Task 5, main body, part 6, environmental impact assessment, La Leche flood control project, Lambayeque, Peru, Victor Miguel Ponce

• Part 1 • Part 2 • Part 3 • Part 4 • Part 5 • Part 6 • Part 7 •

Fig. 1 Proposed damsite at La Calzada.

LA LECHE RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
LAMBAYEQUE, PERU
TASK 5: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
PART 6: SECTIONS 7-9
July 24, 2009

Dr. Victor M. Ponce
Environmental Consultant

7. ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
The central piece of applicable legislation in Peru regarding environmental impact assessment is the "Law of the National System of Environmental Impact Evaluation" (Ley del Sistema Nacional de Evaluación del Impacto Ambiental). The law has the following objectives:

To establish a national system to assist in the identification, prevention, supervision, control and anticipated correction of the negative environmental impacts derived from human actions in connection with projects of economic development.
To establish a uniform process encompassing requirements, steps, and scope of the environmental impact evaluation.
To establish the mechanisms to assure public participation in the process of environmental impact evaluation.

The law is applicable to development projects that consist of activities or works that could cause negative environmental impacts, as specified in the law. The law requires an environmental certification for any covered project, to be issued by the competent authority. The projects are classified into three categories:

Projects which do not cause negative environmental impacts of significance; therefore, requiring only a Declaration of Environmental Impact.
Projects which could cause moderate environmental impacts, and for which the negative effects can be eliminated or minimized by the adoption of readily applicable measures; therefore, requiring a semidetailed Environmental Impact Study (EIS-sd).
Projects of such characteristics, size, and/or location, that could produce negative environmental impacts of significance, either quantitatively or qualitatively; therefore, requiring a detailed Environmental Impact Study (EIS-d).

The law specifies the criteria for classification as follows:

Protection of public health.
Protection of environmental quality, including that or air, water, and soil, as well as the effect of noise, liquid and solid waste, and gaseous and radiactive emissions.
Protection of natural resources, especially water, soil, flora and fauna.
Protection of designated natural protected areas.
Protection of ecosystems and scenic beauty.
Protection of the quality of life.
Protection of urban spaces.
Protection of the archaeological, historical, architectural, and monumental heritage.
Protection of other segments included in the national environmental policy.

The complexity and size of the La Leche river flood control project requires a detailed Environmental Impact Study (EIS-d) (Category 3). This classification is based on a careful assessment of the criteria listed above.
8. ALTERNATIVE PLANS
The La Leche river flood control project consists of two rock-fill dams: (1) at La Calzada, and (2) at Calicantro. La Calzada is a dam with height 57.8 m and volume 137.6 hm³. The dam has an upstream face of concrete of thickness 0.35 m, and an impermeable curtain made of a mix of cement and bentonite, of 0.5 m thickness and depth to rock (parent material). The La Calzada dam is an instream dam, on the La Leche river at La Calzada, about 2.5 km downstream of the confluence with of the La Leche river with Cincate Creek.
Calicantro is a dam with height 27 m and volume 40.6 hm³. The characteristics of the Calicantro dam are similar to that of La Calzada. However, Calicantro dam is located in Rinconada Calicantro, which drains Hualtacal Creek. Thus, Calicantro dam is an off-stream dam, since it is not located on the La Leche river.
9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The environmental impact assessment is performed using the following two methodologies:
the Leopold matrix, and
the Battelle Environmental Evaluation System.

The Leopold Matrix is a system for the analysis and numerical weighting of probable impacts. The analysis does not produce an overall quantitative rating; instead, it consists of a set of value judgments. A primary purpose is to ensure that the impact of alternative actions is evaluated and considered in project planning (Leopold et al., 1971). A detailed description of the Leopold matrix methodology is given in Appendix I. The application to the La Leche flood control project is given in Section 9.1.
The Battelle Environmental Evaluation System is a methodology for performing environmental impact analysis developed at Battelle Columbus Laboratories by an interdisciplinary research team under contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Dee et al., 1972; Dee et al., 1973). It is based on a hierarchical assessment of environmental quality indicators. A detailed description of the Battelle Environmental Evaluation System is given in Appendix II. The application to the La Leche flood control project is given in Section 9.2.
9.1 Application of the Leopold Matrix
The Leopold matrix is an analytical tool to evaluate the environmental impact of development projects. The methodology sets up a matrix of actions vs factors, with each action being evaluated for its effect on each factor. The actions are a list of proposed project activities which could cause environmental impact. The factors are a list of existing characteristics and conditions of the environment which could be affected by the proposed actions.
The original Leopold matrix methodology featured a comprehensive list of 100 actions and 88 factors (see Appendix I). The application to the La Leche river flood control project considers the eighteen (18) actions listed in Table 35. Five types of actions are considered: (1) project features, (2) construction operations, (3) materials extraction, (4) materials processing, and (5) project hazards.

