Simple Methods for Impact Identification—Matrices, Networks, and Checklists Several activities are required in an environ- mental impact study, including impact identifi- cation, preparation of a description of the af- fected environment, impact prediction and assessment, selection of the proposed action from the alternatives evaluated to meet identi- fied needs, and summarization and communi cation of information. The objectives of the var- ious activities differ, as do the pertinent methodologies for accomplishing the activities. The term “methodology” as used herein refers to structured approaches for accomplishing one or more of the basic activities. The structured approaches encompass various substantive areas within the biophysical and socioeconomic en- vironments, thus distinguishing them from im- pact prediction methods or models for specific substantive areas. Numerous methodologies have been developed to aid in achieving the var- ious activities in the EIA process. The purpose of this chapter is to describe some simple meth- ods for impact identification. This will be done by highlighting matrices, networks, and simple and descriptive checklists. Background infor- mation is provided on the overall purposes of the methodologies as well as a classification 56 scheme; this information is also relevant to decision-focused checklists and alternatives evaluation, discussed in Chapter 15. BACKGROUND INFORMATION EIA methodologies can be broadly categorized into interaction matrices and checklists, with networks representing variations of interaction matrices, Interaction matrices range from simple considerations of project activities and their im- pacts on environmental factors to stepped ap- proaches which display interrelationships be- tween impacted factors. Checklists range from simple listings of environmental factors to de- scriptive approaches which include information on measurement, prediction, and interpretation of changes for identified factors. Checklists may also involve the scaling-rating (or -ranking) of the impacts of alternatives on each of the en- vironmental factors under consideration. Scaling or rating techniques include the use of numeri- cal scores, letter assignments, or linear propor- tioning. Alternatives can be ranked from best to worst in terms of potential impacts on each fac- tor. The most sophisticated checklists are those Scanned with CamScannerSIMPLE METHODS FOR IMPACT IDENTIFICATION—MATRICES, NETWORKS, AND CHECKLISTS 57 involving the assignment of importance weights to environmental factors and the scaling-rating of the impacts for each alternative on each fac- tor. Resultant comparisons can be made through the development of a product matrix and overall impact index for each alternative. The index, or score, is determined by multiplying importance weights by the scale-rating value for each alter- native. Methodologies can be useful, although not specifically required, throughout the impact as- sessment process, with certain ones being of greater value for specific activities. Table 3.1 identifies five activities and relevant useful methodologies. For example, matrices and net- works are particularly useful for impact identi- fication, while weighting-and-scaling, -rating, o -ranking checKlists find greatest application in the final evaluation of alternatives and the se- lection of a proposed action (Lee, 1988). It is not necessary to use a methodology in entirety in an impact study; it may be instructive to use portions of several methodologies for certain requisite activities. In that regard, methodology selection may be considered a part of an impact study. Some desirable characteristics of an EIA TABLE 3 APPLICATIONS OF METHODOLOGIES IN EIA PROCESS Process Relative activity Methodologies. Usefulness Impact identification Matrices simple High Stepped Medium Networks, High Checkists Simple Medium Descriptive Medium Deseribing affected environment Matices ‘Simple Low ‘Stepped Networks. Checkists Simple High Descriptive Impact prediction and assessment Matrices ‘Simple Medium ‘Stepped Medium Networks, Medium Checklists Descritive High Scaling, rating, ranking Low Selection of proposed action (based on Matrices Simple Medium ‘evaluation of alternatives) Stepped Low Checklists Scaling, rating, ranking Medium Weighting-scaling, ating, -ranking High Study summarization and communication Matrices simple High ‘Stepped Low Checklists _Simple® Medium “Simple checklists include questionnaire methods. Scanned with CamScannerSB cuapten 3 method selected for usage include the following: (1) it should be appropriate to the necessary task, such as impact identification or compari- son of alternatives (not all methods are equally useful for all tasks), (2) it should be sufficiently free from assessor bias (the results should be essentially reproducible from one assessor group to another), and (3) it should be econom- ical in terms of costs and its requirements of data, investigation time, personnel, and equip- ment and facilities (Lee, 1983). Additional formation on methodology selection is in Chap- ter 15. While numerous methodologies have been developed, and still additional methodologies are emerging, there is no ‘‘universal’” method- ‘ology which can be applied to all project types in all environmental settings. It is unlikely that an all-purpose methodology will be developed, given the lack of technical information and the need for