An Approach to Integrate Impact Scoping with
Environmental Impact Assessment
ALAN J. KENNEDY*
Faculty of Graduate Studies
Committee on Resources and the Environment
The University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada. T2N 1N4
WILLIAM A. ROSS
Faculty of Environmental Design
The University of Calgary
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada. T2N 1N4
ABSTRACT/Impact scoping is the process of identifying
important issues of a proposal and focusing the environmen-
tal impact assessment (EIA) on the high-priority issues. AI-
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a process
of determining, addressing, and communicating the
most significant consequences of development activities
on the environment (Munn 1979). Because the devel-
opment projects and policies subjected to EIA are most
often complex and detailed, the need for locusing the
EIA on key impacts (impact scoping) has been inherent
and influential to EIA since it began in earnest in the
early 1970s. However, at these early stages of EIA, im-
pact scoping as an approach was implemented mainly
through the use of professional judgment and common
sense. EIA practitioners and researchers have long
been enamored with the notion of impact scoping and
this has led to the refinement of the concept and im-
provements in its application to EIA. Methods for scop-
ing and the effectiveness of impact scoping have there-
fore developed through time (Wolfe 1987).
Although impact scoping has been an important
component in the progression of EIA, there is a paucity
KEYWORDS: Environmentalimpactassessment;Environmentalman-
agement; Environmental protection; Impact scoping
methods
*Author to whomcorrespondenceshould be addressed. Current ad-
dress: EssoResourcesCanadaServiceNo. 15, Grand Centre,Alberta,
Canada TOA 1TO.
EnvironmentalManagementVol. 16, No. 4, pp. 475-484
though impact scoping in one form or another has been in-
herent to EIA for some time, documentation of its develop-
ment and discussion of refinements to impact scoping
processes have not been forthcoming. This article traces the
development of impact scoping through time and highlights
the need for such processes in EIA. A focused environmental
assessment (FEA) approach to impact scoping that is suit-
able for implementation in an EIA is presented here and ad-
vantages of its use are delineated. FEA is a three-staged
process that encourages impact scoping through progres-
sive steps including impact identification, assessment and
management planning. FEA combines a suite of EIA meth-
ods including: issues matrices, impact hypotheses, valued
ecosystem components, and stakeholder participation ses-
sions to effectively integrate impact scoping with EIA.
in the literature on its development and application.
This article reviews the development of the concept of
impact scoping. It describes the application of impact
scoping in EIA and the development of approaches to
do the scoping. The focused environmental assessment
(FEA) approach is then presented to resolve the issue of
a lack of integration of impact scoping with EIA.
Kennedy (1991) and Green and others (1990) provide
detailed accounts of the implementation of the FEA
approach within the case study context. The present
work concentrates on the conceptual basis for impact
scoping in EIA and discusses the role of the FEA ap-
proach in providing the needed integration of scoping
with environmental assessments.
Defining I m p a c t S c o p i n g
Early attempts to initiate impact scoping were pro-
vided by the US Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) in the statement "there is a need to determine
the scope of issues to be addressed by the EIS" (CEQ
1981, p. 4). However, the CEQ did not lay down specific
requirements for impact scoping nor did the CEQ give
a clear direction for a process to do the scoping. To add
further difficulties, the terminology surrounding the
impact scoping concept has been inconsistent in the lit-
erature during the evolution of impact scoping pro-
cesses, For example, Ross (1987a), Sadler (1986), and
Marshall and Wolfe (1985) previously used the term
9 1992Springer-VerlagNewYorkInc.
476 A.J. Kennedy and W. A. Ross
focusing to describe essentially what scoping is intended
to accomplish. Also, the nouns impact and issue previ-
ously have been used interchangeably as the receptors
of the action of scoping, making it difficult to attain an
universally acceptable meaning for these terms (Whit-
ney and Maclaren 1985)
Ross, (1987b, p. 2) considered impact scoping to be
"a process for identifying and assigning priority to the
issues associated with a proposed action." He further
states that there are three recognizable components to
impact scoping including: the identification of concerns
and interests, the evaluation of these issues, and the
assigning of priority to the issues that warrant further
investigation and elimination of those that do not.
Wolfe's (1987) definition of impact scoping is compara-
ble to that of Ross, but he adds that the third stage of
impact scoping should "provide organization and com-
munication of the issues to assist in the analysis of these
issues and the making of decisions" (Wolfe 1987, p. 8).
A second school considers impact scoping to identify
and interpret impacts for focus in the EIA and to also
be an analytical tool in the EIA process. For example,
Marshall and Wolfe (1985, p. 121) state that focused
EIA involves three steps including: (1) inventory, (2)
focusing, and (3) an analysis stage that is designed to
"produce an analytic EIA clearly focused on the key
issues." Beanlands and Duinker (1983) further refine
the concept of analytical impact scoping and consider
the term scoping to refer to the design of the a.s,sess-
ment portion of the EIA. They propose using tempo-
ral, spatial, administrative, and technical considerations
early in the EIA to "reduce the scope and focus the
study of impacts" (Beanlands and Duinker 1983, p.
