NESTLE ABAJI EIA PRESENTATION

877 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
877
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
12
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
27
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The proponent Nestlé Nigeria Plc is part of the Nestlé Group, the respected and trustworthy Nutrition, Health and Wellness company renowned world-wide for its high quality products. Among the high quality products in Nigerian markets are:- Infant Cereals – Nestlé NUTREND, Nestlé CERELAC; Family cereals – Nestlé GOLDEN MORN; Beverage drink – Nestlé MILO; Confectionery – Nestlé CHOCOMILO; Bouillon – MAGGI CUBE, MAGGI CHICKEN, MAGGI CRAYFISH, MAGGI MIX’PY and table water Nestlé PURE LIFE. Nestlé also markets coffee – NESCAFÉ CLASSIC, NESCAFÉ 3-in-1 and NESCAFÉ Breakfast, and full cream milk product – Nestlé NIDO.
    Nestlé Corporate head office is located at 22-24 Industrial Avenue Ilupeju, Lagos Nigeria.
  • NESTLE ABAJI EIA PRESENTATION

    1. 1. VIEW OF THE PROJECT AREA FROM ONE OF THE HILL OUTCROPS
    2. 2. SITE VERIFICATION TEAM DURING THE SITE VISIT  SITE VERIFICATION  A SITE VERIFICATION VISIT WAS CONDUCTED, ON JULY 17th 2013 TO GIVE THE MINISTRY OFFICIAL A FIRST HAND INFORMATION AND ACTUAL PICTURE OF THE PROJECT SITE / ENVIRONMENT. REMARKS: PROJECT ASSIGNED TO CATEGORY III, TWO SEASON’S DATA GATHERING AND IN-HOUSE REVIEW.
    3. 3. PICTURES OF SCOPING WORKSHOP SCOPING WORKSHOP SCOPING WORKSHOP TO EXPLAIN THE PROPOSED EIA, AND ITS BENEFITS TO THE HOST COMMUNITY WAS HELD ON 17th SEPTEMBER, 2013 WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENT, REPRESENTING THE DIRECTOR, EIA DIVISION PRESENT
    4. 4. EQUIPMENTS AND SAMPLES  IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SCOPING WORKSHOP FIELD WORK COMMENCED.  SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED FROM VARIOUS LOCATIONS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE PROJECT SITE  CALIBRATED EQUIPMENT WERE USED FOR BOTH INSITU – AND LABORATORY  QA /QC WERE OBSERVED TO PRESERVE SAMPLES FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS
    5. 5. Field work for Physico-chemical and Ecology parameters / studies Multidisciplinary team used for field work and report preparation followed immediately  FIELD WORK FOR BOTH WET AND DRY SEASONS WERE CONDUCTED IN SEPTEMBER 2013, AND JANUARY 2014 RESPECTIVELY.  A MINISTRY OFFICIAL WAS ASSIGNED TO SUPERVISE THE ACTIVITIES.
    6. 6.  THE REPORT CONTAINS EIGHT CHAPTERS WITH REFERENCE , BIBLIOGRAPHY AND APPENDICES IN LINE WITH THE EIA WRITING FORMAT OF THE FMENV.  This report is presented in Eight Chapters as follows:   Chapter One - Consists of introduction with the EIA Terms of Reference (TOR), relevant background information about Nestle Nigeria Plc (the Applicant), and Legal/Administrative Framework for EIA in Nigeria.   Chapter Two - discusses the project justification and presents the need/value of the project and project development options.   Chapter Three - describes the proposed project, location, project activities, excavation,  construction, waste management, commissioning, operation and the project schedule.   Chapter Four – We have baseline condition of the study area and Information on socio- economic and health status of the area. Consultation activities with stakeholders-Government Agencies, the public and the host communities within the project are presented here.   Chapter Five - Details of Associated and Potential Environmental Impacts of the proposed Project are highlighted in this chapter.   Chapter Six - discusses the Mitigation Measures for the identified adverse impacts.   Chapter Seven - recommends a cost-effective Environmental Management Plan to adopt  throughout the project life cycle. It also recommends an environmental monitoring and wastes management programme and outlines the plans for site restoration and remediation after closure/abandonment.   Chapter Eight - gives the conclusion and offers advice on project implementation. References and appendices are also included in this section.
    7. 7. THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DESCRIBE IN BRIEF, THE CONTENT OF THE EIA REPORT. IT FOCUSES ON THE IMPORTANT FINDINGS, OBSERVATIONS AND REMARKS CONTAINED IN THE MAIN BODY OF THE REPORT THE HIGHLIGHT OF THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THERFORE INCLUDES: INTRODUCTION THE PROPONENT: BRIEF HISTORY OF NESTLE NIGERIA PLC THE TERMS OF REFERENCE SCOPE OF THE EIA EIA PREMISES BENEFITS OF THE EIA EXTRACTS OF RELEVANT LAWS AND GUIDELINES : EIA ACT, NESREA ACT, SON AND NAFDAC LAWS AND GUIDELINES ETC EIA METHODOLOGY AND STRUCTURE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROJECT AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION IN TERMS OF WEATHER, PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT ASSOCITED AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATION AND CONCLUSION
    8. 8. Details in the body of the report Nestle’s contributions to the Nigerian economy and the company share value policy are contained here.  THIS BASICALLY INTRODUCED THE SUBJECT OF THE EIA AND THE PROPONENT AS WELL AS THE ADMISTRATIVE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDIES  PROPONENT – NESTLE NIGERIA PLC  PROJECT – WATER PROCESSING  PROJECT NAME- NESTLE NIGERIA ABAJI GREEN FIELD WATER FACTORY  EIA LAWS/ GUIDELINES  BENEFITS ETC
    9. 9.  PROJECT JUSTIFICATION- ONE MAJOR JUSTIFICATION for the implementation of the proposed project was the cost of transporting bottled water from Nestle existing water factory in Agbara, Ogun State to the northern part of the Nation. The proposed project was intended to reduce cost and bring Nestle water nearer its esteemed customers.
    10. 10.  OTHER JUSTIFICATIONS  To expand Nestlé water business in Nigeria.  To provide job opportunities to Nigerians .  PROJECT COST AND BENEFITS  Value of The Project  The cost of sitting the proposed Nestlé Nigeria Greenfield Water Factory is estimated at over Five Billion Naira (N5b).  Benefits of The Project  Foreign Investment Attraction to the Nation  Creation of Job Opportunities in the Country  Revenue Generation for Government  Rural Development, in particular Abaji Municipal Area Council Territory
    11. 11. Project implementation as proposed was chosen after critical consideration of the other alternatives These are also backed up by Nestle’s long term planning and programme of increasing their shareholders value  PROJECT ALTERNATIVE  The project alternatives considered includes:  The no project option  The site relocation consideration  The process / technology option  The implementation of project as proposed.  Reason for Project implementation as proposed  Growth of the potable water industry  Reduction of cost of production  Availability of water reservouir that supports the volume of production  Use of Best Available Technology  Sustainability of the Project
    12. 12.  PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is given a broad overview here in terms of  1. Location – Abaji Area Council  2. Size – 11.4 hectares of land acquired  3. Layout – Administrative and production halls, Utility blocks and social services  4. Summary of existing environmental condition  5. Process – Simple water treatment involving filtration with sand beds, UV treatment and reverse osmosis  6. Waste Management
    13. 13. MAP OF THE PROJECT AREA, SHOWING RELATIVE DISTANCE TO EXISTING COMMUNITIES AND ROADS TO THE NNAGFWF PROJECT SITE
    14. 14. CONTOUR MAP SHOWING THE SITE LAYOUT AND GPS CO-ORDINATES OF THE SITE.
