USVI Public Records

Document text

ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION Caribbean Headquarters 6296 ESTAlE NAZARETH NO. 11. ST. THOMAS U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 00802-1104 lEL: (809) 775-6225 • FAX: (809) 779-2022 Washington, D. C. Office 1718 P STREET. N.W .. SUITE T4 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 (202) 265-971 2 OCCASIONAL PAPER #42/43 APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGIES FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND THE EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Presented at a Workshop on Environmental Impact Assessment, Sponsored by the Pan American Health Organization for the Caribbean Sub-Region, Kingston, Jamaica - June 3-14, 1985 Terrence P. Thompson, P.E. Consultant 48 Seth Court Staten Island, N.Y. 10301 USA Program Associate, Island Resources Foundation St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGIES FOR IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACTS Terrence P. Thompson, P.E. (a) 1. INTRODUCTION A comprehensive identification of impacts associated with a proposed action is a fundamental component of any environmen- tal impact assessment (EIA). A variety of impacts, of vary- ing degrees of severity, may be exerted by a project on both natural resources and social systems. Before any effort is made to quantify and evaluate impacts, it is necessary that a complete listing of potential impacts be established. An orderly system for identifying all of a project's impacts is needed by both the experienced and the novice alike. Numerous methodologies have been developed to meet this need. Many are appropriate for direct adaptation, or use with modifications, in the Caribbean region. 1.1 Purposes of Impact Identification Figure 1 shows a schematic overview of the EIA process. Impact identification methodologies are applied during the pre- paration of the EIA report, after the environmental baseline conditions have been established and at least a preliminary project description has been developed. (In practice, the de- sign features of many projects are seldom fixed until the time of construction. Thus it is common in the preparation of an EIA report to frequently adjust the impact analyses in response to changing project characteristics.) Once a comprehensive listing of potential impacts has been established, prediction and evaluation may proceed. The primary purpose of applying impact identification methodologies is to assure that no poten- tial impacts escape consideration in the EIA report. As a cost saving measure, the parties concerned with the preparation of the EIA might agree to exclude from subsequent analysis those impacts which are reasonably certain to be insignificant. However, the establishment of a comprehensive list of potential impacts is necessary even before this decision can be made. Simple impact identification methodologies may be used for other purposes 'earlier in the EIA process, when only mini- mal project and baseline data are available. During planning and scoping, a preliminary identification of impacts is nece- ssary to define the terms of reference for the study. Simple checklists and ad-hoc procedures are appropriate for this pur- pose. More complex methodologies would be too costly and time consuming to use here. In addition, the roughness of the in- (a) Consultant, 48 Seth Court, Staten Island, New York 10301 USA (Program Associate, Island Resources Foundation, st. Thomas) PRELIMINARY STAGE PLANNING PROJECT DEFINITION . ' & seOPING I I I I I I I I I I PROCESS INITIATION I I I I I I I I I FIGURE 1 OVERALL SCHEME FOR IMPLEM ENTING EIA PROCESS EXECUTION STAGE REPORT DEVELOPMENT FINALIZATION PROCEED PROJECT EXECUTION DOCUMENT "" & ~ REVIEW .-. PROJECT ~ -- & DOCUMENT APPROVAL DEFENSE I PREPARATION I I I I I I I I " I TECHNICAL WORK INCORPORATION INITIATION DEVELOP ENVIRON· .. MENTAL , SPECIFICA· TlONS . ~ I I I I I I I I I 1- IMPLEMENTATION STAGE , . UTILIZATION PROJECT INITIATION & IMPLEMENTA· TION '----~-.. -- - PROJECT COMPLETION & OPERATION I N I i -- put data at this early stage could not justify the use of a complex methodology. Simple methodolo~ies could also be used by the project sponsor to obtain a preliminary estimate of feasibility and to make a preliminary comparison of alternatives. An early listing of potential impacts may help the sponsor decide whether or not to continue with development of the project con- cept. By identifying potential impacts early-on, the sponsor would also be better prepared to develop an environmentally acceptable project design. Finally, impact identification methodologies are useful to those responsible for review of completed EIA documents. They provide a systematic means of checking that all potential impacts were considered by the preparers of the EIA report. 1.2 Types of Impacts Impact identification methodologies assist the analyst in assuring that no potential impacts are overlooked. Towards this end, the analyst must be aware of the various types of impacts that should be considered. Not only must a project's adverse impacts be identified (e.g., loss of natural habitat, degradation of air quality, etc.), but so must any beneficial impacts (e.g., creation of jobs, balance of payment implications, etc). The ultimate ob- jective of the EIA process is to provide to decision-makers an overall analysis of total cost/benefit including both eco- nomic and environmental considerations (Thompson et aI, 1983). This requires fair consideration of both beneficial and adverse impacts. The analyst must also be aware of the need to consider i~­ direct as well as direct impacts. There is a tendency in pre- paring an EIA to concentrate on the latter since direct impacts are more obviously recognizable. Other important impacts may be excluded from susequent analysis if indirect impacts are not conscientiously considered during the impact identifica- tion stage. These types of impacts have been categorized as follows (Sorensen and Dickert, 1973): "Direct: - preemption or denial of use existing on project site. - relocation of uses preempted from project site, or denied future use of project site. - impacts on environmental conditions-systems. - adverse impacts which the project would be subject- -3-- ed to by existing environmental and/or social con- ditions. - public ser\'~ce facility requirements. - socio-economic impacts. - access circulation, transportation modes impacts. "Indirect: - surrounding land use change. - projects impacts on population in region. - cumulative impact: potential impacts of develop- ment or anti-development trend project is establi- shing or reinforcing for political jurisdictions or environmental systems (watersheds, air basins, lakes, embayments)." Similarly, the analyst must consider both long term and short term impacts. Examples of long term impacts would include preemption of land use on the project site, and· jobs 'cre- ated for the life of the project. Short term impacts typical- ly occur during the construction phase. Examples include dust generated by excavating equipment, and construction related jobs. The final categories of impacts requiring an awareness on the part of the analyst are termed unavoidable and irrever- sible. The significance of these categories is evident by ·their names. The use of these terms has relevance in the latter stages of impact prediction and evaluation however. Thus, the categories of impacts of which the analyst must be aware in the impact identification stage may be summarized as: o adverse and beneficial; o direct and indirect; o short term and long term. 1.3 Application to Alternatives. EIA procedures typically require that alternatives to the proposed action be analyzed so that decision makers may consi- der their comparative merits. Impact identification, predict- ion, and evaluation methodologies must therefore be applied to reasonable alternatives. Reasonable alternatives would include: o alternate project designs and configurations; o alternate designs and configurations for portions of -4- the project (e.g. cooling tower versus cooling ponds; groundwater supply yersus surface water supply; etc); o alternate project sites; o "no action" alternative. 1.4 With and Without Concept Ecosystems as well as human social systems are by their very natures dynamic, so that their characteristics in many cases may change substantially with time, Shallow "sea gar- dens" for example may give way to fringing reefs, which in time may grow to a barrier reef. On the human side, an ex- ample would be the gradual abandonment of an agriculturally based economy in favor of manufacturing and service industries. In addition, many systems, both natural and human, will have already been subjected to environmental stresses prior to con- sideration of the project at hand, The point is that system characteristics may be expected to change over time irrespect- ive of the impacts of a particular project. In projecting the impacts of a particular project, the analyst must there- fore also project what impacts would be experienced even if the project were not implemented. The "no action" alternative can be considered as a base case for this purpose. The analyst would thus be able to project the net effects with the project, over and above those that would occur without the project. 2. IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL IMPACTS The widespread realization that natural resources are important components of a nation's wealth was the genesis of environmental planning and management. However, contemporary social concerns, particularly in developing countries, are frequently even more pressing than the concerns for long term protection of natural resources. Contrary to the opinion of rank industrialists, the EIA concept is not an enemy of social progress serving only to defeat or delay development projects. Rather, the EIA concept views the environment as consisting of both natural systems (physical and biological) and social systems, and it seeks to identify, predict, and evaluate the impacts of projects on both aspects of the environment. To assume a priori in the name of "progress" that any develop- mentproject is justified on social grounds because of an in- flux of capital, perceived opportunities for employment, etc., is risky at best. Every project of significance warrants an appropriate degree of analysis of its impacts on both social and natural systems. -5- The need for social impact analysis is perhaps best illus- trated by an example of a pro ject developed wi i·.hout prior assess- ment of its impacts. The Rodney Bay development project at Gros Islet Bay, St. Lucia, was proposed by developers in the 1960's (See Figure 2). The project was to include over 1,300 acres of vacation homes, condominiums, hotels, shops, marina facilities, and open space, all in the vicinity of Gros Islet fishing village (Towle, 1984). Among the site preparation act- ivities carried out by developers were the following: o construction of an artificial mile-long causeway conn- ecting themailandwithPegeonIsland.using some 2.5 million cubic yards of dredged sand from the Bay as construction material; o . dredging an additional million cubic yards of sand to surcharge an existing swamp and convert the core of the swamp to a lagoon marina with filled shoreline areas and access roads; and o conversion of the fresh water swamp to a saline system by cutting a deep channel entrance from the Bay. For over two centuries, the West Indian fishing community had relied on the fishing resources of Gros Islet Bay as the basis of its economy. Before the Rodney Bay development pro- ject, three seine nets were operated in the Bay, pulled by 100 to 150 people who shared daily in the catch. Some 30 fish- ermen were occupied in pot fishing. Related economic activi- ties included, sail of bait, fabrication and repair of nets and pots, boat building and maintenance, sale of lobster and conch to the existing St. Lucia Beach Hotel, and informal chart- ering of boats by tourists. Heavy sediments introduced by dredging, and changes in the movement of fishes caused by the placement of the causeway, had the following socioeconomic impacts: o reduction of net catches by about two-thirds, and a two-thirds reduction in manpower employment in net fishing; o virtual elimination of pot fishing in the Bay; o proportionate reduction in related economic activities. Construction jobs associated with the Rodney Bay project were short-term, and no permanent jobs were created. In add- ition, the deep channel cut as an entrance to the swamp-turned- lagoon isolated the villagers from their traditional burial -6- Figure 2. POIN"fE Ou CAP Pigeon ISland~h,. ~'~<::.:::j , GROS ISLET \ , BAY \ , .. , . Lagoon Entrance-- • ,::.:-=-Swamp/Lagoon . .... . Redui t Beach-:·:::·· • . . ::: ~~' .. : .·'·~H l°d I ........ __ . __ ...• /:. 0 1 ay nn ···· ......... St. Luci a Beach Hotel {::~ .. : ~ To N + Castries o 1~ 1/.2 3, 1 mile I. .. ;k»;;C,jwe;nel Location map: Rodney Bay development project at Gros Islet Bay/Pigeon Island area, St. Lucia. -7- ground and from the tourist development area and created a sense of indignation and discrimination among the villagers. In addition, the artificial causeway proved to be unstable. Its construction and the creation of deep dredge pits in the Bay resulted in erosion of the once beautiful beaches at the southern end of the Bay and on Pigeon Island. As a result, after tens of millions of dollars of investment, the develop- ers have realized no appreciable return. "Not one sale, lease or option has been finalized for the causeway area. Not one new hotel has been built. There has been no deluge of buyers or leaseholders for the residential sites in the new "lagoon" ••. Additional capital investment (for further site improvement and remedial environ- mental interventions), development, and marketing costs have mounted, and the to- tal is close to three times the original estimate." (E. Towle, 1984). The Rodney Bay development project illustrate~ that dire social consequences can accrue to the community, and economic consequences to the developers themselves, when an assessment of impacts to both social and natural systems is not included in project planning. 3. REVIEW OF METHODOLOGIES Numerous methodologies have been developed to provide systematic approaches to impact identification, prediction, and evaluation. The various methodologies may be categorized however into four general methods: o checklists; o matrix methods; o network analyses; o ad-hoc procedures. Numerous specific methodologies within each category have been reviewed in the literature (Canter, 1977; Jain et aI, 1981; Rau and Wooten, 1980). The following discussion focus- es on several methodologies which are particularly applicable to the Caribbean region. 