exercising subjective judgment about predicted impacts in the environmental setting wherein the project may occur. Accordingly, an appropriate perspective is to consider method- ologies ‘‘tools’’ which can be used to aid the EIA process. In that sense, every utilized meth- odology should be project- and location-spe- cific, with the basic concepts derivable from ex- isting methodologies. These could be called ‘‘ad hoc’’ methods. Methodologies do not provide complete an- swers to all questions related to the impacts of project or set of alternatives. Meth- odologies are not “‘cookbooks”’ in which a suc- cessful study is achieved by meeting the de- tailed requirements of the methodologies. Methodologies must be selected based on ap- propriate evaluation and professional judgment, and they must be used with the continuous ap- plication of judgment relative to data inputs and analysis and interpretation of results. One of the purposes of using methodologies is to insure that all pertinent environmental fac- tors are included in the study. Most methodol- cogies contain lists of environmental factors ranging from about 50 to 1,000 items, with th, majority having between 50 and 100 items. Ay, other purpose of using methodologies is to aig in planning baseline studies in locations whe, relevant environmental data is lacking. For e,, ample, if information is not available on the fag, tors identified using appropriate methodologic it may be determined that field studies will hy necessary. ‘One of the most important reasons for using methodologies is that they provide a means fo, the synthesis of information and the evaluation of alternatives on a common basis. Within the United States, even the comparative analysis of alternatives has often been less than optimal. In many cases, alternatives have been eliminated from detailed consideration based only on eco. nomic comparisons. Usage of structured meth. odologies can provide the basis for evaluation of alternatives using a common framework of decision factors. Methodologies can also be use. ful in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of pro- posed impact-mitigation (IM) measures. Evalu. ation of a proposed project with and withou mitigation will enable a clearer delineation of the effectiveness of potential IM measures. ‘An important element in impact studies is the communication of resultant information to other practitioners, regulatory agencies, and the gen- eral public. Some methodologies have features which are particularly useful in communicating impact information in summary form; an ex- ample is the simple interaction matrix. Finally, the NEPA requires that agencies utilize methods and procedures which ensure that unquantified environmental amenities and values be given appropriate consideration in decision making, along with more-traditional economic and tech- nical considerations. Therefore, in order to com- ply with this requirement, the use of methods is strongly encouraged. In addition to matrices and chec' other classifications of methodolo; developed. For example, Warner (1973) and Warner and Bromley (1974) divided impact Scanned with CamScanner‘SIMPLE METHODS FOR IMPACT IDENTIFICATION—MATRICES, NETWORKS, AND CHECKLISTS 59 methodologies into, five main classes: ad hoc procedures, overlay techniques, checklis trices, and networks. Ad hoc procedures involve assembling a team of specialists to identify im- pacts in their areas of expertise, with minimal guidance beyond the requirements of the NEPA. This approach was essentially utilized by all federal agencies in the period immediately fol- lowing enactment of the NEPA. It is still used in the sense that as extant methodologies are adapted to specific needs, the results can be called ad hoc methods. The term ‘‘overlay techniques’” describes several well-developed approaches used in plan- ning and landscape architecture. These tech- niques are based on the use of a series of over- lay maps depicting environmental factors or land features (McHarg, 1971). The overlay ap- proach is generally effective for selecting alter- natives and identifying certain types of impacts; however, it cannot be used to quantify impacts or to identify secondary and tertiary interrela- tionships. Overlay techniques utilizing comput- erization for more-effective data analysis have been developed. Geographic information sys- tems are now being used as layered overlay mapping techniques. Comparative reviews of impact identification methods are in Canter (1979), Nichols and Hy- man (1982), Bisset (1980, 1983), Lohani and Halim (1990), and ESCAP (1990). Twelve spe- cific methodologies were systematically re- viewed by Nichols and Hyman (1982); while Bisset (1980, 1983) and Lohani and Halim (1990) delineated the features of over 15 methods. Canter (1979) summarized over 100 methods and techniques for use in the EIA process, The primary focus of this chapter will be on the use of matrix, network, and simple and 4 scriptive checklist methods for impact identi cation. In using these methodologies, it is im- portant to delineate the uncertainty associated with impact predictions (Lee, 1983). In other words, the use of scientific approaches will re- quire the exercise of professional judgment in the interpretation of the results. INTERACTION-MATRIX METHODOLOGIES, Interaction matrices were one of the earliest types of EIA methodologies. A ‘simple inter- action matrix” displays project