AN ELECTRIC UTILITY OVERVIEW

THE E7 NETWORK
OF EXPERTISE
FOR THE GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
AN ELECTRIC UTILITY OVERVIEW
 FOREWORD

This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Manual was prepared by the E7 Network of
Expertise for the Global Environment, for use by electric utility planners, project developers,
and decision-makers in developing and Eastern European countries. The Manual presents
an overview of the EIA process as it applies to electricity projects, and describes the role of
EIA in project decision-making and implementation. The process described is typical of EIA
processes 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 to
increase 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 it
with specific information and case study examples from the host country to make its EIA
seminars as relevant as possible for our developing country partners.

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

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

Richard Ronchka
Chair - Steering Committee
E7 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
Introduction
Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) has become one of the most
effective tools we have for incorporating
environmental consequences into
decision-making. EIA is, ideally, an inte-
gral part of the overall planning process
“EIA must begin as soon as a project is for electricity projects. It assists, but
does not control project planning and
conceived, before irrevocable decisions implementation; ensuring that environ-
mental considerations are incorporated
into decision-making, along with techni-
are made.” cal and economic factors (Figure 1). In
order to achieve the desired goals, an
EIA must begin as soon as a project is
conceived, before irrevocable decisions
are made.

THE MANUAL
This EIA Manual was prepared by the
E7 Network of Expertise for the Global
Environment, for use by utility planners,
developers and decision-makers in devel-
Detailed assessment of
oping countries. The Manual outlines a
significant impacts, generic EIA process that can assist in
identification of mitigation meeting EIA guidelines set out by inter-
needs, input to decision national lending organizations for major
analysis
electricity projects. It provides back-
Detailed design
ground information on the EIA process
of mitigation and its application in the electricity sec-
and compensation tor; summarizes the various tools and
Pre-feasibility Feasibility measures methods used in EIA studies; and shares
techniques for managing the EIA
process. The intent of the Manual is to
share with developing countries the
Design & approach to EIA which has evolved, and
Project Engineering its application in the electric utility sec-
Concept tor, so that they may benefit from the
Site selection, Implementation
environmental of mitigation successes and mistakes of the past, to
screening, measures and make more sustainable project decisions
initial assessment, Monitoring environmental
scoping of
in the future.
& Evaluation Implementation management
significant strategy
issues BACKGROUND ON EIA
EIA has developed in response to limita-
Monitoring and post-auditing
tions in the traditional project planning
(lessons for future projects,
EIA verification, compliance) process with regard to environmental
considerations, and also in response to
the growing concern about environmen-
tal quality issues.

The EIA process has evolved consider-

FIGURE 1: EIA In the Project Life Cycle
Source: adapted from UNEP, 1988
ably over the last 25 years, along with
our knowledge and capacity to deal with
environmental issues. Early EIAs tended
to be lengthy, descriptive, and not much
use to decision-makers. They were often

1
started late in the project planning
process, after irrevocable decisions had
been made, therefore had little chance to
influence project design.
With experience and study, EIAs have
become more cost-effective and timely,
focusing on issues important to stake-
holders and decision-makers. We now
know that EIAs must be initiated as
soon as a project is conceived, and fully
integrated in the overall project plan-
ning process, in order to influence pro-
ject design and implementation (Figure
2). Public participation has become an
integral part of EIA. EIAs now aid in
making decisions which are informed
and environmentally sound.
“It is necessary to understand the links
between environment and develop-
ment in order to make development
choices that will be economically effi-
cient, socially equitable and responsi-
ble, and environmentally sound.”
Agenda 21
THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNITY
In recent years, the international com-
munity has placed the environment at
the top of the development agenda. As
a result, international lending organiza-
tions, like the World Bank, have begun
to tie the provision of development
FIGURE 2: Evolution of EIA in Relation to Project Planning
funding to a requirement to assess the
environmental impacts of proposed
projects.
Many lending institutions and interna-
tional environmental agencies have
issued 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; IADB
1990; UNEP 1988; World Bank 1991).
THE E7 AND EIA
In 1992, the Chairmen of the seven
largest vertically integrated electrical
utilities in the G7 countries met in
James Bay, Quebec, Canada, and agreed
to cooperate and participate actively to
foster the worldwide development and
use of electricity in environmentally
desirable ways. In 1993 an eighth com-
pany joined the E7. Each utility in the
E7 initiative considers the prudent man-
agement of environmental issues among
the highest of corporate priorities and a
key determinant to sustainable
development.
“Energy issues permeate the debate
over the future of our planet. And at
the very core of energy issues is the elec-
tric utility industry.”
Maurice Strong
2
International Funding
Organizations with EIA
Requirements:
• African Development Bank
(ADB)
• Asian Development Bank
(AsDB)
• Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA)
• Economic Commission for
Europe
• European Economic
Community
• European Investment Bank
• Inter-American Development
Bank (IADB)
• United Nations Environmental
Program (UNEP)
• United States Agency for
International Development
(USAID)
• World Bank
The E7 utilities believe that in addition to
their own local efforts to protect the envi-
ronment, preventative measures are neces-
sary at a world level in order to avoid the
deterioration of the global environment.
Their common goal is “to play an active
role in protecting the global environment
and in promoting efficient generation and
use of electricity”.
To act on this goal, the E7 members have
begun to work in partnership, through a
Network of Expertise, with utilities and
governments in developing and Eastern
European countries to improve their elec-
trical systems and increase their capacity
to follow a sustainable development path.
An important part of this capacity build-
ing is ensuring that people have the skills
and training necessary to understand the
linkages between energy development
and environmental consequences. This
involves not only training to better
understand how power systems operate,
but also how to manage the environmen-
tal impacts that can occur.
People in government and business need
to know how to evaluate and mitigate
the environmental impact of all
development projects, starting from the
time the projects are conceived. They
need to take a precautionary, integrated
and proactive approach to protecting the
environment. Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) can act as a catalyst to
sustainable development by increasing
environmental awareness and
knowledge, and can serve as a starting
point for implementing an environmen-
tal management program.
“To ensure sustainability, it is neces-
sary to assess the environmental impact
of development and make enlightened
economic choices.”
Neville V. Nicholls, President
Caribbean Development Bank
To help increase awareness and promote
the benefits of EIA, the E7 Network of
Expertise for the Global Environment
has prepared this Manual describing the
3
EIA process and its application in the
electric utility sector, and developed an
EIA training seminar. An E7 EIA semi-
nar takes the information in this Manual
and builds on it, adding specific infor-
mation and case studies from the host
country, to provide greater relevance.
The Manual and seminar draw on the
extensive experience of E7 companies in
dealing with EIA requirements and
processes for electrical utility projects
developed worldwide.
 WHY DO EIA?
Today, most financial institutions and
assistance agencies funding development
projects have a built-in requirement for
EIA (Appendix 1). Some countries also
have legislative requirements to produce
a satisfactory EIA before a project can
proceed.

“Environmental impact assessment

What is EIA?
(EIA) is required, in one form or
another, in more than half the nations
of the world.”

Ortolano and Shepherd (1995)

Why do EIA? EIA is intended to prevent or minimize

potentially adverse environmental
impacts and enhance the overall quality
of a project. The EIA process allows
environmental issues to be addressed in
a timely and cost-effective way during
project design, preparation and imple-
mentation. EIA can therefore help
reduce overall project costs, assist in
completing projects on schedule, and
“EIA is intended to prevent or help design projects which are accept-
able to stakeholders.

minimize potentially adverse The main advantages and benefits of

environmental impacts and enhance
the overall quality of a project.”
WHAT IS EIA?
EIA is a planning process used to help
ensure that environmental matters are
taken into account early in the project
planning process, along with the more
traditional technical and economic
considerations.The EIA process identi-
fies, predicts, interprets and communi-
cates information about impacts of a
proposed project on the biophysical
environment (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
EIA are (UNEP 1996):
the societal benefits of a project, and
avoid or reduce unacceptable impacts.
EIA is also a decision-making process.
It examines alternative ways of carrying
out a project, arriving at the selection of
a “preferred” alternative. EIA provides a
framework for gathering and document-
ing public and external knowledge and
opinion. It therefore empowers deci-
sion-makers to make informed and envi-
ronmentally sound choices.
• lower project costs in the long-term
(fewer costly changes or add-ons at
advanced stages of the project; lower
probability of environmental disas-
ters, court cases and/or costly
clean-ups);
• increased project acceptance by the
public and key stakeholders;
• improved project design/siting;
• more informed decision-making;
• more environmentally sensitive
decisions;
• increased accountability and trans-
parency during the development
process;
• improved integration of projects into
their environmental and social
setting;
• reduced environmental damage (mit-
igation measures planned and imple-
mented in time to minimize adverse
impacts on the environment).

4
EIA Process
“EIA involves examining a range of
project alternatives.”
This section outlines the major steps
involved in carrying out an EIA for a
major energy project, using hydroelec-
tric as an example. Figure 3 provides a
summary of the process steps that are
common to most EIA guidelines issued
by international organizations.
The approach taken to carry out an EIA
“Environmental Impact Assessment is
a “flexible procedure to identify, ana- can differ somewhat, depending on the
requirements and practices of the differ-
lyze, and recommend steps to deal
ent international funding organizations
with the potentially significant conse- (see Appendix 1); a country’s legislative
quences of a proposed investment pro- framework; and/or the type of energy
ject or program.” project. However, the process steps out-
lined here provide a common organizing
World Bank framework for all EIAs.
In addition, there are many different
EIA tools and methods that can be uti-
lized at the different stages of an EIA.
Certain methods, such as checklists and
matrices are widely used and useful in
the early stages of most EIAs. EIA
methods to assist with prediction and
assessment of impacts are selected based
on the appropriate level of study for the
EIA PROCESS
project under consideration, and the
resources available for the EIA study.
Need/Justification
Although the focus of this manual is on
the EIA process, common EIA method-
Screening
ologies are summarized in the EIA Tools
Scoping PUBLIC
and Methods section, and in
CONSULTATION/
Baseline Data
INTER-AGENCY Appendix 3.
COORDINATION
Effects Prediction EIAs do not necessarily follow linearly
through the steps outlined in Figure 3.
Impact Assessment EIA is an iterative process, and at differ-
ent steps in the process it may be neces-
Mitigation
sary to return to earlier stages to recon-
EIA Review sider previous findings and conclusions.
New or unforeseen issues may arise,
Implementation Monitoring baseline studies may indicate that origi-
nal predictions were inaccurate, or pre-
ferred avoidance or mitigation methods
FIGURE 3: Generic EIA
Process
6
may not be feasible and new alternatives
may have to be identified.
EIA involves examining a range of pro-
ject alternatives. These alternative meth-
ods of carrying out a project are usually
identified at the scoping stage of an EIA.
However, not all alternatives need to be
carried through the entire EIA process.
Some may drop out early if there is
strong evidence they will result in signifi-
cant adverse effects that cannot be easily
mitigated. Other alternatives may
become apparent after the scoping stage
and can be added into the EIA at a later
stage. The no-project alternative should
be carried through the process as a means
of comparison, and consideration.
EIA distinguishes between “alterna-
tives to” a project, and “alternative
methods” of carrying out a project.
“Alternatives to” a project are func-
tionally different ways of achieving
the same end. For example, alterna-
tives to a hydroelectric development
could include importing power, con-
serving energy, building a nuclear
station, or obtaining the energy
through renewable resources.
“Alternative methods” of carrying
out a project are methods of a similar
technical character or methods that
are functionally the same.
Alternative methods with respect to a
hydroelectric development, for
example, might include selecting a
different location, choosing the
appropriate number and size of tur-
bines, using different operating sce-
narios, etc.
In all guidelines, the term “environ-
ment” is defined as including both the
natural and social environments.
OVERVIEW
The EIA process is designed to answer
the following key questions and provide
rationale and information to support
project decisions:
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 this
project and its alternatives?
Mitigation
• Are there mitigation measures that
could reduce the overall effects of the
project 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 residual
environmental effects?
Implementation
• How can the project best be
implemented?
Monitoring and Follow-up
• Was the project implemented in an
environmentally acceptable fashion?
• Were effects predicted accurately?
• Were there any unanticipated
effects?
Public and stakeholder consultation and
inter-agency coordination are important
at all stages of the EIA process.
An EIA document is prepared, which
presents for public and government
information and review, the rationale or
justification for a proposed project, a
description of the information that was
collected, the manner in which it was
assessed, and the judgments used in
selecting the preferred alternatives.
PROJECT NEED
EIA PROCESS
Need/Justification
Screening
Scoping PUBLIC
CONSULTATION/
INTER-AGENCY
Baseline Data COORDINATION
Effects Prediction
Impact Assessment
Mitigation
EIA Review
Implementation Monitoring
A proponent must convince stakeholders
first and foremost that a project is need-
ed, and that the particular project being
considered is justified.
The EIA process begins with the identi-
fication of a problem to be solved. This
is often referred to as the “need” for an
undertaking. To satisfy this “need”,
there are a number of alternatives that
must be considered and assessed. The
assessment of alternatives is carried out
in a systematic and iterative manner,
considering technical, environmental,
and economic criteria. UNEP refers to
this as a tiered approach to the assess-
ment of alternatives to a project
(Figure 4).
In some cases the definition of need
comes as a result of an “opportunity” to
take advantage of certain circumstances
(e.g., a funding agency willing to
support a development in a certain loca-
tion). An EIA study will still be
required to assess the viability and
acceptability of these opportunities.
Tier 1 - Problem
In energy sector applications, a frequent
“problem” is the need to supply energy-
to a residential or industrial facility
within a limited timeframe.
7
The first tier of assessment would
address three alternatives for solving the
problem:
• Do nothing;
• Eliminate the need for additional
energy by saving it somewhere else in
the energy sector (energy conserva-
tion, demand management);
• Supply additional energy.
The Do Nothing alternative is usually
easily discarded, but serves to illustrate
the magnitude of the defined problem,
i.e. the consequences of not providing
the required energy. It is also a useful
check to ensure that action is really
required.
Tier 2 - Demand/Supply Options
At the second tier of assessment,
demand/supply options should be
assessed within the framework of what is
possible and preferred within the coun-
try, as well as what the implications of
pursuing these options will be in terms
of their economic, social and environ-
mental impacts.
By identifying and considering the envi-
ronmental and social impacts of a broad
range of functionally different energy
options and plans at the very outset, a
proponent is able to determine the most
sustainable energy solution to resolve the
Problem?
Demand/Supply Options
Electricity Options
Hydroelectric Options
Potential Sites
Proposed Hydroelectric
Development
FIGURE 4: Tiered Approach to
the Assessment of
Alternatives to the Project
problem or take advantage of the oppor-
tunity, and to take this step before a
great deal of time, money and resources
have been committed.
If the predicted shortage cannot be met
through increased conservation pro-
grams (for cost or technological reasons
perhaps) then some new form of energy
supply will be required. Major energy
supply options may include petroleum,
coal, hydroelectric or other electricity
options. These also need to be assessed
in terms of their economic, social and
environmental impacts.
Environmental information at this stage
will relate to general, broadly defined
issues rather than specific impacts,
whereas detailed impact-specific
technical information is needed later in
the EIA process.
Tier 3 - Electricity Options
If, for example, electricity is selected as
the favored mode of supplying the
required energy, the various alternatives
for producing this electrical energy are
then assessed. Options to consider
include:
• Fossil fuel combustion (oil, natural
gas, coal)
• Hydroelectric generation
• Purchases from neighbouring
countries
• Nuclear
• Renewable technologies (solar, wind,
biomass, geothermal, tidal, etc.)
At this stage, each option is evaluated
using a series of technical, economic,
resource use and environmental criteria.
Based on this evaluation, certain options
are rejected and others supported. Each
situation will be unique, and should be
evaluated on its own merits.
Tier 4 - Selected Generation Options
The next stage or tier is to determine
potential sites or location for a facility.
If, for example, hydroelectric generation
was selected as the preferred option,
then hydroelectric resources should be
assessed on a broad river system basis,
and the remaining development poten-
tial in each basin determined. Potential
sites within each basin are identified and
conceptual designs developed.
These conceptual designs provide
important information required to assess
certain environmental characteristics for
each proposed development, including
potential flooded area and loss of river-
ine habitat. Information on flooded
areas can be used to assess in a prelimi-
nary fashion the potential environmental
and social implications of proposed
development schemes, e.g. the number
of people affected by flooding.
Tier 5 - Project Definition
The result of this site selection process
will be a ‘project’ - ie. a preferred devel-
opment option (hydroelectric, in our
example), with a potential site, in a spe-
cific river basin, and using specific
design concepts for a hydroelectric
development (e.g. run-of-the river or
reservoir creation).
SCREENING
EIA PROCESS
Need/Justification
Screening
Scoping
PUBLIC
Baseline Data CONSULTATION/
INTER-AGENCY
COORDINATION
Effects Prediction
Impact Assessment
Mitigation
EIA Review
Implementation Monitoring
Once a project is defined, it is important
to determine if a full EIA study is
required to assess project impacts.
Screening is the process by which the
appropriate level and type of EIA is
8
determined for a given project on the
basis of its likely environmental impacts.
It is important to focus EIA studies on
projects that have potentially significant
and 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 need
full EIA studies, but instead may be
screened out or assessed using less com-
prehensive means such as Class EIA’s,
environmental reports or environmental
feasibility studies. These represent a
more streamlined approach than a full
EIA in terms of cost and schedule.
The choice of screening method is usu-
ally determined by the decision-makers
when an EIA system is established. All
screening methods require information
about the project and all of them have
involved the use of value judgments at
some stage during their development.
Project screening can be done in a num-
ber of different ways including:
• measuring against simple criteria
such as size, location or cost;
• comparing the proposal with lists of
project types that rarely need an EIA
in other jurisdictions (e.g. minor
transmission line) or that always
need extensive study (e.g. major new
generation);
• use lists of resources (e.g. rain
forests), environmental problems
(e.g. soil erosion, deforestation)
and/or areas of special importance or
sensitivity (e.g. national parks) so
that any activity that affects such
areas of concern will be judged to
have significant environmental
effects and require an EIA;
• estimating the general impacts of a
proposed project and comparing
these against set thresholds;
• doing a detailed, informal analysis
using readily available data (initial
environmental evaluation, or envi-
ronmental overview).