    15. 15. PLANT LAYOUT SHOWING THE AREA TO BE DEVELOPED AND EQUIPMENT LAYOUT FOR THE PROPOSED PLANT
    16. 16. S/N Particulars Details 1 Location Village Mandereji Town Abaji State FCT Abuja 2 Co-ordinates (UTM) N 943314.62, E 272210.94 N 943350.47, E 272643.74 N 943055.39, E 272678.66 N 943059.24, E 272523.46 N 943082.14, E 272245.24 3 Elevation above sea Level 128m – 580m 4 Climatic condition Predominant Annual Wind Direction :East, Southwest, and West Annual mean Max Temp: 36.5oC Annual mean Min Temp:19.6 oC 5 Present land use at proposed site farming 6 Nearest Highway / Road Lokoja- Abuja ( Trunck A2) 7 Defence Installation None within 10km radius 8 Nearest Industrial park International Truck park <0.5km opposite the project site 9 Nearest Airport Abuja international Airport about 90km N 10 Nearest Village Mandereji, 1Km N 11 Nearest Town Abaji, 2 Km S 12 Nearest river Yawuti River 2km N 13 Hills and Valleys Some are present in and nearby 14 Archeologically important places None within 6km radius 15 Nearest place of tourist / religious importance Churches and mosques around Village and Town. 16 Ecological Sensitive area (National Parks / Wild life reserves) None within 6km radius 17 List of Industries Pipeline Product and Marketing Company (PPMC) 3.2km N 18 Topography of the proposed site Partly plain two out crop hills 19 Nature of soil clayey 20 Major crops in the study area Guinea Corn, beni-seed and Cassava, Millet, groundnut, Mango Table 3.2: Environmental Setting of the Project Area
    17. 17. Raw Water Process Description  The water purifying process is a very simple one, similar to what obtains in the NW Agbara factory. Raw water pumping  Raw water would be pumped from deep borehole (150m) with submersible pump and sent for treatment / purification which consist of filtration and reverse osmosis processes. Raw water purification  Raw water will be purified by filtration in sand filters and reverse osmosis process. Preform conversion  Preforms would be fed into a high pressure blower to convert to PET bottles. (i.e Packaging Material for Production) Water Filling and capping  Preformed PET bottles will be filled to the required volume and capped by the filler and capping machines respectively. Labeling and Coding  Filled and capped bottles would then be transferred via conveyors to the labeling and coding machines where the necessary NAFDAC and SON coding requirements will be applied. Wrapping, and Palletizing  Labeled bottles are further transferred by conveyor to the palletizer where they will be packed and shrink-wrapped into 20x0.6L and stretch wrapped on to a pallet into 3x4x6 units of 20x0.6L. The pallet is the unit for loading on to trucks for transportation to their various Distributors Depot.
    18. 18. INPUTS VOLU ME T ANTICIPATED LOSSES/WASTE % T OUTPU TS T ENV. IMPAC TS Raw water (m3) 116,700 15 17,505 99,195 To be treated before discharg e PET 700 1.0 7.0 693 To be recycled Plastic 130 0.2 0.3 129.70 To be sold as scrap Caps 32 0.1 0.03 31.97 To be recycled Preform s 550 1.5 8.25 541.75 To be recycled Trays 15.49 1.5 3,938 258,562 To be sold as scrap Pallets 1200uni ts 5.0 60.0 1140 To be sold as scrap ENERGY SOURCE INPUT OUTPUT LOSSES ENV. IMPACT PHCN (KW/Elect rical Load) - - - - GENERA TOR (KW / Electrical Load) 2280 1600 680 Minimal impact as only efficiency is over 70% DIESEL (AGO) Lt / month. 315,360 220,752 94,608 “ NATURA L GAS (m3) - - - - LPG Kg / hr. 10.4 8.32 2.08 Minimal impact
    19. 19.  DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT  4.1 Introduction  This chapter highlights the current environmental condition of the proposed site. It is essentially to generate BASELINE DATA that will form the basis for impact monitoring and mitigation. As much as possible exact / empirical data of both physico-chemical parameters and ecological status indicators were captured for immediate and future reference.  The study area of this project covers an area within a radius of 6-km from the center of the proposed NNAGFWF project site. The existing environmental setting is considered as the baseline environmental conditions and are described with respect to climate, hydro-geological, air quality, noise level, water quality, soil quality, vegetation pattern, ecology, socio-economic profile, land use, and places of archaeological importance.  The data have been generated to cover the two major seasons (wet & dry).  Wet seasons sampling was conducted first between Sept 18th and 19th 2013 while dry season was conducted between January 7th and 8th 2014.
    20. 20. Table 4.1 Monthly Maximum Temperature, °C in Abuja Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 34.7 36.5 37.8 35.5 33.4 31.0 29.0 28.6 28.8 32.3 35.6 36.3 2002 35.1 36.3 36.9 34.7 34.2 31.7 29.6 28.9 29.7 31.1 33.8 35.4 2003 35.5 37.3 37.5 35.2 34.5 30.4 29.8 29.1 29.8 31.7 33.4 34.3 2004 34.8 37.3 37.8 35.0 31.7 30.7 29.9 28.9 30.3 31.7 33.2 35.1 2005 34.5 38.0 38.0 36.2 32.5 30.5 29.5 28.5 30.3 31.3 34.6 35.0 2006 35.7 36.1 36.0 37.3 32.3 31.4 30.1 28.1 29.6 31.1 33.8 35.5 2007 34.6 37.1 38.1 38.0 36.2 30.9 28.6 28.7 29.9 31.6 33.3 30.7 2008 33.8 37.3 37.5 35.5 33.4 30.6 29.4 28.7 30.1 32.0 34.7 35.3 2009 34.5 36.6 37.8 34.2 32.6 30.9 29.4 29.2 30.2 30.4 32.9 35.4 2010 35.3 37.3 37.6 36.6 31.8 30.8 28.7 29.3 29.6 30.0 33.7 35.0 2011 34.7 35.9 37.7 35.3 33.2 30.7 30.0 28.4 29.8 31.1 34.5 34.9 2012 34.8 35.9 37.7 34.6 31.6 30.2 28.4 27.9 28.9 30.8 33.6 34.8 2013 31.9 34.6 38.8 37.4 36.1 33.3 30.6 28.4 29.8 31.1 34.5 34.9 Source:NIMET, Abuja
    21. 21. Table 4.2 Monthly Minimum Temperature, °C in Abuja Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 17.3 20.4 24.3 25.0 24.4 22.4 22.2 21.7 21.6 22.0 20.1 18.6 2002 17.7 21.1 25.0 25.2 24.7 22.8 22.3 22.2 21.9 22.3 20.4 18.1 2003 19.7 22.4 25.1 25.0 24.7 22.0 22.5 22.3 22.3 22.5 20.8 17.6 2004 19.2 21.5 24.5 25.1 23.5 22.7 22.3 22.2 22.1 22.5 21.4 18.6 2005 18.5 24.7 26.3 25.6 24.0 22.9 22.9 22.6 22.5 22.1 20.0 19.7 2006 22.5 24.6 25.4 25.1 23.8 23.4 23.1 22.1 22.2 22.4 19.5 16.9 2007 17.8 22.7 21.6 24.1 25.1 21.6 20.9 20.9 20.6 20.4 17.7 14.2 2008 18.2 20.9 25.4 24.9 24.2 22.9 22.5 22.2 22.3 22.3 20.2 18.7 2009 20.3 23.2 25.2 24.5 23.3 22.5 22.3 22.3 22.0 21.8 20.0 17.4 2010 19.2 23.3 25.1 25.7 23.9 23.5 22.3 22.8 22.1 21.8 21.7 17.2 2011 16.1 22.7 23.0 23.1 24.3 23.1 22.6 21.8 21.7 21.8 18.7 16.0 2012 18.5 22.7 24.2 24.6 22.6 22.3 21.5 21.4 20.9 21.2 20.2 17.3 2013 16.7 18.9 22.8 25.1 25.0 23.4 21.8 21.8 21.7 21.8 18.7 16.0 Source:NIMET, Abuja TEMPERATURE (MIN) – (2001 -2013)