actions or activ- ities along one axis, with appropriate environ- mental factors listed along the other axis of the matrix. When a given action or activity is ex- pected to cause a change in an environmental factor, this is noted at the intersection point in the matrix and further described in terms of sep- arate or combined magnitude and importance considerations. Many variations of the simple interaction matrix have been utilized in impact studies, including stepped matrices (Canter, 1986; ESCAP, 1990; Lohani and Halim, 1990; International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 1979). ‘Simple Matrices The interaction-matrix method developed by Leopold et al. (1971) will be used as an example of a simple matrix. The matrix lists approxi- mately 100 specified actions and 90 environ- mental items. Figure 3.1 illustrates the concept of the Leopold matrix, and Table 3.2 contains the list of the actions and environmental items. In the use of the Leopold matrix, each action and its potential for creating an impact on each environmental item must be considered. Where an impact is anticipated, the matrix is marked with a diagonal line in the appropriate interac tion box. The second step in using the Leopold matrix is to describe the interaction in terms of its mag- nitude and importance. The ‘‘magnitude" of an interaction is its extensity or scale and is de- scribed by the assignment of a. numerical value from 1 to 10, with 10 representing a large mag- nitude and 1 a small magnitude. Values near 5 n the magnitude scale represent impacts of in- termediate extensity. Assignment of a numerical value for the magnitude of an interaction should Scanned with CamScannerGO cHaPTER 3 Actions causing Impact Environmental items FIGURE 3.1 Leopold Interaction Matrix: M = magnitude; be based on an objective evaluation of facts re- lated to the anticipated impact. The ‘‘impor- tance”’ of an interaction is related to its signif- icance, or an assessment of the probable consequences of the anticipated impact. The scale of importance also ranges from 1 to 10, with 10 representing a very important interac- tion and 1 an interaction of relatively low im- portance. Assignment of a numerical importance value is based on the subjective judgment of the individual, small group, or interdisciplinary team working on the study. One of the attractive features of the Leopold matrix is that it can be expanded or contracted— that is, the number of actions can be increased = importance (Leopold et al, 1971). or decreased from the total of about 100, and the number of environmental factors can be in- creased or decreased from about 90. The pri- mary advantages of using the Leopold matrix are that it is very useful as a gross screening tool for impact identification purposes, and it can provide a valuable means for impact com- munication by providing a visual display of the impacted items and of the major actions causing impacts. Summation of the number of rows and col- umns designated as having interactions can offet insight into impact assessment. Additional re- finements can be used to discuss the results of a simple interaction matrix. For example, Scanned with CamScanner‘SIMPLE METHODS FOR IMPACT IDENTIFICATION—MATRICES, NETWORKS, AND CHECKUSTS 61 ACTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ITEMS IN LEOPOLD INTERACTION MATRIX Actions Environmental Items Category Description Category Description A Modification of a Exotic fauna ‘A Physical and chemical regime introduction characteristics b Biological controls, 1 Earth @ Mineral resources © Modification of habitat 'b Construction material Alteration of ground © Soils cover ¢ Land form @ Alteration of ground- @ Force fields and water hydrology background {Alteration of radiation drainage £ Unique physical 9 River control and flow features modification 2 Water a Surface h Canalization b Ocean i. Intigation © Underground j Weather modification d Quality k Buming e Temperature 1 Surfacing or paving f Recharge m Noise and vibration 9 Snow, ice, and B Land transtor- Urbanization permafrost mation and Industral sites and 8 Atmosphere a Quality (gases, construction buildings Particulates) © Airports b Climate (micro, 4. Highways and bridges macro) Roads and trails ¢ Temperature 1 Railroads 4 Processes a Floods 9g Cables and lifts b Erosion h Transmission tines, ‘© Deposition (sedimen- pipelines, and tation, precipitation) corridors d Solution i Barriers, including © Sorption (ion ex- fencing change, complexing) j Channel dredging and £ Compaction and straightening settling k Channel revetments g Stability (slides, 1 Canals slumps) ‘m Dams and impound- h Stress-strain ments (earthquakes) n Piers, seawalls, 1 Air movements marinas, and sea B Biological terminals conditions © Offshore structures 1 Flora a Trees Recreational structures b Shrubs Blasting and driling © Grass Cut and fil d Crops Tunnels and under- © Microflora ‘ground structures f Aquatic plants © Resource a. Blasting and dling 9 Endangered species extraction Surface excavation h Barriers Scanned with CamScanner62 cuarren 3 ACTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ITEMS IN LEOPOLD INTERACTION MATRIX (continued) Environmental Items Actions Category Description category Description © Subsurtace oxcava- i Corridors tion and retorting 2 Fauna a Birds 4. Woll dredging and b Land animals i fluid removal ing reptiles © Dradging ¢ Fish and shelifis, Clear cutting and d