Environmental, Social, and Political Feasibility
Chap.
15
For open-space qualities:
1. If several thousand acres of open space is inundated and penstocks and canals
cross and
mar the open nature of the area, assign -10.
2.
If a large area of open space is inundated, assign a -7.
3.
If a 1imitecl.area of open space is disrupted, assign a
-3.
4.
If
no apparent change will occur in the open-space area, assign
a
0.
5.
If impound~nent and control of stream allows use of open space and new
vegetation creates a more open and attractive area, assign a
+5.
It should be noted that
a
little flag symbol has been placed opposite the line
for historical and archaeological sites. This expression could graphically signify that
'the evaluator is unwilling to make a trade-off, meaning that the impact is so nega-
tive that development should not be considered under present standards of
environ-
TABLE
15.1
Rating and Scaling Form for Making an Environmental
Impact
Evalualion
of
Hydropower Development
1
Other Social and Political Considerations
I
305
mental concern. More or less detail can be gained in such an evaluation by creating
either more or fewer subfactors.
An
example of the form actually used by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamatiori in
the
Western
Energy
Expattsiorz
Study
(US. Department of the Interior, 1977) is
presented in Table 15.1 to illustrate a similar evaluation technique.
In choosing the considerations to be used in the evaluation, a key element
is
to choose items or parameters which are as independe:lt as possible. In reality it is
likely that one will never get an array of considerations that are
con~pletely inde-
pendent. However, the value of this type of appraisal is the focusing on systematic
checking of the concerns that should be environmentally addressed.
The factor profile can give a visual
rcpresentation of re2traints. If desired, it is
possible to
sum the various values of the attribute numbers. It is also possible to
give added weight to certain of the considerations by giving a weighting factor to a
given consideration or subfactor.
A
good treatment on detail on how this might be
done is presented in the literature for selection of nuclear power plants (Beers,
1974) and the studies of the author on power plant siting
(Warnick,
1976).
SOCIAL IMPACTS
I.
Rate
the
nlagnitudc of social disruption likely to be caused by the proposal.
012345678910
Major Moderate No
disruption disruption disruption
2.
Indic3tc
tile
;ippro.xir~~atc nt11nber of people who will be directly affecled in an adverse
\\,a).
by
i!:iplenlentation of the proposal.
012345678910
More than Approximately Very
10,000
5,000 few
3. Rate
!he magnitude of' adverse social impacts the proposal will have on areas of major
nstiond concern.
012345678910
hlajor adverse Moderate adverse No adverse
social
impacts social impacts
social impacts
4.
Overnl! social assessment rating.
012345678910
hlajor adverse Moderate adverse
No adverse
social
inipacts social impacts social impacts
5.
Yriefly describe any special social aspects of the proposal which were particularly in-
fluential in arriving at
your judgments of the adverse social impacts. (Continue on the
other side of
this sheet if necessary.)
SOURCE:
U.S.
Department of the Interior (1977).
,
OTHER SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS
I
i
I
Land Ownership
I
I
In hydropower feasibility studies, land ownership is an important considera-
tion. In many cases the site with
the best development potential presents a problenl
1
because the entity that wants to develop the energy does not have ownership of the
1
land, the land is in government ownership, or there are certain legal restraints on
1
the land. Frequently, condemnation action must be taken to bring proper title to
I
the plant site and to the flowage and impoundment areas. Land ownership problems
I
need early attention in planr,ing and may take on an inordinate importance in the
feasibility determination and the implementation of a hydropower development.
I
Legal
Considerations
I
Three legal considerations are important in the appraisal of social and political
1
feasibility of hydropower developments: water rights, state regulatory pem~its, and
I
federal licensing. Water rights are required on all hydropower developments in the
,
United States. These are administered through state s~atutes. The procedures and
legal approach varies greatly from state to state.
The usual approhch is to
file
as
I
early as possible because this can prevent competitive developers from proceeding.
1
Depending on the state involved, there are other legal requirements that must
I
be met and require attention even at the Ceasibillty study level. Typical of these
requirements are stream channel alteration permits, public utility certificates for
,
study of need and convenience, state
environmental
impact statements, and proof
of
compliance with state water quality standards. Because of the djrect impact of
hydropower developments on the stream's fishery resources, there are always