ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTASSESSMENT

THE E7 NETWORK

O F E X P E R T I S E

FOR THE GLOBAL

E N V I R O N M E N T

A N E L E C T R I C U T I L I T Y O V E R V I E W

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTASSESSMENT

A N E L E C T R I C U T I L I T Y O V E R V I E W

E 7 N E T WO R K O F E X P E RT I S E F O R T H E G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T

June 1997

FOREWORD

This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Manual was prepared by the E7 Network ofExpertise for the Global Environment, for use by electric utility planners, project developers,and decision-makers in developing and Eastern European countries. The Manual presentsan overview of the EIA process as it applies to electricity projects, and describes the role ofEIA in project decision-making and implementation. The process described is typical of EIAprocesses utilized by most major international lending agencies (e.g. the World Bank).

E7 members, in an effort to increase the capacity of developing countries to follow a sustainable development path, have developed and delivered a number of EIA seminars toincrease awareness and promote the benefits of EIA as an integral part of sound decision-making. The EIA process described in the Manual provides the organizing framework for these E7 EIA seminars. The E7 team uses this framework and augments itwith specific information and case study examples from the host country to make its EIAseminars as relevant as possible for our developing country partners.

The E7 Network is pleased to provide this EIA Manual, in which E7 members share withenergy planners and decision-makers some of the expertise they have gained in over twodecades of experience in dealing with the EIA requirements and processes for electrical utilityprojects developed worldwide. We hope that in sharing this expertise we can help movealong the path to a more sustainable energy future.

For more information on E7 or on E7’s EIA projects or seminars, please contact the E7Secretariat or one of the E7 contacts listed on the inside back cover.

Richard RonchkaChair - Steering CommitteeE7 Network of Expertise for the Global Environment

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

WHAT IS EIA? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

WHY DO EIA? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

EIA PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Project Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Baseline Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Stakeholder Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Effects Prediction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Mitigation and Residual Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

EIA in Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Project Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

EIA TOOLS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

EIA PROJECT MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

MAXIMIZING THE VALUE OF EIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

KEY MESSAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: International EIA Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

APPENDIX 2: Typical Environmental Effects and Mitigation Options for Hydroelectric Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

APPENDIX 3: Summary of Selected EIA Tools and Methods . . . . . . . . .44

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

1

Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) has become one of the most effective tools we have for incorporatingenvironmental consequences into decision-making. EIA is, ideally, an inte-gral part of the overall planning processfor electricity projects. It assists, butdoes not control project planning andimplementation; ensuring that environ-mental considerations are incorporatedinto decision-making, along with techni-cal and economic factors (Figure 1). Inorder to achieve the desired goals, anEIA must begin as soon as a project isconceived, before irrevocable decisionsare made.

THE MANUAL

This EIA Manual was prepared by theE7 Network of Expertise for the GlobalEnvironment, for use by utility planners,developers and decision-makers in devel-oping countries. The Manual outlines ageneric EIA process that can assist inmeeting EIA guidelines set out by inter-national lending organizations for majorelectricity projects. It provides back-ground information on the EIA processand its application in the electricity sec-tor; summarizes the various tools andmethods used in EIA studies; and sharestechniques for managing the EIAprocess. The intent of the Manual is toshare with developing countries theapproach to EIA which has evolved, andits application in the electric utility sec-tor, so that they may benefit from thesuccesses and mistakes of the past, tomake more sustainable project decisionsin the future.

BACKGROUND ON EIA

EIA has developed in response to limita-tions in the traditional project planningprocess with regard to environmentalconsiderations, and also in response tothe growing concern about environmen-tal quality issues.

The EIA process has evolved consider-ably over the last 25 years, along withour knowledge and capacity to deal withenvironmental issues. Early EIAs tendedto be lengthy, descriptive, and not muchuse to decision-makers. They were often

Introduction“EIA must begin as soon as a project is

conceived, before irrevocable decisions

are made.”

Site selection, environmental screening, initial assessment, scoping of significantissues

Detailed assessment ofsignificant impacts, identification of mitigationneeds, input to decisionanalysis

Detailed designof mitigationand compensationmeasuresFeasibilityPre-feasibility

Design &Engineering

ImplementationMonitoring& Evaluation

ProjectConcept

Implementation of mitigationmeasures andenvironmentalmanagement strategy

Monitoring and post-auditing(lessons for future projects,EIA verification, compliance)

FIGURE 1: EIA In the Project Life CycleSource: adapted from UNEP, 1988

2

started late in the project planningprocess, after irrevocable decisions hadbeen made, therefore had little chance toinfluence project design.

With experience and study, EIAs havebecome more cost-effective and timely,focusing on issues important to stake-holders and decision-makers. We nowknow that EIAs must be initiated assoon as a project is conceived, and fullyintegrated in the overall project plan-ning process, in order to influence pro-ject design and implementation (Figure2). Public participation has become anintegral part of EIA. EIAs now aid inmaking decisions which are informedand environmentally sound.

“It is necessary to understand the linksbetween environment and develop-ment in order to make developmentchoices that will be economically effi-cient, socially equitable and responsi-ble, and environmentally sound.”

Agenda 21

THE INTERNATIONALCOMMUNITY

In recent years, the international com-munity has placed the environment atthe top of the development agenda. Asa result, international lending organiza-tions, like the World Bank, have begunto tie the provision of development

funding to a requirement to assess theenvironmental impacts of proposed projects.

Many lending institutions and interna-tional environmental agencies haveissued guidelines to ensure that pro-posed projects are designed and imple-mented in an environmentally and eco-nomically sound fashion (ADB 1992;AsDB 1990, 1993; CIDA 1994; IADB1990; UNEP 1988; World Bank 1991).

THE E7 AND EIA

In 1992, the Chairmen of the sevenlargest vertically integrated electricalutilities in the G7 countries met inJames Bay, Quebec, Canada, and agreedto cooperate and participate actively tofoster the worldwide development anduse of electricity in environmentallydesirable ways. In 1993 an eighth com-pany joined the E7. Each utility in theE7 initiative considers the prudent man-agement of environmental issues amongthe highest of corporate priorities and a key determinant to sustainable development.

“Energy issues permeate the debateover the future of our planet. And atthe very core of energy issues is the elec-tric utility industry.”

Maurice Strong

The E7 utilities believe that in addition totheir own local efforts to protect the envi-ronment, preventative measures are neces-sary at a world level in order to avoid thedeterioration of the global environment.Their common goal is “to play an activerole in protecting the global environmentand in promoting efficient generation anduse of electricity”.

To act on this goal, the E7 members havebegun to work in partnership, through aNetwork of Expertise, with utilities andgovernments in developing and EasternEuropean countries to improve their elec-trical systems and increase their capacityto follow a sustainable development path.

An important part of this capacity build-ing is ensuring that people have the skillsand training necessary to understand thelinkages between energy developmentand environmental consequences. Thisinvolves not only training to betterunderstand how power systems operate,but also how to manage the environmen-tal impacts that can occur.

People in government and business needto know how to evaluate and mitigatethe environmental impact of all

International FundingOrganizations with EIARequirements:

• African Development Bank(ADB)

• Asian Development Bank(AsDB)

• Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency (CIDA)

• Economic Commission forEurope

• European EconomicCommunity

• European Investment Bank

• Inter-American DevelopmentBank (IADB)

• United Nations EnvironmentalProgram (UNEP)

• United States Agency forInternational Development(USAID)

• World Bank

FIGURE 2: Evolution of EIA in Relation to Project Planning

3

development projects, starting from thetime the projects are conceived. Theyneed to take a precautionary, integratedand proactive approach to protecting theenvironment. Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) can act as a catalyst tosustainable development by increasingenvironmental awareness and knowledge, and can serve as a startingpoint for implementing an environmen-tal management program.

“To ensure sustainability, it is neces-sary to assess the environmental impactof development and make enlightened economic choices.”

Neville V. Nicholls, PresidentCaribbean Development Bank

To help increase awareness and promotethe benefits of EIA, the E7 Network ofExpertise for the Global Environmenthas prepared this Manual describing the

EIA process and its application in theelectric utility sector, and developed anEIA training seminar. An E7 EIA semi-nar takes the information in this Manualand builds on it, adding specific infor-mation and case studies from the hostcountry, to provide greater relevance.The Manual and seminar draw on theextensive experience of E7 companies indealing with EIA requirements andprocesses for electrical utility projectsdeveloped worldwide.

4

WHAT IS EIA?

EIA is a planning process used to helpensure that environmental matters aretaken into account early in the projectplanning process, along with the moretraditional technical and economic considerations.The EIA process identi-fies, predicts, interprets and communi-cates information about impacts of aproposed project on the biophysicalenvironment (air, water, land, plants and animals) as well as on the social and economic environment of the people to be affected. It seeks ways to maximize

the societal benefits of a project, andavoid or reduce unacceptable impacts.

EIA is also a decision-making process.It examines alternative ways of carryingout a project, arriving at the selection ofa “preferred” alternative. EIA provides aframework for gathering and document-ing public and external knowledge andopinion. It therefore empowers deci-sion-makers to make informed and envi-ronmentally sound choices.

WHY DO EIA?

Today, most financial institutions andassistance agencies funding developmentprojects have a built-in requirement forEIA (Appendix 1). Some countries alsohave legislative requirements to producea satisfactory EIA before a project canproceed.

“Environmental impact assessment(EIA) is required, in one form oranother, in more than half the nationsof the world.”

Ortolano and Shepherd (1995)

EIA is intended to prevent or minimizepotentially adverse environmentalimpacts and enhance the overall qualityof a project. The EIA process allowsenvironmental issues to be addressed ina timely and cost-effective way duringproject design, preparation and imple-mentation. EIA can therefore helpreduce overall project costs, assist incompleting projects on schedule, andhelp design projects which are accept-able to stakeholders.

The main advantages and benefits ofEIA are (UNEP 1996):

• lower project costs in the long-term(fewer costly changes or add-ons atadvanced stages of the project; lowerprobability of environmental disas-ters, court cases and/or costly clean-ups);

• increased project acceptance by thepublic and key stakeholders;

• improved project design/siting;

• more informed decision-making;

• more environmentally sensitive decisions;

• increased accountability and trans-parency during the developmentprocess;

• improved integration of projects intotheir environmental and social setting;

• reduced environmental damage (mit-igation measures planned and imple-mented in time to minimize adverseimpacts on the environment).

What is EIA?Why do EIA?

“EIA is intended to prevent or

minimize potentially adverse

environmental impacts and enhance

the overall quality of a project.”

6

This section outlines the major stepsinvolved in carrying out an EIA for amajor energy project, using hydroelec-tric as an example. Figure 3 provides asummary of the process steps that arecommon to most EIA guidelines issuedby international organizations.

The approach taken to carry out an EIAcan differ somewhat, depending on therequirements and practices of the differ-ent international funding organizations(see Appendix 1); a country’s legislativeframework; and/or the type of energyproject. However, the process steps out-lined here provide a common organizingframework for all EIAs.

In addition, there are many differentEIA tools and methods that can be uti-lized at the different stages of an EIA. Certain methods, such as checklists andmatrices are widely used and useful inthe early stages of most EIAs. EIAmethods to assist with prediction andassessment of impacts are selected basedon the appropriate level of study for theproject under consideration, and theresources available for the EIA study.Although the focus of this manual is onthe EIA process, common EIA method-ologies are summarized in the EIA Toolsand Methods section, and in Appendix 3.

EIAs do not necessarily follow linearlythrough the steps outlined in Figure 3.EIA is an iterative process, and at differ-ent steps in the process it may be neces-sary to return to earlier stages to recon-sider previous findings and conclusions.New or unforeseen issues may arise,baseline studies may indicate that origi-nal predictions were inaccurate, or pre-ferred avoidance or mitigation methods

may not be feasible and new alternativesmay have to be identified.

EIA involves examining a range of pro-ject alternatives. These alternative meth-ods of carrying out a project are usuallyidentified at the scoping stage of an EIA.However, not all alternatives need to becarried through the entire EIA process.Some may drop out early if there isstrong evidence they will result in signifi-cant adverse effects that cannot be easilymitigated. Other alternatives maybecome apparent after the scoping stageand can be added into the EIA at a laterstage. The no-project alternative shouldbe carried through the process as a meansof comparison, and consideration.

In all guidelines, the term “environ-ment” is defined as including both thenatural and social environments.

OVERVIEW

The EIA process is designed to answerthe following key questions and providerationale and information to supportproject decisions:

PUBLICCONSULTATION/INTER-AGENCYCOORDINATION

EIA PROCESS

Screening

Scoping

Baseline Data

Effects Prediction

Mitigation

Impact Assessment

EIA Review

Implementation Monitoring

Need/Justification

FIGURE 3: Generic EIAProcess

EIA Process“EIA involves examining a range of

project alternatives.”

EIA distinguishes between “alterna-tives to” a project, and “alternativemethods” of carrying out a project.

“Alternatives to” a project are func-tionally different ways of achievingthe same end. For example, alterna-tives to a hydroelectric developmentcould include importing power, con-serving energy, building a nuclearstation, or obtaining the energythrough renewable resources.

“Alternative methods” of carryingout a project are methods of a similartechnical character or methods thatare functionally the same.Alternative methods with respect to ahydroelectric development, forexample, might include selecting adifferent location, choosing theappropriate number and size of tur-bines, using different operating sce-narios, etc.

“Environmental Impact Assessment isa “flexible procedure to identify, ana-lyze, and recommend steps to dealwith the potentially significant conse-quences of a proposed investment pro-ject or program.”

World Bank

7

Need/justification• What is the problem?• What options/alternatives are

available to solve the problem?• What are the environmental

implications of these options/alternatives?

• What is the preferred option/alternative? Why?

Screening• Is a full EIA required?

Scoping• What should the EIA include?

Effects Prediction• What are the environmental effects

associated with proceeding with thisproject and its alternatives?

Mitigation• Are there mitigation measures that

could reduce the overall effects of theproject and its alternatives?

Impact Assessment• What is the significance and/or

importance of the effects?• Which of the project alternatives is

the preferred alternative?Review and Decision-making

• Do the benefits of the proposed pro-ject outweigh the potential residualenvironmental effects?

Implementation• How can the project best be

implemented?Monitoring and Follow-up

• Was the project implemented in anenvironmentally acceptable fashion?

• Were effects predicted accurately?• Were there any unanticipated

effects?

Public and stakeholder consultation andinter-agency coordination are importantat all stages of the EIA process.

An EIA document is prepared, whichpresents for public and governmentinformation and review, the rationale orjustification for a proposed project, adescription of the information that wascollected, the manner in which it wasassessed, and the judgments used inselecting the preferred alternatives.

PROJECT NEED

A proponent must convince stakeholdersfirst and foremost that a project is need-ed, and that the particular project beingconsidered is justified.

The EIA process begins with the identi-fication of a problem to be solved. Thisis often referred to as the “need” for anundertaking. To satisfy this “need”,there are a number of alternatives thatmust be considered and assessed. Theassessment of alternatives is carried outin a systematic and iterative manner,considering technical, environmental,and economic criteria. UNEP refers tothis as a tiered approach to the assess-ment of alternatives to a project (Figure 4).

In some cases the definition of needcomes as a result of an “opportunity” totake advantage of certain circumstances(e.g., a funding agency willing to support a development in a certain loca-tion). An EIA study will still berequired to assess the viability andacceptability of these opportunities.

Tier 1 - Problem

In energy sector applications, a frequent“problem” is the need to supply energy-to a residential or industrial facilitywithin a limited timeframe.

The first tier of assessment wouldaddress three alternatives for solving theproblem:

• Do nothing;

• Eliminate the need for additionalenergy by saving it somewhere else inthe energy sector (energy conserva-tion, demand management);

• Supply additional energy.

The Do Nothing alternative is usuallyeasily discarded, but serves to illustratethe magnitude of the defined problem,i.e. the consequences of not providingthe required energy. It is also a usefulcheck to ensure that action is reallyrequired.

Tier 2 - Demand/Supply Options

At the second tier of assessment,demand/supply options should beassessed within the framework of what ispossible and preferred within the coun-try, as well as what the implications ofpursuing these options will be in termsof their economic, social and environ-mental impacts.

By identifying and considering the envi-ronmental and social impacts of a broadrange of functionally different energyoptions and plans at the very outset, aproponent is able to determine the mostsustainable energy solution to resolve the

Problem?

Demand/Supply Options

Electricity Options

Hydroelectric Options

Potential Sites

Proposed HydroelectricDevelopment

FIGURE 4: Tiered Approach tothe Assessment of

Alternatives to the Project

PUBLICCONSULTATION/INTER-AGENCYCOORDINATION

EIA PROCESS

Screening

Scoping

Baseline Data

Effects Prediction

Mitigation

Impact Assessment

EIA Review

Implementation Monitoring

Need/Justification

8

problem or take advantage of the oppor-tunity, and to take this step before agreat deal of time, money and resourceshave been committed.

If the predicted shortage cannot be metthrough increased conservation pro-grams (for cost or technological reasonsperhaps) then some new form of energysupply will be required. Major energysupply options may include petroleum,coal, hydroelectric or other electricityoptions. These also need to be assessedin terms of their economic, social andenvironmental impacts.

Environmental information at this stagewill relate to general, broadly definedissues rather than specific impacts,whereas detailed impact-specifictechnical information is needed later inthe EIA process.

Tier 3 - Electricity Options

If, for example, electricity is selected asthe favored mode of supplying therequired energy, the various alternativesfor producing this electrical energy arethen assessed. Options to considerinclude:

• Fossil fuel combustion (oil, naturalgas, coal)

• Hydroelectric generation• Purchases from neighbouring

countries• Nuclear• Renewable technologies (solar, wind,

biomass, geothermal, tidal, etc.)

At this stage, each option is evaluatedusing a series of technical, economic,resource use and environmental criteria.Based on this evaluation, certain optionsare rejected and others supported. Eachsituation will be unique, and should beevaluated on its own merits.

