Journal of Environmental Protection, 2011, 2, 1021-1031
doi:10.4236/jep.2011.28117 Published Online October 2011 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/jep)
Determination of the Significance of Environmental
Impacts of Development Projects: A Case Study of
Environmental Impact Assessment of Indrawati-3
Hydropower Project in Nepal
Ram B. Khadka1, Ajay Mathema1, Uttam Sagar Shrestha2
1School of Environmental Science and Management, Pokhara University, Nepal; 2Departments of Geography, Tribhuvan University,
Kathmandu, Nepal.
Received May 28th, 2011; revised July 7th, 2011; accepted August 26th, 2011.
ABSTRACT
The environmental impacts are commonly quantified in the EIA studies by rating, ranking and scaling. The National
EIA Guidelines , 1993, Nep al provides a guid eline to score th e impacts in terms of magnitud e, extent, and duration . Th is
step is commonly known as impa ct prediction in the EIA process. The predicted scores are multiplied b y the weightage
value of the resource likely to be affected. The application of the weightage transforms the predicted values of the im-
pacts into their “significanc e”—a concept used in the environmental decision making. In other words the significance
value entails assignment of relative judgment values to the impacts. The impacts, thus, can be ranked based on their
significance. The impact ranking is more useful in evaluating the socio-economic impacts. Unlike air, water and noise
quality, which can be assessed against established standards; the socio-economic impacts do not have standard scale
and are difficult to ra nk. Importance weighting of socio-economic impacts are commonly determined by the consensus
obtained fro m the interaction with th e local people, agencies, NGOs and experts. The impact ranking in the EIA process
is unavoidable, firstly to prioritize the urgent environmental issues and design mitigation measures accordingly and
also provide coherent linkages among the issues, and plan monitoring and auditing linkage with the proposed mitiga-
tion measures. Furthermore, it also provides strong basis for decision making, and thus facilitates the decision ma kers.
The process of impact predictio n, determination of sign ificance and ranking were applied in the EIA of Indrwati-3 Hy-
droelectric Project, which is one of the successful cases of EIA in Nepal. The authors believe that the impacts predicted
and quantified through this method are focused on the local concerns since it seeks an active involvement of the local
people who are likely to be affected.
Keywords: Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Significance, Ranking, Prediction of Impacts, Importance
Weighting, Judgment Values
1. Introduction
Environmental Significance is an anthropogenic concept
[1] used in decision making of the Environmental As-
sessment process. This concept remains undefined and
has become a source of controversy among the EA pro-
fessionals. Evaluation of the environmental significance
requires expert judgment values and scientific criteria [2].
However, EIA legislation of developed and developing
countries has catagorically mentioned that the law is en-
forcable only if the impact is environmentally significant.
The legal definition of environmentally significant in terms
of thresholds is usually not available [1]. Duinker and
Beanlands [3], Huge et al. [4], Sadler (1996), Gilpin [5]
and Thompson [2] have proposed various definition of
environmental significance and the common elements of
their definitions are following [1].
 Environmental significance is a judgment,
 The degree of environmental significance depends
upon the nature of the impacts (type, magnitude, ex-
tent and duration),
 The importance is based on biophysical and socio-
economic values, and the amount of changes to the
environment perceived to be acceptable to the com-

Determination of the Significance of Environmental Impacts of Development Projects: A Case Study of
Environmental Impact Assessment of Indrawati-3 Hydropower Project in Nepal
1022
munity.
Determination of the significan ce entails the assign ment
of relative judgment values of impact prediction associated
with the project and to determine the priority order in
which the impacts are to be avoided, mitigated or com-
pensated [6]. Evaluation of the significance of the pre-
dicted impacts can be made in different ways depending
on particular environmental component in question. For
example air, water and noise quality can be assessed against
the established quality standards whereas changes in socio-
economic conditions are more difficult to ev aluate [1].
The major elements of assessing the significant impacts
have been described for ecological and socio-economic
components and the assessment is mostly based on sub-
jective evaluation and includes the following [3]:
1) Ecological Component: This includes the criteria
related to ecology and environmental parameters criti-
cal to the operation of valued ecosystem such as
 Plant and animal hab itats,
 Rare, endangered and threatened species of biodiver-
sity,
 Ecosystem resilience, biodiversity and carrying ca-
pacity, and
 The viability of local species.