Benthic org other lumbering e Insects 9 Commercial fishing 1 Microfauna and hunting g Endangered spec, D Processing a Farming h Bartiers b Ranching and grazing i Corridors © Feed lots © Cultural factors Dairying 1 Land use ‘a Wildemess and g, Energy generation spaces 1 Mineral processing b Wetlands 9 Metallurgical c Forestry industry d Grazing fh Chemical industry e Agricultural i Textile industry f Residential j Automobile and g Commercial aircraft hi Industry k Oil refining | Mining and quaryey | Food 2 Recreation a Hunting m Lumbering Fishing 1n Pulp and paper Boating © Product storage Swimming E Land ‘a Erosion control and fe Camping and hike alteration terracing Picnicking b Mine sealing and g Resorts waste control 3 Aesthetics and a Scenic views and ¢ Strip-mining human interest vistas tation b Wildemess qualities Landscaping Open-space qual @ Harbor dredging d Landscape design Marsh fll and e Unique physical drainage Hoowes F Resource a Reforestation i Parke’ aid teseeves renewal b Wildife stocking 9 Monuments ‘and management h Rare and unique © Groundwater recharge species or eco- Fertilization systems application i Historical or archas Waste recycling logical sites and G Changes in a Railway objects wai oe j Presence of misfits © Trucking 4 Cultural status, Shipping a Cultural-pattems (life-style) Scanned with CamScannerSIMPLE METHODS FOR IMPACT IDENTIFICATION—MATRICES, NETWORKS, AND CHECKLISTS 63. ACTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ITEMS IN LEOPOLD INTERACTION MATRIX (continued) Actions Environmental items Category Description Category Description @ Aircraft 1 River and canal tratfic 4 Population density 9 Pleasure boating 5 Manufactured a Structures h Trails facilities and bb Transportation net- 1 Cables and tits activities ‘work (movement, j Communication access) k Pipeline © Utility networks H Waste a Ocean dumping Waste disposal cemplace- b Landfill e Barriers ment and ¢ Emplacement of 1 Corridors treatment tailings, spoils, and D Ecological rela- a Salinization of water overburden tionships resources d_ Underground bb Eutrophication storage ¢ Disease and © Junk disposal insect vectors 1 Oil well flooding d Food chains 9 Deep well e Salinization of ‘emplacement surficial material h Cooling water Brush encroachment discharge 9 Other i Municipal waste E Others discharge including spray inigation J Liquid effluent discharge k_ Stabilization and oxidation ponds 1 Septic tanks, com- mercial and domestic m Stack and exhaust emission 1 Spent lubricants 1 Chemical a Fertilization treatment b Chemical deicing of highways, et Chemical stabiliza- tion of soil 4. Weed control @ Insect control (pesticides) J. Accidents a Explosions b Spills and leaks © Operational failure K Others ‘Source: Compiled using data from Leopold et al., 1971. Scanned with CamScannerG4 cHarten 3 assume that a matrix incorporates the impacts of 8 actions on 20 environmental factors. Further, assume that the average action would cause 10 factors to be impacted, and the average number of impacts per factor is 6. The impacts could be grouped and discussed in terms of those actions exhibiting a greater-than-average, near-average, and fewer-than-average number of impacts. A similar approach could be used for addressing the impacted factors. The Leopold matrix can also be utilized to identify beneficial as well as detrimental im- pacts through the use of appropriate designators, such as plus and minus signs. In addition, the Leopold matrix can be employed to identify im- pacts at various temporal phases of a project— for example, construction, operation, and post- operation phases, and to describe impacts as- sociated with various spatial boundaries— namely, at the site and in the region. Many uses of the Leopold matrix have in- volved the assignment of three levels of mag- nitude and importance. Major interactions would be assigned maximum numerical scores, with minor interactions being assigned minimal scores. Intermediate-level interactions would be assigned values between the major and minor scores. In Table 3.2, there are very few items in the list of environmental factors that are oriented to the socioeconomic environment. This does not mean that these items could not be added, but rather that in 1970 and 1971, the period of time in which the matrix concept was developed, less emphasis was given to this substantive area. Variations of the Leopold matrix have been utilized for impact analysis for many types of projects. The Federal Aviation Administration (1973) has used interaction matrices for avia- tion-type projects. The Oregon Highway De- partment (1973) has developed an interaction matrix for impact identification, and the various actions and environmental factors included in this matrix are shown in Table 3.3. Condensed versions of the Leopold matrix have been em- — ployed in EIAs for a coal mine, a generatiy, plant, a county road and railroad project, a Way supply system, and a transmission line, for amples (Chase, 1973). Information expressed by means of other than numerical values for magnitude ay importance can be included in the impact scaly, associated with identification of an interactio, In an earth-filled~dam project, the potential in pact of various actions on environmental facto has been shown in 11 categories: neutral, ; range of five degrees of beneficial impact, anj a range of five degrees of detrimental impag (Chase, 1973). Scales have also been