The responsibility for screening
depends on the method adopted.
Where project lists exist in legislation,
proponents can screen their own pro-
posals. However, where the method
involves discretion, the decision-maker
( e.g. government) usually likes to be
involved or have the ability to influence
the outcome.
Screening should occur as early as possi-
ble in the development of the project so
that proponents are aware of their oblig-
ations before committing funding for
project design and development.
There are usually three possible out-
comes (categories) of a screening
process:
1. Where significant concerns exist or
where there is a lot that is unknown
about project impacts, a full EIA
study is necessary.
2. If environmental impacts of a project
are known and can be easily mitigat-
ed, a limited environmental study
and mitigation plan may be all that
is necessary.
3. If screening identifies no concerns,
further environmental analysis is
unnecessary, and the project may
proceed without an EIA study.
Most centralized new power generation
facilities 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 of
transmission line. The remainder of this
manual will focus on describing an EIA
process appropriate for a major new
electricity generation project.
Class Environmental Impact
Assessment
Some countries have established a Class
EIA process. It applies to projects which
are of a similar nature and which gener-
ally have a small, predictable range of
effects (eg. short lengths of transmission
lines, minor modifications to hydroelec-
tric facilities, and roadway widenings).
For projects which can be grouped
together as a class, a single formal envi-
ronmental impact assessment document
is prepared for the class. The Class EIA
document is submitted and processed
like a full EIA. An Environmental
Report (ER) is typically required for
each individual project which falls with-
in the class. The ER is a less detailed
form of environmental impact assess-
ment and does not require a full public
examination. A Class EIA generally
streamlines the EIA process.
9
SCOPING
EIA PROCESS
Need/Justification
Screening
Scoping PUBLIC
CONSULTATION/
INTER-AGENCY
Baseline Data
COORDINATION
Effects Prediction
Impact Assessment
Mitigation
EIA Review
Implementation Monitoring
A scoping exercise is the first step in the
project assessment phase of the EIA
process, and should be carried out soon
after the project proposal has been
defined. The primary purpose of scop-
ing is to identify concerns and issues
which are important to project deci-
sions. Scoping also serves to define EIA
study requirements and boundaries.
The results of the scoping exercise form
the basis for the rest of the EIA process.
Through the use of scoping, the issues
and concerns of potential stakeholders
can be identified early in the planning
process, so that a work program can be
designed 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 information
sources and local knowledge;
• to inform stakeholders of the EIA
and its objectives and get input on
the EIA;
• to identify the key environmental
concerns (community and scientific)
related to a project and the relative
importance of issues;
 • to define the EIA work program,
including a plan for public and
stakeholder involvement;
• to define the range of project alter-
natives to be considered;
• to obtain agreement on the methods
and techniques used in EIA studies
and document preparation;
• to determine the spatial and tempo-
ral boundaries for the EIA studies.
Scoping helps to center EIA efforts on
the collection and analysis of pertinent
data and the assessment of significant
environmental attributes. The end
result will be a work program which is
well focused and cost-effective. Failure
to obtain government and public input
at the scoping stage may result in later
criticism of impact predictions and pos-
sible project delays.
The benefits of scoping include:
• improves the quality of EIA
information by focusing scientific
efforts and EIA analysis on truly sig-
nificant issues;
• allows environmental concerns to be
identified and incorporated early in
the project planning process, at the
same time as cost and design factors
are considered;
• reduces the magnitude and cost of
EIA studies and time required for
and the size of EIA documents;
• ensures research efforts are not wast-
ed on insignificant issues;
• reduces the likelihood of overlooking
important issues;
• diminishes the chance of prolonged
delays and conflicts later in the EIA
process by engaging stakeholders in a
constructive participatory process
early in the EIA study.
Scoping may be undertaken in stages,
beginning internally, within the project
proponents company, expanding to
include government (designated EIA
review, 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 types
of 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 advisory
councils;
• group process methods, including:
interactive group meetings, Delphi
method, nominal group techniques,
and workshops.
Typical Environmental Issues
Relating to Hydroelectric Generation
Projects:
• 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 sensitive
areas, endangered species, wildlife,
forests, plants and wildlife habitat
• loss of or disturbance to heritage
resources
• forced relocation of people living on
the land to be flooded
• access to water, land and resources
may be restricted
• disruption of wildlife migratory
patterns
Experience has shown the workshop
approach to scoping to be very effective
for large projects. Workshops typically
bring together approximately 20 to 25
people representing technical experts,
managers and policy-makers, and
includes staff from regulatory agencies,
community leaders, as well as the propo-
nent. Workshops typically last 3-4 days
10
for a major generating facility. The
workshop operates initially as a “brain-
storming” session to list issues and
potential impacts, and identify available
information. Then priorities are set for
information needs and study
requirements.
Scoping is, in part, a negotiating
process. There will always be questions
within each issue i.e. type and extent of
data collection, significance of the data,
importance of the issue, etc. These may
all be subject to debate and dispute.
There are no ‘right’ answers, just a suc-
cession of judgments which the
To be successful a scoping workshop
requires:
• information; effectiveness will be a
direct function of the timing, level
and reliability of information pro-
vided to participants; participants
need 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 be
committed to the scoping process
and be willing to use the results of
these sessions in their decision-
making;
• participation; opportunities must be
provided for all stakeholders to par-
ticipate, and steps taken to ensure all
necessary technical resource people
are represented (public, regulatory
agencies, proponent, academic);
• communication; the most effective
scoping processes require a two-way
flow of information, with opportu-
nities for consensus building;
• flexibility; scoping methods should
be adapted to the project at hand;
no one method is effective in all
circumstances.
proponent must make to try to balance
the available resources for the study
(time and money) with the legitimate
concerns of the participants.

Clearly, the workshop approach encour-

ages early participation and cooperation
of government staff who will
undoubtedly determine the government
position towards approval of a project.
There is also an opportunity to establish
a positive, constructive relationship with
stakeholders, to understand their con-
cerns and begin a process of
communication. document. The proponent may wish to should disputes among stakeholders
provide a draft EIA Scope Document develop during the EIA study. It can be
Results of the scoping exercise are pre- for review by government and the public used to bring the study back on-track
sented in an EIA Scope Document, or before preparing a final. with originally agreed to terms of refer-
Terms of Reference, which describes the ence, thereby saving time and money.
proposed work program (Table 1). The The EIA Scope Document can become
EIA Scope Document represents an a critical piece of process documentation
agreement with external stakeholders on
the general approach and scope of the TABLE 1: Sample EIA Scope Document Table of Contents for a
EIA. It forms the basis for the EIA Hydroelectric Development
study and preparation of the EIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Description should include:
• rationale for the project and primary Summary
goals; Introduction
• brief discussion of the size, scope, Background
and phasing of activity; Existing Hydroelectric Facilities
Existing Transmission Incorporation Facilities
• proposed location on a map, show-
River Basin Development Plan
ing boundaries of the proposed site,
major existing infrastructure, adja- The Proposed Development
cent land uses, and any important Purpose/Justification
environmental features; Description
System Need
• site plan of the project illustrating
location of existing buildings and Alternatives
facilities, proposed components of Alternatives to the Project
the project, and any infrastructure Alternative Methods of Carrying out the Project
required to service the project; Scope of EIA Work
• amount and type of labour required, Study Area
over how long, and how this is to be Characterization of the Existing Environment
met; Issue Identification and Resolution
Prediction of Environmental Effects
• types and amounts of all materials
Mitigation and Community Impact Management
which will go into the project, and
from where and how these will be Public Involvement Program
obtained; Consultation with Government Agencies
Preliminary EIA Table of Contents
• all outputs (products and waste
EIA Coordination
materials) and what will happen to
these outputs; EIA Project Team
Project Schedule
• expected requirements for local facil- References
ities and services.