3.1 Checklists Checklists are one of the most commonly used approaches -8- to impact identification. A checklist is a master list of environmental factors or potential en"\"~.ronmental impacts from which the EIA analyst selects the particular factors or impacts that might reasonably be expected to occur for the alternative under consideration. Checklists are usually not incorporated into the EIA document itself. They are used as worksheets by the analyst, and should be kept for later reference. Because the environment consists of complex systems, each with numerous components, and each alternative may have numer- ous dimensions, a generalized checklist could have literally thousands of entries. The U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (Lee et aI, 1974) for example uses a check- list that addresses the impact of some 2,000 basic army acti- vities on over 1,000 environmental factors. This approach is so complex as to require the use of a computer for manipulation. Simpler checklists are to be preferred. Analysts should bear in mind that no one checklist is ideally suited to all projects. Revisions and modifications will usually be necessary to adequately address a specific project. Reviewing several checklists will yield additional insight into the potential impacts associated with a project. USAID Project type checklists have been prepared by many agen- cies for implementation of projects within their area of re~ sponsibility or expertise. USAID has published a number of checklists applicable to the types of development projects it typically finances: agriculture and rural development, various specific industries, urban developments, transportation, util- ities, etc. (USAID, 1974). The agency's checklist for power plants and transmission, for example, is reproduced in Figure 3. The format of this checklist categorizes potential impacts under several headings = resource linkage, physical aspects, socio-cultural aspects, and public health aspects. Under each heading, various impacts that may potentially apply to the type of project are briefly described. For a specific alter- native under consideration, the analyst would review the list and select those impacts for which further assessment and eval- uation are warranted. UNEP Screening Test Table The United Nations Environment Programme, in its "Guide- lines for Assessing Indusrial Environmental Impact and Environ- mental Criteria for the siting of Insustry" (UNEP, 1980), published a Screening Test Table which is in fact a kind of checklist. UNEP's Table is reproduced in Appendix A. Its -9- 6.b.4. Power Plants and Transmission (Fossil fue).ed, Nuclear fueled, Hydroelectric, Geothermal) 6.b~4. (continued) Environmental consequences of failure of plant or any component Resource Linkage thereof Site selection, including vulnerability to earthquake, Effect of noise on surrounding environment hurricane or other natural catastrophy Fuel storage and transfer facilities, including safety aspect Relationship of proposed facility to other power generating pro- Downstream riverine changes due to power plant disCharges jects and to energy consuming development projects in the region Energy resource base utilized for project and alternative uses Socio-cultural aspects of resource base Effect of electric power supply into previously unserved a;ea on Compatibility with other resources of area such as water resources, social and cultural habits and values fish, wildlife, urban settlements, agricultural production, etc. Effect on unemployment in area due to growth of business and Effect of generating, transmission and distribution facilities industry by virtue of new or increased power supply on aesthetic resource Aesthetic considerations of route and tower design for trans- Suitability of site and process with respect to future expansion mission and distribution facilities Physical aspects Estimate of ppllutants expected to be generated, effect on humans, wildlife, vegetation, agricultural production, aquatic environment, air and water quality recreation, etc., and provi- sions for abatement, treatment, disposal and monitoring; include: air pollutants from fossil fuel, geothermal steam, cooling towers thermal pollution of water, air or land water pollution by primary or treated waste land pollution from solid wastes, ash or other residue disposal nuclear wastes Preservation of historic, cultural or archaeological sites Public health aspects Effect on health of area inhabitants due to residual pollutants occupational safety provisions for generating plants Public safety measures adopted for transmission and distribution, including sub-station and switchyards Note: Where power generating project includes water impoundment for hydropower, cooling and/or heat dissipatio~ or other water requirements, see also subsection 6. b.3. Dams •. Figure 3. Example of a project type checklist (USAID, 1974). format is different than that of the USAID checklists and it is more extensive in its treatment of impacts. Impacts are categorized under head.i,ngs of various environmental elements: climate and air quality, water, geology, soils, ecology, etc. Under each element, various sub-elements are listed. Under climate and air quality for example, the sub-elements listed are: wind speed and direction, precipitation/humidity, temp- erature, and air quality. Potential impacts are listed for each sub-element. From this list of potential impacts, the analyst would select those impacts pertinent to the specific alternative under consideration. The Screening Test Table has two additional features. One is that for each potential impact listed, a general des- cription of the information required for impact assessment is also given. The other is that the sources of the required information are given as well. One drawback to the Table is that very little emphasis is given to human social sY$tems such as economics, effects on public services, and public health. It does however provide an excellent framework for identifying potential impacts on natural resources. Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management The Virgin Islands have impact assessment guidelines which make an excellent model for adaptation and use by small islands of this region. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1978 (V.I. Code, Title 12, Chap. 21) requires that new developments in designated coastal zones apply for construction permits from the Division of Coastal Zone Management (DCZM). Permit appli- cants must supply an Environmental Assessment Report (EAR). The V.I. guidelines for the preparation of an EAR appear in Appendix B. The guidelines are in the form of a checklist. The practice in the V. 1. is for the applicant (i. e., the pro- ject sponsor) and DCZM to jointly review the checklist guide- lines in a pre-application meeting. By this process, potential impacts are identified, and the required content and level of detail in the EAR are defined. Refering to Appendix B, the listing of potential impacts to the natural environment can be found in Section 6.00. section 7.00 lists potential impacts to the human environment. As with all checklists, only those impacts which are relevant to the specific project under con- sideration would be selected from the list for further assess- ment and evaluation. ECNAMP Development Guidelines The Eastern Caribbean Natural Area Management Programme (ECNAMP) has published guidelines for development in small islands, which EIA analysts can use as a checklist for impact -11- S[;AGRASS BED$ Se~~rass beds, often extensive around Caribbean islands, are an important and productive marine nU~fient source as w~ll a3 habitat for a number of co~rcial1y important species, especially coq~h and sea turtles, Critical Activities DIRECT 1. Dredging 2. Anchoring of boats INDIRECT 3. Excavation, Earth- moving, and Agriculture (poor techniques can cause erosion) 4. Thermal Discharge from industrial and desalinization plants 5. Toxic Waste Discharge from industrial plants Problems Derived from Activity a) Destruction of habitat.when seagrass beds are in dredged area. b). Indirect: Lowered productivity from sedimentation and turbidity when seagrass beds are down- stream of dredged areas. --Frequent and heavy tearing of seagrasses by boat anchors will severely degrade seagrass beds. --Sedimentation and turbidity, resulting in lowered produc- tivity~ --Mortality of seagrasses and associated species. --Mortality of seagrasses and associated animal species. Figure 4. Excerpt from ECNAMP Guidelines (1984). Guidelines for Management --Prohibit dredging in extensive seagrass meadows and inshore seagrass areas. --Study data on currents and determine potential impact of dredging operations on seagrass ecosystems. Prohibit those operations that could result in serious degradation of seagrass beds. See Appendix A, DREDGING GUIDELINES, for more information. --Provide permanent moorings in seagrass areas that sustain heavy boat use. --See Appendix B, EROSION. GUIDELINES --Prohibit thermal discharge into or near critical seagrass areas. --Make provisions for safe and proper disposal of toxic wastes and prohibit their disposal in nearshore waters. identification. Published in handbook form, "Environmental Guidelines for Development in the Lesser Antilles" describes critical resources and habitats (i.e., environmental compo- nents) common in the Eastern Caribbean, such as mangroves, coral reefs, fisheries, and socio-cultural resources. Tables are used to show development activities (i.e., project compo- nents) that might affect a critical resource or habitat, their potential environmental impacts, and guidelines for manage- ment. An excerpt from the guidelines is shown in Figure 4. A Health-Impact Checklist The Pan American Health Organization is particularly con- cerned with potential health impacts of development projects. PAHO contributed a health-impact checklist to a conference proceedings on environmental impacts of international projects (Donaldson, 1977). This checklist is reproduced in Appendix C. It is a useful supplement to other more general checklists. 3.2 Matrix Methods Matrix methods list project components along one axis versus environmental components on another axis. Impacts occur where there is an interaction between a project component and an environmental component. Unlike the checklist approach, the matrix approach clearly identifies cause-effect relation- ships. It also lends itself extremely well to the evaluation of alternatives (discussed in a later paper). USAID Matrix An example of a matrix approach is given in Figure 5 (USAID, 1980). Across the horizontal axis are listed major environmental components of the physical, biological , and social environment. The analyst would list the major project components along the vertical axis and would identify poten- tial impacts at the appropriate intersections by means of graph- ic symbols. The symbols are given qualitative significance by means of a legend, described in a later paper. Leopold Matrix One of the earliest matrices and perhaps the best known is the Leopold Matrix (leopold et aI, 1971). A portion of the Leopold Matrix is shown in Figure 6. The complete matrix contains 100 specified actions versus 88 environmental compo- nents (the complete listing is given in Appendix D). To use the Leopold matrix the analyst would first identify which of the 100 listed actions were components of the specific project. -13- z Cl iii w o oil Cl Z Z Z <I: .. <L z o .t= u ::J a: to- <II Z o U z o t= <I: a: w Q. o PROJECT IMPACT MATRIX T PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 1 SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT· PROJECT COMPONENTS ENVI RONMENTAL COMPONENTS t-------------t--t--t--t--+-+--!-t---+---t--t--t--t--t--t-I --1-1 I I I I r----IJ=LLJ I I Ll-t=l I I I I tj=Ll~t-lj I I I I I I I I I .--·I----I-~--I--!-,-·.---,·.---·,-.-.·-.---I--'-.'-.I.--.- --.--.--.--.--~-.. --.. -.- --.-_.f--- t_+-__ -.-1---1-1 1--.--.. -.- -·-·-l--I-I----I-{----l--l--+-+--I---I--·--·---·-· ---.- --I 1--1_1_ 1-----------1-+--11--1 -'-'---' --.--. -- Figure 5. Project Impact Matrix (USAID, 1980) 1 1 'f r-i 1 The potential for each action or component to cause an impact on eac~1 of the 88 environmental components "lvould then be con- sidered. Where a potential impact is identified, the inter- action box would be marked with a diagonal line. Impact iden- tification is completed when all of the project's components have been considered against the 88 environmental components. Having completed the process of impact identification, the magnitude and importance of potential impacts can be nu- merically scored on either sides of the diagonal lines. At this point the Leopold Matrix methodology ventures into the stages of impact assessment and evaluation. More shall be said of this in a later paper. It should be noted in the Leopold Matrix that the 88 en- vironmental components listed there give little emphasis to human social systems. Such items could easily be added by the analyst however in order to obtain a more comprehens~ve iden- tification of impacts. 3.3 Network Analyses Matrix methods go beyond checklists by identifying cause- effect relationships. Network analyses go one step farther by introducing a cause-condition-effect network which aids in the identification of cumulative or indirect effects. Figure 7 gives an example of a small portion of a network for a free- way construction project in an established downtown business district (Rau and Wooten, 1980). To develop such a network the analyst must independently or with guidance from other methodologies (checklist, matrices, etc.) identify the prima- ry impacts of each of the project components, and must identi- fy what are the secondary impacts, tertiary impacts, etc., arising from each project component. The advantage of a netwoek is that, if properly construct- ed, it can accurately describe the complex system of relation- ships inherent in any environmental setting. It also has sig- nificant disadvantages however. The first is that one must resort to other methodologies or to a multidisciplinary team of experts in order to assure that all impacts are identified. The second is that its complexity may verge on confusion. Frequently the network may be unintelligible to all but the most expert analysts. If this occurs, the methodology has failed at one of its prime objectives: to provide a systematic framework for informed decision making among all parties of concern. For these reasons, the use of network analyses is not recommended in any region in the early stages of incorpo- rating environmental impact assessment into the planning and -15- A. MODIFICATION OF REGIME , B. LAND TRANSFORMATION AND CONSTRUCTION INSTRUCTIONS 1- Identity all actions (located across the top of the matrix) that are part of the proposed project. 2- Under each of the proposed actions, place a slash at the intersec- tion with each item on the side of the matrix If an impact is pos- sible. 3- Having completed the matrix, in the upper left-hand corner of each box with a slash, place a number from 1 to 10 which indicates the MAGNITUDE of the possible impact; 10 represents the greatest magnitude of impact and 1. the least, (no zeroes). Before each number place + if the Impact would be beneficial. In the lower ri~ht-hand corner of the box place a number from 1 to 10 which indicates the IMPORTANCE of the possible impact (e. g. regional vs.local): 10 represents the greatest importance and 1. the least (no zeroes). 4- The text which accompanies the matrix '" ~ '" ~ u ~ < ~ u ;t u ~ ~ u " z « ;i u <c l: Q. should be a discussion of the signifi. cant impacts. those columns and rows with large numbers of boxes marked and individual boxes with the larger numbers. a Minerai resources b Construction material ~ c SoLis d land form SAMPLE MATRIX Ll,lbl'I'I·1 V; iJ; PROPOSED ACTIONS e Force fields and background radiation Eo :; ;: '" 'h w 0", >Ow -:>: «Q. '" w '" '" w U ~ f Unique phYSical features a Surface b Ocean c. Underground d. Quality e. Temperature f Recharge g, Snow. Ice. and permalrosl a Quality (gases. parliculates) b. Climate (micro. macro) c. Temperature a. Floods b. ErOSIon c. Deposition (sedimentation. precIpitation) d Solution e Sorpllon (IOn exchange. complexing) f. Compaction and settling g Stability (slides. slumps) h. Stress-stram (earthquake) I AIr movements c 0 ~ .. c " -c :!l E c 0 0 .. . c ~ ~ • ~ ~ , '" '" 0 " " 0 .. " c c c- ~ ~ . t'" c .. ~ " ~ c c ] ii ] " I t c c ~ . 0 ] .. .. c c ~ f 8. D . " c c § " " " ~ ~ ] 1 c " j 1 c . 