Table 35. Actions in the modified Leopold matrix.

(1) (2) (3)

ACTIONS
•
Proposed
actions
which
may
cause
environmental
impact
•
10. Project
features 11. Dams/reservoirs

12. Spillways

13. Canals

14. Desilting basins

15. Access roads

20. Construction
operations 21. Blasting and drilling

22. Cut and fill

23. Surface excavation

24. Subsurface excavation

30. Materials
Extraction 31. Soil materials

32. Cement

33. Aggregates

40. Materials
Processing 41. Soils

42. Concrete

43. Steel

50. Project
hazards 51. Dam failure

52. Slope instability

53. Explosions

Table 36 lists seventy-three (73) factors which could be affected by the actions listed in Table 35. Factors are divided into three categories: (1) physico-chemical, (2) biological, and (3) cultural. The physico-chemical subcategories are: (1) lithosphere, (2) hydrosphere, and (3) atmosphere. The biological subcategories are: (1) terrestrial flora, (2) aquatic flora, (3) terrestrial fauna, and (4) aquatic fauna. The cultural subcategories are: (1) land use, (2) recreational, (3) aesthetic, (4) historical, (5) sociological, and (6) anthropogenic.

Table 36. Factors in the modified Leopold matrix.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

FACTORS
•
Existing
characteristics
and
conditions
of
the
environment
•
100.
Physical
and
chemical
110.
Lithosphere 111. Soils

112. Soil moisture

113. Albedo

114. Nutrients

115. Land forms

116. Fossils

120.
Hydrosphere 121. Surface water

122. Groundwater

123. Surface water quality

124. Groundwater quality

125. Temperature

126. Salinity

127. pH

128. Redox potential

130.
Atmosphere 131. Precipitation

132. Relative humidity

133. Temperature

134. Air quality during construction

(1) (2) (3) (4)

FACTORS
•
Existing
characteristics
and
conditions
of
the
environment
•
200.
Biological
210.
Terrestrial
Flora 211. Trees

212. Shrubs

213. Grasses

214. Crops

215. Microflora

216. Endangered species

220.
Aquatic
Flora 221. Wetland species

222. Endangered species

230.
Terrestrial
Fauna 231. Birds

232. Mammals

233. Insects

234. Microfauna

235. Endangered species

236. Barriers

237. Corridors

240.
Aquatic
Fauna 241. Fish and shellfish

242. Benthic organisms

243. Microfauna

244. Endangered species

245. Barriers

246. Corridors

(1) (2) (3) (4)

FACTORS
•
Existing
characteristics
and
conditions
of
the
environment
•
300.
Cultural
310.
Land use 311. Forests
312. Grasslands
313. Agriculture
314. Rural
315. Urban
316. Mining
317. Wilderness
318. Wetlands
320.
Recreation 321. Hunting
322. Fishing
323. Boating
324. Swimming
325. Camping and hiking
326. Leisure
330.
Aesthetics 331. Scenic views
332. Wilderness qualities
333. Open space qualities
334. Unique physical features
335. Unique species
336. Unique ecosystems
337. Natural reserves
340.
Historical 341. Archaeological sites
342. Historical sites
343. Monuments
350.
Sociological 351. Lifestyles
352. Public health
353. Employment
354. Population density
360.
Anthropogenic 361. Structures
362. Transportation
363. Commerce
364. Utilities
365. Water supply
366. Wastewater management
367. Solid waste management

Each action listed in Table 35 is evaluated in terms of its effect on the environmental characteristics and conditions listed in Table 36. A slash (/) is placed diagonally from upper right to lower left across each block where significant interaction is expected.