11
BASELINE DATA
EIA PROCESS
Need/Justification
Screening
Scoping PUBLIC
CONSULTATION/
INTER-AGENCY
Baseline Data COORDINATION
Effects Prediction
Impact Assessment
Mitigation
EIA Review
Implementation Monitoring
EIA guidelines typically specify that an
EIA document should contain a descrip-
tion of the existing environment that
would be or might be affected directly
or indirectly by a proposed project. The
environment is broadly defined to
include the natural, cultural, socio-eco-
nomic systems and their interrelation-
ships. The intention is not to describe
all baseline conditions, but to focus the
collection and description of baseline
data on those conditions that are impor-
tant to impact prediction, assessment
and decision-making.
The term “baseline” refers to conditions
existing before development against
which subsequent changes can be refer-
enced. Baseline studies are carried out
to:
• identify environmental conditions
which might influence project design
decisions (e.g., site layout, structural
or operational characteristics);
• identify sensitive issues or areas
requiring mitigation or
compensation;
• provide input data to analytical
models used for predicting effects;
• provide baseline data against which
the results of future monitoring pro-
grams can be compared.
The list of issues identified in the initial predictions, and in developing a refer-
scoping workshop should be further ence base to guide and test future pro-
refined to determine baseline informa- ject monitoring programs. Depending
tion requirements for impact prediction on the nature of the proposal, the level
and assessment. This is an important of detail and scope of baseline studies
step to ensure money and time are not are tailored towards meeting the needs
wasted collecting inappropriate or of the project.
unnecessary data/information.
Once information needs are identified,
baseline environmental information is
assembled through the collection and SCOPE OF TYPICAL
analysis of existing data, by carrying out BASELINE STUDIES:
specific field studies; and/or input from
community consultation programs.
Before embarking on an extensive and NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
costly field studies program, maximum • terrestrial
effort should be directed at determining -land use
what data already exist that will assist in -vegetation
describing environmental conditions in -wildlife
-physical terrain
the proposed project study area. -wildlife habitat
Existing data sources include: • aquatic
-water quality
• government data bases and routine -aquatic life
monitoring programs, other agency -aquatic habitat
sources e.g. NGOs, academic com- -morphology
munity; -hydrology
• historical studies in study area (pub- • atmospheric
lished and unpublished literature); -air quality
• past experience at similar projects -meteorology
-noise
(e.g. UNEP sponsored INFOTER-
RA and the Global Environmental
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Monitoring System (GEMS) data
bases); -history
-economic base
• aerial photographs and satellite -labour supply/employment
images (e.g. SPOT, LANDSAT, -demography and population
-housing supply
NOAA);
-community/social services
• traditional knowledge of native and -municipal finance/planning
local people; -social and cultural patterns
• maps, census data, historical -transportation
-tourism
records.
RESOURCES USES
-recreational
Where existing information cannot ade- -agricultural
quately characterize the existing environ- -fisheries
ment, a program of field studies will -navigation
-wildlife (hunting, trapping)
generally be required to fill in the data -forestry and vegetation
gaps and/or provide more timely or -mining
focused information. A field sampling
HERITAGE
program for baseline studies is designed
-heritage
by technical experts in the appropriate
fields, with the aim of providing suffi- -archaeological
cient information to assist in impact
12
Planning for field studies can be carried
out effectively using a workshop
approach as well. Field study planning
workshops should be directed towards
the development of hypotheses of effect
which describe the pattern of ecological
processes whereby a project action may
lead to changes in one or more environ-
mental component. These hypotheses
of effect provide a number of links (eco-
logical processes) which can be investi-
gated through further studies (Figure 5).

The field study planning process should

set the spatial and temporal boundaries
for subsequent studies. The spatial
boundary should define the study area
within which an effect is likely to be
Field study terms of reference should
detectable (Figure 6). For hydroelectric
list the objective of the study and indi-
developments, natural environment con-
cate how the results will be interpreted.
cerns, like water quality and fisheries,
When terms of reference are developed,
will generally be limited to within the
consideration should be given to the
drainage basin while socio-economic
potential costs of the work. Some pre-
concerns, like migration of workers and
liminary budgeting should always be
community impacts, may spill over
undertaken during the study conceptu-
drainage basin boundaries into adjacent
alization phase. If studies are recom-
areas/ecosystems. It is important that
mended as the result of a scoping work-
the full range of potential on-site and
shop involving the regulatory agencies or
off-site effects be identified and
public, then a preliminary costing
assessed.The temporal boundary may
should be undertaken before the propo-
define whether an effect will occur daily,
nent makes a commitment to do the
seasonally, or after several years. FIGURE 6: Typical Spatial
study.
Boundaries for a Hydroelectric
Changes in the pattern of flow (volume, timing, and amount of discharge)
Project
may lead to changes in resident fish populations
Study area logistical considerations such
as access and field subsistence (field
camps) for scientific field studies in
remote areas may influence technical
feasibility, costs and safety planning.
Many future energy projects will be in
rural or remote areas without proper
road access. In these situations, logistics
can represent an important component
of project costs which in turn can influ-
ence the technical feasibility. Whenever
possible the proponent or their consul-
tants should employ local personnel to
carry out field programs.

Due to the seasonal requirements of cer-

tain field studies, e.g. fish spawning and
Changed distribution and abundance of fish
migration studies, scheduling is an
important consideration in the planning
FIGURE 5:Example of a Hypothesis of Effect

13
of baseline studies. Study requirements
should be determined in advance so that
critical field seasons are not missed. In
some circumstances, a full year may be
lost by not initiating field studies early
enough.
Proper data management is important,
especially when there are large studies
covering long spans of time and costing
millions of dollars. Data collected dur-
ing baseline studies is generally managed
and analyzed according to the two main
types, numerical data and spatial data.
Computer databases are often used to
help organize and manage numerical
data for use by scientists and EIA practi-
tioners, while Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) are often used for the
spatial data (see EIA Tools and Methods
section).
STAKEHOLDER
INVOLVEMENT
Public and stakeholder involvement in
the EIA process is now widely recog-
nized as being an essential component.
It leads to better and more acceptable
decision-making.
The public is an important source of
local and traditional knowledge about a
project’s physical site and likely environ-
mental effects. Through public partici-
pation activities, project proponents can
obtain this information, better under-
stand and respond to public concerns,
and inform people about decisions.
Taking stakeholder viewpoints into
account improves project viability. The
World Bank (1991) has found that
where such views are seriously consid-
ered and incorporated in the EIA
process, projects are likely to be more
successful.
Public and stakeholder involvement is
particularly important during the scop-
ing, impact assessment, and mitigation
phases of an EIA. During scoping, pub-
lic involvement is undertaken to ensure
that all the significant issues are
identified, local information about the
project is gathered and alternative ways
of achieving the project objectives are
considered. Public involvement is par-
ticularly important in understanding the
nature and extent of potential socio-cul-
tural impacts. Further involvement of
the public in the impact assessment
phase can help to avoid biases and can
reveal local values and preferences.
Public input can also assist in the con-
sideration of mitigation measures which
will be incorporated into the design and
construction of the favored alternative.
Given its broad scope, an EIA study
potentially involves a large number of
stakeholders. The concerns and
viewpoints of all parties interested in
and affected by the project should be
taken into account in reaching a deci-
sion on the project. Informed views of
diverse segments of the affected popula-
tion are critically important to the EIA
process because different groups use and
are familiar with different parts of the
environment and will be affected to dif-
ferent degrees by the project.
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 or
NGO’s);
• politicians
• customers
• Aboriginal Peoples
• resource users
The EIA coordinator and the EIA pro-
ject team should be responsible for iden-
tifying the concerns of all potential
stakeholders and, where reasonable, to
resolve those concerns (e.g. by correcting
misunderstandings, making
14
commitments to further study, mitiga-
tion or compensation etc.).
Where possible, a consultation program
should be coordinated by a public
involvement specialist. The
objectives of the consultation effort
should be to:
• inform interested groups and indi-
viduals about the proposed develop-
ment: This will minimize misunder-
standings about the scope and
impacts of the project;
• provide opportunities for timely and
meaningful input;
• ensure decisions have adequately
considered the concerns and values
of the stakeholders, particularly the
affected community(ies);
• seek approaches to problem solving
and hopefully resolve conflicts;
• obtain local and traditional knowl-
edge before decision-making;
• provide better transparency and
accountability in decision-making.
Methods of public involvement are sum-
marized in Appendix 3. Ideally a mix of
these methods is used over the EIA
process. For example, a public informa-
tion center or an open community
meeting could be used to launch a pro-
ject EIA, i.e. for the public to learn
about proposals and offer comments;
small workshops could be used during
scoping to discuss specific concerns and
identify opportunities to resolve those
concerns; and surveys, interviews or
questionnaires could be used to seek
input during impact assessment. Project
progress reports or newsletters can be
used to encourage involvement over the
project life cycle. Methods used need to
suit the social and cultural environment.
Care is required to ensure that a fair and
balanced representation of views is
sought and that the views of the poor or
minority groups are not overwhelmed
by those of the more influential or
wealthy. Cultural and social patterns,
and local decision-making processes,
should be taken into consideration in
designing a public involvement
program (e.g. customs).
Information used in any consultation
program (particularly for the public)
should be specially prepared to minimize
the use of technical jargon and be readi-
ly understandable. Written material
should be translated into local languages
where necessary. Where many may be
unable to read, oral discussion and visual
presentations may be needed. Videos
may be particularly useful for this
purpose.
It is very important to document key
components of the stakeholder involve-
ment and consultation process. This
documentation could be used as evi-
dence in hearings or regulatory reviews
of the project EIA, and will help demon-
strate that proper notification and
involvement of all key stakeholder
groups has been done. Means of docu-
menting the consultation process
include, chronologies of major events or
decision points, good records of corre-
spondence sent and received, copies of
questionnaires and public survey or
feedback forms, minutes of meetings
with various stakeholder groups, and
videos of public information meetings.
Inter-agency coordination is crucial to
an effective EIA process. Environmental
issues tend to cross regional, sectoral and
even international boundaries. As such,
the regulatory management of these
issues can be spread throughout various
levels and departments of governments.
To be effective, an EIA study must have
access to and make use of or share all
available information, specialized knowl-
edge and policy direction related to
important issues. Inter-agency coordi-
nation is best achieved through meet-
ings with key government agencies at
key points in the EIA process.
PREDICTION OF EFFECTS Effects prediction attempts to answer
the following questions:
EIA PROCESS • How will a particular project activity
give rise to an impact?
Need/Justification • How likely is it that an impact will
occur?
Screening
• What will be the magnitude of each
Scoping PUBLIC impact?
CONSULTATION/
INTER-AGENCY • What will be the spatial and tempo-
Baseline Data
COORDINATION ral extent of each impact?
Effects Prediction An environmental effect is defined as a
reaction to a change in the environment
Impact Assessment as a result of a project action.Distinction
is often made between direct and indi-
Mitigation
rect effects, and normally both types of
effects are addressed in an EIA study.
EIA Review
Implementation Monitoring Direct effects are the immediate physi-
cal effects and alterations to the environ-
ment which follow as a direct cause-
Effects prediction is the most challeng- effect consequence of a project activity
ing and controversial stage of the EIA (e.g. reservoir flooding can result in
process. Development projects can set bioaccumulation of methylmercury in
in motion a complex chain of events the aquatic food chain (Figure 7)).
that can affect the environment in ways
which are often difficult to predict in Indirect effects are effects induced or
advance (Sadar 1994). Reliable methods stimulated by the project, and at least
are available for predicting some envi- one step removed from a project activity
ronmental parameters, e.g. air quality in terms of cause-effect linkages (e.g.
impacts, whereas other predictions will project access road construction in a
be based more on professional judg- remote area can result in secondary
ment, e.g. impacts on wildlife development along the access road).
populations.
Raised Water Level
Methylmercury
Methylmercury
Natural Water Level
FIGURE 7: Transfer of Methyl Mercury After a New Reservoir is Filled
15
The cumulative effects of placing a
facility in a given environment should
also be considered as part of effects pre-
diction. An EIA should look at any
cumulative effects that are likely to
result from the project in combination
with other projects or activities that have
been or will be carried out in the fore-
seeable future.
Examples of cumulative environmen-
tal effects include global warming
caused by the build-up of greenhouse
gases in the upper atmosphere, and
loss of biodiversity.
Environmental effects are often seen as
isolated or separate from one another.
In reality, however, they interact over
time and space. Therefore, to address
cumulative environmental effects
requires analysts to think “cumulative-
ly”, taking into account:
• time and geographic boundaries;
• interactions between the project’s
environmental effects;
• interactions between the project’s
environmental effects and those of
other projects and activities.
It is critical to consider environmental
effects during project construction, com-
missioning and operation for each pro-
ject alternative. EIAs often focus on
operation of a facility, however con-
struction activities can have significant
effects as well and should not be
forgotten.
Both positive and negative impacts
resulting from the project should be
identified and assessed. These include
effects on both the natural and man-
made (or social) environments. A short-
coming in many EIAs is that social and
cultural aspects are not given much
prominence at the effects prediction
stage. This is unfortunate since socio-
cultural impacts are often strongly
linked to changes in the natural environ-
ment and are the impacts that the local
community will feel most acutely in
their everyday lives (e.g. loss of a fishery
and/or food source due to methylmer-
cury accumulation in fish). Therefore it
is important that socio-cultural impacts
be considered, where possible, in every
discussion and assessment of biophysical
change. These should include:
• effects on human health;
• effects on socio-economic
conditions;
• effects on physical and cultural her-
itage, including effects on things of
achaeological, paleontological, or
architectural significance;
• effects on the current use of lands
and resources for traditional purpos-
es by aboriginal persons.
It is important that the temporal and
spatial extent of effects be carefully con-
sidered in predicting impacts.
Electricity project construction and
operation can have local, regional and
global effects. For example, the con-
struction of a hydroelectric generating
station will have relatively short-term,
localized impacts, while the operation of
that station can change the water level
and flow regime of the river basin.
Methane given off by reservoir flooding
can contribute to global climate change.
In order for impact predictions to be
useful to decision-makers, the
predictions must generally:
• fulfill the environmental assessment
objective of contributing to
FIGURE 8: Typical Operational Concerns at a Hydroelectric Facility
16
informed decision-making (e.g. deci-
sions on the evaluation of project
alternatives, need for and design of
environmental protection/mitigation
measures);
• contain an estimate of the uncertain-
ty expected; and
• be verifiable through a post-develop-
ment monitoring program.
Predictions which are vague, generalized
speculations are of little value to making
informed decisions. Wherever possible,
impact predictions should be stated
explicitly, and accompanied with a dis-
cussion of the method used, as well as
the limitations of the analysis.
Effects prediction is carried out in two
stages: First, effects are identified and
pathways are determined that link pro-
ject activities to environmental compo-
nents; then models and other analytical
methods are developed and applied to
quantify/estimate potential environmen-
tal effects.
Identification of Effects
The identification phase attempts to
answer the question - What will happen
as a result of the project? At this stage,
the potential sources and pathways for
project effects are identified. Figure 9
shows typical activites associated with
construction of a hydroelectric project,
and Table 2 summarizes potential
impacts associated with these activities.
DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS
 TABLE 2: Potential Sources of Environmental Effects During Hydoelectric Project Construction