Tier 4 - Selected Generation Options

The next stage or tier is to determinepotential sites or location for a facility.If, for example, hydroelectric generationwas selected as the preferred option,then hydroelectric resources should beassessed on a broad river system basis,

and the remaining development poten-tial in each basin determined. Potentialsites within each basin are identified andconceptual designs developed.

These conceptual designs provideimportant information required to assesscertain environmental characteristics foreach proposed development, includingpotential flooded area and loss of river-ine habitat. Information on floodedareas can be used to assess in a prelimi-nary fashion the potential environmentaland social implications of proposeddevelopment schemes, e.g. the numberof people affected by flooding.

Tier 5 - Project DefinitionThe result of this site selection processwill be a ‘project’ - ie. a preferred devel-opment option (hydroelectric, in ourexample), with a potential site, in a spe-cific river basin, and using specificdesign concepts for a hydroelectricdevelopment (e.g. run-of-the river orreservoir creation).

SCREENING

Once a project is defined, it is importantto determine if a full EIA study isrequired to assess project impacts.Screening is the process by which theappropriate level and type of EIA is

determined for a given project on thebasis of its likely environmental impacts.

It is important to focus EIA studies onprojects that have potentially significantand irreversible impacts, since EIA stud-ies can be both costly and time consum-ing. A method of systematically screening potential projects is therefore critical. Other less significant projects,or those with few impacts, may not needfull EIA studies, but instead may bescreened out or assessed using less com-prehensive means such as Class EIA’s,environmental reports or environmentalfeasibility studies. These represent amore streamlined approach than a fullEIA in terms of cost and schedule.

The choice of screening method is usu-ally determined by the decision-makerswhen an EIA system is established. Allscreening methods require informationabout the project and all of them haveinvolved the use of value judgments atsome stage during their development.

Project screening can be done in a num-ber of different ways including:

• measuring against simple criteriasuch as size, location or cost;

• comparing the proposal with lists ofproject types that rarely need an EIAin other jurisdictions (e.g. minortransmission line) or that alwaysneed extensive study (e.g. major newgeneration);

• use lists of resources (e.g. rainforests), environmental problems (e.g. soil erosion, deforestation)and/or areas of special importance orsensitivity (e.g. national parks) sothat any activity that affects suchareas of concern will be judged tohave significant environmentaleffects and require an EIA;

• estimating the general impacts of aproposed project and comparingthese against set thresholds;

• doing a detailed, informal analysisusing readily available data (initialenvironmental evaluation, or envi-ronmental overview).

PUBLICCONSULTATION/INTER-AGENCYCOORDINATION

EIA PROCESS

Screening

Scoping

Baseline Data

Effects Prediction

Mitigation

Impact Assessment

EIA Review

Implementation Monitoring

Need/Justification

9

The responsibility for screeningdepends on the method adopted.Where project lists exist in legislation,proponents can screen their own pro-posals. However, where the methodinvolves discretion, the decision-maker ( e.g. government) usually likes to beinvolved or have the ability to influencethe outcome.

Screening should occur as early as possi-ble in the development of the project sothat proponents are aware of their oblig-ations before committing funding forproject design and development.

There are usually three possible out-comes (categories) of a screeningprocess:1. Where significant concerns exist or

where there is a lot that is unknownabout project impacts, a full EIAstudy is necessary.

2. If environmental impacts of a projectare known and can be easily mitigat-ed, a limited environmental studyand mitigation plan may be all thatis necessary.

3. If screening identifies no concerns,further environmental analysis isunnecessary, and the project mayproceed without an EIA study.

Most centralized new power generationfacilities are environmentally significant,and require a full EIA. Examples of pro-jects usually requiring only limited envi-ronmental study include minor modifi-cations to existing facilities, small com-bustion turbine units, or short lengths oftransmission line. The remainder of thismanual will focus on describing an EIAprocess appropriate for a major newelectricity generation project.

SCOPING

A scoping exercise is the first step in theproject assessment phase of the EIAprocess, and should be carried out soonafter the project proposal has beendefined. The primary purpose of scop-ing is to identify concerns and issueswhich are important to project deci-sions. Scoping also serves to define EIAstudy requirements and boundaries.The results of the scoping exercise formthe basis for the rest of the EIA process.

Through the use of scoping, the issuesand concerns of potential stakeholderscan be identified early in the planningprocess, so that a work program can bedesigned accordingly. Typical stakehold-ers include the project proponent, regu-latory agencies, local community leaders,project donors, scientific institutions,non-governmental organizations(NGOs), and the general public.

The objectives of scoping are:• to identify project stakeholders;

• to identify existing informationsources and local knowledge;

• to inform stakeholders of the EIAand its objectives and get input onthe EIA;

• to identify the key environmentalconcerns (community and scientific)related to a project and the relativeimportance of issues;

Class Environmental ImpactAssessmentSome countries have established a ClassEIA process. It applies to projects whichare of a similar nature and which gener-ally have a small, predictable range ofeffects (eg. short lengths of transmissionlines, minor modifications to hydroelec-tric facilities, and roadway widenings).

For projects which can be groupedtogether as a class, a single formal envi-ronmental impact assessment documentis prepared for the class. The Class EIAdocument is submitted and processedlike a full EIA. An EnvironmentalReport (ER) is typically required foreach individual project which falls with-in the class. The ER is a less detailedform of environmental impact assess-ment and does not require a full publicexamination. A Class EIA generallystreamlines the EIA process.

PUBLICCONSULTATION/INTER-AGENCYCOORDINATION

EIA PROCESS

Screening

Scoping

Baseline Data

Effects Prediction

Mitigation

Impact Assessment

EIA Review

Implementation Monitoring

Need/Justification

10

• to define the EIA work program,including a plan for public andstakeholder involvement;

• to define the range of project alter-natives to be considered;

• to obtain agreement on the methodsand techniques used in EIA studiesand document preparation;

• to determine the spatial and tempo-ral boundaries for the EIA studies.

Scoping helps to center EIA efforts onthe collection and analysis of pertinentdata and the assessment of significantenvironmental attributes. The endresult will be a work program which iswell focused and cost-effective. Failureto obtain government and public inputat the scoping stage may result in latercriticism of impact predictions and pos-sible project delays.

The benefits of scoping include:

• improves the quality of EIAinformation by focusing scientificefforts and EIA analysis on truly sig-nificant issues;

• allows environmental concerns to beidentified and incorporated early inthe project planning process, at thesame time as cost and design factorsare considered;

• reduces the magnitude and cost ofEIA studies and time required forand the size of EIA documents;

• ensures research efforts are not wast-ed on insignificant issues;

• reduces the likelihood of overlookingimportant issues;

• diminishes the chance of prolongeddelays and conflicts later in the EIAprocess by engaging stakeholders in aconstructive participatory processearly in the EIA study.

Scoping may be undertaken in stages,beginning internally, within the projectproponents company, expanding toinclude government (designated EIAreview, technical experts) and communi-ty leaders, and then the general public

and other interested parties before subse-quent plans and work programs are finalized.

Possible methods for scoping include:

• examination of EIAs for similar typesof projects in similar environments;

• EIA methods such as checklists,matrices, networks, overlays, evalua-tion techniques and adaptive meth-ods (hypotheses of effects);

• public participation methods,including: public meetings, net-working, open houses and advisorycouncils;

• group process methods, including:interactive group meetings, Delphimethod, nominal group techniques,and workshops.

Experience has shown the workshopapproach to scoping to be very effectivefor large projects. Workshops typicallybring together approximately 20 to 25people representing technical experts,managers and policy-makers, andincludes staff from regulatory agencies,community leaders, as well as the propo-nent. Workshops typically last 3-4 days

for a major generating facility. Theworkshop operates initially as a “brain-storming” session to list issues andpotential impacts, and identify availableinformation. Then priorities are set forinformation needs and study requirements.

Scoping is, in part, a negotiatingprocess. There will always be questionswithin each issue i.e. type and extent ofdata collection, significance of the data,importance of the issue, etc. These mayall be subject to debate and dispute.There are no ‘right’ answers, just a suc-cession of judgments which the

To be successful a scoping workshoprequires:

• information; effectiveness will be adirect function of the timing, leveland reliability of information pro-vided to participants; participantsneed a good description of the pro-ject and its alternatives, and descrip-tion of the study area; a pre-work-shop site visit is usually useful;

• a good workshop facilitator or organizer;

• commitment; all agencies should becommitted to the scoping processand be willing to use the results ofthese sessions in their decision-making;

• participation; opportunities must beprovided for all stakeholders to par-ticipate, and steps taken to ensure allnecessary technical resource peopleare represented (public, regulatoryagencies, proponent, academic);

• communication; the most effectivescoping processes require a two-wayflow of information, with opportu-nities for consensus building;

• flexibility; scoping methods shouldbe adapted to the project at hand;no one method is effective in all circumstances.

Typical Environmental IssuesRelating to Hydroelectric GenerationProjects:

• methane release

• disease

• water quality deterioration

• mercury contamination in fish,wildlife and people

• erosion and sediment deposition

• loss of wetlands and estuaries

• loss of environmentally sensitiveareas, endangered species, wildlife,forests, plants and wildlife habitat

• loss of or disturbance to heritageresources

• forced relocation of people living onthe land to be flooded

• access to water, land and resourcesmay be restricted

• disruption of wildlife migratory patterns

11

proponent must make to try to balancethe available resources for the study(time and money) with the legitimateconcerns of the participants.

Clearly, the workshop approach encour-ages early participation and cooperationof government staff who willundoubtedly determine the governmentposition towards approval of a project.There is also an opportunity to establisha positive, constructive relationship withstakeholders, to understand their con-cerns and begin a process of communication.

Results of the scoping exercise are pre-sented in an EIA Scope Document, orTerms of Reference, which describes theproposed work program (Table 1). TheEIA Scope Document represents anagreement with external stakeholders onthe general approach and scope of theEIA. It forms the basis for the EIAstudy and preparation of the EIA

document. The proponent may wish toprovide a draft EIA Scope Documentfor review by government and the publicbefore preparing a final.

The EIA Scope Document can becomea critical piece of process documentation

should disputes among stakeholdersdevelop during the EIA study. It can beused to bring the study back on-trackwith originally agreed to terms of refer-ence, thereby saving time and money.

Project Description should include:• rationale for the project and primary

goals;

• brief discussion of the size, scope,and phasing of activity;

• proposed location on a map, show-ing boundaries of the proposed site,major existing infrastructure, adja-cent land uses, and any importantenvironmental features;

• site plan of the project illustratinglocation of existing buildings andfacilities, proposed components ofthe project, and any infrastructurerequired to service the project;

• amount and type of labour required,over how long, and how this is to bemet;

• types and amounts of all materialswhich will go into the project, andfrom where and how these will beobtained;

• all outputs (products and wastematerials) and what will happen tothese outputs;

• expected requirements for local facil-ities and services.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SummaryIntroductionBackground

Existing Hydroelectric FacilitiesExisting Transmission Incorporation FacilitiesRiver Basin Development Plan

The Proposed DevelopmentPurpose/JustificationDescription

System NeedAlternatives

Alternatives to the ProjectAlternative Methods of Carrying out the Project

Scope of EIA WorkStudy AreaCharacterization of the Existing EnvironmentIssue Identification and ResolutionPrediction of Environmental EffectsMitigation and Community Impact ManagementPublic Involvement ProgramConsultation with Government AgenciesPreliminary EIA Table of Contents

EIA Coordination EIA Project TeamProject Schedule

References

TABLE 1: Sample EIA Scope Document Table of Contents for aHydroelectric Development

12

BASELINE DATA

EIA guidelines typically specify that anEIA document should contain a descrip-tion of the existing environment thatwould be or might be affected directlyor indirectly by a proposed project. Theenvironment is broadly defined toinclude the natural, cultural, socio-eco-nomic systems and their interrelation-ships. The intention is not to describeall baseline conditions, but to focus thecollection and description of baselinedata on those conditions that are impor-tant to impact prediction, assessmentand decision-making.

The term “baseline” refers to conditionsexisting before development againstwhich subsequent changes can be refer-enced. Baseline studies are carried outto:

• identify environmental conditionswhich might influence project designdecisions (e.g., site layout, structuralor operational characteristics);

• identify sensitive issues or areasrequiring mitigation or compensation;

• provide input data to analyticalmodels used for predicting effects;

• provide baseline data against whichthe results of future monitoring pro-grams can be compared.

The list of issues identified in the initialscoping workshop should be furtherrefined to determine baseline informa-tion requirements for impact predictionand assessment. This is an importantstep to ensure money and time are notwasted collecting inappropriate orunnecessary data/information.

Once information needs are identified,baseline environmental information isassembled through the collection andanalysis of existing data, by carrying outspecific field studies; and/or input fromcommunity consultation programs.Before embarking on an extensive andcostly field studies program, maximumeffort should be directed at determiningwhat data already exist that will assist indescribing environmental conditions inthe proposed project study area.

Where existing information cannot ade-quately characterize the existing environ-ment, a program of field studies willgenerally be required to fill in the datagaps and/or provide more timely orfocused information. A field samplingprogram for baseline studies is designedby technical experts in the appropriatefields, with the aim of providing suffi-cient information to assist in impact

predictions, and in developing a refer-ence base to guide and test future pro-ject monitoring programs. Dependingon the nature of the proposal, the levelof detail and scope of baseline studiesare tailored towards meeting the needsof the project.

SCOPE OF TYPICALBASELINE STUDIES:

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

• terrestrial-land use-vegetation-wildlife-physical terrain-wildlife habitat

• aquatic-water quality-aquatic life-aquatic habitat-morphology-hydrology

• atmospheric-air quality-meteorology-noise

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

-history-economic base-labour supply/employment-demography and population-housing supply-community/social services-municipal finance/planning-social and cultural patterns-transportation-tourism

RESOURCES USES

-recreational-agricultural-fisheries-navigation-wildlife (hunting, trapping)-forestry and vegetation-mining

HERITAGE

-heritage-archaeological

PUBLICCONSULTATION/INTER-AGENCYCOORDINATION

EIA PROCESS

Screening

Scoping

Baseline Data

Effects Prediction

Mitigation

Impact Assessment

EIA Review

Implementation Monitoring

Need/Justification

Existing data sources include:• government data bases and routine

monitoring programs, other agencysources e.g. NGOs, academic com-munity;

• historical studies in study area (pub-lished and unpublished literature);

• past experience at similar projects(e.g. UNEP sponsored INFOTER-RA and the Global EnvironmentalMonitoring System (GEMS) databases);

• aerial photographs and satelliteimages (e.g. SPOT, LANDSAT,NOAA);

• traditional knowledge of native andlocal people;

• maps, census data, historicalrecords.

13

Planning for field studies can be carriedout effectively using a workshopapproach as well. Field study planningworkshops should be directed towardsthe development of hypotheses of effectwhich describe the pattern of ecologicalprocesses whereby a project action maylead to changes in one or more environ-mental component. These hypothesesof effect provide a number of links (eco-logical processes) which can be investi-gated through further studies (Figure 5).

The field study planning process shouldset the spatial and temporal boundariesfor subsequent studies. The spatialboundary should define the study areawithin which an effect is likely to bedetectable (Figure 6). For hydroelectricdevelopments, natural environment con-cerns, like water quality and fisheries,will generally be limited to within thedrainage basin while socio-economicconcerns, like migration of workers andcommunity impacts, may spill overdrainage basin boundaries into adjacentareas/ecosystems. It is important thatthe full range of potential on-site andoff-site effects be identified andassessed.The temporal boundary maydefine whether an effect will occur daily,seasonally, or after several years.

Field study terms of reference shouldlist the objective of the study and indi-cate how the results will be interpreted.When terms of reference are developed,consideration should be given to thepotential costs of the work. Some pre-liminary budgeting should always beundertaken during the study conceptu-alization phase. If studies are recom-mended as the result of a scoping work-shop involving the regulatory agencies orpublic, then a preliminary costingshould be undertaken before the propo-nent makes a commitment to do thestudy.

Study area logistical considerations suchas access and field subsistence (fieldcamps) for scientific field studies inremote areas may influence technicalfeasibility, costs and safety planning.Many future energy projects will be inrural or remote areas without properroad access. In these situations, logisticscan represent an important componentof project costs which in turn can influ-ence the technical feasibility. Wheneverpossible the proponent or their consul-tants should employ local personnel tocarry out field programs.

Due to the seasonal requirements of cer-tain field studies, e.g. fish spawning andmigration studies, scheduling is animportant consideration in the planning

FIGURE 6: Typical SpatialBoundaries for a Hydroelectric

Project

�

Changes in the pattern of flow (volume, timing, and amount of discharge)may lead to changes in resident fish populations

Changed distribution and abundance of fish

FIGURE 5:Example of a Hypothesis of Effect

14

of baseline studies. Study requirementsshould be determined in advance so thatcritical field seasons are not missed. Insome circumstances, a full year may belost by not initiating field studies earlyenough.

Proper data management is important,especially when there are large studiescovering long spans of time and costingmillions of dollars. Data collected dur-ing baseline studies is generally managedand analyzed according to the two maintypes, numerical data and spatial data.Computer databases are often used tohelp organize and manage numericaldata for use by scientists and EIA practi-tioners, while Geographic InformationSystems (GIS) are often used for thespatial data (see EIA Tools and Methodssection).

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Public and stakeholder involvement inthe EIA process is now widely recog-nized as being an essential component.It leads to better and more acceptabledecision-making.

The public is an important source oflocal and traditional knowledge about aproject’s physical site and likely environ-mental effects. Through public partici-pation activities, project proponents canobtain this information, better under-stand and respond to public concerns,and inform people about decisions.

Taking stakeholder viewpoints intoaccount improves project viability. TheWorld Bank (1991) has found thatwhere such views are seriously consid-ered and incorporated in the EIAprocess, projects are likely to be moresuccessful.