A number between 1 and 10 is placed in the upper left-hand corner to indicate the relative magnitude of the impact (1 represents the least magnitude, and 10 the greatest). Likewise, a number between 1 and 10 is placed in the lower right-hand corner to indicate the relative importance of the impact. The rating scheme quantifies the Consultant's judgment regarding the probable impacts.

Table 37 shows the Leopold matrix for the EIA of the La Leche River flood control project. The discussion following this table focuses on the impacts for cases where one or both of the assigned magnitude/importance pairs is greater than 5 (labeled in red). More detailed discussion follows when the assigned magnitude/importance pair is greater than 7.

Table 37. Application of the Leopold matrix.

Actions ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ 11 12 13 14 15 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 41 42 43 51 52 53

Factors ⇓ ⇓ ⇓
100 111 8/8 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

112 8/8 2/2

113 7/7

114 9/9

115 3/3 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 4/4

116 6/6 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5

121 5/5 5/5 2/2

122 5/5 5/5

123 2/2

124 2/2

125 2/2

126 7/7

127 1/1

128 3/3

131 5/5

132 5/5

133 1/1

134 2/2 2/2 7/7 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5 5/5

Actions ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ 11 12 13 14 15 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 41 42 43 51 52 53

Factors ⇓ ⇓ ⇓
200 211 2/2 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

212 2/2

213 2/2

214 8/8

215

216

221 5/5

222 1/1

231

232

233

234

235

236

237 5/5 5/5 5/5

241

242

243

244

245 4/4

246 7/7 5/5 5/5

Actions ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ 11 12 13 14 15 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 41 42 43 51 52 53

Factors ⇓ ⇓ ⇓
300 311 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

312 7/7

313 8/8

314

315

316

317

318 1/1

321 2/2

322 7/7

323 7/7

324 7/7

325 7/7

326 7/7

331 5/5

332 2/2

333 4/4

334 4/4

335

336

337 5/5

341 2/2

342 1/1

343

351 3/3

352 1/1

353 5/5

354 2/2

361 9/9 4/4

362 2/2 7/7 3/3

363 5/5 5/5 2/2

364 2/2 6/6

365 7/7 5/5

366 1/1

367 1/1

The following actions are identified as crucial to the environmental impact assessment: (1) dams/reservoirs [1], (2) canals [3], (3) access roads [5], (4) dam failure [51], and (5) explosions [53]. The twenty (20) entries with red scores are discussed below.

Impact of dams/reservoirs on soils [11,111]: Dams will retain sands and silts, and will reduce the amount of sediments being deposited in the flood plain.
Impact of dams/reservoirs on soil moisture [11,112]: Dams will retain water, which will be made available for irrigation, increasing soil moisture during dry periods.
Impact of dams/reservoirs on albedo [11,113]: Dams will lower the albedo in the vicinity, causing changes in the near-ground air thermal balance. This changes have the effect of increasing local rainfall (Ponce et al., 1997).
Impact of dams/reservoirs on nutrients [11,114]: Dams will retain sediments and, therefore, the nutrients that are embedded in the sediments. Nutrient replenishment in the flood plain will be diminished.
Impact of dams/reservoirs on fossils [11,116]: Reservoirs will flood the land and destroy, or make unavailable, the fossil remains.
Impact of dams on salinity [11,128]: Dams and reservoirs will increase the ratio of evapotranspiration to runoff. The reduced runoff will cause an increase in the concentration of total dissolved solids, i.e., an increase in salinity.
Impact of dams/reservoirs on crops [11,214]: Dams will have two effects on crops. The crops inundated by the reservoir(s) will be lost. However, the dam(s) will store water to irrigate downstream valley lands, with a substantial increase in total land surface area under production.
Impact of dams/reservoirs on corridors [11,246]: Dams may inhibit wildlife corridors.
Impact of dams/reservoirs on rural land [11,312]: Reservoirs may flood substantial portions of the land, which currently may be dedicated to grassland. This is particularly the case of Calicantro dam.
Impact of dams/reservoirs on agriculture [11,313]: Reservoirs may flood substantial portions of the land, which currently may be dedicated to agriculture. This is particularly the case of La Calzada dam.
Impact of dams/reservoirs on fishing [11,322]: Fishing will be possible on the reservoirs created by La Calzada and Calicantro dams.
Impact of dams/reservoirs on boating [11,323]: Boating will be possible on the reservoirs created by La Calzada and Calicantro dams.
Impact of dams/reservoirs on swimming [11,324]: Swimming will be possible on the reservoirs created by La Calzada and Calicantro dams.
Impact of dams/reservoirs on camping and hiking [11,325]: Camping and hiking will be possible on the reservoirs created by La Calzada and Calicantro dams.
Impact of dams/reservoirs on leisure [11,326]: Leisure activities will be possible on the reservoirs created by La Calzada and Calicantro dams.
Impact of dams/reservoirs on water supply [11,365]: Dams will increase the water supply available for irrigation and domestic uses.
Impact of blasting and drilling on air quality during construction [21,134]: Blasting and drilling will cause a moderate impact to air quality during construction.
Impact of dam failure on structures [51,361]: Dam failure will cause catastrophic damage to structures.
Impact of dam failure on transportation [51,362]: Dam failure will cause severe damage to transportation infrastructure.
Impact of dam failure on public services [51,364]: Dam failure will cause severe damage to utility infrastructure.