0 t . ~ ~ 0- :g <; ~ z " ;: u OJ u u " E .; D u " .. r. " '" ~ E Figure 6 Portion of infonnation matrix. (From Leopold et aI., 1971.) PRIMARY SECONDARY TERTIARY TETRARY Loss of residential Decrease in community Increase in property ~ property tax revenue -- residential revenue - tax rate Removal Reductian in com- Increased demand Increase in selling of homes munity housing stock -- for housing --- price of available Payment of relocat ion homes ,~expenses . Displacement of Change in local , Increased space in people school enrollment -local schools Change in area Lower state subvention population • revenues Loss of commercial Decrease in. community Increase in property ~ property tax revenue"/ commercial revenue - tax rate Removal of Loss of sales tax / . Increase in welfare businesses revenue /payments Loss of jobs • Increase in number L-Increase in unemployment of unemployed benefits paid . ~ ~ :; * ] c E .'!i .. ~ ~ ~ 0: " Figure 7 Example of impact tree for new freeway construction in established downtown busine .. district. -16- . , { , ~ " c J .. c z " OJ 0 <i " . , , " c , 0 .. . " c , " c " c ] . u .; .,; decision making process. 3.4 "Ad Hoc" Team Approach The "Ad Hoc" approach usually means assembling a multidis- ciplinary team of specialists to identify impacts in each spe- cialist's area of expertise, without reliance on the formal methodologies described above. This approach was used widely by government agencies in the United.States in the period immediately following enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (Canter, 1977). It is still used today by many large environmental consulting firms that are capable of main- taining multidisciplinary staffs of experts. It has the ad- vantage of being quick and easy to administer and, when the staff members involved are truly expert, it is usually accurate. Few government agencies in the Caribbean maintain such a staff however. The composition of most agencies reflects a few specializations related to the organization's primary mission. A highway planning agency for example would have many civil engineers, transportation planners, economists, and the like, but few if any air quality and water quality special- ists, terrestrial and aquatic ecologists, toxicologists, etc. This problem can be overcome however by the formation of tem- porary interagency or inter-ministry study teams. Allthat is required is a willingness on the part of the respective units to cooperate on the analysis of a particulary project under the coordination of a lead agency. This "Ad Hoc" Team concept can be extended. Often spe- cialists' expertise can be obtained either informally or through the literature. Consider for example the proposed Panama Coal Gasification/Methanol Production project, a 20,000 ton per day synthetic fuel facility proposed on the Caribbean coast near Chiriqui Grandi. A U.S. architect/engineer consult- ing firm, was commissioned to perform a preliminary site se- lection study and to draw up terms of reference for a full scale environmental impact statement in accord with NEPA reg- ulations. Both tasks required an identification of impacts. The budget allowed only for a cursory field reconnaissance by one executive level environmental specialist, but no field studies by a multidisciplinary team. The A/E's environmental specialists were thoroughly familiar with the project character- istics of synthetic fuel facilities, but had only the reconn- aissance report to describe existing environmental conditions at the alternative project sites. The ,A/E supplemented this information with views and information from outside specialists. The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, located in Panama City, was able to provide information on ecology and cultural -17- resources. Bathymetry and oceanographic data were obtaineci from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. A nearby industrial concern provided meterological, and water quality data. Geological and topographical information was' obtained from a parallel engineering feasibility study. Using all this information, the A/E's environmental specialists were able to identify potential impacts suitably enough so that a preliminary site selection could be made and the required terms of reference could be prepared. Such an extension of the "Ad Hoc" Team approach is certain ..... ly applicable in the Caribbean region. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are rich sources of environmental expertise, information and documentation, since each have had over 15 years experience in applying U.S. environmental regulations to development projects. An annotated bibliography of result- ing source materials derived from the Virgin Islands experience has been compiled under the sponsorship of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere program (Island Resources Foundation, 1982). Many of the reports listed therein are available from the V.I. library and from government offices such as the V.I. Depart- ment of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, and the V.I. Planning Office. Other important sources of expertise and information are listed in Table 1. 4. SELECTING A METHODOLOGY Warner and Preston (1973) developed criteria questions in order to compare environmental impact assessment methodol- ogies. Their criteria questions for impact identification methodologies, and for methodology resource requirements, re- plicability, and flexibility, are presented in Tables 2 and 3. These questions can help the analyst select a particular method- ology for use in analyzing a particular project. The analyst may wish to consider other methodologies besides those descri- bed in this paper. As mentioned earlier, numerous methodolo- gies have been reviewed in the literature(Canter, 1977; Jain et al, 1981; Rau and Wooten, 1980). Comprehensiveness is an important criteria which is fre- quently not met by individual checklists and matrices. Socio- economic and public health impacts are frequently omitted from consideration. To compensate for this, it would be appropriate in many cases to use two or more checklists, or two or more matrices, or to modify a particular checklist or matrix to include the omitted impacts. -18- TABLE 1 - SOME SOURCES OF EXPERTISE AND INFORMATION ON CARIBBEAN ENVIRONMENTS u.S. Virgin Islands o Island Resources Foundation, St. Thomas - a non-profit technical assistance organization. o West Indies Laboratory, st. Croix - the marine research station of Fairleigh Dickinsen University. o Caribbean Research Institute, St. Thomas - a division of the College of the Virgin Islands. o Eastern Caribbean Natural Area Management Programme, St. Croix - a cooperative undertaking of the Caribbean Conservation Association and the University qf Michigan Wildland Management Center. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico o Center for Environment and Energy Research - a division of the University of Puerto Rico. o Graduate School of Planning, University of Puerto Rico. o Environmental Quality Board, Government of Puerto Rico. Barbados o Caribbean Conservation Association - a "grass roots" environmental advocacy organization. o Centre for Environmental Management - a division of the University of the West Indies. -19- Table 2. Criteria Questions for Impact Identification Criteria Comprehensiveness Specificity Isolate project impacts Timing and duration Data sources Questions Does the methodology address a full range of impacts? Are specific environmental parameters identified? Does the method suggest ways of identifying project impacts? Does the method suggest construction-phase impacts vs. operational-phase impacts? Does the method require identification of data sources? (Warner and Preston, 1973) Table 3. Criteria Questions for Methodology Resource Requirements, Replicability, and Flexibility Criteria Data requirements Manpower requirements Time requirements Costs Technologies Ambiguity Analyst bias Scale flexibility Range Adaptability Questions Resource requirements Does the method use current data or are special studies required? Are special skills required? How much time is necessary to learn the method? What are the costs of using the method? Are special technologies required? Replicability , Is the method ambiguous? To what degree will different results occur depending on the analyst? Flexibility Does the method apply to projects of different size or scale? Does the method apply to projects of different types? Can the method be applied to different basic environmental settings? (Warner and Preston, 1973) -20- In any region where environmental planning and management is in its early stages, resource requirements are a particuJLar- ly important criteria. For many natural areas in the Caribbean, there is a paucity of environmental data. Skilled environmen- tal analysts are often in short supply. Most Caribbean nations are unaccustomed to the expenditure of funds for environmental studies. Special technologies, such as computers, may not be available. Consideration of all these factors should be given when selecting a methodology. A consideration even more basic than the criteria ques- tions posed by Warner and Preston is that of objective. What is the analysts' objective in applying the methodology? As discussed earlier in this paper, impact identification metho- dologies can be used for several different purposes at various points in the EIA process. Compl~x methodologies would be too costly and too time consuming for study scoping or pre-feasi- bility determinations. Input data would probably not be well enough refined at these points either. The use of complex methodologies might be justified after the project and project setting are well defined. At this point impact identification methodologies are applied to assure that all potential impacts will be analyzed and evaluated in subsequent stages of the EIA process. 5. CONCLUSIONS Impact identification methodologies can be used for sev- eral purposes, the primary purpose being to establish a com- prehensive list of potential impacts as a basis for subsequent impact prediction and evaluation. When executing a methodol- ogy, the analyst mus~ bear in mind several basic points. One is that all types of impacts must be considered: adverse and beneficial, direct and indirect, short term and long term. Secondly, the proposed action and all reasonable alternatives should be subjected to analysis through impact identification, prediction, and evaluation methods. This allows decision makers to consider the comparative merits of alternatives to the proposed action. Finally, the assessment should take into consideration changes that would be likely to occur to the natural environment and social systems even if the proposed action were not implemented. This eliminates the possibility of the proposed action being credited or discredited for changes that would occur without its influence. Numerous methodologies are available to assist in the impact identification process. Of the methods described in this paper, small iSland communities may find particularly use- -21- ful, the Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management guidelines, and ENCAMP's environmental guidelines for development. For large projects where greater expenditures on environmental ·assessment are justifiable, more sophisticated methods such as the UNEP Screening Table or the Leopold Matrix are recommend- ed. Network analysis is not recommended because their high degree of sophistication makes them tenable only to highly ex- pert analysts. They are often unintelligible to decision makers and other interested parties. Ad hoc or expert review procedures are frequently used in the United States, and could be used in the Caribbean by assembling interagency project teams comprised of multidisci- plinary experts. Expert information is also available through the literature. Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are rich sources of relevant information. Both have over fifteen years experience under U.S. laws and regulations adapting the EIA concept to a Caribbean context. Criteria questions (Warner and Preston, 1973) useful in selecting a methodology have been presented. Two particularly important criteria are comprehensiveness and resource require- ments. Few impact identification methodologies are complete- ly comprehensive, particularly with regard to socioeconomic and public health impacts. To compensate, two or more methods of impact identification might be used, or a particular method may be modified by the analyst to include the omitted impacts. With regard to resource requirements, it isimportant that the analyst select a methodology that is consistent with the re- sources that will be made available to the study (i.e., time, money, technical expertise, data, special technologies, etc.) Following the points set forth in this paper, appropriate impact identification methodologies can be selected or modified, and successfully applied to development projects in the Caribbean. However, the analys~s own resourcefulness, intuition, and common sense, and a cooperative attitude among interested par- ties, will be the most important elements contributing to the success of any environmental analysis. * * * Acknowledgement Dr. Edward L. Towle. President, Island Resources Found- ation, reviewed the draft version of this paper. His comments significantly improved the final version. -22- ", BIBLIOGRAPHY Canter, L.W.i 1977. Environmental Impact Assessment. McGraw- Hill, Inc, New York, N.Y. Donaldson, E. i 1977. "Health Issues in Deleloping Country Projects. II Proceeding of the American society of civil Engineers National Convention, San Francisco, California, October 17-21. Eastern Caribbean Natural Area Management Programme, 1984. Environmental Guidelines for Development in the Lesser Antilles. Caribbean Conservation Association Technical Report No.3. St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Island Resources Foundation, 1982. Caribbean Island Resource Management - An Annotated Bibliography. Prepared for the U.S. National Committee for UNESCO, Man andthe Biosphere Program. Jain, R.K., L.V. Urban, and G.S. StaceYi 1981. Environmental Impact Analysis - A New Dimension in Decision Making, 2nd Ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, N.Y. Lee, E.Y.S., et ali 1974. "Environmental Impact Computer Sys- tem." Tech. Rept. E-37, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. Army, Champaign, Illinois. Leopold, L.B., et ali 1971. "A Procedure for Evaluating Envi- ronmentalImpact. 1I Geological Survey Circular 645. Rau, J.G., and D.C. Wooteni 1980. Environmental Impact Analy- sis Handbook. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, N.Y. Sorensen, J., and T. Dickert; 1973. "Some Suggestions on the Content and Organization for Environmental Impact State- ments or Reports." Univ. of California Extension Con- ference on Improving the Impact Assessment Process. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, California. Thompson,T.P., J.P. Lekstutis, and E.F. Dul; 1983. "EIA in Developing Countries: Application and In-Country Train- ing." Proceedings of the International Symposium on En- vironmental Impact Assessment,'Crete, April 13. Towle, E.L., 1984. The Island Microcosm. Prepared by Island Resources Foundation under contract to the U.S. National Park Service. Contract No.CX - 0001- 3 -0048. W~shington, D.C. USAID, 1974. Environmental Assessment Guidelines Manual~ Washington, D.C. USAID, 1980. Environmental Design"Considerations for Rural Development Projf~~tS. Washington, D.C. U.N. Environment Programme, 1980. Guidelines for Assessing Industrial Environmental Impact and Environmental Criteria for the Siting of Industry. UNEP Industry and Environment Guidelines Series, Vol.1~ Geneva. Virgin Islands Code, Title 12, Chapter 21. Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Act of 1978. Warner, M.L. and E.H. Preston; 1973. "A Review of Environmen- tal Impact Assessment Methodologies." "Report prepared by Batelle-Columbus for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. A P P E 5 D r X A SCREENDiG TEST TABLES Climate and Air Quality Water Geology Soils Ecology Environmentally Sensitive Areas Land Use and Lan~' Capabil1 ty Roise and Vibration Visual Quality 1.4.1.1 1.4.1.2 A4.1.3 1.4.1. 