2) Social and Economical Components: Effects on
biophysical impacts when translated into human con-
cerns; the following effects are to be considered:
 Effect on human health and safety,
 Loss of commercially productive lands,
 Loss of public resources such as social services,
 Loss of transportation and other infrastructures, and
 Demography.
3) Environmental Standards: The use of national
standards enshrined into legislation/rules of the govern-
ment/agencies are the most common means to assess the
environmental significance. In most nations, standards/
criteria for air/water/noise are available fo r r e f erence [6].
While evaluating the impact significance, the current
status of the environment is analyzed. This is followed
by identification and prediction of potential impacts of
the proposed action. In the third stage, it is determined
whether the receiving environment will be able to absorb
the effects of the predicted impacts without suffering
irreversible change. This requires thorough understand-
ing of their resilience of receiving environment. It is also
required to evaluate whether the proposed proposal is
within the scope of national policy and covered by the
existing legislation and regulation and lastly the degree
of public interest [7].
2. Procedures for Determination of
Significance
Rau and Wooten [8] and Canter [9] have provided some
practical tools in evaluating environmental significance
of development projects. According to them, the effects
should be predicted in terms of magnitude, extent and
duration.
For the prediction, a number of ways have been pro-
posed such as symbolic signs, numerical values, (+) for
positive and (–) for negative effects, etc. However, the
most convenient way is to develop impact ranking
framework as proposed by Canadian Federal Environ-
mental Assessment Review [10]. National Environ-
mental Impact Assessment Guidelines. Nepal has also
adopted similar impact ranking method and applied suc-
cessfully in number of cases [11]. The impacts are pre-
dicted and classified in terms of:
Magnitude: It is determined based on severity of im-
pact. In case of high magnitude, the situation turns to be
irreversible. Medium and low magnitude is thus consi-
dered to be reversible and acceptable by the public.
The spatial extent: This is another characteristic of
the impact and indicates the zone of influence. The ef-
fects of the impacts may be of local or national or re-
gional or international scopes.
Duration of impact: This is the temporal aspects of
impacts, indicating how long the effects can last. Based
on the prediction made on the above characteristics of
the impacts, the following numerical values are assigned
to each of the character and the degree on which they are
likely to occur [11] (Table 1).
Each impact is predicted with its magnitude, extent
and duration and respective sco res. The to tal scores of all
three parameters are o ft e n computed.
Importance weighting schemes are the most structured
approach to impact scaling and permit direct transforma-
tion of impact ranking into impact significance. In order
to determine the appropriate weightings of the resource
expected to be affected, a procedure should be followed.
While assigning values for resources the EIA study group,
professionals, stakeholders, academicians, and know-
ledgeable people from the project area should be in-
volved in the series of meetings and discussions. An in-
teraction table is usually prepared where resources an-
ticipated to be affected should be listed on the vertical
column and the importance weighting should be marked
in the horizontal column with the degree of importance
from 1 to 3 where 1 indicates the least importance and 3
indicates the highest importance. Request should be
made to the participants to fill out the table based on
their own perceptions. The numerical values of the col-
umn are then summed up and individual value in the
column is divided by the total value. This gives relative
weighting of each resource to be considered [8].
The total score of magnitude, extent and duration is
C opyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP

Determination of the Significance of Environmental Impacts of Development Projects: A Case Study of
Environmental Impact Assessment of Indrawati-3 Hydropower Project in Nepal 1023
Table 1. Categorization of impacts and their ranking.
Magnitude Extent Duration
High/major ( H ) 60 Regional ®60 Long-term (L t) 20
Moderate (M) 20 Local (L) 20 Medium-term (Mt) 10
Minor (L) 10 Site Specific (SP) 10 Short-term (St) 05
Source: National EIA Guidelines, 1993.
multiplied by corresponding relative weightings of re-
source which is the significance of that particular impact.
In this way, significance can be determined for all the
impacts identified and further consideration for impacts
and mitigation measures can be proposed [6].
