The hidden challenges of implementing environmental mitigation measures

The identification and implementation of mitigation is an essential part of the process of impact assessment and decision-making for projects. Often there are challenges in defining mitigation to be applied in future phases of a project, and there can be a disconnect between project teams involved in the approvals phase, and post-approvals phase of a project.

Our Principal Assessment and Approvals, Phil Burns, and Environmental Project Manager, Kurt Speirs, discuss the common challenges with implementing project mitigations through examples, and consider how good practice in defining mitigation during the approvals phase may address these challenges.

Challenge 1 – clearly defining the timing for the implementation of mitigation

Example

A project including significant earthworks includes mitigation for the implementation of erosion and sediment controls during construction. In the initial phases of construction, unforeseen heavy rain and unfavourable conditions resulted in a large amount of site sediment in the local drain and river systems. Significant impacts can arise during construction when erosion and sediment control installation aligns too closely to major earthworks. In this instance, the mitigation did not define a requirement for it to be implemented prior to construction commencing.

Consideration for the approvals phase

The mitigation should be measurable, and include criteria to track progress as part of project planning, including:

• project phase trigger – is it relevant to the design phase, prior to the commencement of construction, during construction or during operation of the project

• the event or timing for when the mitigation is triggered should be defined. For example, mitigation must be established prior to construction, or other specific timing

• performance outcomes are defined by the intention and objectives of the mitigation

Challenge 2 – defining mitigation that is feasible and reasonable

Example

To mitigate potential impacts from noise, the mitigation for a project included requirements for noise walls. However, during construction it was identified that the construction requirements for the noise walls made them unfeasible, and modification to the project was required.

Consideration for the approvals phase

Mitigations should be feasible and reasonable, meaning it can be implemented given the circumstances, resources, or constraints of the project, and is relevant to the impact it targets, as well as other impacts from the project. Considerations as to whether a mitigation is feasible and reasonable may include:

• the mitigation is within the scope of the project, e.g. the design of noise walls or barriers

• stakeholder buy-in has been achieved – including the project team, regulators, community and other stakeholders.

• the mitigation does not result in contradictions, for example, compromising other mitigation or causing additional impact.

Challenge 3 – defining mitigation that is effective in mitigating the impact

Example

A manufacturing facility producing odorous chemicals included mitigation to manage potential spills and leaks. During an incident, additional impacts were identified that were not adequately controlled by the mitigation in place. In this instance, the mitigation is not effective in managing the impact.

Consideration for the approvals phase

The measure should be effective in mitigating the impact, and contributing to achieving the desired performance outcome.

It should:

• respond directly to the identified impact(s)

• reduce the impact through minimising its risk

• be relevant to the scale of the impact from the project. An impact of minor scale or risk requires proportionate mitigation. This may include consideration of a process for identifying unexpected impacts of larger scale, and a process of managing these where required through additional mitigation

Challenge 4 – When implementing the mitigation results in increased cost or delays to the project which were not understood by the project team

Example

During re-development of an industrial area, greater than expected volumes of contaminated soil are encountered. The mitigation for the project requires removal of all contaminated soil for off-site disposal to occur. The cost of off-site disposal was a significant cost to the project. A more comprehensive mitigation strategy, including methods to manage the soil in-situ was required.

Consideration for the approvals phase

Mitigations should be agreed with all relevant stakeholders:

• the cost and time of implementing mitigation should be understood and agreed by the project team, and included in project planning

• other stakeholders should be included in the identification of mitigation, for example landholders who may be subject to the mitigation

If you need help to ensure your environmental approvals align with your project’s environmental mitigations, reach out to us at admin@onward.au