COMPONENT POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

Atmospheric Environment Aquatic Environment Terrestrial Environment Resource Use

SOURCES OF Water Aquatic Geology Heritage

EFFECTS Dust Noise Vibration Quality/ Biota Hydro- Vegetation Wildlife Aquatic Terrestrial Resources
Sediments geology Soils

Site access
• • • • •
Site
preparation • • • • • •
Intake
construction • • • • • • • • •
Tunnel and
canal
excavation • • • • • • •
Material
extraction
disposal • • • • • • • • •
Reservoir
clearing
• • • • • • • • •
Construction
of
powerhouse • • • • • • • • • • •
Cofferdams
and
temporary
flow
• • • • • • •
diversion

Typical effects for hydroelectric projects
are given in Appendix 2.
Identification of key effects can be
achieved by using one or all of the fol-
lowing methods:
• compile a list of important impacts
from analysis of previous projects of
a similar nature in a similar environ-
mental setting;
• use checklists, networks, matrices or
map overlays to match sources of
project impact with potential recep-
tors (see EIA Tools and Methods
section);
• use hypotheses of effect to map out
linkages and potential impacts on
the environment.
Much of this identification work may
have already been done at the scoping
phase where critical issues should have
been defined.
Broad areas of concern associated with
energy projects include effects on:
• air quality
• water quality and use
• land use
• resource use (fuels and other
resources)
• terrestrial ecosystems
• aquatic ecosystems
• social systems/community life
• human health
The level of concern for each of these
parameters will change with the type of
energy system utilized and location of
the project. For example, combustion-
based (like wood burning) generation
processes will result in greater concern
for air emissions while concerns related

17

FIGURE 9: Typical Construction Activities Associated with a
Hydroelectric Project
to hydroelectric generation will be large-
ly aquatic-based.
For electricity projects, typical sources of
environmental effects include:
• fuel extraction and supply
• facility construction
• atmospheric emissions
• aquatic discharges and changes in
flows and water levels
• land displacement
• waste production and management
• transmission corridors
• access roads and transportation
Quantification/Estimation of Effects
Having identified the key parameters
requiring assessment, a variety of
analytical techniques can be used to
biotic habitat, oil spills, and risk
analysis);
• physical modeling (e.g. hydraulic
models or wind tunnels);
• computer simulation (useful in
assessing visual impacts of a project);
• constraint mapping (useful for
predicting impacts related to land or
resource use displacement, particu-
larly siting and routing).
To prevent unnecessary expense, the
sophistication of the prediction method
should be properly matched with the
scope of the EIA. For example, a com-
plex mathematical model of atmospheric
dispersion should not be used if only
small amounts of relatively harmless pol-
lutants are expected to be emitted.
Simpler models may suffice. These type
of requirements should be established
and documented at the scoping phase.
All prediction techniques involve some
degree of uncertainty. It is important to
recognize this uncertainty, and state
probabilities and margins of error
involved in predicting the likely impact
of a proposed project.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
predict potential environmental effects.
Prediction often follows an impact with-
in a single environmental parameter
EIA PROCESS
(e.g., a toxic effluent) into its subsequent
effects on many other parameters (e.g.,
Need/Justification
reduced water quality, adverse impacts
on fisheries, economic effects on fishing Screening
and resulting socio-cultural changes).
Scoping PUBLIC
CONSULTATION/
A number of methods which are com- INTER-AGENCY
Baseline Data
monly used in estimating/quantifying COORDINATION
environmental effects include (see
Effects Prediction
Appendix 3):
Impact Assessment
• pre-project experiments (e.g. toxicity
Mitigation
testing);
• hypotheses testing; EIA Review
• mathematical modeling (e.g. air dis- Implementation Monitoring
persion, hydrology and hydrody-
namics, water quality, groundwater
quality, erosion and sedimentation,
18

Factors used in determining whether or
not environmental effects are adverse
include (CEA A 1994):
• negative effects on the health of
biota including plants, animals, and
fish
• 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 persistent
and/or toxic chemicals, microbial
agents, nutrients (eg. nitrogen, phos-
phorus), radiation or thermal ener-
gy (eg. cooling wastewater)
• population declines, particularly in
top predator, large, or long-lived
species
• removal of resource materials (e.g.
peat, coal) from the environment
• transformation of natural landscapes
• obstruction of migration, or passage
of wildlife
• negative effects on the quality
and/or quantity of the biophysical
environment (e.g., surface water,
groundwater, soil, land and air)
• negative effects on human health,
well-being, or quality of life
• increase in unemployment or
shrinkage in the economy
• detrimental change in the current
use 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, commercial
species or resources
• foreclosure of future resource use or
production
• decreased aesthetic appeal or
changes in visual amenities (e.g.
scenic views)
Once predictions are made, the next
step is to decide if these predicted
changes really “matter”, i.e. are signifi-
cant or are perceived to be important.
The significance of environmental
effects is generally evaluated in terms of
their spatial extent (geographic distribu-
tion), duration (short vs. long-term),
magnitude (measured level of change in
a parameter and whether thresholds are
being exceeded), reversibility (reversible
versus irrevocable), and special sensitivi-
ty (whether an impact affects a sensitive
area within the country - like a nature
reserve).
Judgment of significance can be based
on one or more of the following:
• comparison with laws, regulations or
accepted standards (i.e., does the
project meet legal requirements, are
standards exceeded?);
• reference to pre-set criteria (such as
threshold limits, dose-response rela-
tionships, conflicts with protected
sites, features or species, and/or
maintenance of local breeding
populations);
• consistency with government policy
objectives and goals; and/or
• social acceptance (i.e., acceptability
to the local community or the gener-
al public).
The impact evaluation stage usually
involves utilizing a mixture of both
quantitative comparison and qualitative
judgment.
Impact evaluation should be undertaken
in a way that allows a comparison of
project alternatives and facilitates the
communication of results to the public
and decision-makers. It should be tied
back to issues and concerns raised dur-
ing scoping exercises and issue identifi-
cation. Additional stakeholder input
will likely be required during this stage
of the EIA process to help determine the
significance and relative importance of
impacts.
19
MITIGATION AND
RESIDUAL EFFECTS
EIA PROCESS
Need/Justification
Screening
Scoping PUBLIC
CONSULTATION/
INTER-AGENCY
Baseline Data COORDINATION
Effects Prediction
Impact Assessment
Mitigation
EIA Review
Implementation Monitoring
If identified impacts “matter”, i.e. are
significant and/or important, it is neces-
sary to identify and implement mitiga-
tion measures. Mitigation measures are
selected to reduce or eliminate the sever-
ity of any predicted adverse environ-
mental effects and improve the overall
environmental performance and accept-
ability of the project.
Where mitigation is deemed appropri-
ate, a proponent should strive to act
upon effects, in the following order of
priority, to:
1. Eliminate or avoid adverse effects,
where reasonably achievable.
2. Reduce adverse effects to the lowest
reasonably achievable level.
3. Regulate adverse effects to an accept-
able level, or to an acceptable time
period.
4. Create other beneficial effects to par-
tially or fully substitute for, or
counter-balance, adverse effects.
Mitigation is an integral part of impact
evaluation. It looks for better ways of
doing things so that the negative
impacts of the proposal are eliminated
or minimized and the benefits are

enhanced. As soon as significant adverse
impacts are identified, discussions
should be held to see if they can be
‘designed out’ through changes in pro-
ject design, location or operation. It is
important therefore, that there is good
integration between the EIA team and
project 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., different
routes 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 waste
by-products instead of landfilling,
public education);
• changes in operation (e.g. restriction
of 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 after
mitigation has been applied, some form
of 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 do
not bear costs which are greater than the
benefits which accrue to them from the
project.
Special financial and other assistance to
resettlement. However, when forced
communities affected by the operation
resettlement is unavoidable and fully
and construction of major facilities may
justified, a resettlement plan should be
be necessary. Community Impact
formulated and financed. The plan will
Agreements (CIAs) can be developed
ensure that people displaced will be pro-
with host communities to ensure that
vided with development opportunities
assistance will be available to help local
to improve, or at least restore, the living
areas adjust to the possible “boom and
standards they had before the project.
bust” effects often associated with the
construction and operation of major
Mitigation and compensation measures
electricity projects. This type of agree-
should be identified early and properly
ment might also provide a sum of
costed and incorporated in the overall
money to the community to help offset
capital budget for the project to ensure
identifiable local, social and community
that recommended actions do get car-
effects, and establish a monitoring pro-
ried out. Mitigation/compensation costs
gram to measure the impacts on the
can account for up to 10 percent of total
community during construction and
project costs, but are more typically in
operation.
the 3 to 5 percent range (World Bank
1991).
Resettlement Planning
Project planning should attempt to
avoid or minimize involuntary
20
A Resettlement Plan should include:
• Resettlement policies and objectives
• Baseline data on affected area and
population; estimated capacity of
the receiving area to sustain addi-
tional population
• Environmental risks of the resettle-
ment plan, eg. increased pressure on
natural resources, construction of
infrastructure
• An Environmental Management
Plan to address these risks to miti-
gate impacts on and protect the nat-
ural and human environment
process involves specifying and compar- Wooten 1980)(see also Appendix 3 -
• Organizations responsible for plan- EIA Tools and Methods). Lending
ing the trade-offs among alternatives,
ning, development, training, imple- agencies and regulatory authorities do
mentation and monitoring (short based on the evaluation of the predicted
effects and proposed measures to miti- not generally specify which methodolo-
and long-term) gy is to be used in the evaluation of
gate any adverse effects of each
• Strategies for participation of affect- alternatives, and selection of the pre-
alternative.
ed people ferred alternative, since each project is
• Development plan for new sites and unique in itself. All evaluation methods
The public involvement program is an result in some form of ordering of alter-
detailed layout important component at this stage, and natives according to preference.
• Monitoring requirements should be organized to provide inputs to
• Cost estimate the evaluation of alternatives and the The EIA document should describe the
identification of trade-offs. It must be evaluation process and the methodology
• Financial plan, implementation
recognized that decisions resulting from used in arriving at the recommended
schedule
an EIA may be based as much on sub- project, so that decision-makers are able
jective judgments, involving values, to trace each step of the process. The
EIA IN DECISION MAKING opinions, beliefs, and political agendas assumptions and subjective judgments
used in the evaluation should be stated
as on the results of the scientific studies.
EIA PROCESS in the document. As well, the issues
leading to and influencing the selected
Various qualitative and quantitative course of action, and any unresolved
Need/Justification tools are available to evaluate alterna- issues, should also be described.
tives, and to arrive at a preferred project
Screening (MOE 1990, Wolfe 1987, Rau and
Scoping PUBLIC
CONSULTATION/
INTER-AGENCY
Baseline Data COORDINATION

Effects Prediction

Impact Assessment

Mitigation

EIA Review

Implementation Monitoring

In order to arrive at the “preferred” pro-

ject, an evaluation and comparison of
the project alternatives in terms of their
positive and negative effects on the envi-
ronment is made. This evaluation FIGURE 10: Project Decision Making