3. A Case Study on Determination of
Environmental Impact Significance of
Indrawati-3 Hydropower Project in
Nepal
Nepal is endowed with enormous hydropower potential.
However, only a small fraction of it has been exploited
so far. Additional quantity of power is required to fulfill
the power need of the country. Implementation of In-
drawati-3 hydropower was one of the responses to fulfill
the power need. The project started in 2002 and com-
pleted in 2007 and generated electricity which contri-
butes to National grid.
Indrawati-3 hydropower project was constructed in
Sindhupalchowk district located 58 km north-east of
Kathmandu-the capital city of Nep al. Th e head work was
built in the bank of Laps e River and the power house was
located in Ratmate village. The project covers three vil-
lage development committees viz Lagarche, Jaymire and
Bhotenamlang (See map Figure 1).
3.1. Project Area Description
The project is located within the mid-hills of mountain at
the altitude of 2000 m to 2500 m above the sea level. The
geology of the project area consisted mainly quartzite,
phyllities and schist. The sedimentation in river is quite
high and the specific load was recorded at 0.304 × 106
m3/year.
Indrawati is a snow-fed river originating from the Ju-
gal Himal range. The maximum flow of Indrawati River
near project area is 40.5 m3/sec in average and minimum
flow is 6.5 m3/sec recorded during the months of Febru-
ary to March. In the project area, a few patches of vege-
tation comprising particularly Lyonia ovalifolia, Pinus
ruxburghii, Alnus nepalensis, Castanopsis indica, and
Shorea robusta were present. Some species of the mam-
mals and birds were reportedly available in the area but
no rare, endangered and protected species were available.
Among the fish species in Indrawati River, 20 species of
the fresh water fish existed in the River with a few mi-
gratory species. The project area covered only three Vil-
lage Development Committees, consisting 7500 popula-
tions and were mostly farmers, traders, and service hold-
ers.
3.2. Project Description
The project consisted of 5-meter high diversion weir
constructed at the intake site, 2.9 km long headrace tun-
nel, a surface type of power house with 3 generating sets,
2.8 km long access road and accommodation complex
for workers and staff. The project was designed to divert
water flow of 17.2 m3/sec from the River to the tunnel
and the power house to generate electricity. As per the
rules 0.5 m3/sec of water flow has been released as envi-
ronmental flow for downstream during the dry period.
The project required occupying 120 ha of land. Most of
the land was acquired from the local farmers with ade-
quate compensation. Approximately, 1500 workers were
employed during the project construction and in the op-
erational stage, only 45 project staffs were employed
[12].
3.3. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
As per the requirement Environmental Protection Regu-
lation of Government of Nepal [13], hydropower project
generating more than 5 MW required to undergo an EIA
process to obtain environmental clearance from the gov-
ernment of Nepal prior to the start of project construction.
Accordingly, an EIA was carried out for this project; for
which scoping and TOR documents were prepared and
were approved by the government on July 28 2004 [14]
The EIA study including public hearing was completed
on August 2005 and was submitted to the concerned
agency of the government for approval. The EIA was
approved by the government on October 2005. The pro-
ject was constructed and operated by a local Hydropower
company called “National Hydropower Company” [15]
and the electricity generated through this project is pur-
chased by Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA).
3.4. Methodology
After the approval of Scoping and TOR documents from
the concerned agency of the Government of Nepal, EIA
study was carried out. During the study, information on
the baseline condition s of the project area were collected
and compiled. Impact identification was made following
the methods given in National Environmental Impact
Guidelines, 1993 and particularly the following methods
were adopted [16]:

Determination of the Significance of Environmental Impacts of Development Projects: A Case Study of
Environmental Impact Assessment of Indrawati-3 Hydropower Project in Nepal
1024
Figure 1. Location of indrawati 3 hydropower project, Nepal.
 The use of structured questionnaires,
 Interaction Matrices; Simple Matrices and Leopold
Matrix,
 Use of GIS,
 Overlay techniques,
 Impact Networks,
 Task—specific Computer Models, and
 Ranking and weighting methods.
The second stage of the process predicting the impact
in terms of magnitude, extent and duration of each im-
pact identified. This was carried out through the inten-
sive interactions among professional experts, stake-
holders, and local people. A series of meetings were held
for impact prediction and finally they were accepted by
all.
