INCORPORATION OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ON THE

Transcription

INCORPORATION OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS
ON THE PERU LNG PROJECT CUMULATIVE
EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
October 12, 2007
Page 1 of 134
Cumulative Effects Assessment
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 4
LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................... 9
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... 9
LIST OF PLATES ........................................................................................................ 10
1.0
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 11
1.1
Background ....................................................................................................... 11
1.2
Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 11
1.3
Definition of Key Terms ..................................................................................... 12
2.0
OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................... 14
3.0
SCOPE .............................................................................................................. 15
3.1
Spatial................................................................................................................ 15
3.2
Temporal ........................................................................................................... 19
4.0
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................. 22
4.1
Overall Approach............................................................................................... 22
4.2
Concept to Implementation ............................................................................... 26
4.2.1 Defining Ecosystems and VECs – PERU LNG Projects Study Area................ 26
4.2.2 Defining Resources and VECs – Upstream Projects Study Area..................... 34
4.2.3 Characterizing Cumulative Effects .................................................................... 35
4.3
Identification and Characterization of Third Party Projects............................... 38
4.3.1 Objectives and Scope ....................................................................................... 38
4.3.2 Detailed Description of Approach – PERU LNG Projects Study Area.............. 38
4.3.2.1
Sources of Information ............................................................................... 39
4.3.2.2
Information Gaps........................................................................................ 41
4.3.2.3
Workshop ................................................................................................... 41
4.3.2.4
Site Visit ..................................................................................................... 42
4.3.2.5
Analytical Assessment ............................................................................... 42
4.3.2.6
Setting for PERU LNG Projects ................................................................. 42
4.3.3 Detailed Description of Approach – Upstream Projects Study Area................. 43
5.0
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................................. 44
5.1
PERU LNG Projects Study Area ....................................................................... 44
5.1.1 Valued Ecosystem Components – PERU LNG Projects Study Area ............... 44
5.1.2 Assessment Of Potential Effects – PERU LNG Projects Study Area ............... 48
5.1.2.1
Third Party Projects.................................................................................... 48
5.1.2.2
TgP Pipeline ............................................................................................... 52
5.1.2.3
Access Roads and Temporary Facilities ................................................... 58
5.1.2.4
Paracas Bay / Port of San Martin............................................................... 63
5.2
Upstream Projects Study Area .......................................................................... 64
5.2.1 Third Party Projects........................................................................................... 64
5.2.2 Geology, Geomorphology and Soils ................................................................. 66
5.2.3 Groundwater...................................................................................................... 66
5.2.4 Landscape ......................................................................................................... 66
5.2.5 Social Resources .............................................................................................. 66
5.2.6 Biological Resources......................................................................................... 81
5.2.7 Surface Water Quality ....................................................................................... 99
5.2.8 Air Emissions................................................................................................... 101
6.0
CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................. 103
7.0
RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................... 105
7.1
PERU LNG Projects Study Area ..................................................................... 105
7.2
Upstream Projects Study Area ........................................................................ 107
Page 2 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
8.0
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................. 110
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................. 112
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................. 132
Page 3 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
PERU LNG S.R.L (PERU LNG) plans to construct and operate a natural gas liquefaction plant
(“LNG Plant”) and marine export facility to be located on the Peruvian coast, at approximately
KM 169 of the South Pan American Highway, south of the capital city of Lima and
approximately 80 KM north of the city of Pisco. Natural gas will be transported to the LNG
Plant through the existing Camisea-Lima Pipeline Transportation System (PTS, or
Transportadora de Gas del Perú [TgP] pipeline) up to KP 211. From this point, a 408 km long
34-inch buried pipeline (“Pipeline”) will be constructed and operated by PERU LNG to provide
the required natural gas for the LNG plant. A quarry (“Quarry”) will also be developed to
provide building materials for the marine export terminal and breakwater to be constructed.
Natural gas for the LNG project will be sourced from the Malvinas Gas Separation Plant
located to the southeast of the proposed LNG plant, which in turn will obtain the gas from
Block 56 of the Camisea gas fields. Block 56 is considered the main source for natural gas for
the LNG Plant, as the gas from this block has been slated for export. However, if additional
reserves are necessary, the adjacent Block 88, which currently supplies gas to the TgP
pipeline, would be the supplementary source.
The LNG Plant (including marine facilities), Pipeline, and Quarry are collectively referred to in
this document as the ‘PERU LNG Projects’.
While Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) have been prepared for the
PERU LNG Projects, these documents did not fully address potential cumulative
environmental and social effects. The purpose of this Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA)
is to redress this situation to ensure that the incremental effects resulting from the combined
influences of the PERU LNG Projects are considered in conjunction with the effects of third
party activities currently operating or proposed for the general area, recognizing that these
incremental effects may be significant even though the effects of each activity, when
independently assessed, may be considered small or insignificant.
It should be noted that at the time this CEA was prepared, a Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) for the Lower Urubamba Region was being prepared by the Peruvian
Ministry of Energy and Mines. A review of the SEA should be conducted, when finished, to
identify areas of overlap with the current CEA. This would provide potential opportunities for
improvement for both documents.
This CEA was prepared by two internationally recognized environmental consultants in two
components:
•
IDP prepared the first component of the CEA by completing an assessment of the
cumulative effects directly associated with the PERU LNG projects.
•
Environmental Resources Management (ERM) prepared the second component of the
CEA by completing an assessment of the cumulative effects indirectly associated with
the PERU LNG projects through induced actions. This second component includes an
analysis of potential cumulative effects related to Block 56 of the Camisea gas fields
and the Malvinas Gas Separation Plant expansion (“Upstream Projects”).
ENVIRON International Corporation integrated the two components mentioned above into the
present document and incorporated the conclusions from ERM’s Cumulative Marine and Road
Traffic Analysis for the Port of San Martin / Paracas Bay.
Page 4 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Objectives and Assumptions
The CEA has five primary objectives:
•
Identify existing or reasonably foreseeable Third Party Projects that have the potential
to interact with activities associated with the construction and operation of the PERU
LNG Projects and Upstream Projects.
•
Characterize the nature of this interaction including pathways that link these Third
Party Projects with the PERU LNG Projects and Upstream Projects.
•
Characterize total cumulative environmental and social effects of these interactions
and particularly, the degree to which the PERU LNG Projects contribute to these
effects.
•
Propose mitigation measures for any adverse effects.
•
Assess the need to modify existing management plans, or conduct further
investigations in order to define additional mitigation measures.
Attainment of these objectives will also:
•
Provide information for the proposed Environmental and Social Overview document
and potentially for implementation of environmental and community programs.
•
Identify and maximize potential synergies with other project activities.
This report makes the following assumptions:
•
The environmental and social impacts of the PERU LNG Projects are as described in
the respective ESIAs for each component.
•
The existence of Third Party Projects in the general vicinity of the PERU LNG Projects,
as well as proposed and reasonably foreseeable projects, is reflected by the data set
collected by Walsh Peru S.A (Walsh, 2007; Appendix A). Due to the ecological
sensitivity of the area the Port of San Martin / Paracas Bay were also analyzed as
Third Party Projects in the general vicinity of the PERU LNG Projects.
•
The Third Party Projects that could interact with the Upstream Projects include
development of Block 88 of the Camisea natural gas fields, future oil and gas
exploration activities in Blocks 57 and 58, and management of Protected Natural Areas
that lie partially within or abut portions of the Upstream Projects study area.
Scope
The spatial boundaries of the CEA have been defined according to the overlap and interconnection of the following project attributes:
•
Physical extent of the footprint of each of the PERU LNG Projects and Upstream
Projects, including temporary and permanent public and third party facilities and
assets, to the extent that these are known.
•
The physical, social and ecological extent of off-site impacts, that is, those extending
beyond the footprint of the PERU LNG Projects and Upstream Projects.
•
Physical and ecological extent of Third Party Projects and their off-site impacts.
In physical terms the above boundaries effectively translate into a ‘Study Area’ that is
composed of two components:
•
The study area for the PERU LNG Projects extends approximately 20 km either side of
the Pipeline centre line, and in so-doing, captures the sphere of influence of the LNG
Plant / marine export facility, the Quarry and related facilities. This study area was
expanded from the 20 km threshold to include the Port of San Martin / Paracas Bay,
Page 5 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
which was recognized as part of the sphere of influence of the PERU LNG Projects
because materials and equipment for the project will be imported into Peru at this
location which is considered environmentally sensitive.
•
The study area for the Upstream Projects includes the drainage areas of all tributaries
of the Lower Urubamba River from the mouth of the Sepahua River to approximately
the 1,000 meter elevation, which is used as a surrogate for the transition from Amazon
humid tropical forest communities to higher elevation communities, within the Lower
Urubamba Region of Peru. This area extends from Pongo de Mainiqui (generally
considered the upper end of the Lower Urubamba Region because the rapids here are
difficult to navigate) along the Urubamba to Sepahua, which is the first major village
(population of approximately 3,350 people) downstream of the Block 56 natural gas
fields and the capital of Sepahua district. Although some supplies may be barged from
ports farther downstream of Sepahua, river traffic is common in the lower reaches of
the Urubamba River and therefore, any cumulative effects (especially social effects)
would be minor. The Upstream Projects area encompasses approximately 15,100
square kilometers (km2).
Methodology
An ecological approach has been used to identify, characterize, and assess the significance of
potential cumulative effects caused by the interaction of the PERU LNG Projects, Upstream
Projects, and Third Party Projects. A core feature of the approach is the concept of Valued
Ecosystem Components (VECs). These are defined as important or valuable environmental
and social attributes or components as reflected by social, cultural, economic, scientific or
aesthetic values.
Cumulative effects can occur in various ways1, and these formed the basis of the assessment
process, as follows:
1
•
Spatial Overlap
o When the footprints of projects coincide, either in terms of the formal,
designated boundaries of the projects, or the spatial extent of their impacts.
•
Physical-chemical transport:
o A physical or chemical constituent is transported away from the action under
review where it then interacts with another action (e.g., air emissions, waste
water effluent, sediment).
•
Nibbling loss:
o The gradual disturbance and loss of land and habitat (e.g., clearing of
vegetation).
•
Spatial and temporal crowding:
o Occurs when too much is happening within too small an area and in too brief a
period of time. A threshold may be exceeded and the environment may not be
able to recover to pre-disturbance conditions.
o Spatial crowding results in an overlap of effects among actions (e.g., noise
from a road adjacent to an industrial site; confluence of stack emission
plumes).
o Temporal crowding may occur if effects from different actions overlap or occur
before the VEC has had time to recover.
•
Growth-inducing potential:
o Each new action can induce further actions to occur. The effects of these
"spin-off" actions (e.g., increased vehicle access into a previously inaccessible
After Hegmann et al. (1999)
Page 6 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
area) may add to the cumulative effects already occurring in the vicinity of the
proposed action, creating a "feedback" effect.
Results – PERU LNG Projects
A comprehensive screening exercise was conducted to identify any existing or reasonably
foreseeable Third Party Projects, (including expansions) occurring within 20 km of the
Pipeline, that had the potential to interact with the PERU LNG Projects via physical, chemical
or human means or agents.2 Private sector ventures and government sponsored initiatives
were considered. The task required consultation with government agencies and regional
authorities located in the departments of Ayacucho, Huancavelica, Ica and Lima.
Approximately 2,000 plans, programs, projects or initiatives were reviewed.
The screening process was applied as follows (see Figure 4.1 for a summary):
The twenty-nine of these were assessed as potentially relevant and examined in greater
detail. In addition, the potential interactions with the PTS, the Port of San Martin and Paracas
Bay were also assessed, as were the potential effects associated with proposed PERU LNG
pipeline access roads, temporary facilities, and the quarry access road.
The CEA concludes that, of the twenty-nine Third Party Projects assessed in detail, only four
are likely to have any interaction with the PERU LNG Projects. Furthermore, none of the four
is likely to generate significant medium or long term adverse cumulative impacts. A number of
short term impacts have been identified for a new road construction that crosses the pipeline
route, and for an irrigation project near the village of Seccelabras (KP 71 +267). However, it is
concluded that existing project mitigation measures and management plans, if properly
executed, should be sufficient to limit the adverse effects of these impacts to low to negligible
levels.
The CEA also concludes that the cumulative effects arising from interactions with the TgP
pipeline, access roads and temporary facilities are likely to be more significant than those
resulting from the other Third Party Projects. Four areas of potential impact were identified in
relation to the TgP Pipeline:
•
Erosion and sedimentation.
•
Sensitive ecosystems, habitats and species.
•
Landscape.
•
Social.
Of these, the potential effects on sensitive ecosystems and their components could be
significant as they involve internationally important habitats (bofedales) and several nationally
and internationally listed species of birds and plants.
2
1. A desk-based review and on-site interviews identified approximately 2000 existing, potential or
reasonably foreseeable projects, plans, programs or initiatives;
2. This number was initially reduced to 29;
3. Each of these projects was reviewed in a Workshop. 22 were rejected as not relevant, leaving a total
of 7;
4. A subsequent field reconnaissance within the study region by the CEA team and PLNG identified a
further 6 projects not previously identified in the initial 2000, making a total of 13 (7+6);
5. When the 13 were further examined during the CEA process, only 4 were found to have the potential
to interact with the PLNG projects (Plant, Quarry, and Pipeline); and
6. These four were assessed in detail using the methodology described in the CEA.
Page 7 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
The use of existing access roads and temporary facilities, many established for the TgP
pipeline, and the construction and development of new ones will result in cumulative
environmental and social impacts; however, the significance of these impacts cannot be
assessed in specific terms until a final inventory of roads and facilities has been conducted by
PERU LNG and its Contractor. While the basic plan for access roads and off-site facilities is
known, changes are likely as construction activities progress, particularly with the pipeline
project.
Activities at the Port of San Martin and Paracas Bay are not expected to have significant
interaction with the PERU LNG Projects, given the distance from the LNG Projects and the
relatively small increase in marine traffic associated with the LNG Projects through the Port of
San Martin and Paracas Bay.
In summary, the CEA concludes that no significant adverse cumulative effects are likely in
relation to the PERU LNG Projects due to the lack of significant interactions with Third Party
Projects. However, from a regional and national perspective, the PERU LNG Projects are
expected to have a net positive cumulative impact as a result of a combination of factors: tax
revenues, royalties, job creation and export revenues. The regional significance of the job
creation opportunities and any inward investment resulting from Additionality Programs or
other sources could serve as an important stimulus given the depressed socio-economic
condition of the area.