4 1.4.1.5 A4.1.6 M.l.7 1.4.1.8 1.4 .l.~ 1.4.1.10 Archaeology, Historic and Cultural Elementf' Each of the 10 screening test tables gives examples of: the SUBELEMENTS of each environmental element the POTENTIAL IMPACT(S) for each sUbelement - questions designee to indicate the most important potential environmental problem associated with the subelement REQOIRED llo.TORMATION - types of data and knowledge required to undertake an assessment of the probable severity or importance of the impact(s) for that aubelement the SOURCE OF rNPORMATION - organisation and/or materials (maps, reports, etc.) from which relevant data or information may be BOught. .- .- ~ pi pi I I ; ! I i Subelement Wind: directions and speed Precipitation! hurn.idi ty Temperature Air quality ~, .. .. SCREENING TEST TABLE A4.1.1 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY Potential Impact(s) Will the project (structure and area) modify the local wind behaviour, e.g. channelllng of wind, obstruction, etc? Will the project be placed in a -high risk- area? Will the project have an impact upon the local precipitation/ humidity 'pattern? Will the project be si ted in a -high risk- area? Will 'the project have an impact upon the local temperature pattern? Will the project generate and disperse atmospheric pollutants? Will the project generate any intense odours? Required Information Wind speeds and direc- tions, including unusual conditions - tornadoes, etc. Height of structures. Precipitation!humidity data including unusual conditions -flash floods, etc. Temperature data, including extremes. Estimate of atmospheric pollutant ~issions fram point sources (stacks, etc. area sources (parking zones) and line sources (transportation)~ estimate of total em.iasions burden~ fugi- tl~ emissions from bulk leading and handling facilities; estimate of undesirable or persistent odours. Sources ,of Infoi'ma'ticm Jo Me't.eorol091 ca 1 records; existing residents 1n area. Developer. Meteorological records; existing residents .in area. Meteorological records. Air pollution expert 65 86 Subelement Hydrological balance Groundwater regime Drainage/channel pattern Sedimentation Flooding Water quality : Surface waters SCREENING TEST TABLE A4.1. 2 Potential Impact(s) Will the project alter the hydrological balance? Will the project affect the groundwater regime, e.g. in terms of quality, quantity, depth/gradient of water table and direc- tion of flow? ~i11 alterations to water table depth alter structural qualities of soil? Will dewatering methods be necessary to undertake excavations? Will the project impede the natural drainage pattern and/or induce alteration of channel form? Will the project induce a major sediment influx into area water bodies? Will there be risk to life and materials due to flooding? Does potable water supply meet established standards - WHO, etc? Will receiving waters meet established standards? Will waters be adequately accom- modated and treated? Will groundwater suffer contamination by surface seepage, intru- sion of saline or polluted water? Will the project impair eXisting sur- face waters through filling, dredging, water extraction or discharge; waste dis- charge or other detri- mental practices? Will recreation or aesthetic values be endangered? Will the project affect dry weather flow characteristics? WATER Required Information Extent of project; source of water - ground or other. Importance of groundwater in maintain- ing area rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, wells, flora and fauna. Extent of project; source of water supply; waste disposal practices; proposed surface cover. Ground conditions - perme- ability, percolation, water table, location of recharge area, slope proximity to streams or other waterbodies. Existence, nature and pattern of drainage; soil characteristics. Location of construction and cleaning activities. Erosion potential of site soils. Direction of runoff flow, , slope on site. Erosion and sediment control plan for site. Extent of project; lOO-year flood plain. Whether existing water quality meets standards for intended usage; capacity of waste treat- ment plant/sewerage system to accommodate project wastes. Water disposal plan; source of water. Location of groundwater recharge. Location of project; location of construction and clearing activities. Source of water supply and site of waste disposal; dams/obstruc- tions; flow character- istics over an extended period. Ecological characteris- tics; recreation uses. Sources of Information Developer Hydrologist/ hydrogeologist Developer Geological maps/ survey; local well-drillers: soils engineer. Site visit; geological maps. Developer Soils surveyor Site visit; topographical map Developer Developer Geological survey Health/waste -disposal authorities Developer Hydrologist/ hydrogeologist Developer ·Civil engineer/ hydrologist ,\quatic bio- logist - area survey &I) o ... ... Subelement Unique/special features Tectonic/seismic acti vi ty and volcanic activity Mineral resources Physical/ chemical weathering Landslide Subsidence SCREENING TEST TABLE A4. 1. 3 GEOLOGY Potential Impact(s) Will features be affected by project activities? Is there risk of damage or loss resulting from tectonic/seismic activity and/or volcanic activity? Are there mineral re- sources of potential value close to the project? Will there be an in- crease in rock decomposition/degra- dation as a result of the project? Are there potential dangers related to slope failures or falling rock? Is there risk of major ground subsidence associated with the project? Required Information Geological features of educational, scientific, aesthetic and human interest at or adjacent to site; landrr~rks. Location of project in relation to tectonic/ seismic features (e.g. faults), rock masses (e.g. valleys) and volcanic eruption. Location of mineral sources and current economic significance; presence of mine, quarry or other extractive activity. Existing or exposed rock susceptible to phenomenon at or adjacent to site; water pollution risk. Site locatioD; existing geological/seismic data; existing and proposed slopes on site; existing instability; faulted, jointed or fractured rock. History of subsidence in vicinity of project; subsurface mining activities - past and present; natural sub- sidence features. ·1' Source of "Inforn-.ation Government g~ological survey; aerial fiurvey/ remote sensing; educational/ scientific institution. Seismicity studies; geologica] maps. Geological maps/ survey. Mining records; mineral resource map. fJ7 Geoldgical maps/ survey; environmen- tal scientist; mining records; developer. Developer (site plan); Geological and topographical maps; site visit. seismicity study. Geological survey; mining records/ ccnpanies; insurance coapanies. i Subelement Erosion (wind and water) Slope stability Liquefaction Bearing capacity Settlement/ heave Earthworks So11 structure .. _ --to SCREENING TEST TABLE A4.1. 4 SOIL Potential Impact(s ) Will there be a sub- stantial loss of soil due to construction or operational practices? Will there be a risk of losses due to instability? Will project cause or be exposed to lique- faction of soils in slopes or foundations? Will there be risk to life or structures because of sudden failure? Is there risk of damage to structure or 5ezvices? Will there be an alter- ation to existing conditions, e.g. vater regime or topography, or the need for land- scaping? Will the project modify the properties of impacted soils? Required Information ·Extent of si te prepara- tion - roadways or other linear features: slope angles; receiving waters. Ground conditions: wind patterns. Site location: existing geological data: estimate of ground condi"tions: existing instability. Project location: general seismic data: evidence of liquefaction: machinery producing vibrations. Loading; dead or live load ratio; ground conditions; strength properties of SOil/rock; groundwater As bearing capacity plus. settlement/heave parameters. Extent of earthworks: location and transport of fill/excavated mat- erial: disposal of un- suitable materials. Site location, soils characteristics data. Source of Information :-Developer - 'site plan Site investigation Site investi- gation: developer (site plan): geolog- ical maps Developer: site investigation Developer Preliminary site invest·igation Developer - Preliminary site investigation Architect/engineer Developer: preliminary site investigation: land suzvey: haul routes. Developer: soil suzvey. .• ~~~"'f!l"~C~'.~ -:.-~,..... 69 . - ..... : ... " Subelement Species checklists Plant communities Diversity (species' spatial) Productivity Biogeochemical/ nutrient cycling A4 .1. S ECOLOGY PDtential ~ct(s} Are there· rare/endangered species whlchrequlre protectIon? Are there species which.are· particularly susceptible to human· activities? Would the loss of certain plant species deny food or habitat to wildlife species? Are there any unusual populations/communities that may be of scientific value? Are there natural populations/communities that are particularly sus- ceptible to human activities? Does the diversity (speCies , spatial) of any community render it susceptible to human activities? Will project activities impair natural productivity? Will project activities disrupt nutrient materials flow, e.g. selective concentra- tion/dilution of sub- stances? Required Information Species checklists - unusual, rare or endan- gered species: species providing food and cover for wildlife. Source of Information !-. GoveTIlrOlent ~ departD.en ts: conservation, wildlife, forestry: university departJDents: conservation. wildlife, forestry, botany, zoology: natural history groups. Identification of popu- As above lations/communities; distribution and character: inter-relation- ships and interactions. Extent of project Number and relative frequency of species in area spatial inventory. Extent of project Productivity of land on site and surrounding area Extent of project: Disturbance of natural communities; solIs type and erodability; slope and topography; drainage patterns: annual precipitation. Developer Ecologist Developer Ecologist/ agronomist Developer Soils surveyor/ ecologist/ hydrologist .- .:: .' i J I 70 Sube1 ement Prime agricul- tural land Forestry land Wetlands/ estuarine and coastal zones Landfills, solid/toxic waste disposal sites Subelement Land use Land capability _. SCREENING TEST TABLE A4.l.6 ENVIRO~~TALLY SENSITrvE AREAS Potential Impact(s) Will the project be located on or near prime ' a~ricultrual land? Will the project be located on or near forestry land? Will the project impair existing wetlands/ coastal zones/shorelines through filling, dredging, waste discharges or other detr~ntal practices? Impact on recreation? Will the project perturb abandoned, existing or planned landfills, solidi toxic waste disposal sites? Required Information Location of project Land use & land capabil-_, ity classification on ~ and near site Future agricultural needs Location of project Location of forests on and near 'site Future forestry needs Location of project Location of wetlands/ coastal zones/shorelines on or near site. Water quality from con- struction/plant runoff Waste disposal plans; dams or obstructions downstream from project. Beach erosion from dOCK, pier or breakwater con- struction Location of abandoned, active or planned land'- fill, solid/toxic waste disposal sites A4 .1.7 LAND USE AND LAND CAPABILITY Potential 1mpact(s) Required Information Will the project conflict Location of project with existing or pro- Land use classification posed land use? on and near site lUll the project degrade Location of project land capability types? Land capability classi- f!cation on and near site. Source of Information Developer So11 s survey; site visit. Developer Topographical map; site visit Developer Topographical map; site visit Civil engineer Developer Sedimentologist/ hydrologist Topographical maps; -- site Visit; developer. Source of Information Developer Topographical maps; site survey. Developer Site visit; agronomist/ 80il surveyor :.. S.lbelement Internal noise External noise Vibration Subelement Visual content and coherence .. .-.. 12-1 SCREENING TEST TABLE A4.l.B NOISE 6 VIBRATION Potential Impact(s) Will the internal noise levels present a potential risk to the hearing of workers? Will the safe operation of the project be affected? Will the project create noise levels which will cause annoyance, dis- comfort to nearby properties? Will the project cause damage to structures (natural and man-made) due to vibration? t!ill the vibration levels within the plant be such that there is a risk to ~loyee safety. Required Information Estimates of the external noise levels due to transportation, construc- tion,and operation at properties in the vicin- ity. Existence of noise sensitive land-users within one mile of the development (educational buildings, hospitals, recreational areas etc.) Details of all permanent and temporary plant likely to cause vibration - pile drivers, large generators, reciprocating machines, blasting etc. Estimates of internal vibration levels and employee exposure. A4 .1.9 VISUAL QUALITY Potential Impact(s) R.e<?:uired. Information Will the content of the Proposed development plans scene perceived by the Description of views residents of the sur- before and after project rounding area be Extent to which the site adversely affected by has coherence the project? Will the coherence of the surrounding area be impaired by the project? Source of Information 71 Plant sUP1?1iers, developer, noise expert. EXisting land maps, planning authority, site inspection. Plant suppliers. Developer, noise expert. Developer, plant supplier, vibration expert. Plant su~pliers, ceveloper, noise expert. Source of Information Developer Site visit Site visit Landscape architect , I ,I.·"; 1'1 SCREENING TEST TABLE At.I.IO ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORIC AND CULTURAL ELEMENTS Subelement Archaeological structures and sites Hhtoric/ cultural structures, sites and areas Potential Impact(s) Will the project conflict with structures and sites of archaeological interest and value? Will existing and • desirable future patterns of access be disrupted? Will the project conflict with structures, sites and areas of historic/cultural interest and value? Will existing and desirable future patterns of access be disrupted? Required Information Location of project, knowledge of regional and local archaeological sites and structures. Amenity use patterns of surrounding population. Location of. project knowledge of regional and local historic/cultural sites and areaSI patterns of visiting and use by elements within the surrounding population. Source of Information Develooer Regional/local archaeologist, hiatorical societies, univeraity deuartment., social and economic statistic. on u •• of amenity Developer Regionlil/local historical societies. Social and :r'l' economic statistics on- mobility, associational and recreational uatterns -' '" APPENDIX B VIRGIN ISLANDS DEPARTMENT 0 F CONSERVATION AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS DIVISION OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING THE EAR Title: Give appropriate title i.ncluding name of project, its major components and location. o 1.00 ." NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT o o 2.00 LOCATION OF PROJECT: . Provide a copy cf the location and agency review map as required in form CD1-8.Section'1 for land projects; or a' copy of the vicinity-map-as required.on pp.~13-15·of the...1J_S~.Ar:my.Corps of Engineers booklet (EP-114S-2-1, 1 November 1977) for water projects. Give estate, plot number, zoning and geographical coordinates as applicable. " 3.00 ABSTR~CT: This should highlight the results of the following document in an abpreviated manner. Significant impacts. project description, and ame1.iorative actions should be included. 