    22. 22. Table 4.3 Monthly Average Relative Humidity, % in Abuja Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 43.0 38.0 36.0 63.0 76.0 81.0 85.0 86.0 84.0 80.0 62.0 49.0 2002 47.0 50.0 60.0 62.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 85.0 84.0 79.0 63.0 41.0 2003 44.0 28.0 37.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 85.0 83.0 85.0 78.0 60.0 47.0 2004 37.0 31.0 49.0 63.0 72.0 80.0 87.0 88.0 85.0 73.0 55.0 43.0 2005 34.0 37.0 57.0 69.0 71.0 79.0 85.0 86.0 84.0 79.0 61.0 45.0 2006 46.0 45.0 44.0 68.0 71.0 81.0 84.0 85.0 83.0 79.0 64.0 46.0 2007 46.0 33.0 38.0 68.0 79.0 81.0 85.0 86.0 82.0 85.0 68.0 52.0 2008 36.0 49.0 56.0 63.0 76.0 82.0 85.0 85.0 84.0 78.0 59.0 52.0 2009 56.0 56.0 57.0 58.0 76.0 78.0 83.0 87.0 84.0 82.0 54.0 42.0 2010 34.0 35.0 47.0 75.0 81.0 82.0 88.0 82.0 79.0 68.0 51.0 47.0 2011 24.0 18.0 33.0 45.0 53.0 67.0 68.0 75.0 69.0 66.0 33.0 36.0 2012 37.0 35.0 51.0 65.0 76.0 81.0 85.0 86.0 84.0 78.0 61.0 46.0 2013 39.0 37.0 50.0 65.0 75.0 80.0 84.0 85.0 83.0 78.0 59.0 46.0 Source: NIMET, Abuja RELATIVE HUMIDITY – (2001- 2013)
    23. 23. Table 4.4 Monthly Total Rainfall,mm in Abuja Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 0.0 0.0 0.5 96.0 94.5 152.6 358.5 333.4 245.9 101.6 0.0 0.0 2002 0.0 0.0 70.5 107.4 82.0 227.7 450.3 487.8 353.1 263.3 6.9 0.0 2003 0.0 24.0 19.3 82.0 167.7 342.2 482.7 257.6 249.5 82.2 63.3 0.0 2004 0.0 11.5 0.0 64.3 222.0 310.7 255.6 303.6 164.9 202.7 5.9 0.0 2005 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.2 93.2 477.0 275.7 202.4 158.3 202.0 0.0 0.0 2006 13.2 21.5 46.6 32.5 136.2 101.1 189.8 384.5 186.6 199.6 0.0 0.0 2007 0.0 0.0 24.1 102.6 78.7 159.8 314.9 299.9 240.3 168.2 0.4 0.0 2008 0.0 0.0 27.0 35.2 65.0 218.9 202.0 370.9 195.0 60.7 0.0 0.0 2009 6.7 5.7 0.0 75.1 121.5 182.7 154.7 433.8 187.5 226.3 50.6 0.0 2010 0.0 0.6 7.5 74.2 310.9 174.7 314.8 278.1 283.2 238.2 0.0 0.0 2011 0.0 43.5 0.0 52.2 105.2 127.5 226.3 183.5 272.6 201.6 0.0 0.0 2012 0.0 20.6 19.0 52.0 162.8 222.8 376.1 270.5 274.4 228.9 11.0 0.0 2013 2.5 39.5 28.7 134.1 124.1 162.7 192.8 183.5 272.6 201.6 0.0 0.0 Source:NIMET, Abuja TOTAL RAINFALL – (2001 – 2013)
    24. 24. Table 4.5 Monthly Average Windspeed,Knots(2Kts=1m/s) in Abuja Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2001 4.7 5.7 5.8 6.1 5.7 5.5 5.0 4.2 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.6 2002 4.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 5.6 5.7 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.5 5.3 4.9 2003 5.5 4.6 5.3 3.7 3.8 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 2.6 2.4 2.5 2004 2.9 2.7 3.0 3.0 3.1 2.9 2.2 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.2 1.9 2005 1.9 1.9 2.6 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.1 1.8 2.2 1.6 1.3 2006 1.2 1.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.2 2007 2.0 2.4 2.6 3.2 3.1 3.2 2.8 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.1 2008 2.7 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.0 3.3 3.2 2009 2.8 3.3 3.4 4.1 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.0 3.3 3.2 2010 2.4 3.6 4.5 5.6 4.7 4.5 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.4 5.4 3.5 2011 4.1 3.7 3.5 5.0 4.9 4.4 4.2 3.6 3.1 2.8 3.0 4.9 2012 3.6 3.9 3.6 4.9 4.8 4.7 3.7 3.9 3.4 3.1 3.4 5.1 2013 3.3 3.9 3.8 5.2 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.1 3.2 3.3 3.2 4.1 Source:NIMET, Abuja WIND SPEED – (2001 - 2013)
    25. 25. S/N UTM Northing Easting ELEVATION TSPµg/m3 Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Dry AQC 943762.15 271840.84 547.9 ND ND 4.6 3.0 0.15 ND ND ND 20.9 21.5 ND ND 150 AQI 943105.10 272663.26 516.2 ND ND 2.9 2.0 ND ND ND ND 20.5 21.4 ND ND 210 AQ2 943306.49 272581.74 520.4 ND ND 3.1 2.0 ND ND ND ND 20.6 21.5 ND ND 210 AQ3 943296.05 272466.06 588.2 ND ND 2.9 3.5 <0.1 <0.1 ND ND 20.6 21.5 ND ND 200 AQ4 943302.93 272214.64 572.5 ND ND 4.5 2.0 0.15 0.1 ND ND 20.6 21.5 ND ND 190 AQ5 943183.09 272213.99 577.1 ND ND 4.2 3.0 0.1 <0.1 ND ND 20.6 21.6 ND ND 160 AQ6 943058.28 272455.61 552.0 ND ND 4.2 2.0 0.1 0.1 ND ND 20.6 22.0 ND ND 140 0.1 NS NS PARAMETERS/READINGS 250 Locations FMEnvlimits COORDINATES(GPS)UTM NO(ppm) CO(ppm) SO2(ppm) CH4(ppm) O2% H2S(ppm) NS0.05 20 AIR QUALITY
    26. 26. ECOLOGY SAMPLING STATIONS
    27. 27. TERMITE HILL IN THE STUDY AREA
    28. 28. SHED SNAKE SKIN IN THE STUDY AREA
    29. 29. WET SEASON DRY SEASON
    30. 30. ECONOMIC PLANTS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
    31. 31. S/N Scientific Name Family/Sub family Common Name Uses/Economic Importance 1 Parkia clappertoniana Mimosaceae Tiv: nune; African locust bean Fermented seeds used as condiment for soup making. 2 Daniellia oliveri Caesalpinaceae African copaiba balsam Timber, fuel wood 3 Vitex doniana Verbanaceae Black plum Yoruba: orinla Fuel wood, Edible fruits 4 Lophia lanceolata Ochnaceae Ibo: okopia Fuel wood, Edible fruits 5 Piliostigma thonningii Caesalpiniaceae Thonning’s piliostigm Dye yielding, Religions purposes 6 Annona senegalensis Annonaceae Custard apple Medicinal 7 Borassus aethiopum Palmae Borrassus palm Sap tapped for beverage/wine; Used as food, dye yielding, medicinal 8 Ficus polita Moraceae Tiv: kondam Shade tree 9 Azadirachta indica Meliaceae Neem Medicinal 10 Tectonia grandis Verbanaceae Teak Used as poles for high/low tension electric lines 11 Anacardium occidentalis Anacardiaceae Cashew Edible fruit, Medicinal 12 Mangifera indica Anacardiaceae Mango Edible fruit, Medicinal 13 Adansonia digitata Bombaceae Baobab Medicinal fruit, Religious uses 14 Newbouldia laevis Bignoniaceae Newbouldia Medicinal, Religious application 15 Dialium guineense Caesalpiniaceae Blackvelvet tamarind Edible fruits 16 Calotropis procera Asclepiadaceae Calotropis Medicinal uses 17 Elaeis guineensis Palmae Oil palm Palm oil, brooms, etc. 18 Citrus aurantium Rutaceae Orange Edible fruit 19 Cocos nucifera Palmae Coconut Edible fruit 20 Luffa aegyptica Cucurbitaceae Loofah, Loofah gourd Sponge 21 Antidesma venosum Euphorbiaceae Hausa: kirni Edible fruits 22 Celtis integcifolia Ulmaceae Hausa: zuwo Fuel wood, Edible fruits 23 Khaya senegalensis Meliaceae Dry zone mahogany Timber, fuel wood Table 4.18: Checklist of Common Economic Trees/Plants in the study area.