Results – Upstream Projects
Third Party Projects, including the development of Block 88, exploration activities in Blocks 57
and 58, and management of Protected Natural Areas that lie partially within or abut portions of
the Upstream Projects study area, have the potential to interact with the Upstream Projects
and result in cumulative effects on social resources, biological resources, water quality, and
air quality. Specifically, the analysis indicates that the cumulative effects on biological
resources, water quality, and air quality would be minor. Cumulative effects are expected to
impact social resources, especially at the local community level; however, with mitigation, the
cumulative effects on social resources are considered moderate to minor.
Recommendations
The CEA includes a number of recommendations for PERU LNG and Pluspetrol Peru
Corporation (PPC - which is the operator for Block 56 and the Malvinas Gas Separation Plant)
to minimize the potential cumulative effects identified. The recommendations address erosion
and sedimentation, sensitive ecosystems, habitats and species, landscape, disruption to local
communities, loss and restricted use of land, induced access, reinstatement criteria for
temporary access roads and facilities, access strategy, social resources, biological resources,
water quality, and air quality.
PERU LNG has only limited leverage with Pluspetrol and other companies operating in the
region. The Peruvian Government’s regulatory authorities are best positioned to provide the
overarching guidance on and management of issues affecting the region. It is therefore
recommended that neighboring operators be engaged by the appropriate Peruvian
Government authorities to promote a regional approach to access control and biodiversity
monitoring efforts, and to support Peruvian Government initiatives where mutually beneficial to
all stakeholders. Such a regional approach would go a long way in reducing risks of social
unrest due to inconsistent criteria applied by several different project companies, in reducing
impacts to isolated indigenous communities at a regional scale and in reducing disruptions of
communities’ traditional institutional organizations due to competing, inconsistent and
uncoordinated efforts and initiatives by several project companies.
Page 8 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1:
Project Logistics- East
Figure 3.2:
Project Logistics- West
Figure 3.3:
Upstream Projects Study Area
Figure 4.1:
Summary of Approach
Figure 4.2:
Ecosystem Services
Figure 4.3:
Components of well-being
Figure 4.4:
Dependencies of well-being
Figure 4.5:
Links between Ecosystems and well-being
Figure 4.6:
Conceptualization and well-being
Figure 4.7:
Ecosystem Sheet 1
Figure 4.8:
Ecosystem Sheet 2
Figure 4.9:
Ecosystem Sheet 3
Figure 4.10:
Ecosystem Sheet 4
Figure 4.11:
Ecosystem Sheet 5
Figure 4.12:
Rural / Urban Communities – East
Figure 4.13:
Rural / Urban Communities – West
Figure 4.14:
Watersheds
Figure 4.15:
Identification of Third Party Projects
Figure 5.1:
Identified Projects & Watersheds – East
Figure 5.2:
Identified Projects & Watersheds – West
Figure 5.3:
Pathway Diagram for Habitat Quality VEC
Figure 5.4:
Pathway Diagram for Biodiversity and Rare Species VEC
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1:
Estimated Chronology of Block 56 and Malvinas Gas Separation Plant and
Expansion
Table 4.1:
Derivation of Ecosystems Based on Vegetation Community Data
Table 5.1:
Valued Ecosystem Components (Environmental)
Table 5.2:
Valued Ecosystem Components (Social)
Table 5.3:
Ecosystems in the project area of influence identified as sensitive or fragile by
the ESIA
Table 5.4:
Critically Endangered or Endangered species under Peruvian Legislation
Table 5.5:
Summary of Cumulative Effects Assessment: Third Party Projects
Table 5.6:
Summary of Cumulative Effects Assessment: Cachi River Project
Page 9 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Table 5.7:
ESIA Assessment of Cumulative Impacts Arising from Interaction of TgP and
PERU LNG Pipeline
Table 5.8:
Potential Impacts Arising from the Interaction of the TgP and PERU LNG
Projects
Table 5.9:
Sensitive Resources Intersected by or in the Vicinity of the Two Pipelines
Table 5.10:
Population in Project Area
Table 5.11:
Communities Impacted by Operations in Blocks 56 and 88
Table 5.12:
Cumulative social effects
Table 5.13:
Cumulative Effects Post- ESMP Mitigation plus Additional Recommended
Measures
Table 5.14:
Linkage Validation and Evaluation of Significance of Potential Cumulative
Effects on the Habitat Quality VEC
Table 5.15:
Linkage Validation and Evaluation of Significance of Potential Cumulative
Effects on the Biodiversity and Rare Species VEC
Table 5.16:
Determination of Cumulative Effects on Habitat Quality and Biodiversity within
the Lower Urubamba Region (LUR)
Table 5.17:
Upstream Projects study area emission inventory
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 5.1:
Encouraging signs of vegetation regrowth, High Andean wetland
Plate 5.2:
Existing access road constructed by TgP bisecting bofedales habitat
Plate 5.3:
Sample of TgP pipeline corridor in the Andean region 3 years after completion
of construction
Page 10 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
PERU LNG plans to construct and operate a natural gas liquefaction plant (“LNG Plant”) and
marine export facility to be located on the Peruvian coast, at approximately KM 169 of the
South Pan American Highway, south of the capitol city of Lima and approximately 80 KM
north of the city of Pisco. Natural gas will be transported to the LNG Plant through the existing
Camisea-Lima Pipeline Transportation System (PTS, or Transportadora de Gas del Perú
[TgP] pipeline) up to KP 211. From this point, a 408 km long 34-inch buried pipeline
(“Pipeline”) will be constructed and operated by PERU LNG to provide the required natural
gas for the LNG plant. A quarry (“Quarry”) will also be developed to provide building materials
for the marine export terminal and breakwater to be constructed. Natural gas for the LNG
project will be sourced from the Malvinas Gas Separation Plant located to the southeast of the
proposed LNG plant, which in turn will obtain the gas from Block 56 of the Camisea gas fields.
Block 56 is considered the main source for natural gas for the LNG Plant, as the gas from this
block has been slated for export. However, if additional reserves are necessary, the adjacent
Block 88, which currently supplies gas to the TgP pipeline, would be the supplementary
source.
The LNG Plant (including marine facilities), Pipeline, and Quarry are collectively referred to in
this document as the ‘PERU LNG Projects’.
While Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) have been prepared for the
PERU LNG Projects, these documents did not fully address potential cumulative
environmental and social effects. The purpose of this Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA)
report is to redress this situation to ensure that the incremental effects resulting from the
combined effects of the PERU LNG Projects are considered in conjunction with the effects of
third party activities currently operating or proposed for the general area, recognizing that
these incremental effects may be significant even though the effects of each activity, when
independently assessed, may be considered small or insignificant.
This CEA was prepared by two internationally recognized environmental consultants in two
components:
•
IDP prepared the first component of the CEA by completing an assessment of the
cumulative effects directly associated with the PERU LNG projects.
•
ERM prepared the second component of the CEA by completing an assessment of the
cumulative effects indirectly associated with the PERU LNG projects through induced
actions. This second component includes an analysis of potential cumulative effects
related to Block 56 of the Camisea gas fields and the Malvinas Gas Separation Plant
expansion (“Upstream Projects”).
ENVIRON International Corporation integrated the two components mentioned above into the
present document and incorporated the conclusions from the Cumulative Marine and Road
Traffic Analysis for the Port of San Martin / Paracas Bay (ERM, 2004).
1.2
Assumptions
This report makes the following assumptions:
•
The environmental and social impacts of the PERU LNG Projects are as described in
the respective ESIAs for each component
•
The existence of Third Party Projects in the general vicinity of the PERU LNG Projects,
as well as proposed and reasonably foreseeable projects, is reflected by the data set
collected by Walsh Peru S.A (Walsh, 2007; Appendix A). Due to the ecological
sensitivity of the area the Port of San Martin / Paracas Bay were also analyzed as
Third Party Projects in the general vicinity of the PERU LNG Projects.
Page 11 of 134
PERU LNG Project
•
1.3
October 12, 2007
The Third Party Projects that are related to the Upstream Projects include
development of Block 88 of the Camisea natural gas fields, future oil and gas
exploration activities in Blocks 57 and 58, and management of Protected Natural Areas
that lie partially within or abut portions of the Upstream Projects study area.
Definition of Key Terms
Cumulative effects: Cumulative effects in the context of ESIAs are taken to be changes to
the physical, biological and social environment that are caused by the interaction of project
activities with other past, present and future human activities and their ecological
consequences. Cumulative effects include induced impacts, indirect and direct impacts,
short-term and long-term impacts that are mutually reinforced in the same receptor within the
same ecosystem and the same area.
Ecosystem: a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and micro-organism communities and the
nonliving environment interacting as a functional unit. Humans are an integral part of
ecosystems. Ecosystems vary enormously in size; a temporary pond in a tree hollow and an
ocean basin can both be ecosystems.
Ecosystem services: the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include
provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as regulation of floods,
drought, land degradation, and disease; supporting services such as soil formation and
nutrient cycling; and cultural services such as recreational, spiritual, religious and other
nonmaterial benefits.
PERU LNG Projects: The LNG plant (including marine facilities), the associated quarry, and
the PERU LNG pipeline.
Sphere of Influence: The direct and indirect extent of a project’s impact, including pathways
to other projects, defined in terms significance, and taking into account immediate and
delayed effects, seasonal and natural variability, the assimilative capacity of affected
ecosystems as well as response and recovery rates.
Study Area: An area composed of: a) the study area for the PERU LNG Projects, which is an
area effectively equivalent to that occurring within 20 km of these projects3; b) the Port of San
Martin / Paracas Bay, which are located at a distance greater than 20 km from the same
projects; and c) the study area for the Upstream Projects, which includes the drainage areas
of all tributaries of the Lower Urubamba River from the mouth of the Sepahua River to
approximately the 1,000 meter elevation, which is used as a surrogate for the transition from
Amazon lowland humid tropical forest communities to higher elevation communities, within the
Lower Urubamba Region of Peru. The overall Upstream Projects study area encompasses
approximately 15,100 square kilometers (km2).
Third Party Projects: Projects, plans and programs that exist, under construction, proposed,
or reasonably foreseeable and that are or have the potential to be located in the general
vicinity of the PERU LNG Projects, Upstream Projects, or their combined sphere of influence.
Upstream Projects: Block 56 of the Camisea gas fields and the Malvinas Gas Separation
Plant expansion.
Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs): Important or valuable environmental and social
attributes or components as reflected by social, cultural, economic, scientific or aesthetic
values.
Well-being: Human well-being has multiple constituents, including basic material for a good
life, freedom and choice, health, good social relations, and security. Well-being is at the
opposite end of a continuum from poverty, which has been defined as a “pronounced
3
Note that the quarry was considered when defining the spatial boundaries of the study area (Section
3.1) but, due to its isolated location and small footprint it had no bearing on the outcome of the
assessment
Page 12 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
deprivation in well-being.” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). The constituents of
well-being, as experienced and perceived by people, are situation-dependent, reflecting local
geography, culture, and ecological circumstances.
Page 13 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
2.0 OBJECTIVES
The CEA has five primary objectives:
•
Identify existing or reasonably foreseeable Third Party Projects that have the potential
to interact with activities associated with the construction and operation of the PERU
LNG Projects and Upstream Projects.
•
Characterize the nature of this interaction including pathways that link these Third
Party Projects with the PERU LNG Projects and Upstream Projects.
•
Characterize total cumulative environmental and social effects of these interactions
and particularly, the degree to which the PERU LNG Projects contribute to these
effects.
•
Propose mitigation measures for any adverse effects.
•
Assess the need to modify existing management plans, or conduct further
investigations in order to define additional mitigation measures.
Attainment of these objectives will also:
•
Provide information for the proposed Environmental and Social Overview document
and potentially for implementation of environmental and community programs; and
•
Identify and maximize potential synergies with other project activities.
Page 14 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
3.0 SCOPE
3.1
Spatial
The spatial boundaries of the CEA have been defined according to the overlap and interconnection of the following project attributes:
•
Physical extent of the footprint of each of the PERU LNG Projects and Upstream
Projects, including temporary and permanent public and third party facilities and
assets, to the extent that these are known, including but not limited to:
o Access roads
o Borrow pits
o Quarries
o Batch plants
o Camp sites
o Pipe lay-down areas
•
The physical, social and ecological extent of off-site impacts, that is, those extending
beyond the footprint of the PERU LNG Projects and Upstream Projects, including the
following pathways and linking mechanisms:
o Rivers and water courses
o Groundwater systems
o Roads, tracks and paths
o Atmosphere/airsheds and prevailing winds
o People and their use of resources
•
Physical and ecological extent of Third Party Projects and their off-site impacts, as
described above.
Political, economic and administrative boundaries in the region were considered when
defining the spatial boundary of the assessment but they were found to be subordinate to
those features defined above and therefore deemed not relevant in the context of the CEA.
In physical terms the above boundaries effectively translate into a ‘Study Area’ that is
composed of two components:
•
The study area for the PERU LNG Projects extends approximately 20 km either side of
the Pipeline centre line (Figures 3.1 and 3.2), and in so-doing, captures the sphere of
influence of the LNG Plant / marine export facility, the Quarry and related facilities.
This study area was expanded from the 20 km threshold to include the Port of San
Martin / Paracas Bay, which was recognized as part of the sphere of influence of the
PERU LNG Projects because materials and equipment for the project will be imported
into Peru at this location which is considered environmentally sensitive. The study
area also includes the existing TgP pipeline, where this pipeline is located within the
20 km lateral extent of the PERU LNG pipeline during the 140 km where these
pipelines run parallel to each other.
•
The study area for the Upstream Projects (Figure 3.3) includes the drainage areas of
all tributaries of the Lower Urubamba River from the mouth of the Sepahua River to
approximately the 1,000 meter elevation, which is used as a surrogate for the
transition from Amazon lowland humid tropical forest communities to higher elevation
communities, within the Lower Urubamba Region of Peru. This area extends from
Pongo de Mainiqui (generally considered the upper end of the Lower Urubamba
Region because the rapids here are difficult to navigate) along the Urubamba River to
Sepahua, which is the first major village (population of approximately 3,350 people)
downstream of the Block 56 natural gas fields and the capital of Sepahua district.
Although some supplies may be barged from ports farther downstream of Sepahua,
river traffic is common in the lower reaches of the Urubamba River and therefore, any
cumulative effects (especially social effects) would be minor. The Upstream Projects
study area encompasses approximately 15,100 square kilometers (km2).