Public and stakeholder involvement isparticularly important during the scop-ing, impact assessment, and mitigationphases of an EIA. During scoping, pub-lic involvement is undertaken to ensurethat all the significant issues are

identified, local information about theproject is gathered and alternative waysof achieving the project objectives areconsidered. Public involvement is par-ticularly important in understanding thenature and extent of potential socio-cul-tural impacts. Further involvement ofthe public in the impact assessmentphase can help to avoid biases and canreveal local values and preferences.Public input can also assist in the con-sideration of mitigation measures whichwill be incorporated into the design andconstruction of the favored alternative.

Given its broad scope, an EIA studypotentially involves a large number ofstakeholders. The concerns and viewpoints of all parties interested inand affected by the project should betaken into account in reaching a deci-sion on the project. Informed views ofdiverse segments of the affected popula-tion are critically important to the EIAprocess because different groups use andare familiar with different parts of theenvironment and will be affected to dif-ferent degrees by the project.

The EIA coordinator and the EIA pro-ject team should be responsible for iden-tifying the concerns of all potentialstakeholders and, where reasonable, toresolve those concerns (e.g. by correctingmisunderstandings, making

commitments to further study, mitiga-tion or compensation etc.).

Where possible, a consultation programshould be coordinated by a publicinvolvement specialist. The objectives of the consultation effortshould be to:

• inform interested groups and indi-viduals about the proposed develop-ment: This will minimize misunder-standings about the scope andimpacts of the project;

• provide opportunities for timely andmeaningful input;

• ensure decisions have adequatelyconsidered the concerns and valuesof the stakeholders, particularly theaffected community(ies);

• seek approaches to problem solvingand hopefully resolve conflicts;

• obtain local and traditional knowl-edge before decision-making;

• provide better transparency andaccountability in decision-making.

Methods of public involvement are sum-marized in Appendix 3. Ideally a mix ofthese methods is used over the EIAprocess. For example, a public informa-tion center or an open communitymeeting could be used to launch a pro-ject EIA, i.e. for the public to learnabout proposals and offer comments;small workshops could be used duringscoping to discuss specific concerns andidentify opportunities to resolve thoseconcerns; and surveys, interviews orquestionnaires could be used to seekinput during impact assessment. Projectprogress reports or newsletters can beused to encourage involvement over theproject life cycle. Methods used need tosuit the social and cultural environment.

Care is required to ensure that a fair andbalanced representation of views issought and that the views of the poor orminority groups are not overwhelmedby those of the more influential orwealthy. Cultural and social patterns,and local decision-making processes,should be taken into consideration in

Potential stakeholders include:• an investor;

• regulatory authorities;

• government policy makers;

• regional planners;

• the local community and its repre-sentatives;

• public interest groups (i.e., non-government organizations orNGO’s);

• politicians

• customers

• Aboriginal Peoples

• resource users

15

designing a public involvement program (e.g. customs).

Information used in any consultationprogram (particularly for the public)should be specially prepared to minimizethe use of technical jargon and be readi-ly understandable. Written materialshould be translated into local languageswhere necessary. Where many may beunable to read, oral discussion and visualpresentations may be needed. Videosmay be particularly useful for this purpose.

It is very important to document keycomponents of the stakeholder involve-ment and consultation process. Thisdocumentation could be used as evi-dence in hearings or regulatory reviewsof the project EIA, and will help demon-strate that proper notification andinvolvement of all key stakeholdergroups has been done. Means of docu-menting the consultation processinclude, chronologies of major events ordecision points, good records of corre-spondence sent and received, copies ofquestionnaires and public survey orfeedback forms, minutes of meetingswith various stakeholder groups, andvideos of public information meetings.

Inter-agency coordination is crucial toan effective EIA process. Environmentalissues tend to cross regional, sectoral andeven international boundaries. As such,the regulatory management of theseissues can be spread throughout variouslevels and departments of governments.To be effective, an EIA study must haveaccess to and make use of or share allavailable information, specialized knowl-edge and policy direction related toimportant issues. Inter-agency coordi-nation is best achieved through meet-ings with key government agencies atkey points in the EIA process.

PREDICTION OF EFFECTS

Effects prediction is the most challeng-ing and controversial stage of the EIAprocess. Development projects can setin motion a complex chain of eventsthat can affect the environment in wayswhich are often difficult to predict inadvance (Sadar 1994). Reliable methodsare available for predicting some envi-ronmental parameters, e.g. air qualityimpacts, whereas other predictions willbe based more on professional judg-ment, e.g. impacts on wildlife populations.

Effects prediction attempts to answerthe following questions:

• How will a particular project activitygive rise to an impact?

• How likely is it that an impact willoccur?

• What will be the magnitude of eachimpact?

• What will be the spatial and tempo-ral extent of each impact?

An environmental effect is defined as areaction to a change in the environmentas a result of a project action.Distinctionis often made between direct and indi-rect effects, and normally both types ofeffects are addressed in an EIA study.

Direct effects are the immediate physi-cal effects and alterations to the environ-ment which follow as a direct cause-effect consequence of a project activity(e.g. reservoir flooding can result inbioaccumulation of methylmercury inthe aquatic food chain (Figure 7)).

Indirect effects are effects induced orstimulated by the project, and at leastone step removed from a project activityin terms of cause-effect linkages (e.g.project access road construction in aremote area can result in secondarydevelopment along the access road).

Methylmercury

Natural Water Level

Raised Water Level

Methylmercury

FIGURE 7: Transfer of Methyl Mercury After a New Reservoir is Filled

PUBLICCONSULTATION/INTER-AGENCYCOORDINATION

EIA PROCESS

Screening

Scoping

Baseline Data

Effects Prediction

Mitigation

Impact Assessment

EIA Review

Implementation Monitoring

Need/Justification

16

The cumulative effects of placing afacility in a given environment shouldalso be considered as part of effects pre-diction. An EIA should look at anycumulative effects that are likely toresult from the project in combinationwith other projects or activities that havebeen or will be carried out in the fore-seeable future.

Environmental effects are often seen asisolated or separate from one another.In reality, however, they interact overtime and space. Therefore, to addresscumulative environmental effectsrequires analysts to think “cumulative-ly”, taking into account:

• time and geographic boundaries;

• interactions between the project’senvironmental effects;

• interactions between the project’senvironmental effects and those ofother projects and activities.

It is critical to consider environmentaleffects during project construction, com-missioning and operation for each pro-ject alternative. EIAs often focus onoperation of a facility, however con-struction activities can have significanteffects as well and should not be forgotten.

Both positive and negative impactsresulting from the project should beidentified and assessed. These includeeffects on both the natural and man-made (or social) environments. A short-coming in many EIAs is that social andcultural aspects are not given muchprominence at the effects predictionstage. This is unfortunate since socio-cultural impacts are often stronglylinked to changes in the natural environ-ment and are the impacts that the localcommunity will feel most acutely in

their everyday lives (e.g. loss of a fisheryand/or food source due to methylmer-cury accumulation in fish). Therefore itis important that socio-cultural impactsbe considered, where possible, in everydiscussion and assessment of biophysicalchange. These should include:

• effects on human health;

• effects on socio-economic conditions;

• effects on physical and cultural her-itage, including effects on things ofachaeological, paleontological, orarchitectural significance;

• effects on the current use of landsand resources for traditional purpos-es by aboriginal persons.

It is important that the temporal andspatial extent of effects be carefully con-sidered in predicting impacts.Electricity project construction andoperation can have local, regional andglobal effects. For example, the con-struction of a hydroelectric generatingstation will have relatively short-term,localized impacts, while the operation ofthat station can change the water leveland flow regime of the river basin.Methane given off by reservoir floodingcan contribute to global climate change.

In order for impact predictions to beuseful to decision-makers, the predictions must generally:

• fulfill the environmental assessmentobjective of contributing to

informed decision-making (e.g. deci-sions on the evaluation of projectalternatives, need for and design ofenvironmental protection/mitigationmeasures);

• contain an estimate of the uncertain-ty expected; and

• be verifiable through a post-develop-ment monitoring program.

Predictions which are vague, generalizedspeculations are of little value to makinginformed decisions. Wherever possible,impact predictions should be statedexplicitly, and accompanied with a dis-cussion of the method used, as well asthe limitations of the analysis.

Effects prediction is carried out in twostages: First, effects are identified andpathways are determined that link pro-ject activities to environmental compo-nents; then models and other analyticalmethods are developed and applied toquantify/estimate potential environmen-tal effects.

Identification of Effects

The identification phase attempts toanswer the question - What will happenas a result of the project? At this stage,the potential sources and pathways forproject effects are identified. Figure 9shows typical activites associated withconstruction of a hydroelectric project,and Table 2 summarizes potentialimpacts associated with these activities.

Examples of cumulative environmen-tal effects include global warmingcaused by the build-up of greenhousegases in the upper atmosphere, andloss of biodiversity.

DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS

FIGURE 8: Typical Operational Concerns at a Hydroelectric Facility

17

COMPONENT POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

Atmospheric Environment Aquatic Environment Terrestrial Environment Resource Use

SOURCES OF Water Aquatic Geology HeritageEFFECTS Dust Noise Vibration Quality/ Biota Hydro- Vegetation Wildlife Aquatic Terrestrial Resources

Sediments geology Soils

Site access

Sitepreparation

Intakeconstruction

Tunnel andcanalexcavation

Materialextractiondisposal

Reservoirclearing

Constructionofpowerhouse

Cofferdamsandtemporaryflowdiversion

TABLE 2: Potential Sources of Environmental Effects During Hydoelectric Project Construction

Typical effects for hydroelectric projectsare given in Appendix 2.

Identification of key effects can beachieved by using one or all of the fol-lowing methods:

• compile a list of important impactsfrom analysis of previous projects ofa similar nature in a similar environ-mental setting;

• use checklists, networks, matrices ormap overlays to match sources ofproject impact with potential recep-tors (see EIA Tools and Methodssection);

• use hypotheses of effect to map outlinkages and potential impacts onthe environment.

Much of this identification work mayhave already been done at the scopingphase where critical issues should havebeen defined.

Broad areas of concern associated withenergy projects include effects on:

• air quality

• water quality and use

• land use

• resource use (fuels and otherresources)

• terrestrial ecosystems

• aquatic ecosystems

• social systems/community life

• human health

The level of concern for each of theseparameters will change with the type ofenergy system utilized and location ofthe project. For example, combustion-based (like wood burning) generationprocesses will result in greater concernfor air emissions while concerns related

• • • • •

• • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

18

to hydroelectric generation will be large-ly aquatic-based.

For electricity projects, typical sources ofenvironmental effects include:

• fuel extraction and supply

• facility construction

• atmospheric emissions

• aquatic discharges and changes inflows and water levels

• land displacement

• waste production and management

• transmission corridors

• access roads and transportation

Quantification/Estimation of Effects

Having identified the key parametersrequiring assessment, a variety of analytical techniques can be used to

predict potential environmental effects.Prediction often follows an impact with-in a single environmental parameter(e.g., a toxic effluent) into its subsequenteffects on many other parameters (e.g.,reduced water quality, adverse impactson fisheries, economic effects on fishingand resulting socio-cultural changes).

A number of methods which are com-monly used in estimating/quantifyingenvironmental effects include (seeAppendix 3):

• pre-project experiments (e.g. toxicitytesting);

• hypotheses testing;

• mathematical modeling (e.g. air dis-persion, hydrology and hydrody-namics, water quality, groundwaterquality, erosion and sedimentation,

biotic habitat, oil spills, and riskanalysis);

• physical modeling (e.g. hydraulicmodels or wind tunnels);

• computer simulation (useful inassessing visual impacts of a project);

• constraint mapping (useful for predicting impacts related to land orresource use displacement, particu-larly siting and routing).

To prevent unnecessary expense, thesophistication of the prediction methodshould be properly matched with thescope of the EIA. For example, a com-plex mathematical model of atmosphericdispersion should not be used if onlysmall amounts of relatively harmless pol-lutants are expected to be emitted.Simpler models may suffice. These typeof requirements should be establishedand documented at the scoping phase.

All prediction techniques involve somedegree of uncertainty. It is important torecognize this uncertainty, and stateprobabilities and margins of errorinvolved in predicting the likely impactof a proposed project.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

PUBLICCONSULTATION/INTER-AGENCYCOORDINATION

EIA PROCESS

Screening

Scoping

Baseline Data

Effects Prediction

Mitigation

Impact Assessment

EIA Review

Implementation Monitoring

Need/Justification

FIGURE 9: Typical Construction Activities Associated with aHydroelectric Project

19

Once predictions are made, the nextstep is to decide if these predictedchanges really “matter”, i.e. are signifi-cant or are perceived to be important.

The significance of environmentaleffects is generally evaluated in terms oftheir spatial extent (geographic distribu-tion), duration (short vs. long-term),magnitude (measured level of change ina parameter and whether thresholds arebeing exceeded), reversibility (reversibleversus irrevocable), and special sensitivi-ty (whether an impact affects a sensitivearea within the country - like a naturereserve).

Judgment of significance can be basedon one or more of the following:

• comparison with laws, regulations oraccepted standards (i.e., does theproject meet legal requirements, arestandards exceeded?);

• reference to pre-set criteria (such asthreshold limits, dose-response rela-tionships, conflicts with protectedsites, features or species, and/ormaintenance of local breeding populations);

• consistency with government policyobjectives and goals; and/or

• social acceptance (i.e., acceptabilityto the local community or the gener-al public).

The impact evaluation stage usuallyinvolves utilizing a mixture of bothquantitative comparison and qualitativejudgment.

Impact evaluation should be undertakenin a way that allows a comparison ofproject alternatives and facilitates thecommunication of results to the publicand decision-makers. It should be tiedback to issues and concerns raised dur-ing scoping exercises and issue identifi-cation. Additional stakeholder inputwill likely be required during this stageof the EIA process to help determine thesignificance and relative importance ofimpacts.

MITIGATION ANDRESIDUAL EFFECTS

If identified impacts “matter”, i.e. aresignificant and/or important, it is neces-sary to identify and implement mitiga-tion measures. Mitigation measures areselected to reduce or eliminate the sever-ity of any predicted adverse environ-mental effects and improve the overallenvironmental performance and accept-ability of the project.

Where mitigation is deemed appropri-ate, a proponent should strive to actupon effects, in the following order ofpriority, to:

1. Eliminate or avoid adverse effects,where reasonably achievable.

2. Reduce adverse effects to the lowestreasonably achievable level.

3. Regulate adverse effects to an accept-able level, or to an acceptable timeperiod.

4. Create other beneficial effects to par-tially or fully substitute for, orcounter-balance, adverse effects.

Mitigation is an integral part of impactevaluation. It looks for better ways ofdoing things so that the negativeimpacts of the proposal are eliminatedor minimized and the benefits are

PUBLICCONSULTATION/INTER-AGENCYCOORDINATION

EIA PROCESS

Screening

Scoping

Baseline Data

Effects Prediction

Mitigation

Impact Assessment

EIA Review

Implementation Monitoring

Need/Justification

Factors used in determining whether ornot environmental effects are adverseinclude (CEA A 1994):

• negative effects on the health ofbiota including plants, animals, andfish

• threat to rare or endangered species

• reductions in species diversity or dis-ruption of food webs

• loss of, or damage to, habitats,including habitat fragmentation

• discharges or release of persistentand/or toxic chemicals, microbialagents, nutrients (eg. nitrogen, phos-phorus), radiation or thermal ener-gy (eg. cooling wastewater)

• population declines, particularly intop predator, large, or long-livedspecies

• removal of resource materials (e.g.peat, coal) from the environment

• transformation of natural landscapes

• obstruction of migration, or passageof wildlife

• negative effects on the qualityand/or quantity of the biophysicalenvironment (e.g., surface water,groundwater, soil, land and air)

• negative effects on human health,well-being, or quality of life

• increase in unemployment orshrinkage in the economy

• detrimental change in the currentuse of lands and resources for tradi-tional purposes by aboriginal persons

• negative effects on historical, archae-ological, paleontological, or architec-tural resources

• loss of, or damage to, commercialspecies or resources

• foreclosure of future resource use orproduction

• decreased aesthetic appeal orchanges in visual amenities (e.g.scenic views)

20

enhanced. As soon as significant adverseimpacts are identified, discussionsshould be held to see if they can be‘designed out’ through changes in pro-ject design, location or operation. It isimportant therefore, that there is goodintegration between the EIA team andproject design engineers.

Possible mitigation options for electrici-ty projects include:

• plan alterations (e.g. changes in con-struction scheduling to avoid sensi-tive life stages of wildlife);

• design alterations (e.g., differentroutes for transmission lines, differ-ent sites for hydroelectric developments);

• provision of environmental protec-tion equipment (e.g., noise mufflers,pollution abatement equipment);

• changes in management practices(e.g., staff training, recycling wasteby-products instead of landfilling,public education);

• changes in operation (e.g. restrictionof water level fluctuations in hydro-electric reservoirs).

A summary of typical mitigation mea-sures that can be applied for hydroelec-tric projects is provided in Appendix 2.

Where residual impacts remain aftermitigation has been applied, some formof monetary or other compensation(e.g., create new fish spawning habitat,or build a new school) might be consid-ered or required to ensure the public donot bear costs which are greater than thebenefits which accrue to them from theproject.

Special financial and other assistance tocommunities affected by the operationand construction of major facilities maybe necessary. Community ImpactAgreements (CIAs) can be developedwith host communities to ensure thatassistance will be available to help localareas adjust to the possible “boom andbust” effects often associated with theconstruction and operation of majorelectricity projects. This type of agree-ment might also provide a sum ofmoney to the community to help offsetidentifiable local, social and communityeffects, and establish a monitoring pro-gram to measure the impacts on thecommunity during construction andoperation.

