Conclusiones

5.9 Annexes: The following should be included as annexes:

(i) List of references/methodologies cited/used.

(ii) Copies of correspondences and reports developed from studies associated with the evaluation.

(iii) Common names for organisms (English or vernacular).

(iv) Site photos, especially for sites, which may be the subject of eventual impact or used for monitoring.

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING:

6.1 Criteria For Making Screening Decisions

6.1.1 The following general criteria, shall be used when making a decision as to the

Environmental effect of an activity.

(i) Magnitude: This is defined as the probable severity of each potential impact. It is measured by the percentage of a population or resource

that may be affected by an impact.

(ii) Prevalence: This is defined as the extent to which the impact may eventually extend as in the cumulative effects of a number of stream crossings. Each one taken separately might represent a localised impact of small importance and magnitude but a number of such crossings could result in a widespread effect.

(iii) Duration: this refers to the time that is estimated for a population or a resource to recover from the impact. Duration is identified as one of the following:

 Short-term – this is defined as < 1 year

 Moderate term – 1 to 10 years

 Long-term - > 10 years

(iv) Frequency: this refers to the number of times an activity is estimated to occur in the lifetime of the project. It is categorized as follows:

 Once

 Intermittent

 Continuous

(v) Risks: This is defined as the probability of serious environmental effects. The accuracy of assessing risk is dependent upon the knowledge and under standing of the activities and the potential impact areas.

(vi) Importance: This is defined as the value that is attached to a specific area in its present status.

(vii) Mitigation : The factor to consider is whether there are available solutions to the problems.

(viii) Degree of reversibility: this refers to whether or not an adverse or negative impact is reversible or irreversible over a certain period of time (5 years).

(ix) Scope: The scope refers to the geographical area potentially affected by the impact.

(x) Direction: This refers to the type of impact and is defined as one of the following:

• Positive

• Negative

• Neutral

6.2 Screening Procedure:

6.2.1 Screening procedure will involve the use of a matrix or other tools which relates a list of project activities with areas of potential environmental impact.

6.2.2 The matrix should identity activities which are likely to occur during the principal phases of project development, viz

(i) Site investigation and preparation (ii) Construction

(iii) Operation and maintenance (of completed project)

(iv) Future and related activities, which are considered subsequent to project development, if any.

(v) Abandonment

6.2.3 The matrix should also identity:

(i) The general areas in which environmental effects, namely physical- chemical, biological, anthropogenic, aesthetic and social, can be expected and;

(ii) The relationships between activities and impact areas.

7.0 GENERAL

7.1 Choosing a Methodology:

There is a wide variety of assessment tools methodologies that make the preparation of impact assessment reports less formidable and more meaningful, since there are no universally applicable procedures. In considering the appropriateness of tools, therefore, the following criteria for methodology evaluation are suggested. It is for the initiator to pick the most appropriate methodology for the assessment preparation.

7.1.1 Impact Identification:

7.1.1.1 An impact methodology must be comprehensively specific (sub-categories of impact types), identity project impacts as distinct from future environmental changes produced by other causes, identity the timing and the duration of impacts and should require identification of the sources of data used for the impact identification./prediction.

7.1.2 Impact Measurement:

7.1.2.1 The methodology should suggest specific measurable indicators to be used to quantity impacts parameters, and provide for the measurement of impact magnitude as distinct from impact significance, emphasize objective rather than subjective impact measurement.

7.1.3 Impact Interpretation:

7.1.3.1 The methodology should require explicit assessment/assumptions of the significance of measured impacts, the assessment of the risks, uncertainly or degree of confidence in impact projections made should provide a specific method for the comparison of alternatives and may provide a mechanism for aggregating impacts into a net total or composite estimate.

7.1.4 Impact Communication/public forum

7.1.4.1 The methodology should require the project setting to aid evaluation/assessment report users in developing adequate overall perspective, for high lighting key issues and impacts, linking impacts to the specific affected geographical or social groups and should suggest

mechanism for public involvement in the interpretation of impact significance.

7.1.4.2 Workshops and/or public forum by experts shall be conducted by the proponent to consider the EIA report prior to obtaining an approval or environmental permit at the discretion of the Director of Petroleum Resources.

7.1.5 Others:

7.1.5.1 In addition to the above ‘content’ criteria, methodological tools should be

evaluated in terms of:

(i) Resource Requirement

(a) Data Requirements: Does the methodology require data that is presently available at low retrieval costs?

(b) Manpower Requirements: What special skills are required?

(c) Time: How much time is required to learn to use and/or actually apply the methodology?

(d) Costs: How do costs of using a methodology compare to costs using other tools?

(e) Technologies: Are any specific technologies (e.g.

computerisation ) required to use a methodology?

(ii) Replicability

(a) Ambiguity: What is the relative degree of ambiguity in the methodology?

(b) Analyst Bias: To what degree will different impact analysts using the methodology tend to produce widely different results?

(iii) Flexibility

(a) Scale flexibility: How applicable is the methodology to projects of widely different scale?

(b) Range: For how broad a range of project or impact types is the methodology useful in its present form?

(c) Adaptability: How readily can the methodology be modified to fit project situations other than those for which it was designed?

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 USEPA. Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements. Federal Register.

Part Ill, Vol. 40, No. 72, April 14, 1975.

2. USEPA. Environmental Consideration. Federal Register. Part 11, Feb. 23^rd, 1977.

3. USC. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

4. Nigerian Manual of Petroleum Laws, compiled by Department of Petroleum Resources.

5. RPI. Environmental Baseline Studies for the Establishment of Control Criteria

& Standards Against Petroleum Related Pollution in Nigeria. Final Report.

RPI/R/84/41 15-7, R. P. I., Columbia S.C.

6. Warner, M. L. and E.H. Preston. A Review of Environmental Impact Assessment Methodologies. April, 1974. Washington D. C.

7. Paradine, P. J. Methods For Environmental Impact Assessment; Recent trends and Future prospects in the Petroleum Industry: A Canadian Perspective of Offshore Experience.

Proceedings of an International Seminar on Petroleum Industry and the Nigerian Environment. Port Harcourt, Nigeria, November, 1983.

9. Government of Canada (1976). Guidelines for Preparing Initial Environmental Evaluation issued by the Chairman Environmental Assessment Panel. Environmental Assessment Review.

10. Government of Canada, Guide for Environmental Screening Published by Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, 1978.

11 Institute of Environmental Studies. (1976). Documentation of Environmental change Related to the Columbia Electric Generating Station.

Madison, University of Wisconsin, U. S. A.

12 Marcus, L. G. (1979). A Methodology for Post – EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) Monitoring. Circular 782, U. S. Geological Survey.