The six (6) entries with scores greater than or equal to 8 in Table 37 are further discussed below.

Impact of dams on soils [11,111] (score 8/8): Dams will retain sands and silts. This will cause degradation of the downstream reach of the La Leche river, as clear water is released from the dam. The degradation effect will be diminished with appropriate sediment management at the damsite. The sediment retained in the dams will not reach the flood plain.
Impact of dams on soil moisture [11,112] (score 8/8): Dams will retain water. This retention will change the natural distribution of precipitation. More water will go into soil moisture, and therefore, into evapotranspiration. Less water will go into runoff.
Impact of dams on nutrients [11,114] (score 9/9): The reservoirs will hold sands and silts, and therefore, retain the nutrients that are embedded in the sediments. These nutrients will be sequestered and unavailable for use by plants.
Impact of dams on crops [11,214] (score 8/8): The crops inundated by the reservoirs, particularly at La Calzada, will be lost. The inundated areas can be replaced by irrigated areas downstream, but the physical, chemical, and biological setting is not likely to be the same.
Impact of dams on agriculture [11,313] (score 8/8): Substantial portions of the land, which currently are dedicated to agriculture, will be rendered inoperable by the flooding of the reservoir. This is particularly the case of La Calzada dam.
Impact of dam failure on structures [51,361] (score 9/9): Dam failure will cause catastrophic damage to structures. The dam/reservoir should be designed with maximum security criteria. The emergency spillway(s) must be able to pass the Probable Maximum Flood in a safe manner, without overtopping the dam.

9.2 Application of the Battelle Environmental Evaluation System
The Battelle Environmental Evaluation System (EES) is based on a classification consisting of four levels (Appendix II):
Level I: Categories,
Level II: Components,
Level III: Parameters, and
Level IV: Measurements.

Each category (Level I) is divided into several components, each component (Level II) into several parameters, and each parameter (Level III) into one or more measurements. The EES identifies a total of four (4) categories, eighteen (18) components and seventy-eight (78) parameters.
Table 38 shows the complete list of categories, components, and parameters. Column 1 shows the four (4) categories, Column 2 shows the eighteen (18) components, and Column 3 shows the seventy-eight (78) parameters. The parameters labeled in red are most relevant for the present study.
The EES methodology is based on the assignment of "parameter importance units" (PIU). A total of 1000 PIUs is distributed among the 78 parameters based on value judgments. The individual PIUs are shown in Column 4 of Table 38. Effectively, for each parameter i its (PIU)_i represents a weight w_i.