4.00 STATEMENTS OF OBJECTIVES SOUGHT BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT: Briefly describe o what the project is intended to achieve. ,';c •. :; . . .'-'; .. -;-:-... '" O 5.00 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT:: This sectionsh~uld- include a descriptipn of what is to be done if a permit is granted. How many cubic yards of dredging, number of condominiums, modifications of existing facilities, etc. , ." : "\;,-;:,.:,,.::..-;..:.-.:. ;:, -. --.. " .... :: '. ?'.:.·,; •. ;>~i.~:.:. __ ~ .. ' .,,:~:;, ... -;'~""-.;':., .:~~_' '".~. .. :'..:-.' .• :." .' '-. ." . .', 5.01 Proposed Oates of Construction (Start and Finish Oates):' The time required for the processing of all necessary permits must, be taken into account here. For'" O water projects additional time must be allocated since such permit a'p'plications must be foniarded to the offices of the Governor and V.I. Senate after approval by the ClM Committee; this requires additional time. Water'projects also require a.permit o from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which are applied for simultaneously with the coa~tal zo~e application through the joint V.I./Corps of Engineers application. procedure. . " .... ;"' .. 5.02 Drawings and Maps Required: For land projects, the drawings comprising the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (ESCp·- See Section d. of form CZM/B) shall be referenced as necessary in the EAR, or additional figures may be used to illustrate a discussion in the. EAR. For water projects, drawings showing the plan ,and elevation views of the proposed activity, as required on pp. 13-15 of the 'U.S. Army Corps of Engineers booklet (EP-1145-2-l, 1 November 1977), shall be includec i n th i s S€ c t ion._ For projects involving dredging, the location and dimensions (length, \>,;dth, deptn) of the dredged area as well as any areas used for fill or spoil disposa' must be given. Give methods of excavation" type of material to be used for backfill, quantity and type of materials to be excavated, intended use of excavated and/or filled areas, methods to be used to retain materials and prEvent erosion of filled .areas. o 5.03 Project Workplan: a. Identification of subprojects and activities: For all major application~ the project must be divided into a set of subprojects, defined as the smallest physical compor.ents of a proj ect that would be recogni zed by an engi neer as separate uni ts.. For each subproject 1 isted a corresponding set of activi tes mus t be identiti ed, and each activity must be described' in sufficient detail ,so that the nature of the work can be determined. An activity is a major human work, action or process involved in the construction, of a subproject, as distinct from the physical- components •.. ' For· ~example: .-'.-' Subproject 1: Site PreparatfQR,; Activity 1. .Brush clearing by bulldozer (describe) Activity 2. Settlin.9 pond construction (describe) b. Phasing of subprojects a'nd activities: A time schedule of the. work elements must be provided in the form of a phasing diagram (see example below). MONTH #1 'MONTH :2 MONTH :3 MONTH 14 MONTH 15 . . • '. . - ...• \.-, ", (UBPROJECT I (Give Name) ... - .. _. -.-.......... ~~ .~ - - '. -.~ .. , ...... ~ .," ... " . -:.!-.:'~: '.~: .::-,-:-. ~:'-~" '":- .-.:- ... " - , - , 1 . Activ tv' 1 (Give I am~) , . . . . I ctivi ty 2 (Give Name .- • . COMMENTS: '. o , 6.00 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND PROBABLE PROJECT IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT While the methods selected by the preparer of the Environmental Assessment . Report (EAR) will ultimately depend on the type of ecosystem being investigated, the nature of the proposen environmental alteration and the magnitude of the dev.elopment, the following ·checklist will help in designing studies compatible with the goals and policies of-the V.I. Coastal Zone Management A~t. _ -a •.. Scope of infonnation·reguired: ·1) ·A description-of the existing en~ironml , ;ncluding~ plant and ·animal .. species 9 existing corrvnunity structure; marine life.···soil- conditions, geology, etc., is required. In some cases, a broader or more regional perspective (regional meaning encompassing all or a substantial portion of a major island,.insular shelf area, or the coastal waters surrounding such' areas) may be necessary if those resources may be affected by the proposed project. 2) The applic. should' evaluate and assess potential impacts likely to occur on the environment due to development. 3) Also include all of the actions which are to be·taken by the penmittee to reduce impacts within the surrounding natural and human environment. Examples would be the use of sediment curtains in dredging, limitation of noise producing activities to daylight hours and other such actions which will be used by ~e developer to reduce the ,environmental impacts. . . .. , .~ ~ ., .... ': ~.' .' ~. b. Cu~re~cy of ;nf~nnation';' Appl icants :areencouragedto ·make full useot" information already existing in EARs~ government studies, reports, etc ••. Such information must.meet the quality standards ·contained herein; and must.represent a synthesis of available data updated a~ necessa~ to provide an accurate picture of present conditions. A bibliography of some of the available literature is presented in the appendix. . c. Seasonal data: Some 't.ypes of projects 'will require· that the EAR i.nclude data on seasonal variations in such factors as winds, currents; rainfall, community structure, etc.. If such data are not available, they would have to be collected bJ the applicant. Both the necessity forinfonnaticnvnseasotfalvariationsand the time ~eriodfor such studies will be decided Con a case-by-case basis in consultation wit~ the DCZM staff. Applicants for such projects should plan to begin data collection well in advance of the projected.application date. 6.01 Climate and Weather: A summary of climatic information for the area should be presented along with any potential modification of the microclimate which might.be affected by the project. Seasonality should be considered in this section. This-discussion should include both the rainfall averages for the . g~neral area and those for the·nearest individual reference station. Rainfall data will help to anticipate flooding probabilities so that runoff from project activitil can be minimized •. Corrments: ... ~ o 0, o o D o o 0, o 6'.'02 landforms, ~eol~gy and Soils: Available information regarding soi1~~ topography, and underlying. geological formations, and any historical informatlon regarding land use patterns, salt pond filling, or dredging should be included. The range of slopes (~) on the site should be given as well as the average slope. Any change likely to occur in the topography or bathymetry of the area as a result of the implementati~n of the project should be discussed, Elevation drawings should also be referenced. ", ','"~' 6.03 ,Drainage, Floodi'ng and Erosion Control: - . - .... --. ----- a;' Dra:f~age" infonnati~~ from such sources as" topographic maps'~"site inspections, persons living in ~he area, etc., should be included to show the relationship'of the project to existing drainage ~atterns. A water resources map showing all major drainage channels and w~tersheds. is available at DCZM or Public Works. b'. In addition, project activities 'that will result in alterations in drainage patterns, flood plains, and watershed should be discuss~d. ' ~. Both terrestrial erosion and shoreline erosion questions shoul~ be dealt with and how these drainage and erosion questions relate in regards to potential impacts on the envi ronment. ' '0 .. -. , , ' . ' , ;. :' ' .' d: "The relationship of the project 't~Oth~ co'ast~l flood plan (lOO-year" frequency tidal flood) should be discussed '7 this information can be found in Flood Plain Information (Anny Corps of Engineers, 1975), available at DCZM~': The elevation of a 100 year frequency inland flood mush be identified and discussed as it relates to the project - this information is computed and i'l1ustrated .on maps for selected drainages basins as part of the ~ational Flood Insurance Program. For other areas~ computations 'will have to be presented in the EAR. e. Peak flow calculations for runoff should be made for the downstream point of discharge of the existing site as.a result of a 25-year, 24-hour storm (50-year, 24-hour storm if drainage area is in excess cf 50 acres, or if the site or areas downstream from it are subject to flooding). f. Existing stonn water disposal structures (if any) must be discussed. 6.04 Fresh Water Resources: Discuss the relationship of the project site to a~y existing surface water or ground water resources in the area. 6.05 Ocean'ography: When a project bears ~ relationship to the marine environment~ a:othorough discussion of the riological and physical oceanography" is warranted. Some of this information is available in a variety of EARs and government publications (see appendix) but frequently the permittee will have to gather this· information for his project area. a. Sea Bed Alteration: When a proposed project involves alteration of the sea bed (pier construction, dredging, etc.) or ~hen runoff will alter the topography, it is expected that the EAR will include'an anlaysis of the existing bathymetry and geology of the area in question. Corrments: _ o o o . 0- o o o b. Tides and Currents: When a project is marine-related~ this information should be supplied. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) publishes tide tables annually. Information on current patterns is available from EARs prepared for island development and from several government publications (see appepdix). w c. Wave Impacts: _ The impact cif both no~a1 wave action -,and potential storm wave action on the project site should be described. Hurricane frequency and the resultant increase in sea level and wave height should also be discussed. ·d. ' Marine Hater Quality: Most ot' the available information regarding marine water-quality is available through-the DCCA Water Resources Program (774-3411 or 773-0565). The potential effects of sediment runoff on water quality should be discussed. 6.06' Marine Resources: This section should include a discussion of the marine organisms present in the waters likely to be affected by the project. Habitat distribution maps and ~ list of the important or characteristic species observed~ with -some indication of relative abundance should be supplied. A thorough discussion of project impacts regarding displacement~ habitat reduction or decimati of aquatic organisms should be addressed. In addition~ marine projects should be discussed in terms of their impacts on -cornmerci~l fishing and recreational activiti that have traditionally taken place in these areas. :~ "'~.,."'''<' ,,:,~: ,.:- "! ·~··:·:.::;<':;:~t··.·.·-.,,:·· . 6.07 'Terrestrial Resources: A discussion of the flora and fauna of the''"''''- project site cnd a description of the general ecology'of the area should be addres~ Particular reference should be-made to those plant-and animai communities likely to be impacted by the project. ' 6.08 Wr:tlands: The term "wetlands" refers to those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface wate~ at a frequency ~nd duration to support a cor.munity of organisms specifically adapted .to this type of environment.' This definition includes terrestrial wetlands as well as those shallow and intertidal marine areas supporting seagrasses or attached marine algae (including, but not limited to, salt or freshwater ponds, salt marshes, lagoons, tidal flats, etc.). Discuss the effects of the project on existing wetland habitats and give the area of wetlands likely to be affected by dredging, ·filling or other related activities (impoundment, water level manipulation, thermal or other effluents) and list the predominant emergent and/or submerged plant.~pecies. 6.09 Rar~and'End~ngered Species: A discussion of the occurrence of any fede or locally endangerEd species in the project area should be included. A list of federal ftndangered specie! is given in the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1974) and local endangered species are described in V.I. Fi~h and Wildlife Service publications. Any potential project impacts upon an endanger species must be aiscussed. COil.ments: o 6.10 Air Quality: DCCA publishes summaries of air Guality for the Virgin Islands and thisinfonnation can be obtained by contacting the Division of Natural Resources Management at 774-6420 or 773-0565. Additionally. the applicant should discuss any modifications in local air quality resulting from project activities' including noise. dust and cirt t and other air contaminants. 6.11 Land and Water Use- Plans: The zoning of both project sit~ and a'djacent areas. CZH designations (SNA's, APC's, etc.), and any other long-term use information (ex: future development plans) should be included and discussed in this section. ~ .. - COrm1ent~: " 7.00 IMPACTS ON THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT o 7.01 Visual Impacts: This section should include a discussion of the' .' aesthetic implications and visual effects of the proposed project, including architectural and landscaping.considerations, visual.compatibility with the surroundings and preservation of' open space and vistas. '. '.. ., ,',' 7.02 ''C-, Impacts on Public' Services:". A' quantitative statement. should be presented. regarding project for the following public services along with methods i"nte.nded". to help reduce anticipated demands: "". '. O a. Water: This section should include an analysis of available fresh water supplies vs project demands (in gal./person/day) and should specify how any supply deficiencies will be rlealt with. o " b. Sewage Treatment and Disposal: Project sewage must be handled in an environmentally safe manner. A discussion of the amounts of sewage expected to be generated by the project as well as methods to be used in the handling, treatment and disposal of these wastes is expected. o c.' Solid Waste Disposal: The applicant should quantify the amount of solid wastes expected to be senerated by the project as well as methods for oisposal. The impacts of project solid wastes on public disposal f~cilities.{ie; landfill areas} should be described if they expect to be utilized along with options to reduce the impacts (compaction, garbage separation, on-site incineration, etc.) Also address removal methods {private haulers, Public Works removal, etc.}_ Corrments: o o -0 o o o -0 d. Roads, Traffic and Parking: The permittee should describe the potential impacts of the development on area roads and highways in the vicinity of the·project. Topics should include anticipated increased traffic loads, access and entry ways, circulation patterns, existing road hazards, highway safety, etc •• Additional information.may be asked of the applicant to help evaluate project impacts on roads and traffi.c _{ traffi c counts, deta 11 ed drawi ngs of entry ways, etc. Parring requirements should: be-described. Parking.minimums are outlined in the V.l. Zoning Code, but additional spaCI~S should be considered if necessary •. . '- . -' e. Electricity: Estimates of project power demands., as well as the antic-ipi source(s} (including emergency back-up generating power for essential project services,. if necessary) should be addressed. . - . - f. Schools:. A statement as to· the long term or short term impacts likely to be created .on the local educational system because of the project is necess·ary. • i g. -Fi re and Pol; ce Protect'i on: Proj ect securi ty and fi re preventi ons measures should b¢"described {ego parking' lot and walkway lighting, easy access for firetrucks'and firefighters, an a~cessible water supply for fighting fires, fire retardant building materials, etc.