KGA381 And KGA581 CASE STUDY :
KGA381 20% of final mark; KGA581 10% of final mark. All reports will be graded out of 20. Please adhere to the following:
- No more than 1500 words. This excludes any figure or table titles, footnotes, or references. You don’t need to reference MyLO, legislation, or lecture material but should reference any external sources, including EDO Handbook, TheLIST, government pages.
- Please read the rubric below before starting the task. Once marked, you will expand the rubric in MyLO to see feedback against each of the criteria.
- Due Sunday 14 August 2022 at 11pm to the Assessment tool in MyLO.
- Where possible, use evidence to support your statements of fact. A claim such as ‘the site is steep’ could be bolstered by referring to a map that shows contour lines. We are looking for evidence-based work to allocate marks.
Figure 1: Five case studies to choose from for KGA381 And KGA581 CASE STUDY Task 1 case study report. 18-44 Napoleon Street is the shipyards, just to the north of Marieville Esplanade. Source: The LIST; bar scale to the left is 200m.
Questions
In no more than 1500 words, explain EIA in Tasmania using one of the five case studies of the first five weeks of semester (Figure 1).
- Explain the Tasmanian EIA process under LUPAA (around 500 words).
- Apply your understanding of the process to one of the five case studies that we covered in the first weeks of class. These were all assessed by Council (i.e. a level 1 activity).
- Where is the site, what is proposed, and what is the site context (residential, bush, next to a creek, coastal, etc)?
- How does this development have potential to impact on the environment (both the site and surrounding)?
- Were any specialist reports prepared? If so, what were their conclusions?
- What was the recommendation to the planning authority? What was the outcome?
This is the marking rubric that I use in MyLO to comment on your work as I read. Please make sure to read this before you start to be clear about the task and awarding of marks.
| Criteria | High Distinction 80 – 89% | Distinction 70 – 79% | Credit 60 – 69% | Pass 50 – 59% | Fail >50% |
| Explain the Tasmanian EIA process under LUPAA 5 marks | Clear description of EIA process under LUPAA. RMPS is mentioned and any other relevant legislation. All names and formatting are correct (legislation should be in italics and full at first mention). | Mostly clear description of EIA process under LUPAA. RMPS is mentioned and any other relevant legislation. Mostly correct names and formatting with some minor errors or omissions. | Description of EIA process under LUPAA is lacking some clarity or more than a few errors or omissions. RMPS possibly not mentioned. Another edit needed to add or correct names and formatting. | Basic facts about the EIA are correct but with confusion about the ordering and roles in EIA. Your text is either unclear and potentially too brief to score more than a pass. | Basic facts about the EIA are incorrect or very difficult to understand. Confusion about the ordering and roles in EIA. Your text is unclear and potentially too brief. |
| Use case study to outline the process, the proposal, site, potential impacts, and any recommendations 10 marks | Clear evidence of understanding the permit application process for your chosen case study. Correctly described actors and the regulatory setting. All names are correct. Species names with scientific name at first mention. Proposal, site and possible impacts are described succinctly and if supported by maps or images; those are well chosen and detailed. Current status is described. | Clear evidence of understanding the process for your chosen case study. Described actors and the regulatory setting. Most details are correct. Proposal, site and possible impacts are described and any maps or images, those are well chosen. Current status is described. | Not entirely clear that you have all the details of the process correct for your chosen case study. Either a bit difficult to read or some errors in presentation of site details, context and impacts. Described actors and the regulatory setting. Proposal, site and possible impacts are described. Images might | Some fairly significant errors in describing the process correct for your chosen case study. Possibly difficult to read or major errors in presentation of site details, context and impacts. Proposal, site and possible impacts are described but unclear or lacking details. Images might need a better | Major errors in describing the process correct for your chosen case study. Possibly difficult to read or major errors in presentation of site details, context and impacts. Proposal, site and possible impacts are not sufficiently described. Images no titled and source not declared. Text needs a significant edit. |
| need a better title and source declaration. | title and source declaration. | ||||
| Good use of evidence, well structured, clear report 5 marks | Well detailed and clear writing that is well supported by evidence. Good use of space, possibly including sub- headings and clear signposting for different sections. You have used a diversity of sources (e.g. TheLIST, EDO handbook, government pages and guides). All tables and figures are clearly titled with sources acknowledged. Text is error free (or pretty close). | Clear writing that is well supported by evidence. Mostly good use of space, possibly somewhat dense in places. You have used a diversity of sources (e.g. TheLIST, EDO handbook, government pages and guides) but perhaps not all clearly cited and referenced. Minor errors in table and figure presentation. Text has only minor errors. | Mostly good structure and use of space, possibly somewhat dense and lacking clarity about sources of information and the diversity of those sources. Several errors in table and figure format. Text has errors on most pages. | Quite difficult to read. Lack of clear structure and use of space, possibly somewhat dense and lacking clarity about sources of information and the diversity of those sources. Use of evidence and tables/figures, but clumsily so. Text has errors on all pages. | Difficult to read. Lack of structure and use of space, possibly somewhat dense and lacking clarity about sources of information and the diversity of those sources. Missing evidence and tables/figures. Text has many errors on all pages. |
Visit:https://auspali.info/
Also visit:https://www.notesnepal.com/archives/767
YOUR COMMENT