APPENDIX II: THE BATTELLE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR WATER RESOURCE PLANNING Dr. Victor M. Ponce • INTRODUCTION • The Battelle Environmental Evaluation System (EES) is a methodology for conducting 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. The system is based on a classification consisting of four levels: 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. EES assessment of the environmental impacts of water resources development projects is based on commensurate "environmental impact units" (EIU). Two EIU scores are produced, one 'with' and another 'without' the proposed project. The difference between the two scores is a measure of the environmental impact. The scores are based on the magnitude and importance of specific impacts. In addition to the EIU scores, the EES labels major adverse environmental impacts with a "red flag." These flags point to fragile elements of the environment, for which more detailed studies are warranted. Major features of the EES are: Its hierarchical classification system; Its commensurate unit of measure (EIU); and Its flaging of environmentally sensitive areas. • THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SYSTEM • Table 1 shows the complete list of categories, components, and parameters of the Battelle EES. Column 1 shows the four (4) categories, Column 2 shows the eighteen (18) components, and Column 3 shows the seventy-eight (78) parameters. The EES methodology is based on the assignment of an importance unit to each parameter. Collectively, these "importance units" are referred to as "parameter importance units" or PIU's. A total of 1000 PIU's is distributed among the 78 parameters based on value judgments [of the system development team]. The individual PIU's are shown in Column 4 of Table 1, the summation component PIU's are shown in Column 5, and the summation category PIU's are shown in Column 6. Effectively, for each parameter i, its (PIU)i represents a weight wi. Table 1.   Categories, components, and parameters of the Battelle EES. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Categories Components Parameters Parameter Importance Unit (PIU) Parameter Component Category Ecology Species and populations 1. Terrestrial browsers and grazers 14 140 240 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 12 100 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 Ecosystems Descriptive only - - Pollution Water 19. Basin hydrologic loss 20 318 402 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 52 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 28 41. Soil erosion 14 Noise 42. Noise 4 4 Aesthetics Land 43. Geologic surface material 6 32 153 44. Relief and topographic character 16 45. Width and alignment 10 Air 46. Odor and visual 3 5 47. Sounds 2 Water 48. Appearance 10 52 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 24 54. Animals - wild 5 55. Diversity of vegetation types 9 56. Variety within vegetation types 5 Manmade objects 57. Manmade objects 10 10 Composition 58. Composite effect 15 30 59. Unique composition 15 Human interest Educational/scientific packages 60. Archaeological 13 48 205 61. Ecological 13 62. Geological 11 63. Hydrological 11 Historical packages 64. Architecture and styles 11 55 65. Events 11 66. Persons 11 67. Religions and cultures 11 68. Western frontier 11 Cultures 69. Indians 14 28 70. Other ethnic groups 7 71. Religious groups 7 Mood/atmosphere 72. Awe-inspiration 11 37 73. Isolation/solitude 11 74. Mystery 4 75. Oneness with nature 11 Life patterns 76. Employment opportunities 13 37 77. Housing 13 78. Social interactions 11 Sum total of parameter importance units (PIU) 1000 Each PIUI or wi requires a specific quantitative measurement. The methodology converts different measurements into common units by means of a scalar or "value function." A scalar has the specific measurement in the x-axis and a common environmental quality scale or "value" in the y-axis. The latter varies in the range 0 ≤ Vi ≤ 1. A value of Vi = 0 indicates very poor quality, while Vi = 1 indicates very good quality. Figure 1 shows an example of a typical scalar, that of dissolved oxygen (DO) (Table 1, Column 3, number 21). In this figure, Vi (environmental quality) varies in the range 0-1 as a function of DO concentration (mg/L). Source:  Dee et al. (1973). Fig. 1  Variation of environmental quality index as a function of DO concentration (mg/L). Values of Vi = Vi, 0 are obtained for conditions 'without' the project, and Vi = Vi, 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. The environmental impact EI is evaluated as follows: EI = ∑ [ Vi, 1 wi ] - ∑ [ Vi, 0 wi ] for i = 1 to n, where n = number of parameters (78). For EI > 0, the situation 'with' the project is better than 'without' the project, indicating that the project has positive environmental benefits. Conversely, for EI < 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 EI indicates the existence of substantial negative impacts. The assigned weights or PIU's represent the relative importance of each parameter within the overall system. Once established by society, they should be kept constant; otherwise, the environmental impact assessment would be difficult to replicate. The potential problem areas are represented by those parameters for which the Vi value changes significantly in the adverse direction, as measured by the following relation (in percent): ΔVi (%) = 100 (Vi, 0 - Vi, 1) / Vi, 0 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% < ΔVi < 10%; a major red flag when ΔVi > 10 %. In all other categories, a minor red flag applies when ΔVi < 30%, or ΔVi < 0.1 (in absolute value, per unit); a major red flag when ΔVi ≥ 30%, or ΔVi ≥ 0.1 (in absolute value, per unit). • USE OF THE EES • The EES can be applied for the evaluation of project impacts, to select specific alternatives, or, during the planning process, to minimize potential adverse impacts of proposed projects. In the later case, a feedback loop is used to continually modify the proposed project through successive iterations. Projects developed with the help of EES are expected not only to minimize environmental impacts, but also to improve selected portions of the environment. REFERENCES Dee, N., J. Baker, N. Drobny, K. Duke, and D. Fahringer. 1972. Environmental evaluation system for water resource planning (to Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior). Battelle Columbus Laboratory, Columbus, Ohio, January, 188 pages. Dee, N., J. Baker, N. Drobny, K. Duke, I. Whitman, and D. Fahringer. 1973. An environmental evaluation system for water resource planning. Water Resources Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, June, 523-535.

090724