133). These authors also introduce the notion of alter-
native impact scoping classes including social scoping
and ecological scoping (Beanlands and Duinker 1983).
They argue that social scoping provides a guide to the
impact areas perceived by society to be important. Eco-
logical scoping, on the other hand, includes the identi-
fication of valued ecosystem components (VECs) and
provides a basis for making the appropriate scientifi-
cally based judgnaents on the procedures to study the
VECs. Beanlands and Duinker (1983) also add that so-
dal scoping can be considered as the establishment of
the terms in which impacts should be expressed,
whereas ecological scoping establishes the terms in
which the impacts can be effectively studied.
Judgments of the significance of impacts ultimately
direct the scope of the EIA and therefore the subject of
significance requires discussion within the context of
scoping. For example, Beanlands (1988) states that the
adoption of a definition for impact significance at the
onset of an EIA clearly represents an initial attempt to
reduce the scope of the EIA to the most important po-
tential effects. Beanlands (1988) elaborates on scoping
significance and offers the following recurring themes
for impact significance that often influence impact
scoping: (1) primary concern for human health and
safety, (2) loss of commercial production (and species),
(3) loss of species or lands of recreational or aesthetic
importance, (4) concern for rare and endangered spe-
cies, and (5) loss of critical habitats that precludes future
production. These themes can have a strong directional
influence on the EIA decisions and may therefore be
considered to constitute a form of impact scoping
(Beanlands 1988).
It is clear from the previous discussion that there is
considerable breadth to the term impact scoping and
that scoping is most appropriately considered as a func-
tional process. Therefore, impact scoping will be de-
fined here as: an EIA activity in which a process is fol-
lowed to identify the attributes of the environment for
which there is concern (public and scientific) and a plan
is provided that enables the EIA to be focused on these
attributes. Further, we suggest that a functional impact
scoping process should have the following stepwise
components.
1. An initial identification phase for the consideration
of the wide realm of public and scientific issues re-
lated to the EIA.
2. An assessment phase to eliminate tile nonsignifi-
cant impacts and concentrate on the important im-
pacts.
3. An impact management planning phase in which a
plan for the monitoring and mitigation of those key
impacts is elucidated and communicated to decision
makers and the public.
Need for Impact Scoping
Since the inception of EIA with the passage of the
US National Environmental Policy Act in 1970, EIA has
become an accepted component of a process to evaluate
development activities and policies (CEARC 1988).
During the early stages of development of environmen-
tal assessments, the need to adopt an impact scoping
process became clear. For example, Beanlands and
Duinker (1983) observed EIAs to be voluminous, de-
tailed, and exhaustive documents full of unnecessarily
comprehensive data. Marshall and Wolfe (1985) attrib-
ute this situation to the fact that most review agencies,
scientists, and members of the public have developed
the belief that to be adequate the EIA must be fully
comprehensive and address all technical concerns. Un-
fortunately, with this reasoning applied to EIA, the task

becomes one of collecting the most data possible rather
than using data as a tool for decision making. In fact,
Rosenburg and others (1981) cite specific examples of
EIAs in which collection of information has dominated
the assessment process and very little effort has been
given to the impact analysis and development of impact
monitoring or mitigation. Whitney and Maclaren
(1985) further note that key issues have, in past EIA
experiences, not been singled out for special treatment.
T h e rule has been to deal superficially with all potential
issues. Additionally, irrelevant or insignificant impacts
frequently have been included in EIA, which has often
confused and lengthened the EIA process and resulted
in delays and reevaluation of the EIA submissions (Mar-
shall and Wolfe 1985). Possibly the worst-case scenario
resulting from this lack of scope is that a major issue or
issues may be missed altogether or not evaluated until
late in the EIA review process (Ross 1987b).
Additional factors contributing to the need for im-
pact scoping in EIA are outlined in Wolfe's (1987) re-
view of the subject. T h e lack of direction in early EIAs,
according to Wolfe (1987), is related to the overall de-
velopment of the EIA review processes. For example,
government EIA guidelines have been quite broad, and
this resulted in expansive documents. Project propo-
nents in an effort to persuade review agencies to ap-
prove the project, attempted to analyze all possible im-
pacts as it is often easier and less time consuming to do
this than to prepare a concise well-considered docu-
ment. Further, EIA compilers and reviewers are often
technical specialists with strong interests in certain sub-
ject areas. Because of their strong specialization, these
individuals are often reluctant to dismiss their impact
areas as irrelevant.