Page 15 of 134
500000
520000
540000
560000
580000
600000
620000
640000
660000
CUADRO DE EMPALMES/ OVERLAPS CHART
LIMA
01
HUANCAVELICA
N
W
E
ri
AYACUCHO
02
ma
c
S
8580000
8580000
ICA
u
Ap
Rí o
01
HUANCAVELICA
HUANCAVELICA
Quintiarina%
Huanta
%
Tambo
%
San Antonio
%
15
20
8560000
0
00
0
0
95 + 0
00
+
00
195 + 000
8520000
iascca
RíoToj
Ro
íT
am
bo
cha
APURIMAC
RíoChallhuamayo
Río
Palcca
huaycc
130 +
000
125 + 000
+
5
14
00
0
+
80
0
85 + 000
10
00
00
0 RíoJ
arim
a
0
+ 00
1 50
+
155 + 00
0
[ Central Acocros
%
Y
#
% Chiara
0
90 + 00
1 75 +
RíoPalmi
tos
00 0
Acocro
Q. T
antarn
ioc
8540000
0
0
00
+ %
75
00
00
[
%
#
Central Vinchos Y
% Rumichaca
8520000
8540000
00
110 + 000
[
%
Ocollo 2
%
Licapa
00
+ 000
% 70
0
105 + 00
+0
0
115 + 00
1 20
135 + 000
+0
000
140 + 000
1 60
16 5 +
+
0
Y
# Central
[
%
Rumichaca
0
17
180 + 000
00
+
5
1 8 as
p
190 +
000
Río
Tor
obam
ba
+
Seccelabras
tun
Q. Ja huayco
a
Q. Apachet
RíoAcchimghay
+0
Móvil las Nubes 2
60
os
RíoVinch
%Tambillo
Vinchos %
RíoPam
% Sector PS-3
[
%
Chiquintirca
%Pacobamba
%
Huayllaura
Patibamba
Sacharajay
%
[ Y#
%
65
Pilpichaca %
Jolpas
Y
#
Río
Yu
cay
Socos
%
yo
[
%
+
Toccate
8560000
0
[
%
55
Central Huaychao
%
+ 000
5
0
00 Móvil
0
Acos Vinchos
Ayacucho
Poblado Campana
00
00
00
0
% Cochas
+0
+
%
+
[ Móvil cerca de
%
0
%
10
45
50
HUANCAVELICA
%Y# %40
[
+0
00
00
Patibamba
25
Uras
%
35 + 000
% Quinua
+0
+0
San Miguel %
Móvil Anchihuay
[
%
% Ocros
20 0
+0
00
205
0
+ 00
+
ío
Sec
R
0
0
AYACUCHO
o
00
Río
Pam
pas
SÍMBOLOS / SYMBOLS
8500000
Trazo PERU LNG / PERU LNG Route
[
%
Campamentos / Camps
#
Y
Acopio / Stockpile
Estudio de Impacto Ambiental y Social del Proyecto de Transporte
de Gas Natural por Ducto de Ayacucho a la Planta de Licuefacción
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for the Natural
Gas Pipeline Transportation Project from Ayacucho
to the Liquefaction Plant.
TÍTULO / TITLE:
Caminos de Acceso / Access Road
U
%
Centros Poblados / Villages
Project Logistics
- East
ESQUEMA LOGISTICO
DEL PROYECTO
ESIA
PROJECT LOGISTICS SCHEME FROM THE ESIA
Carretera Asfaltada / Asphalt Road
Fuente: Carta Nacional 1/100 000 - IGN; Imágenes de Satélite
LandSat (2003), Spot4 (2003) y Aster (2003);
Información temática y comprobación de campo Walsh Perú S.A.
Source: National Setter 1/100 000 - IGN; LandSat (2003), Spot4 (2003)
and Aster (2003) Satellite Images; Thematic Information and
Walsh Perú S.A. field verification.
500000
520000
Carretera Afirmada / Paved Road
Ríos, Quebradas Permanentes/
Permanent Rivers, Streams
Escala / Scale: 1/450 000
0
5000
10000
15000
FIGURA / FIGURE:
20000 Meters
Límite Distrital / District Boundary
3.2
3.1
Proyección UTM, Zona 18, Datum WGS84/UTM Projection, Zone 18, Datum WGS84
540000
560000
580000
600000
620000
FECHA / DATE:
ELABORADO POR / PREPARED BY:
Marzo, 2007
640000
660000
8500000
Area de Estudio / Study Area
300
340000
360000
380000
400000
420000
440000
460000
480000
500000
8560000
LIMA
8560000
02
HUANCAVELICA
N
01
HUANCAVELICA
W
E
ICA
LIMA
AYACUCHO
02
RíoCañete
S
GNL2 QUARRY
o
Q. T
5+
00
0
39
0+
00
0
39
5
+
00
0
40
#
#
0+
Planta
Licuefacción
pa
ra
00
0
8540000
8540000
San Genaro
%
Fín del Tramo
402+144
190 +
%#
Río
Qui
toA
rma
0
00
5+
28
0
245 + 00
00
%
[
0
00
Campamentos / Camps
Y
#
Acopio / Stockpile
0
%Tambo
Ayavi
%
00
00
0
Paracas
%
Caminos de Acceso / Access Road
TÍTULO / TITLE:
Project Logistics
- West
ESQUEMA LOGISTICO
DEL PROYECTO
ESIA
PROJECT LOGISTICS SCHEME FROM THE ESIA
Límite Distrital / District Boundary
0
5000
10000
15000
20000 Meters
340000
360000
FIGURA / FIGURE:
380000
3.2
400000
420000
440000
460000
FECHA / DATE:
Marzo, 2007
480000
500000
8460000
8460000
0
Central Huaytara
%
[
U
%
00
0
315 + 000
0
+ 00
0+
Y
#
+
+ 00
3 25
255 + 000
8500000
8480000
0
24
5+
0
8480000
5+
8500000
0
27
+0
o
00
270
280 + 00 0
0
R
0+
0
00
%
250 + 000
26
00
+
%Huancaccasa
[
00
5
00
30
+0
300 + 0
#
0 %
3 10
300
0
00
Humay
%
320 + 000
33
+
+
335 + 000
0
Bernales
San Ándres %
SÍMBOLOS / SYMBOLS
o
Rí
265 + 00
o
sc
Pi
29
%
#
295
San Clemente
Rí o Pi
%
sco
Huamani Chico
% % San Miguel
Leticia % Pisco%
% Tupac Amaru Inca
Bancarios % %
23
#
23
Independencia 34
0 + 00 0
00
00
00
RíoHuaytara
ano
anc
Q. Hu
+0
a
ach
RíoVizc
Huaytara
Huancano
%
5
34
0
00
00
+0
ío
Sec
0
5+
Q. L
osAr
rieros
35 0
Taccra
%
o
00
yma
Q. Ca
+0
000
+
3 55
22
Hoja Redonda
%
+
00
El Carmen
%
San Jose
0
21
0
+ 00
%
#
#
0
360 +
220 + 000
te
atagen
RíoM
OCEANO
PACIFICO
ICA
2 15
Guayabo
%
00
20 5
36
0
5+
+0
HUANCAVELICA
%
RíoChico
200
3 70
Pi
sc
%
0
+ 00
Alto Laran
%
Chincha Baja
195 + 000
Chincha Alta
##
%
Sunampe
%
Rí o
Grocio Prado %
%#Y R
[
Pueblo Nuevo
Q.
Vela
dero
37
5+
000
0
00
8520000
8520000
38
0
0+
00
0
38
00
+
5
18 as
p
RíoPam
Pilpichaca %
RAYA
PUERTO ESPERANZA
²
Colombia
Ecuador
APINIHUA
BOBINSANA
CENTRO APINIHUA
LAGARTO MILLAR
CENTRO PUCANI OJEAYO
SAN JUAN DE INUYA
TAHUANTI
NUEVO SAN MARTIN
SABALUYO MAMORIARI SANTA CLARANUEVO ITALIA
Brasil
MAPIATONUEVA ESPERANZA
SAN FRANCISCO O TZINQUIATO
SANTA ROSA DE LAULATE
CAPAJERIATO
AERIJA
TAQUILA
SAPANI
Alto Purus National Park
SANTA ELENAINKARE
UNINI
8800000.000000
8800000.000000
8850000.000000
8850000.000000
800000.000000
770000.000000
740000.000000
710000.000000
680000.000000
650000.000000
VILLA MARIA DE CUMARILLO
BUENOS AIRES
HUAO
CHEMBO
IMPAMEQUIARI
Océano Pacífico
SANTA ROSITA DE SHIRINTIARI
BUFEO POZO
MARANKIARI
QUEMARIJA
UNION MIRAFLORES CAPIRONA
NUEVA UNION
CENTRO SHEBOJA
SHEVOJA
PUIJA
BETANIA SHARAHUAJA
CAPITIRI
SEPAHUA
ONCONOSHARI
PUERTO RICO
OVIRI
ANAPATE
8750000.000000
8750000.000000
SAN FRANCISCO DE CUSHIRENI
CAMAJINI
POYENI
BLOCK 57
CHENI
MIARIA
TSOROJA
SENSA
POROTOBANGO
KITEPAMPANI
NUEVO MUNDO
NUEVA LUZ
NUEVA VIDA
TAINI
KIRIGUETI
SHIVANKORENI
Nahua-Kugakapori Territorial Reserve
TANGOSHIARI
8700000.000000
8700000.000000
BLOCK 56
Manu National Park
SEGAKIATO
CAMISEA
PUERTO HUALLANA
BLOCK 88
KOCHIRI
CUTIVIRENI
CASHIRIARI
TICUMPINIA
Otishi National Park
MAYAPO
BLOCK 58
CAMANTAVISHI
CHIRUMBIA
CAMANA
Ashaninka Comunal Reserve
Figure 3.3
8650000.000000
8650000.000000
TIMPIA
Machiguenga Communal Reserve
PITIRINKINI
SABABANTIARI
Megantoni National Sanctuary
Legend
POYENTIMARI
Rivers
Streams
MONKIRENSHI
MONTE CARMELO
Protected Areas
CHAKOPISHIATO
MATORIATO
SANKIROSI
YOQUIRI
Nahua-Kugapakori
Territorial Reserve
Protected Areas Buffer Zones
TIPESHIARI
CEA Study Area
SHIMAA
CORIMANI
Malvinas Gas Separation Plant
SAN JOSE DE KORIBENI
Native Communities
0
10
20
40
INKAARE
Km
Blocks
Projection UTM Zone 18S - WGS84
MANITINKIARI
650000.000000
TIVORIARI
680000.000000
710000.000000
740000.000000
770000.000000
800000.000000
8600000.000000
8600000.000000
ESTRELLA DE ALTO SANGOBATEA
SAMPANTUARI
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
This Study Area was used as a basis for initially identifying all potentially relevant Third Party
Projects, although it was recognized at the outset that this somewhat arbitrary boundary might
need to be extended in places (e.g. the Port of San Martin / Paracas Bay) depending on the
sphere of influence of individual projects, along with the existence of pathways or linkages
connecting two or more projects.
3.2
Temporal
The Lower Urubamba region was explored mainly by Shell and Chevron in the 1980s. Shell
subcontracted Geo Source to perform seismic surveys from 1983 to 1985. In March 1984, the
first discovery was made at the San Martin structure and Well 42-46-1X was drilled and
completed. During the second campaign in 1986 and 1987, the second discovery was made
at the Cashiriari Anticline, south of the first structure. The Sepa, Segakiato, Armihuari, San
Martin, and Cashiriari wells were drilled from 1985 to 1988.
After a year of negotiation, Perupetro (on behalf of the Peruvian Government) signed a new
contract on May 17, 1996 with the Shell–Mobil Consortium to develop the gas fields in the
Lower Urubamba region for a 40-year period. The contract was divided into: a two-year
phase to evaluate and estimate the potential of the gas fields, and a second phase dependent
on the results of the first phase, aimed at development and exploitation of undeveloped fields.
During the second Shell–Mobil drilling expedition in Blocks 75, 88A, and 88B (1996-1998), the
San Martin 3, Cashiriari 3, Armihuari (or Cashiriari 2), and Pagoreni wells were drilled. At the
same time, Chevron carried out seismic surveys in Block 52 on the left bank of the Urubamba
River. The first expedition included 540 km of 2D seismic investigations between March 1996
and February 1997, supported by Grant Geophysical, and a second expedition of 80km of 2D
seismic investigation between June and August 1998, supported by CGG (Compañía General
de Geofísica).
In the late 1990s, Phillips Petroleum also worked in the area, carrying out drilling activities in
Block 82, and drilled the Panguana well between July 1998 and March 1999 using the
contractor Parker Drilling. Repsol–YPF, which performed seismic surveys in Blocks 34 and
35 between April and December 1999, made over 1,020 km of 2D seismic recordings using
contractor CGG.
In 1999, the government initiated a bidding process that divided the Camisea Gas Project into
two large modules. The module for exploitation and fractionation was awarded to the
consortium of Pluspetrol Peru Corporation S.A. (PPC), Hunt Oil Company of Peru LLC, SK
Corporation, Tecpetrol, and Sonatrach under public bidding on February 16, 2000. The
module for transportation and distribution was awarded to TgP on October 20, 2000. Both
contracts were signed on December 9, 2000. On August 6, 2004, the Malvinas Gas
Separation Plant officially opened and began delivering gas from Block 88 to Lima.
Two hydrocarbon structures within Block 56, known as Mipaya and Pagoreni, were identified
during the 1980s and explored by Shell in 1987 and 1998, respectively. The Peruvian
government began a bidding process in 2003 for development and commissioning of the gas
and liquid reserves in Block 56 to take advantage of the available hydrocarbon resources in
these fields.
PPC will act as operator of Block 56 on behalf of the consortium. Block 56 was originally to be
developed for the production of hydrocarbons only, with associated gas to be re-injected. The
project was later modified to allow both gas and liquids production.4
4
The Block 56 license was awarded in June of 2004 with a specific work program requiring
development of the block. The development program submitted to the Peruvian authorities called for
the investment in both gathering and injection lines in order to develop the project as a re-injection, or
gas cycling, project. Compression was sized for re-injection, and the wells were to be completed with
wellheads and manifolds for re-injection. The re-injection project was economic on a stand alone basis
without gas sales in 2004.
Page 19 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Planned activities include: (i) conducting 2D and 3D seismic studies to increase knowledge of
the Pagoreni structure; (ii) drilling 12 directional wells from three platforms (Pagoreni A, B, and
C); (iii) laying flowlines from the platforms to the Malvinas gas plant; and (iv) expanding the
plant’s capacity to receive and process gas and condensates from the Pagoreni wells.
The Block 56 Project is located to the west of and adjacent to Block 88 in the Cuzco
Department, La Convención Province, Echarate District, where the Camisea Gas Project has
also developed gas fields (see Figure 3.3 above). The 58,500-hectare (ha) Block is shaped
like a parallelogram in an ESE – WNW direction with the Urubamba River as its major axis.
At the time of authoring, the construction stages of Block 56, in conjunction with the Malvinas
Gas Separation Plant expansion are under way.