Importance Weighing is the most structured approach
to impact rating. It permits direct transformation of a
sum of impact magnitude, extent, and duration into im-
pact significance. Importance weightings of the resources
likely to be affected were determined by organizing a
workshop or a meeting to discuss at which representa-
tives of the local people, local agencies, NGO stake-
holders and the technical experts involved in EIA study
have participated, A series of steps were followed by
each participant/organizer as given by Rau and Wooten
[8] while conducting meetings for the determination of
weighting. Total scores of prediction were multiplied by
importance weighting which resulted in developing a
framework for determining the impact significance.
Thus, determination of significance provided the im-
pact framework which contributed in the following:
 Categorization of impacts into most detrimental and
most beneficial,
 Prioritization of impacts for which major resources

Determination of the Significance of Environmental Impacts of Development Projects: A Case Study of
Environmental Impact Assessment of Indrawati-3 Hydropower Project in Nepal 1025
and efforts can be allocated for minimizing the effects
of highly detrimental impacts and enhancing the be-
nefits from highly beneficial ones, and
 Dropping down the insignificant impacts of project
implementation [6].
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Identification of Environmental Impacts
Indrwati-3 Hydropower project constitute the construc-
tion of a water diversion weir, headrace tunnel, power-
house, and other ancillary infrastructures. In the process
of project construction and operation, the following ad-
verse and beneficial impacts were likely to occur.
Physical Impacts (Adverse and Beneficial)
Micro-climate and air quality
Topography, land use, and stability
Surface erosion
Disposal of excavated materials
Hydrology and Sedimentation
Water Quality/Pollution
Solid Waste
Noise and Vibration
Impacts on Biological resources
Loss of forest cov er
Increase in felling of trees
Exploitati on o f NTFP
Impact on Biodiversity
Impact on Rare Endangered and threatened
species
Impact on fish migration
Effect on Riparian Habitat
Downstream effect
Impacts on Socio-Economy and Cultural Resources
Impacts in agricultural land
Women and Child Labor
Culture and Religio n
Public Health
Occupational Health and Safety
Law and Order
Impact on local Life Style
Increase Pressure on Local Services
Increased local Employment
Increase in Local Trade
Improvement in Road Condition
Rural Electrification
Industrialization
Promotion in Eco-tourism
4.2. Predicting Anticipated Impacts
Based on the list above, the impacts were predicted. Each
impact was predicted in terms of magnitude, extent, and
duration. In predicting the impacts, ranking methods as
given in National Environmental Impact Assessment
Guidelines [11] and Canadian Federal Environmental
Assessment Review [10] were followed. As specified
earlier, a series of meetings were held with the participa-
tion of professional experts, stakeholders, affected peo-
ple, and beneficiaries. In the preliminary meeting, a list
of anticipated impacts was prepared and presented. The
meeting was attended by all the experts involved in the
EIA study. Each impact was discussed and predicted in
terms of magnitude, extent, and duration. Based on the
outcome of the preliminary meeting a Framework of
Impact Prediction (FIP) was developed and presented in
following meeting. A confirmation meeting was held
immediately upon the finalization of FIP. The opinions
and expressions of local p eople, local authorities, NGOs,
and other stakeholders present in the meeting were re-
corded. The final meeting of experts made the necessary
modifications to the predictions. The prediction made for
the anticipated impacts of Indrawati-3 Hydropower Pro-
ject are given in the Table 2:
4.3. Ranking of the Predicted Impact
Each of predicted impact is categorized into magnitude
extent and duration. Further, on the basis of severity,
impacts are classified as high (H), moderate (Mo) and
low (Mi) under magnitude, in which (H) is irreversible,
and (Mo) and (Lo) are reversible. Under the extent, im-
pact are classified as site specific (Sp), local (L) and re-
gional (R). Similarly under duration, impacts were clas-
sified into short term (St), medium term (Mt) and long
term (Lo). Each of the categories were the trans- lated
into numerical value as giv en in National EIA guidelines
(1993). The total numerical values were summed up to a
maximum of 140 and minimum up to 35 (Table 3).