    32. 32. CULTIVATED FARMLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE
    33. 33. WOOD CUT FOR SALE ANIMALS DRINKING FROM THE STREAM
    34. 34. Parameters Abaji TBH FMEnv LimitWHO Limit Physico-Chemical Examination Wet Dry Wet Dry Dry General Appearance Brownish Turbid Yellowish Colourless Colourless Colour, (Hz) < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 15m/l Pt-Co Odour Electrical Conductivity, µS/cm 239.0 249.0 117.0 220.0 34.0 1000.0 250.0 Turbidity, NTU 27.6 67.0 4.8 Nil Nil <5 pH @ 25°C 6.7 7.3 6.3 7.1 6.6 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 Total Dissolved Solids, mg/l 238.3 243.4 92.6 218.4 32.6 500.0 Total Solids, mg/l 310.4 311.2 134.7 246.1 60.1 Total Hardness, mg/l 92.0 100.0 35.4 95.0 7.9 100.0 150-500 Total Alkalinity, mg/l 105.7 113.7 25.5 99.5 9.5 200.0 Total Acidity, mg/l Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Residual Chlorine, mg/l N.D. N.D. N.D N.D N.D 0.3 Free Carbondioxide, mg/l 19.2 10.6 22.4 14.6 21.3 50.0 Ammonical Nitrogen, mg/l 0.95 N.D. N.D N.D N.D Chloride, mg/l 13.4 5.9 20.1 2.4 2.4 200.0 250.0 Nitrate, mg/l 0.25 0.25 4.00 0.25 0.25 45.00 50.00 Nitrite, mg/l 0.09 0.05 N.D. N.D. N.D. Phosphate (Total), mg/l 0.77 0.77 1.50 0.77 0.77 Sulphate, mg/l 15.8 10.8 3.2 10.1 3.4 200.0 500.0 Silica, mg/l 11.5 13.0 8.5 11.5 9.5 40.0 Arsenic, mg/l N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 0.1 0.0 Cadmium, mg/l N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 0.0 0.003 Calcium, mg/l 85.0 39.7 28.3 17.3 1.6 70.0 Chromium (Hexavalent), mg/l N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 0.1 0.05 Copper, mg/l 0.042 0.106 0.047 0.004 N.D. 1.00 2.00 Iron ( Total), mg/l 0.38 3.10 0.15 0.06 0.06 0.30 0.30 Lead, mg/l N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 0.05 0.01 Magnesium, mg/l 1.70 15.40 1.70 19.00 1.50 30.00 Manganese, mg/l 0.057 0.120 0.015 0.028 0.002 0.05 0.50 Zinc, mg/l 0.008 0.137 0.009 N.D. N.D. 5.00 3.00 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l 5.5 6.4 6.2 6.4 6.5 ≥ 2.0 Chemical oxygen Demand, mg/l 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 5.0 90.0 Biochemical Oxygen Demand, mg/l2.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 50.0 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. Miocrobiological Examination Coliforms, CFU/ml 0 0 140 0 0 0 E. Coli, CFU/ml 0 0 30 0 0 0 Faecal Streptococci, CFU/ml 0 0 0 0 0 0 Staphycoccus Aureus, CFU/ml 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salmonella, CFU/ml Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent 0 Shigella, CFU/ml Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent 0 Clostridia, CFU/ml - - - - - - Pseudomonas, CFU/ml 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yeast / Moulds, CFU/ml - - - - - - Aerobic Mesophillic Count, CFU/ml116 223 TNTC 169 183 100 Nestle MBH Mandereji CBH unobjectionable unobjectionable unobjectionable Table 4.8: Groundwater Physico-chemical and Microbiological Analysis Results
    35. 35. Parameters FMENV LimitWHO Limit Physico-Chemical Examination Wet Dry Wet Dry General Appearance Brownishslightly turbidBrown/turbid Colour, (Hz) < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 15m/l Pt-Co Odour unobjectionable unobjectionable Electrical Conductivity, µS/cm 54.0 53.0 52.0 54.0 1000.0 250.0 Turbidity, NTU 18.0 7.5 39.6 7.5 <5 pH @ 25°C 6.4 7.1 6.3 7.0 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 Total Dissolved Solids, mg/l 50.4 51.7 52.8 51.7 500.0 Total Solids, mg/l 103.1 107.3 108.5 116.3 Total Hardness, mg/l 14.2 11.9 14.2 11.9 100.0 150-500 Total Alkalinity, mg/l 21.8 23.6 21.8 23.6 200.0 Total Acidity, mg/l Nil Nil Nil Nil Residual Chlorine, mg/l N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 0.3 Free Carbondioxide, mg/l 20.6 14.2 21.8 14.8 50.0 Ammonical Nitrogen, mg/l 0.70 N.D. 0.65 N.D. Chloride, mg/l 5.4 2.4 5.4 2.4 200.0 250.0 Nitrate, mg/l 0.75 0.25 0.50 0.25 45.00 50.00 Nitrite, mg/l 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.07 Phosphate (Total), mg/l 1.50 0.77 2.30 1.50 Sulphate, mg/l 2.5 3.4 2.5 4.4 200.0 500.0 Silica, mg/l 6.5 10.5 9.0 10.5 40.0 Arsenic, mg/l N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 0.1 0.0 Cadmium, mg/l N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 0.0 0.003 Calcium, mg/l 10.6 3.2 10.6 3.2 70.0 Chromium (Hexavalent), mg/l N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 0.1 0.05 Copper, mg/l 0.051 0.061 0.125 0.059 1.00 2.00 Iron ( Total), mg/l 1.70 1.40 6.20 1.10 0.30 0.30 Lead, mg/l N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. 0.05 0.01 Magnesium, mg/l 0.86 2.10 0.86 2.10 30.00 Manganese, mg/l 0.012 0.026 0.209 0.022 0.05 0.50 Zinc, mg/l 0.045 0.040 0.148 0.051 5.00 3.00 Dissolved Oxygen, mg/l 4.0 6.4 5.0 6.4 ≥ 2.0 Chemical oxygen Demand, mg/l 20.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 90.0 Biochemical Oxygen Demand, mg/l15.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 50.0 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. Miocrobiological Examination Coliforms, CFU/ml 6 24 30 0 0 E. Coli, CFU/ml 0 0 15 0 0 Faecal Streptococci, CFU/ml 0 0 0 0 0 Staphycoccus Aureus, CFU/ml 0 0 0 0 Salmonella, CFU/ml Absent Absent Absent Absent 0 Shigella, CFU/ml Absent Absent Absent Absent 0 Clostridia, CFU/ml - - - - … Pseudomonas, CFU/ml 0 0 0 0 0 Yeast / Moulds, CFU/ml - - - - … Aerobic Mesophillic Count, CFU/mlTNTC TNTC TNTC TNTC 100 Up Stream SW Down Stream SW Table 4.9: Surface water Physico-chemical and Microbiological Analysis Results
    36. 36. Table 4.11: Results of Soil Physico -chemical and Microbiology of the Study area Parameters SSC SS1 SS2 SS3 SS4 SS5 SS6 Physico-Chemical Examination General Appearance Dark brown Brown Reddish BrownReddish Brown Brown Brown Brown coarse soil coarse soil coarse soil coarse soil coarse soil moist soil coarse soil Moisture Content 6.60 4.88 6.98 9.52 0.69 7.38 3.07 Total Ash 92.31 91.39 90.22 85.78 97.85 91.52 96.01 pH (10% solution) @ 25°C 6.61 6.68 6.68 6.34 6.63 6.72 6.76 Insoluble silica Content, % 80.50 79.60 78.70 73.90 86.20 79.80 83.60 Organic Matter 1.09 3.73 2.80 4.70 1.46 1.10 0.92 Chloride % 0.87 0.86 0.80 1.19 0.91 0.88 0.80 Sulphate Content, mg/kg N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. Total phosphate, mg/kg 42.69 42.95 43.13 43.71 41.77 42.83 43.35 Ammonical Nitrogen, mg/kg 5.17 2.31 2.03 11.17 5.06 4.03 4.66 Nitrate, mg/kg 6.98 56.15 63.42 N.D. 20.47 48.99 28.33 Magnesium, mg/kg 104.50 51.52 87.82 27.52 54.49 105.69 106.76 Sodium, % 0.56 0.56 0.52 0.77 0.59 0.57 0.52 Potassium, % <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Iron ( Total), mg/kg 261.58 1566.00 1570.16 528.98 149.10 377.92 524.93 Calcium, mg/kg 430.06 636.08 542.10 226.50 896.88 652.40 219.68 Manganese, mg/kg 90.15 158.60 61.66 2.01 112.24 74.21 27.30 Lead, mg/l 0.25 2.35 1.63 0.84 N.D. 0.81 0.30 Chromium (Hexavalent), mg/l N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. Cadmium, mg/kg 0.42 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.05 N.D. Copper, mg/l 1.88 8.50 1.68 1.19 2.41 2.09 0.92 Zinc, mg/kg 1.12 5.27 2.25 0.52 1.03 1.36 0.24 Arsenic, mg/kg N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. Miocrobiological Examination Coliforms, CFU/g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. Coli, CFU/g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Faecal Streptococci, CFU/g - - - - - - - Staphycoccus Aureus, CFU/g - - - - - - - Salmonella, CFU/g - - - - - - - Shigella, in 25g - - - - - - - Clostri, CFU/g Yeast / Moulds, CFU/g TNTC TNTC 300 500 TNTC 200 TNTC Total Plate Count, CFU/g 2,600 1,600 1,600 600 1,700 1,400 2,500 Wet Season