21
The most acceptable alternative which
emerges from the evaluation and
decision-making process is usually the
recommended project to be put forward
in the EIA document by the proponent
for approval. Any residual effects which
cannot be avoided or alleviated through
mitigation or compensation measures
should be described in the overall assess-
ment section of the EIA document. It is
the job of decision-makers to assimilate
all the information provided and decide
if the benefits to be accrued through a
project justify the potential disruptions
that will occur (Figure 10).
DOCUMENTATION
All pertinent information that was col-
lected as part of the EIA process, as well
as the manner in which it was assessed
and the judgments used in selecting the
preferred alternatives must be described
in an EIA document.
The EIA document is the main vehicle
for the project proponent to present
their case (i.e., rationale and justifica-
tion) for proceeding with a proposed
development activity. It is critical that
information presented in this report is
clear, focused, and useful to
decision-makers.
The language of the EIA document
must be clear and concise. The infor-
mation presented should be balanced,
relevant, and succinct. Detailed techni-
cal data should be generally confined to
appendices or referenced to reports. As
the EIA document is used for decision-
making, it should focus on clarifying
issues which are important to project
decisions, such as trade-offs, evaluation
criteria, evaluation and selection process,
irreversible impacts, etc.
An EIA document should typically
include:
• Executive Summary providing a con-
cise discussion of significant findings
and recommended actions.
• Policy, legal and administrative
framework within which the EIA is
prepared.
• Project Need/Justification.
• Description of project and its alter-
natives in a geographic, ecological,
social and temporal context.
• Description of existing environment
including a description of relevant
physical, biological, resource use and
socio-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 the
proposed project - including an
identification of mitigation mea-
sures, residual impacts that cannot
be mitigated, opportunities for envi-
ronmental enhancement, and uncer-
tainties associated with impact
predictions.
• An analysis of alternatives, which
compares design, site, technological
and 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 including
proposals for feasible and cost-effec-
tive mitigation measures that may
reduce potentially significant adverse
environmental impacts to acceptable
levels; and compensatory measures
where mitigation measures are not
possible.
• A summary of the EIA for the gener-
al public
• Appendices - including a list of EIA
contributors, references and record
of inter-agency meetings.
Detailed data and analysis that are
important but not critical to the EIAs
findings should be provided in a series
of support documents to the main EIA
report.
22
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
EIA PROCESS
Need/Justification
Screening
Scoping PUBLIC
CONSULTATION/
INTER-AGENCY
Baseline Data COORDINATION
Effects Prediction
Impact Assessment
Mitigation
EIA Review
Implementation Monitoring
The EIA process does not stop once a
project is approved. During implemen-
tation of a project, a proponent is
responsible for ensuring that the envi-
ronmental commitments made to regu-
latory agencies, lending agencies and
other stakeholders during the EIA
process are met.
EIA follow-up documents, such as an
Impact Management Plan, should be
prepared, defining for project staff and
any consultants or contractors, the envi-
ronmental guidelines, regulations and
criteria 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 EIA
process.
Project specific environmental construc-
tion guidelines should be developed.
These should specify precautions and
mitigation measures for construction
activities, and include a plan for moni-
toring those activities which could have
a significant environmental effect (e.g.
stream crossing, dredging, dewatering).
Construction monitoring, including
field inspections and surveys, should be
carried out by an environmental special-
ist, to ensure that environmental protec-
tion requirements are being met. It is
important to plan and budget for envi-
ronmental construction monitoring as
part of the project.
If construction is to be contracted out,
specific environmental requirements
during construction should be built into
construction bidding documents and
contracts to ensure they are met (e.g.
requirements for local hiring).
Environmental effects monitoring is
used to identify environmental changes
resulting from the implementation of
the project. In the context of EIA,
effects monitoring programs are carried
out to achieve the following results:
• to ensure that the facility is meeting
all environmental regulatory require-
ments, and that commitments made
in the EIA document and/or the
conditions of approval are being
met;
• to test impact hypotheses, and to
verify the predictions and assessment
of environmental effects, thus con-
tributing to better assessments in the
future;
• to evaluate the performance effec-
tiveness of mitigation;
• to compare actual and predicted
changes to the environment, so that
immediate actions can be taken to
mitigate unanticipated impacts;
• to strengthen confidence by both
government and the public in the
EIA process, the decisions made, the
station design etc., especially when a
decision is made to proceed with a
project with a high level of
uncertainty.
The monitoring programs to be carried
out during the construction and opera-
tion of the undertaking are normally
described in the EIA document.
The effects monitoring program should
include several years of pre-operational
monitoring (depending on the scope of
the project), and continue several years
into the operation of the project. The
pre-operational phase establishes a base-
line against which to measure change,
while the operational phase measures the
change and trends over time. The
results of the effects monitoring pro-
gram should be summarized in an
Indicators to be monitored
for a hydroelectric project
may include:
Water Quality -
Temperature, dissolved oxygen
(reservoir, tailwater),chlorophyll a
secchi disc and colour, turbidity
and 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, hydraulic
surveys, substrate surveys (visual,
sonar, dredges)
Population Effects -
Fish index netting, acoustic
assessment, fishery results
Environmental Effects Report.
It is important that information and
experience gained through the monitor-
ing activities are fed back into the EIA
23
evaluation and analysis system to
improve the quality of future assessment
studies. This particular element of the
process is known as EIA verification.
EIA verification, also known as EIA
auditing, is that part of the EIA process
which evaluates the accuracy or effec-
tiveness of hypotheses and predictive
and assessment methods used in previ-
ous project EIA documents, and draws
on past experience to improve future
EIA processes. EIA verification uses
audit and other information obtained
from compliance monitoring, effects
monitoring and from other relevant
sources, as inputs to future projects.
The objectives of EIA verification are:
• to verify predictive models, policies
and general EIA methods for future
applications by comparing past pre-
dictions, assumptions, etc. with mea-
sured and documented effects;
• to assess the effectiveness of EIA
methods, 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 measures
for future applications.
The use of EIA verification can improve
a number of EIA process components,
including predictive models, study
methods, mitigation strategies, policies,
scoping and early planning exercises,
regulatory involvement and public
involvement programs. The result of
improved EIA components will be a
more cost-effective and efficient EIA
process.

EIA Tools &
Methods
“EIA methods are generally selected to
meet and reflect the nature of the pro-
ject, its setting, and societal conditions.”
24
The methodologies available to under-
take EIA processes are numerous and are
the subject of many textbooks and pub-
lished articles. Appendix 3 presents a list
of selected EIA techniques, their applica-
tion and relative advantages and disad-
vantages. References for each technique
are provided. Appendix 3 also provides
some guidance as to what stage in the
EIA process these techniques might have
application (e.g. scoping, screening).
EIA methods are generally selected to
meet and reflect the nature of the pro-
ject, its setting, and societal conditions.
Well-documented overviews of EIA
methodologies can be found in a num-
ber of general references (Rau and
Wooten 1980, Munn 1975, MOE
1990, CEARC 1986, Ross 1974, Canter
1996, Warner 1973, Beanlands &
Duinker 1983, Wolfe 1987, Clark
1978). Some of the more commonly
used tools are summarized below.
Checklists
A checklist is a list of environmental
parameters to be investigated for possi-
ble impacts. It serves as an initial refer-
ence guide, for identifying relevant envi-
ronmental factors for consideration in
an EIA. Experience from previous pro-
jects can be helpful in identifying rele-
vant environmental components that
should be included in the analysis.
Checklists do not require the explicit
establishment of direct cause-effect links
to project activities. They do not in
themselves provide for the prediction or
assessment of impacts.
Matrices
A matrix goes one step further than a
checklist by linking a list of possible
effects with specific actions and project
activities. Matrices are two-dimensional
tables, with activities associated with
various phases of the the project on one
axis, and environmental components
listed on the other (eg. see Table 2).
The entries in the cells of the matrix can
be either qualitative or quantitative
estimates of impact. Simple matrices
will indicate only that an impact is
expected to occur, while more complex
matrices may give quantitative estimates
of impact magnitude and significance.
Networks
Networks are an extension of informa-
tion found in matrices. A network dia-
gram demonstrates linkages between and
among the environmental components,
providing some indication of how an
ecosystem operates. An understanding
of the interrelationships and inter-
dependence in the ecological chain of
causation is useful in identifying second
and third order effects. It also hints at
probable additive, interactive, synergistic
and/or cumulative effects.
Map Overlays
Map overlay techniques rely on a set of
maps of project effects, or environmen-
tal characteristics or themes that describe
the project area. These maps can be
overlain to produce a composite charac-
terization of a regional environment.
Thematic map overlays can aid in iden-
tifying geographic areas of particular
environmental sensitivity and can visual-
ly provide a clue as to possible incre-
mental and cumulative effects (Figure
11). Manual overlay techniques can be
used as an effective tool for analyzing
small projects. For large projects, geo-
graphic information systems (GIS) are
favoured for map overlay analysis, due
to their capacity for handling very large
data sets incorporating many map layers.
Geographic Information Systems
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
are computer based systems to support
the capture, management, manipulation,
analysis, modeling and display of spatial
data. UNEP’s Global Resources
Information Database (GRID) is a glob-
al environmental data system which
assembles, processes and supplies geo-
referenced environmental information
to users around the world. It is intend- FIGURE 11: Sample Thematic
ed to be a world-wide GIS network Map Overlays
which is accessible from any country in
method selected. In general, even the
the world, and which can support indi-
largest projects will begin with the use of
vidual project EIAs. The most signifi-
checklists, matrices and network dia-
cant uses for GIS technology in EIAs are
grams to aid in the identification of per-
facility siting, modelling, change detec-
tinent environmental components and
tion and decision support.
ecosystem linkages.
The scale and scope of anticipated
impacts will influence the type of
25

EIA Project
Management
“An EIA study is very much an exercise
in issues management.”
To ensure an EIA study is carried out in
an efficient and effective manner, it is
important that the EIA process is prop-
erly managed and administered. More
often than not it is poor process man-
agement that leads to delays in complet-
ing EIA studies.
An EIA is usually carried out by those
responsible for a project - i.e., the pro-
ject proponent. In order to perform an
EIA study, it is usually desirable to
assemble a multidisciplinary team
(Figure 12). Typically, this EIA team
consists of an EIA coordinator (or team
leader) and a variety of trained technical
and scientific experts (in fields such as
environmental engineering/science,
process engineering, waste and pollution
control, planning, geography, biology,
landscape design, public involvement,
and social science) who can address the
full range of issues and concerns related
to the specific project under
consideration.
coordinator should be local. This coor-
dinator can make decisions about what
can be done locally by consultants, uni-
versities and research organizations, and
when to seek foreign input. The local
coordinator can also closely control the
work of consultants to ensure that the
work being undertaken is relevant to
local 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 to
define the work program, as
required;
• define baseline environmental
conditions;
• define all major environmental
issues;
• predict environmental impacts;
• recommend mitigative measures to
minimize impacts and compensation
where residual impacts still persist;
• identify all environmental standards
influencing project design and rec-
ommend appropriate control/protec-
It is preferable if these types of skills can tion measures;
be found within the host country for the • conduct and/or participate in pub-
project, in that local people will have a lic/government consultation
greater knowledge of local conditions programs;
and issues. Where this is not possible • prepare sections of the EIA docu-
these skills can generally be provided by ment and necessary support techni-
foreign consultants. Ideally, the EIA cal studies as required.
Public
Social Natural
Environment Environment
Disciplines Disiplines
EIA Coordinator
Project
Consultants
Engineering
Government
Agencies
FIGURE 12: Multidisciplinary EIA study team
26
Functions of the EIA coordinator
should include:
• definition of the EIA work program
in relation to the overall project
planning and decision-making
process;
• interpretation of the environmental
legislation compliance requirements
for the project in question;
• breakdown (and budgeting) of the
EIA work program into specific
work packages to be completed by
contributing specialists;
• scheduling of the EIA work
program;
• hiring consultants and managing
their contracts/activities;
• direct liaison with the decision-mak-
ers, regulatory authorities, media
spokesperson, public interest groups
(NGOs), local community leaders
and the general public;
• transmittal of design recommenda-
tions, mitigation requirements,
approvals requirements etc. from the
EIA team to the project design team;
• monitoring progress of the work
program;
• coordination of the final EIA
documentation;
• coordination of follow-up require-
ments during project
implementation.
In addition to the technical/scientific
specialists performing EIA studies, cer-
tain project engineering and planning
staff may also have to become involved
in the EIA study to supply engineering
and design information required to carry
out the assessment. These project staff
will also have to be intimately involved
in the discussions related to project miti-
gation and compensation measures.
Both the costs and lead times necessary
for approval of EIA submissions vary
substantially from project to project.
The expectations and general concerns
of government and the public are
important factors in scoping EIA studies
and ultimately the time required for
approval.
Costs related to carrying out EIA studies
for 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 of
an EIA study is generally for baseline
environmental studies, although mitiga-
tion and compensation measures provid-
ed during project implementation can
also be fairly significant cost items.
Detailed costs are developed as part of
work scope planning.
The time required to carry out an EIA
study will vary with the type, size and
complexity of the project; the character-
istics of its physical, sociocultural and
institutional setting; and the quantity
and quality of environmental data that is
already available about the study area.
Again, World Bank (1991) studies sug-
gest that EIA studies can take between 6
and 18 months, with 12 months being
typical. An EIA for a major new gener-
ating facility could take up to three years
to complete, depending on the scope.
With respect to scheduling, one of the
key factors is the seasonal requirements
of field studies. Fisheries studies for
example may require spring and/or fall
(wet and/or dry season) monitoring to
assess impacts on migration and spawn-
ing activities. Part of the planning
process is to determine in advance all
study requirements, so that field seasons
are not missed. In some circumstances,
a full year may be lost by not mobilizing
for field studies early enough.
To ensure effective management of an
EIA study an EIA Work Scope docu-
ment should be prepared by the EIA
coordinator. This is an internal project
document which contains a breakdown
of work packages associated with the
preparation of an EIA, specific contribu-
tors assigned to the work, and a budget
summary and schedule for each work
package.
EIA
EIA
FIGURE 13: EIA Costs for a Major Generating Station with a
Breakdown of Costs in the EIA
27
An EIA study is very much an exercise
in issues management. Critical issues
are identified during scoping and
tracked throughout the EIA process. In
many cases, these issues evolve and
change as the EIA process progresses, in
response to changes in project design,
changes in process participants and the
introduction of study findings or other
scientific information. To ensure a suc-
cessful EIA process, it is important to
develop some sort of system to track and
respond to the dynamics of issue evolu-
tion throughout the EIA process. This
will allow the EIA team to foresee
potential problems before they become
critical and can cause significant sched-
ule delays. A record of issue dynamics
throughout the EIA process can also be
very helpful in focusing and organizing
the final EIA documentation by ensur-
ing that the document concentrates on
the key issues of concern.
An Issues Status Report can be devel-
oped and maintained by the EIA team
to monitor the status and record the
chronology of issues development dur-
ing the EIA process. The Issues Status
Report should include the following
information about each major issue:
• Description - a description of the
issue and how it relates to the project
• Action Taken - a discussion of any
historical, current or planned actions
that relate to the issue
• Issue Status - provide the current
status of the issue resolution process
• Contacts - provide a list of all the
stakeholders (and a key contact per-
son) with an interest in the issue and
a statement of their concerns relative
to this issue
• Cross-Reference - provide an indica-
tion how this issue relates to other
major issues affecting a project.