4.4. Determining Importance Weighting
Importance weighting is a structured approach to impact
rating and permit a direct transformation of sum of im-
pact magnitude, extent and duration into impact signifi-
cance. Weighting can be determined by organizing a
workshop or a meeting represented by local people, local
agencies, NGOs stakeholders and the experts involved in
EIA study.
The meeting held on 25 January, 2002 assigned impor-
tance value to the resources to be affected. An interact-
tion table was prepared where resources anticipated to be
affected were listed in the vertical column and the im-
portance weighting was marked in the horizontal co-
lumn, indicating the degree of importance from 1 - 3
where 1 stands for the least importance and 3 indicates
the highest importance. Table 4 provides the overall

Determination of the Significance of Environmental Impacts of Development Projects: A Case Study of
Environmental Impact Assessment of Indrawati-3 Hydropower Project in Nepal
1026
Table 2. Impact prediction in terms of magnitude, extent and duration.
Impacts Magnitude Extent Duration
H Mo Mi R L Sp Lt Mt St
Physical Environment
Micro-climate and air quality - - Mi - - Sp - - St
Topography, land use and stab i li t y - Mo - - L - - - St
Disposal of excavated materials - Mo - - L - - Mt -
Hydrology and S e d i mentation - - Mi - L - - Mt -
Water Quality/Pollution - Mo - - L - - - St
Solid Waste - - Mi - - Sp - - St
Noise and Vibration - Mo - - L - - - St
Biological Environment
Loss of forest cover - Mo - - L - - Mt -
Impact on Biodiversity - Mo - - L - - - St
Impact on Rare Endangered and t hreatened species - Mo - - L - - Mt -
Impact on fish migration - - Mi - L - - Mt -
Effect on Riparian Habitat - - Mi - L - - Mt -
Downstream effects - Mo - - L - - Mt -
Socio-economic/Cultural Impact
Loss of agricultural land H - - - L - - Mt -
Women and Child Labor - Mo - - - Sp - - St
Culture and Religions - Mo - - L - - - St
Public Health - Mo - - L - - Mt -
Occupational Health and Safety - Mo - - - Sp - - St
Law and Order - - Mi - - Sp - - St
Impact on local Life Style - Mo - - L - - - St
Increase Pressure on Local Services - Mo - - L - - - St
Increased local Employment - Mo - R - - - Mt -
Increase in Local Trade - Mo - R - - - Mt -
Improvement in Road Condition - Mo - R - - - Mt -
Rural Electrification - Mo - R - - Lt - -
Promotion in Eco-tourism - Mo - R - - Lt - -
Decrease in Dependence on Fuel wood - Mo - - - - Lt - -
H = High, Mo = Moderate, Mi = Minor, R = Regional, L = Local, Sp = Site Specific, Lt = Long Term, Mt = Medium Term, St = Short Term (National Planning
Commission, GON and IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 1993).
framework for assigning importance. The individual
ranking of importance was then divided by the total score
of importance value which provided the importance weight-
ing of each resource to be affected by project implemen-
tation.
4.5. Determination of Significance of Predicted
Impacts in the Context of Indrawati-3
Hydropower Project
The total score of numeral value of prediction of each
impact (Table 3) was multiplied by importance weighting
given in (Table 4). The product gives the relative impact
of significance (Table 5). The higher the product, the
more effects are associated w ith it. The impacts were then
categorized and prioritized to invest greater efforts and
resources for mitigating significant detrimental effects,
while dropping down less significant effects.