Resettlement Planning

Project planning should attempt toavoid or minimize involuntary

resettlement. However, when forcedresettlement is unavoidable and fullyjustified, a resettlement plan should beformulated and financed. The plan willensure that people displaced will be pro-vided with development opportunitiesto improve, or at least restore, the livingstandards they had before the project.

Mitigation and compensation measuresshould be identified early and properlycosted and incorporated in the overallcapital budget for the project to ensurethat recommended actions do get car-ried out. Mitigation/compensation costscan account for up to 10 percent of totalproject costs, but are more typically inthe 3 to 5 percent range (World Bank1991).

21

EIA IN DECISION MAKING

In order to arrive at the “preferred” pro-ject, an evaluation and comparison ofthe project alternatives in terms of theirpositive and negative effects on the envi-ronment is made. This evaluation

process involves specifying and compar-ing the trade-offs among alternatives,based on the evaluation of the predictedeffects and proposed measures to miti-gate any adverse effects of each alternative.

The public involvement program is animportant component at this stage, andshould be organized to provide inputs tothe evaluation of alternatives and theidentification of trade-offs. It must berecognized that decisions resulting froman EIA may be based as much on sub-jective judgments, involving values,opinions, beliefs, and political agendasas on the results of the scientific studies.

Various qualitative and quantitativetools are available to evaluate alterna-tives, and to arrive at a preferred project(MOE 1990, Wolfe 1987, Rau and

Wooten 1980)(see also Appendix 3 -EIA Tools and Methods). Lendingagencies and regulatory authorities donot generally specify which methodolo-gy is to be used in the evaluation ofalternatives, and selection of the pre-ferred alternative, since each project isunique in itself. All evaluation methodsresult in some form of ordering of alter-natives according to preference.

The EIA document should describe theevaluation process and the methodologyused in arriving at the recommendedproject, so that decision-makers are ableto trace each step of the process. Theassumptions and subjective judgmentsused in the evaluation should be statedin the document. As well, the issuesleading to and influencing the selectedcourse of action, and any unresolvedissues, should also be described.

PUBLICCONSULTATION/INTER-AGENCYCOORDINATION

EIA PROCESS

Screening

Scoping

Baseline Data

Effects Prediction

Mitigation

Impact Assessment

EIA Review

Implementation Monitoring

Need/Justification

A Resettlement Plan should include:• Resettlement policies and objectives

• Baseline data on affected area andpopulation; estimated capacity ofthe receiving area to sustain addi-tional population

• Environmental risks of the resettle-ment plan, eg. increased pressure onnatural resources, construction ofinfrastructure

• An Environmental ManagementPlan to address these risks to miti-gate impacts on and protect the nat-ural and human environment

• Organizations responsible for plan-ning, development, training, imple-mentation and monitoring (shortand long-term)

• Strategies for participation of affect-ed people

• Development plan for new sites anddetailed layout

• Monitoring requirements

• Cost estimate

• Financial plan, implementationschedule

FIGURE 10: Project Decision Making

22

The most acceptable alternative whichemerges from the evaluation and decision-making process is usually therecommended project to be put forwardin the EIA document by the proponentfor approval. Any residual effects whichcannot be avoided or alleviated throughmitigation or compensation measuresshould be described in the overall assess-ment section of the EIA document. It isthe job of decision-makers to assimilateall the information provided and decideif the benefits to be accrued through aproject justify the potential disruptionsthat will occur (Figure 10).

DOCUMENTATION

All pertinent information that was col-lected as part of the EIA process, as wellas the manner in which it was assessedand the judgments used in selecting thepreferred alternatives must be describedin an EIA document.

The EIA document is the main vehiclefor the project proponent to presenttheir case (i.e., rationale and justifica-tion) for proceeding with a proposeddevelopment activity. It is critical thatinformation presented in this report isclear, focused, and useful to decision-makers.

The language of the EIA documentmust be clear and concise. The infor-mation presented should be balanced,relevant, and succinct. Detailed techni-cal data should be generally confined toappendices or referenced to reports. Asthe EIA document is used for decision-making, it should focus on clarifyingissues which are important to projectdecisions, such as trade-offs, evaluationcriteria, evaluation and selection process,irreversible impacts, etc.

An EIA document should typicallyinclude:

• Executive Summary providing a con-cise discussion of significant findingsand recommended actions.

• Policy, legal and administrative

framework within which the EIA isprepared.

• Project Need/Justification.

• Description of project and its alter-natives in a geographic, ecological,social and temporal context.

• Description of existing environmentincluding a description of relevantphysical, biological, resource use andsocio-economic conditions prevail-ing before the project is developed.

• Discussion of potential environmen-tal impacts, both positive and nega-tive, that are likely to result from theproposed project - including anidentification of mitigation mea-sures, residual impacts that cannotbe mitigated, opportunities for envi-ronmental enhancement, and uncer-tainties associated with impact predictions.

• An analysis of alternatives, whichcompares design, site, technologicaland operational options systematical-ly (and quantitatively where possi-ble) in terms of potential environ-mental impacts, capital and operat-ing costs, appropriateness, and insti-tutional and monitoring requirements.

• Impact management plan includingproposals for feasible and cost-effec-tive mitigation measures that mayreduce potentially significant adverseenvironmental impacts to acceptablelevels; and compensatory measureswhere mitigation measures are notpossible.

• A summary of the EIA for the gener-al public

• Appendices - including a list of EIAcontributors, references and recordof inter-agency meetings.

Detailed data and analysis that areimportant but not critical to the EIAsfindings should be provided in a seriesof support documents to the main EIAreport.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

The EIA process does not stop once aproject is approved. During implemen-tation of a project, a proponent isresponsible for ensuring that the envi-ronmental commitments made to regu-latory agencies, lending agencies andother stakeholders during the EIAprocess are met.

EIA follow-up documents, such as anImpact Management Plan, should beprepared, defining for project staff andany consultants or contractors, the envi-ronmental guidelines, regulations andcriteria to be followed in the design,construction and operation of the gener-ating station including the specific com-ments and conditions imposed by gov-ernment agencies during the EIAprocess.

Project specific environmental construc-tion guidelines should be developed.These should specify precautions andmitigation measures for constructionactivities, and include a plan for moni-toring those activities which could havea significant environmental effect (e.g.stream crossing, dredging, dewatering).

Construction monitoring, includingfield inspections and surveys, should be

PUBLICCONSULTATION/INTER-AGENCYCOORDINATION

EIA PROCESS

Screening

Scoping

Baseline Data

Effects Prediction

Mitigation

Impact Assessment

EIA Review

Implementation Monitoring

Need/Justification

23

carried out by an environmental special-ist, to ensure that environmental protec-tion requirements are being met. It isimportant to plan and budget for envi-ronmental construction monitoring aspart of the project.

If construction is to be contracted out,specific environmental requirementsduring construction should be built intoconstruction bidding documents andcontracts to ensure they are met (e.g.requirements for local hiring).

Environmental effects monitoring isused to identify environmental changesresulting from the implementation ofthe project. In the context of EIA,effects monitoring programs are carriedout to achieve the following results:

• to ensure that the facility is meetingall environmental regulatory require-ments, and that commitments madein the EIA document and/or theconditions of approval are beingmet;

• to test impact hypotheses, and toverify the predictions and assessmentof environmental effects, thus con-tributing to better assessments in thefuture;

• to evaluate the performance effec-tiveness of mitigation;

• to compare actual and predictedchanges to the environment, so thatimmediate actions can be taken tomitigate unanticipated impacts;

• to strengthen confidence by bothgovernment and the public in theEIA process, the decisions made, thestation design etc., especially when adecision is made to proceed with aproject with a high level of uncertainty.

The monitoring programs to be carriedout during the construction and opera-tion of the undertaking are normallydescribed in the EIA document.

The effects monitoring program shouldinclude several years of pre-operationalmonitoring (depending on the scope ofthe project), and continue several years

into the operation of the project. Thepre-operational phase establishes a base-line against which to measure change,while the operational phase measures thechange and trends over time. Theresults of the effects monitoring pro-gram should be summarized in an

Environmental Effects Report.It is important that information andexperience gained through the monitor-ing activities are fed back into the EIA

evaluation and analysis system toimprove the quality of future assessmentstudies. This particular element of theprocess is known as EIA verification.EIA verification, also known as EIAauditing, is that part of the EIA processwhich evaluates the accuracy or effec-tiveness of hypotheses and predictiveand assessment methods used in previ-ous project EIA documents, and drawson past experience to improve futureEIA processes. EIA verification usesaudit and other information obtainedfrom compliance monitoring, effectsmonitoring and from other relevantsources, as inputs to future projects.

The objectives of EIA verification are:

• to verify predictive models, policiesand general EIA methods for futureapplications by comparing past pre-dictions, assumptions, etc. with mea-sured and documented effects;

• to assess the effectiveness of EIAmethods, post-approval effects moni-toring, and mitigation and compen-sation measures for future applica-tions; and

• to improve EIA methods, and miti-gation and compensation measuresfor future applications.

The use of EIA verification can improvea number of EIA process components,including predictive models, studymethods, mitigation strategies, policies,scoping and early planning exercises,regulatory involvement and publicinvolvement programs. The result ofimproved EIA components will be amore cost-effective and efficient EIAprocess.

Indicators to be monitoredfor a hydroelectric projectmay include:

Water Quality -

Temperature, dissolved oxygen(reservoir, tailwater),chlorophyll asecchi disc and colour, turbidityand suspended solids

Mercury Contamination -

Fish muscle (reservoir, down-stream), human hair

Erosion and Sedimentation -

Videotaping, aerial photography &GIS, bathymetry, suspended solids

Fish Entrainment -

Acoustic assessment - high frequen-cy sonar, small mesh nets

Flow Regulation -

Stage-discharge surveys, hydraulicsurveys, substrate surveys (visual, sonar, dredges)

Population Effects -

Fish index netting, acoustic assessment, fishery results

24

The methodologies available to under-take EIA processes are numerous and arethe subject of many textbooks and pub-lished articles. Appendix 3 presents a listof selected EIA techniques, their applica-tion and relative advantages and disad-vantages. References for each techniqueare provided. Appendix 3 also providessome guidance as to what stage in theEIA process these techniques might haveapplication (e.g. scoping, screening).EIA methods are generally selected tomeet and reflect the nature of the pro-ject, its setting, and societal conditions.

Well-documented overviews of EIAmethodologies can be found in a num-ber of general references (Rau andWooten 1980, Munn 1975, MOE1990, CEARC 1986, Ross 1974, Canter1996, Warner 1973, Beanlands &Duinker 1983, Wolfe 1987, Clark1978). Some of the more commonlyused tools are summarized below.

Checklists

A checklist is a list of environmentalparameters to be investigated for possi-ble impacts. It serves as an initial refer-ence guide, for identifying relevant envi-ronmental factors for consideration inan EIA. Experience from previous pro-jects can be helpful in identifying rele-vant environmental components thatshould be included in the analysis.Checklists do not require the explicitestablishment of direct cause-effect linksto project activities. They do not inthemselves provide for the prediction orassessment of impacts.

Matrices

A matrix goes one step further than achecklist by linking a list of possibleeffects with specific actions and projectactivities. Matrices are two-dimensionaltables, with activities associated withvarious phases of the the project on oneaxis, and environmental componentslisted on the other (eg. see Table 2).The entries in the cells of the matrix can

EIA Tools & Methods

“EIA methods are generally selected to

meet and reflect the nature of the pro-

ject, its setting, and societal conditions.”

25

be either qualitative or quantitative estimates of impact. Simple matriceswill indicate only that an impact isexpected to occur, while more complexmatrices may give quantitative estimatesof impact magnitude and significance.

Networks

Networks are an extension of informa-tion found in matrices. A network dia-gram demonstrates linkages between andamong the environmental components,providing some indication of how anecosystem operates. An understandingof the interrelationships and inter-dependence in the ecological chain ofcausation is useful in identifying secondand third order effects. It also hints atprobable additive, interactive, synergisticand/or cumulative effects.

Map Overlays

Map overlay techniques rely on a set ofmaps of project effects, or environmen-tal characteristics or themes that describethe project area. These maps can beoverlain to produce a composite charac-terization of a regional environment.Thematic map overlays can aid in iden-tifying geographic areas of particularenvironmental sensitivity and can visual-

ly provide a clue as to possible incre-mental and cumulative effects (Figure11). Manual overlay techniques can beused as an effective tool for analyzingsmall projects. For large projects, geo-graphic information systems (GIS) arefavoured for map overlay analysis, dueto their capacity for handling very largedata sets incorporating many map layers.

Geographic Information SystemsGeographic Information Systems (GIS)are computer based systems to supportthe capture, management, manipulation,analysis, modeling and display of spatialdata. UNEP’s Global ResourcesInformation Database (GRID) is a glob-al environmental data system whichassembles, processes and supplies geo-referenced environmental informationto users around the world. It is intend-ed to be a world-wide GIS networkwhich is accessible from any country inthe world, and which can support indi-vidual project EIAs. The most signifi-cant uses for GIS technology in EIAs arefacility siting, modelling, change detec-tion and decision support.

The scale and scope of anticipatedimpacts will influence the type of

method selected. In general, even thelargest projects will begin with the use ofchecklists, matrices and network dia-grams to aid in the identification of per-tinent environmental components andecosystem linkages.

FIGURE 11: Sample ThematicMap Overlays

26

To ensure an EIA study is carried out inan efficient and effective manner, it isimportant that the EIA process is prop-erly managed and administered. Moreoften than not it is poor process man-agement that leads to delays in complet-ing EIA studies.

An EIA is usually carried out by thoseresponsible for a project - i.e., the pro-ject proponent. In order to perform anEIA study, it is usually desirable toassemble a multidisciplinary team(Figure 12). Typically, this EIA teamconsists of an EIA coordinator (or teamleader) and a variety of trained technical and scientific experts (in fields such asenvironmental engineering/science,process engineering, waste and pollutioncontrol, planning, geography, biology,landscape design, public involvement,and social science) who can address thefull range of issues and concerns relatedto the specific project under consideration.

It is preferable if these types of skills canbe found within the host country for theproject, in that local people will have agreater knowledge of local conditionsand issues. Where this is not possiblethese skills can generally be provided byforeign consultants. Ideally, the EIA

coordinator should be local. This coor-dinator can make decisions about whatcan be done locally by consultants, uni-versities and research organizations, andwhen to seek foreign input. The localcoordinator can also closely control thework of consultants to ensure that thework being undertaken is relevant tolocal needs and useful to potential deci-sion-makers.

The primary functions of the EIA pro-ject team of specialists are (for their par-ticular area of expertise) to:

• participate in scoping workshops todefine the work program, asrequired;

• define baseline environmental conditions;

• define all major environmentalissues;

• predict environmental impacts;

• recommend mitigative measures tominimize impacts and compensationwhere residual impacts still persist;

• identify all environmental standardsinfluencing project design and rec-ommend appropriate control/protec-tion measures;

• conduct and/or participate in pub-lic/government consultation programs;

• prepare sections of the EIA docu-ment and necessary support techni-cal studies as required.

EIA ProjectManagement

“An EIA study is very much an exercise

in issues management.”

EIA Coordinator

Public

Government�Agencies

Natural�Environment�

Disiplines

Consultants

Social�Environment�Disciplines

Project�Engineering

FIGURE 12: Multidisciplinary EIA study team

27

Functions of the EIA coordinatorshould include:

• definition of the EIA work programin relation to the overall projectplanning and decision-makingprocess;

• interpretation of the environmentallegislation compliance requirementsfor the project in question;

• breakdown (and budgeting) of theEIA work program into specificwork packages to be completed bycontributing specialists;

• scheduling of the EIA work program;

• hiring consultants and managingtheir contracts/activities;

• direct liaison with the decision-mak-ers, regulatory authorities, mediaspokesperson, public interest groups(NGOs), local community leadersand the general public;

• transmittal of design recommenda-tions, mitigation requirements,approvals requirements etc. from theEIA team to the project design team;

• monitoring progress of the workprogram;

• coordination of the final EIA documentation;

• coordination of follow-up require-ments during project implementation.

In addition to the technical/scientificspecialists performing EIA studies, cer-tain project engineering and planningstaff may also have to become involvedin the EIA study to supply engineeringand design information required to carryout the assessment. These project staffwill also have to be intimately involvedin the discussions related to project miti-gation and compensation measures.

Both the costs and lead times necessaryfor approval of EIA submissions varysubstantially from project to project.The expectations and general concernsof government and the public areimportant factors in scoping EIA studiesand ultimately the time required forapproval.

Costs related to carrying out EIA studiesfor major energy projects can vary signif-icantly, but are typically about 1-5 per-cent of overall project capital costs

(Figure 13). The largest component ofan EIA study is generally for baselineenvironmental studies, although mitiga-tion and compensation measures provid-ed during project implementation canalso be fairly significant cost items.Detailed costs are developed as part ofwork scope planning.

The time required to carry out an EIAstudy will vary with the type, size andcomplexity of the project; the character-istics of its physical, sociocultural andinstitutional setting; and the quantityand quality of environmental data that isalready available about the study area.Again, World Bank (1991) studies sug-gest that EIA studies can take between 6and 18 months, with 12 months beingtypical. An EIA for a major new gener-ating facility could take up to three yearsto complete, depending on the scope.

With respect to scheduling, one of thekey factors is the seasonal requirementsof field studies. Fisheries studies forexample may require spring and/or fall(wet and/or dry season) monitoring toassess impacts on migration and spawn-ing activities. Part of the planningprocess is to determine in advance allstudy requirements, so that field seasonsare not missed. In some circumstances,a full year may be lost by not mobilizingfor field studies early enough.

To ensure effective management of anEIA study an EIA Work Scope docu-ment should be prepared by the EIAcoordinator. This is an internal projectdocument which contains a breakdownof work packages associated with thepreparation of an EIA, specific contribu-tors assigned to the work, and a budgetsummary and schedule for each workpackage.