    37. 37. Table 4.12: Results of Soil Physico -chemical and Microbiology of the Study area Parameters SSC SS1 SS2 SS3 SS4 SS5 SS6 Physico-Chemical Examination General Appearance Brown Reddish BrownReddish BrownReddish BrownReddish BrownReddish BrownReddish Brown coarse soil coarse soil lumpy soil lumpy soil coarse soil coarse soil coarse soil Moisture Content 0.19 1.85 5.04 7.02 5.30 4.46 2.09 Total Ash 98.58 97.16 92.59 89.85 93.31 93.40 96.92 pH (10% solution) @ 25°C 7.08 6.98 6.99 6.62 7.37 7.08 7.21 Insoluble silica Content, % 82.90 83.70 78.30 72.90 78.60 78.70 83.10 Organic Matter 1.23 0.99 2.37 3.13 4.52 2.14 0.99 Chloride % 2.92 2.40 2.44 2.11 2.39 2.36 2.72 Sulphate Content, mg/kg N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. Total phosphate, mg/kg 25.29 23.65 25.21 24.92 25.11 25.48 24.50 Ammonical Nitrogen, mg/kg 1.02 0.63 0.67 N.D. 0.67 0.68 0.98 Nitrate, mg/kg 8.26 7.68 8.18 N.D. 8.15 8.27 15.91 Oil/Fat (Chloroform Extract) % 0.23 0.19 0.17 0.21 0.15 0.19 0.17 Magnesium, mg/kg 464.35 476.31 242.71 239.76 475.64 234.40 216.93 Potassium, % 0.57 0.53 0.41 0.44 0.09 0.05 0.02 Iron ( Total), mg/kg 818.39 1492.41 1948.74 2253.70 419.15 688.54 700.93 Calcium, mg/kg 2866.30 1960.12 1997.63 1973.33 1957.36 3858.46 2678.10 Manganese, mg/kg 87.98 126.15 95.43 119.18 106.10 99.80 122.69 Lead, mg/l N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. Chromium (Hexavalent), mg/l N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. Cadmium, mg/kg N.D. 0.005 0.005 0.02 N.D. N.D. N.D. Copper, mg/l 4.54 5.14 4.94 4.10 6.69 4.68 3.89 Zinc, mg/kg 8.28 3.06 4.30 3.27 4.65 29.37 3.62 Arsenic, mg/kg N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. Miocrobiological Examination Coliforms, CFU/g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E. Coli, CFU/g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Faecal Streptococci, CFU/g - - - - - - - Staphycoccus Aureus, CFU/g - - - - - - - Salmonella, CFU/g - - - - - - - Shigella, in 25g - - - - - - - Clostri, CFU/g Yeast / Moulds, CFU/g TNTC TNTC 250 TNTC 400 TNTC TNTC Total Plate Count, CFU/g 4,000 3,200 3,500 4,000 4,100 3,000 2,000 Dry Season
    38. 38.  4.3.7.1 Physical Properties  Physical appearance of the soil encountered in the study area showed that they could be classified into three categories namely: Juvenile/lacustrine alluvium or hydromorphic soils, Ferrisols/ferruginous, and Lithosols  a) The Juvenile soils on riverine and lacustrine alluvium have highly heterogeneous parent material with stratified profiles. They consist of soils of the flood plains, which are permanently or seasonally water logged located mainly on lower slopes and alluvial areas referred to as “fadama”. This type was encountered at the control site which was at a lower plain and closer to the river course.  b) Ferrisols/ferruginous tropical soils were encountered and these covered over half of the study area. These soils exhibited differentiated horizons and frequently had a leached A horizon and contained a textural or structural B-horizon. Free iron oxides were present within the profile in the form of mottles or concretions. The ferruginous soils were either developed on crystalline rocks, or were undifferentiated and developed from mixed rocks of basement complex. A summary of the characteristics (Particule sizes and profile ) of the ferrisols encountered within the study area is given in Table 4.10.  c) The lithosols are soils with weakly developed genetic horizons containing coarse elements and having solid rock within 30-60cm of the surface. They are of limited agricultural value as the profile is very shallow. The ferrisols have deep profile with varying amounts of iron concretions. The clay fraction usually consists entirely of Kaolinite (1:1 clay), free iron oxides and amorphous gels with small quantities of 2:1 clay.
    39. 39.  Chemical Properties  Chemical properties of the soil analysis by methods described in Appendix 4 showed that the soil are all slightly acidic in nature with pH range of both control and site samples within (6.34 – 6.76). and (6.98 - 7.37) for both wet and dry season analysis. Organic Matter recorded ranged between (0.92 – 4.3) for wet season and (0.99 – 4.52) for the dry season.  Insoluble silica content was high (78.7 - 86.2) %, for wet and (72.9 - 83.7) %, for dry season. while Iron content was between (149.1 – 1570.16) mg/l wet season and (419.15 – 2253.70) (Graph 4.4) This shows the characteristic of the soil type which has earlier been described as mainly ferruginous and lithosols. The lower level recorded in the wet season may be connected with its being leached as a result of rain. The presence in the ground water confirm this.  As expected the amount of Ammoniacal Nitrogen and Nitrate were more in the wet season than the dry season. Ammoniacal Nitrogen concentration ranged between (2.03 – 11.17) wet and (0.63 – 1.02) dry season while Nitrate concentration ranged between (6.98 – 63.42) wet and (7.68 – 16.91) dry season. (Graph 4.1 & 4.2)  Similar trend is recorded for phosphorus. Concentration ranged between (41.77 – 43.71) Wet and (23.65 – 25.48) dry season (Graph 4.3). While Nitrates are essential plant nutrients, excess amount can cause significant water quality problem if run off occurs. Together with phosphorus, excess can accelerate eutrophication causing dramatic increase in aquatic plant growth and change in plant and animal that live in the stream. At the present concentration, they are not of any threat to the environment.  The content of basic cations like calcium Magnesium and Potassium also give the extent of leaching in the soil. Again the observed trend is that wet season values are lower than that of dry season. (Graph 4.5, 4.6 & 4.7)  Lead, Chromium and ( Heavy metals ) were not detected but Cadmium was found in very minute (trace) quantities in some point. Copper and Zinc value ranged between (3.89 – 6.69) mg/l wet season / (0.92 – 8.50) mg/l dry season, and (0.24 – 5.27) mg/l wet season / (3.06 – 29.37) mg/l dry season, respectively.
    40. 40.  Surface Water Profile / Analysis  Water samples collected from the surface water body ( Yawuti river) was analysed and the following characteristics were obtained.  General Appearance  The samples appeared brownish and with particulate.  Turbidity  Measured turbidity value ranged between (18.0 -39.6) wet Season and (7.5) dry season. The value showed that the The high turbidity of 39.6NTU which is above the FMEnv limit of 5NTU occurred at the down stream in September. This may be attributed to anthropogenic intrusion at that point of the river course. Most of the settlers were found fetching water and carrying out domestic activities like washing at that point of the river. The values were generally lower in the dry season compared to the wet season.  Colour & Odour  True colour measured were all below 5Hz (wet and dry) for all the stations sampled. All the samples were of unobjectionable odour. The trend followed that observed for the turbidity. High colour recorded in the dry season depend on the dissolved organic matter and biological activity. The volume of the river which was lower at this period also contributed to the higher value. The value are however within the FMEnv limit of 10Hz  pH  pH value recorded were all within a range of (6.3 – 6.5) wet , and (7.0 – 7.1) dry, which still falls within the WHO limit of 6-9 for drinking water. The higher value were recorded for the upstream and lower for the down stream in both seasons. While slightly acidic value were recorded during the wet season, Neutral condition persist during the dry season.  Electrical Conductivity  Electrical conductivity which is the ability of water to conduct an electric current ranged between (52 and 54) us/cm. This was higher in the dry season. The value have a critical influence on aquatic biota and every kind of organism has typical level that it can tolerate. The values recorded were typical for fresh water bodies. 
