average three to four conditions prescribing to collect data on various environmental factors during the preparation, implementation and/or operation phase of the development in question. The number of monitoring conditions contained in the standpoints issued by the Ministry of Environment as well as by the District Offices increased during the period studied from about two to five per project indicating a growing interest in and/or need to obtaining such data. Even though there is a good legal background for collecting monitoring data from implementation and operation phase of new developments, the Czech EIA Act (similarly as EIA acts in other countries) does not provide any practical background for this activity. Without relevant institutional, personal and financial support the possibility to impose post-project monitoring to the developer remains rather a challenge to, not advantage of the Czech EIA Act.

Using an IBI to assess effectiveness of mitigation measures to replace loss of a wetland-stream ecosystem

Approximately 7.3 hectares of wetlands, composed of six separate cells, were created to mitigate the loss of a 6-hectare, beaver-influenced, wetland-stream complex destroyed by the construction of a multipurpose impoundment in the Cedar Run watershed in Fauquier County, Virginia, USA. The mitigation action physically replaced the lost wetlands and was judged successful in meeting planned objectives and regulatory requirements (which did not include standards for biota). A pre-project fish survey conducted in 1974 in the wetland-stream complex and three nearby streams provided a baseline condition from which to assess project impacts on fish, as determined from yearly surveys in the cells and the stream reach immediately upstream. In addition, fish communities were sampled at 157 stream locations within the northern Virginia Piedmont from 1997 to 1999 to establish a regional Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) based on fish assemblages. A modification of that IBI was developed to assess the effectiveness of the mitigation based on 22 stream segments that were heavily influenced by beaver. Pre- and post-project conditions were assessed by gauging them against the wetland-stream complexes using this IBI. The IBI score for the mitigation area dropped from the pre-project 34 to 18 the first year after construction and ranged from 18 to 28 over the ten-year post-project monitoring period. A reduction in the number of native species was observed, and there was a dramatic shift in composition and relative abundance within key species groups. In general, the mitigation benefited species favoring lentic environments over those preferring lotic environments and had negative effects on trophic and habitat specialists and less tolerant species. Scores for the mitigation cells were lower than scores for the original wetlands for the following IBI metrics: number of darter species, number of minnow species, percent of the assemblage comprised of the single most dominant species, percent of tolerant individuals, percent of benthic invertivores, and percent of specialist carnivores minus tolerants. Upstream reach IBI scores also diminished over the same 10-year period, although more gradually. The IBI showed that, despite meeting all regulatory requirements, the mitigation failed to replace the original fish community in the wetland-stream complex and adversely impacted additional stream habitat. Using tools such as an IBI to monitor biological condition can help planners effectively mitigate unavoidable project impacts and avoid the unintended loss of important natural resources caused by compensatory mitigation actions.

Identifying and Assessing the Economic Benefits of Contaminated Aquatic Sediment Cleanup

Abstract A review of the literature indicates that there are very few quantitative analyses of the economic benefits associated with the cleanup of contaminated aquatic sediment. This is largely attributable to the paucity of post-project monitoring and therefore yields limited data on the link between sediment remediation and ecological benefits. Nevertheless, both the potential ecological and economic benefits are thought to be considerable. This paper identifies the types of potential economic benefits that may result from aquatic sediment remediation, assesses the utility of existing economic valuation tools for sediment cleanup specifically, highlights methodological challenges and identifies areas for further work.

Rehabilitation of a lowland river: Reconciling flood defence with habitat diversity and geomorphological sustainability

Geomorphologically appropriate rehabilitation measures were proposed to enhance the in-stream environment of the lowland River Idle, north Nottinghamshire, UK. However, the River Idle has multi-functional management requirements including those of flood defence so environmental enhancement must be pursued without significantly increasing the flood risk. Hydraulic testing of rehabilitation proposals is complicated because of the stringent assumptions about flow and morphology in ‘traditional’ hydraulic models. While new generation two- and three-dimension hydraulic models may overcome some of these problems, they are extremely data intensive, require advanced modelling capabilities and are, therefore, very expensive to apply. Also, they do not yet predict morphology-flow interactions adequately. As an alternative, several simple hydraulic models were applied to test the rehabilitation proposals, based on a fitness-for-purpose criterion.BENDFLOW was applied to fine tune the optimal siting of measures and to estimate the additional near-bank scour generated by proposed bend re-profiling. HMODEL2 and the FCFA method were used to test the impact on local channel conveyance capacities and HECRAS was applied to simulate the impact of the proposals on regional flood defence. Indicative results from the testing suggested a maximum increase in near-bank scour of 0·15m in re-profiled bends, a loss of approximately 10% in flood conveyance locally due to deflector installation or reed and tree planting, and a 0·12m increase in flood stage within the reach for a 15 year flood. The modelling results were acceptable to the management authority as an indication of an acceptable compromise between flood defence and conservation interests, and construction of the measures followed in 1996. It is clearly that it will require the results of post-project monitoring to indicate whether compromises made to the rehabilitation initiatives in order to satisfy flood defence requirements have unduly reduced their environmental enhancement potential but, for assessing the proposed methods, the models are recommended for use other lowland river environments.

The Environmental Impact Assessment Amendment Directive 97/11/EC - A Small Step Forward?

The Environmental Impact Assessment ("EIA") Amendment Directive 97/11/EC was finally agreed in March 1997 and is due to be brought into force in Member States by 14 March 1999. With the new imperative of sustainable development since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, it was hoped that amendments proposed to the original EIA Directive 85/337/EEC would improve on the original legislation, reflecting EIA best practice throughout Europe and benefit from the lessons of EIA systems worldwide. While the Amendment Directive will bring about a number of significant improvements it falls short of bringing more radical changes, such as formal scoping, post-project monitoring and enhanced public participation (common in many other systems). Key changes are summarised in Table 1 which indicates where changes have occurred to the articles of the original Directive. This is supplemented by a more detailed discussion of the various issues raised.

Evaluating stream restoration projects

River and stream restoration projects are increasingly numerous but rarely subjected to systematic postproject evaluation. Without conducting such evaluation and widely disseminating the results, lessons will not be learned from successes and failures, and the field of river restoration cannot advance. Postproject evaluation must be incorporated into the initial design of each project, with the choice of evaluation technique based directly upon the specific project goals against which performance will be evaluated. We emphasize measurement of geomorphic characteristics, as these constitute the physical framework supporting riparian and aquatic ecosystems. Techniques for evaluating other components are briefly discussed, especially as they relate to geomorphic variables. Where possible, geomorphic, hydrologic, and ecological variables should be measured along the same transects. In general, postproject monitoring should continue for at least a decade, with surveys conducted after each flood above a predetermined threshold. Project design should be preceded by a historical study documenting former channel conditions to provide insights into the processes suggest earlier, potentially stable channel configurations as possible design models.

Hydrologic analysis for coastal wetland restoration

Increasing recognition of the value of tidal wetlands has led to interest in how to restore and enhance areas that have been modified by human activity. The policy of recognizing restoration or enhancement as mitigation for destruction of other wetlands is controversial. Once policy questions are separated from technical questions, the steps in a successful project are straightforward A key element in the design of a successful project is quantitative hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of alternatives. Restoration projects at two sites in California used a combination of empirical geomorphic relationships, numerical modeling, and verification with field observations. Experience with these and other wetland restoration projects indicates the importance of longterm postproject monitoring, inspection, and maintenance