Beanlands (1985) argues that the format of EIA in
which the text is organized around scientific disciplines
with a standard catalog style to describe the environ-
mental information does not highlight key issues for a
reviewer or interested reader. Because this approach
does not relate information to central issues, the EIAs
emphasize the information itself and not the analysis of
the information. In the final analysis, the catalog format
does not assist decision makers in their review of the key
decision areas.
Ross (1987a) includes scoping (referred to as focus-
ing in original citation) as one of three major needs for
an effective EIA. He states "focus in EIA allows the EIA
to be complete, in that it must address all the important
issues, and prevents the presentation of a considerable
amount of specious material" (Ross 1987a, p. 140). T h e
need for scoping of impacts in EIA also has been enun-
ciated in an action prospectus on the effectiveness of
EIA carried out by Canadian Environmental Assess-
Impact Scoping in EIA 477
ment Research Council (CEARC 1988). T h e Federal
Environmental Assessment Review Office has pursued
improvements to scoping procedures and has an ongo-
ing commitment to investigate methods to integrate im-
pact scoping with the Environmental Assessment and
Review Process (Duffy 1986, Marshall and others 1986).
Development of ImpactScoping
EIA was first conducted in the early 1970s as a re-
quirement for regulatory approval of large resource de-
velopment proposals or megaprojects. One of the first
industrial projects in North America that was required
to file an environmental impact statement (EIS) as part
of its regulatory approval process was the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline project. T h e eight-page EIS that was submitted
for the entire 1900 km of the project resulted in a legal
judgment calling for more indepth EIS documentation.
Due to this court ruling and the injunction granted
against this project, EISs soon became long, heavy, mul-
tivolume documents to guard against project slow down
or failure (Beanlands 1988). In Canada, for example,
the Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta hydrocarbon devel-
opment project conducted an inordinately large num-
ber of field studies to compile a baseline data base for
impact assessment, as well as numerous experimental
studies to assess the response of natural ecosystem com-
ponents to industrial disturbance, human activity, and
proposed mitigation measures (Dome and others 1982).
The Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie Delta EIA consisted of
over seven volumes of information. Lacking previous
models, this EIA attempted to address all of the poten-
tial project impacts on a wide number of resources. As
little effort was directed towards the identification of
key issues, the EIA was weakly focused, voluminous,
technically oriented, and poorly organized for use by
either regulatory bodies or the public (Marshall and
Wolfe 1985).
By the late 1980s, technological and philosophical
advancements in EIA resulted in the gradual emer-
gence and acceptance of more explicit impact scoping
processes and a trend towards focused or "issues-ori-
ented" EIA (Wolfe 1987). Notable advancements in
EIA processes also promoted the trend towards explicit
impact scoping (Table 1). As a result of this trend, al-
though difficulties have been encountered, scoping
practices have improved over time (Marshall and others
1986). Environmental assessment has become more
open to the public (CEARC 1988), and attempts have
been made to bound and focus EIA studies (Beanlands
and Duinker 1983). A recent example of the use of
impact scoping methods such as focusing the assess-
ment on VECs is demonstrated by the Goose Bay EIS
478 A.J. Kennedy and W. A. Ross
Table 1. Attributes contributing to development of
impact scoping in EIA
9 Integration of the EIA planning process in the initial proj-
ect design (e.g., incorporation of environmental issues with
engineering and economic concerns) and increased aware-
ness of interdisciplinary data requirements among project
components.
9 Improved technical capabilities to predict and measure im-
pacts to air, water, and terrestrial ecosystems.
9 A broader knowledge base and methodologies for success-
ful management of project impacts.
9 Shifts in the allocation of funding from comprehensive
baseline field studies towards public participation pro-
cesses and mitigation and monitoring components as bet-
ter regional data bases on natural resources were compiled
and made publicly available.
9 Preparation and formating of EIA documents to assist (1)
regulators in the regulatory approval process, (2) public
comprehension of the project and its impacts, and (3) im-
proved comprehension by applied disciplines (engineer-
ing, economics) of environmental issues and management.
9 Increased and earlier public consultation in project design,
impact assessment, and impact management.
9 More experienced and effective public participation in the
decision-making process for project design and approval.
9 A growing acceptance among technical specialists and the
public that EIAs do not have to be comprehensive techni-
cal documents.
9 An increase in the overall understanding of ecological
principles and environmental impacts by the public.
recently completed in Newfoundland, Canada (DND
1989).
