5.4.1.1 Simple Checklists
A simple checklist comprises a listing of potentially affected environmental parameters. No guidance is provided on specific data needs, measurement methods, or impact prediction and assessment. Usually no numerical ranking is used. A properly designed simple checklist can be used for both planning and summarisation of an EIA study. Mitigation information may also be included in simple checklists. Simple checklists include "questionnaire". Questionnaire checklists comprise a set of questions to be answered. Some general questions on indirect impacts are generally included. Possible mitigation measures are also enquired about. Some questionnaire checklists provide a scale for rating impacts devoting the severity of adverse impacts and the quality of beneficial impacts. In India the MOEF, GOI has issued many sector specific questionnaire checklists. Simple checklists can be a good impact identification tool and, therefore, may be used for 'screening' and 'scoping'.

Simple checklists are easy to use, as they do not embark on much of quantitative analysis. Their requirement of resources (in terms of time, skill, money and data) is comparatively low.

Soon after the enactment of US-NEPA a simple checklist was developed by A.D.Little Inc. (1971) for the US-Department of Transportation. Principal emphasis of the methodology is on the description of the kinds of impacts associated with transportation projects (Canter 1977, Jain et al. 1977, Jain et al. 1993). The methodology is suitable for identifying potential environmental impacts, which are identified over the following temporal phases:
1. Planning and design
2. Construction
3. Operation.

Both direct and indirect impacts are identified in the operational phase. The methodology proposes separate consideration of an impact's amount, effect and value. The only feature of this methodology dealing with impact interpretation is a rating given to the project by an interdisciplinary team between zero and ten based on the relative significance of the project impacts. No specific suggestions are made for the aggregation of impacts. This methodology is elaborated by Canter (1977).

USDA (1990) proposed an improved methodology that allows impact summarisation. This methodology can be used for planning EIA studies and is applicable for identifying impacts on agricultural land. Following topical issues are included in the simple checklist:

1.Land form	12.Public service
2.Air/climatology	13.Utilities
3.Water	14.Population
4.Solid waste	15.Accident risk
5.Noise	16.Human health
6.Plant life	17.Economic condition
7.Animal life	18.Community reaction
8.Land use	19.Aesthetics
9.Natural resources	20.Archaeological, cultural and historical
10.Energy	21.Hazardous waste
11.Transportation and traffic circulation	.

Pertinent questions are asked on each of the topical issues. As may be seen from the list of topical issues considered, response to the questionnaire can be effectively utilised for planning of mitigation measures. However, the responses are to be assessed subjectively and hence they call for peer review. Varying degree of skill may be utilised. Resource requirement is moderate. Considerable time may be needed for data gathering. The methodology can be used in other sites and may be easily modified to suit the needs of other projects.

Canter (1996) cited two more checklists. One, a simple checklist for water resource development project used by Asian Development Bank (ADB) for assessment of bankable projects. Two, a comprehensive questionnaire checklist developed by ESCAP (1990) for small reservoir projects. The ESCAP questionnaire includes questions on the following topics:

1.Natural biological environment,	7.Resource conservation and use
2.Environmental hazards	8.Water quality and quantity
3.Air quality/atmospheric environment	9.Visual resources
4.Noise/sonic environment	10.Economics and environment
5.Community facilities/services	11.Planning co-ordination and growth
6.Historic resource	.

In India industry specific questionnaire checklists were prepared in 1980. Project proponents were required to fill in standard proforma and consent forms for providing relevant information about processes, use of raw materials, human habitat, probable waste emissions (gaseous, liquid and solid wastes), methods of control and disposal of waste, measures for environmental protection, etc. A revised questionnaire was prepared for mining projects. (Ramanathan and Mehta 1982). The same questionnaire with some minor modification is still being used (Banerjee 1996). These questionnaires sought to elicit information necessary for estimating the environmental impacts from the projects prior to the granting of industrial licence.

Gilpin (1994) presented a series of simple checklists, with a 'mother checklist' that is of general application in EIA. Nine other 'daughter checklists' are prepared for the assessment of

1.Air quality impact,	6.Noise impact,
2.Ecological impact,	7.Social impact,
3.Economic impact,	8.Urban impact, and
4.Environmental health impact,	9.Water quality impact.
5.Hazard and risk impact,	.

Each 'daughter checklist' puts forward a list of matters for consideration. The relevance of these lists depends upon the nature of the project under consideration. Gilpin (1994) further developed a few project specific checklists including one for 'open-cut' mining operation. The checklist specific to 'open-cut' mining operation lists forty-seven points for consideration under the economic, social and environmental areas.