Maximizing
the 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”
The following guidelines will help to get
the most out of the EIA process:
• Only do full EIAs on projects with
significant impacts. Projects should
be screened carefully to focus limited
to cover too many topics in too
much detail. Effective scoping can
save both time and money by focus-
ing EIA studies on the key issues.
• EIA requires the formation of a
multidisciplinary team and the lead-
ership of a strong EIA coordinator.
The range of effects considered in
EIAs requires the skills of a broad
mix of technical experts to be
employed on an assessment team,
lead by an EIA coordinator.
• Involve the appropriate persons and
groups in the EIA study. It is
important to involve the right people
and agencies in the EIA process.
Aside from the EIA team itself, peo-
ple who can contribute facts, ideas or
concerns to the EIA study are needed
( e.g., scientists, engineers, policy
makers, government representatives
and representatives of public interest
groups and the local community) as
well as people who have direct
authority to permit, control or alter
the project - the decision-makers
(e.g., the developer, the aid agency,
regulatory authorities and politi-
cians).
• Baseline studies must focus on key
environmental indicators. Baseline
data should not be collected simply
to describe the environment - it
should have some value for the deci-
sions that need to be made. To
ensure baseline studies are focused
and useful, considerable effort should
be directed to defining those envi-
ronmental parameters that really
need to be sampled to assist with
project assessment. Attempts should
be made to select environmental
parameters that will allow testable
funds and resources for EIA studies
effects predictions to be made.
on those projects that really require
detailed assessment.
• Focus on the main issues. It is
important that an EIA does not try
28
• Make maximum use of existing
information before engaging in
expensive field studies. Conducting
full-scale field investigations in sup-
port of EIAs can be expensive and
time-consuming, therefore existing
information should be used wherever
possible. Maximum use should be
made of EIA experience and infor-
mation about similar projects in sim-
ilar environments when scoping and
assessing impacts.
• There are no set rules or procedures
for implementing and administering
EIA studies. Given the complexity
of the task of conducting EIA stud-
ies, there is no ideal or standard EIA
methodology. Certain methods -
like the matrix approach - have been
widely used and despite shortcom-
ings, have produced reasonable
results. When it comes to EIA
methodologies, there is plenty of
room for experimentation. Also,
there is no reason why a composite
method, involving several tech-
niques, cannot be used in an EIA
study. What is important, is to select
an EIA method that effectively assists
with each of the tasks of predicting
and assessing impacts, and is appro-
priate for the level of study and the
money and manpower resources
available for carrying out the EIA
study.
• It is important to consider effects
not only at the project site but also
in the area surrounding a site. A
common error in carrying out EIA
studies is that the assessment of
potential impacts and mitigation
focuses too much on the site being
developed for a project. Often
important impacts occur away from
the site as a result of activities at the
project site. These off-site and/or
cumulative effects need to be careful-
ly considered in project planning and
in developing mitigation and com-
pensation programs.
• Present clear and appropriate
options for mitigation of impacts
and for sound environmental man-
agement. Mitigation is an integral
part of effects assessment.
Application of appropriate mitiga-
tion can eliminate or reduce adverse
effects, and improve the net overall
environmental performance of a pro-
posed project. Where residual
impacts remain after mitigation has
been applied, some form of mone-
tary or other compensation may be
required.
• Link information to decisions about
the project and make EIAs useful to
decision-makers. An EIA should be
organized so that it directly supports
the many decisions that need to be
29
made regarding a proposed project.
It should be started early enough to
provide information relevant to the
selection of appropriate technology
and design and continue throughout
the various stages of project planning
and review. Environmental input
should 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 monitoring
programs are essential to ensuring
that EIA commitments are carried
out and that future EIAs improve.
• To be effective, an EIA process
requires the support of a defined
institutional framework and com-
mitment to inter-agency coopera-
tion. Interagency cooperation is
important to ensure that an EIA
study has access to and makes use of
all available information, specialized
knowledge and policy direction relat-
ed to important issues. To be most
effective, it is important that the
principle of EIA be incorporated into
legislation governing project
approvals.
Key “EIA must be an integral part of project
planning and implementation.”
Messages
1
EIA 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.
2
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.
3
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.
4
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
30
alternative options and clarifies the
environmental trade-offs associated
with these options.
5
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.
Glossary
assessment - refers to analyzing and
evaluating the potential impacts of pro-
posed actions on the environment.
baseline - existing baseline conditions
are the current conditions of an area
potentially affected by a proposed pro-
ject. Existing baselines are established
prior to construction and operation of a
proposed project in order to evaluate the
effects of the project.
biodiversity - refers to the variety of life
on earth: the number of plants and ani-
mals and other organisms that exist on
our planet and the variety within these
species and the ecosystems they inhabit.
biophysical - that part of the environ-
ment that does not originate with
human activities (e.g. biological, physi-
cal and chemical processes); pertaining
to the natural environment.
carrying capacity - the rate of resource
consumption and waste discharge that
can be sustained indefinitely in a defined
impact region without progressively
impairing bioproductivity and ecological
integrity; the maximum number of
species that can be supported indefinite-
ly by a particular habitat without
degrading the environment or diminish-
ing future carrying capacity.
compensation measures - monetary
payment or replacement in kind for loss-
es resulting from a development project;
the re-creation of lost or damaged
habitat.
cumulative effects assessment - the
assessment of the impact on the environ-
ment which results from the incremental
impact of an action when added to other
past, present or reasonably foreseeable
projects, regardless of what agency or
person undertakes such actions.
Cumulative impact can result from indi-
vidually minor but collectively signifi-
cant actions taking place over a period of
time.
decision- maker - the person(s) entrust-
ed with the responsibility for allocating
resources or granting approval to a
proposal.
direct impact (primary impact)(first
order impact) - an impact which follows
as a direct cause effect consequence of a
project activity.
ecological processes - processes which
play an essential part in maintaining
ecosystem integrity. Four fundamental
ecological processes are the cycling of
water, the cycling of nutrients, the flow
of energy and biological diversity (as an
expression of evolution).
ecosystem - a community of interdepen-
dent plants, animals and other living
organisms (including humans) together
with the environment which supports
them and with which they interact.
effects/impacts (synonymous) - a reac-
tion to a change in the environment as a
result of a project action. Effects can be
ecological (such as the effects on compo-
nents of natural resources, the structure
31
and/or functioning of affected ecosys-
tems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, eco-
nomic, and social, whether direct, indi-
rect or cumulative.
environment - the complex web of
inter-relationships between living and
non-living components which sustain all
life on earth, including the social/health
aspects of human group existence. The
physical, biological, social, spiritual and
cultural components which are interre-
lated and affect the growth and develop-
ment of living organisms.
environmental component - any of the
various aspects of the physical or social
environment, at any scale, that has been
identified as being relevant to the assess-
ment process.
environmental evaluation - a structured
investigation and evaluation of potential
impacts or mitigation possibilities aris-
ing from a project proposal.
environmental impact - the net change
(positive or negative) in human health
and well-being that results from an envi-
ronmental effect, including the health of
the ecosystems on which human survival
depends.
environmental impact assessment (EIA)
- the process of examining proposed
projects and their reasonable alternatives
for potential environmental impacts
prior to making decisions on
implementation
evaluation - a subjective task that
depends on the application of human
values. It involves determining the sig-
nificance of the potential impacts to the
affected and interested parties.
impact - the consequence of an action or
activity interacting with its
surroundings.
impact management plan - a structured
management plan that outlines the miti-
gation, monitoring and management
requirements arising from an environ-
mental impact assessment.
indirect impact (secondary impacts)
(higher order impacts) - an environmen-
tal effect that is at least one step
removed from a project activity in terms
of cause-effect linkages. those caused by
an action that are later in time or farther
removed in distance, but that are still
reasonably foreseeable (e.g. development
in undisturbed areas as a result of access
road building.)
effects monitoring - monitoring of envi-
ronmental/social/health variables, which
are expected to change after a project has
been constructed and is operational, to
test whether any observed changes are
due to the project alone and not to any
other external influences.
interaction - a process by which a
change in the condition of one compo-
nent of the environment causes a change
in another.
interdisciplinary team - a group of peo-
ple, from a range of disciplinary back-
grounds, working together to ensure the
integrated use of the natural and social
sciences in planning and decision mak-
ing, which may have an impact on
man’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 environment
interact with each other. Pathways
include the food chain, hydrologic cycle,
carbon cycle, etc.
mitigation - an activity aimed at reduc-
ing the severity, avoiding or controlling
environmental impacts of a project,
through design alternatives, scheduling,
or other means.
monitoring - an activity involving
repeated observation, according to a pre-
determined schedule, or one or more
elements of the environment to detect
their characteristics (status and trends).
Relevant data is collected and analyzed
for the purpose of evaluating the ade-
quacy of project impact predictions and
mitigation measures, improving project
management methods, and developing
capability for future impact assessments.
non-governmental organization (NGO)
- a general term for organizations out-
side of government agencies such as
public organizations and environmental
interest groups.
proponent - the organization, company
or 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 predicted
adverse impacts which remain after miti-
gating measures have been applied.
resilience - the ability of a system to
recover from continuous or intermittent
stress, within certain limits or
thresholds.
scoping - a process by which all relevant
issues and concerns related to the pro-
posed project or activity are identified
and prioritized.
32
screening - a preliminary stage of the
assessment process for determining the
level of effort, or type of EIA, required
for evaluating projects.
sensitivity - the susceptibility of an
ecosystem or ecosystem component to
change as a result of a given level of
environmental stress.
significance - the relative importance of
an issue, concern or environmental
impact, as measured by prevailing stan-
dards, regulatory requirements and soci-
etal values.
social impact assessment - the compo-
nent of EIA concerned with changes in
the structure and functioning of social
orderings. In particular the changes that
a development would create in: social
relationships; community (population,
structure, stability etc.); people’s quality
and 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. local
people, the proponent, government
agencies, NGOs, donors, and others.
sustainable use - ecologically sound use
of natural resources that meets the needs
of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.
tiering - addressing issues and impacts at
the appropriate level of decision-making
(e.g. from the policy to project levels).
value judgment - the use of opinion or
belief in analysis or decision-making.
valued ecosystem component (VEC) -
the environmental attributes or compo-
nents identified as a result of a scoping
exercise as having legal, scientific, cultur-
al, economic or aesthetic value.
References
ADB 1992. Environmental Assessment
Guidelines. African Development Bank
and African Development Fund,
Abidjan. 39 pp.
AsDB 1990. Environmental Guidelines
for Selected Industrial and Power
Development Projects. Asian
Development Bank, Manila. 154 pp.
AsDB 1993. Environmental Assessment
Requirements and Environmental
Review Procedures of the Asian
Development Bank. Asian
Development Bank, Manila. 43pp.
Beanlands, G.E. and P.N. Duinker.
1983. An Ecological Framework for
Environmental Impact Assessment in
Canada. Dalhousie University:
Institute for Resource and
Environmental Studies, Report ISSNO-
7703-0460-S.
Bisset, R. 1987. Methods for
Environmental Impact Assessment: a
selective survey with case studies in
Biswas and Geping, 1987.
Canadian Environmental Assessment
Agency (CEAA). 1994. The Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act,
Responsible Authority’s Guide.
Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
Canadian Environmental Assessment
Research Council (CEARC). 1986.
Cumulative Effects: A Binational
Perspective. Federal Environmental
Assessment Review Office (FEARO).
Hull, Canada.
Canter, L. 1996. Environmental Impact
Assessment. Second Edition. New
York: McGraw Hill.
CIDA 1994. CIDA’s Procedural Guide
for Environmental Assessment.
Environmental Assessment and
Compliance Division, Canadian
International Development Agency,
Hull, Quebec. 60 pp.
Clark, B. et al. 1978. Environmental
Impact Assessment in the USA: A
Critical Review. DOE Research Report
30. Dept. of the Environment.
London.
Clark, B.D. et al. 1980. Environmental
Impact Assessment: a bibliography with
abstracts. Mansell, London.
de Broissia, M. 1986. Selected
Mathematical Models in Environmental
Assessment in Canada. Canadian
Environmental Assessment Research
Council, Ottawa: Ministry of Supply
and Services.
Delbecq, A.L., A.H. Vande Ven and
D.H. Gustafson. 1975. Group
Techniques for Program Planning: A
Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi
Processes. Scott, Foresman and
Company.
FEARO. 1988. Manual on Public
Involvement in Environmental
Assessment. Ottawa.
Grieg, L.A. et al. (ESSA Ltd.). 1986.
Potential Environmental Effects of the
Proposed Mattagami Hydroelectric
Extension Project. Report prepared for
Ontario Hydro, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.
Hobbs, B.F. 1980. A comparison of
weighting methods in power plant sit-
ing. Decision Sciences. 11:725-37.
IADB 1990. Procedures for Classifying
and Evaluating Environmental Impacts
of Bank Operations. Inter-American
Development Bank, Washington D.C.
5pp.
33
Jain, R.K. et al. 1980. Environmental
Impact Analysis: A New Dimension in
Decision Making. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Leopold, L.B., et al. 1971. A Procedure
for Evaluating Environmental Impact.
United States Geological Survey
Circular 645, United States Department
of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Lichfield, N. et al. 1975. Evaluation
methodology of urban and regional
plans: A review. Regional Studies. 4:
151-165.
Massam, B.H. 1980. Spatial Search:
Applications to Planning Problems in
the Public Sector. Pergamon Press.
Massam, B.H. 1988. Multi Criteria
Decision Making Techniques in
Planning. Progress in Planning. 30: 1-
84.
Mishan, E.J. 1976. Cost Benefit
Analysis. Praeger, New York.
MOE 1990. Evaluation Methods in
Environmental Assessment. Ontario
Ministry of the Environment.
Munn, R.E. editor. 1975.
Environmental Impact Assessment:
Principles and Procedures. SCOPE
Report 5, Toronto, Canada.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
1987. Guidelines and Policy on Pre-
Submission Consultation in the EA
Process. Toronto.
Ortolano, L. and A. Shepherd. 1995.
Environmental Impact Assessment:
Challenges and Opportunities. Impact
Assessment 13:3-30.
Rau, J.G. and D.C. Wooten. 1980.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Handbook. McGraw Hill, Toronto,
Canada.
Ross, J.M. 1974. Quantitative Aids to
Environmental Impact Assessment.
Environment Canada, Lands
Directorate. Occasional Paper 3,
Ottawa.
Ruggles, R.F. and Shopley, J.B. 1984.
A comprehensive review of current envi-
ronmental impact assessment methods
and techniques. Journal of
Environmental Management 18: 25-47.
Sadar, M.H. 1994. Environmental
Impact Assessment. Carleton University
Press. Ottawa, Canada
Saaty, T.L. 1987. Risk: Its priority
and probability: the analytic hierarchy
process. Risk Analysis. 7(2): 159-172.
Sonntag, N.S. 1983. Adaptive
Environmental Assessment and
Management as a Scoping Tool. Report
prepared for the International
Workshop on Environmental Planning
for Large Scale Development Projects by
ESSA Ltd. Whistler, B.C. Canada.
UNEP 1988. Environmental Impact
Assessment: Basic Procedures for
Developing Countries. United Nations
Environment Program, Nairobi. 16 pp.
UNEP 1996. Environmental Impact
Assessment: Issues, Trends and Practice.
United Nations Environment Program,
Nairobi, Kenya.
34
Warner, M.L. and E.H. Preston. 1973.
A Review of Environmental Impact
Assessment Methodologies. Battelle
Columbus Laboratories, prepared for
the US EPA, October 1973.
Wolfe, L.D.S. 1987. Methods for
Scoping Environmental Impact
Assessments - A Review of Literature
and Experience. Federal Environmental
Assessment Review Office (FEARO),
Vancouver. January.
World Bank. 1991. Environmental
Assessment Sourcebook. Washington
D.C. (3 volumes).
Appendices
APPENDIX 1: Summary of EIA Guideline Provisions for Selected International Funding Organizations