FEA Approach to Impact Scoping
A focused environmental assessment (FEA) process
(Figure 1) developed by one of the authors (Kennedy
1991) for a major oil sands project in northern Canada
assists EIA in identifying, technically refining, and for-
mulating management plans for important environ-
mental impacts. The FEA process encourages the early
identification of impacts through three stages of impact
documentation and review. The first stage is termed the
impact identification stage (shown as dark shading) and
represents early problem and/or issue identification,
which is the most prominent impact scoping effort in
the FEA. A large number of widely disparate potential
impacts are initially screened during this stage. The sec-
ond stage is the assessment phase (shown in medium
shading), which represents less scoping effort and more
assessment undertakings. The activities in this stage in-
clude the organization of impacts into hypotheses that
include impact statements and pathways diagrams as
well as the validation and determination of importance
of the impacts. The final impact management planning
stage (shown in light shading) is essentially impact mon-
itoring and mitigation planning and therefore has a
limited scoping function. FEA is considered to include
considerable evaluation, prediction, and planning activ-
ities and as such goes further than the scoping of the
environmental impacts as we previously defined it.
However, the entire process is presented here, as an
understanding of the effectiveness of the scoping is best
realized within the context of the entire FEA process.
The remainder of this article expands on the compo-
nents of the FEA process in some detail and discusses its
capability to integrate impact scoping with environmen-
tal impact assessment.
Impact Identification Stage
The first major task of the FEA involves the follow-
ing: identification of stakeholders, compilation of the
project description and baseline biophysical informa-
tion and the summarization of the broad range of real
or perceived potential environmental issues. Key stake-
holders for any development activity generally include
federal, provindal, and local or municipal government
agencies, other industrial groups, nongovernment or-
ganizations (NGOs), native bands and organizations, as
well as the proponents of the project. The impact iden-
tification stage of the FEA is used to determine the con-
cerns of these major groups of key stakeholders. Such
identification is useful in evaluating the importance of
various environmental concerns from the standpoint of
the number of groups that may be concerned with spe-
cific project activities and the resulting environmental
impacts and the potential need for additional input
from specific key stakeholders. Project activities for
which concern by key stakeholder groups has been or is
likely to be expressed can initially be identified only on
a presence or absence basis. As more detailed informa-
tion is obtained on specific key stakeholders and their
particular project concerns, key stakeholder interac-
tions with project activities can be subjectively ranked
according to the degree of stakeholder concern (e.g.,
high, moderate, low, not applicable). Public input into
the FEA and updating of the key stakeholder list is
therefore envisioned to be ongoing throughout the
FEA process.
Impact matrices may be used to provide a useful and
easily understood framework for the identification of
potential environmental impacts. The impact matrix
was selected for FEA based on its proven attributes to
summarize effectively large quantities of diverse data. It
is recognized that other EIA tools may also be appro-
priate for this task. Impact matrices in FEA are com-

INPUT STAGE
I. DOCUMENT POTENTIAL
PROBLEMS AND/OR ISSUES
2. EVALUATE ISSUE PRIORITY
V [
~..1~;:~:2. Validate Impact Hypotheses
I-.--0
I 1~+:3. DetemalneDeg~eofConcem
O.Jk~ l I~.ii4. D~-'ument ImpactHypoth ....
~mn.
wl--
,9 1. Identify mitigation measures
2. Recommend and/or implement
monitoriag
3. Recommend and/or implement
resea:tch on data gaps
4. A~egg residual impacts
(Extent, duration & magnitude)
ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT STATEMENT
prised of summary checklists that have been modified
from the EIA matrices originally proposed by Leopold
and others (1971). FEA impact identification matrices
have project activities on one axis and potentially af-
fected environmental components on the other axis.
Based on the most current project description, project
activities are broken into major project phases such as
planning, construction, operation, and abandonment.
For each project phase, project activities that may result
in environmental impacts are then identified. Environ-
mental impacts most often fall within a number of
broad components including: geology and soils, surface
hydrology, hydrogeology, aquatic resources, air quality,
vegetation and forestry, land use, wildlife populations
and habitat, and historical resources. Interactions be-
tween specific project activities and environmental com-
ponents may be rated at this stage on a subjective scale
I m p a c t S c o p i n g in EIA 479
OUTPUT
Impact Matrix for
Further Analysis
Important
Impact
;..", J(............~ Ecosystem
;"" k - I Comm,ents
i~. ~'l ~. ] (VECS)
I 1. Mitigation Plans Figure 1. Focused environmental
2. Monitoring Plans
3. Residual assessment (FEA) achieves impact
- Impacts scoping through three distinct stages.
4. Rese~ch
Priorities Impact identification screens the large
number of project activities and their
potential impacts. The impact
assessment stage reviews and
documents the important impacts for
presentation in the EIS. Impact
management provides a plan for the
monitoring and mitigation of the key
impacts. See text for detailed
descriptions of each stage.
(e.g., high, moderate, low, not applicable) relative to the
potential importance of the interaction as perceived by
the major stakeholders.