}. :';-.. :;.:'," h. . Public Health: likely impacts upoo island hospital and medical facilities should.be addressed. ~ • . . '. _.;. ~'., Comments: 7.03 Social Impacts: Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could affect the social environment of the immediate area and of the island as a whole • . Information on potential population increases, resulting in more temporary and long-term residents, as well as the rate of increase should be considered. Discu~ changes in population composition (age,. income, household size, place 'of origin, I Also address the characteristics of the project which may encourage additional gr( and development (ego a major expansion of a waste water tr~tment plant might all' for more construction in the area). The desireability of such growth or growth incentives should be discussed. 7.04 Economic Impacts: The effects of the development on the local economy should be clarified including: the number of jobs which will be generated (both construction and permanent), the number or percent of jobs that will be seasonal, and tne income likely to be generated by r.ew employment opportunities. Secondary economic effects must be considered including, but not limited to, locally retain economic multipliers, effects on adjacent real estate values, impact on the housing market, and others. A quantitative statement of all tax revenues. which \.,.ill accrue to the V Government as a result of the project. should be provided (Property tax, gross receipts, income tax, etc.). This should be balanced by information on the capit costs and operating costs associated with the provision of needed public faciliti and services. o .. • 7.05 Impacts on Historical and Archaeological Resources: Such sites should be adequately rlescribed and mapped. Anticipated impacts should be discussed. DCCA has an archaeologist on staff if questions need be ans~ered. 7.06 Recreational Use: If the project causes any adverse impacts on current or traditional recreational activities wh:nin the erea, these should be thoroughly discussed and the affected' groups identified. r==J 1.07 Hafardous Waste Disposals: Describe methods for disposal of ,any wastes to be generated by the proposed project during construction and durinR the operational - - phase of project including, but not limited to thermal or saline effluents. chemical residues. dredge spoils, oil and hazardous materials. Discuss the effects of waste discharges on the natural and human environment and state whether such discharges have b~en permitted by the appropriate federal or territorial regulatory agencies. o o o o 7.08 Accidential Spills: Projects handling oil or other hazardous materials are required to prepare a Spill Contingency Plan under Act 3538,- this document should be referenced and the major pointssurnmarized under this section. 7.09 Potential Adverse Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided: All such effects should be listed and discussed. Comments: ," 8.00 ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED ACTION: All such reasonable alternatives, including a no action alternative, should be discussed. Describe alternatives which would reduce or eliminate any adverse effects, even if such alternatives substantially impede the attainment of the project objectives and are mo~e costly. 9.00 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT: This section should involve a thorough discussion regarding the relationship of this project to long term uses of Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Resources, including the natural, social and economic environment. JIses of nonrenewable resources during the initial a.nd operation phase's "of the project may be irreversible ~ince a large commitment of such resources makes removal or"nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as a highway improvement which provides access to a non- accessible area) generally commits future generations to similar uses. Irretrievable commitment of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. Comments: " .' 10.00 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED: The identity of all federal, O state ·or local agencies, other organizations and private individuals consulted in preparing the EAR, and the identity of the persons, finn or agency preraring the EAR by contract or other authorization, must be given. It is recommended that adjacent property owners, impacted citizens groups, and affected individuals should be contacted. ~ Con:ments: ... --. . . ; '~':-.. '"', . -~ -' ~ ... " ~~:~::Z"-~.;.'- .... :. ,. This checklist of items recommended for preparing an Environm.ental Assessment Report (EAR) has been reviewed 'and approved with comments and modlfications as are noted within the text. Date: ______________________ __ .Applicant or Authorized Representative :.;. r V.I. Coastal Zone Management Representative APPENDIX C ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IMPACT CHECKLIST (DONALDSON, 1977) 1. Direct Impact Caused by project on Those Living in the project Area 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 ImEact on Communicable Disease Patterns 1.1.1 Introduction of new strains of locally endemic diseases. 1.1.2 Introduction of new diseases not normally found in the area. 1.1.3 Extension of the area of locally endemic diseases. Impact of Local Sanitation Measures 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 Failure of local sanitation measures because of large influx causing increase of diarrheas, etc. Increase of respiratory pollution due to overcrowding. Increase of environmental pollution due to inadequate disposal of human excreta and/or solid waste. Increase of venereal diseases. Impact of Water Resources 1.3.1 Deterioration of water quality because of contamination of groundwater, lakes, streams, etc., because of the burden of increased waste disposal. 1.3.2 Deterioration of water quality due to leaking, etc., from materials used by and/or disposed of in the project. 1.3.3 Deterioration of water quality due to increased divers- ions for project needs. '1 ": . '~~~ Impact on Ecological Balance ~ Fish kills due to reduced oxygene content of impounded ' water can cause a lowering of nutrition standards. Long-term decline in fish spawning with persistent deoxygenation. 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.4.4 Thermal pollution of power plant operations can effect types or number of aquatic growths which can influence disease patterns. Discharge of toxic effluents into the air and/or water courses. ImEact on Agriculture ~d " ,,';~ , .... -1; 1.5.1 Expose farmers to new diseases. For example, schistoSO- miasis in irrigation projects. 1.5.2 Reduced nutrition levels due to limited food supplies being bought up by project workers. 1.5.3 Reduced food supplies due to increased soil salinity. Miscellaneous Impacts 1.6.1 Increased exposure of local population to traffic accidents. ~ ;. ,.~ . ~l 1.6.2 Risks from certain industrial processes: .accidental release of chemicals; excessive air pollution; discharge of chemical wastes such as mercury, etc.; exces"'~:.:a noises. 1.6.3 Adverse psychological effects due to displacement of from ancestral homes. ~.6.4 Dietary changes can result in serious side effects (diarrhea,cramps, etc.) from lactose intolerance. 2. Direct ImEact on project Workers 2.1 2.2 Exposure of Many Nonimmune Persons to Locally Endemic Diseases 2.1.1 Malaria is often underestimated as to distribution, ease of control (even with anti-malarial drugs) as well as severity. 2.1.2 Onchocerciasis is of particular concern on water resource projects in East and West Africa; Guatemala (Western slopes) Southern Mexico, Northern Venezuela and Amazonas in Brazil. 2.1.3 Schistosomiasis is of concern in water resource projects in Sub-Sahara Africa, Arabian peninsula, the Nile Valley, Iran, portions of the Middle East, Brazil, Venezuela, the lesser Antilles and Puerto Rico, China, Japan and the Philipines. 2.1.4 Tryponosomiasis (African sleeping sickness) which occurs in a very wide band accross the middle of Africa (between 15° N to 20° S) is generally fatal if not treated in its earliest stages. The American form, Chagas disease, is found mainly in South America (principally Argentina and Venezuela) and in much of Middle America. 2.1.5 Two forms of human filariasis are prevalent in vast areas of the world (more or less 250 millions in 1967) espe- cially in South-east Asia extending along the coastal region as far north as Korea and into Indonesia. 2.1.6 Trachoma is widespread in the Middle East, in Asia, along the Mediterranean Littoral, and in parts of Africa, as well as parts of Haiti. High prevalence in generally associated with poor hygiene, poverty and crowded living conditions, particularly in dry, dusty regions. EXEosuie to Chemical and Physical Hazards 2.2.1 Chemical hazards include: Dust, fumes, vapors, toxic liquids, etc. 2.2.2 Physical hazards include: vibration, temperature, pres- sure, radiation, noise, etc. 2.3 Nutritional Status 2.3.1 By providing low-cost food and/or supplementary foods the health and productivity of workers has been improved as well as reduction in accident rates • 3. Indirect Impact Due to Disease Vectors 3.1 Introduction of New Diseases 3.1.1 An example of this is the "sleeve" distribution of sleep- ing sickness in the settlements along roads, tracks and communicating streams of Africa. 3.1.2 The snail vector of schistosomiasis can be spread into an area carried on the m4d on the underside of a car. A single snail is capable of qUickly colonizing 8 new hab- itat. 3.2 Reinfection of Areas Previously Cleared of Disease 3.2.1 Control programs should aim at a combination of four actions: A) Erradication of the cause of the disease; B) Breaking the chain of transmission; C) Isolating the victim; and D) Strengthening the resistance of the victim. 3.2.2 Major emphasis is usually on vector control and treat- ment, with education in prevention an important element. 3.2.3 Once erradication has been achieved strict vigilance is requir~d to avoid reintroduction of diseases (such as malaria) through reinfection of surviving vectors by feeding on infected humans who come from outside the area. 3.3 Increased Propagation and Spread of Existing Vectors 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 Increase in propagation of vectors An increase in mosquito population results from the early stages of clearing, trash heaps, etc., there- fore, engineering control measure and residual spraying must be used to control it. The explosive growth of water plants can favor the mas- sive reproduction of snails. Thus starting the disease chain for Schistosomiasis. 3.4 Spread of Vectors 3.4.1 Breeding of the fly vector of Onchocerciasis is generally arrested by the still water of a reservoir but, breeding sites are increased around spillways and below the dam where higher velocities and turbulence provide a favor- able habitat. Treatment of the stream with insecticides is usual control method. 4. Impact on Existing Health Services 4.1 Heavy Demands on a Weak Infrastructure 4.1.1 Project creates a new force for a number of social and health services (i.e. medical care, etc.). 4.1.2 Project creates the need for increased surveillance; inspection, monitoring and action. 4.2 Overwhelming of Locally Available Resources 4.2.1 New demands often exceed budgetary possibilities of local . authorities. 4.2.2 Many of the increased services are temporary (i.e. life of the project--sanitation surveillance) while others are long-range (Malaria, etc.). 4.3 Provision of Additional Facilities as a Project Cost 4.3.1 Project authorities should at least plan to provide sani- tation and vector control measures during construction phase. 4.3.2 Designer should incorporate long-term measures into pro- ject (swamp drainage, lined ditches, piped water to re- located inhabitants, etc.). 4.3.3 National authorities should insist on assigning part of the project revenu.e to Public Health sector to allow it to develop needed long-term infrastructure in the area. -, APPENDIX D Actions and Environmental Items in Leopold Interaction Matrix Actions Environmental items Category Description Category Description A Modification of a Exotic fauna intra- A Physical and chemi- regime duction cal characteristics b Biological controls 1 Earth a Mineral resources c Modification of b Construction habitat material d Alteration of ground c Soils cover d Land form e Alteration of ground- e Force fields and water hydrology background Alteration of radiation drainage f Unique physical g River control and features flow modification 2 Water a Surface h Canalization b Ocean Irrigation c Underground j Weather modification d Quality k Burning e' Temperature Surface or paving Recharge m Noise and vibration g Snow, ice, and B Land transfor- a Urbanization permafrost mation and b I ndustrial sites and 3 Atmosphere a Quality (gases, construction buildings particulates) c Airports b Climate (micro, d Highways and bridges macro) e Roads and trails c Temperature f Railroads 4 Processes a Floods g Cables and lifts b Erosion h Transmission lines, c Deposition (sedimen- pipelines, and tation, precipitation) corridors d Solution Barriers including e Sorption (ion ex- fencing change, complexing) Channel dredging and .f Compaction and straightening settling k Channel revertments g Stability (slides, Canals slumps) m Dams and impound- h Stress-strai n ments (earthquakes) n Piers, seawalls, Air movements marinas, and sea B Biological terminals conditions 0 Offshore structures Flora a Trees p Recreational structures b Shrubs q Blasting and drilling " c Grass r Cut and fill d Crops s Tunnels and under- e Microflora ground structures f Aquatic plants C Resource a Blasting and drilling g Endangered species extraction b Surface excavation h Barriers (continuedj' Actions and Environmental Items in Leopold Interaction Matrix Actions Environmental items Category Description D Processing E Land alteration F Resource renewal G Changes in traffic c Subsur.face excava- tion and retorting d Well dredging and fluid removal e Dredging , f Clear cutting and other lumbering g Commercial fishing and hunting a Farming b Ranching and grazing c Feed lots d Dairying e Energy generation f Mineral processing g Metallurgical industry h Chemical industry Textile industry Automobile and aircraft k Oil refining I Food m lumbering n Pulp and paper o Product storage a Erosion control and. terracing b Mine sealing and waste control c Strip mining rehabili- tation d landscaping e Harbor dredging Marsh fill and drainage a Reforestation b Wildlife stocking and management c Groundwater recharge d Fertilization application e Waste recycling a Railway b Automobile c Trucking d Shipping Category 2 Fauna C Cultural factors 1 Land use 2 Recreation 3 Aesthetic and human interest :J/ 4 Cultural status Description Corridors a Birds b Land animals includ- ing reptiles c Fish and shellfish d Benthic organisms e Insects f Microfauna g Endangered species h Barriers Corridors a Wilderness and open spaces b Wetlands c Forestry d Grazing e Agriculture f Residential g Commercial h Industry Mining and quarrying a Hunting b Fishing c Boating d Swimming e Camping and hiking f Picnicking g Resorts a Scenic views and vistas b Wilderness qualities c Open-space qualities d landscape design e Unique physical features Parks a nd reserves g Monuments h Rare and unique species or eco- systems Historical or archeo- logical sites and objects Presence of misfits a Cultural patterns (life-style) (continued) Actions and Environ! 