used 4 describe the probability of occurrence of an im, pact, with the scale ranging from low to inte mediate to high probability of impact. Impag scales can also be developed to show the exten of potential reversibility associated with a ben. eficial or detrimental impact. Another approach for impact rating in a ma. trix involves the use of a predefined code de. noting the characteristics of the impacts and whether or not certain undesirable features could be mitigated. Table 3.4 displays an ex. ample of this type of an interaction matrix for a proposed wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal project in Barbados. For this anal- ysis, the following definitions are used for the codes (Canter, 1991): SB = Significant beneficial impact; represents a highly desirable outcome in terms of either improving the existing quality of the environmental factor or enhancing that factor from an environmental per- spective. SA = Significant adverse impact; represents a highly undesirable outcome in terms of either degrading the existing quality of the environmental factor or disrupting that factor from an environmental per- spective. B = Beneficial impact; represents a positive outcome in terms of either improving the Scanned with CamScannersrewue purr @ eujedia_y spiig © pune Z 6 si0pwop | 4 suewes ° sojoads pareGuepug 6 ‘yes; yeuvo pue JONI P seid onenby 4 Buyjonty 2 BIOYOHIN © aiqowoiny 4 sdoip p ‘Aemied & ‘yjest ut se6UeUD.-S ssei9 9 uowsinboe duis-o1U00g. ‘uonoej0id sqnus a uoneisalojoy © ue jemouas eoinosoy > soa © wold 1 GuINUP HOM E sonsuajpereys reai8o}018 @ enous pueoquia pue puekyun vuoneiodeng 1 ° oud 4 u swowonou sy 6 w (sduins pue sepis) Angers 4 1 ures pue uonsedwog © x tuoyonisu0o -punosBiepun ‘ ! sosssoold + ssaunyons [eu 4 syemees pur sicid 6 sjowpunodu pue swe ‘Auer & eroudsouny © S{ueUNOAE! JULY © emjoraduro 6 ‘Sujuanybyens pue BuiBpasp jouueu Pp Ayeno 4 uonpjoaied-oB1eyoy © Buppnjouy sioureg Jo uoN ° ‘201 pue MOUS P Uuoyonnsuco Wes q Uuoyonusuco punos6iopun, 2 Uuononsisuoo eBpuq pue semyBiy & ue uoneuojsue pur] z ‘sauenis@ pue ue220 q Burred pue Bugeyng 0 eoepng & Jere @ uone6ui) p ‘uuo} pur p uowezieueg 9 sos 9 ‘AB0j03pAy Uowuoo ‘seaunosa fesOUNN, seyempunos6 q snojoeid ‘seaunosos [eoUIN, © wea weuaeu Jo e ‘euujB01 Jo UONeDYIPON ssonsuayoeseyo ‘uowe09) pue eoqweyo pue 1eo1shua Lubisep jo siUOWIEI v 20nes Roba wony ‘aoBaeD ‘suoppuod jejueWUOA AUR yoeduyy osneo Aw yeu suonoy XTLVM NOLLOVUBLNI AVMHOIH Pc NR NS LC ERT SV Lt) Scanned with CamScanner3 BUDWIGRSE HIGHWAY INTERACTION MATRIX (continued) ‘Actions that may cause impact Gategory 1 During constuction 1 Modification of rogime 2 Land transformation and 3 Resource exacon 4 Changes in tat '5 Waste emplacement ‘and treatment 6 Chemical stabilization ‘ation ‘ateaory ‘Exoie Nora and fauna Induction Biological controls ‘Aeration of ground cover ‘Aeration of drainage Fiver contro! and How medication ‘Buming Blasting and dating Marsh fi and drainage Clearing ana gruboing ‘Dams-impoundments Blasting and diling ‘Surface excavation ‘Subsurface excavation ‘Wel ailing and fui removal Dredging alway 2 Recreation ‘Automobile ‘Trucking vor and canal ate Pleasure boating Trals Communication Pipeline Langfi Emplacement of tallngs, spol, ‘and overburden Liquid and exhaust discharge ‘Stack and exhaust emissions ‘Occurence of spent lubricants © Cultura actors V'Land wee 3 Aesthetics and "human itorost Scanned with CamScanneras © Operation 1 Wasto emplacement and treatment 2 Chomica oatment 3 Aesients Explosions 19 Monuments Spls and leaks. 1 are or unique spocios e | iirc or archawological guid ettuent isenarge sits and objects Septictank issues | Presence of incompatible features Stack and exhaust emigsons 4 Cultural status ‘2 Cutural pattems Feritzation Heat Chemical deicing © Population density Weed contr 4 Inctutons| Insect conto 1 Ninoy groups Explosons Eeonemie groups Spi, oaks 5 Manufactured a Stvetures, (Operational atures facies Transportation and aetviios Uy networks 4 Waste disposal 2 Bamiers Comore ‘Source: Conpied ung ata tom Oregon Heway Bopanna 1973 Scanned with CamScanner= hr INTERACTION MATRIX FOR SOUTH COAST (BARBADOS) SEWERAGE PROJECT ‘Consiraction phase ‘Operon phase Environmental | Exsing ‘Gotecton | Treatment ‘esunant | Galaction | Treatment Resa fectoror ual Sytem” | pant coustattine | guatty Sytem. | plant | outa tine | gesiny ‘ir quay incompiance | An ae . ‘use, Oa aorta ° ‘ecad or ‘eh ay — = too Noe ‘yp otueen | ane a . romain | a eon) | 9 gues) | sma crouse setsteaorytor | © ° ° oe » > . sera ° on on caneas™ ‘pote seme “Satan, ‘oon = cepted Bescnercion, | Eretonatotto | NA ms water > so ma rere or re oa me ‘samy |“ nrotse — oainy coats oa Const tahete | someceaine | NA na . toca tabiaty |b ea a tenor “hoo ‘vay cosy Macoe « Na Na 2 some toca! | NA na . ‘nat “oneronment at “Soncoance ‘ocreaze in ‘uta amcor ‘ity Teale curentpretem | sam | . werin | a jc * ‘comin ‘conpeston ptiem Sie reese rounem rsonantto . na « tie e ° . crags remy ‘ramon ey Scanned with CamScannerSIMPLE METHODS FOR IMPACT IDENTIFICATION—MATRICES, NETWORKS, AND CHECKLISTS 69 existing quality of the environmental fac- tor or enhancing that factor from an en- vironmental perspective. A= Adverse impact; represents a negative outcome in terms of either degrading the existing quality of the environmental fac- tor or disrupting that factor from an en- vironmental perspective. b = Small beneficial impact; represents a mi- nor improvement in the existing quality of the environmental factor or a minor enhancement in that factor from an en- vironmental perspective. a = Small adverse impact; represents a minor degradation in the existing quality of the environmental factor or a minor disrup- tion in that factor from an environmental perspective. 