An EIA study is very much an exercisein issues management. Critical issuesare identified during scoping andtracked throughout the EIA process. Inmany cases, these issues evolve andchange as the EIA process progresses, inresponse to changes in project design,changes in process participants and theintroduction of study findings or otherscientific information. To ensure a suc-cessful EIA process, it is important todevelop some sort of system to track andrespond to the dynamics of issue evolu-tion throughout the EIA process. Thiswill allow the EIA team to foreseepotential problems before they becomecritical and can cause significant sched-ule delays. A record of issue dynamicsthroughout the EIA process can also bevery helpful in focusing and organizingthe final EIA documentation by ensur-ing that the document concentrates onthe key issues of concern.

An Issues Status Report can be devel-oped and maintained by the EIA teamto monitor the status and record thechronology of issues development dur-ing the EIA process. The Issues StatusReport should include the followinginformation about each major issue:

• Description - a description of theissue and how it relates to the project

• Action Taken - a discussion of anyhistorical, current or planned actionsthat relate to the issue

• Issue Status - provide the currentstatus of the issue resolution process

• Contacts - provide a list of all thestakeholders (and a key contact per-son) with an interest in the issue anda statement of their concerns relativeto this issue

• Cross-Reference - provide an indica-tion how this issue relates to othermajor issues affecting a project.

EIA

EIA

FIGURE 13: EIA Costs for a Major Generating Station with aBreakdown of Costs in the EIA

28

The following guidelines will help to getthe most out of the EIA process:

• Only do full EIAs on projects withsignificant impacts. Projects shouldbe screened carefully to focus limited

funds and resources for EIA studieson those projects that really requiredetailed assessment.

• Focus on the main issues. It isimportant that an EIA does not try

to cover too many topics in toomuch detail. Effective scoping cansave both time and money by focus-ing EIA studies on the key issues.

• EIA requires the formation of amultidisciplinary team and the lead-ership of a strong EIA coordinator.The range of effects considered inEIAs requires the skills of a broadmix of technical experts to beemployed on an assessment team,lead by an EIA coordinator.

• Involve the appropriate persons andgroups in the EIA study. It isimportant to involve the right peopleand agencies in the EIA process.Aside from the EIA team itself, peo-ple who can contribute facts, ideas orconcerns to the EIA study are needed( e.g., scientists, engineers, policymakers, government representativesand representatives of public interestgroups and the local community) aswell as people who have directauthority to permit, control or alterthe project - the decision-makers(e.g., the developer, the aid agency,regulatory authorities and politi-cians).

• Baseline studies must focus on keyenvironmental indicators. Baselinedata should not be collected simplyto describe the environment - itshould have some value for the deci-sions that need to be made. Toensure baseline studies are focusedand useful, considerable effort shouldbe directed to defining those envi-ronmental parameters that reallyneed to be sampled to assist withproject assessment. Attempts shouldbe made to select environmentalparameters that will allow testableeffects predictions to be made.

Maximizingthe Value of EIA

“An EIA should be organized so that it

directly supports the many decisions

that need to be made regarding a

proposed project”

29

• Make maximum use of existinginformation before engaging inexpensive field studies. Conductingfull-scale field investigations in sup-port of EIAs can be expensive andtime-consuming, therefore existinginformation should be used whereverpossible. Maximum use should bemade of EIA experience and infor-mation about similar projects in sim-ilar environments when scoping andassessing impacts.

• There are no set rules or proceduresfor implementing and administeringEIA studies. Given the complexityof the task of conducting EIA stud-ies, there is no ideal or standard EIAmethodology. Certain methods -like the matrix approach - have beenwidely used and despite shortcom-ings, have produced reasonableresults. When it comes to EIAmethodologies, there is plenty ofroom for experimentation. Also,there is no reason why a compositemethod, involving several tech-niques, cannot be used in an EIAstudy. What is important, is to selectan EIA method that effectively assistswith each of the tasks of predictingand assessing impacts, and is appro-priate for the level of study and themoney and manpower resourcesavailable for carrying out the EIAstudy.

• It is important to consider effectsnot only at the project site but alsoin the area surrounding a site. Acommon error in carrying out EIAstudies is that the assessment ofpotential impacts and mitigationfocuses too much on the site beingdeveloped for a project. Oftenimportant impacts occur away fromthe site as a result of activities at theproject site. These off-site and/orcumulative effects need to be careful-ly considered in project planning andin developing mitigation and com-pensation programs.

• Present clear and appropriateoptions for mitigation of impactsand for sound environmental man-agement. Mitigation is an integralpart of effects assessment.Application of appropriate mitiga-tion can eliminate or reduce adverseeffects, and improve the net overallenvironmental performance of a pro-posed project. Where residualimpacts remain after mitigation hasbeen applied, some form of mone-tary or other compensation may berequired.

• Link information to decisions aboutthe project and make EIAs useful todecision-makers. An EIA should beorganized so that it directly supportsthe many decisions that need to be

made regarding a proposed project.It should be started early enough toprovide information relevant to theselection of appropriate technologyand design and continue throughoutthe various stages of project planningand review. Environmental inputshould be incorporated by the devel-oper in assessing project concepts,selecting routes or sites, judging pro-ject feasibility, designing the project,seeking approvals and in implement-ing the project.

• Post-EIA audits and monitoringprograms are essential to ensuringthat EIA commitments are carriedout and that future EIAs improve.

• To be effective, an EIA processrequires the support of a definedinstitutional framework and com-mitment to inter-agency coopera-tion. Interagency cooperation isimportant to ensure that an EIAstudy has access to and makes use ofall available information, specializedknowledge and policy direction relat-ed to important issues. To be mosteffective, it is important that theprinciple of EIA be incorporated intolegislation governing projectapprovals.

2

3

45

1EIA allows better project plan-

ning. The objective of EIA is to

ensure that potential problems are

identified and dealt with at an

early stage in project planning,

when changes in design or siting

will have relatively low economic

impacts.

EIA promotes more informed and

environmentally sound decision-

making. To be effective, EIA must

be an integral part of project plan-

ning and implementation. Where

EIA has been seriously incorporated

in project decision-making, experi-

ence has shown that, it can have a

positive effect on project

performance.

EIA does not have to be expen-

sive. EIAs can increase the capital

costs of projects at the design stage,

but this may well prove less costly

than subsequent expenditures on

pollution control and other remedi-

al measures, if required, especially

where extensive retrofitting of

equipment is required. One of the

main reasons for undertaking an

EIA is to avoid or reduce subse-

quent damage costs.

EIA complements traditional pro-

ject planning and assessment

methods. EIA should be viewed as

a complementary exercise, the pur-

pose of which is to provide decision-

makers with a comprehensive

review of the potential environ-

mental implications of alternative

courses of action. EIA is not meant

to replace the traditional role of

decision-making. It permits deci-

sion-makers to gain a clearer indi-

cation of the likely impacts of

alternative options and clarifies the

environmental trade-offs associated

with these options.

EIA provides an important link

throughout the project life cycle.

It is important that environmental

factors be considered on an equal

basis with technical and economic

factors throughout the project plan-

ning, assessment and implementa-

tion phases (i.e., integrated life cycle

environmental management). EIA

is one of the mechanisms which

appears to offer the greatest poten-

tial for the effective integration of

environmental concerns in inte-

grated energy planning. EIA can

provide an essential bridge between

technical and economic aspects of

energy planning and a wide variety

of contemporary environmental

concerns.

30

Key Messages

“EIA must be an integral part of project

planning and implementation.”

31

assessment - refers to analyzing andevaluating the potential impacts of pro-posed actions on the environment.

baseline - existing baseline conditionsare the current conditions of an areapotentially affected by a proposed pro-ject. Existing baselines are establishedprior to construction and operation of aproposed project in order to evaluate theeffects of the project.

biodiversity - refers to the variety of lifeon earth: the number of plants and ani-mals and other organisms that exist onour planet and the variety within thesespecies and the ecosystems they inhabit.

biophysical - that part of the environ-ment that does not originate withhuman activities (e.g. biological, physi-cal and chemical processes); pertainingto the natural environment.

carrying capacity - the rate of resourceconsumption and waste discharge thatcan be sustained indefinitely in a definedimpact region without progressivelyimpairing bioproductivity and ecologicalintegrity; the maximum number ofspecies that can be supported indefinite-ly by a particular habitat withoutdegrading the environment or diminish-ing future carrying capacity.

compensation measures - monetarypayment or replacement in kind for loss-es resulting from a development project;the re-creation of lost or damaged habitat.

cumulative effects assessment - theassessment of the impact on the environ-ment which results from the incrementalimpact of an action when added to otherpast, present or reasonably foreseeableprojects, regardless of what agency orperson undertakes such actions.Cumulative impact can result from indi-vidually minor but collectively signifi-cant actions taking place over a period oftime.

decision- maker - the person(s) entrust-ed with the responsibility for allocatingresources or granting approval to a proposal.

direct impact (primary impact)(firstorder impact) - an impact which followsas a direct cause effect consequence of aproject activity.

ecological processes - processes whichplay an essential part in maintainingecosystem integrity. Four fundamentalecological processes are the cycling ofwater, the cycling of nutrients, the flowof energy and biological diversity (as anexpression of evolution).

ecosystem - a community of interdepen-dent plants, animals and other livingorganisms (including humans) togetherwith the environment which supportsthem and with which they interact.

effects/impacts (synonymous) - a reac-tion to a change in the environment as aresult of a project action. Effects can beecological (such as the effects on compo-nents of natural resources, the structure

and/or functioning of affected ecosys-tems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, eco-nomic, and social, whether direct, indi-rect or cumulative.

environment - the complex web ofinter-relationships between living andnon-living components which sustain alllife on earth, including the social/healthaspects of human group existence. Thephysical, biological, social, spiritual andcultural components which are interre-lated and affect the growth and develop-ment of living organisms.

environmental component - any of thevarious aspects of the physical or socialenvironment, at any scale, that has beenidentified as being relevant to the assess-ment process.

environmental evaluation - a structuredinvestigation and evaluation of potentialimpacts or mitigation possibilities aris-ing from a project proposal.

environmental impact - the net change(positive or negative) in human healthand well-being that results from an envi-ronmental effect, including the health ofthe ecosystems on which human survivaldepends.

environmental impact assessment (EIA)- the process of examining proposedprojects and their reasonable alternativesfor potential environmental impactsprior to making decisions onimplementation

Glossary

32

evaluation - a subjective task thatdepends on the application of humanvalues. It involves determining the sig-nificance of the potential impacts to theaffected and interested parties.

impact - the consequence of an action oractivity interacting with its surroundings.

impact management plan - a structuredmanagement plan that outlines the miti-gation, monitoring and managementrequirements arising from an environ-mental impact assessment.

indirect impact (secondary impacts)(higher order impacts) - an environmen-tal effect that is at least one stepremoved from a project activity in termsof cause-effect linkages. those caused byan action that are later in time or fartherremoved in distance, but that are stillreasonably foreseeable (e.g. developmentin undisturbed areas as a result of accessroad building.)

effects monitoring - monitoring of envi-ronmental/social/health variables, whichare expected to change after a project hasbeen constructed and is operational, totest whether any observed changes aredue to the project alone and not to anyother external influences.

interaction - a process by which achange in the condition of one compo-nent of the environment causes a changein another.

interdisciplinary team - a group of peo-ple, from a range of disciplinary back-grounds, working together to ensure theintegrated use of the natural and socialsciences in planning and decision mak-ing, which may have an impact onman’s environment.

issue - an unresolved question or con-cern regarding an environmental impact,consequence or effect.

linkages - the pathways by which indi-vidual components of the environmentinteract with each other. Pathwaysinclude the food chain, hydrologic cycle,carbon cycle, etc.

mitigation - an activity aimed at reduc-ing the severity, avoiding or controllingenvironmental impacts of a project,through design alternatives, scheduling,or other means.

monitoring - an activity involvingrepeated observation, according to a pre-determined schedule, or one or moreelements of the environment to detecttheir characteristics (status and trends).Relevant data is collected and analyzedfor the purpose of evaluating the ade-quacy of project impact predictions andmitigation measures, improving projectmanagement methods, and developingcapability for future impact assessments.

non-governmental organization (NGO)- a general term for organizations out-side of government agencies such aspublic organizations and environmentalinterest groups.

proponent - the organization, companyor institution planning to initiate a pro-ject with environmental implications.

public involvement - a range of tech-niques that can be used to inform, con-sult or interact with stakeholders affect-ed by a proposal.

residual impact - those predictedadverse impacts which remain after miti-gating measures have been applied.

resilience - the ability of a system torecover from continuous or intermittentstress, within certain limits or thresholds.

scoping - a process by which all relevantissues and concerns related to the pro-posed project or activity are identifiedand prioritized.

screening - a preliminary stage of theassessment process for determining thelevel of effort, or type of EIA, requiredfor evaluating projects.

sensitivity - the susceptibility of anecosystem or ecosystem component tochange as a result of a given level ofenvironmental stress.

significance - the relative importance ofan issue, concern or environmentalimpact, as measured by prevailing stan-dards, regulatory requirements and soci-etal values.

social impact assessment - the compo-nent of EIA concerned with changes inthe structure and functioning of socialorderings. In particular the changes thata development would create in: socialrelationships; community (population,structure, stability etc.); people’s qualityand way of life; language; ritual; politi-cal/economic processes; attitudes/values.Can sometimes include health impacts.

stakeholders - those who may be poten-tially affected by a proposal e.g. localpeople, the proponent, governmentagencies, NGOs, donors, and others.

sustainable use - ecologically sound useof natural resources that meets the needsof the present without compromisingthe ability of future generations to meettheir own needs.

tiering - addressing issues and impacts atthe appropriate level of decision-making(e.g. from the policy to project levels).

value judgment - the use of opinion orbelief in analysis or decision-making.

valued ecosystem component (VEC) -the environmental attributes or compo-nents identified as a result of a scopingexercise as having legal, scientific, cultur-al, economic or aesthetic value.

33

ADB 1992. Environmental AssessmentGuidelines. African Development Bankand African Development Fund,Abidjan. 39 pp.

AsDB 1990. Environmental Guidelinesfor Selected Industrial and PowerDevelopment Projects. AsianDevelopment Bank, Manila. 154 pp.

AsDB 1993. Environmental AssessmentRequirements and EnvironmentalReview Procedures of the AsianDevelopment Bank. AsianDevelopment Bank, Manila. 43pp.

Beanlands, G.E. and P.N. Duinker.1983. An Ecological Framework forEnvironmental Impact Assessment inCanada. Dalhousie University:Institute for Resource andEnvironmental Studies, Report ISSNO-7703-0460-S.

Bisset, R. 1987. Methods forEnvironmental Impact Assessment: aselective survey with case studies inBiswas and Geping, 1987.

Canadian Environmental AssessmentAgency (CEAA). 1994. The CanadianEnvironmental Assessment Act,Responsible Authority’s Guide.Minister of Supply and Services Canada.

Canadian Environmental AssessmentResearch Council (CEARC). 1986.Cumulative Effects: A BinationalPerspective. Federal EnvironmentalAssessment Review Office (FEARO).Hull, Canada.

Canter, L. 1996. Environmental ImpactAssessment. Second Edition. NewYork: McGraw Hill.

CIDA 1994. CIDA’s Procedural Guidefor Environmental Assessment.Environmental Assessment and

Compliance Division, CanadianInternational Development Agency,Hull, Quebec. 60 pp.

Clark, B. et al. 1978. EnvironmentalImpact Assessment in the USA: ACritical Review. DOE Research Report30. Dept. of the Environment.London.

Clark, B.D. et al. 1980. EnvironmentalImpact Assessment: a bibliography withabstracts. Mansell, London.

de Broissia, M. 1986. SelectedMathematical Models in EnvironmentalAssessment in Canada. CanadianEnvironmental Assessment ResearchCouncil, Ottawa: Ministry of Supplyand Services.

Delbecq, A.L., A.H. Vande Ven andD.H. Gustafson. 1975. GroupTechniques for Program Planning: AGuide to Nominal Group and DelphiProcesses. Scott, Foresman andCompany.

FEARO. 1988. Manual on PublicInvolvement in EnvironmentalAssessment. Ottawa.

Grieg, L.A. et al. (ESSA Ltd.). 1986.Potential Environmental Effects of theProposed Mattagami HydroelectricExtension Project. Report prepared forOntario Hydro, Toronto, Ontario,Canada.

Hobbs, B.F. 1980. A comparison ofweighting methods in power plant sit-ing. Decision Sciences. 11:725-37.

IADB 1990. Procedures for Classifyingand Evaluating Environmental Impactsof Bank Operations. Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank, Washington D.C.5pp.

Jain, R.K. et al. 1980. EnvironmentalImpact Analysis: A New Dimension inDecision Making. Van NostrandReinhold, New York.

Leopold, L.B., et al. 1971. A Procedurefor Evaluating Environmental Impact.United States Geological SurveyCircular 645, United States Departmentof the Interior, Washington, DC.

Lichfield, N. et al. 1975. Evaluationmethodology of urban and regionalplans: A review. Regional Studies. 4:151-165.

Massam, B.H. 1980. Spatial Search:Applications to Planning Problems inthe Public Sector. Pergamon Press.

Massam, B.H. 1988. Multi CriteriaDecision Making Techniques inPlanning. Progress in Planning. 30: 1-84.

Mishan, E.J. 1976. Cost BenefitAnalysis. Praeger, New York.

MOE 1990. Evaluation Methods inEnvironmental Assessment. OntarioMinistry of the Environment.

Munn, R.E. editor. 1975.Environmental Impact Assessment:Principles and Procedures. SCOPEReport 5, Toronto, Canada.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment.1987. Guidelines and Policy on Pre-Submission Consultation in the EAProcess. Toronto.