The temporal scale of the CEA recognizes the construction, operation, and decommissioning
phases of the Upstream Projects and PERU LNG Projects in conjunction with the expected
life span of existing Third Party Projects, and the most likely timing plans for proposed and
reasonably foreseeable projects, recognizing that information on the latter is very tenuous in
most cases. The operational life of the PERU LNG Projects and Upstream Projects is
assumed to be between 30 and 40 years.
Specifically for the Upstream Projects, four temporal stages have been recognized in this
CEA:
•
Seismic Exploration;
•
Construction (including drilling, flowline system, plant expansion);
•
Production and Operation (including maintenance); and
•
Decommissioning.
The estimated chronology of these four stages is presented in the table below.
Table 3.1
Expansion
Estimated Chronology of Block 56 and Malvinas Gas Separation Plant and
Concessions
Blocks and Plants
Block 56
Malvinas Gas
Separation Plant
and expansion
Exploration
1996-1998
NA
Major Stages
Construction
Operation
2005-2009
2009-2049
2000-2004
2004-2049
2005-2008
Decommission
2049 –2050
2049 -2050
The following is a general listing of the anticipated project activities in each of the four stages
for Block 56:
•
Exploration (including seismic)
o Survey of the area of operation
o Construction of the Base Camp
o Construction of roaming camps and support areas
o Topographic survey stage and construction of heliports and drop zones construction
o Drilling and priming of wells
o Data collection stage
o Restoration stage
•
Construction (including Drilling and Flowline system)
Drilling
o Clearance for access to the site and platform construction
Page 20 of 134
PERU LNG Project
o
o
o
o
o
o
October 12, 2007
Transport of equipment
Selection of drilling fluids
Drilling operations
Well installation and sealing
Well testing and completion
Departure and demobilization, including drilling mud containment
Flowline System
o Mobilization and camps
o Topographic survey
o Clearing/opening of the right of way
o Pipeline stringing and trenching
o Crossing of water bodies and special crossings
o Bending, laying of pipe, welding and pipe casing
o Lowering the piping into the trench and trench filling
o Cleaning and testing of piping system
o Blocking and retaining valves installation
o Closure and demobilization
Malvinas Gas Separation Plant
o Liquid Separator
o Condensate Stabilization
o Dehydration by Molecular Screen and Glycol System
o Cryogenics through Turbo-Expansion
o Sales and Injection Compression
o Generators
o Pumping Installations and natural gas liquids (NGL) Storage
o Water Treatment Plant
o Waste Storage Areas
o Fuel storage areas
o Ancillary services
o General Services (electrical power, process control, gas re-injection etc.)
o Long air strips, heliport, fuel depot, & maintenance areas
o Base camp (Dormitories, kitchen, laundry, infirmary, refrigeration facilities).
•
Operation Phase
o Setup of production facilities
o Production
o Pigging and injection
o Well servicing and well reconditioning
o Inspection and maintenance
o Malvinas Treatment Plant operation
•
Decommission Phase
o During the drilling phase and at the end of the production phase
o End of operations and Demobilization
o Final Restoration and Reforestation
Page 21 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
4.0 METHODOLOGY
4.1
Overall Approach
An ecological and social approach has been used to identify and characterize potential
cumulative effects associated with the PERU LNG Projects and Upstream Projects, as well as
assess their significance. Figure 4.1 presents the sequence of steps that were followed in the
analysis. A brief description of what was involved in each step, together with the sources of
information and activities required to move from one step to the other, is also summarized.
It should be noted that this CEA was conducted largely in conformance to the methodology of
the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) as described in the Cumulative
Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide. However, the CEAA approach addresses only
environmental effects, not social effects. For this CEA, we have expanded the scope to
include potential cumulative social effects as well as environmental effects.
Figure 4.1:
STEP
Summary of Approach
Activity
Comment / Source
1
Define Valued Ecosystem
Components
Identify regional issues of concern; select appropriate VECs via project
conceptualization process. Potentially multi- dimensional and
hierarchal: viz, economic, social, environmental, aesthetic or ethical.
Source: ESIAs, group discussions incl. PLNG, GOP SEA, NBSAP
2
Define spatial and temporal
boundaries of pipeline & plant projects
Boundaries are likely to vary with VEC and involve a combination of
administrative, physical, ecological & technical. They may exceed those
defined/inferred in ESIAs. Sources: ESIAs, GIS, satellite imagery
3
Identify third party activities within
Projects’ sphere of influence
Review of private and public sector projects and their effects
on VECs. Sources: ESIAs & local input (e.g., PLNG and local consultant)
4
Identify interactive pathways with
potential to affect VECs
Provides the linkage between sources (project effects) and receptors
(specifically VECs), therefore the basis for assessing CEA: Sources:
ESIAs and further technical assessments
5
Assess incremental effects of plant,
quarry and pipeline projects
Initially focus on direct, project-induced changes that are a) likely,
b) reasonably foreseeable and c) hypothetical; then consider secondary
effects. Take due consideration of response and recovery times of
ecosystem components. Source: technical assessments
6
Re-assess existing mitigation measures
Compare results against existing mitigation measure and assess scope
for refinement/enhancement. Source: technical assessments
7
Assess significance of residual
(post-mitigation) effects
Compare results against thresholds or land use objectives and trends.
Determine whether project activity (plant, quarry, p/line) responsible for
adversely affecting VEC beyond stated threshold
8
Assess implications for
management plans and contractors
Define areas where management plans need to be upgraded and assess
implications for contractors/ MOC, Offset & Additionality pgms
GOP = Government of Peru, SEA= Strategic Environmental Assessment; NBSAP =National Biodiversity Strategy Action Plan
Three of the main advantages of an ecological approach are as follows:
•
Allows a holistic, integrated assessment of land, water and living resources;
•
Allows due consideration of humans, with social characteristics and cultural diversity,
as an integrated component of ecosystems; and,
•
Facilitates multi-level assessment.
A core feature of the approach is the concept of Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs).
These are defined as important or valuable environmental and social attributes or components
as reflected by social, cultural, economic, scientific or aesthetic values.
Page 22 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
For the CEA, these VECs in turn have been based on the concept of ecosystem services
which characterize the functions and attributes of ecosystems in terms of:
•
Provisioning services
•
Regulating services
•
Cultural services
•
Supporting services
•
Human well-being
The essential elements of each service type and their relationship with human well-being is
summarized in Figure 4.2.
Ecosystem Services
Figure 4.2
Ecosystem services
Constituents of well-being
Security
Supporting
Services that are
necessary for the
production of
ecosystem services
(primary production,
nutrient recycling,
soil formation)
Provisioning
Personal safety
Products people obtain
from ecosystems (food,
fibre, fresh water,
genetic resources)
Secure access to resources
Security from natural disasters
Basic materials for
human life
Regulating
Livelihoods
Benefits people obtain
from the regulation of
ecosystem processes
(air quality
maintenance, erosion
control, climate
regulation, water
purification)
Supplies of food and water
Shelter
Energy (keep warm/cool,
cooking)
Health
Freedom of
choice and
actions
Opportunity for an
individual to be able
to achieve what s/he
values doing and
being
Ability to:
• be adequately nourished
• be free from avoidable
diseases
Cultural
Non-material benefits
people obtain from
ecosystems through
spiritual enrichment,
cognitive development,
recreation, etc, i.e., the
complementarity of
culture and env’t.
• have clean water/air
Good social relations
Social cohesion
Mutual respect
Ability to help others
As illustrated in Figure 4.2, human well-being has multiple constituents. At a fundamental
level, all are ultimately dependent on the health, maintenance and functionality of ecosystem
services. In well-developed or wealthy societies the connection between well-being and
ecosystems is to a large extent insulated due to the options provided by manufactured (i.e.,
economic) capital.
In poor rural communities such as those that characterize the study area, the link is much
more directly related to local physical, social and personal factors. Equally, changes in any of
these factors can have immediate effects on local, dependent populations.
The well-being of these communities and the people that comprise them has been shown to
invariably depend on having the basic minimum material requirements for a good life with
particular importance being attached to secure and adequate livelihoods that allow
communities to provide for their children (Narayan et al, 1999, 2000).
Page 23 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
The relationships of ecosystems and their services to human well-being are complex, difficult
to measure and subject to change over time, as illustrated in Figures 4.3 and 4.4. Favored
methods include economic valuation (changes in productivity, cost of illness and human
capital, contingent valuation, cost-based approaches, choice modeling)5, health indices, and
development indices (e.g., UN Human Development Index).
A hypothetical example of how a small series of changes can manifest themselves and impact
local health conditions is given in Figure 4.5. This sequence of causal, knock-on events
illustrates how cumulative effects can materialize.
Components of well-being
Figure 4.3
Well-being
Ill-being
Ill-being/poverty
(poverty)
Freedom of
choice &
action
Powerlessness
Bad social
relations
Material deficits
5
Vulnerability
Poor health
Good social
relations
Materially
enough
for good life
For a more detailed discussion, refer to Millennium Ecological Assessment (2005).
Page 24 of 134
Security
Good health
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Dependencies of well-being
Figure 4.4
Comprises multiple constituents
Located at the opposite end of a continuum from poverty
(i.e., pronounced deprivation of well being)
Security
Access to basic
materials for life
Health
Good social relations
& freedoms
Strongly linked to:
Affected by changes in:
Strongly linked to:
Provisioning services,
which affect supplies of
food and other goods, and
likelihood of conflict over
declining resources
such as food and fibre
production
Regulating services such
as water purification
Regulating services,
which could influence the
frequency of floods,
landslides, mudflows etc
Social relations:
such as food, clean water
Affected by changes to
Cultural services which
affect the quality of human
experience
Regulating services such
as air quality, factors
affecting the distribution of
disease-transmitting
insects, and of irritants and
pathogens in water and air
Freedom of choice &
actions:
Predicated on other
components of well being,
hence Provisioning,
Regulating, Cultural
services
Cultural services through
recreation and spiritual
benefits
Links between Ecosystems and well-being
Figure 4.5
(using health as an example)
Ecosystem
• Coastal
• Urban &
rural
communities
• Inland
water
Service
• Provision
Change
of
fish
• Air quality
regulation
• Water
filtration;
summer
supplies
Status Quo
• Reduced
Hazard/
consequence
access to
beach
• Reduced
catch
• Air pollution
• Increased
• Modified
hydrology/
hydro-geology
Perturbation
Page 25 of 134
CO, NOx,
SO2
• Reduced
supplies of
potable water/
increased
consumption
of poor quality
water
Human health
Outcome
• Reduced
consumption
of protein/food
• Asthma
• Loss or
Indicators
• Protein
deficiency/
hunger
• Morbidity;
body burden
of metals
• Diarrhoea
reduction of
basic life
necessity
System Response / Causal Effects
PERU LNG Project
4.2
October 12, 2007
Concept to Implementation
Section 4.2.1 provides the concept to implementation approach for the PERU LNG Projects,
identified as the first component of the study area. Section 4.2.2 provides the concept to
implementation approach for the Upstream Projects, identified as the second component of
the study area.
4.2.1 Defining Ecosystems and VECs – PERU LNG Projects Study Area
The concepts described in Section 4.1 have been used in a number of multi-scale
assessments (e.g., World Resources Institute, 2000 and 2005, Millennium Ecological
Assessment, 2005) and have been adapted for this assessment in an attempt to address
many of the acknowledged shortcomings of recent and contemporary CEAs, as highlighted by
Hegmann et al. (1999).
The transition from concept to implementation as applied for this assessment is illustrated in
Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6
Conceptualisation & Implementation
Project Sequence & Causality
CEA: Key steps
Identify overlapping Spheres of Influence (SOI)
[spatial/temporal coincidence] +/o discontinuous
SOIs where linkages are likely/evident
Project activities will
add, remove or re-distribute physical,
chemical, biotic or social components
or energy
within set boundaries
Identify VECs of concern, prioritising direct
effects
Attempt to analyse the effects on each VEC to a
point where a specific question can be asked, for
which a numerical answer is possible or a
hypothesis can be stated
which may
Review existing Project plans for intervention
result directly or indirectly, depending
on fate and functional relationships
Assess cost-benefit for additional intervention
in
Assess implications for management/
monitoring
net loss or gain of VECs or functions
of the ecosystem
After Beanlands and Duinker (1983)
To help characterize the PERU LNG Projects study area in terms of site-specific or locally
relevant VECs, the first component of the study area was classified in terms of ecosystem
types. Six were identified. Four of these were derived from vegetation community data
presented in the original PERU LNG Projects ESIAs, while marine and rural/urban
communities were defined independently, as summarized in Table 4.1 and illustrated in
Figures 4.7 to 4.11. Figures 4.12 and 4.13 provide more detailed information on the location
of rural/urban community ecosystems.
Page 26 of 134
340000
355000
370000
385000
400000
415000
CHOCOS
Río
Overlaping chart
JUNIN
MADEAN
cos
QUILMANA
LUNAHUANA
VI¥AC
Cho
JUNIN
LIMA
CUSCO
SAN LUIS
CA¥ETE
o
AYACUCHO
APURIMAC
alla
LIMA
ICA
CHAVIN
To
pa
rá
br
aba
i l la
a S ocs
Qu
eb
ra d
Q
ue
b
ra
l lo
SAN JUAN DE YANAC
a
n
a ce
d
ra
an
8530000
eb
at i
a A lm
Qu
u
aH
Q ue brad
8530000
Q ue
a
C
da
aC
ans
8545000
o
Rí
da
8545000
Cu
le b
ri l
la
Que
br
IMPERIAL
NUEVO IMPERIAL
SAN VICENTE DE CA¥ETE
8560000
Rí
CERRO AZUL
e
et
ada
Puc
as
8560000
C
añ
YAUYOS
HUANCAVELICA
AZANGARO
CHINCHA
HUANCAVELICA
R ío Sa n
SAN PEDRO
PUEBLO NUEVO
an
Ju
8515000
8515000
CHINCHA ALTA
SUNAMPE
ALTO LARAN
TAMBO DE MORACHINCHA BAJA
Rí
oC
h ic o
8500000
8500000
EL CARMEN
ICA
8485000
8485000
SAN CLEMENTE
INDEPENDENCIA
PISCO
TUPAC AMARU
HUMAY R
SAN ANDRES
i sc
ío P
o
PISCO
8470000
8470000
Q ue bra d a La Po lvora
PARACAS
Legend
Q uebra
Study area
da Río S e c o
Departments
Provinces
Department Capital
&
-
Province Capital
$
District Capital
CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL &
SAN JUAN BAUTISTA
SOCIAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
Rivers
SUBTANJALLA
CEA ECOSYSTEM
Asphalt Road
Agro
Paved Road
ECOSYSTEMS MAP
Coastal Desert
Unpaved Road
Dry Scrubland
Track
Andean Rangeland
PLNG`s Aproved Route
Eastern Slope Forest & Scrubland
TgP`s Camisea-Lima Pipeline
Wetland and Riparian
Lakes
Urban & Rural Communities
340000
355000
Figure
Sheet 1
4.7
370000
385000
Project:
PET 1312
400000
Date:
Prepared by:
April 2007
415000
8440000
Roads
8440000
GUADALUPE
ICA
8455000
H
!