0 = Nomeasurableimpactis expected to occur asaresult of considering the project action relativeto the environmental factor. M = Some type of mitigation measure can be used to reduce or avoid a minor adverse, adverse, or significant adverse impact. NA = The environmental factor is not applica- ble or not relevant to the proposed proj- ect. Simple interaction matrices have been used for analyzing the impacts of still other types of projects; examples include flood-control and/or hydropower, highway, transmission-line, off- shore oil lease, coal mine, power plant, indus- trial plant, industrial park, pipeline, housing de- velopment, tourism, and coastal development projects. A generic simple interaction matrix has, been developed to identify key impacts of a va- riety of development projects in coastal zones in Asian Development Bank (1991). ‘“Prompter questions” tied to impact concerns are also in- cluded to focus the impact identification proc- ess. Stepped Matrices. A stepped matrix, also called a ‘‘cross-impact matrix,”” can be used to address secondary and tertiary impacts of initiating actions. A “‘stepped matrix’” is one in which environmental factors FIGURE 3.2 Concept of Stepped Matrix. Actions 1 2 3 4 5 ee) ee, eae A 8 Environmental ¢ factors D E F © Sy ns0-> pa Scanned with CamScanner70 cHaPTER 3 are displayed against other environmental fac- tors, The consequences of initial changes in some factors on other factors can be displayed. Figure 3.2 displays the concept of a stepped ma- trix. In the figure, action 3 impacts factor D; changes in factor D then cause changes in fac- tors A and F, Finally, changes in factor A cause changes in factors B and I, while changes in factor F cause changes in factor H. Stepped ma- trices facilitate the tracing of impacts and the recognition of the environment as a system; they represent an intermediate method between sim- ple matrices and networks. Stepped matrices with multiple actions and several types and lev- els of impact can become visually complicated. Johnson and Bell (1975) developed both a simple and stepped (cross-impact) interaction matrix for identifying impacts from the con- struction and operation of water resources res- ervoir projects. Project activities and the 92 in- cluded environmental attributes are listed in Table 3.5. Definitions for each were included in the method. Both letters and numbers were used in impact rating, for example, a rating could be A3, based on the following categories (Johnson and Bell, 1975, p. 3): A= adverse, always occurs B = adverse, usually occurs C = adverse, sometimes occurs N = not necessarily good or bad X = beneficial, always occurs Y = beneficial, usually occurs Z = beneficial, sometimes occurs 1 = strong, permanent 2.= moderate, permanent 3 = minor, permanent 4 = strong, temporary 5 = moderate, temporary 6 = minor, temporary Blank = no impact A cross-impact matrix was used to display the relationships of the 92 environmental attributes to the same 92 attributes. The following codes were used to denote how changes in one attribute can affect others (Johnson and Bell, 1975, p. 3): = interaction between two attributes AAs another example, the environmental j pacts of petroleum development in Alaska hay, been identified through the use of both si and stepped interaction matrices (Hanley, Hen, ming, and Morsell, 1981). Primary effects wen identified based on four project phases (explo, ration, development, production, and termina, tion) and seven categories of environmental per, turbations (land-surface disturbances, stream o, lake disturbances, noise and activity, land po}. lution, water pollution, air pollution, and in. direct human activities. Specific activities ang factors are listed in Table 3.6. An impact rat. ing involving three levels (minor, medium, and maximum) of beneficial and detrimental im. pacts was used. Matrices were developed for treeless permafrost and forested nonpermafrost terrain, Descriptive rationale was presented for each assigned rating. Algebraic sums of the impact ratings were calculated for each phase or activity, thus allowing for a discussion of its relative impacts. The implications of the physical changes and disturbances were then addressed by means of a stepped matrix relat- ing the disturbances to fish and wildlife re- sources; this matrix is shown in Table 3.7. An x denoted an impact and the basic rationale was described; many interaction cells were as- signed no rating. ‘A 74-acre industrial park project in the south- ‘western portion of Fresno, California, also made use of a stepped matrix (U.S. Economic Devel- opment Administration, 1973). The project in- volved two separate and simultaneous actions. The first action was the securing of a loan to improve the processing facilities of two indus- tries located on the project site. In addition to increased production, the loan also permitted greater control of the emissior iecti ¢ n of objectioy oor. The second action was th able sneer ructio m, and redevelq. the In Scanned with CamScanner‘SIMPLE METHODS FOR IMPACT IDENTIFICATION—MATRICES, NETWORKS, AND CHECKLISTS 71 Te