4.6. The Prioritization of Impacts for Designing
Effective Mitigation Measures
Table 5 provides a framework for impacts prioritization
for designing an effective mitigation measures. Based on

Determination of the Significance of Environmental Impacts of Development Projects: A Case Study of
Environmental Impact Assessment of Indrawati-3 Hydropower Project in Nepal 1027
Table 3. The predicted impacts translated into numerical ranking as given by National Planning Commission, GON and
IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 1993. [11]
Impacts Magnitude Extent Duration Total
H Mo MiR L Sp Lt Mt St
Physical Environment
Micro-climate and air quality - - 10 - - 10 - - 5 25
Topography, land use and stab i li t y - 20 - - 20 - - - 5 45
Disposal of excavated materials - 20 - - 20 - - 10 - 50
Hydrology and S e d i mentation - - 10 - 20 - - 10 - 40
Water Quality/Pollution - 20 - - 20 - - - 5 45
Solid Waste - - 10 - - 10 - - 5 25
Noise and Vibration - 20 - - 20 - - - 5 45
Biological Environment
Loss of forest cover - 20 - - 20 - - 10 - 50
Impact on Biodiversity - - 10 - - 10 - 10 - 30
Impact on Rare Endangered and t hreatened species - 20 - - 20 - - 10 - 50
Impact on fish migration - - 10 - 20 - - 10 - 40
Effects on Riparian Habitat - - 10 - 20 - - 10 - 40
Downstream effects - 20 - - 20 - - 10 - 50
Socio-economic/Cultural Impact
Loss of Agriculture land 60 - - - 20 - - 10 - 90
Women and Child Labor - 20 - - - 10- - 5 35
Culture and Religions - 20 - - 20 - - - 5 45
Public Health - 20 - - 20 - - 10 - 50
Occupational Health and Safety - 20 - - - 10 - - 5 35
Law and Order - - 10 - - 10 - - 5 25
Impact on local Life Style - 20 - - 20 - - - 5 45
Increased on Pressure on Local Services - 20 - - 20 - - - 5 45
Increased local Employment - 20 - 60 - - - 10 - 90
Increase in Local Trade - 20 - 60 - - - 10 - 90
Improvement in Road Condition - 20 - 60 - - - 10 - 90
Rural Electrification improvement - 20 - 60 - - 20 - - 100
Promotion in Eco-tourism - 20 - 60 - - 20 - - 100
Decrease in Dependence on Fuel wood - 20 - - 20 - 20 - - 60
Source: National Hydropower Company Pvt, 2002; The values have been assigned as per the values given in National Environmental Impact Assessment
Guideline s (NPC Government of Nepal and IUCN , 1993).

Determination of the Significance of Environmental Impacts of Development Projects: A Case Study of
Environmental Impact Assessment of Indrawati-3 Hydropower Project in Nepal
1028
Table 4. Importance weighting as decided by exper t group (Extracted f ro m E IA of Indrawati-3 Hydropower Project).
Impacts Importance Value
Physical Environment 1 2 3 Total Importance Weighting
Micro-climate and air quality  1 0.01960
Geology and topography  2 0.03921
Hydrology and S e d i mentation  2 0.03921
Water Quality  1 0.01960
Solid Waste  1 0.01960
Tranquility of the area  2 0.03921
Biological Environment
Forest cover  2 0.03921
NTF  1 0.01960
Cultivated land  1 0.01960
Wild Life Habitat  2 0.03921
Rare Endangered and threatened species  3 0.05882
Fish species  2 0.03921
Riparian Habitat  1 0.01960
Socio-economic/Cultural Impact
Land property  3 0.05882
Women and Child  2 0.03921
Culture and Religions  2 0.03921
Occupational Health and Safety  2 0.02489
Law and Order  1 0.01960
Local Services  2 0.03921
Employment  3 0.05882
Water Use  1 0.01960
Local Trade  2 0.03921
Road Condition  1 0.01960
Rural Electrification  3 0.05882
Industrialization V 3 0.05882
Eco-tourism  2 0.03921
Total 51 1.000
Note: 1 = least importance, 2 = moderate importance and 3 = most important.
C opyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP

Determination of the Significance of Environmental Impacts of Development Projects: A Case Study of
Environmental Impact Assessment of Indrawati-3 Hydropower Project in Nepal
1029
Table 5. Impact significance and prioritization for mitigation prescription.