Ortolano, L. and A. Shepherd. 1995.Environmental Impact Assessment:Challenges and Opportunities. ImpactAssessment 13:3-30.

References

34

Rau, J.G. and D.C. Wooten. 1980.Environmental Impact AnalysisHandbook. McGraw Hill, Toronto,Canada.

Ross, J.M. 1974. Quantitative Aids toEnvironmental Impact Assessment.Environment Canada, LandsDirectorate. Occasional Paper 3,Ottawa.

Ruggles, R.F. and Shopley, J.B. 1984.A comprehensive review of current envi-ronmental impact assessment methodsand techniques. Journal ofEnvironmental Management 18: 25-47.

Sadar, M.H. 1994. EnvironmentalImpact Assessment. Carleton UniversityPress. Ottawa, Canada

Saaty, T.L. 1987. Risk: Its priorityand probability: the analytic hierarchyprocess. Risk Analysis. 7(2): 159-172.

Sonntag, N.S. 1983. AdaptiveEnvironmental Assessment andManagement as a Scoping Tool. Reportprepared for the InternationalWorkshop on Environmental Planningfor Large Scale Development Projects byESSA Ltd. Whistler, B.C. Canada.

UNEP 1988. Environmental ImpactAssessment: Basic Procedures forDeveloping Countries. United NationsEnvironment Program, Nairobi. 16 pp.

UNEP 1996. Environmental ImpactAssessment: Issues, Trends and Practice.United Nations Environment Program,Nairobi, Kenya.

Warner, M.L. and E.H. Preston. 1973.A Review of Environmental ImpactAssessment Methodologies. BattelleColumbus Laboratories, prepared forthe US EPA, October 1973.

Wolfe, L.D.S. 1987. Methods forScoping Environmental ImpactAssessments - A Review of Literatureand Experience. Federal EnvironmentalAssessment Review Office (FEARO),Vancouver. January.

World Bank. 1991. EnvironmentalAssessment Sourcebook. WashingtonD.C. (3 volumes).

35

EIA PHASE ORGANIZATION AfrDB AsDB CIDA ECE EEC AIB UNEP USAID WB

NEED AND JUSTIFICATION

Proposal is initially evaluated with respect to need and justification by the organization

SCREENING

Proposal is initially evaluated according to magnitude and sensitivity of issues

SCOPING

EIA Scope Document orTerms of Reference preparedby proponent together withorganization

EIA Scope Document preparedby lending agency

BASELINE DATA

compilation of baseline data

PUBLIC/GOV’T CONSULTATION

consultation with membercountry government

consultation with NGO’sindigenous groups and theaffected public

MITIGATION

mitigation and compensationmeasures

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

analysis of alternatives

requirement to assess socialenvironmental impacts

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓

✓ ✘ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

AppendicesAPPENDIX 1: Summary of EIA Guideline Provisions for Selected International Funding Organizations

36

EIA PHASE ORGANIZATION AfrDB AsDB CIDA ECE EEC AIB UNEP USAID WB

EIA REVIEW

member country government and organization

environmental commitmentsincorporated into donation/loanagreements

IMPLEMENTATION

lending agency supervisesproject implementation

monitoring program required

requirement to evaluate theaccuracy of impact predictions

requirement to evaluate the effectiveness of mitiagationmeasures

requirement to evaluatecompliance with environmentalcommitments in loan agreement

AfrDB - African Development Bank

AsDB - Asian Development Bank

CIDA - Canadian International Development Agency

ECE - Economic Commission For Europe

EEC - European Economic Community

EEC - United Nations Environmental Programme

USAID - United States Agency for International Development

WB - World Bank

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✘ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✘ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✘ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓

APPENDIX 1: Summary of EIA Guideline Provisions for Selected International Funding Organizations (cont’d)

LEGEND- Provision

- No Provision

✓

✘

37

APPEN

DIX

2:Typ

ical

Env

iron

men

tal Eff

ects

and

Mitig

atio

n - Con

stru

ctio

n an

d O

pera

tion

of

Hyd

roel

ectr

ic G

ener

atio

n Fac

ilities

Con

stru

ctio

n si

te c

lear

ing

and

exca

vati

on (

pow

erho

use,

and

dam

sit

e co

nstr

ucti

on c

amp)

1.Lo

ss o

f veg

etat

ion

1.R

efor

esta

tion

els

ewhe

re

2.Lo

ss o

f wild

life

habi

tat

2.H

abit

at c

reat

ion/

impr

ovem

ent

3.D

istu

rban

ce o

f wild

life

thro

ugh

nois

e an

d tr

affic

3.N

oise

con

trol

s an

d tr

affic

res

tric

tion

s

4.D

istu

rban

ce o

f rar

e an

d en

dang

ered

spe

cies

4.Si

te p

lann

ing

for

avoi

danc

e, p

rote

ctio

n (e

g. fe

ncin

g) a

nd r

eloc

atio

n

5.E

ffec

ts o

n fa

rmin

g an

d tr

adit

iona

l use

s5.

Site

pla

nnin

g fo

r av

oida

nce,

ass

ista

nce

wit

h re

loca

tion

of h

omes

, far

ms

etc.

and

com

pens

atio

n

6.E

ffec

ts o

n to

uris

m a

nd r

ecre

atio

n6.

Site

pla

nnin

g an

d ti

min

g of

act

ivit

ies

for

avoi

danc

e an

d co

mpe

nsat

ion

7.D

ust e

ffec

ts7.

Use

of d

ust s

uppr

essa

nts

8.B

last

ing

and

nois

e ef

fect

s8.

Tim

ing

of a

ctiv

itie

s, fi

sh d

eter

rent

s an

d sa

fety

pro

visi

ons

(e.g

., w

arni

ng d

evic

es),

bla

stin

g m

ats,

noi

se s

ilenc

ers)

9.Fo

rest

ry e

ffec

ts9.

Rec

over

y of

mer

chan

tabl

e ti

mbe

r an

d re

fore

stat

ion

10.N

egat

ive

envi

ronm

enta

l eff

ects

of c

onst

ruct

ion:

10.M

easu

res

to m

inim

ize

impa

cts:

•ai

r an

d w

ater

pol

luti

on fr

om c

onst

ruct

ion

and

was

te d

ispo

sal

•ai

r an

d w

ater

pol

luti

on c

ontr

ol

•so

il er

osio

n•

care

ful l

ocat

ion

of c

amps

, bui

ldin

gs, b

orro

w p

its,

qua

rrie

s, s

poil

and

disp

osal

sit

es

•de

stru

ctio

n of

veg

etat

ion

•pr

ecau

tion

s to

min

imiz

e er

osio

n

•sa

nita

ry a

nd h

ealth

pro

blem

s fr

om c

onst

ruct

ion

cam

ps•

land

rec

lam

atio

n

Res

ervo

ir P

repa

rati

on a

nd F

lood

ing

1.D

ispo

sal o

f veg

etat

ion

1.C

ontr

olle

d bu

rns,

sea

rch

for

othe

r us

es (

e.g.

, bio

mas

s pl

ant)

, mak

e av

aila

ble

to lo

cal p

opul

atio

n

2.E

xclu

sion

of f

utur

e la

nd u

ses

2.Si

te p

lann

ing

for

avoi

danc

e, a

nd c

ompe

nsat

ion

3.T

urbi

dity

and

silt

atio

n du

ring

filli

ng3.

Tim

ing

and

dura

tion

of f

ill a

nd e

rosi

on c

ontr

ol

4.Sh

orel

ine

slum

ping

and

ero

sion

4.T

imin

g an

d du

rati

on o

f fill

, sho

relin

e pr

otec

tion

, sel

ecti

ve r

eten

tion

of s

tum

ps a

nd s

hore

line

vege

tati

on

5.Lo

ss/c

reat

ion

of fi

sh h

abit

at5.

Fish

erie

s m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es in

clud

ing

crea

tion

of n

ew h

abit

at

6.Sh

ift to

lake

spe

cies

6.Fi

sher

ies

man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

incl

udin

g cr

eati

on o

f new

hab

itat

7.Lo

ss o

f fis

hing

opp

ortu

niti

es7.

Tim

ing

of a

ctiv

itie

s, m

inim

ize

cons

truc

tion

per

iod,

and

com

pens

atio

n

8.E

ffec

ts o

n fis

hing

and

tour

ist c

amps

8.A

ssis

t wit

h re

loca

tion

or

com

pens

atio

n

9.Lo

ss o

f oth

er to

uris

m a

nd r

ecre

atio

n op

port

unit

ies

9.T

imin

g of

act

ivit

ies,

min

imiz

e co

nstr

ucti

on p

erio

d, r

eser

voir

pla

nnin

g to

enh

ance

futu

re o

ppor

tuni

ties

for

use

10.L

oss

of a

rcha

eolo

gica

l and

cul

tura

l res

ourc

es10

.Sit

e pl

anni

ng fo

r av

oida

nce

and

prot

ecti

on o

r re

cove

ry o

f ide

ntifi

ed r

esou

rces

AC

TIV

ITY

PO

TE

NT

IAL

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

ISSU

E/E

FFE

CT

PO

SSIB

LE M

ITIG

AT

ION

OP

TIO

NS

38

APPEN

DIX

2:Typ

ical

Env

iron

men

tal Eff

ects

and

Mitig

atio

n - Con

stru

ctio

n an

d O

pera

tion

of

Hyd

roel

ectr

ic G

ener

atio

n Fac

ilities

(co

nt’d

)

11.D

islo

cati

on o

f peo

ple

livin

g in

inun

dati

on z

one.

11.R

eloc

atio

n of

peo

ple

to s

uita

ble

area

.

Prov

isio

n of

com

pens

atio

n in

kin

d fo

r re

sour

ces

lost

.

Prov

isio

n of

ade

quat

e he

alth

ser

vice

s, in

fras

truc

ture

, and

eco

nom

ic a

nd e

mpl

oym

ent o

ppor

tuni

ties

.

12.S

ocia

l dis

rupt

ion

and

decr

ease

in s

tand

ard

of li

ving

of

12.M

aint

enan

ce o

f sta

ndar

d of

livi

ng b

y en

suri

ng a

cces

s to

res

ourc

es a

t lea

st e

qual

ling

thos

e lo

st.

rese

ttle

d pe

ople

.Pr

ovis

ion

of h

ealth

and

soc

ial s

ervi

ces.

13.E

nvir

onm

enta

l deg

rada

tion

from

incr

ease

d pr

essu

re o

n la

nd.

13.C

hoic

e of

res

ettle

men

t sit

e to

avo

id s

urpa

ssin

g ca

rryi

ng c

apac

ity

of th

e la

nd.

Incr

ease

of p

rodu

ctiv

ity

or im

prov

e m

anag

emen

t of l

and

(agr

icul

tura

l, ra

nge,

fore

stry

impr

ovem

ents

) to

ac

com

mod

ate

high

er p

opul

atio

n.

14.D

isru

ptio

n/de

stru

ctio

n of

trib

al/i

ndig

enou

s gr

oups

.14

.Avo

id d

islo

cati

on o

f una

ccul

tura

ted

peop

le a

nd w

here

not

pos

sibl

e, r

eloc

ate

in a

rea

allo

win

g th

em to

ret

ain

lifes

tyle

and

cus

tom

s.

15.L

oss

of w

ildla

nds

and

wild

life

habi

tat.

15.S

itin

g of

dam

or

decr

ease

of r

eser

voir

siz

e to

avo

id/m

inim

ize

loss

.

Est

ablis

hmen

t of c

ompe

nsat

ory

park

s or

res

erve

d ar

eas.

Ani

mal

res

cue

and

relo

cati

on.

16.C

onfli

ctin

g de

man

ds fo

r w

ater

use

.16

.Pla

nnin

g an

d m

anag

emen

t of d

am in

con

text

of r

egio

nal d

evel

opm

ent p

lans

.

Equ

itab

le a

lloca

tion

s of

wat

er b

etw

een

larg

e an

d sm

all h

olde

rs a

nd b

etw

een

geog

raph

ic r

egio

ns o

f val

ley.

Ext

ract

ion

of A

ggre

gate

s 1.T

rans

port

atio

n an

d ha

ndlin

g1.

Use

of e

xcav

ated

mat

eria

ls a

nd s

ite

plan

ning

incl

udin

g us

e of

pre

viou

sly

dist

urbe

d si

tes

Wor

ker

Influ

x

1.In

crea

sed

fishi

ng a

nd fa

rmin

g pr

essu

res

1.R

estr

icti

on o

n us

e of

sen

siti

ve a

reas

, and

env

iron

men

tal a

war

enes

s tr

aini

ng

Cof

ferd

am P

lace

men

t an

d R

emov

al

1.T

urbi

dity

incr

ease

s to

rec

eivi

ng w

ater

s1.

Silt

barr

iers

and

sel

ecti

on o

f con

stru

ctio

n m

ater

ials

Acc

ess

Roa

ds

1.D

ispl

acem

ent o

f wild

life

due

to h

abit

at lo

ss1.

Use

of e

xist

ing

road

s, a

lignm

ent s

elec

tion

and

pla

nnin

g fo

r av

oida

nce

and

rail

or w

ater

acc

ess

2.Lo

ss o

f veg

etat

ion

due

to c

lear

ing

2.U

se o

f exi

stin

g ro

ads,

alig

nmen

t sel

ecti

on a

nd p

lann

ing

and

refo

rest

atio

n

3.In

crea

sed

fishi

ng p

ress

ure

wit

h ne

w o

r im

prov

ed a

cces

s3.

Tem

pora

ry a

cces

s an

d/or

fish

ing

rest

rict

ions

4.D

istu

rban

ce o

f str

eam

s an

d la

kes

thro

ugh

cons

truc

tion

, 4.

Site

pla

nnin

g to

avo

id s

trea

m c

ross

ings

and

roa

ds a

djac

ent t

owat

er b

odie

s, a

nd u

se o

f app

ropr

iate

cul

vert

siz

es,

traf

fic, s

iltat

ion,

and

alte

rati

on in

flow

pat

tern

san

d us

e of

buf

fer

zone

s an

d se

dim

ent t

raps

.

AC

TIV

ITY

PO

TE

NT

IAL

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

ISSU

E/E

FFE

CT

PO

SSIB

LE M

ITIG

AT

ION

OP

TIO

NS

39

APPEN

DIX

2:Typ

ical

Env

iron

men

tal Eff

ects

and

Mitig

atio

n - Con

stru

ctio

n an

d O

pera

tion

of

Hyd

roel

ectr

ic G

ener

atio

n Fac

ilities

(co

nt’d

)

5.D

ispl

acem

ent o

f fis

hing

and

tour

ist o

utpo

st c

amps

5.T

empo

rary

acc

ess,

acc

ess

rest

rict

ions

(e.

g., g

atin

g) o

r co

mpe

nsat

ion

6.U

ncon

trol

led

mig

rati

on o

f peo

ple

into

the

area

mad

e 6.

Lim

itat

ion

of a

cces

s, p

rovi

sion

of r

ural

dev

elop

men

t, an

d he

alth

ser

vice

s to

try

to m

inim

ize

impa

ct.

poss

ible

by

acce

ss r

oads

and

tran

smis

sion

line

s.

Res

ervo

ir O

pera

tion

1.Sh

orel

ine

eros

ion

1.Sh

orel

ine

prot

ecti

on (

e.g.

, rip

rap,

gab

ions

)

2.Lo

ss/c

reat

ion

of a

quat

ic h

abit

at th

roug

h:2.

Stat

ion

and

rese

rvoi

r de

sign

(e.

g., i

n-st

ep o

pera

tion

)

• W

ater

leve

l flu

ctua

tion

• C

reat

ion

of n

ew h

abit

at

• A

ltere

d th

erm

al r

egim

e•

Int

ake

desi

gn to

influ

ence

leve

l of s

trat

ifica

tion

• N

utri

ent r

elea

se•

Res

ervo

ir c

lear

ing

• O

xyge

n de

plet

ion

• I

ntak

e de

sign

and

res

ervo

ir c

lear

ing

3.M

ercu

ry tr

ansf

orm

atio

n an

d up

take

by

fish

3.R

eser

voir

cle

arin

g, s

hore

line

stab

iliza

tion

and

rem

oval

and

cov

erin

g of

org

anic

s

4.In

crea

sed

fishi

ng p

ress

ure

4.R

eser

voir

pre

para

tion

and

pla

nnin

g in

clud

ing

fish

and

wild

life

man

agem

ent (

e.g.

, hab

itat

impr

ovem

ent,

stoc

king

and

hun

ting

/fis

hing

res

tric

tion

s)

5.Im

prov

ed w

ater

fow

l and

aqu

atic

wild

life

habi

tat

5.N

one

requ

ired

6.Lo

ss o

r di

spla

cem

ent o

f aqu

atic

mam

mal

s, h

abit

at,

6.W

ildlif

e m

anag

emen

t (e.

g., c

ontr

olle

d ha

rves

ting

, hab

itat

impr

ovem

ent)

or

relo

cati

on m

easu

res

and

trad

itio

nal u

ses

asso

ciat

ed w

ith

rive

rine

sys

tem

7.Po

ssib

le in

crea

se in

rec

reat

iona

l act

ivit

y 7.

Res

ervo

ir p

repa

rati

on p

lann

ing

wit

h po

tent

ial r

esou

rce

user

s an

d ac

cess

pro

visi

ons/

cont

rols

(e.

g., b

oat r

amp)

(boa

ting

, sw

imm

ing,

fish

ing,

etc

.)

8.H

uman

hea

lth (

mer

cury

inge

stio

n) a

nd d

iet c

hang

es8.

Safe

ty p

rovi

sion

(eg

. pos

ting

res

ervo

irs)

ris

k ed

ucat

ion

and

assi

stan

ce fo

r ob

tain

ing

alte

rnat

ive

food

sou

rces

.