Completion of the impact matrix is considered to be
an important task in the scoping process, as it provides
an opportunity to examine all the possible impacts,
while at the same time identifying: (1) those environ-
mental or social components that could be significantly
affected by the development; (2) those components that
may interact in some manner but do not justify further
examination in the impact assessment; and (3) those
components that will likely not be affected by the proj-
ect. Such screening is a fundamental first step in a scop-
ing process as it assists in focusing on important envi-
ronmental attributes that may later be identified and
documented as VECs (Beanlands and Duinker 1983)
rather than examining in detail every possible interac-
480 A.J. Kennedy and W. A. Ross
tion between the proposed development scenarios and
the environment. Development of impact matrices also
assists in achieving consensus among participants for
the further consideration of some project activities and
environmental impacts. On occasion, the initial screen-
ing of impact matrices can be used to rationalize the
immediate exclusion of some environmental impacts
from further evaluation. In order that the impact ma-
trices reflect relevant project activities and stakeholder
concerns, they are reviewed and updated as necessary
throughout the stepwise sequence of events in the FEA
process. Upgrades to the matrices therefore may be re-
quired as new information becomes available on the
project description, baseline biophysical resources and
impacts, stakeholder concerns, and mitigation poten-
tial.
Impact Assessment Stage
The objective of the second stage of FEA is to de-
scribe the major project impacts (i.e., project interac-
tions with VECs) identified in the first stage, regardless
of the potential for mitigation of these impacts, and to
define the physical and ecological linkages between the
project activities and the VECs that have resulted in the
impacts. An appropriate tool to accompfish this task is
the use of environmental impact hypotheses. Concep-
tual development of impact hypothesis models is cred-
ited to Holling's (1978) Adaptive Environmental Assess-
ment and Management (AEAM) process. Within the
AEAM method, the impact hypothesis models include a
brief impact statement and computer simulation mod-
els to the major biophysical or social processes that con-
nected the development activities with the potential en-
vironmental effects. A series of workshops for technical
assessors and decisionmakers is carried out to update
the models and ensure they are adaptive to potential
changes to the assessment scenarios (Holling 1978).
The strength of AEAM appears to be in its flexibility to
anticipate the unexpected through a systems modeling
approach (Environment Canada 1983). Everitt and oth-
ers (1986) have documented the application of the
AEAM impact hypothesis procedure to environmental
monitoring projects in the Beaufort Sea (DIAND 1984)
and the Mackenzie Valley (DIAND 1986) in northern
Canada. These projects successfully adapted impact hy-
pothesis modeling to provide a suitable vehicle to inte-
grate monitoring plans with impact forecasts.
The FEA approach engages impact hypotheses dur-
ing the assessment stage as a mechanism to depict im-
pact integration. An example of a relatively simple im-
pact hypothesis and pathways diagram, defining the ge-
netic impacts of development activities on wildlife, is
illustrated in Figure 2. The bottom of the pathway di-
agram introduces the potential cause of the particular
impact. The reader is then directed through a series of
linkages to the various impact scenarios. The impact
hypothesis statement and diagram improve compre-
hension of impacts when development actions are as-
sessed at FEA working sessions in that they explicitly
state the predicted impact and diagrammatically repre-
sent that impact within the biophysical system in which
it exists (Kennedy 1991). Some impact hypothesis path-
ways are quite straightforward, involving only one or
two linkages, whereas other impact hypotheses, such as
those involving the transport and deposition of air
emissions, are more complex and involve several major
pathways and many linkages. The impact hypotheses
are most effectively formulated by technical specialists
on a multidisciplinary team during working sessions
held early and throughout the FEA (Kennedy 1991).
The mechanics of the FEA working sessions are de-
scribed later in the article.
Validating the Impact Hypotheses
Once the impact hypotheses have been formulated,
the FEA process continues impact scoping through the
technical validation of each impact hypothesis. Valida-
tion as defined in DIAND (1984) focuses on the evalu-
ation of each impact linkage in terms of:
9 uncertainties and necessary assumptions
9 evidence for and against the linkage
9 project design that could eliminate or alter the link-
age
9 confidence in the information available for docu-
menting the linkage
Based on the currently available baseline information
and anticipated project activities, each linkage of the
hypothesis is deemed to be valid, invalid, or unknown
(DIAND 1986). Following the evaluation of all linkages
in the hypothesis model, the FEA multidisciplinary
team members select the most appropriate conclusion
on the validity of the impact hypothesis from the fol-
lowing:
9 The hypothesis is valid and the impact cannot be
mitigated through any change in the project design.
9 The hypothesis is valid but the impact will be miti-
gated through a change in project design.
9 There is insufficient information to evaluate the va-
lidity of the hypothesis.
9 The hypothesis is invalid.
By eliminating all invalid hypotheses during this stage
of the process, the resources and expertise of the FEA
team can be focused on the significant environmental
impacts during the remainder of the FEA. This step is
 Impact Scoping in EIA 481

Impact Hypothesis: Construction activities for the development of the project

facilities will disturb wildlife, resulting in decreased populations.