SIMPLE AND STEPPED INTERACTION MATRIX FOR WATER RESOURCES RESERVOIR PROJECTS Construction and operation activities (x axis) Environmental attributes (y axis) Stripping Excavation Stockpiling Loading-hauling Placement of materials Removal of materials Blasting Concrete placement Surfacing Building erection Building movement Building demolition Pavement demolition Batch and aggregate plants ‘Temporary buildings Vehicle and equipment maintenance Restoration Filing reservoir Flood-control operation Air quality Microctimate A. Air movement B. Air temperature C. Relative humidity D. Incident radiation Soil conditions A. Temperature B. Soil moisture C. Soil structure D. Soil flora E. Soil fauna Ecological relationships A. Terrestrial ecosystems |. Change in ecostructure . Trophic structure 3. Pollution of land |. Rare or unique ecotypes Diversity of ecotypes . Biogeochemical cycles B. Aquatic ecosystems Fauna A. Terrestrial animals |. Mammals Birds Other vertebrates 1. Mosquitoes Other invertebrates Rare and endangered species . Species diversity, etc. , Nuisance species B. Aquatic animals Flora A. Terrestrial plants ‘Natural vegetation Rare and endangered species Species diversity Primary productivity Weedy species Detritus B. Aquatic flora Groundwater hydrology A. Depth B. Movement ©. Recharge rates ‘Surface-water hydrology A. Elevation B. Flow pattern C. Stream discharge D. Velocity PNogaene oosepe Scanned with CamScanner72 CHAPTER 3 SIMPLE AND STEPPED INTERACTION MATRIX FOR WATER RESOURCES RESERVOIR PROJECTS (continued) Construction and operation activities (x axis) Environmental attributes (y axis) Land forms and processes A. Compaction of soll B. Topography C. Stabilty of land forms D. Water erosion of soil E, Silt deposition F. Wave movement of soil G. Wind movement of soil Outdoor recreation A. Land-based B. Water-based Preservation of natural resources A. Fauna B. Flora C. Natural ecosystem types D. Open and green space E. Water supply F. Agricultural land Special-interest areas Aesthetics A. Air quality B. Construction scars C. Man-made features D. Scenic views E, Landscape diversity F. Vegetation G. Water quality H. Noise Surface-water quality A. Physical attributes 1. Color 2. Discharge 3. Redox potential 4. Turbidity 5. Water temperature B. Chemical attributes 1. Carbon dioxide 2. COD 3. Dissolved oxygen (DO) 4. Nitrate 5. Phosphorus 6. Suifur ‘Source: Adapted {rom Johnson and Bell, 1975, p. 86, Scanned with CamScanner‘SIMPLE METHODS FOR IMPACT IDENTIFICATION—MATRICES, NETWORKS, AND CHECKLISTS 73 ENVIRONMENTAL PERTURBATIONS THAT MAY OCCUR AS A RESULT OF PETROLEUM INDUSTRY PRACTICES® Petroleum Development Phase and Activity Environmental Perturbations” (axis) (eis) Exploration Geophysical Survey Drilling Land surface. Destruction of vegetation ‘Overland travel ‘Overland travel including disturbances | Tree clearing Stream crossings stream crossings Slash disposal Seismic wave production Access road construction Altered soil characteristics Remote-area human Airstrip construction ‘Thermal erosion/thermokarst ‘support Drill and camp site Hydraulic erosion Air traffic development Altered surface water hydrology | Accidents Gravel mining Fill over land surface Regional population Drilling and related Above ground obstruc increase activities. Remote area human support Air trafic Accidents Regional population increase ‘Stream or lake ‘Stream bank erosion Development ee a ach Production Facility ATEETse eA ety Construction Pipeline Construction Channel obstruction Overland travel Access road construction Shock wave ‘Access road construction | Right-of-way Perched drainage structure Site development (al development Bottom substrate disturbance facilities) ‘Stream crossings Long term channel changes Gravel mining Gravel mining Reduced water volume Drilling Pump station Altered water quality Mechanical facilities. construction Drainage of lake basin Construction Pipe laying Gathering pipeline Restoration construction Remote area human Remote area human ‘support support Air traffic Air traffic Accidents ‘Accidents Regional population Regional population increase - increase Scanned with CamScanner74 CHAPTER 3 ae) ENVIRONMENTAL PERTURBATIONS THAT MAY OCCUR AS A RESULT OF PETROLEUM INDUSThy PRACTICES (continued) Production Field Operation Pipeline Operation Noise and activity | Loud noise (blasting, aircraft, Road travel Development of ancillary etc.) Operation of mechanical indust. Moderate noise Facilities Road travel Human activity Permanent human Operation of mechanical support facil. Ar traffic Presence of above Accidents ground pipe Local population increase | Gravel mining Regional population Permanent human increase support Air traffic Accidents Regional population increase Land pollution il and fuel spills, Termination Toxic chemical spils mia kas Removal of equipment Domestic solid waste litter ft Gravel removal and stockpile Edible substance availabilty Torah gaskdichon Water pollution | Suspended sediment Revegetation il and fuel spills Remote area human support Toxic chemical spills Air trafic Driling fluid Accidents Sanitary waste effluent Air pollution Dust generation Emissions from int. combustion eng. Emissions from major facilities Incinerator and bum smoke Indirect human | Hunting and fishing activities Intensified land use demands Incr. domestic waste processing “Assumes the area is sufficiently remote to requir full human suppor facilities. “The rating