1. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture 1 Evaluation and optimisation of alternatives Two cases - Criteria of judgement - Matrix evaluation, including costs - Mitigating measures

2. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture 2 Case 1: capacity improvement of highway A12 Alternatives assessed: -Reference situation 2x2 lanes -Utilisation of current deck 2x3 -Minimal enlargement 2x4 -Maximal enlargement 2x4 -Safe design 4x2 -Environmentally optimal alternative Aspects assessed: - Traffic and transport -Infrastructure -Human env. (noise, air, safety) -Natural env. (flora, fauna, landscape) -Spatial planning (agriculture, housing) -Economy -Costs

3. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture 3 Case 2: location and technology for a new water production plant Aspects assessed: - Water and soil -Agriculture -Nature -Landscape -Energy, waste, materials -Management (incl. costs) Alternatives assessed: -Reference situation (existing plant) -Trench / groundwater -Stream channel / groundwater -River bank / bank-groundwater -Infiltration area / surface water infiltration -Environmentally optimal alternative

4. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture 4 Components of the EIA, both cases Contents of the report: - Problem definition and objective - Present and known future situation in study area - Alternatives - Most environmentally friendly alternative - Criteria of judgement of the alternatives - Impacts - Comparison of the alternatives - Compensation and mitigation Difference: nominal (water) or ordinal (highway) alternatives

5. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture 5 Criteria of judgement of the alternatives Based on insight through public and expert consultations Defined in scoping Includes both topic (aspect) and methodology of assessment Described in the EIA report, before description of impacts Both qualitative and quantitative or standardised evaluation

6. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture 6 Comparison of alternatives: MCA scores

7. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture 7 Comparison of alternatives: MCA weights

8. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture 8 Comparison of alternatives: ranking Highway (no weights agreed) Based on scores natural environment: 1 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 - 2 Based on scores human environment: 1 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 - 1 Based on scores traffic: 6 – 5 – 3 – 2 – 1 - 4 Based on scores economy: 6 – 4 – 3 – 2 – 1 - 4 Water production plant (weights agreed) Based on scores: 6 – 4 – 4 – 1 – 1 - 3 Based on weights: 6 - 5 – 4 – 1 – 2 - 3 Choice of weights and/or point of view = political = subjective Conclusion for given choice = evidence based = objective

9. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture 9 Mitigating measures - types 3 types of measures: - those who are already foreseen in every alternative - those who could be elaborated in the next project phase if desired - those who are part of the Env. Opt. Alternative but who could be applied to every other alternative if desired

10. Consultant: CMDC Joint Venture 10 Mitigating measures – some examples Measurepositive for… Optimisation stream of raw materialssustainability Maintenance-free designsustainability Dam to protect areas prone to dehydrationwater system Plant construction with vegetationvisual nuisance No construction during brooding seasonfauna Additional noise measuresfauna, noise nuisance Move monumental trees elsewhereflora, landscape Remove/prevent sight obstruction cyclistssocial safety Lights near cyclist tunnels and pathssocial safety Prevent pollution rather than clean afterwardswater system, costs