ReducedAbundanceof Wildlife)
Link 6

I
( Direct Mortality) Changesin Reproductive1
I
(Habitat Abandonment)
uccess
I
I L,nks I
~Nesting Activity) (Energy Balance)
Link 2 I Link 3b Link 3a I Link 4
I
( FlightlEscape/Panie Response )
Link 1

Q Construction Activities )

LINK 1: Construction activities lead to flight-panic-escape response in wildlife.

LINK 2: Flight-panic-escape behaviour leads to direct mortality of wildlife.
LINK 3a: Flight-panic-escape behaviour will increase energy costs which, in turn, Figure 2. An example of a wildlife
will result in the inability to reproduce successfully. impact hypothesis and pathway
LINK 3b: Flight-panic-escape behaviour will disrupt reproductive activity. diagram. The impact scoping
LINK 4: Flight-panic-escape behaviour can alienate wildlife from critical habitat. hypothesis and pathway diagrams are
LINK 3" A disruption of energy balances or nesting activities can result in instructive to FEA assessment teams
decreased reproductive success. as they integrate the often complex
LINK 6: A decrease in reproductive success, alienation from critical habitat and interactions of impacts through
indirect all result in decreased abundance of wildlife. schematic documentation of linkages,

useful in focusing the documentation on the key envi-
ronmental impacts, while also justifying the elimination
of some environmental impacts from further evalua-
tion.
Determining Degree of Concern
Once a hypothesis is judged to be valid, it is then
further evaluated to determine its importance or the
degree of concern about the impact. An integral aspect
of the FEA process is to determine the importance of
valid impacts using the regional information base, as
much as possible, and any detailed information avail-
able for the project area. Impact importance is rated in
terms of the potential extent, duration, and magnitude
of project impacts under the worst-case scenario
(DIAND 1986). Extent refers to the area affected and,
at a minimum, can be rated as local (within or directly
adjacent to the project area), regional, provincial, na-
tional, or international. However, when possible, quan-
titative estimates of the surface area affected by an im-
pact are provided. Duration of impact refers to the abil-
ity of the VEC to recover from the impact, and, when
possible, is measured as a specific time interval (DIAND
1986). T h e seasonal nature of an impact is also identi-
fied when appropriate. I f quantitative information is
lacking, duration, at minimum, can be estimated for the
purposes of determining a degree of concern as short
(less than one year), medium (one to ten years), and
long-term (greater than ten years). Magnitude refers to
the percentage of a population or resource that may be
affected by an impact. When possible, the population or
resource base should be defined in quantitative terms
(DIAND 1986). Magnitude also can be estimated for
the purposes of assessing degree of concern as the per-
centage of the population or resource base that could be
affected by the project. At a minimum, if data on the
population effects are not known, it can be classified for
assessment purposes as either less than 10%, or greater
than or equal to 10% of the population or resource base
(Kennedy 1991). It should be recognized that these es-
482 A.J. Kennedy and W. A. Ross
timates of the extent, duration, and magnitude are pre-
sented as a guideline. Each FEA case will require eval-
uation and perhaps adjustment of these suggested lim-
its. At the conclusion of the assessment stage, the impact
hypotheses are collected into an impact forecast sum-
mary for use in the remainder of the FEA process.
Impact Management Planning Stage
T h e final task o f the FEA is the development of a
plan for managing the important environmental im-
pacts, as well as those impact hypotheses for which in-
sufficient information is available to complete the im-
pact validation and assessment. T h r e e management
strategies can be implemented for each individual im-
pact within the hypotheses, depending on the circum-
stances surrounding each particular impact hypothesis.
T h e three-way classification of management strategies
includes the following.
9 Impact mitigation measures are described for re-
ducing the extent, duration, and/or magnitude. Re-
sidual impacts following mitigation are also identi-
fied and a plan for dealing with them discussed.
9 For those environmental impacts requiring addi-
tional information and research, appropriate mea-
sures for obtaining additional information or appro-
priate research for obtaining new information are
recommended. Priorities and responsibilities are
discussed for the collection of such information, rel-
ative to the degree o f concern for the impact and the
priority for impact resolution that will ultimately de-
termine the suitability of the proposal.
9 Where concern may exist as to the forecasted ex-
tent, duration, and/or magnitude o f the impact, rec-
ommendations for impact monitoring, evaluation,
and management are developed. Priorities are also
established for the implementation of the suggested
monitoring, evaluation, and management pro-
grams.