Predicted Impacts Total Score
from Ranking
(Table 3) Importance
Weighting
(Table 4)
Significant
Values Impact Prioritization (1 = top priority)
Physical Environment
Micro-climate and air quality 25 0.01960 0.490 18
Topography, land use and stab i li t y 45 0.03921 1.764 9
Disposal of excavated materials 50 0.03921 1.960 8
Hydrology and S e d i mentation 40 0.01960 0.784 15
Water Quality/Pollution 45 0.01960 0.882 14
Solid Waste 25 0.03921 0.980 13
Noise and Vibration 45 0.03921 1.764 9
Biological Environment
Loss of forest cover 50 0.01960 0.980 13
Impact in Biodiversity 30 0.01960 0.588 17
Impact on Rare Endangered and t hreatened species 50 0.03921 1.960 8
Impact on fish migration 40 0.05882 2.352 7
Effect on Riparian Habitat 40 0.03921 1.568 10
Downstream effects 50 0.05882 2.941 5
Socio-economic/Cultural Impact
Loss of Agriculture land 90 0.05882 5.293 2
Women and Child Labor 35 0.03921 1.372 11
Culture and Religions 45 0.03921 1.764 9
Occupational Health Hazardous and Safety 35 0.01960 0.686 16
Law and Order 25 0.03921 0.980 13
Impact on local Life Style 45 0.05882 2.646 6
Increase Pressure on Local Services 45 0.01960 0.882 14
Increased in local Employment 90 0.03921 3.528 4
Increase in Local Trade 90 0.01960 1.521 10
Improvement in Road Condition 90 0.05882 5.293 2
Rural Electrification 100 0.05882 5.882 1
Promotion in Eco-tourism 100 0.03921 3.921 3
Decrease in Dependence on Fuel wood 60
M
U
L
T
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
B
Y
I
M
P
O
R
T
A
N
C
E
W
E
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
0.01960 1.176 12
Source: N ational Hydropower Company Pvt, 2002.
priority and severity the predicted impacts were classi-
fied into following three categories:
Impacts having significant adverse/beneficial effects
Rural Electrification—beneficial
Local employment—beneficial
Promotion in Ecotourism—beneficial
Loss of Agricultural land—adverse
Disposal of excavated materials—adverse
Decrease in dependence on fuel wood—beneficial
Promotion of ecotourism—beneficial
Loss of forest cover/forest biomass —a dv erse
Impact on rare/endangered/endemic species of plants
and animals downstream effects—adverse
Topography, land use and stability—adverse
Noise and vibration—adverse
Habitat encroachment—adverse
Effects on culture and religious—adverse
Hydrology and sedimentation—adverse
Impact on fish migrati on— adverse
Impacts with Moderate/Adverse/Beneficial Effects
Occupational health hazards—adverse
Women and child labor—adverse
Exploitati on o f NTFP—adverse
Impacts on life style—adverse
Water quality / pollution—adverse
Effects on ripa ri a n habitat—adv erse
Impacts with Less Significant Adverse/Beneficial Ef-
fects
Improvement in road condition—beneficial
Law and order—adverse
Micro-climate and air quality—adverse
Solid waste—adverse
5. Conclusions
The entire process as outlined above for the identifica-
tion of significant impacts is a subjective exercises in-
volving mostly judgment values of experts, stakeholders,
project affected and beneficiaries and other concerned
people of the local area. But for those parameters of en-
vironment, whose national and international standards or

Determination of the Significance of Environmental Impacts of Development Projects: A Case Study of
Environmental Impact Assessment of Indrawati-3 Hydropower Project in Nepal
1030
norms are available, the values anticipated from the
study can be compared and the thesholds can be deter-
mined. For example, air and water quality and noise level
can be compared against national quality standards. For
impacts, whose severity is not quantifiable such as social
issues, this process of quantification, would be most ap-
propriate, since it involves the project affected stake-
holders of project areas. The authors believe that the im-
pact predicted and quantified through this method would
likely to be more closer to the reality of the local area,
since it involves the lo cal people likely to be affected by
the project implementation [14].
Determination of significance provides the impact
framework on categorization of impacts into most detri-
mental and most beneficial ones and prioritizes the im-
pacts for which major resources and efforts can be allo-
cated for reducing highly detrimental effects and en-
hancing benefits from highly beneficial impacts [6]. All
scores are relative and computation methods are based
on subjective judgment value. Therefore, it does not have
any scientific foundation [8]. However, in the process of
EIA of a development project, many impacts are usually
identified; some of them are significantly detrimental or
beneficial but most of them are insignificant in terms of
their severity, albeit, they are equally treated and wrongly
predicted. In such circumstances, the project proponent
faces dilemma as to where to place more resources and
efforts in order to minimize the detrimental effects or to
enhance beneficial effects of project implementation.