Table 38. Categories, components, and parameters of the Battelle EES.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Categories Components Parameters PIU_i (w_i)

Ecology

Species
and
populations
1. Terrestrial browsers and grazers 14

2. Terrestrial crops 14

3. Terrestrial natural vegetation 14

4. Terrestrial pest species 14

5. Terrestrial upland game birds 14

6. Aquatic commercial fisheries 14

7. Aquatic natural vegetation 14

8. Aquatic pest species 14

9. Sport fish 14

10. Waterfowl 14

Habitats
and
communities
11. Terrestrial food web index 12

12. Land use 12

13. Terrestrial rare and endangered species 12

14. Terrestrial species diversity 14

15. Aquatic food web index 12

16. Aquatic rare and endangered species 12

17. River characteristics 12

18. Aquatic species diversity 14

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Categories Components Parameters PIU_i (w_i)

Pollution

Water
19. Basin hydrologic loss 20

20. BOD 25

21. Dissolved Oxygen 31

22. Fecal coliforms 18

23. Inorganic carbon 22

24. Inorganic nitrogen 25

25. Inorganic phosphate 28

26. Pesticides 16

27. pH 18

28. Stream flow variation 28

29. Temperature 28

30. TDS 25

31. Toxic substances 14

32. Turbidity 20

Air
33. Carbon monoxide 5

34. Hydrocarbons 5

35. Nitrogen oxides 10

36. Particulate matter 12

37. Photochemical oxidants 5

38. Sulfur dioxide 10

39. Other 5

Land
40. Land use 14

41. Soil erosion 14

Noise 42. Noise 4

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Categories Components Parameters PIU_i (w_i)

Aesthetics

Land
43. Geologic surface material 6

44. Relief and topographic character 16

45. Width and alignment 10

Air
46. Odor and visual quality 3

47. Sounds 2

Water
48. Appearance 10

49. Land and water interface 16

50. Odor and floating materials 6

51. Water surface area 10

52. Wooded and geologic shoreline 10

Biota
53. Animals - domestic 5

54. Animals - wild 5

55. Diversity of vegetation types 9

56. Variety within vegetation types 5

Manmade objects 57. Manmade objects 10

Composition
58. Composite effect 15

59. Unique composition 15

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Categories Components Parameters PIU_i (w_i)

Human
interest

Educational/ scientific packages
60. Archaeological 13

61. Ecological 13

62. Geological 11

63. Hydrological 11

Historical packages
64. Architecture and styles 11

65. Events 11

66. Persons 11

67. Religions and cultures 11

68. Western frontier 11

Cultures
69. Indians 14

70. Other ethnic groups 7

71. Religious groups 7

Mood/ atmosphere
72. Awe-inspiration 11

73. Isolation/solitude 11

74. Mystery 4

75. Oneness with nature 11

Life
patterns
76. Employment opportunities 13

77. Housing 13

78. Social interactions 11

Each (PIU)_i or w_i requires a specific measurement or assessment. The methodology converts these measurements into common units by means of a scalar or "value function." A scalar has a measurement in the x-axis, and a common environmental quality scale or "value" in the y-axis. The latter varies in the range 0 ≤ V_i ≤ 1. A value of V_i = 0 indicates very poor quality, while V_i = 1 indicates very good quality. Values of V_i = V_i,0 are obtained for conditions 'without' the project, and V_i = V_i,1 for conditions 'with' the project. The condition 'without' the project represents the current condition, while that 'with' the project represents the predicted future condition (see Appendix II).
The environmental impact E_I of the project is evaluated as the difference between 'with' and without' conditions:

E_I = ∑ [ V_i,1 w_i ] - ∑ [ V_i,0 w_i ] (1)

Since the weights are the same for conditions 'with' and 'without' the project:

E_I = w_i ∑ [ V_i,1 - V_i,0 ] (2)

Defining the impact value as:

ΔV_i = V_i,1 - V_i,0 (3)

Then:

E_I = ∑ [ w_i ΔV_i ] (4)

for i = 1 to n, where n = number of parameters (78).
For E_I > 0, the situation 'with' the project is better than 'without' the project, indicating that the project has positive environmental benefits. Conversely, for E_I < 0, the situation 'with' the project is worse than 'without' the project, indicating that the project has negative environmental benefits, i.e., certain negative impacts. A large negative value of E_I indicates the existence of substantial negative impacts.
Table 39 shows the application of the Battelle EES. Columns 1-4 are the same as in Table 38. Column 5 is V_i,0; Col. 6 is V_i,1; Col. 7 is ΔV_i; and Col. 8 is w_i ΔV_i. The value-function estimates are described in Appendix III. Table 39 shows that the environmental impact E_I = -26.3. This value is 2.63% of the total parameter allocation, which is 1000 (see Table 1 of Appendix II). This percentage represents the change in environmental quality with project implementation. Since the value is negative, there will be a cumulative negative impact. However, the value is small and manageable with an appropriate mitigation plan in place.

