Battelle EES, environmental evaluation system

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 w_i.

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 PIU_I or w_i 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 ≤ V_i ≤ 1. A value of V_i = 0 indicates very poor quality, while V_i = 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, V_i (environmental quality) varies in the range 0-1 as a function of DO concentration (mg/L).

Variation of environmental quality index as a function of DO concentration

Source: Dee et al. (1973).

Fig. 1 Variation of environmental quality index
as a function of DO concentration (mg/L).

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.
The environmental impact E_I is evaluated as follows:
E_I = ∑ [ V_{i, 1} w_i ] - ∑ [ V_{i, 0} w_i ]
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.
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 V_i value changes significantly in the adverse direction, as measured by the following relation (in percent):
ΔV_i (%) = 100 (V_{i, 0} - V_{i, 1}) / V_{i, 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% < ΔV_i < 10%; a major red flag when ΔV_i > 10 %. In all other categories, a minor red flag applies when ΔV_i < 30%, or ΔV_i < 0.1 (in absolute value, per unit); a major red flag when ΔV_i ≥ 30%, or ΔV_i ≥ 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.

090326