    41. 41.  Alkalinity (CaCo3)  Alkalinity refers to the capacity of water to neutralize acid. The value for this study ranged from 21.8 to 23.6 mg/l with the dry season value highest.  Total Dissolved Solid  Total dissolved solid ranged between 50.4 – 52.8mg/l. the high value noted were for the down stream station. Evidence of animal feaces around this area may be responsible for this. These values are however lower than the FMEnv limit of 500mg/l There were no trend variation noticed in the wet and dry season when compared.  Positive ions (Cations)  The following cations ( Calcium, Magnesium and Manganese) etc) were all below the FMEnv limits a possibility of absence of any major impact or pollution.  As expected Calcium was most abundant ranging between (3.2 – 10.6) mg/l for both seasons. Magnsium ranged between (0.86 – 2.1) mg/l. Both are indicators of the degree of hardness of the water.  Negative ions (Anions)  Chloride, Nitrate, Nitrite and sulphate were all detected but within the FMEnv limits. Although anthropogenic influence on the stream was evident yet the value recorded must have been within the limit due to the flowing nature of the river.  Nitrate ranged between (0.25 – 0.75), Nitrite (0.01 – 0.04) and sulphate (2.5 – 4.4).  Chloride as expected was most abundant among the Anions with values between (2.4 - 5.4).The higher value recorded during the dry season may be due to evaporation. But all value were within the FMEnv limit of 200 mg/l. Phosphorus as phosphate ranged between (1.5 -2.3) mg/l wet and (0.77 – 1.50) mg/l dry season. This major component of agricultural fertilizer is a limiting nutrient in many river systems. The moderate level is an indication of its availability in the surrounding soil and not through application of fertilizers. 
    42. 42.  Heavy Metals  Arsenic, cadmium, chromium and lead were not detected. Copper value ranged between (0.059 - 0.125) for both wet and dry season. Manganese ranged from a low 0.012 m/l g to a high 0.209mg/l the higher value, was recorded for the downstream of the River Yawuti. This is also higher than the FMEnv limit. Iron ranged between (1.7 - 6.2) mg/l wet and (1.1 – 1.4) mg/l dry, depicting the ferruginous nature of the area. The high value resulted from the downstream sample. This value may be attributed to pronounced erosion along the way near the river bank.  Dissolved Oxygen (DO)  DO value ranged between (4.0 – 5.0) wet and 6.4 dry season. All value were above the limit of > 2.0 , The DO are considered adequate to support aquatic life.  Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)  The BOD ranged between (5.0 – 15.0) mg/l wet, and (2.0 – 3.0) mg/l for dry season. Both values are lower than the limit of 50mg/l stated by the FMenv. It can be concluded that the water is not polluted for now.  Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)  Correspondingly, the COD ranged between (5.0 – 10.0) mg/l and within the limit of FMEnv standard of 90 mg/l.  In conclusion, apart from the Iron content of the river, the water quality is within the acceptable limits. However, in the light of some coliform count (6 -30) CFU /ml, and High Mesophillic Plate Count (TNTC), it is recommended that both the groundwater and surface water available to the community be subjected to some treatment before consumption.(i.e boiling & filtration)
    43. 43. PATH THAT LEADS TO THE STREAM, SHOWING SIGN OF EROSION
    44. 44. Plate 4.13: Cattle Egret (Ardeola ibis) sighted in the study area
    45. 45.  Socio - Economics  Introduction  Abaji is the headquarters of the Abaji Area Council which is one of the 6 Area Councils in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). A greater part of the Abaji Area Council was excised from the old Niger and present-day Kogi States. However, before its creation, it was one of the then 9 Development Area created at the inception of the FCT for ease of administration. It was later made local government area in 1987 following Federal Government directive that the 9 Development Areas be reconstituted into autonomous Local Government Areas in 1990. Another structural amendment resulted in merging of Abaji Local Government with Yaba Local Government to form the present Abaji Area Council.  The Council is made up of executive and legislative arms and structured into the following departments:  Administration, Agriculture, Works, Education, Finance, Health and Environmental Sanitation  The town (Abaji) is located about 100km from Abuja on the Abuja-Lokoja road. It is at the boundary of the FCT to the south-west. Abaji is occupied by many ethnic groups including the following: Hausa, Egbira, Gbagi, Bassa and Ganagana and a significant population of other ethnic groups from all over Nigeria. Hausa and Ganagana (a Nupe dialect) are the commonest native languages spoken. However, the predominant ethinic groups are the Ganagana and Egbira groups.  The population of Abaji was 46,600 as at the last National Census (2006) but with a national annual growth rate of 3 – 4 %, the present population is estimated to be about 58,000 which makes it one of the big towns in the Federal Capital Territory. Abaji has a land area of 1,100 square kilometres. It is structured into the following 10 wards for administrative purpose: Alu Mamagi, Central Abaji, Ebagi, Gawu, Gurdi, North-east, Nuku, Pandagi, South-east, and Yaba.
    46. 46.  SOCIO - ECONOMICS ISSUES THAT WERE INVESTIGATED INCLUDE:  OCCUPATION  EDUCATION  PUBLIC AMENITIES : ROAD, WATER, ELECTRICITY  TRANSPORTATION  ACCOMODATION  LAND USE  TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS  INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
    47. 47.  In this Chapter, attention is directed towards the identification and quantification of impacts that are associated with Project activities on the environment. These impacts are generally classified as primary or secondary. Primary impacts are those which are attributed directly and secondary impacts are those which are indirectly induced and typically include the associated transformations and changed patterns of social and economic activities by the proposed action. Some additional hidden impacts may also be predicted from the relevant components of the project.   The impacts have been predicted for the proposed Nestle Abaji Greenfield Water Factory (NNAGFWF) Project, assuming the baseline conditions covered during the EIA study remain the same till the commencement of the proposed Project.  Aspect of the proposed NNAGFWF that would create impact on the environment are in two distinct phases:  The Site preparation and construction phase The processing and operational phase   The magnitude and significance of such impacts on the ecosystem, which may be broadly classified into human, biological and physical elements have equally been assessed.  The chapter would be concluded by assessing the possible Project’s specific Risk and Hazards Assessment.
    48. 48. Impact Adverse Beneficial Short Term Long Term No effect Negative effect Positive effect Reversible Irreversible Vegetation loss due to site clearing * * * * Soil erosion due to pipe laying * * * * Organic matter loss due to earth work * * * * TSP due to construction activities * * * * Noise Pollution due electricity generating set and vehicular movement * * * * Impairment of road human and road traffic * * * * SOx, NOx, CO from generating sets and vehicles * * * * Landscape alteration due to site clearing and construction * * * * Employment * * * * Influx of workers * * * * Public and Health risk due to alteration of climatic condition * * * * Noise Pollution due to construction * * Underground and surface water quality impairment due to the exploitation for production * * * Air emission effects to human health, agriculture and native wildlife and vegetation * * Habitat change and reduced population of wild life * * * Noise and Vibration due to heavy equipment * * * Dislocation of farmers due to change in land use * * * * Community development * * * Improved standard of living * * Increase revenue to FCT , AAC * * TABLE 5.4: RAU’ AD CHECKLISTOF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
    49. 49. Project Activity Environmental Component Potential Impacts Significance of Impact Duration of Impacts Magnitude of Impact A  Excavation  Transportation  EnergySupply  Solid/Liquid Waste  Plant installation Air / Climate Particulate emission from construction Vehicles Emission from transportation to and from the project site. Particulate Emission from Generating set. Odour from undisposed solid / liquid waste. (from Waste Water Treatment Plant) Emission of toxic vapour from hazardous materials. Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Short term Long term Periodic/ Short term Periodic/ Short term Medium term Moderate/ Negligible . Moderate/ Negligible Negligible / Not important. Negligible / Medium. Moderate / Medium. B  Transportation  Installation of machinery and equipment  Possible Accidents/ equipment breakdown  Drilling of Borehole Well & Production Hall Construction Noise/ Vibration Sound from transportation to and from the project site may lead to hearing impairment. Sound/ Vibration from drilling machine. Block setting & Iron bending activities Sound from welding, steel fabrication, pipe laying. Adverse Adverse Adverse Short term Short term Short term Short term Moderate/ Negligible Severe/ High Severe/ High Severe/High 1.ESTIMATION OF MAGNITUDE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS. Table 5.7
    50. 50.  Site / Land Clearing. (mostly grasses and flowers  Plant construction and Equipment installation Vegetation/ Aesthetics Elimination of terrestrial, fauna/floral habitat. Change in Land use/ Value. Change in the landscape. Adverse Adverse Adverse Long term Long term Long term Severe/High Moderate/ Medium Moderate/ Medium.  Land Clearing  Construction of Storage / Warehouse building  Transportatio n  Handling of Hazardous material(s) – during well drilling  Treatment of water Socio/ Economic Increased job/working opportunities locally. Improved income opportunities. Change in social structure/ services. Possible effects on occupational health and safety of the work Increase economic activities locally and nationally. Beneficial Beneficial Beneficial Adverse Beneficial Short term Short term Long term Short term Long term Moderate/ Medium Moderate/ Medium Severe/ High ( + ) Severe/High ( - ) Moderate/ Medium
    51. 51.  MITIGATION MEASURES  6.1 Introduction  This chapter focuses on mitigation measures which have been developed in consideration of the baseline conditions at the proposed NNAGFWF project site and study area.  Mitigation measures are used to eliminate if possible or reduce the risk(s) associated with the occurrence of potential impacts of the proposed project. These measures / controls have also taken into consideration projects activities and their envisaged impacts and concerns of stakeholders during the scoping and consultative forum as well as socio-economic / health status of the host community.  Based on the type / nature and characteristics of impacts, mitigation measures have been designed to address necessary areas by the following ways:  Prevention: Mitigation measures to address routine impacts have been included as part of the engineering design and process planning to ensure that significant potential impacts and risks do not occur.  Reduction and Control: Mitigation measures to ensure that the effects or consequences of impacts that could not be prevented are reduced to levels as low as reasonably practicable.  Monitoring: Mitigation measures to ensure that periodic checks are carried out on effects parameters to eliminate their impacts by ensuring compliance to statutorily permitted limits.  Summary of recommended mitigation measures to ameliorate all the significant associated and potential impacts identified for the proposed NNAGFWF project are highlighted in Table 6.1 However, brief explanatory highlights are provided below.