Therefore, categorization of impacts in terms of severity
is more desirable [14] for:
 Designing the most effective mitigation measures
investing adequate amount of time, money and efforts,
to minimize the most significant adverse impacts,
 Paying less attention and efforts on moderate and less
significant impacts,
 Providing a coherent linkage among the various is-
sues addressed in EIA report,
 Providing specific monitoring and aud iting linkage to
the specific impacts and mitigation measures pro-
posed, and above all, concentrating more on highly
significant impacts, thus, avoiding the insignificant
ones.
Furthermore, the quantification of impacts and their
categorization is important because the decision makers
usually require a strong basis to make a decision on the
proposed project implementation. It would be rather dif-
ficult for project proponent to convince the decision
maker through descriptive narration; but quantification
of the description is likely to ease the decision makers to
grasp the essence of the issues to be decided particularly
in developing country.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors are highly grateful to the Authorities of In-
drawati-3 Hydropower Project Nepal for the permission
to use their information. The help prov ided by the people
responsible for collecting information, the local stake-
holders who provided their valuable suggestions, and the
experts who examined the validity of the issues are
highly appreciated.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Sippe, “Criteria and Standard for Assessing Significant
Impact,” In: J. Petts, Ed., Handbook of Environmental
Assessment , Bla c k wel l Sci ence L t D., O xfo r d , V ol. 1, 1999.
[2] M. A. Thompson, “Determining Impact Significance in
EIA: A Review of 24 Methodologies,” Journal of Envi-
ronmental Management, Vol. 30, 1990, pp. 235-250.
doi:10.1016/0301-4797(90)90004-G
[3] G. E. Beanlands and P. N. Duinker, “An Ecological
Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment in
Canada,” Dalhousie University and FEARO Canada,
Halifax, 1983.
[4] P. T. Hauge, et al., “Determining the Significance of
Environmental Issue under the National Environmental
Policy Act,” Journal of Environmental Management, Vol.
18, 1984, pp. 15-24
[5] A. Gilpin, “Environmental Impact Assessment: Cutting
Age for the 21st Century,” Cambridge University Press,
London, 1995.
[6] M. H. Sadar, “Environmental Impact Assessment,” Carle-
ton University Press for Impact Assessment Center,
Carleton, 1996.
[7] Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conserva-
tion Council, “A National Approach to Environmental
Impact Assessment in Australia, Anzecc Secretariat,”
1991.
[8] G. J. Rau and D. C. Wooten, “Environmental Impact
Assessment Handbook,” McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York, 1980.
[9] L. W. Canter, “Environmental Impact Assessment,”
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1996.
[10] Canadian Federal Environmental Assessment Review
Office (REARO), “Environmental Screening and Initial
Assessment Guidelines,” FEARO, 1986.
[11] National Planning Commission, Government of Nepal
and IUCN, “National Environmental Impact Assessment
Guidelines,” NCSIP, Kathmandu, 1993.
[12] Shah Consult International (P) LtD, “Feasibility Study
and Initial Environmental Examination of Indrawati-3
Hydropower project for the Government of Nepal,” 1997.
[13] Government of Nepal, “Environmental Protection Regu-
lation,” Government Press Nepal, 1997.
[14] R. B. Khadka and H. Shrestha, “The Scoping Process for
Environmental Impact Assessment of Project: A Case
C opyright © 2011 SciRes. JEP

Determination of the Significance of Environmental Impacts of Development Projects: A Case Study of
Environmental Impact Assessment of Indrawati-3 Hydropower Project in Nepal
1031
Study of Outer-Ring Road Project in Nepal-Based on
Local: People’s Perception,” The International Journal of
Environmental, Cultural Economic and Social Sustain-
ability, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2008, pp. 25-36.
[15] National Hydropower Company, Pvt, “Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) of Indrawati-3 Hydropower
Project-Approved by the Government of Nepal,” 2002.
[16] R. B. Khadka and S. Gorzula, “Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA),” Pokhara University, Pokhara, 2010,
pp. 1-136.