FEA Working Sessions
Completion o f the FEA will involve a joint effort
from the multidisciplinary team, with input from proj-
ect proponents, the socioeconomic impact assessment
team, a variety of government agencies, NGOs, and
other affected stakeholders. Because of the need for
expert input on a wide array of physical and biological
issues in the EIA, exchange and integration of infor-
mation among these disciplines is important in ensuring
a sound and balanced EIA. Integrated work sessions
with members o f the groups mentioned above is a
proven mechanism for constructive dialogue and prob-
lem identification in EIA (Everitt and others 1986). T o
promote exchange and integration of information, as
well as to present opportunities for input from the pub-
lic, FEA includes, at a minimum, three integrated work
sessions (Figure 1). As a means of increasing effective-
ness, each work session directly precedes each major
stage of FEA. However, there can be additional ad hoc
sessions whenever the need arises. T h e objectives and
basic function of each work session are explained below.
Issues Identification Working Session
An issues identification work session should be held
early in the FEA, involving the multidisciplinary FEA
technical team, government, local stakeholders, and se-
lected technical resources as appropriate. T h e primary
purpose of this work session is the identification and
discussion of potential interactions between project ac-
tivities and important environmental resources. During
the work session, all potential interactions available to
the participants are documented, discussed and ranked
as a means to identify the most important potential im-
pacts associated with specific project activities. Based on
these judgements, the participants then formulate spe-
cific impact matrices to address all of the key interac-
tions. At the conclusion of the session, technical experts
within the FEA technical team review each impact ma-
trix for its accuracy, using the current level of informa-
tion on project design and environmental resources.
Impact Assessment Working Session
An impact assessment workshop is conducted to de-
velop and document impact hypotheses and determine
the validity of each hypothesis. Once a hypothesis is
judged to be valid, it will then be evaluated to determine
the degree of concern, based on the estimated extent,
duration, and magnitude of the impact. Mitigation o f
valid impacts is discussed in a cursory manner at this
stage in order to assist in impact scoping. Participants in
this session will include all participants from the first
session and may also include additional participants
from the key stakeholder list. At the contusion o f the
session, technical experts review and input the updated
information on the validation and assessment to each
impact hypothesis.
Impact Management Planning Working Session
The third and final work session focuses on the re-
view of validated impact hypotheses and methods of
managing significant project impacts. Participants in-
clude all those from previous workshops and any addi-
tional key stakeholders identified since work session
one. T h e objective of the management planning session
is to describe mitigation methods for all important im-

pacts, identify the residual impacts that will occur fol-
lowing mitigation and assign priority to these impacts,
as well as to recommend additional research needs and
establish monitoring protocols for impacts of concern.
As in the two previous sessions, technical experts doc-
ument and summarize management plans for each im-
pact hypothesis model in a format that facilitates incor-
poration into the EIA.
Conclusion
T h e application o f FEA has the potential to improve
and empower EIA to better accomplish its main objec-
tive: that of the determination of the consequences of
development activities on the environment. FEA can
contribute substantial benefits to EIA through a num-
ber o f improvements over conventional, nonfocused
EIA practices. FEA when conducted in a comprehen-
sive manner reduces the potential for overlooking im-
portant impacts. Specifically, FEA uses wide stake-
holder involvement and comprehensive work sessions
with the stakeholders to determine important impacts
associated with a proposal. Additionally, at the working
sessions nonimportant impacts can be eliminated
through conversations between affected stakeholders
and impact assessment planners. T h e use of the work-
ing sessions and continuous dialogue between stake-
holders also ensures that appropriate impact forecasts
and factual back-up information are readily available to
decision makers. T h e FEA work sessions also encour-
age open participation between many stakeholder
groups that improves the resolution of conflict. Reduc-
tion in conflict also discourages the development of
confrontational tactics that can lead to delays in EIA
reviews.
A review of impact scoping among EIA case studies
(Kennedy 1991) indicates that the FEA approach, when
carried out as previously described, results in the early
identification of project alternatives and possible miti-
gation measures within the conceptual planning time
frame o f the EIA. An early understanding of impacts
allows environmental assessment and protection mea-
sures to be incorporated into the early project planning
stages of the proposal within the same time frame as the
engineering and economic considerations are being in-
corporated. Additionally, effective impact scoping can
inherently reduce the size and effort required to pro-
duce and review EIA documents. This is not to say that
all EIAs must be short to be meaningful but that EIAs
that are succinct and focused tend to be more effective
as communication tools to stakeholders and decision
makers. Furthermore, good FEA encourages a more
tightly structured approach to planning background
Impact Scoping in EIA 483
studies, data reviews and analyses, and preparation and
format of the EIA. Finally, the specific requirement for
a careful review of the impact management planning
within the final stage of the FEA process provides for
an improved ability to allocate monitoring, mitigation,
and research efforts to impacts that are environmen-
tally, socially, and politically important.
Acknowledgments
This article is part of a PhD project conducted by A.