    52. 52.  Acquisition and Land Use  Land purchase and documentation have been done through the Abaji Local Council which has been vested with the authority by the FCT Administration.  Indigenous farmers shall be consulted and adequately compensated for the land cleared, economics crops and trees through enumeration exercised supervised by the Abaji Area Council.  Records of such consultations and compensations shall be well documented for future reference. (The NNAGFWF Project has however concluded this aspect and documentation is attached as Appendix 8)  6.3 Site Preparation and Construction  The proponent shall:  use existing access routes / ways and ensure minimum clearing during site survey.  Use equipment with low levels of noise and emissions that are within the acceptable national standards and specifications  Re – grass / flower the Project surrounding. ◦ Remove excess excavated soil for re – use (in other project – road repairs / remediation of erosion areas etc)  Cement concrete / paving of un – grassed area.  Ensure that water be sprinkled on open surface during excavation to reduce amount of soil particulates.  Use Power sourced from the National grid where available to minimize burning of fossil fuel.  Ensure movement of trucks and heavy duty vehicles are properly timed to ensure minimal interference with local transportation as well as that of the major highway.  Utilization of road worthy trucks to reduce emission of noxious gases and leakages of petroleum products in and around the Project Site in particular and Factory in general.  Ensure that all operators including third party contractors are trained on safety measures and site operational procedures.  Make provision for personal protection equipment for all categories of projects workers. Ears muffs, hard hat and safety boots shall be made compulsory for site construction workers.  Display, conspicuously, site safety requirements at the entrance of the site. Pictorial and dummy safety methods shall be employed to cater for the level of education of the workers.  Provide standard health and safety management on site in accordance with Nestle world-wide practice.  Limit movement of unauthorized people to the Project site.  Ensure land clearing and excavations are completed before wet season resumes to avoid run off that may contaminate surface water.  Ensure proper handling of oil and any other soil contaminant to avoid contamination of ground water. Lubricants shall be disposed according to established good housekeeping practices.  Provide adequate security at the site to prevent unwanted intruders.  Ensure that solid wastes are disposed off by licensed and accredited waste contractors.  Ensure storage of construction materials at designated area within the site and shall maintain good site management and engineering practices during construction.  Engage qualified local people as security, skilled and unskilled labour during construction activities.
    53. 53.  Operation  The proponent shall:  Ensure that impacts indicating parameters for air quality, noise, water, soil environment are monitored and within acceptable FMEnv standard limits and guidelines.  Ensure the use of impacts reducing devices and incorporate appropriate contingency and emergency response plan.  6.5 Decommissioning  The proponent shall:  Ensure decommissioning according to Nestle international standard and National guideline, if available.  Ensure the restoration of site by re-vegetation  6.6 Socio – economics  Adequate compensation shall be paid to affected farmers for their cleared land, crops and economic trees.  Awareness campaign by means of consultative and stakeholders meeting shall be held at various stages of the project.  Proponent shall as part of agreed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) undertake, identified community development project(s) for the host community.  Proponent shall support existing social infrastructure to reduce pressure on the limited ones as a result of influx of people into the area.  Use of local labour shall be given greater consideration in areas that are applicable / feasible.  Nestle shared value initiative shall be encouraged for adoption by the relevant stakeholders.   6.7 Health  The mitigation measures for health impacts shall include:  Provision of mobile toilet on site during construction phase. ◦ Provision of site camp and mosquito nets for those that will be staying overnight. ◦ Solid waste to be discarded by approved contractors ◦ Provision of potable water for drinking (Packaged Nestle water will be provided). ◦ Continous health education on easily transmitted diseases and communicable diseases will be conducted. ◦ Masking agents to be used for offensive odours from Waste Water Treatment Plant. 
    54. 54. Project Activity Environmental Component Identified negative Impact Mitigation Measure Design / Land acquisition Soil Loss of land, loss of economic crops  Compensate communities for land take and farmlands. Site Preparation / Clearing and ground excavation. Soil, Terrestrial Fauna And Flora Migration of Wildlife Vegetation removal exposes soil to adverse weather conditions. Increase in Particulate and Noxious emissions Surface water contamination  use existing access routes / ways and ensure minimum clearing during site survey.  Re – grassing / Flowering of Project surrounding.  Removal of excess excavated soil for re – use (in other project – road repairs / remediation of erosion areas etc)  Cement concrete / paving of un – grassed area.  Use equipment with low levels of noise and emissions that are within the acceptable national standards and specifications  Ensure that water be sprinkled on open surface during excavation to reduce amount of soil particulates  Use Power sourced from the National grid where available to minimize burning of fossil fuel.  Ensure movement of trucks and heavy duty vehicles are properly timed to ensure minimal interference with local transportation as well as that of the major highway.
    55. 55. Construction / pipe laying, backfilling, machines installations Soil, Water, Air Quality, Noise Health of the neighbouring residents / workers which may lead to hearing impairment. Atmospheric pollution. Injuries or accidents by machines Solid waste (domestic / industrial)  Use of appropriate PPE.  Use of relevant safety instruction and illustrations  Site Safety Health Management Procedures  Limit Access to project Site.  Clearing and Excavations to be done in Dry Season  Good housekeeping practices and proper handling of oil.  Solid wastes to be disposed off by licensed/ accredited waste contractors.  Storage of construction materials at designated area within the site and enforcement of good site management and engineering practices.  Reduction at source, sorting and separation of materials for re-use and sale to third party users. Operation / production, sales and marketing Soil, Water, Air quality, Noise Movement of vehicles / Trucks in and out of the project site (i.e loading & off loading of packing materials and Finished Products & noise / emission generation). Occasional emission of unpleasant odours from Factory Waste Water Treatment Plant – to which the waste water from the Washer is discharged. Packaging material; remnants of damaged pet, damaged pallets etc.  Use of vehicular packing, loading & off loading warehouse facility within Factory.  Utilisation of road worthy trucks to reduce emission of noxious gases and leakages of petroleum products in and around the Project Site in particular and Factory in general.  Need to introduce odour masking fumigant / deodorant agent to reduce emission of unpleasant odour(s) to the surrounding neighbourhood from Factory  Waste water Treatment plant  Reduction at source, sorting and separation of materials for re-use and sale to third party users.
    56. 56. Decommissioning  Ensure decommissioning according to Nestle international standard & existing National guidelines, if available.  Ensure the restoration of site by re-vegetation Socio Economics Claims for compensation, conflict of ownership  Adequate compensation shall be paid to affected farmers for their farms, crops and economic trees.  Awareness campaign by means of consultative and stakeholders forum shall be held at various stages of the project. Pressure of available infrastructure  Proponent shall as part of agreed Memorandum of Understanding undertake, identified community development project(s) for the host community.  Proponent shall support existing social infrastructure to reduce pressure on the limited ones as a result of influx of people into the area.