9.In

crea

se o

f wat

er-r

elat

ed d

isea

ses.

9.D

esig

n an

d op

erat

ion

of d

am to

dec

reas

e ha

bita

t for

vec

tor.

• V

ecto

r co

ntro

l.

• D

isea

se p

roph

ylax

is a

nd tr

eatm

ent.

10.I

ncre

ase

in h

umid

ity

and

fog

loca

lly, c

reat

ing

favo

urab

le

10.V

ecto

r co

ntro

l.ha

bita

t for

inse

ct d

isea

se v

ecto

rs (

mos

quit

os, t

sets

e).

11.M

etha

ne r

elea

se11

.Res

ervo

ir p

repa

rati

on a

nd in

take

/sta

tion

des

ign

to m

inim

ize

anox

ic c

ondi

tion

s.

12.C

arbo

n di

oxid

e re

leas

e12

.Res

ervo

ir p

repa

rati

on to

min

imiz

e pr

esen

ce o

f org

anic

s

AC

TIV

ITY

PO

TE

NT

IAL

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

ISSU

E/E

FFE

CT

PO

SSIB

LE M

ITIG

AT

ION

OP

TIO

NS

40

APPEN

DIX

2:Typ

ical

Env

iron

men

tal Eff

ects

and

Mitig

atio

n - Con

stru

ctio

n an

d O

pera

tion

of

Hyd

roel

ectr

ic G

ener

atio

n Fac

ilities

(co

nt’d

)

Res

ervo

ir O

pera

tion

(Con

t’d)

13.P

rolif

erat

ion

of a

quat

ic w

eeds

in r

eser

voir

and

dow

nstr

eam

13

.Cle

aran

ce o

f woo

dy v

eget

atio

n fr

om in

unda

tion

zon

e pr

ior

to fl

oodi

ng (

nutr

ient

rem

oval

).im

pair

ing

dam

dis

char

ge, i

rrig

atio

n sy

stem

s, n

avig

atio

n an

d •

Wee

d co

ntro

l mea

sure

s.fis

heri

es a

nd in

crea

sing

wat

er lo

ss th

roug

h tr

ansp

irat

ion.

• H

arve

st o

f wee

ds fo

r co

mpo

st, f

odde

r or

bio

gas.

• R

egul

atio

n of

wat

er d

isch

arge

and

man

ipul

atio

n of

wat

er le

vels

to d

isco

urag

e w

eed

grow

th.O

pera

tion

Res

ervo

ir

14.D

eter

iora

tion

of w

ater

qua

lity

in r

eser

voir

.14

.Cle

aran

ce o

f woo

dy v

eget

atio

n fr

om in

unda

tion

zon

e pr

ior

to fl

oodi

ng.

Con

trol

of l

and

uses

, was

tew

ater

dis

char

ges,

and

agr

icul

tura

l che

mic

al u

se in

wat

ersh

ed.

Lim

it r

eten

tion

tim

e of

wat

er in

res

ervo

ir.

Prov

isio

n fo

r m

ulti

-lev

el r

elea

ses

to a

void

dis

char

ge o

f ano

xic

wat

er.

15.S

edim

enta

tion

of r

eser

voir

and

loss

of s

tora

ge c

apac

ity.

15.C

ontr

ol o

f lan

d us

e in

wat

ersh

ed (

espe

cial

ly p

reve

ntio

n of

con

vers

ion

of fo

rest

s to

agr

icul

ture

).

Ref

ores

tati

on a

nd/o

r so

il co

nser

vati

on a

ctiv

itie

s in

wat

ersh

eds

(lim

ited

aff

ect)

.

Hyd

raul

ic r

emov

al o

f sed

imen

ts (

flush

ing,

slu

icin

g, r

elea

se o

f den

sity

cur

rent

s).

Ope

rati

on o

f res

ervo

ir to

min

imiz

e se

dim

enta

tion

(en

tails

loss

of p

ower

ben

efit

s).

16.F

orm

atio

n of

sed

imen

t dep

osit

s at

res

ervo

ir e

ntra

nce

16.S

edim

ent f

lush

ing,

slu

icin

g.cr

eati

ng b

ackw

ater

eff

ect a

nd fl

oodi

ng a

nd w

ater

logg

ing

upst

ream

.

17.S

nagg

ing

of fi

shin

g ne

ts in

sub

mer

ged

vege

tati

on in

17

.Sel

ecti

ve c

lear

ance

of v

eget

atio

n be

fore

floo

ding

.

rese

rvoi

r.

18.E

nvir

onm

enta

l pro

blem

s ar

isin

g fr

om d

evel

opm

ent

18.B

asin

-wid

e in

tegr

ated

pla

nnin

g to

avo

id o

veru

se, m

isus

e, a

nd c

onfli

ctin

g us

es o

f wat

er a

nd la

nd r

esou

rces

.m

ade

poss

ible

by

dam

(ir

riga

ted

agri

cultu

re, i

ndus

trie

s,

mun

icip

al g

row

th).

19.P

oor

land

use

pra

ctic

es in

cat

chm

ent a

reas

abo

ve

19.L

and

use

plan

ning

eff

orts

whi

ch in

clud

e w

ater

shed

are

as a

bove

dam

.re

serv

oir

resu

lting

in in

crea

sed

silta

tion

and

cha

nges

inw

ater

qua

lity.

Stat

ion

and

Spill

way

Ope

rati

on (

dow

nstr

eam

eff

ects

)

1.E

rosi

on a

nd s

iltat

ion

effe

cts.

1.St

atio

n de

sign

, sho

relin

e pr

otec

tion

and

cha

nnel

mod

ifica

tion

s.

2.Sc

ouri

ng o

f riv

erbe

d be

low

dam

.2.

Des

ign

of tr

ap e

ffic

ienc

y an

d se

dim

ent r

elea

se (

e.g.

, sed

imen

t flu

shin

g, s

luic

ing)

to in

crea

se

salt

cont

ent o

f rel

ease

d w

ater

.

3.A

ltera

tion

in a

quat

ic h

abit

at.

3.Fl

ow r

egul

atio

n du

ring

cri

tica

l per

iods

, cha

nnel

mod

ifica

tion

s an

d cr

eati

on o

f new

hab

itat

to e

nsur

e no

net

loss

.

AC

TIV

ITY

PO

TE

NT

IAL

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

ISSU

E/E

FFE

CT

PO

SSIB

LE M

ITIG

AT

ION

OP

TIO

NS

41

APPEN

DIX

2:Typ

ical

Env

iron

men

tal Eff

ects

and

Mitig

atio

n - Con

stru

ctio

n an

d O

pera

tion

of

Hyd

roel

ectr

ic G

ener

atio

n Fac

ilities

(co

nt’d

)

4.A

quat

ic p

rodu

ctiv

ity

effe

cts.

4.In

take

and

sta

tion

des

ign

(to

min

imiz

e ch

ange

s to

ther

mal

and

dis

solv

ed o

xyge

n re

gim

es),

flow

reg

ulat

ion

duri

ng s

paw

ning

and

egg

incu

bati

on a

nd h

abit

at c

reat

ion,

and

flow

reg

ulat

ion

or c

hann

el m

odifi

cati

on to

m

inim

ize

dew

ater

ing

of h

abit

at.

5.W

ater

qua

lity

effe

cts.

5.R

eser

voir

pre

para

tion

, int

ake

and

stat

ion

desi

gn (

e.g.

, rem

oval

of o

rgan

ics,

ero

sion

con

trol

, and

flow

m

anag

emen

t).

6.R

ecre

atio

n an

d to

uris

m e

ffec

ts.

6.St

atio

n de

sign

, flo

w r

egul

atio

n, c

hann

el m

odifi

cati

ons,

pro

visi

on o

f byp

asse

s (e

.g. p

orta

ges,

mar

ine

railw

ays)

and

sa

fety

pro

visi

ons.

7.Fi

sh p

assa

ge a

nd m

orta

lity.

7.In

take

des

ign,

fish

det

erre

nts

and/

or fi

sh p

assa

ge fa

cilit

ies

(e.g

., fis

h la

dder

s).

8.Fi

sh m

orta

lity

from

gas

bub

ble

dise

ase.

8.D

esig

n of

spi

llway

and

inta

kes

to m

inim

ize

supe

rsat

urat

ion

of g

ases

and

fish

det

erre

nts.

9.Fi

shin

g op

port

unit

y ch

ange

s.9.

Safe

ty p

rovi

sion

s, a

nd m

easu

res

to e

ncou

rage

or

disc

oura

ge fi

shin

g, a

s ap

prop

riat

e.

10.D

ecre

ase

in fl

oodp

lain

(re

cess

ion)

agr

icul

ture

.10

.Reg

ulat

ion

of d

am r

elea

ses

to p

arti

ally

rep

licat

e na

tura

l flo

odin

g re

gim

e.

11.S

alin

izat

ion

of fl

oodp

lain

land

s.11

.Reg

ulat

ion

of fl

ow to

min

imiz

e ef

fect

.

12.S

alt w

ater

intr

usio

n in

est

uary

and

ups

trea

m.

12.M

aint

enan

ce o

f at l

east

min

imum

flow

to p

reve

nt in

trus

ion.

AC

TIV

ITY

PO

TE

NT

IAL

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

ISSU

E/E

FFE

CT

PO

SSIB

LE M

ITIG

AT

ION

OP

TIO

NS

42

Pub

lic C

onsu

ltat

ion

invo

lvem

ent o

f int

eres

ted

exte

rnal

par

ties

in th

e E

Apr

oces

s

Ad

Hoc

com

pare

s al

tern

ativ

es w

ith-

out s

peci

ficat

ion

of c

rite

ria,

rati

ngs,

or

wei

ghts

Wei

ghti

ng o

f Pre

fere

nces

tech

niqu

es u

sed

to d

eter

-m

ine

crit

eria

that

mus

t be

cons

ider

ed in

the

EA

proc

ess

focu

s gr

oups

publ

ic m

eeti

ngs

or o

penh

ouse

netw

orki

ng

ques

tion

nair

es

advi

sory

cou

ncil

refe

rend

a

grou

p in

tera

ctio

nm

etho

ds

ad h

oc

rank

ing

and

cate

go-

riza

tion

rati

ng

poin

t allo

cati

on

- th

roug

hout

the

EA

proc

ess

- th

roug

hout

the

EA

proc

ess

- th

roug

hout

the

EA

proc

ess

- th

roug

hout

the

EA

proc

ess

- sc

opin

g-

eval

uati

on

- sc

opin

g-

eval

uati

on

- sc

opin

g-

eval

uati

on

- th

roug

hout

the

EA

proc

ess

- sc

opin

g -

eval

uati

on

- sc

opin

g -

eval

uati

on

- sc

opin

g -

eval

uati

on

espe

cial

ly u

sefu

l dur

ing

scop

ing;

co

nsul

tant

s

publ

ic a

nd p

ropo

nent

mee

t and

exch

ange

info

rmat

ion

liais

on m

embe

r av

aila

ble

to e

xcha

nge

info

rmat

ion

wit

h pu

blic

used

to r

ate

eval

uati

on c

rite

ria,

sol

icit

info

rmat

ion

or c

omm

ents

on

the

alte

rnat

ives

inpu

t fro

m a

cro

ss s

ecti

on o

f a c

om-

mun

ity

- no

t onl

y th

e af

fect

ed p

ublic

voti

ng fo

llow

ing

a de

bate

cho

oses

the

alte

rnat

ive

Del

phi m

etho

d -

a se

quen

ce o

f alte

r-na

ting

que

stio

nnai

res

and

feed

back

repo

rts

nom

inal

gro

up -

gro

up m

eeti

ngs

whe

re th

e ve

rbal

inte

ract

ion

is li

mit

ed

usef

ul in

scr

eeni

ng s

tage

s no

t use

ful

for

com

plex

dec

isio

ns

scal

ing

impo

rtan

ce u

sing

nom

inal

or

ordi

nal s

cale

s

assi

gnin

g a

valu

e of

impo

rtan

ce fr

om1-

10

dist

ribu

te s

ome

(i.e

. 100

) po

ints

amon

g th

e cr

iter

ia a

ccor

ding

to th

eim

port

ance

high

er le

vel o

f com

mit

men

t;m

inim

ize

cont

rove

rsy

duri

ngim

plem

enta

tion

sta

ges

iden

tifie

s co

ncer

ns; i

nexp

en-

sive

; est

ablis

hes

two

way

com

mun

icat

ion

iden

tifie

s an

d de

term

ines

rea

-so

ns fo

r co

ncer

ns

iden

tifie

s co

ncer

ns; r

each

apo

tent

ially

larg

er a

udie

nce

repr

esen

tati

on g

uara

ntee

dfr

om th

e w

hole

com

mun

ity

high

deg

ree

of p

ublic

invo

lvem

ent

isol

ated

gen

erat

ion

of a

larg

enu

mbe

r of

hig

h qu

alit

y id

eas;

grou

p pr

essu

re a

void

ed

allo

ws

for

peri

ods

of in

tera

c-ti

on a

nd n

on-

inte

ract

ion

no tr

aini

ng r

equi

red

sim

ple

to u

se a

nd u

nder

stan

d

in d

etai

led

plan

ning

sta

ges

extr

a in

form

atio

n m

akes

deci

sion

mak

ing

tedi

ous

seen

as

publ

ic r

elat

ions

exe

r-ci

se; d

omin

ance

of o

pini

on

mor

e ex

pens

ive

- hi

ring

alia

ison

per

son

surv

ey b

ias

loya

lty to

thos

e w

hoap

poin

ted

them

(bi

as)

tim

e co

nsum

ing

sele

ctio

n of

res

pond

ent

grou

p m

ay b

ias

resu

lts;

requ

ires

mor

e ti

me

(for

cor

-re

spon

denc

e)

sele

ctio

n of

gro

up m

embe

rsm

ay b

ias

resu

lts

not t

race

able

, rep

licab

le, n

orac

coun

tabl

e

not t

heor

etic

ally

val

id -

sub

-je

ctiv

e de

cisi

ons

may

not

pro

duce

val

idre

sults

FEA

RO

, 198

8.

Wol

fe, 1

987.

O

nt. M

in. o

f Env

.,19

87.

Mas

sam

. B.H

.,19

88.

Del

becq

, A.L

., A

.HV

ande

Ven

, and

D.H

. Gus

tafs

on,

1975

.

Fugg

le, R

.F.,

and

Shop

ley,

J.B

., 19

84.

Hob

bs, B

.F.,

1980

.

CA

TE

GO

RY

/D

ESC

RIP

TIO

NM

ET

HO

DA

PP

LIC

AT

ION

AP

PR

OA

CH

AD

VA

NT

AG

ES

DIS

AD

VA

NT

AG

ES

RE

FER

EN

CE

S

APPEN

DIX

3: Sum

mar

y of

Sel

ecte

d Too

ls a

nd M

etho

ds U

sed

in t

he E

IAPro

cess

43

Wei

ghti

ng o

f Pre

fere

nces

(con

t’d)

Agg

rega

tion

of W

eigh

ts

Exa

min

atio

n of

sim

ilar

proj

ects

revi

ew o

f iss

ues

rela

ted

tosi

mila

r pr

ojec

t typ

es, o

rte

chno

logi

es, o

r in

sim

ilar

sett

ings

Che

cklis

tsco

mpa

res

alte

rnat

ives

agai

nst a

set

of c

rite

ria;

appl

icab

le d

urin

g na

rrow

-in

g pr

oces

s; u

sefu

l for

iden

-ti

fyin

g im

pact

s; li

mit

ed fo

rus

e of

eva

luat

ion

Net

wor

ks-

flow

cha

rt w

hich

trac

es p

ro-

ject

act

ions

Ove

rlay

s-

tran

spar

ent m

aps

wit

h en

vi-

ronm

enta

l and

soc

ial i

nfor

-m

atio

n

indi

ffer

ence

tra

de -

off m

etho

d

deci

sion

ana

lysi

sw

eigh

t se

lect

ion

obse

rver

der

ived

tech

niqu

es

Bor

da-K

enda

ll

Coo

k an

d Si

efor

ddi

stan

ce m

etho

ds

revi

ew

unor

dere

d lis

t of

cri

-te

ria

Sati

sfyi

ng

lexi

cogr

aphi

c or

deri

ng

syst

em d

iagr

am

cons

trai

nt m

appi

ng

- sc

opin

g-

eval

uati

on

- sc

opin

g-

eval

uati

on

- sc

opin

g-

eval

uati

on

- sc

opin

g-

eval

uati

on

- sc

reen

ing

- sc

opin

g-

pred

icti

on

- sc

reen

ing

- sc

opin

g

- sc

reen

ing

- sc

opin

g

- sc

reen

ing

- sc

opin

g

- sc

opin

g-

pred

icti

on

- sc

opin

g-

pred

icti

on

dete

rmin

es th

e am

ount

giv

en u

p fo

r on

one

attr

ibut

e to

obt

ain

mor

e of

ano

ther

wei

ghts

are

rel

ated

to p

roba

bilit

ies

ofce

rtai

n co

nseq

uenc

es

deri

ving

rat

es fr

om p

refe

renc

es a

mon

gal

tern

ativ

es

aggr

egat

es in

divi

dual

pre

fere

nces

for

a se

tof

alte

rnat

ives

into

a g

roup

con

sens

us

revi

ew r

elat

ed e

nvir

onm

enta

l im

pact

stat

emen

ts a

nd p

ost a

udit

stu

dies

part

of c

rite

ria

iden

tific

atio

n pr

oces

s

alte

rnat

ives

mus

t sat

isfy

spe

cific

con

di-

tion

s be

fore

bec

omin

g ac

cept

able

sequ

enti

al r

ejec

tion

of a

ltern

ativ

es

iden

tifie

s ac

tion

s an

d as

soci

ated

impa

cts

unac

cept

able

cha

ract

eris

tics

are

map

ped,

map

s ar

e ov

erla

id, a

reas

that

rem

ain

are

cons

ider

ed

assu

res

valid

wei

ghts

clus

ter

wei

ghts

on

a fe

wat

trib

utes

prov

ides

con

sens

us o

rder

ing

iden

tifie

s po

tent

ial i

ssue

s

elim

inat

es in

feri

or c

hoic

es;

easy

to u

se a

nd u

nder

stan

d

esta

blis

hes

min

imum

acc

ept-

able

leve

ls; e

asy

to u

se a

ndun

ders

tand

quic

kly

elim

inat

es c

hoic

es;

resu

lts r

eplic

able

; eas

y to

use

com

preh

ensi

ve; i

dent

ifies

caus

e/ef

fect

rel

atio

nshi

p

trac

eabl

e ex

plan

atio

n fo

rel

imin

ated

are

as; e

asy

to u

sean

d un

ders

tand

subj

ecti

ve

perc

eptu

al s

hort

com

ings

wei

ghts

may

not

be

prop

or-

tion

al

appe

ars

ad h

oc

mat

hem

atic

ally

com

plex

pred

icti

ons

mad

e in

one

are

am

ay n

ot b

e tr

ansf

erab

le to

othe

r ar

eas

impa

cts

no o

n lis

t may

be

igno

red

may

not

lead

to o

ne a

ltern

a-ti

ve; a

ltern

ativ

es w

ith

off-

set-

ting

ben

efit

s m

ay b

e re

ject

ed

alte

rnat

ives

wit

h of

fset

ting

bene

fits

may

be

reje

cted

diff

icul

t to

follo

w a

s th

eybe

com

e m

ore

com

plex

data

mus

t be

capa

ble

ofbe

ing

map

ped;

mul

tipl

e si

teor

no

site

sce

nari

o

Hob

bs, B

.F.,

1980

.