Table 39. Application of the Battelle Environmental Evaluation System (EES).

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Categories Components Parameters w_i V_i,0 V_i,1 ΔV_i w_i ΔV_i

Ecology

Species
and
populations
1. Terrestrial browsers and grazers 14 1.0 0.7 -0.3 -4.2

2. Terrestrial crops 14 0.7 0.9 0.2 2.8

3. Terrestrial natural vegetation 14 1.0 0.7 -0.3 -4.2

4. Terrestrial pest species 14 1.0 1.0 0 0

5. Terrestrial upland game birds 14 0.7 1.0 0.3 4.2

6. Aquatic commercial fisheries 14 0.0 0.3 0.3 4.2

7. Aquatic natural vegetation 14 0.2 0.5 0.3 4.2

8. Aquatic pest species 14 1.0 1.0 0 0

9. Sport fish 14 0.2 0.8 0.6 8.4

10. Waterfowl 14 0.5 1.0 0.5 7.0

Habitats
and
communities
11. Terrestrial food web index 12 1.0 1.0 0 0

12. Land use 12 0.8 0.0 -0.8 -9.6

13. Terrestrial rare and endangered species 12 1.0 1.0 0 0

14. Terrestrial species diversity 14 1.0 1.0 0 0

15. Aquatic food web index 12 0.2 0.8 0.6 7.2

16. Aquatic rare and endangered species 12 1.0 1.0 0 0

17. River characteristics 12 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -12.0

18. Aquatic species diversity 14 0.2 0.8 0.6 8.4

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Categories Components Parameters w_i V_i,0 V_i,1 ΔV_i w_i ΔV_i

Pollution

Water
19. Basin hydrologic loss 20 1.0 0.2 -0.8 -16.0

20. BOD 25 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -2.5

21. Dissolved Oxygen 31 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -3.1

22. Fecal coliforms 18 1.0 1.0 0 0

23. Inorganic carbon 22 1.0 1.0 0 0

24. Inorganic nitrogen 25 1.0 1.0 0 0

25. Inorganic phosphate 28 1.0 1.0 0 0

26. Pesticides 16 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -1.6

27. pH 18 1.0 1.0 0 0

28. Stream flow variation 28 1.0 0.2 -0.8 -22.4

29. Temperature 28 1.0 0.6 -0.4 -11.2

30. TDS 25 1.0 0.7 -0.3 -7.5

31. Toxic substances 14 1.0 1.0 0 0

32. Turbidity 20 1.0 1.0 0 0

Air
33. Carbon monoxide 5 1.0 1.0 0 0

34. Hydrocarbons 5 1.0 1.0 0 0

35. Nitrogen oxides 10 1.0 1.0 0 0

36. Particulate matter 12 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -1.2

37. Photochemical oxidants 5 1.0 1.0 0 0

38. Sulfur dioxide 10 1.0 1.0 0 0

39. Other 5 1.0 1.0 0 0

Land
40. Land use 14 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -1.4

41. Soil erosion 14 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -2.8

Noise 42. Noise 4 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -0.8

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Categories Components Parameters w_i V_i,0 V_i,1 ΔV_i w_i ΔV_i

Aesthetics

Land
43. Geologic surface material 6 1.0 1.0 0 0

44. Relief and topographic character 16 1.0 1.0 0 0

45. Width and alignment 10 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -2.0

Air
46. Odor and visual quality 3 0.6 0.6 0 0

47. Sounds 2 1.0 1.0 0 0

Water
48. Appearance 10 0.1 1.0 0.9 9.0

49. Land and water interface 16 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -1.6

50. Odor and floating materials 6 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -0.6

51. Water surface area 10 0.1 1.0 0.9 9.0

52. Wooded and geologic shoreline 10 0.1 1.0 0.9 9.0

Biota
53. Animals - domestic 5 1.0 1.0 0 0

54. Animals - wild 5 1.0 1.0 0 0

55. Diversity of vegetation types 9 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -1.8

56. Variety within vegetation types 5 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -1.0

Manmade objects 57. Manmade objects 10 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -2.0