    57. 57.  ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN  NNAGFWF PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN  A Post EIA EMP which is different from the Factory EMP has been designed for the NNAGFWF Project: This consist of three sections namely:  Environmental Management Programme.  Environmental Contigency Plan  Waste Management Plan   7.3.1 Environmnetal Management Programme   Scope of the Environmental Management Programme  The EMP shall cover monitoring of compliance with mitigation measures during construction activities and impacts monitoring during operation phase. This monitoring programme therefore establishes the specific environmental and socio – economic parameters for each of the environment that will be affected by the proposed project. The components includes:  Air quality  Noise  Water (Surface / ground)  Vegetation and wild life  Geology and hydrogeology  Soil  Waste Management  Transportation  Personnel Hygiene and safety  Socio – economic and cultural impacts
    58. 58. Project Activity / Potential Impacts Action Required/Mitigation Measures Impact Indicator Regulatory Compliance Monitoring Party Frequency / implementation time frame Proponent’s Action Party Land acquisition - Loss of land, loss of economic crops and income - conflict of ownership  Compensate farmers for land take and farmlands.  Proper identification of farmers by community / village head Records of compensation, consultations and MOU shall be maintained Abaji Area Council (AAC) Prior to site preparation Nestle Construction 1.Vegetation Clearing and ground excavation. - Migration of Wildlife - Vegetation removal exposes soil to adverse weather conditions. - Increase in Particulate and Noxious emissions - Surface water contamination  Restriction of pathway during site survey.  Re – grassing / Flowering of Project surrounding.  Removal of excess excavated soil for re – use (in other project – road repairs / remediation of erosion areas etc)  Use equipment with low levels of noise and emissions that are within the acceptable national standards and specifications  Ensure that water be sprinkled on open surface during excavation to reduce amount of soil particulates  Use Power sourced from the National grid where available to minimize burning of fossil fuel.  Periodic monitoring of air parameters Species composition, abundance and identification of dominant species, Hunters catch, Availability and frequency of sighting NOx, CO2, CO, Sox, SPM and Noise level BOD, COD, TSS TSP, DO, pH FMEnv, NESREA  Bi-annually .  Bi-annually  Quarterly / Monthly  Monthly  Daily during the period of excavation  Quarterly Nestle / appointed Consultant “ “ “ Table 7.1 Environmental Management Programme for NNAGFWF Project
    59. 59. 2. Socio-economics - Vehicular movement and related transport activities Transport of equipment and materials to site will be timed to coincide with period of low traffic in the area Records of traffic situation around the site will be kept Not Applicable Daily but during the period of transportation only Nestle Construction - pipe laying, backfilling, machines installations - Health of the neighbouring residents / workers which may lead to hearing impairment. - Atmospheric pollution. - Injuries or accidents by machines - Solid waste (domestic / industrial)  Use of appropriate PPE.  Use of relevant safety instruction and illustrations  Site Safety Health Management Procedures  Limit Access to project Site.  Clearing and Excavations to be done in Dry Season  Good house keeping practices and proper handling of oil.  Solid wastes to be disposed off by licensed waste contractors.  Storage of construction materials at designated area within the site and enforcement of good site management and engineering practices. Reduction at source, sorting and separation of materials for re-use and sale to third party users. NOx, CO2, CO, Sox, SPM and Noise level Records of Injury free / Accidents & work down time Records all waste handling activities (log books) shall be kept FMEnv, NESREA AAC “ “  Quarterly / Monthly Daily Daily Nestle / appointed Consultant Nestle / Site safety office / supervisor Nestle / SHE Unit in Nestle Operation / production, sales and marketing . - Air Quality Pollution  Environmental and noise pollution control shall be incorporated into the power system  Monitoring of atmosphere/ surrounding air for major noxious gases and particulates. NOx, CO2, CO, Sox, SPM and Noise level FMEnv, NESREA AAC  . Quarterly / Monthly  Quarterly / Monthly Nestle staff (Laboratory) RNL Consultants
    60. 60. - Water Quality / Contamination  Checking of effluent quality,  Ground / borehole water Quality (Physico – chemical & Microbiological Analysis) Oil and Grease, TDS, COD, TSS, BOD, Turbidity, pH, Temp, Heavy metals FMEnv, NESREA AAC Quarterly  weekly Nestle staff (Laboratory) RNL Consultants - Soil Quality Degradation  Soil test ( around the Gas /Fuel pipeline route ) to verify project operational impact pH, Heavy metals, Organic Matter. FMEnv, NESREA AAC Quarterly  . Nestle staff (Laboratory) RNL Consultants - Environmental Awareness Programme Safety, Health & Environmental (SHE) activities involving all workers, major suppliers / distributors / contractors – spanning 1week. EMS FMEnv, NESREA AAC  Annually. Company Managers / Consultants. - Documentation & Information Dissemination Programme. Keeping records of all environmentally related compliances, Audit / monitoring Reports, log sheets, Accidents and recommendations. EMS FMEnv, NESREA AAC  Routinely / Daily / Periodically Factory Environment al Manager / Project SHE officer Factory - Accidental Occurrences - Fire and explosions Personnel to gather at muster points and emergency response plan to be followed Periodic fire drill EMS FMEnv, NESREA, AAC Fire Service In case of emergency Nestle
    61. 61. Specific Function Action required Frequency Action by whom Fire Prevention  Provision of adequate fire protection and fire fighting facility  Inspection of fire – fighting equipment.  Certification of Fire – fighting equipment. As need arises Monthly Every 2 years  Factory Management / Project Manager  Certified contractors Training  Training of personnel on safety and loss / accident prevention activities.  Fire drills / Mock fire exercises Yearly Monthly  Company Operative Staff  State Fire officials  Factory fire team Facility Inspection/ Maintenance  Machines / Equipment / Storage & Transportation System Inspection / Checking. Daily  Company Engineering / Project Staff. Table 7.2 Contingency Plan for NNAGFWF Project Operations
    62. 62. Specific Function Action required Frequency Action by whom Drainage Management & House Keeping  Removal of debris from drains & repairs  General cleaning of site premises – internally & externally  Aesthetic maintenance  Cap house cleaning. Daily Daily Daily Daily  Company operative staff (Nestle)  - ditto –  - ditto –  - ditto – Disposal of Domestic / Solid waste  Safe handling, disposal / evacuation of solid waste from the NNAGFWF project site Daily  Approved AAC waste contractor Solid Waste Management Plan The NNAGFWF project solid waste management plan as constituted and presented below in Table 7.3 Table 7.3 Waste Management Plan for NNAGFWF Project Operation
    63. 63.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Nestle Nigeria Abaji Green Field Water Factory Project was carried out in accordance with the Local, National and International Laws / Guidelines for EIA (Decree 86, 1992) adopted in 1994.   A team of reputable environmental consultants were involved. Relevant recent reports of other environmental experts were cited. Nestle Technical team, and other relevant stakeholders were consulted for their inputs. Consultations with the Host Community will continue while an MOU is being put in place for a cordial working relationship and for record purposes.  The general and specific concerns or impacts relating to the natural environment and socio – economic features have been identified, quantified and documented.  The magnitude / significance of the project environmental impacts has shown that the most important environmental parameters / components impacted upon are human health, physical surrounding (vegetation, land /soil quality, aesthetics) and socio economic issues, which are positive in nature. Those that are of negative impacts are short term and occurred mainly at the construction phase.  Based on the assessment of the results of available data and the existing Nestle Environmental Management System already in use in other Nestle factories, some additional mitigation and monitoring programmes have been recommended / suggested for this project.  The Nestle Environmental Management System (NEMS) would need to be upgraded to integrate the Plan / programmes highlighted in this report.
    64. 64.  We conclude, from the available data presented in the preceding chapters, that the overall benefit of the Nestle Nigeria Abaji Green Field Water Factory Project outweighs the few negative temporal and permanent effects.  Therefore, the construction, commissioning and operation of the Nestle Nigeria Abaji Green Field Water Factory Projects is recommended in view of its immense socio – economic and societal health improvement benefits to the citizens of Nigeria in general, to the neighbouring / host communities in particular and to the FCT and Federal Government of Nigeria, whose policy of Public / Private Sector partnership programme is being substantially enhanced.

    ×