Kennedy. T h e authors acknowledge logistic and finan-
cial support from Esso Resources Canada (OSLO Proj-
ect), particularly from Mr. G. Mann and Dr. R. Gossen.
T h e input from Mr. J. Green on the development o f
FEA was helpful and is appreciated. Review comments
from Dr. P. Duinker and an anonymous reviewer im-
proved the manuscript.
Literature Cited
Beanlands, O. 1985. Ecology and impact assessment in Can-
ada. Pages 23--46 In J. V. Maclaren and J. Whitney (eds.),
New directions in EIA in Canada. Methuen Publications
Agincourt, Ontario.
Beanlands, G. 1988. Scoping methods and baseline studies in
EIA. Pages 52-88 in P. Wathern (ed.), Environmental Im-
pact Assessment Theory and Practice. Unwin Hyman, Lon-
don.
Beanlands, G.E., and P.N. Duinker. 1983. An ecological
framework for environmental impact assessment in Can-
ada. Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dal-
housie University, Nova Scotia.
CEARC (Canadian Environmental Assessment Research
Committee). 1988. Evaluating environmental impact assess-
ment: An action prospectus. Supply and Services Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1981. Scoping
guidance. Executive Office of the President, Council on En-
vironmental Quality, Washington, DC.
DIAND (Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Can-
ada). 1984. Beaufort Environmental Monitoring Project:
1983--1984 Final report. DIAND, Ottawa, Canada
DIAND (Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Can-
ada). 1986. Mackenzie Valley environmental monitoring
project. Final report 1984-1986. DIAND, Ottawa, Canada.
DND (Department of National Defence). 1989. Goose Bay
EIS final report and summary. Department of National De-
fence, Ottawa, Canada.
Dome Petroleum Ltd, Esso Resources Canada Ltd., and Gulf
Canada Resources Inc. 1982. Beaufort Sea-Mackenzie
Delta environmental impact statement. Calgary, Alberta,
Canada (unpublished).
Duffy, P. 1986. Initial assessment guide. Federal Environmen-
tal Assessment Review Office, Hull, Quebec, Canada.
Environmental Canada. 1983. Review and evaluation of adap-
484 A.J. Kennedy and W. A. Ross
tive environmental assessment and management. Supply
and Services Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Everitt, R. R., D. A. Birdsall, and D. Stone. 1986. The Beau-
fort Sea monitoring program. Pages 251-266 in R. Lang
(ed.), Integrated approaches to resource planning and man-
agement. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, Alberta.
Green J. E., A.J. Kennedy, and G.J. Mann. 1990. Impact
scoping in EIA for major projects---the OSLO project ex-
perience. Environmental control/hazardous waste confer-
ence. Haztech Canada Conference, 6-7 November 1990.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and
management. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Kennedy, A. 1991. Towards a focused environmental assess-
ment process: A new approach to impact scoping for envi-
ronmental assessments. PhD thesis. The University of Cal-
gary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada (in preparation).
Leopold, L. B., F. E. Clarke, and B. B. Henshaw. 1971. A pro-
cedure for evaluating environmental impact. Geological
Survey Circular, Washington D.C.
Marshall, D.W., and L.S. Wolfe. 1985. Identification and
analysis of environmental issues associated with Beaufort
Sea hydrocarbon production and transportation. Pages
101-107 in Proceedings of 8th annual meeting of the In-
ternational Society of Petroleum Industry Biologists, Banff,
Alberta, Canada.
Marshall, D. W., W. A. Ross, and B. Sadler. 1986. On scoping
in EARP. Federal Environmental Assessment and Review
Office, Vancouver, BC, Canada (unpublished).
Munn, 1979. Environmental impact assessment: Principles
and procedures. Scope 5. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Rosenburg, D. M., V. H. Resh, et al. 1981. Recent trends in
environmental impact assessment. CanadianJournal offish-
eries and Aquatic Resources 38(5):591-624.
Ross, W.A. 1987a. Evaluating environmental impact state-
ments. Journal of Environmental Management 25:137-147.
Ross, W.A. 1987b. Scoping in Canadian environmental as-
sessment reviews. United Nations Economic Commission
for Europe, Seminar on EIA. Warsaw, Poland. 21-25 Sep-
tember 1987.
Sadler, B. 1986. Impact assessment in transition: A frame-
work for redeployment. Pages 46-54 in R. Lang (ed.), In-
tegrated approaches to resource management. The Banff
Center School of Management, Banff, Alberta, Canada.
Whitney, J. R., and V. W. Maclaren. 1985. Environmental im-
pact assessment: The Canadian experience. University of
Toronto, Institute for Environmental Studies, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Wolfe, L. S. 1987. Methods for scoping environmental impact
assessments. A review of the literature and experience. Fed-
eral Environmental Assessment and Review Office, Van-
couver, BC, Canada.