system is based on a subjective scale of 0-3 wth 3 representing a maximum detrimental impact; negative numbers are use! to represent beneficial impacts. ‘Source: Hanley, Hemming, and Morsel, 1961, p. 142 Scanned with CamScannersz POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO FISH AND WILDLIFE AS A RESULT OF PETROLEUM-INDUSTRY-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL PERTURBATIONS. ‘eralog of Teese | Aan of haus at abt nat Trae] | oisurtance 2 Impacts wo fsnand | ovact | anerea [wit] | oirect[aneee| "was atvacon £3 ae Habitat | Habitat | Habitat | Fail Gharae. toss. [charac | ‘Above ground obstructions Fl Scanned with CamScanner“Giream bank erosion Sitation {Channel constriction ‘tered curont velocity Channel obstruction Shock wave Perched drainage structure Bottom substrate asturance Long term channel changes Reduced water volume ‘Atered water quality Drainage of lake basin {Loud noise (basting, alreah, ete) Moderate noise ‘il and fuel spits ‘Tore chemical spile Dring ais Domestic solid waste iter Suspended Sediment Oitand fuel spill ‘Toxie chemical spile Dring Hid Sanitary waste ffuent ust goneration ‘ic | Emissions from int. combustion ong. polation | Emissions from major facies Incinerator and Burn Tediect | Hunting and fishing ‘human | Intensited land use demands sctwises | incr: domestic waste ti Scanned with CamScannerSIMPLE METHODS FOR IMPACT IDENTIFICATION-MATRICES, NETWORKS, AND CHECKLISTS 7 improved sites for use by heavier industry. The stepped matrix that was developed is shown in Figure 3.3. The steps involved in the use of the matrix are as follows: 5. Read along the row, beginning at the left. ‘A major negative impact would be a change in Subsurface Water. The 2 next to the indicates that the impact originates at 2. Future Improvements. 1, Enter the matrix at the upper left-hand cor- ner under the heading Project Elements. In this example, the element is 2. Future Im- provements. .. Read to the right. A causal factor that may re- sultin an impactis shown at Surfacing. A dot (0) indicates that a relationship exists be- tween Future Improvements and Surfacing. Read downward from the © until either a +, *, 0, G, or U is encountered. If a appears, a major positive impact exists. A * indicates a minor positive impact. A 0) indicates a major negative impact. A 0 in- dicates a minor negative impact. A U in- dicates that an impact exists, but its mag- nitude or direction cannot be determined at present. Reading downward from Surfac- ing, a D1 is encountered. 4. Continue reading to the right. In the column Initial Condition is the no- tation “High quality,” indicating that the altered element is presently of high qual- ity. . In the column Mechanisms of Change is a notation “Reduced,” describing the way in which the element would be al- tered, In the column Possible Final Condition is the notation “Little,” describing the al- tered element after the impact has taken place. ‘The Potential Corrective Measures column is reserved for those impacts against which some mitigation or effect-minimi- zation steps have been or could be taken, These steps would be noted here. ae 9 10. FIGURE 3.3 Guide to Using Stepped Matrix for Industrial Park Project (U.S. Economic Development ‘Administration, 1973). Causal factors & Project 3 elements g [2 Future improvements] ‘Attered | Operation, maintenance | initia) | Mechanisms | Possible | Potential elements tion pect condition | ofchange | _ final | corrective ‘of resources ‘condition | measures Physical environment ‘Subsurface water Socioeconomic environment Employment opportunities Scanned with CamScanner78 CHAPTER 3 Development of a Simple Matrix It is considered better to develop a specific ma- trix for the project, plan, program, or policy be- ing analyzed, rather than using a generic matrix. ‘The following steps can be used by an individ- ual or an interdisciplinary team in preparing a simple interaction matrix: 1, List all anticipated project actions and group them according to temporal phase, such as construction, operation, and postoperation. 2. List all pertinent environmental factors from the environmental setting, and group them (a) according to physical-chemical, biologi- cal, cultural, and socioeconomic categories, and (b) based on spatial considerations such as site and region, or upstream, site, and downstream. 3, Discuss the preliminary matrix with y team members and/or advisors to teay study manager. 4. Decide on an impact-rating scheme (fo, ample, numbers, letters, or colors) to bey 5, Talk through the matrix as a team, and p, ratings and notes in order to identify summarize impacts (documentation). Other Types of Matrices Simple matrices can also be used for puny other than impact identification. For exan, Table 3.8 shows a matrix framework wi can be used to summarize baseline envi mental conditions. In this example, rely factor importance, present condition, and tent of management can be taken into coy eration. ae) CONCEPT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE MATRIX Identification Evaluation Scale of Importance Scale of management ‘Seale of present condition, Environmental elements/units low +3335 high 12345 low high 12345 low high Biological: flora fauna ecological relationships Physical-chemical: atmosphere water earth Cultural: households communities economy ‘communications Bio-cultural linkages/units: resources recreation conservation Scanned with CamScanner