1, 'ntal Items in Leopold I nteraction Matrix Category H Waste replace- ment and treatment Chemical treatment J Accidents K Others Actions Description e Aircraft River and canal traffic g Pleasure boating h Trails Cables and lifts j Communication k Pipeline a Ocean dumping b Landfill c Emplacement of tailings, spoils, and overburden d Underground storage e Junk disposal Oil well flooding g Deep well emplacement h Cooling water discharge Municipal waste discharge including spray irrigation Liquid effluent discharge k Stabilization and oxidation ponds Septic tanks, com- mercial and domestic m Stack and exhaust emission n Spent lubricants a Fertilization b Chemical deicing of highways, etc. c Chemical stabiliza- tion of soil d Weed control e I nsect control (pesticides) a Explosions b Spills and leaks c Operational failure Category Environmental items Description b Health and safety c Employment d Population density 5 Manufactured a Structures facilities and b Transportation net- activities work (movement, access) c Utility networks d Waste disposal e Barriers Corridors D Ecological rela- tionships a Salinization of water resources E Others " b Eutrophication c Disease-insect vectors d Food chains e Salinization of surficia I material Brush encroachment g Other APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGIES FOR EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Terrence P. Thompson, P.E. (a) 1. INTRODUCTION The process of environmental impact assessment was de- veloped in order to incorporate environmental considerations into the project planning process. Its intent is to give environmental considerations greater weight in the planning process than has previously been given in decades past. When properly used however, an ETA attempts to strike a balance between environmental, economic, and technical considerations in project planning. The practice in the United States and elsewhere 'is for an EIA to assess not only the proposed action (i.e., the pro- ject), but also reasonable alternatives. Reasonable alter- natives would include: o alternate project designs and configurations; o alternate designs for portions of the project; o alternate project sites; and o "no action" alternative. After impacts of the various alternatives have been iden- tified and predicted, there is a need to evaluate the alter- natives in light of its effects on natural resources and so- cial systems (i.e, environmental impact), economic costs, and technical considerations. In so doing, the EIA will arrive at a ~~preferred alternative." Note that the preferred alter- native is not necessarily the environmentally preferred alter- native, although environmental concerns will have been given due consideration in its selection. The decision making process can be aided by systematic methodologies that evaluate the various alternatives and assist interested parties in conceptualizing the significance of myriad impacts. 2. SOME APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGIES For small, uncomplicated projects, a simple narrative description of the pros and cons of the various alternatives will often suffice. As projects increase in size and complex- ity, so too increases the need for a systematic methodology (a) Consultant, 48 Seth Court, Staten Island, N.Y. 10301 USA (Program Associate, Island Resources Foundation, st. Thomas) to evaluate the alternatives. Several appropriate methodolo- gies are described below. Each method attempts to compare the alternatives concisely and comprehensively. Because of their concise nature, each method needs to be supplemented or accom- panied by a narrative description to provide additional detail. 2.1 Paradigms A paradigm is constructed by putting each alternative under a separate column heading and juxtaposing these against row headings of environmental components. Under each column heading (alternatives) the impact on the environmental compo- nents is described row by row by entering a descriptive sen- tence or short descriptive paragraph. Eleven by fourteen or eleven by seventeen inch spread sheets are useful when con- structing a paradigm. An example of a paradigm appears in Appendix A. This paradigm compares environmental impacts for three alternative sites for a proposed 25 million ton per year coal exporting terminal. It concisely summarizes the impacts at the alternative sites. A paradigm provides an excellent basis for discussions of alternatives in official and public forums. Its use is highly recommended. 2.2 Plan Ranking Plan ranking depends on the calculation of a single in- dex value for each alternative considered. Under this approach,- all impacts associated with a particular alternative are re- duced to an aggregate measurement. The usual method of plan ranking is weighted averaging. A variation of this is the Batelle Environmental Evaluation System. Weighted Averaging In its simplest form, weighted averaging entails the assign~ ment of "weights" of importance to environmental components, multiplying these by measures of the respective impacts, and summing the results to arrive at an aggregrate measuremnt of overall impact. In the following example, impacts are assumed to accrue to terrestrial habitats, water quality, air quality, and cUl- tural resources. Two alternatives are compared. -2- Environmental Alternative A Alternative B Component Weight,W Impact, I WxI Impact, I WxI Terrestrial 30 19 570 19 570 Water Quality 25 59 1475 5 125 Air Quality 30 23 690 15 450 Cultural 15 0 0 63 945 2735 2090 Alternative B is seen to have less of an overall impact than Alternative A. In order to make this method defensible however, a ration- al means of assigning weights and impact measurements is needed. Te Batelle Environmental Evaluation System is one method de- veloped to fill this need. Batelle Environmental Evaluation System As shown in Figure I, the Batelle System (Dee et ai, 1972) considers environmental impacts in four categories: ecology, environmental pollution, esthetics, and human interest. These categories are divided into 18 environmental components, which are further divided into 78 environmental parameters. The environmental impact (EIU) on each parameter is calculated by multiplying its parameter importance units (PIU) by its envi- ronmental quality (EQ): Environmental impact = parameter importance x environmental quality EIU = PIU x EQ The parameter importance units shown in Figure 1 were de- veloped by the Batelle investigators using the ranked pairwise comparison technique. As an example of this technique, consi- der the distribution of 100 PIU's among three environm"mtal parameters. After some discussion, a multidisciplinary team considers parameter B to be more important than parameter C, which is more important than parameter A. Next, parameter B is assigned a value of 1.0. Parameter C is considered relative to parameter B and assigned an importance on a scale from 0 to 1. Parameter C is considered to be one-half as important as para- meter B for the purposes of this example. Parameter A is then considered relative to parameter C, and in this example a value of one-fifth is applied. The 100 PIU's would then be assigned based on the following proportionalities: Parameter B = 1.0 x 1-00 = 63 J1 + 0.5 + 0.1) -3- ~240 - Species and populations Terrestrial 114) Browsersandgrazers 114) Crops 1141 Natural vegetation 1141 Pest species (141 Upland game birds Aquatic (14) Commercial fisheries 1141 Natural vegetation 1141 Pest species 1141 Sport fish (14) Waterfowl 1140 Habitats and communities Terrestrial 1121 Food web index (12) Land use 1121 Rare and endangered species (141 SpeCies diversity Aquatic (12) Food web index (121 Rare and endangered species (121 River characteristics (14) Species diversity f1"(iO I I I I I I I L J Ecosystems I Descriptive only 1 Environmental impacts I I I I Environmental pollution 1402 I Esthetics 1153 - Water pollution (201 Basin hydrologic loss 1251 BOD 1311 Dissolved oxygen 1181 Fecal coli forms 1221 Inorganic carbon 1251 Inorganic nitrogen (28) Inorganic phosphate I1S1 Pesticides 1181 pH (281 Stream flow variation (281 Temperature 1251 Total dissolved solids 1141 Toxic substances (20) Turbidity f3'i'8 Air Pollution (51 Carbon monoxide (5) Hydrocarbons (10) Nitrogen oxides f-- (12) Particulate matter (S) Photochemical oxidants (1(~: ~~~: oxides (52 -1 Land pollution (14) Land use (141 Soil erosion ~ Noise pollution I (4) Noise Land IS) Geologic surface material I-- I1S1 Relief and topographic character (101 Width and alignment ~ 1 A', (31 Odor and visual (2) Sounds - - Water (10) Appearance of water (lSI Land and water interface (S) Odor and floating materials (101 Water surface area' ~10) Wooded and geologic shoreline r52 Biota IS) Animals-domestic 151 Animals-wild 191 Diversity of vegetation types (51 Variety within vegetation types f24 H Manufactured objects I (10) Manufactured objects r«>i I I Composition ~ (15) Composite effect I I Human interest 1205 - - Educational/scientific packages (13) Archeological 1131 Ecological (111 Geological 1111 Hvdrological Historical packages Ill) Architecture and stYles (11) Events ill) Persons (11) Religions and cultures .(111 "Western Frontier" _ ~ Cultures 1141 Indians 171 Other ethnic groups (71 ReligiOUS groups r28 Mood/atmosphere (11) Awe/inspiration 111) Isolation/solitude (4) Mystery (11) "Oneness" with nat~ Ufe patterns (13) Employment opportunities (131 Housing (11) Social interactions fi7 Figure 1 Battelle environmental evaluation system. Numbers in parentheses are parameter importance units. Numbers enclosed in boxes represent the total. -4- Parameter C = 0.5 x 100 = 31 1.6 Parameter A = 0.1 x 100 = 6 1.6 The Batelle investigators (Dee et aI, 1972) used this proce- dure to distribute 1,000 PIU's as shmm in Figure 1. The parameter importance units are constant values, un- changing from one alternative to the next. Environmental qua- lity (EQ) values vary however according to the specific impacts associated with each alternative. The EQ values are determined by means of value function graphs which have been developed for each of the 78 parameters in the Batelle system. Figure 2 shows several sample graphs. Environmental quality can range from 0, poor quality, to 1.0, very good quality. For each alternative being evaluated, EQ values would be determined from the graphs for each of the 78 parameters. An aggregate measure of overall impact for each alterna- tive would be calculated by multiplying each of the 78EQ's by its corresponding PIU, and summing',the products. 2.3 Matrix Methods It has been argued that certain environmental components are intrinsically non-quantifiable, and when numerical valUes are assigned and then incorporated into a single index, or " aggregate measure, the evaluation process serves as a basis for disguising and masking the discrete impacts. This inhibits, rather than encourages, public discussion of the project's specific impacts. Instead, an evaluation framework can be or- ganized to allow environmental impacts to be judged on an in- dividual basis, or according to common categories (e.g., water quality, air quality, etc.), (Sorensen and Moss, 1973). Sev- eral matrix methods are organized in this way. Leopold Matrix The use of the Leopold Matrix for impact identification was discussed earlier (Thompson, 1985), It can also be used for evaluation of alternatives. In an earlier paper (Thompson, 1985) it was seen that po- tential impacts are identified in the Leopold matrix by draw- ing diagonal lines at intersections between environmental com- ponents and project components. Evaluation of these impacts entails placing numerical scores of magnitude and importance -5- .~ iij :l C' ] c:: Q) E c: e .;; c: w .~ iij :l C' ] c: Q)- E c: e .;; c: w .~ iij :l C' O! c: Q) E c: e .;; c: w Figure 2. 1.0 ·0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 2 1.0 O.S 0.6 0.4 0.2 2 Slow Moderate White water Flow characteristics 4 4 Corresponds with NSF (assuming 9 mg/liter as saturati on) mg/liter 6 8 10 No. species/1000 individuals Appearance of water .. Dissolved oxygen. Species diversity. Environmental Quality Value Graphs on either side of the diagonal. The term "magnitude" indi- cates degree, extensiveness, or scale of the impact. "Import- ance" refers to the significance or weight of the impact. with- in each box for which a potential impact has been identified, a score from 1 to 10 would be placed in the upper left-hand corner to indicate the relative magnitude of the impact. A score from 1 to 10 would be placed in the lower right-hand corner to indicate importance. Ten represents the greatest, and 1 the least. The actual scores assigned to each impact would be deci- ded on the basis of information developed through predictive methodologies. An example of a reduced Leopold matrix appears in Figure 3. (It is "reduced" in the sense that columns and rows for which no potential impacts were identified have been elimina- ted.) Note that the most important impacts are those which effect rare and unique species. Overall, the impacts are of low magnitude, with most scoring 1 or 2 in the upper-left hand corner and none greater than 5. In order to compare alternatives one may consider multi- plying the magnitudes and importances, and summing the products to arrive at an aggregate measure of overall impac't. However, Leopold et al (1971) argue against the aggregate measure phil- osophy, and in favor of discrete comparisons of impacts in related categories: "It must be emphasized that no two boxes on anyone matrix are precisely equitable. Rather, the signi- ficance of high or low numbers for anyone box only indicates the degree of impact one type of action may have on one part of the environment. If alter- native actions are under consideration, and a sepa- rate matrix, is prepared for each action, identical boxes in the two matrices will provide a numerical comparison of the alternatives considered." Comparisons between alternatives can be made in the accom- panying text. The matrices serve as a kind of "abstract" for the preparers of the EIA document, as well as an aid for re- viewers of the document to assist them in following the pre~ parers' line of reasoning. USAID Matrix The U.S. Agency for International Development also advo- cates discrete comparisons of impacts as oppossed to aggregate -7- .ci -0 .l:: ~ .ci ....: U U .0 cD CD cri cj cj 0 ci ::I: -, - - - - - - -- ..... - ...... - ...... ...... -- ...... ...... - II) tID c:: :0 II) :::l tID II) c:: .0 <1> tID " tID tID " II) c:: c:: ro c:: <1> 0 c:: - ro .;: c:: :;:; ·iii ..... .0 .;: 0 II) II) " ro II) ~ <1> " c:: > <1> - ro - c:: 0 " ro u c:: <1> . iii ro . iii c:: u 0 <1> X .... E II) II) ro <1> Co " ro >. ·E tID tID <1> c:: .;: ro <1> c:: u ro - ~ c:: u ro ~ ro II) II) :;:; ro .... II) :::l .c c:: II) ..... <1> U 0. " tID ro ro .... c:: :::l E "0. c:: .... ffi :::l ~ .... ::I: ~ (J) ~ lLJ (J) I A. 2. d. Water quality l%' lYI l% lJ4 I A. 3. a. Atmospheric quality l% I A. 4. b. Erosion l% LVJ l% I A. 4. c. Deposition, Sedimentation l% U l%' I B. 1. b. Shrubs IYt I B. 1. c. Grasses l0 i B. 1. f. Aquatic Plants ~ ~ ~ I B. 2. c. Fish l% l% lJ1. I C.2.e. Camping and hiking ?4 I C.3.a. Scenic views and vistas % l7( % % Y, l%' I C. 3. b. Wilderness qualities 14 ~ l%' J1 l% l% U l% I C. 3. h. Rare and unique species ~ l% I~ l% lU I C. 4. b. Health and safety l% FIGURE 3. The reduced matrix for a phosphate mining 1ease. -8- measurement (USAID, 1980), In its matrix methodology, USAID suggests the use of graphic symbols rating impacts. A sample matrix is shown in Figure 4. The Agen'~y also suggests that other symbols may be used in lieu of those shown in the Figure, such as a system of plus and minus signs, various degrees of shading, colors, etc. No such symbols could possibly be used however to calculate an aggregate measure of impact. As with the Leopold methodology, when alternatives are being evaluated and separate matrices have been prepared for each alternative, comparisons can be made in the accompanying text with the matrices serving as guides for both the pre- parers and the reviewers of the EIA document. This process leads to discrete comparisons of impacts in related categor- ies, and also results in a thorough discussion of all sig- nificant impacts by all interested parties. 