Río Ica
8455000
Capitals
445000
460000
HUANGASCAR
Overlaping chart
8560000
as i
lla
8545000
En
HUACHOS
ra
ta n
acc
a
sa
m
pa
cc
R ío
Asphalt Road
Qu
eb
rad
aC
Qu
Rí
pa
am
Ch
ma
Ar
uacho
s
CHINCHA
Quebrada
o To to
a
ad
Río H
Rí
uyo
SAN JUAN DE YANAC
ir cay
oL
Rí
nc
ca
Co
ris
R
at
a
rh
u
Ca
ío
is
h ir
C
a
coc
h
R
lla
br
Rí o
ac
e
m
A
a
i c chi
CASTROVIRREYNA
a
ad
ío
Ch
SAN JUAN
Roads
Ch
so
r
eb
Qu
District Capital
Rivers
o
a
rad
eb
LIRCAY
ANGARAES
lf o n
Ta
la
hu
ar
a
A
Province Capital
ara
ant
&
-
T
Rí o
ha
e
Qu
br
ad
ch a
ARMA
Andean Rangeland
Department Capital
SANTA ANA
ican
ch
Dry Scrubland
Provinces
a
Cu
n
l
Capitals
ue
$
HUAMATAMBO
Coastal Desert
Departments
An
Q
ue
br
ad
a
da
CEA ECOSYSTEM
R ío Sa n
ta
ra
Queb
a Atajaga
Quebrad
TANTARA
Agro
HUANCAVELICA
HUACHOCOLPA
AURAHUA
SAN PEDRO DE HUACARPANA
Study area
H ua cho colp a
ap
8560000
ICA
Legend
R ío
Río Ajohuarma
APURIMAC
CHUPAMARCA
Ya n a s l l a
chu
Lui
ha
Rí o
mba
stoba
Río
ba
am
r
Río P almad e
Qu
eb
ra
da
Anta
co c
HUAYLLAY GRANDE
joy
lcab
R
a
CCOCHACCASA
Río Topará
8545000
ANCHONGA
Río A
Col
c
an
Río
A u quic h
ío S an J
uan
AYACUCHO
H
!
535000
ACOBAMBA
A
da
ra
eb
Qu
Río
LIMA
AZANGARO
Río Huic
CUSCO
a
VI¥AC
HUANCAVELICA
Q
520000
JUNIN
LIMA
YAUYOS
505000
HUANCAVELICA
V
iñJUNIN
ac
490000
hinga
CHOCOS
475000
8575000
430000
ó
Ri
8575000
415000
Ca rhui p a
Paved Road
Lakes
aca
a
am
i t os
yo
HUAYTARA
Rí
oS
8515000
Pa
a
Ja
tu
n
Q
ue
br
ad
a
up
pa
s
rm
a
AYACUCHO
Y ac t acha y oc
br a d
a
oA
iniyo
anqu
c
h
a
a
ua
Rí
lh
ECOSYSTEMS
VICTORMAP
FAJARDO
u mit a
na
ío
Figure
Sheet 2
4.8
460000
475000
490000
505000
Project:
PET 1312
520000
Date:
8485000
so
Tu
n
AYAVI
HUMAY
445000
Rí o
m a yo
o d e P ut cc a R
Rí
430000
C
yo
oR
ll o c
TAMBO (SANTA ROSA DE TAMBO)
o
ma
Rí
bo
am
Ya
Sue
T
R ío
ma Que
ulis
ha
C
Río
da
bra
to
Pun
Rí
o
as
na
c
Charac
P
ua
lh
al
cy a
Ch e
Río
p
am
h
Quebra
da
HUAYTARA
Río C
o
Río H u a y tar a
co
P is
Hu
as
i
Río S
Que
uit
oQ
Rí
m
Pa
ya
í
o
Rí
co
a C an
8500000
R ío
Se
Que b
CANGALLO
l
rad
HUANCANO
415000
ma chay
ad
br
ue
Q
QUITO ARMA
HUAYACUNDO ARMA
R
pa
Joll
m paso ra
SAN ANTONIO DE CUSICANCHA
ICA
R ío
Rí
Q ue
um
ic
ha
ca
antuario
R
8515000
Rí o S
Ap a c h eta
Q uebrada
oP
a lm
Tam bo
bra
da
Río
TICRAPO
8485000
PILPICHACA
mic
h
n
Sa
n
Ru
Rí o
a
Ju
8530000
HUAMANGA
mpa
capa
da Pu
a
r
b
e
Qu
8500000
PISCO
s
MOLLEPAMPA
C an a
8530000
CAPILLAS
pa
am
HUANCAVELICA
COCAS
CASTROVIRREYNA
Track
Río P
Unpaved Road
Prepared by:
April 2007
535000
445000
460000
475000
490000
505000
CASTROVIRREYNA
up
ay
am
o
a na
l
Rí
o
Rí
o
S
a
a
p
h
a
m
Pa
a
R
lh
ua
o
Río Allp
a
canch
a
ma y o
it an a
8485000
nso
ío
Rí
Tu
AYAVI
R
HUANCAVELICA
a
O la y
Qu
a
as
da
ra
eb
u
Q
ICA
m
ra
La
ca
ar
o
Rí
&
-
Province Capital
$
District Capital
Río
so
QUERCO
Rivers
ra n
ga
Hu
ío
R
Overlaping chart
Paved Road
Rí
Río
CUSCO
o
e
an d
a
PALPA
Ja
LUCANAS
a da T
Al
oc
at
ib i llo
ingu e
o
alp
a
r
eb
Qu
a
Rí
oP
AYACUCHO
ECOSYSTEMS MAP
Río T
gue
Río Tin
Q ue
Andean Rangeland
bra
da
Dry Scrubland
445000
460000
ra
so
ua
CUMULATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL &
l l ih
y
Pa SOCIAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
Rí o
Gr
ad
Río
o
s
uri
oC
aI
Rí
Rí
gu
ri o
igu
sa
Coastal Desert
430000
Track
Lakes
as
C oc harc
de
lR
o
CEA ECOSYSTEM
SANTIAGO
APURIMAC
uio
HUAC-HUAS
Agro
Unpaved Road
uq
PUEBLO NUEVO
TATE DE LA CAPILLA PAMPA DE TATE
o A t ac p
SANTIAGO DE QUIRAHUARA
PAMPAHUASI
JUNIN
ca
Asphalt Road
TIBILLO
LOS AQUIJES
Jura ccac
8440000
lp
Qu
l
Pu
Río
ng
i
T
e
o
R í o C n d o rs
OCOYO
a
CORDOVA
o
ICA
ICA
a
ra
Du
R ío
Roads
Río
ad
la baso
o
ay
sn
eb
r
Ca
e
Qu
a
nc
475000
490000
505000
Figure
LLAUTA
Sheet 3
4.9
Project:
PET 1312
Date:
April 2007
520000
Prepared by:
8425000
La
PARCONA
415000
Department Capital
HUANCA
SANCOS
a
LA TINGUI¥A
ICA
H
!
p
ad
br
Que
b
ra d
a
SUBTANJALLA
AYACUCHO
Provinces
8455000
o
R
8455000
SAN JUAN DE HUIRPACANCHA
SAN JUAN BAUTISTA
HUANCAVELICA
Departments
Qu
erc
o
Ica
LARAMARCA
í
GUADALUPE
LIMA
Study area
Capitals
SAN JOSE DE LOS MOLINOS
JUNIN
Legend
ha
cc
pa
c
ca
ac
Hu
R
í
Qu
p
lla
nd
ay
e br
I
ad a
Ro
ti a go
R ío
eb
ra
da
R
an
o
ec
oS
Rí
8470000
S
p atero
Rí
o
í
o
SAN FRANCISCO DE SANGALLAICO
mb
s
o Ta
Lo
Rí
o
Q ueb r a da
b
Za
a
T am
Río
or
Polv
da L a
R ío
os
Oliv
a
och
arc
ahu
Y
da
bra
Que
8470000
i llo
HUAYTARA
SANTIAGO DE CHOCORVOS
8440000
ay
VICTOR FAJARDO
HUMAY
i s co
R ío P
400000
am
R um
am
Rí
o
TAMBO (SANTA ROSA DE TAMBO)
ío
C
lhu
al
Rí
o
bo
Pu
nt
o
Ya
na
c
Q
ue
br
ad
a
a
ell o c
u lism
T
Su
ha
oC
as
bra d
Hu
as
i
c
HUAYTARA
as
mp
Q ue
Ar m
Qu
it o
Rí
o
8500000
iniyo
anqu
Rí o
8485000
Pa
Y act acha y oc
h
Río C
PISCO
Río S
Rí o
Charac
Rí o
QUITO ARMA
HUAYACUNDO ARMA
ya
Quebra
da
CANGALLO
a Can
CHINCHA
R ío H u a y tar a
co
r ad
HUANCANO
Se
Q ue b
8500000
CASTROVIRREYNA
Quebra
520000
8515000
430000
C
415000
8515000
400000
Qu
e
CHINCHO
MACACHACRA
HUAMANGUILLA
JULCAMARCA
ay
SAN MIGUEL
co
s
ío
HUANTA
SECCLLA
QUINUA
Río
SAN ANTONIO DE ANTAPARCO
SAN PEDRO DE CACHI
iuy
ío
R ío
Ca
r
Ch
hu
ap
at
a
ac
c
ANGARAES
ICA
Pon
gor
a
R ío
Oc
co
pa
SANTO TOMAS DE PATA
R
br ad
PACAYCASA
APURIMAC
LA MAR
ACOS VINCHOS
Rí o
Río
Y
uc
aes
HUANCAVELICA
ed
a
lam
o
R
ío
ACOCRO
PAMPAS
VINCHOS
Río P
a
Río
Y
mp
a
i
m
R
m ayo
SOCOS
h
ac
cc
Jar i
ío
Pa
Rí o
TAMBILLO
Hu
ay
o
huy
y
a
ch
CHILCAS
CARMEN ALTO
A
uc
oC
Río C
s
fo n
o
Rí
at
at a
Al
Río
AYACUCHO
SAN JUAN BAUTISTA
a
ngr
ara
m
u
P
ío
Queb rad a
am
ba
R
8545000
CASTROVIRREYNA
To
b
ro
TICLLAS
8545000
risc
Co
R
Hu
u
AYACUCHO
a
ad
8560000
an
ir cay
Rí
an
br
ah
ac
ut
c
Andean Rangeland
ha
625000
TAMBO
aP
HUACHOCOLPA
HUANCAVELICA
LIRCAY
Río Ajohuarma
HUANCAVELICA
8560000
Dry Scrubland
610000
ACOBAMBA
r ad
oL
Coastal Desert
CUSCO
CONGALLA
ta
o pa Q
u
ayo
him
Ca c
Hu a c ho co lp a
595000
HUANTA
eb
R ío
LIMA
580000
Rí o
Agro
JUNIN
565000
HUAYLLAY GRANDE
CEA ECOSYSTEM
a n as ll
YJUNIN
a
Río
550000
as
Overlaping chart
535000
aU
ra
520000
Que
505000
Pa
cch
a
CHIARA
8530000
8530000
HUAMANGA
eta
raz
o
am ach ay
Pa
lm
AYACUCHO
ío
Legend
Al
lp
ac
ha
ca
Study area
APURIMAC
Departments
8515000
Río
Rí
o
R
Provinces
ero
a Chinch
Quebrad
HUAYTARA
c
ac
CANGALLO
yc
o
R ío Pillp
ha
icanc
VILCANCHOS
Track
ho
o
h
Hua
ng
uñ u n
Unpaved Road
i
VISCHONGO
Mac ro
Rí o
Lakes
VILCAS HUAMAN
CANGALLO
ASSESSMENT
a
SOCIAL
EFFECTS
VILCAS
HUAMAN
ALCAMENCA
Uc
h
SARHUA
p
8485000
ayo
am
VICTOR FAJARDO
Rí
o
T am
bo
Río
520000
Rivers
Roads
sc
8500000
PAMPA CANGALLO
aÑ
POMABAMBA
Rí o
505000
District Capital
V
br
ad
Río
a
$
ío
PARAS
cy
Ch e
R
C
Province Capital
R
CHUSCHI
ío
&
-
CONCEPCION
Paved Road
Qu
e
TOTOS
o
ay
am
u
llh
Department Capital
Asphalt Road
Río Cc
arhu
o
yo
H
!