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 or
Terms of Reference prepared ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓
by proponent together with
organization
EIA Scope Document prepared
by lending agency ✓ ✓

BASELINE DATA
compilation of baseline data ✓ ✘ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✓

PUBLIC/GOV’T CONSULTATION
consultation with member ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
country government
consultation with NGO’s
indigenous groups and the
affected public ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

MITIGATION
mitigation and compensation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
measures

IMPACT ASSESSMENT
analysis of alternatives ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
requirement to assess social
environmental impacts
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

35
 APPENDIX 1: Summary of EIA Guideline Provisions for Selected International Funding Organizations (cont’d)

EIA PHASE ORGANIZATION

AfrDB AsDB CIDA ECE EEC AIB UNEP USAID WB

EIA REVIEW
member country government
and organization ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✓
environmental commitments
incorporated into donation/loan ✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✘ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓
agreements

IMPLEMENTATION
lending agency supervises
project implementation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✘ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓
monitoring program required
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✓
requirement to evaluate the
accuracy of impact predictions ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
requirement to evaluate the
effectiveness of mitiagation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
measures
requirement to evaluate
compliance with environmental
commitments in loan agreement
✓ ✓ ✓ ✘ ✘ ✓ ✘ ✓ ✓

AfrDB - African Development Bank

AsDB - Asian Development Bank
CIDA - Canadian International Development Agency LEGEND
ECE - Economic Commission For Europe ✓ - Provision
EEC - European Economic Community
✘ - No Provision
EEC - United Nations Environmental Programme
USAID - United States Agency for International Development
WB - World Bank

36
 APPENDIX 2: Typical Environmental Effects and Mitigation - Construction and Operation of Hydroelectric Generation Facilities

ACTIVITY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE/EFFECT POSSIBLE MITIGATION OPTIONS

Construction site clearing and excavation (powerhouse, and dam site construction camp)

1.Loss of vegetation 1.Reforestation elsewhere

2.Loss of wildlife habitat
3.Disturbance of wildlife through noise and traffic
4.Disturbance of rare and endangered species
5.Effects on farming and traditional uses
6.Effects on tourism and recreation
7.Dust effects
8.Blasting and noise effects
9.Forestry effects
10.Negative environmental effects of construction:
• air and water pollution from construction and waste disposal
2.Habitat creation/improvement
3.Noise controls and traffic restrictions
4.Site planning for avoidance, protection (eg. fencing) and relocation
5.Site planning for avoidance, assistance with relocation of homes, farms etc. and compensation
6.Site planning and timing of activities for avoidance and compensation
7.Use of dust suppressants
8.Timing of activities, fish deterrents and safety provisions (e.g., warning devices), blasting mats, noise silencers)
9.Recovery of merchantable timber and reforestation
10.Measures to minimize impacts:
• air and water pollution control

37
• soil erosion • careful location of camps, buildings, borrow pits, quarries, spoil and disposal sites
• destruction of vegetation • precautions to minimize erosion
• sanitary and health problems from construction camps • land reclamation

Reservoir Preparation and Flooding

1.Disposal of vegetation 1.Controlled burns, search for other uses (e.g., biomass plant), make available to local population
2.Exclusion of future land uses 2.Site planning for avoidance, and compensation
3.Turbidity and siltation during filling 3.Timing and duration of fill and erosion control
4.Shoreline slumping and erosion 4.Timing and duration of fill, shoreline protection, selective retention of stumps and shoreline vegetation
5.Loss/creation of fish habitat 5.Fisheries management practices including creation of new habitat
6.Shift to lake species 6.Fisheries management practices including creation of new habitat
7.Loss of fishing opportunities 7.Timing of activities, minimize construction period, and compensation
8.Effects on fishing and tourist camps 8.Assist with relocation or compensation
9.Loss of other tourism and recreation opportunities 9.Timing of activities, minimize construction period, reservoir planning to enhance future opportunities for use
10.Loss of archaeological and cultural resources 10.Site planning for avoidance and protection or recovery of identified resources
 APPENDIX 2: Typical Environmental Effects and Mitigation - Construction and Operation of Hydroelectric Generation Facilities (cont’d)
ACTIVITY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE/EFFECT
11.Dislocation of people living in inundation zone.
12.Social disruption and decrease in standard of living of
resettled people.
13.Environmental degradation from increased pressure on land.
14.Disruption/destruction of tribal/indigenous groups.
15.Loss of wildlands and wildlife habitat.
16.Conflicting demands for water use.
38
Extraction of Aggregates
1.Transportation and handling
Worker Influx
1.Increased fishing and farming pressures
Cofferdam Placement and Removal
1.Turbidity increases to receiving waters
Access Roads
1.Displacement of wildlife due to habitat loss
2.Loss of vegetation due to clearing
3.Increased fishing pressure with new or improved access
4.Disturbance of streams and lakes through construction,
traffic, siltation, and alteration in flow patterns
POSSIBLE MITIGATION OPTIONS
11.Relocation of people to suitable area.
Provision of compensation in kind for resources lost.
Provision of adequate health services, infrastructure, and economic and employment opportunities.
12.Maintenance of standard of living by ensuring access to resources at least equalling those lost.
Provision of health and social services.
13.Choice of resettlement site to avoid surpassing carrying capacity of the land.
Increase of productivity or improve management of land (agricultural, range, forestry improvements) to
accommodate higher population.
14.Avoid dislocation of unacculturated people and where not possible, relocate in area allowing them to retain
lifestyle and customs.
15.Siting of dam or decrease of reservoir size to avoid/minimize loss.
Establishment of compensatory parks or reserved areas.
Animal rescue and relocation.
16.Planning and management of dam in context of regional development plans.
Equitable allocations of water between large and small holders and between geographic regions of valley.
1.Use of excavated materials and site planning including use of previously disturbed sites
1.Restriction on use of sensitive areas, and environmental awareness training
1.Silt barriers and selection of construction materials
1.Use of existing roads, alignment selection and planning for avoidance and rail or water access
2.Use of existing roads, alignment selection and planning and reforestation
3.Temporary access and/or fishing restrictions
4.Site planning to avoid stream crossings and roads adjacent towater bodies, and use of appropriate culvert sizes,
and use of buffer zones and sediment traps.
 APPENDIX 2: Typical Environmental Effects and Mitigation - Construction and Operation of Hydroelectric Generation Facilities (cont’d)
ACTIVITY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE/EFFECT
5.Displacement of fishing and tourist outpost camps
6.Uncontrolled migration of people into the area made
possible by access roads and transmission lines.
Reservoir Operation
1.Shoreline erosion
2.Loss/creation of aquatic habitat through:
• Water level fluctuation
• Altered thermal regime
• Nutrient release
• Oxygen depletion
39
3.Mercury transformation and uptake by fish
4.Increased fishing pressure
5.Improved waterfowl and aquatic wildlife habitat
6.Loss or displacement of aquatic mammals, habitat,
and traditional uses associated with riverine system
7.Possible increase in recreational activity
(boating, swimming, fishing, etc.)
8.Human health (mercury ingestion) and diet changes
9.Increase of water-related diseases.
10.Increase in humidity and fog locally, creating favourable
habitat for insect disease vectors (mosquitos, tsetse).
11.Methane release
12.Carbon dioxide release
POSSIBLE MITIGATION OPTIONS
5.Temporary access, access restrictions (e.g., gating) or compensation
6.Limitation of access, provision of rural development, and health services to try to minimize impact.
1.Shoreline protection (e.g., riprap, gabions)
2.Station and reservoir design (e.g., in-step operation)
• Creation of new habitat
• Intake design to influence level of stratification
• Reservoir clearing
• Intake design and reservoir clearing
3.Reservoir clearing, shoreline stabilization and removal and covering of organics
4.Reservoir preparation and planning including fish and wildlife management (e.g., habitat improvement,
stocking and hunting/fishing restrictions)
5.None required
6.Wildlife management (e.g., controlled harvesting, habitat improvement) or relocation measures
7.Reservoir preparation planning with potential resource users and access provisions/controls (e.g., boat ramp)
8.Safety provision (eg. posting reservoirs) risk education and assistance for obtaining alternative food sources.
9.Design and operation of dam to decrease habitat for vector.
• Vector control.
• Disease prophylaxis and treatment.
10.Vector control.
11.Reservoir preparation and intake/station design to minimize anoxic conditions.
12.Reservoir preparation to minimize presence of organics
 APPENDIX 2: Typical Environmental Effects and Mitigation - Construction and Operation of Hydroelectric Generation Facilities (cont’d)
ACTIVITY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE/EFFECT
Reservoir Operation
(Cont’d)
13.Proliferation of aquatic weeds in reservoir and downstream
impairing dam discharge, irrigation systems, navigation and
fisheries and increasing water loss through transpiration.
14.Deterioration of water quality in reservoir.
15.Sedimentation of reservoir and loss of storage capacity.
40
16.Formation of sediment deposits at reservoir entrance
creating backwater effect and flooding and waterlogging
upstream.
17.Snagging of fishing nets in submerged vegetation in
reservoir.
18.Environmental problems arising from development
made possible by dam (irrigated agriculture, industries,
municipal growth).
19.Poor land use practices in catchment areas above
reservoir resulting in increased siltation and changes in
water quality.
Station and Spillway Operation (downstream effects)
1.Erosion and siltation effects.
2.Scouring of riverbed below dam.
3.Alteration in aquatic habitat.
POSSIBLE MITIGATION OPTIONS
13.Clearance of woody vegetation from inundation zone prior to flooding (nutrient removal).
• Weed control measures.
• Harvest of weeds for compost, fodder or biogas.
• Regulation of water discharge and manipulation of water levels to discourage weed growth.Operation Reservoir
14.Clearance of woody vegetation from inundation zone prior to flooding.
Control of land uses, wastewater discharges, and agricultural chemical use in watershed.
Limit retention time of water in reservoir.
Provision for multi-level releases to avoid discharge of anoxic water.
15.Control of land use in watershed (especially prevention of conversion of forests to agriculture).
Reforestation and/or soil conservation activities in watersheds (limited affect).
Hydraulic removal of sediments (flushing, sluicing, release of density currents).
Operation of reservoir to minimize sedimentation (entails loss of power benefits).
16.Sediment flushing, sluicing.
17.Selective clearance of vegetation before flooding.
18.Basin-wide integrated planning to avoid overuse, misuse, and conflicting uses of water and land resources.
19.Land use planning efforts which include watershed areas above dam.
1.Station design, shoreline protection and channel modifications.
2.Design of trap efficiency and sediment release (e.g., sediment flushing, sluicing) to increase
salt content of released water.
3.Flow regulation during critical periods, channel modifications and creation of new habitat to ensure no net loss.
 APPENDIX 2: Typical Environmental Effects and Mitigation - Construction and Operation of Hydroelectric Generation Facilities (cont’d)
ACTIVITY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE/EFFECT
4.Aquatic productivity effects.
5.Water quality effects.
6.Recreation and tourism effects.
7.Fish passage and mortality.
8.Fish mortality from gas bubble disease.
9.Fishing opportunity changes.
10.Decrease in floodplain (recession) agriculture.
11.Salinization of floodplain lands.
12.Salt water intrusion in estuary and upstream.
41
POSSIBLE MITIGATION OPTIONS
4.Intake and station design (to minimize changes to thermal and dissolved oxygen regimes), flow regulation
during spawning and egg incubation and habitat creation, and flow regulation or channel modification to
minimize dewatering of habitat.
5.Reservoir preparation, intake and station design (e.g., removal of organics, erosion control, and flow
management).
6.Station design, flow regulation, channel modifications, provision of bypasses (e.g. portages, marine railways) and
safety provisions.
7.Intake design, fish deterrents and/or fish passage facilities (e.g., fish ladders).
8.Design of spillway and intakes to minimize supersaturation of gases and fish deterrents.
9.Safety provisions, and measures to encourage or discourage fishing, as appropriate.
10.Regulation of dam releases to partially replicate natural flooding regime.
11.Regulation of flow to minimize effect.
12.Maintenance of at least minimum flow to prevent intrusion.