Mas

sam

, B.H

.,19

80.

Wol

fe, 1

987.

Bis

set,

R.,

1987

.C

lark

, B.D

., 19

80.

Jain

, R.K

., et

al.,

1980

.

Wol

fe, 1

987.

CA

TE

GO

RY

/D

ESC

RIP

TIO

NM

ET

HO

DA

PP

LIC

AT

ION

AP

PR

OA

CH

AD

VA

NT

AG

ES

DIS

AD

VA

NT

AG

ES

RE

FER

EN

CE

S

APPEN

DIX

3: Sum

mar

y of

Sel

ecte

d Too

ls a

nd M

etho

ds U

sed

in t

he E

IAPro

cess

(co

nt’d

)

44

Ove

rlay

s (c

ont’d

)

Env

iron

men

tal M

odel

ling

quan

tita

tive

rep

rese

ntat

ion

of a

n en

viro

nmen

tal s

yste

m

Mat

rix

Met

hods

- tw

o-di

men

sion

al c

heck

lists

;us

ed to

sum

mar

ize

and

dis-

play

inte

ract

ions

bet

wee

npr

ojec

t act

ion

and

envi

ron-

men

tal c

hara

cter

isti

cs

GIS

(geo

grap

hic

info

rmat

ion

syst

ems)

num

erou

s m

etho

ds

hypo

thes

is o

f eff

ect

(ada

ptiv

e en

viro

nmen

-ta

l man

agem

ent)

Leop

old

mat

rix

Ros

s’ e

nvir

onm

enta

lin

tera

ctio

n m

atri

x

SAW

(sim

ple

addi

tive

wei

ghti

ng)

SMA

RT

(sim

ple

mul

ti-

attr

ibut

e ra

ting

tech

niqu

e)

PA

TT

ER

N(p

lann

ing

assi

stan

ce th

roug

hte

chni

cal e

valu

atio

n of

rele

vanc

e nu

mbe

rs)

PR

OLI

VA

N (

prob

a-bi

listi

c lin

ear

vect

oran

alys

is)

Pet

erso

n

- sc

opin

g-

pred

icti

on

- pr

edic

tion

- sc

opin

g-

pred

icti

on

- sc

opin

g -

pred

icti

on

- sc

opin

g-

pred

icti

on

- ev

alua

tion

- ev

alua

tion

- ev

alua

tion

- ev

alua

tion

- ev

alua

tion

tran

spar

ent m

aps

wit

h en

viro

nmen

tal

and

soci

al in

form

atio

n su

peri

mpo

sed;

area

sui

tabi

lity

is in

dica

ted

by s

hadi

ngin

tens

ity

pred

icts

atm

osph

eric

, ter

rest

rial

, and

aqua

tic

effe

cts

dem

onst

rate

s lin

kage

s w

ithi

n en

viro

n-m

ent c

ausi

ng in

put

scor

ing

proc

edur

e id

enti

fies

mag

nitu

dean

d si

gnifi

canc

e of

impa

cts

on

envi

ronm

ent

first

mat

rix

iden

tifie

s en

viro

nmen

tal

depe

nden

cies

; the

sec

ond

mat

rix

trac

esim

pact

s

each

alte

rnat

ive

is g

iven

a s

core

whi

chre

pres

ents

the

utili

ty o

f the

pro

ject

rank

cri

teri

a; th

en b

egin

ning

wit

h lo

wes

tra

nked

cri

teri

on r

atio

val

ues

are

assi

gned

to p

refe

renc

es

mul

tipl

e le

vels

of c

once

rn a

re s

truc

ture

din

a `

rele

vanc

e tr

ee’

mod

ifica

tion

of S

AW

; wei

ghti

ng o

f lon

gan

d sh

ort t

erm

impa

cts;

eac

h al

tern

ativ

eha

s co

nfid

ence

lim

its

one

mat

rix

scor

es e

nvir

onm

enta

lim

pact

s, a

noth

er s

core

s so

cial

impa

ctan

d th

ey a

re m

ulti

plie

d

defin

es s

pati

al e

xten

t of

impa

cts;

doe

s no

t hav

e to

be

map

ped

- in

form

atio

n ca

ngi

ve e

xact

rat

es fo

r su

btle

vari

atio

n; m

inim

izes

co

ncer

ns

iden

tifie

s re

lati

onsh

ips

that

need

to b

e in

vest

igat

ed

indi

cate

s re

lati

onsh

ipbe

twee

n ca

use

and

effe

ct

high

ord

er d

epen

denc

ies

can

be d

eter

min

ed; c

onsi

ders

sec

-on

dary

impa

cts

mat

hem

atic

ally

sim

ple;

repl

icab

le r

esul

t

sim

ple

to u

se a

nd u

nder

stan

d

clar

ifies

issu

es o

f con

cern

asse

sses

unc

erta

inty

; ref

lect

sim

port

ance

of l

ong

and

shor

tte

rm im

pact

s

mea

sure

s se

cond

ary

impa

cts

for

map

ping

ther

e ar

e lim

its

on th

e nu

mbe

r of

ove

rlay

s(c

rite

ria)

that

can

be

used

an u

npre

dict

able

eve

nt c

anoc

cur

com

plex

for

larg

e pr

ojec

ts

num

erou

s in

tera

ctio

ns -

diff

i-cu

lt to

ass

ess

over

all i

mpa

ct

tedi

ous

for

com

plex

issu

es

impr

essi

on o

f obj

ecti

vity

,w

hich

may

not

exi

st

only

a s

mal

l num

ber

of c

rite

-ri

a ca

n be

use

d

diff

icul

t to

keep

fact

s an

dpr

efer

ence

s se

para

te

may

be

diff

icul

t to

use

addi

-ti

onal

info

rmat

ion

on c

onfi-

denc

e lim

its

subj

ecti

ve ju

dgem

ents

Bis

set,

1987

. Ja

in e

tal

., 19

80.

de B

rois

sia,

198

6.

Gre

ig, 1

986.

Sonn

tag,

198

3.

Leop

old,

L.B

., et

al.,

1971

.

Ros

s, J

.H.,

1974

.

Hob

bs, B

.F.,

1980

.

Mas

sam

, B.H

.,19

88.

CA

TE

GO

RY

/D

ESC

RIP

TIO

NM

ET

HO

DA

PP

LIC

AT

ION

AP

PR

OA

CH

AD

VA

NT

AG

ES

DIS

AD

VA

NT

AG

ES

RE

FER

EN

CE

S

APPEN

DIX

3: Sum

mar

y of

Sel

ecte

d Too

ls a

nd M

etho

ds U

sed

in t

he E

IAPro

cess

(co

nt’d

)

45

Eco

nom

ic A

ppro

ache

s re

pres

enti

ng a

ll as

pect

of a

proj

ect i

n m

onet

ary

valu

es

Pair

Wis

e C

ompa

riso

nsco

mpa

riso

n of

alte

rnat

ives

in p

airs

whi

ch a

re th

enor

dere

d us

ing

mat

hem

atic

alte

chni

ques

Opt

imiz

atio

n M

odel

ling

mat

hem

atic

al te

chni

ques

that

cho

ose

alte

rnat

ives

that

best

mee

t the

obj

ecti

ve

CB

A(c

ost b

enef

itan

alys

is)

CE

A(c

ost e

ffec

tive

anal

ysis

)

CM

A(c

ost m

ini-

miz

atio

n an

alys

is)

PB

S(p

lann

ing

bal-

ance

she

et)

Saat

y’s

anal

ytic

alhi

erar

chy

proc

edur

e

ELE

CT

RE

(co

ncor

-da

nce

and

disc

or-

danc

e an

alys

is)

TO

PSI

S

LP(l

inea

r pr

ogra

mm

ing)

DP

(dy

nam

ic

prog

ram

min

g)

GP

(goa

l pr

ogra

mm

ing)

- ev

alua

tion

- ev

alua

tion

- ev

alua

tion

- ev

alua

tion

- ev

alua

tion

- ev

alua

tion

- ev

alua

tion

- ev

alua

tion

- ev

alua

tion

- ev

alua

tion

impa

cts

are

expr

esse

d in

mon

etar

y te

rms

and

adde

d to

geth

er to

det

erm

ine

tota

lbe

nefit

s an

d to

tal c

osts

the

pref

erre

dal

tern

ativ

e ha

s th

e hi

ghes

t rat

io o

f ben

e-fit

s d

ivid

ed b

y co

sts

appl

icat

ion

of C

BA

whe

n th

ere

is a

fixe

dbu

dget

appl

icat

ion

of C

BA

whe

n ob

ject

ives

are

not c

hang

ing

appl

icat

ion

of C

BA

that

dea

ls w

ith

dis-

trib

utio

nal i

ssue

s

esti

mat

es p

refe

renc

es a

nd e

xact

val

ues

byco

mpa

ring

cri

teri

a an

d al

tern

ativ

es

com

pare

s a

smal

l num

ber

of a

ltern

ativ

es;

appl

icab

le in

the

sam

e sc

enar

io a

s SA

W

used

whe

n re

lati

onsh

ips

betw

een

two

impa

cts

are

sim

ple

allo

cate

s re

sour

ces

in a

way

that

mee

tsob

ject

ives

and

sta

ys w

ithi

n co

nstr

aint

s

opti

miz

atio

n m

etho

d

opti

miz

atio

n m

etho

d; ta

rget

s se

t for

cr

iter

ia

repr

oduc

ible

; dol

lars

and

cent

s te

rmin

olog

y

asse

sses

impa

cts

over

tim

e

obje

ctiv

es c

an b

e st

ated

inno

n-m

onet

ary

term

s

exte

rnal

itie

s ca

n be

incl

uded

in th

e an

alys

is; g

ood

repr

e-se

ntat

ion

of im

pact

di

stri

buti

on

com

bine

s co

mpl

ex a

rray

s of

data

and

judg

emen

ts in

to a

num

eric

rat

io

exte

rnal

itie

s ea

sily

incl

uded

alte

rnat

ives

can

be

rank

ed

mat

hem

atic

ally

def

ensi

ble

solu

tion

inco

rpor

ates

com

plic

ated

rela

tion

ship

s

disc

rete

alte

rnat

ives

nee

d no

tbe

spe

cifie

d

exte

rnal

itie

s m

ay b

e di

ffic

ult

to q

uant

ify; d

istr

ibut

iona

lqu

esti

ons

are

not d

ealt

wit

h(i

.e.,

who

ben

efit

s, w

hoin

curs

the

cost

)

less

com

pati

ble

wit

h th

ego

als

of E

IA th

an C

BA

no fu

rthe

r co

mpa

riso

n fo

ral

tern

ativ

es th

at m

eet t

heen

viro

nmen

tal o

bjec

tive

s

may

not

lead

to a

uni

que

solu

tion

ques

tion

able

def

ault

valu

es;

pref

eren

ce a

nd e

xact

val

ueco

nfus

ion;

rep

licat

ion

is

diff

icul

t

cum

bers

ome

whe

n th

ere

are

man

y al

tern

ativ

es

com

plex

whe

n m

any

crit

eria

are

cons

ider

ed

som

e pr

oble

ms

may

invo

lve

rela

tion

ship

s th

at a

re n

on-

linea

r

limit

ed to

pro

blem

s th

at c

anbe

seg

men

ted

diff

icul

t to

assi

gn ta

rget

s in

unit

s

Mis

han,

E.J

., 19

76.

Lich

field

, N.,

1975

.

Saat

y, T

.L.,

1987

.

CA

TE

GO

RY

/D

ESC

RIP

TIO

NM

ET

HO

DA

PP

LIC

AT

ION

AP

PR

OA

CH

AD

VA

NT

AG

ES

DIS

AD

VA

NT

AG

ES

RE

FER

EN

CE

S

APPEN

DIX

3: Sum

mar

y of

Sel

ecte

d Too

ls a

nd M

etho

ds U

sed

in t

he E

IAPro

cess

(co

nt’d

)

Sour

ce -

VH

B R

esea

rch

& C

onsu

lting

Inc

., Lo

cPla

n an

d La

wre

nce

Mac

Don

ald

and

Ass

ocia

tes.

Eva

luat

ion

Met

hods

in E

nvir

onm

enta

l Asse

ssmen

t. O

ntar

io, M

inis

try

of E

nvir

onm

ent,

Ont

ario

.a

Ref

eren

ces

othe

r th

an s

ourc

e m

ater

ial

47

AcknowledgementsThis Manual was prepared by a consultant, Marie

LeGrow, with guidance and assistance from Murray

Paterson and Stewart Sears, Ontario Hydro.

Valuable comments and suggestions were received

from Jeannette Boyer, Steve Carnegie, Steve

Hounsell, Jim Malenfant and Barb Reuber,

Ontario Hydro, and the E7-8 Project Advisory

Team members. Special thanks to John Hart and

Dana Hunter from the E7 Secretariat for their

help. Thanks also to the E7 Network Steering

Committee members for their encouragement and

support. Graphics, layout and production were pro-

vided by Charlotte Gervis, Dawn Henderson and

John Woodhouse, Ontario Hydro.

Printed on recycled paper

For more information please contact:

Secretariat,E7 Network of Expertise for the Global Environment

1010 St. Catherine Street West6th Floor, P.O. Box 6162

Montréal, QuébecCANADA, H3C 4S7

Tel: 514 392-8876Fax: 514 392-8900

E-mail: e7secretariat@hydro.qc.caWeb Site: www.e7.org

E7 ContactsSECRETARIAT:E7 Network Of Expertise1010 St. Catherine Street West6th Floor, P.O. Box 6162Montréal, QuébecCANADA H3C 4S7

Phone: (514) 392-8876Fax: (514) 392-8900E-mail: e7secretariat@hydro.qc.ca

ÉLECTRICITÉ DE FRANCE (EDF):Mr. Edouard BauerÉlectricité de France22-30, avenue de Wagram75382 Paris Cedex 08FRANCE

Phone: (33-1) 47 64 85 19Fax: (33-1) 47 64 75 01E-mail: Edouard.bauer@de.edfgdf.fr

ENEL:Mr. Roberto VitaliENELVia N. Bixio, 3929100 PiacenzaITALY

Phone: 39 523 525252Fax: 39 523 525519E-mail: vitali_roberto.co@mailbox.enel.it

HYDRO-QUEBEC:

Mr. Jean HébertHydro-Québec1010 St. Catherine Street East, 3rd FloorMontréal, QuébecCANADA H2L 2G4

Phone: (514) 840-3615Fax: (514) 840-3933E-mail: hebertj@envir.hydro.qc.ca

KANSAI ELECTRIC POWERCOMPANY:Mr. Takao ShiraishiDeputy General ManagerOffice of Corporate PlanningKansai Electric Power Co.3-22, Nakanoshima, 3-ChomeKita-Ku, Osaka 530-70JAPAN

Phone: +81-6-446-9430Fax: +81-6-441-8598E-mail: K549279@kepco.co.jp

ONTARIO HYDRO:

Mr. Murray PatersonOntario Hydro800 Kipling Ave. KR 122Toronto, OntarioCANADA M8Z 5S4

Phone: (416) 207-6682Fax: (416) 207-5623 E-mail: murray.paterson@hydro.on.ca

RWE ENERGIE AG:

Mr. Hans-Georg AdamRWE EnergieKruppstrasse 54300 Essen 1GERMANY

Phone: (0201) 185-2904Fax: (0201) 185-4313E-mail: dorothea.roese@energie.rwe.de

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAEDISON:

Mr. Howard GollaySouthern California EdisonP.O. Box 8002244 Walnut Grove Ave.Rosemead, CaliforniaUSA 91770

Phone: 818-302-4122Fax: 818-302-9156E-mail: gollayhd@sce.com

TOKYO ELECTRIC POWERCOMPANY:

Mr. Ichiro MaedaManagerInternational Affairs DepartmentTokyo Electric Power Company1-3 Uchisaiwai-Cho 1-Chome Chiyoda-KuTokyo 100 JAPAN

Phone: (03) 3501-8111Fax: (03) 3596-8438E-mail: t0561233@pmail.tepco.co.jp