8500000
c
Se
oc
ca
o
Rí
Río T uc um a
a
Río Capitals
J a jamarc
a
och Río Uta ri
arc
ahu
Y
da
bra
Que
HUANCA SANCOS
535000
550000
Qu
eb
rad
aC
all
ec
oc
ha
ECOSYSTEMS MAP
COLCA
HUANCARAYLLA
HUAMANQUIQUIA
Pum
ani
HUANCAPI
HUANCA SANCOS
565000
580000
595000
Figure
Sheet 4
4.10
Project:
PET 1312
610000
Date: HUAMBALPA
Prepared by:
April 2007
625000
8485000
s
lla
p
p
Jo ll
Río
Ch
ic
m
i t os
Pa
Ap a c heta
os
Vinch
ío
a
Quebrada
8515000
R
R ío A pa
ch
Río
PILPICHACA
550000
565000
625000
640000
P ie
ne
655000
670000
SANTA ROSA
R ío
Dry Scrubland
os
R
Queb
R ío P a c
LA MERCED
S
Río
yo
a
a rc
h a ng a
Q
ue
b
APURIMAC
ICA
a n o ma
r ad
aR
SAN JOSE DE SECCE
AYACUCHO
rad a
Y
an
ta
CHURCAMPA
CHURCAMPA
a
HUANCAVELICA
PAUCARBAMBILLA
8590000
co
ya
Andean Rangeland
uc
am
nt
ar
CUSCO
ca
Pu
ROSARIO
Coastal Desert
Ma
da
LIMA
8590000
610000
Agro
Río
JUNIN
o
JUNIN
bra
LA ESMERALDA
595000
CEA ECOSYSTEM
Q ue
Overlaping chart
580000
MAYOCC
HUANTA
ACOBAMBA
Ap
MARCAS
savi
LURICOCHA
LA CONVENCION
ur
ím
ac
yo
im a
8560000
s
h iuyac
Río C
ra
QUINUA
PACAYCASA
Oc
co
ACOS VINCHOS
Rí o
Y
uc
TICLLAS
Legend
AYACUCHO
pa
SANTO TOMAS DE PATA
8545000
CHIQUINTIRCA
ae s
R ío
Provinces
ba
Capitals
at
at a
ío
R
oray
&
-
Province Capital
$
District Capital
Rivers
ACOCRO
CHUNGUI
nd
PAMPAS
Roads
Paved Road
CHIARA
8530000
HUAMANGA
ac
ra
eb
Qu
acc
ha
ío
Asphalt Road
da
VINCHOS
R
urím
Co
m
a
Y
Department Capital
Ap
P
Río
H
!
ay
ío
h
ac
R
TAMBILLO
Hu
SOCOS
i
ha
ac
CHILCAS
CARMEN ALTO
uc
o
Río C
mayo Río
Río Jari
P
y
s
Departments
Torob a m
ed
a
lam
R
m p a con a
Study area
AYACUCHO
SAN JUAN BAUTISTA
A
ío
Pa
8545000
c
Pon
gor
a
R ío
Qu e
Río
SAN PEDRO DE CACHI
LA MAR
Río
hu
ANGARAES
Unpaved Road
Track
Río
P
Rí o
APURIMAC
OCROS
550000
565000
Project:
Sheet 5
Figure
PET 1312
4.11 OCOBAMBA
VILCAS HUAMAN
580000
595000
610000
625000
640000
655000
Date:
So
VILCAS HUAMAN
so
sc
um
b
ar
ca
R ío J a jamar
Río Tucumayo
m
ECOSYSTEMS MAP
ONGOY
CHINCHEROS
CANGALLO
Pa
s
bocha
pa
Al
lp
ac
ha
ca
í
o
ío
Prepared by:
ANDAHUAYLAS
April 2007
R
zo
ara
c ll
R
Río Tam
8515000
Lakes
o
ay
s
Río
Ch
i
Rí
ul c
Apac h e ta
o
Vinch
Rí
o
8530000
a
ac
co
SAN MIGUEL
670000
8515000
ut
HUAMANGUILLA
JULCAMARCA
ay
u rímac
MACACHACRA
aU
Qu
CHINCHO
aP
8560000
o
amit
Yan
TAMBO
ada
r
b
e
Qu
Ca ch
H
r ad
da
CONGALLA
ta
n opa
Qu
eb
ra
eb
Río Ap
HUANTA
Rí o
ua
HUANCAVELICA
b ra d
8575000
Ca
R
ío
Rí
o
8575000
CUSCO
ACOBAMBA
POMACOCHA
500000
520000
540000
560000
Grupos Poblacionales Ubicados en el Área de Influencia del Proyecto
Population Located on the Project Area of Influence
Sector Costa
Coastal Sector
Código
Code
01
U.P.I.S. Las Casuarinas
U.P.I.S. Satélite Primaveral
U.P.I.S. Señor de los Milagros
U.P.I.S. Vía Satélite
Grocio Prado
Centro Poblado Menor Nuevo Ayacucho
A.H. Asociación de Colonizadores de la Costa
A.H. Cinco Cruces
A.H. Apóstol Santiago
A.H. Nuevo Cañete
C.C. Virgen Cocharcas de Cochas
C.C. Uras
C.C. Túpac Amaru de Patibamba
C.C. General Cordova De Socos
C.C. Huaychao
Propiedad Privada (Piraspampa)
C.C. Acocro
C.C. Pomapuquio
C.C. Virgen Asunción de Seccelambras
C.C. Pinao Yantapacha
C.C. San Martin De Yanapiruro-ichubamba
C.C. Huallccapucro
C.C. Chiara
Propiedad Privada (Fundo Hatun Corral)
Propiedad Privada (Fundo Ancapahuachanan)
C.C. Llachoccmayo
C.C. San Juan de Cochabamba Alta
Propiedad Privada (Fundo Cochabamba Alta II)
W
E
HUANCAVELICA
S
C.C. Allpachaca
C.C. Basilio Auquis De Chupas
01
HUANCAVELICA
C.C. Paucho
C.C. Toccyascca
C.C. Tambocucho
p
ICA
C.C. Rosaspata
AYACUCHO
02
u
8580000
U.P.I.S. San Agustín
Pueblo Nuevo
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
LIMA
C.C. Urpaypampa
C.C. Sallalli
c
C.C. Anchihuay
Comunidad Campesina / Propiedad Privada
Peasant Community / Private Property
ma
C.C. Chiquintirca
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
C.P. Huampullo
C.P. Huampali
11
12
13
14
15
16
N
ri
1
Independencia
660000
A
C.P. san Tadeo de Paracas
640000
Código
Code
620000
Río
8580000
Código
Code
El Carmen
C.P. Los Naranjales
Alto Larán
10
600000
Sector Sierra
Andean Sierra
Nombre
Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
580000
Propiedad Privada (Mayobamba)
C.C. Vinchos
C.C. Paccha
C.C. Occollo Azabran
C.C. Churia Rosaspampa
C.C. Ccarhuaccpampa
C.C. Llillinta Ingahuasi
C.C. Pilpichaca
San Miguel
C.C. Santa Rosa de Tambo
C.C. Ayavi
C.C. Santa Cruz de Huancacasa
C.C. Huaytará
4
##S
##S 2
3
##S
Laguna
Janchiscocha
##S 5
HUANCAVELICA
8560000
8560000
Anco
##S 1
##S 6
Acos Vinchos
San Juan Bautista
Lircay
##S
Carmen Alto
Rí
o
Tambillo
Socos
ca
y
##S
os
T an t
arnioc
ch
8
9#
S
#
31#S
Pilpichaca
s
pa
am
34
Q. A pac
10
##S
Chiara
# ##S
29
##S27
S
#
a
Q. J tunhuayco
heta
28
23#S
#
12
22#S 19
S
#
26#
##S
25
##S
24
R
ío
###S 20
##S
Ta
m
bo
##S
ch
a
21
##S
18
S15
#
#
##S
14
##S
13
##S
##S
Acocro
Rí o C hall hua m a y
17
16
##S
##S
8520000
##S
11
o
32
#
S
#
33#
S
#
ghay
Río Acc him
Q.
#
Vinchos
Palcc
a
Río Pa
lmitos
##S
ojiascca
Río T
35
30 #S
ayo
im
R ío
Río
Ja
r
#
Río P
8520000
Yu
To
r obam
ba
8540000
n
Rí o Vi
8540000
R
ío
7
APURIM AC
36#S
#
Rí
o
R
ío
S
AYACUCHO
Paras
Los Morochucos
Pa
m
p
e
as
co
SÍMBOLOS / SYMBOLS
8500000
300+000
Trazo del Gasoducto - PERU LNG /
PERU LNG - Pipeline Right of Way
LEYENDA / LEGEND
Corredor del Gasoducto / Pipeline Corridor
Sector Sierra / Andean Sector
PISCO
Humay
Límite departamental / Department limit
0
8000
16000
24000 Meters
500000
520000
540000
Comunidad Campesina (CC)
Peasant Community
#
S
#
Propiedad Privada y/o Fundo
Private Property
Límite Distrital/ Districts limit
#
S
#
Trocha Carrozable / Road Trail
560000
TÍTULO / TITLE:
Sector Costa / Coastal Sector
#
S
#
580000
600000
Asentamiento Humano (A.H.)
Centro Poblado (C.P.)
Unidad Popular de Interés Social (U.P.I.S.)
Recent Settlements
Villages
Popular Unit of Social Interest
620000
MAPARural
DE COMUNIDADES
Y DISTRITOS
/ Urban Communities
- East
ATRAVESADOS POR EL GASODUCTO
MAP OF COMMUNITIES AND DISTRICTS
CROSSED BY THE PIPELINE
FIGURA / FIGURE:
4.12
4.1
FECHA / DATE:
Marzo, 2007
640000
660000
8500000
Pilpichaca
340000
360000
380000
400000
420000
440000
460000
8560000
Sector Costa
Coastal Sector
Código
Code
Imperial
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
San Luis
W
E
et
Río C añ
S
e
LIMA
8540000
10
Planta
Licuefacción
11
12
13
14
15
16
o pa
ra
Pueblo Nuevo
T
Q.
#
16#
S 15
#
##S#S
14#
##S 13
##S 12
Nombre
Name
Código
Code
C.P. san Tadeo de Paracas
Independencia
1
2
C.C. Chiquintirca
C.C. Anchihuay
El Carmen
C.P. Los Naranjales
Alto Larán
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
C.C. Virgen Cocharcas de Cochas
C.C. Uras
C.C. Túpac Amaru de Patibamba
C.P. Huampullo
C.P. Huampali
U.P.I.S. San Agustín
Pueblo Nuevo
U.P.I.S. Las Casuarinas
U.P.I.S. Satélite Primaveral
U.P.I.S. Señor de los Milagros
U.P.I.S. Vía Satélite
Grocio Prado
Centro Poblado Menor Nuevo Ayacucho
A.H. Asociación de Colonizadores de la Costa
A.H. Cinco Cruces
A.H. Apóstol Santiago
A.H. Nuevo Cañete
Código
Code
C.C. General Cordova De Socos
C.C. Huaychao
Propiedad Privada (Piraspampa)
C.C. Acocro
C.C. Pomapuquio
C.C. Virgen Asunción de Seccelambras
C.C. Pinao Yantapacha
C.C. San Martin De Yanapiruro-ichubamba
C.C. Huallccapucro
C.C. Chiara
Propiedad Privada (Fundo Hatun Corral)
Propiedad Privada (Fundo Ancapahuachanan)
C.C. Llachoccmayo
C.C. San Juan de Cochabamba Alta
Propiedad Privada (Fundo Cochabamba Alta II)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
LIMA
ICA
C.C. Rosaspata
Propiedad Privada (Mayobamba)
C.C. Vinchos
C.C. Paccha
C.C. Occollo Azabran
C.C. Churia Rosaspampa
C.C. Ccarhuaccpampa
C.C. Llillinta Ingahuasi
C.C. Pilpichaca
C.C. Santa Rosa de Tambo
C.C. Ayavi
C.C. Santa Cruz de Huancacasa
C.C. Huaytará
Pilpichaca
HUANCAVELICA
8520000
8520000
S
#
9#
##S 8
##S#S
5
##S 7
ío
El Carmen
##S 37
P
o
Qu
ito
Río Huaytara
Q. H
Sector Sierra / Andean Sector
Huayacundo
Arma
40#
S
#
ua
Tambo
nc
Independencia
an
San Clemente
Pilpichaca
a
ach
iz c
Río V
Rí
o
LEYENDA / LEGEND
o
Huaytara
Sector Costa / Coastal Sector
Río
Pisco
Pisco
Pisc
o
S
#
2#
Túpac Amaru
Inca
R
ío
s
Pi
co
##S39
1#S
#
38
##S
Santo Domingo
de Capillas
8480000
Asentamiento Humano (A.H.)
Centro Poblado (C.P.)
Unidad Popular de Interés Social (U.P.I.S.)
Recent Settlements
Villages
Popular Unit of Social Interest
8480000
Rí
ICA
Huancano
Q.
Arriero
s
Ve
lad
ero
8500000
L os
Ayavi
Humay
SÍMBOLOS / SYMBOLS
300+000
8500000
Quito-arma
o
c
ayma
is
co
Q. C
##S
S
e
3
Q.
#
S
#
#
R
##S 4
te
en
tag
36#S
San Antonio
de Cusicancha
Ar
ma
Río Chico
Ma
Río
Río P
Alto Laran
##S10
6
Propiedad Privada y/o Fundo
Private Property
AYACUCHO
02
C.C. Urpaypampa
C.C. Sallalli
s
pa
am
S
#
11#
#
S
#
01
HUANCAVELICA
C.C. Paucho
C.C. Toccyascca
C.C. Tambocucho
Grocio Prado
Chincha
Comunidad Campesina (CC)
Peasant Community
HUANCAVELICA
C.C. Allpachaca
C.C. Basilio Auquis De Chupas
Chincha Alta
#
S
#
8540000
San Vicente
de Cañete
02
Sector Sierra
Andean Sierra
500000
8560000
Grupos Poblacionales Ubicados en el Área de Influencia del Proyecto
Population Located on the Project Area of Influence
480000
Trazo del Gasoducto - PERU LNG /
PERU LNG - Pipeline Right of Way
Corredor del Gasoducto / Pipeline Corridor
PISCO
Humay
HUANCAVELICA
Límite departamental / Department limit
Límite Distrital/ Districts limit
8460000
TÍTULO / TITLE:
MAPA
DE/ Urban
COMUNIDADES
Y -DISTRITOS
Rural
Communities
West
ATRAVESADOS POR EL GASODUCTO
MAP OF COMMUNITIES AND DISTRICTS
CROSSED BY THE PIPELINE
Trocha Carrozable / Road Trail
0
8000
16000
340000
FIGURA / FIGURE:
24000 Meters
360000
380000
4.2
4.13
400000
420000
440000
460000
FECHA / DATE:
Marzo, 2007
480000
500000
8460000
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
The services provided by each ecosystem type were then characterized in terms of their
valued ecosystem components and their relationship to well-being (Section 5.1).
The actual assessment of cumulative effects then focused on the VECs that occur in the
areas where the PERU LNG Projects and Third Party Projects interact. This interaction can
occur through overlapping footprints, pathway connections or co-existence in the same area
and at the same time. It is, of course, conceivable that VECs from more than one ecosystem
might be affected by a single or multiple interactions. This phase of the assessment relied on
spatial analysis using GIS.
Table 4.1
Derivation of Ecosystems Based on Vegetation Community Data
CEA Ecosystem
Agro
Coastal Desert
Dry Scrubland
Description
A biological and natural resource
system managed by humans for the
primary purpose of producing food
as well as other socially valuable
non-food goods and ecological
services.