CATEGORY/
DESCRIPTION
Public Consultation
involvement of interested
external parties in the EA
process
42
Ad Hoc
compares alternatives with-
out specification of criteria,
ratings, or weights
Weighting of Preferences
techniques used to deter-
mine criteria that must be
considered in the EA
process
APPENDIX 3: Summary of Selected Tools and Methods Used in the EIA Process
METHOD APPLICATION APPROACH ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES REFERENCES
focus groups - throughout the EA especially useful during scoping; higher level of commitment; in detailed planning stages FEARO, 1988.
process consultants minimize controversy during extra information makes
decision making tedious
implementation stages
public meetings - throughout the EA public and proponent meet and identifies concerns; inexpen- seen as public relations exer- Wolfe, 1987.
or openhouse process exchange information sive; establishes two way cise; dominance of opinion Ont. Min. of Env.,
communication 1987.
- throughout the EA more expensive - hiring a
networking liaison member available to exchange identifies and determines rea-
process liaison person
information with public sons for concerns
- throughout the EA used to rate evaluation criteria, solicit identifies concerns; reach a survey bias
questionnaires process information or comments on the potentially larger audience
alternatives
- scoping loyalty to those who
advisory council input from a cross section of a com- representation guaranteed
appointed them (bias)
- evaluation munity - not only the affected public from the whole community
- scoping voting following a debate chooses the high degree of public
referenda time consuming Massam. B.H.,
- evaluation
alternative involvement 1988.
group interaction - scoping Delphi method - a sequence of alter- isolated generation of a large selection of respondent Delbecq, A.L., A.H
- evaluation nating questionnaires and feedback number of high quality ideas; group may bias results;
methods Vande Ven, and
reports group pressure avoided requires more time (for cor- D.H. Gustafson,
respondence) 1975.
nominal group - group meetings allows for periods of interac- selection of group members
where the verbal interaction is limited tion and non- interaction may bias results
ad hoc - throughout the EA useful in screening stages not useful
no training required not traceable, replicable, nor Fuggle, R.F., and
process for complex decisions accountable Shopley, J.B., 1984.
ranking and catego- - scoping scaling importance using nominal or simple to use and understand not theoretically valid - sub- Hobbs, B.F., 1980.
rization - evaluation ordinal scales jective decisions
rating - scoping assigning a value of importance from may not produce valid
- evaluation 1-10 results
- scoping distribute some (i.e. 100) points
point allocation
- evaluation among the criteria according to the
importance

CATEGORY/
DESCRIPTION
Weighting of Preferences
(cont’d)
Aggregation of Weights
Examination of similar
projects
43
review of issues related to
similar project types, or
technologies, or in similar
settings
Checklists
compares alternatives
against a set of criteria;
applicable during narrow-
ing process; useful for iden-
tifying impacts; limited for
use of evaluation
Networks
- flow chart which traces pro-
ject actions
Overlays
- transparent maps with envi-
ronmental and social infor-
mation
APPENDIX 3: Summary of Selected Tools and Methods Used in the EIA Process (cont’d)
METHOD APPLICATION APPROACH ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES REFERENCES
indifference trade - - scoping determines the amount given up for on assures valid weights subjective Hobbs, B.F., 1980.
off method - evaluation one attribute to obtain more of another
decision analysis - scoping weights are related to probabilities of perceptual shortcomings
weight selection - evaluation certain consequences
observer derived - scoping deriving rates from preferences among cluster weights on a few weights may not be propor-
techniques - evaluation alternatives attributes tional
Borda-Kendall - scoping aggregates individual preferences for a set provides consensus ordering appears ad hoc Massam, B.H.,
- evaluation of alternatives into a group consensus 1980.
Cook and Sieford mathematically complex
distance methods
review - screening review related environmental impact identifies potential issues predictions made in one area Wolfe, 1987.
- scoping statements and post audit studies may not be transferable to
- prediction other areas
unordered list of cri- - screening part of criteria identification process eliminates inferior choices; impacts no on list may be Bisset, R., 1987.
teria - scoping easy to use and understand ignored Clark, B.D., 1980.
Jain, R.K., et al.,
Satisfying - screening alternatives must satisfy specific condi- establishes minimum accept- may not lead to one alterna- 1980.
- scoping tions before becoming acceptable able levels; easy to use and tive; alternatives with off-set-
understand ting benefits may be rejected
lexicographic - screening sequential rejection of alternatives quickly eliminates choices; alternatives with offsetting
ordering - scoping results replicable; easy to use benefits may be rejected
- scoping identifies actions and associated impacts comprehensive; identifies difficult to follow as they Wolfe, 1987.
system diagram - prediction cause/effect relationship become more complex
constraint mapping - scoping unacceptable characteristics are mapped, traceable explanation for data must be capable of
- prediction maps are overlaid, areas that remain are eliminated areas; easy to use being mapped; multiple site
considered and understand or no site scenario

CATEGORY/
DESCRIPTION
Overlays (cont’d)
Environmental Modelling
quantitative representation
of an environmental system
Matrix Methods
- two-dimensional checklists;
used to summarize and dis-
44
play interactions between
project action and environ-
mental characteristics
APPENDIX 3: Summary of Selected Tools and Methods Used in the EIA Process (cont’d)
METHOD APPLICATION APPROACH ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES REFERENCES
GIS (geographic - scoping transparent maps with environmental defines spatial extent of for mapping there are limits Bisset, 1987. Jain et
information systems) - prediction and social information superimposed; impacts; does not have to be on the number of overlays al., 1980.
area suitability is indicated by shading mapped - information can (criteria) that can be used
intensity give exact rates for subtle
variation; minimizes
concerns
numerous methods - prediction predicts atmospheric, terrestrial, and identifies relationships that an unpredictable event can de Broissia, 1986.
aquatic effects need to be investigated occur
hypothesis of effect - scoping demonstrates linkages within environ- complex for large projects Greig, 1986.
(adaptive environmen- - prediction ment causing input Sonntag, 1983.
tal management)
Leopold matrix - scoping scoring procedure identifies magnitude indicates relationship numerous interactions - diffi- Leopold, L.B., et al.,
- prediction and significance of impacts on between cause and effect cult to assess overall impact 1971.
environment
Ross’ environmental - scoping first matrix identifies environmental high order dependencies can tedious for complex issues Ross, J.H., 1974.
interaction matrix - prediction dependencies; the second matrix traces be determined; considers sec-
impacts ondary impacts
SAW (simple additive - evaluation each alternative is given a score which mathematically simple; impression of objectivity, Hobbs, B.F., 1980.
weighting) represents the utility of the project replicable result which may not exist
SMART (simple - evaluation rank criteria; then beginning with lowest simple to use and understand only a small number of crite-
multi- attribute rating ranked criterion ratio values are assigned ria can be used
technique) to preferences
PATTERN (planning - evaluation multiple levels of concern are structured clarifies issues of concern difficult to keep facts and Massam, B.H.,
assistance through in a `relevance tree’ preferences separate 1988.
technical evaluation of
relevance numbers)
PROLIVAN (proba- - evaluation modification of SAW; weighting of long assesses uncertainty; reflects may be difficult to use addi-
bilistic linear vector and short term impacts; each alternative importance of long and short tional information on confi-
analysis) has confidence limits term impacts dence limits
Peterson - evaluation one matrix scores environmental measures secondary impacts subjective judgements
impacts, another scores social impact
and they are multiplied
 APPENDIX 3: Summary of Selected Tools and Methods Used in the EIA Process (cont’d)

CATEGORY/
DESCRIPTION METHOD APPLICATION APPROACH ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES REFERENCES

Economic Approaches
representing all aspect of a
project in monetary values
CBA (cost benefit - evaluation impacts are expressed in monetary terms
analysis) and added together to determine total
benefits and total costs the preferred
alternative has the highest ratio of bene-
fits divided by costs
reproducible; dollars and
cents terminology
externalities may be difficult Mishan, E.J., 1976.
to quantify; distributional
questions are not dealt with
(i.e., who benefits, who
incurs the cost)

CEA (cost effective - evaluation application of CBA when there is a fixed assesses impacts over time less compatible with the
analysis) budget goals of EIA than CBA

CMA (cost mini- - evaluation application of CBA when objectives are objectives can be stated in no further comparison for
mization analysis) not changing non-monetary terms alternatives that meet the
environmental objectives

PBS (planning bal- - evaluation application of CBA that deals with dis- externalities can be included may not lead to a unique Lichfield, N., 1975.
ance sheet) tributional issues in the analysis; good repre- solution
sentation of impact

45
distribution

Pair Wise Comparisons
comparison of alternatives
in pairs which are then
ordered using mathematical
techniques
Saaty’s analytical - evaluation estimates preferences and exact values by combines complex arrays of questionable default values; Saaty, T.L., 1987.
hierarchy procedure comparing criteria and alternatives data and judgements into a preference and exact value
numeric ratio confusion; replication is
difficult
ELECTRE (concor- - evaluation compares a small number of alternatives; externalities easily included cumbersome when there are
dance and discor- applicable in the same scenario as SAW many alternatives
dance analysis)

TOPSIS - evaluation used when relationships between two alternatives can be ranked complex when many criteria
impacts are simple are considered

Optimization Modelling LP (linear - evaluation allocates resources in a way that meets mathematically defensible some problems may involve
mathematical techniques programming) objectives and stays within constraints solution relationships that are non-
that choose alternatives that linear
best meet the objective
DP (dynamic - evaluation optimization method incorporates complicated limited to problems that can
programming) relationships be segmented

GP (goal - evaluation optimization method; targets set for discrete alternatives need not difficult to assign targets in
programming) criteria be specified units

Source - VHB Research & Consulting Inc., LocPlan and Lawrence MacDonald and Associates. Evaluation Methods in Environmental Assessment. Ontario, Ministry of Environment, Ontario.
a References other than source material
Acknowledgements
This 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.

47
 For more information please contact:
Secretariat,
E7 Network of Expertise for the Global Environment
1010 St. Catherine Street West
6th Floor, P.O. Box 6162
Montréal, Québec
CANADA, H3C 4S7

Tel: 514 392-8876

Fax: 514 392-8900
E-mail: e7secretariat@hydro.qc.ca
Web Site: www.e7.org Printed on recycled paper
E7 Contacts
SECRETARIAT: ONTARIO HYDRO:
E7 Network Of Expertise Mr. Murray Paterson
1010 St. Catherine Street West Ontario Hydro
6th Floor, P.O. Box 6162 800 Kipling Ave. KR 122
Montréal, Québec Toronto, Ontario
CANADA H3C 4S7 CANADA M8Z 5S4
Phone: (514) 392-8876 Phone: (416) 207-6682
Fax: (514) 392-8900 Fax: (416) 207-5623
E-mail: e7secretariat@hydro.qc.ca E-mail: murray.paterson@hydro.on.ca

ÉLECTRICITÉ DE FRANCE (EDF): RWE ENERGIE AG:

Mr. Edouard Bauer Mr. Hans-Georg Adam
Électricité de France RWE Energie
22-30, avenue de Wagram Kruppstrasse 5
75382 Paris Cedex 08 4300 Essen 1
FRANCE GERMANY

Phone: (33-1) 47 64 85 19 Phone: (0201) 185-2904

Fax: (33-1) 47 64 75 01 Fax: (0201) 185-4313
E-mail: Edouard.bauer@de.edfgdf.fr E-mail: dorothea.roese@energie.rwe.de

ENEL: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Mr. Roberto Vitali EDISON:
ENEL Mr. Howard Gollay
Via N. Bixio, 39 Southern California Edison
29100 Piacenza P.O. Box 800
ITALY 2244 Walnut Grove Ave.
Rosemead, California
Phone: 39 523 525252 USA 91770
Fax: 39 523 525519
E-mail: vitali_roberto.co@mailbox.enel.it Phone: 818-302-4122
Fax: 818-302-9156
HYDRO-QUEBEC: E-mail: gollayhd@sce.com
Mr. Jean Hébert
Hydro-Québec TOKYO ELECTRIC POWER
1010 St. Catherine Street East, 3rd Floor COMPANY:
Montréal, Québec Mr. Ichiro Maeda
CANADA H2L 2G4 Manager
International Affairs Department
Phone: (514) 840-3615 Tokyo Electric Power Company
Fax: (514) 840-3933 1-3 Uchisaiwai-Cho 1-Chome Chiyoda-Ku
E-mail: hebertj@envir.hydro.qc.ca Tokyo 100 JAPAN
KANSAI ELECTRIC POWER Phone: (03) 3501-8111
COMPANY: Fax: (03) 3596-8438
Mr. Takao Shiraishi E-mail: t0561233@pmail.tepco.co.jp
Deputy General Manager
Office of Corporate Planning
Kansai Electric Power Co.
3-22, Nakanoshima, 3-Chome
Kita-Ku, Osaka 530-70
JAPAN

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