2.4 Other Evaluation Methods Other evaluation methods have been reviewed in the lit- erature (Canter, 1977; Jain et aI, 1981; Rau and Wooten, 1980). Statistical decision theory is used with network analyses where uncertainty exists concerning projected impacts. The methodology involves estimations of probabilities of occurence. An excellent treatise on decision theory is available from Benjamin and Cornell (1970). With linear vector approaches, an impact index, I, is - found by summing the product of component values, X, scaling factors, SA. and weighting factors,W .. (Whitlatch, 1976). n I = L wi· si xi i=1 In some instances, evaluation is based on judgements by panels or multidisciplinary teams. 3. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT . In the united states, public involvement in the EIA pro- cess is required by Federal regulations (Council on Environ- mental Quality, 1973). In countries where the practice of pub- lic involvement has not been established, it may be more expe- dient to rely soley on governmenb_officials, experts, and·· pro- -9- , L ~------------------------~-------------- PROJECT COMPONENTS LAND - LOCATION SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION AND ON - FARM WATER MANAGEMENT POTENTIAL IMPACTS PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ~NVIRONMENTAL COMpONENfS () I <J I - I a I () I a I a I I I () r.1 e I - [.18Ier 0 I a IllRIl () I () I () I - al()la () ~ al('1ICiI-I()I()IGlo-r-.liel.I-1 I I I()I lal<Jlalal()lal_ LAND - GRADING • I - I - I I a I a I I I I lal ., - , - , - , - , - I ,- I _ I a I <J I 0 I <J I - I a I a SENEFICIAL Z to iii w o '" to Z Z z :5 .. z o ;:: u :;) a: l- to Z 8 SOURCE - SURFACE WATER SOURCE - GROUND WATER _I I_I 1_1_1 I<JI()I lalalolol_lala , TRANSMISSION SYSTEM , <t , : , : I-I : , : , <J , a' , , : I : I : I 1 01 I <J I : I : l';lll : I : I ~ I : I : + : I I I I DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PUMPING AND CONTROL SYSTEMS al_I_lalol<Jlal_I_I_I_1 1_lolalal_lala DRAINS - SliRFACE al<J1 1<Jlal IQI.I-I IOlalal 101 I<J DRAINS ~- SUBSURFACE ()Ial I I I<JI()I I 1-lel.1 I I I I I lal(;lal 101 I IQ WATER RECOVERY/DISCHARGE al I lal<tlal~1 I l<tl<tl I 1,1 I I I 1.1~lal I I_I la WORK FORCE """_"'_""'_"'O'ala'a,_,al<tla '<J ~REPARATION/GRAOING , <J I : , : '-I : I : , :+;rr+ttll : I : , : , : I : I : , : I : , : , a I a I :, I I , 1-+-4 TRANSMISSION/DRAINAGE SYSTEM ACCESS ROADS WORK FORCE SUPPORT .,.,., ,.,., , '~~ITltl~;ti4~III:I~~ • I - I • I - I I - I I - ,.r.t~-+~4~ 0 _ <J a· CONSTRUCTION METHODS/MATERIALS SOURCE PROTECTION a 101 0 z o ;:: : ~TER MO~~ORING w .. o ~MENT MAINTENANCE --- L~J I f1~61~rl~ffio ___ .-· · . · 0 ~ • : : * Co':- 'o~ B-- -_. _._-_ ... _- -~. 0 0 0 0 a <J 0 0 SOIL MONITORING ·-r;-+-o+·o ~ ~- EXTENSION SERVICES 01010 0.10 I 0 olololalala o 0 0 0 0 () 0 a <J a 0 Figure 4. Project Planning Matrix (USAID, 1980) HIGH o MEDIUM o LOW o AOVERSE HIGIi • "IEPIUM o LOW - I o .-t I ject sponsors to complete the evaluation process. However, there are significant advantages to public involvement which should be considered. One advantage is that the public may provide useful inform- ation to the responsible ministry, particularly when the sig- nificance of some environmental impacts cannot be easily esti- mated (Canter, 1977). Having the opportunity to raise issues and have those issues addressed by the responsible ministry raises public confidence in the government and increases public acceptance of the proposed project. Another benefit is that public involvement places addition- al accountability on the responsible ministry. Officials are therefore compelled to adhere to official procedures for deci- sion making. The responsible ministry is also forced to be responsible to issues beyond those of the immediate project, (Canter, 1977). In total, public involvement results in better decision making and greater public acceptance of proposed projects. These advantages weigh heavily against the disadvantage of po- tential delays in schedule. Public involvement can usually be achieved through several 'forms: o official public hearings; o informal informational meetings; and o solicitation of written comments. Some practical suggestions for organizing and conducting public involvement programs have been discussed by Canter (1977). 4. CONCLUSIONS Alternatives are evaluated in the EIA process to allow decision makers to arrive at a "preferred alternative" in light of the relative merits and demerits of various courses of action. The evaluation is based on a balanced consideration of environmental, economic, and technical factors. For the simplest projects, a narrative description of the alternatives will usually be sUfficient for evaluation. With increasingly complex projects, methodical approaches signifi- cantly aid in the selection of the preferred alternative. A paradigm is an effective approach for all but the most complex projects ( for example, nuclear power plants). While being effective, they are also easy to construct, easy to use, under- standable by virtually all interested parties, and excellent for promoting informed discussions. The use of paradigms is highly recommended. -11- Plan ranking is a popular method of alternative evaluation, especially among many usually achieved through weighted aver- aging techniques. This entails the assignment of weights of importance to environmental components, multiplying these by the measures of the respective impacts, and summing the re- sults to arrive at an aggregate measurement of overall impact. The Batelle Environmental Evaluation System provides a ration- al means of assigning weights and impact measurements. A draw- back to the Batelle system is that it places relatively little emphasis on social impacts. Evaluation methodologies used with the Leopold Matrix and USAID's Project Planning Matrix involve comparisons of alternatives according to common categories of impacts, as opposed to aggregate measurement. The matrices then serve as guides to both the preparer and the reader of the EIA docu~ mente With the help of the matrices, alternatives are eval- uated in narrative form. Decision makers are thus forced to look at individual impacts rather than the aggregate 'impact. Instead of selecting projects on an "all or nothing" basis, consideration can be given to modifying portions of alterna- tives in order to ameliorate impacts in specific categories. Many other evaluation methodologies have been reviewed in the literature, as mentioned earlier. Public involvement in the evaluation process is encouraged. Members of the public can often provide otherwise unattain- able information. From the project sponsor's viewpoint, pub- lic involvement may be seen as unnecessary, costly, and time delaying. Experience shows however that sincere efforts to address public concerns increases public acceptance of pro- jects, and can help prevent formidable opposition. Public involvement also improve governments' integrity and raises pub- lic -confidence in government. Simple, defensible methodologies for alternatives eval- uations, used in an atmosphere of openness and public involve- ment help decision makers formulate plans for the preferred alternative. Such an approach promotes the implementation of projects that are technically and economically sound, and en- vironmentally and socially acceptable. -12- BIBLIOGRAPHY Benjamin, J.R., and C.A. Vornell, 1970. Probability, Statis- tistics and Decision for civil Engineers. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Canter, L.W.; 1977. Environmental Impact Assessment. McGraw- Hill, Inc., New York, N.Y. Council on Environmental Quality: Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements: Guidelines, Federal Register, Vol. 38 No. 147, pp. 20550-20562, August 1, 1973. Dee, Norbert, et al, 1972. "Environmental Evaluation System for Water Resource Planning. 1I Report prepared by Batelle- Columbus for Bureau of Reclamation. Jain, R.K.; L.V. Urban, and G.S. Stacey; 1981. Environmental Impact Analysis- A New· Dimension in Decision Making, 2nd Ed. Ban Nostrand REinhold Companym New York, N.Y. Leopold, l.B., et ali 1971. Environmental Impact ... "A Procedure for Evaluating Geological Survey Circular 645~ Rau, J.G., and D.C. Wooten; 1980. Environmental Impact An- alysis Handbook. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, N.Y. Sorensen, J., and T. Dickert; 1973. "Some Suggestions on the Content and Organization for Environmental Impact State- ments or Reports." Univ. of California Extension Conf- erence on Improving the Impact Assessment Process. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, California. Thompson, T.P., 1985. "Appropriate Methodologies for Identi- fication of Impacts." Presened at a Workshop on Environ- mental Impact Assessment, sponsored by the Pan American Health Organization, Kingston, Jamaica. Whitlatch, E.E., Jr., 1976. "Systematic Approaches to Environ- mental Impact Assessment: An Evaluation." Water Resources Bulletin, Vol~12, No.1. APPENDIX A U> . '" I '" o Natural Resources o Ae sthetics o Surface Water QJ,ality o Groundwater QJ,ality /0 Aquatic Ecology ~ TABLE "j'>2.2-4 OOMPARISON OF ENVIRONl-ENTAL FACTORS FOR ALTERNATIVE SITES St. Julian Creek Aesthetic value already negatively impacted by extensive military facilities existing on the Site and industrial facilities existing to the south, north, and east. Site is visible from west and northwest residences and northwest Cradock Historic District. Short term increase in suspended solids and some heavy metals concentrations due to dredging of 1.6 MCY of contaminated sediment. Periodic permitted discharge of treated wastewater to moderately assimilative capacity of waterbody (St. Julian Creek). Unknown Approximately 18 acres of shallow bottom habitat (polluted and closed to shellfishing) would be removed. Pig Point High aesthetic value due to rural nature of Site with no aesthetic intrusions. Site is visible from all sides. Potential for visual intrusions on Tidewater Community College, General Electric Plant, and Community of Huntersville. Rural nature of the Site would be dramatically changed. Short term increase in suspended solids and some heavy metals concentrations due to dredging of 0.5 MCY • Periodic permitted discharge of treated wastewater to highly assimilative capacity of waterbody (Nansemond River). Potential contamination of the Yorktown aquifer (an important freshwater aquifer) in the event of a failure of the leachate containment system or wastewater pond liners. No removal of shallow bottom habitat. ~ Portsmouth Aesthetic value due to rural nature of Site with minimal aesthetic intrusions accruing from adjacent military and municipal facilities. Site is fully visible from the Elizabeth River to the east and proposed Western Freeway to the south. Site would be screened from view from the Coast Guard Support Base to the north by a berm and vegetation and partially screened from view from residential area to the west by a berm and vegetation. Short term increase in suspended solids and some heavy metals concentrations due to dredging of 5.7 MCY. Periodic permitted discharge of treated wastewater to lowly assimilative capacity of waterbody (Craney Island Creek). Potential localized contamination of shallow groundwater aquifer (from which there are no with- drawals) in the event of a failure of the leachate containment system or wastewater pond liners. Approximately 44 acres of shallow bottom habitat (condemned and unproductive or marginally pro- ductive) would be removed. No impact on commercial fishing. 4 1/2 mile trestle would infringe No impact on commercial fishing. on state licensed gill net locations. !j w . N , N ..... ./ • Natural Resources (Cont' d) o TerrestrialEcology o Air Quality Land Uses o Land Availability o Compatibility with Ad jacent Land Uses o Prime Agricultural Land Preempted o Displaced Residences o Impac t on Existing Infra struc ture ~ TABLE 3.2':·Z!!i\ (Cont'd) St. Julian Creek Approximately 22 acres of onsite salt marsh would be filled. Mitigation of wetland removal through creation of additional salt marsh may not be feasible due to unavail- ability of nearby land and siting constraints. Potential for occasional exceedances of NAAQS and VAAQS standards. Cradock Historical Di strict and Brentwood residences may be impacted by dust. Navy has indicated that this Si te is unavailable. North: Cradock Historical District and N&W rail spur. East: Docking facilities along Elizabeth River; wetlands. South: St. Julian Creek. West: Brentwood residences. None. None. Relocation of utilitie s, including VEP<D transmission line, and removal of onsite military facilities required. Pig Point Approximately 4 acres of onsite salt marsh and 0.5 acre freshwater pond would be filled. Additionally, the action would fragment a large, diverse and relative undisturbed upland~etland system. Filling of wetlands can be mitigated by creating salt marsh on land between Nansemond River and the terminal railroad tracks. Compliance with NAAQS and VAAQS standards. Tidewater Community College and GE Plant may be impacted by dust. Si te is available. North: General Electric Plant and Tidewater Community College. East: proposed 1-664; undeveloped land. South: Huntersville; wetlands. West: Farmlands; Nansemond River; wetlands. 159 a'cres. Two or three. Relocation of two private cemeteries and skeet and ri fle ranges required. Portsm()uth Approximately 7 a'cres of onsite salt marsh and 0.7 acre freshwater pond would be filled. Filling of wetlands can be mitigated by creating salt marsh and aquatic freshwater habitat in-land adjacent to Craney Island Creek. Compliance with NAAQS and VAAQS standards. Coast Guard Support Center and Merrifield Apartments may be impacted by dust. Site is available. (See Section 2.2.2) • North: Coast Guard Support Center; Naval Fuel and Ammunitions Depot; Craney Island Landfill. Eas t: Docki ng facil Hie s along Elizabeth River. South: Proposed Western Freeway right-of-way; municipal sewage treatment plarit. West: Junior High School; park; residences. 67 acres. None. Relocation of utilities and Coast Guard Boulevard required. CAlltural Resources o On-Shore Archaeological Resources o Architectural Resources o Off-Shore Archaeological Resources !'" Noise and Vibrations I» I I» I» o Af fected Pro pert ies ./ ~ TABLE 3. 2 .2.::;~t'~(Cont' d) St. Julian Creek Pig Point No known archaeological sites; some potential for previously undiscovered· sites although previous development is likely to have destroyed all or most of them. Cradock Historic District to the north may potentially be impacted by increases in noise and dust levels. No data available, however upriver location makes occurrence of under- water ta xget s unlikely. Sensitive receptors include Cradock Historic District and Brentwood residences. Two archaeological sites recorded by Vixginia Research Center for Archaeology would be eliminated. High potential for additional archaeological impacts of the same order of magnitude as Portsmouth Site, pending an intensive survey. One onsite house of potential architectural significance would be moved or demolished. At least six shipwrecks are located in the vicinity of the trestle proposed for this Site. Detailed archaeological survey required for impact assessment. Sensitive receptor is Tidewater Cbmmunity Cbllege. Portsmouth Eleven sites potentially eligible for National Register of Historic Places would be eliminated; three would be pa rtially eliminated. One offsite house potentially eligible for National Register would be minimally impacted by increases in noise and dust levels. Eighteen potentially Significant targets would be impacted by dredging. Three of these taxgets may be associated with remnants of the CSS Virginia. National Register eligibility has not been established. Sensitive receptors are Coast Guard Support Center and Merrifield Apartments •