Coastal lands where plant production
is severely limited by water
availability

Desert vegetation
Coastal hydromorphic
vegetation Desert with
Tillandsias
Xerophytic scrub with
scattered columnar cacti
Columnar cactus and
deciduous scrub
Scattered columnar cacti
vegetation
Mixed scrub
High Andean with scarce
vegetation
Puna sward-forming
grassland
Puna tussock grassland
Areas of mixed scrub and evergreen,
deciduous and montane forest

Thorny scrub
Resinous scrub
Low evergreen forest
Dry deciduous forest
Montane scrub
Upper montane forest
Permanent water bodies and areas
whose ecology is dominated by the
seasonal or intermittent occurrence
of flooded or waterlogged conditions

Andean wetlands
Riparian scrub
A biological community where
humans represent the dominant
species and the built environment is
the dominant element controlling the
physical structure of the ecosystem
The area extending seawards from
the high tide mark

Not applicable: highly
modified environment that
does not relate to mapped
vegetation units

Not applicable: only
terrestrial vegetation mapped
Areas on the western watershed
dominated by xerophytic and mixed
scrub in association with cacti
vegetation

Andean Rangeland
Areas dominated by grassy
vegetation (mainly puna species)
which are maintained by grazing
(mainly alpaca but also sheep,
bovine and vicuna)
Eastern Slope Forest
& Scrubland
Wetland & Riparian
Urban & Rural
Communities
Marine
ESIA Vegetation Units
Crop areas
Eucalyptus forest

4.2.2 Defining Resources and VECs – Upstream Projects Study Area
To help characterize the Upstream Projects study area in terms of site–specific or locally
relevant VECs, the Upstream Projects study area was classified in the following resources:
Page 34 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
•
Geology and Geomorphology
•
Soils
•
Groundwater
•
Landscape
•
Social Resources
•
Flora and Fauna (Biological Resources)
•
Surface Water Quality
•
Air Quality
As discussed in Sections 5.1.1 through 5.1.3 of this document, the potential for cumulative
effects from the second component of the study area on geology, geomorphology, soils,
groundwater, and landscape resources was determined to be low.
The services provided by each remaining ecosystem (social resources, biological resources,
surface water quality, and air quality) were then characterized in terms of their (valued
ecosystem) components and the potential pathways that reflect their relationships to wellbeing (Sections 5.1.4 through 5.1.7).
4.2.3 Characterizing Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects can occur in various ways6, and these formed the basis of the assessment
process, as follows:
•
Spatial Overlap
o When the footprints of projects coincide, either in terms of the formal,
designated boundaries of the projects, or the spatial extent of their impacts.
•
Physical-chemical transport:
o A physical or chemical constituent is transported away from the action under
review where it then interacts with another action (e.g., air emissions, waste
water effluent, sediment).
•
Nibbling loss:
o The gradual disturbance and loss of land and habitat (e.g., clearing of
vegetation).
•
Spatial and temporal crowding:
o Occurs when too much is happening within too small an area and in too brief a
period of time. A threshold may be exceeded and the environment may not be
able to recover to pre-disturbance conditions.
o Spatial crowding results in an overlap of effects among actions (e.g., noise
from a road adjacent to an industrial site; confluence of stack emission
plumes).
o Temporal crowding may occur if effects from different actions overlap or occur
before the VEC has had time to recover.
•
Growth-inducing potential:
o Each new action can induce further actions to occur. The effects of these
"spin-off" actions (e.g., increased vehicle access into a previously inaccessible
area) may add to the cumulative effects already occurring in the vicinity of the
proposed action, creating a "feedback" effect.
Of these, the spatial overlap of projects is the easiest to quantify and measure as it can be
defined by comparing property boundaries and the spatial extent of the peripheral effects of
project activities (e.g., waste discharges).
6
After Hegmann et al. (1999)
Page 35 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Physical – chemical transport is a less tangible characteristic, particularly as the distance
between projects increases, but one whose potential as a means of interaction can be initially
assessed at a regional level by mapping watersheds. This was completed for the first
component of the Study Area and used in the assessment process (Figure 4.14).
The atmosphere is another potential connecting medium where two or more projects generate
air emissions, although the degree of interaction will depend on a wide range of project–
specific variables. Unlike watersheds, airsheds were not mapped at the outset on the basis
that this would logically have to be performed on a case-by-case basis at a later stage of the
assessment, and only when the potential for such interaction could be first demonstrated in
qualitative terms.
The remaining forms of cumulative impact described above (nibbling, spatial and temporal
crowding and growth-induced potential) generally do not lend themselves to quantitative
assessment and were determined on the basis of qualitative judgment and professional
experience.
Page 36 of 134
350000
A
i
hir
oc
ar
Hu
400000
450000
500000
550000
600000
650000
s
M ata
Río
N
RIVERS MATAS
WATERSHED
W
E
HUANCAYO
e
S
s
Om
a
RIVER APURIMAC WATERSHED
Río
POCOTO RAVINE
WATERSHED
8600000
an
t ar
o
HUANCAVELICA
LIMA
RIVER URUBAMBA
WATERSHED
Rí
o
M
8600000
Río
Cañe
t
RIVERS OMAS
WATERSHED
RIVER MANTARO WATERSHED
RIVERS CAÑETE WATERSHED
RÍ
O
U
AP
RI
M
%
U
Huanta
%
U
8550000
95 + 00
0
00
0
+
38
0
130 +
000
00
0
150
+ 00
0
+
14
5
00
0
00
0
39
0+
155 + 00
0
00
0
00
0
40
0+
+
39
5
5+
0
00
38
+
315 + 000
+ 00
0
325
0
00
00
0
5+
28
0+
28
+
245 + 00
0
255 + 000
0
00
5
27
0 00
%
U
40
+
%
U
+
00
pas
%
U Ocros
APURIMAC
+
00
0
0
00
0
AYACUCHO
Tambo
Ayavi
SÍMBOLOS / SYMBOLS
RA
G O HED
A
IEL RS
R C A TE
MU W
300
Límite / Boundary
RIVER PAMPAS WATERSHED
U
%
(River Apurímac Sub-watershed)
Centros Poblados / Populated centers
Carretera Asfaltada / Asphalted road
Carretera Afirmada / Un-paved road
Permanent Rivers and Ravines
RIVER ICA WATERSHED
ICA
CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
& SOCIAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
TÍTULO / TITLE:
WATERSHED MAP
Escale 1 / 900 000
20000
0
20000 Meters
FIGURA / FIGURE:
4.14
1
Proyection UTM; Zone 18; Datum: WGS 84
350000
400000
450000
500000
550000
600000
FECHA / DATE:
April 2007
650000
8450000
RIVER GRANDE WATERSHED
8450000
Pa
m
8500000
8500000
0
00
+
E
V IN
0
00
250 + 000
0
26
0
00
0
00
Paracas
+
00
+0
30
5
+
0%
U
00
270
+
Huaytara
2
8550000
0
00
+
80
0
90 + 00
Licapa
85 + 000
+
75
00
105 + 000
+0
00
115 + 000
120
+0
140 + 000
160
0
10
000
%
U
265 +
000
0
+
+
310
0
33
0
300 + 00
%
U
320 + 000
PISCO
San Andres
Humay
Tupac Amaru Inca
23
5
%
U
29
Independencia
%
U
2 95
%
U
%
U%
U
%
U
0
00
%
U
340 + 000
%
U
%
U
U
%
U %
+
Huancano
000
0
000
Huayllaura
00
23
0
0
00
5+
34
San Clemente%U
%
U
5+
+
350
000
165 +
22
0
00
00
0
%
U
00
Taccra
+
%
U
Río
+0
El Carmen
5+
35
21
0
Toccate
70 + 000
000
RIVERS PISCO WATERSHED
215
%
U
0
17
Laran
000
220 + 000
San Jose
Hoja Redonda %U
0
%
U
5+
36
%
U
%
U
OCEANO
PACIFICO
+ 000
370 Alto
0
00
Chiquintirca%U
%
U
00
0
%
U
%
UChiara
0
00
195 + 000
Pueblo Nuevo
%
U
+
0
00
+%
U
65 Acocro
%
U
0
00
%
U
%
U
%
U
+
205
CHINCHA ALTA
Chincha Baja
000
5
Cochas
Sacharajay
%
U
0
00
+
200
%
U
00
%
U
+
Grocio Prado%U
180 + 000
Pilpichaca
190 +
0
00
5
18
%
U
5+
37
Tambillo
%
U
Socos%U
135 + 000
#
Final del Trazo
402+144
Genaro
Vinchos
+
10
+
AYACUCHO
#
00
0
60
%
U
%
U San
25
+
Uras
%
U
000
%
U
RIVERS CHICO - MATAGENTE WATERSHED
000
15 + 000
+
20
+
0
00
50
55
+
Planta
Licuefacción
35 +
%
U
Quinua
(River Mantaro Sub-watershed)
TOPARÁ RAVINE
WATERSHED
%
U
+
45
%
U
QUINTI
Tambo
San Miguel
RIVER LIRCAY AND CACHI WATERSHED
AC
PERU LNG Project
4.3
October 12, 2007
Identification and Characterization of Third Party Projects
4.3.1 Objectives and Scope
The objective of the Third Party Project assessment phase of the CEA was to first identify any
existing or reasonably foreseeable projects (including expansions) occurring within the study
area, and then determine whether they had the potential to interact with the PERU LNG
Projects or Upstream Projects. Such interactions may take the form of air emissions, waste
discharges, sedimentation of water courses, procurement and supply of goods and services
(including employment), transportation, movement of people as a result of improved access,
etc. Where possible the pathways that link these projects with the PERU LNG activities were
to be identified.
In addition, projects or activities occurring within the Study Area, and that have the potential to
affect the abundance or distribution of natural or cultural resources, were sought (e.g., land
use change, loss and fragmentation of natural habitat). These effects are less dependent on
interactions per se, but are important in terms of assessing ‘nibbling’ effects as well as spatial
and temporal crowding.
Private sector ventures and government sponsored initiatives were considered.
Section 4.3.2 details the Third Party Project assessment for the PERU LNG Projects study
area.
Section 4.3.3 details the Third Party Project assessment for the Upstream Projects study area.
4.3.2 Detailed Description of Approach – PERU LNG Projects Study Area
The task required consultation with government agencies and regional authorities located in
the departments of Ayacucho, Huancavelica, Ica and Lima.
The identification of Third Party Projects already present within PERU LNG Projects Study
Area, as well as those proposed or regarded as reasonably foreseeable, was accomplished
using a combination of desk-based research, interviews with national and local administrators,
and field observation. This involved multiple steps, as depicted in Figure 4.15. Of an initial
total of approximately 2000, only four projects were identified as having the potential to
interact with the PERU LNG Projects.
While the emphasis of the CEA was on Third Party Projects, two other ‘project types’ were
considered, namely the existing TgP pipeline and PERU LNG access roads and temporary
facilities. Both categories of project were initially assessed in the original ESIAs, however,
they have been re-assessed here to take advantage of information that has become available
since the completion of those documents in 2005, and the benefits of an enhanced method of
assessment.
Page 38 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Identification of Third Party Projects
Figure 4.15
~ 2000 plans, programmes, projects
& initiatives initially screened
Desk-based research
29
Assess potential
relevance
7
22 rejected as not relevant
Review & verify details of projects
within ‘Sphere of Influence’
• Timing
• Potential interaction
• Nibbling loss
• Spatial & temporal crowding
• Growth-induced potential
Field reconnaissance
• Verify identified projects
• Update project list
based on field observations
13
Derive final project list
13
Projects with potential to interact
with PLNG Projects
4
Number of projects
(running tally)
4.3.2.1
7
6 added during field
Reconnaissance
Sources of Information7
The main sources of information were the Sistema Integrado de Administración Financiera
(Integrated System of Financial Administration), SIAF, and Sistema Nacional de Inversión
Pública (National System of Public Investment), SNIP, not only for the identification of
investment projects, but also for the details regarding the magnitude of public investment
projects. The same situation was observed with PROINVERSIÓN in the area of private
investment projects.
SIAF is an integrated financial system and is a key tool in the Government administration as it
registers all expenses and transfers from the national public sector. The SIAF provided
information regarding the investment amounts of the projects in the public sector thereby
giving a general understanding of the magnitude of the projects.
SNIP is one of the Government’s administrative systems. An important SNIP tool is the
Project Bank which is used to store, update, publish and search for summarized, relevant and
standardized information on public investment projects in their pre-investment phase (prior to
execution). The Project Bank played an important role in the identification of relevant Third
Party Projects.
The Peruvian Agency for the Promotion of Private Investment, PROINVERSIÓN, is aimed at
promoting investments that improve the general well-being of the population but do not
depend on The Peruvian Government under the responsibility of the private sector agents. In
addition, it has a database of private investment projects which was used during the review of
investment projects.
Other sources of information that were investigated are as follows:
•
7
Official websites of each region:
This work was carried out by Walsh Peru S.A.
Page 39 of 134
PERU LNG Project
o
o
o
o
October 12, 2007
Regional Government of Ayacucho
http://www.regionayacucho.gob.pe
Regional Government of Huancavelica
http://www.regionhuancavelica.gob.pe
Regional Government of Ica
http://www.regionica.gob.pe
Regional Government of Lima
http://www.regionlima.gob.pe
•
National Society of Mining (private)
•
National Society of Industries (private)
•
Agencia Peruana de Cooperación Internacional, APCI (Peruvian Agency for
International Cooperation)
•
Ministry of Production (PRODUCE).
•
Ministry of Transport and Communication
•
Ministry of Energy and Mines
•
Working Group of Intersectoral Coordination to strengthen provinces in the gas
pipeline area (GTCI, Spanish abbreviation)
•
Official websites of the Peruvian Government:
o Programa Nacional de Manejo de Cuencas Hidrográficas y Conservación de
Suelos, PRONAMACHCS (National Program of Hydrographic Basin
Management and Soil Conservation)
o Instituto de Recursos Naturales, INRENA (Institute of Natural Resources)
o Proyecto Especial Titulación de Tierras y Catastro Rural, PETT (Special
Project of Award of Titles and Rural Official Register)
o Consejo Nacional de Camélidos Sudamericanos, CONACS (National Board for
South American Camelids)
o Agencia de Promoción de la Inversión Privada, PROINVERSIÓN (Agency for
the Promotion of Private Investment)
o Fondo de Compensación y Desarrollo Social, FONCODES (Fund of
Compensation and Social Development)
o Programa Nacional de Asistencia Alimentaría, PRONAA (National Program of
Food Assistance)
o Consejo Nacional del Ambiente, CONAM (National Board of Environment)
o Ministry of Energy and Mines
o Ministry of Agriculture
o Municipalities of the provinces and districts of the area of influence
o Local Agricultural Agencies of districts and provinces
o National Society of Industries
o Ministry of Production
o Ministry of Transport and Communication
•
Websites of main companies with operations in Peru and with possible interests in the
study were also reviewed, e.g.,
o Buenaventura Mines
http://www.buenaventura.com.pe
o
Milpo Mining Company
http://www.milpo.com.pe
•
Environmental Impact Studies:
o Environmental Impact Study of Relocation of the Turbogas Equipment of the
Steam Power Plant Mollendo to Independencia – Pisco.
o Environmental Impact Study of Modification of Project Cerro Lindo.
Page 40 of 134
PERU LNG Project
o
o
October 12, 2007
Environmental Impact Study of Water and Power Supply and Desalinating
Plant of the Cerro Lindo Project.
Environmental Impact Study of the Project of Exploitation Esperanza 2001.
Interviews and consultations were held with a number of individuals and organizations to both
obtain and verify information. Many of these interviews were conducted within the study area.