Composition
58. Composite effect 15 0.7 1.0 0.3 4.5

59. Unique composition 15 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -1.5

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Categories Components Parameters w_i V_i,0 V_i,1 ΔV_i w_i ΔV_i

Human
interest

Educational/
scientific packages
60. Archaeological 13 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -1.3

61. Ecological 13 1.0 1.0 0 0

62. Geological 11 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -2.2

63. Hydrological 11 1.0 1.0 0 0

Historical
packages
64. Architecture and styles 11 1.0 1.0 0 0

65. Events 11 1.0 1.0 0 0

66. Persons 11 1.0 1.0 0 0

67. Religions and cultures 11 1.0 1.0 0 0

68. Western frontier 11 1.0 1.0 0 0

Cultures
69. Indians 14 1.0 1.0 0 0

70. Other ethnic groups 7 1.0 1.0 0 0

71. Religious groups 7 1.0 1.0 0 0

Mood/
atmosphere
72. Awe-inspiration 11 1.0 1.0 0 0

73. Isolation/solitude 11 1.0 1.0 0 0

74. Mystery 4 1.0 1.0 0 0

75. Oneness with nature 11 1.0 1.0 0 0

Life
patterns
76. Employment opportunities 13 0.3 1.0 0.7 9.1

77. Housing 13 1.0 0.5 -0.5 -6.5

78. Social interactions 11 0.3 1.0 0.7 7.7

The Battelle EES Environmental Impact Analysis Cumulative Index E_I ⇒ -26.3

In the Battelle EES, the potential problem areas are represented by those parameters for which the V_i value changes significantly in the adverse direction, as measured by the following relation (negative values, in percent):

ΔV_i,r = 100 (V_i,1 - V_i,0) / V_i,0 (5)

These parameters are tagged with 'red flags' to indicate potential problems which may warrant more detailed attention. For parameters in the ecology category, a minor red flag applies when 5% < ΔV_i,r ≤ 10%, and a major red flag when ΔV_i,r > 10 %. In all other categories, a minor red flag applies when ΔV_i,r ≤ 30% or ΔV_i ≤ 0.1, and a major red flag when ΔV_i,r > 30% or ΔV_i > 0.1.
Table 40 identifies the red flags associated with substantially negative impacts of the project. A total of sixteen (16) major red flags are identified.

Table 40. Identification of red flags.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Parameters w_i V_i,0 V_i,1 ΔV_i ΔV_i,r Red flag

1. Terrestrial browsers and grazers 14 1.0 0.7 -0.3 -30 Major

3. Terrestrial natural vegetation 14 1.0 0.7 -0.3 -30 Major

12. Land use 12 0.8 0.0 -0.8 -100 Major

17. River characteristics 12 1.0 0.0 -1.0 -100 Major

19. Basin hydrologic loss 20 1.0 0.2 -0.8 -80 Major

20. BOD 25 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -10 Minor

21. Dissolved Oxygen 31 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -10 Minor

26. Pesticides 16 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -10 Minor

28. Stream flow variation 28 1.0 0.2 -0.8 -80 Major

29. Temperature 28 1.0 0.6 -0.4 -40 Major

30. TDS 25 1.0 0.7 -0.3 -30 Major

36. Particulate matter 12 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -10 Minor

40. Land use 14 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -10 Minor

41. Soil erosion 14 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -20 Major

42. Noise 4 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -20 Major

45. Width and alignment 10 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -20 Major

49. Land and water interface 16 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -10 Minor

50. Odor and floating materials 6 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -10 Minor

55. Diversity of vegetation types 9 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -20 Major

56. Variety within vegetation types 5 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -20 Major

57. Manmade objects 10 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -20 Major

59. Unique composition 15 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -10 Minor

60. Archaeological 13 1.0 0.9 -0.1 -10 Minor

62. Geological 11 1.0 0.8 -0.2 -20 Major

77. Housing 13 1.0 0.5 -0.5 -50 Major

• Part 1 • Part 2 • Part 3 • Part 4 • Part 5 • Part 6 • Part 7 •

090724