A summary of these is as follows:
•
Ministry of Economy
o Milton Von Hesse and Dania Muniz. Direction of Multiannual Programming of
the MEF
o Carlos Garaycochea and Luisa Galarza. Working Group of Intersectoral
Coordination (GTCI)
o Javier Abugattas, Senior Consultant Specialist in Social Topics and Ex Viceminister of Economy of the Peruvian Government.
•
Representatives from the four Local Governments
•
Non-governmental Organizations (David Romero Espinoza – President of the Indesco
NGO) and CODE (Regional Coordinator of NGO’s of Huancavelica).
•
Director of the Agricultural Agency (Carlos Portugal) – Chincha.
•
Rosa Calle, architect for the Municipality of Chincha.
•
General Director of Environment (Roman Bendezú) – Local Government of Ica.
•
Director of the Regional Direction of Mining – Ica (Leoncio Carnero).
4.3.2.2
Information Gaps
In Peru, information systems are not yet organized to allow for comprehensive researching of
projects. Information is still scattered and typically has not been verified or registered at the
local level. Field teams traveling to Ayacucho, Huancavelica, Ica and the South of Lima with a
list of projects recorded on private or central government data bases often met with local
administrators who were unaware of the projects. Similarly, the Ministry of Transport was
unaware of a road project being developed by Minera Milpo, which crosses the PERU LNG
route.
Despite the existence of a National Strategic Development Plan, the connection between the
policies and programs contained therein and actual regional or local projects or initiatives
appears to be limited. Similarly, while there are also development plans at the regional,
provincial and district levels, most do not complement or articulate the policies, programs and
projects being implemented at each locality. The plans do, however, report on investment
projects that may be considered by the public and private sector.
Another general limitation relates to the extent and quality of environmental information. The
area has not benefited from any concerted or systematic biodiversity inventories, sampling, or
descriptive natural history research, other than that carried out as part of the environmental
assessments for the PERU LNG Projects and the recently constructed TgP pipeline. In
general, the coastal arid lands and puna ecosystems have received little attention in
comparison to either lowland or montane forest ecosystems. This does not imply the absence
of biodiversity value in the region, but it does limit regional assessments such as this CEA to
predominately qualitative judgments rather than more quantitative methods of assessment.
4.3.2.3
Workshop
As indicated above, approximately 2,000 plans, programs, projects and initiatives of one kind
or another were referenced in the above data sets. Following a review of the broad
characteristics of each ‘project’ to determine potential relevance, this number was reduced to
29 before each was individually assessed in more detail in terms of the potential cumulative
impact at a 2-day workshop involving members of the team that conducted the Third Party
Page 41 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Project research (Walsh Peru S.A.), the CEA assessment team (IDP) and PERU LNG
personnel. The test of relevance was broadly based but essentially involved an assessment
of the type of project and the potential for interaction with the PERU LNG Projects8. Twenty
two projects were rejected at this stage, leaving 7 for more detailed assessment.
4.3.2.4
Site Visit
Following the workshop the CEA team conducted a 2-day field reconnaissance of the study
area for the purposes of viewing the sites of the projects identified above, to the extent that
these were accessible in the time available, as well as the location of proposed projects,
where these were known and accessible. In addition, six additional projects not identified
during the desk-top research exercise were added, resulting in a final Third Party Project list
of 13 (Figure 4.15).
The site visit also presented an opportunity to assess potential cumulative effects of the TgP
pipeline and the PERU LNG Projects, recognizing that this aspect was addressed in the
original ESIAs.
4.3.2.5
Analytical Assessment
The detailed assessment of the final 13 projects involved a sequence of steps. These steps
can be summarized in the form of a series of questions each involving key themes:
•
Timing: What is the timing and duration of the project with respect to the various
construction and operation phases of the PERU LNG Projects?
•
Location: Where is the project located, particularly with respect to the PERU LNG
Projects, ecosystem type and watershed?
•
Interaction: Is there any form of interaction with the PERU LNG Projects, and if so,
how can this interaction be characterized (direct, indirect, delayed, temporary, long
term, etc)?
•
Pathways: What pathways characterize the identified interactions?
•
VECs: What VECs are potentially affected by the identified interactions, or, in the
absence of an interaction, the physical presence of the project within the sphere of
influence (e.g., as a result of ‘nibbling’ effects)?
•
Mitigation: What mitigation options are available to minimize adverse effects?
4.3.2.6
Setting for PERU LNG Projects
The PERU LNG Projects are set in an area characterized by subsistence agriculture,
conditions of extreme poverty and a limited presence of the Peruvian Government in many
forms, but particularly in terms of investment9. Private sector investment is likewise reported
to be very limited (Walsh, 2005). What little investment that does occur in the region is
directed towards energy development, water and irrigation projects, roads, health education,
projects designed to redress malnutrition (for example, through improved livestock
production), and so-called ‘quality of life’ projects.
Other notable features of the region where the pipeline will be constructed, as described in the
Pipeline ESIA (Walsh, 2005), are as follows:
8
Examples of programmes deemed to be not relevant in the context of the CEA included those relating to
education, many health and poverty alleviation initiatives, consolidating pacification in the area following the
political unrest, promoting the return of displaced people, strengthening agricultural productivity, for example the
productive chain for alpaca wool and meat in a subsistence economy.
9
Technical Secretary of the National Agreement (2006): National Agreement: Report on the policies of the State. Note
also that the Departments of Ayacucho and Huancavelica, through which the PERU LNG pipeline crosses, have low
development rates and are considered to be amongst the poorest Departments in Peru (Walsh, 2005)
Page 42 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
•
Absence of clear legal title to land and property in some areas, resulting in local
conflicts. In Ayacucho for example, properties owned by 67% of peasant communities
lack legal verification. For those with deeds, almost half have not registered them with
the Public Registry Office
•
A mobile and adaptable workforce
•
A constant shortage of unskilled labor
•
A recent history of political violence and displaced people, with associated damage to
economic production and services, loss of civic and political rights, destruction of state
10
and social institutions, and emotional and psychological damage to people
4.3.3 Detailed Description of Approach – Upstream Projects Study Area
With regards to the Upstream Projects study area, the task of identifying Third Party Projects
was much simpler, due to the relatively remote nature of this area. According to available
information, the principal activity that may contribute to the effects of the proposed Block 56
development and the Malvinas Gas Separation Plant expansion is the on-going Block 88
development. Other activities within the Upstream Projects study area include future oil and
gas exploration activities in blocks 57 and 58 and the management of Protected Natural Areas
that lie partially within or abut portions of the Upstream study area. To the North of the
Upstream Projects study area there are two additional blocks designated by Perupetro and
awarded to concessionaires. Block 90 is entirely outside the Upstream Projects study area
and hence was not examined. Block 110 is a large block, the major portion of which lies
outside the study area. The CEA did not examine this portion of Block 110 because it is
approximately 50 km north of the Upstream Projects, thus no cumulative or synergistic effects
on the immediate study area were anticipated.
10
During the period 1980-2000 Ayacucho region experienced the highest number of victims of any region in the
country due to political violence (42.5%), with one third of the population being displaced (Truth and Reconciliation
Commission, Final Report, quoted in Walsh, 2005, Vol. IIC 3-74)
Page 43 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
5.1
PERU LNG Projects Study Area
5.1.1 Valued Ecosystem Components – PERU LNG Projects Study Area
VECs for the PERU LNG Projects study area have been developed using the concept of
ecosystems and ecosystem services, and based on information presented in the ESIAs, as
well as information derived from local communities (Appendix B, see below).
The ecosystem services vary from ecosystem to ecosystem as illustrated in Table 5.1, while
the services in turn affect a range of VECs that collectively determine human well-being
(Table 5.2).
All the ecosystems identified for the region have the potential to influence the human wellbeing attributes listed in Table 5.2 to some degree, which is why most cells in the matrix are
checked (i.e., signifying presence or absence). The only exception is the marine ecosystem
where several exceptions occur. The purpose of this matrix is therefore to serve as a log
frame for assessing whether a change in any of the goods and services described in Table 5.1
has an affect on any of the well-being attributes. In this instance the changes that are of
interest are those that have the potential to materialize from an interaction between the PERU
LNG Projects and other activities occurring or planned for the region.
The sensitivity of key VECs outlined in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 require special consideration in the
assessment of significance of potential impacts as they are particularly vulnerable to
perturbations. The areas and species listed in Tables 5.3 and 5.4 highlight some aspects of
these sensitivities. This information was taken into consideration when assessing the
significance of any observed cumulative effect (Section 6). Similarly, information gathered
from direct consultation with over 1,000 people located in Ayacucho and Huancavelica in 2005
concerning the importance of different biological resources occurring in the region (Appendix
B), influenced the determination of significance.
Page 44 of 134
PERU LNG Project
Table 5.1
October 12, 2007
Valued Ecosystem Components (Environmental)
Page 45 of 134
PERU LNG Project
Table 5.2
October 12, 2007
Valued Ecosystem Components (Social)
Table 5.3
Ecosystems in the Project Area of Influence Identified as Sensitive or
Fragile by the ESIA
Location
Sector
Kp 327+000 to Kp 330+000
Kp 298+000 to Kp 309+000
Bernal and Morón* lagoons
La Bolívar* mine
Kp 0+000 to Kp 10+000
Eastern watershed
Kp 055+000 to Kp 075+000 and from Kp Acocro and Vinchos
115+000 to Kp 120+000
cultivation areas
Kp 120+000 to Kp 200+000 and from Kp
High-Andean Zone 411
245+000 to Kp 250+000
Equivalent CEA
Ecosystem
Wetlands & Riparian
Dry Scrubland
Eastern Slope Forest and
Scrublands
Agro
Andean Rangeland
*Ecosystems identified as fragile (Walsh, 2005. ESIA Chapter 2.0 Socio-environmental Impacts, Vol. III).
11
The Puna grasslands subregion was classified in the PERU LNG Pipeline ESIA into four high-Andean areas in
the study area. The first corresponds to the surface comprised from the Llavejaja and Motoynioc hills to the Bañico
hill. The second is located between the Socos hill and the Chacahuaycco creek, while the third is located between
the Chuyuccata and Paucho Jasa hills. The fourth (High Andean 4) is the widest and is located between Llasac
and Chihuiri hills.
Page 46 of 134
PERU LNG Project
Table 5.4
October 12, 2007
Critically Endangered or Endangered Species under Peruvian Legislation
Species
INRENA
Category
Habitat Type
Plants
Aralia soratensis
CR
Carica candicans
CR
Chersodoma
arequipensis
Ephedra rupestris
Kageneckia lanceolata
CR
Polylepis racemosa
Puya raimondii
Birds
Cinclodes palliatus
CR
EN
Eastern dry
Forest
Pacific slope
scrub
Pacific slope
scrub
Puna
Eastern spiny
scrub
Quenual forest
Puna
CR
CR
CR
Approximate
KPs
Comments
40-41
246-247
258-259
235
32-34
28-29, 32-33
196
Relict in cultivated areas
Near Tagracocha Lake
Puna wetlands
167-167,
204-205
EN
Mixed scrub
Down slope
from 249 in
Quebrada
Salvia (Río
Huaytará
basin)
Vultur gryphus
EN
Likely in high
sierra areas
Likely in high
sierra areas
Andean condor
Mammals
Platalina genovensium
4400-5000 m, summer and
winter. A species with
estimated populations of less
than 1000 worldwide.
(www.Birdlife.org)
Habitat could be along ROW
at KP 252-254, was observed
in winter. This appears to the
first record for the
Huancavelica Department.
Believed to be in range of
2300-3500 m. A species with
estimated populations of less
than 1000 worldwide.
Not a range-restricted or
endemic species. 0 to 5000
m
CR
299
Long-snouted bat
Pudu mephistopheles
EN
Pacific slope
scrub and
cactus
Eastern
montane forest
White-bellied cinclodes
Poospiza rubecula
Rufous-breasted
warbling finch
Northern pudu
Tremarctos ornatus
Spectacled bear
EN
Reported by
survey from
PalljaAlfarpampa
river zone
Reported by
survey from
the eastern
montane
forest zone
Page 47 of 134
Found in the abandoned
Bolivar Mine, 1350 m (Walsh,
2005)
A type of dwarf deer.
Not a range-restricted or
endemic species.
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
5.1.2 Assessment Of Potential Effects – PERU LNG Projects Study Area
5.1.2.1
Third Party Projects
Project Identification and Location
An analysis regarding potential impacts from the 29 projects identified as existing, proposed or
reasonably foreseeable are presented in Table A1, Appendix A12. The location of each project
is shown on Figure 5.1 or 5.2.
The final 13 Third Party Projects are listed below. The corresponding project numbers shown
on Table A1 (Appendix A) and Figures 5.1 and 5.2 are in parentheses:
•
El Platanal hydroelectric project (#1)
•
Concón-Topará irrigation project (#2)
•
Project Cerro Lindo copper, lead, zinc mining project (#4)
•
Road crossing the PERU LNG route (#6)
•
UEA Antapite gold / silver underground mine (#10)
•
Esperanza zinc/silver mining project (#11)
•
Julcani underground gold/silver mining project,(#12)
•
El Milagro mining project (#13)
•
Huaychanpallca – Ahuay road and bridge construction project (#14)
•
Villa de Arma trail rehabilitation project, Huancho – Palca (#17)
•
San Pedro de la Puente Path-Puente Quinche road construction project (#19)
•
Rio Cachi irrigation project (#26)
•
Huayrapate Pampa Aurora Santa Rosa de Lima road construction project (#29)
Because of the aforementioned importance of pathways in assessing the potential for
interaction and therefore cumulative effect, Figures 5.1 and 5.2 also show the location of the
projects in relation to watersheds. See also Figure 4.14 for a regional view of the watersheds
of the region.
Potential Cumulative Effects
A summary of potential cumulative impacts arising from Third Party Projects is presented in
Table 5.5.
This assessment indicates that, of the 13 Third Party Projects assessed in detail, only four
have the potential to interact with the PERU LNG Projects. In each of these cases the
significance of the potential cumulative effects has been assessed as low.
Only two projects - Road crossing the PERU LNG route and the Special Project Rio Cachi occur near to the PERU LNG Projects. All others are 20-40km distant. Of the two, the Rio
Cachi project will require more attention from the PERU LNG Project team and their
contractors than the Road project as the number of VECs potentially affected is 13 versus 3
(Table 5.6).
12
There were originally 29 projects deemed ‘relevant’ and therefore assessed in the workshop, as well as 6
additional projects identified during the site visit (Section 4.3.2.3, 4.3.2.4, Figure 4.15), bringing the total assessed
to 35 (29 + 6).
Page 48 of 134
PALCA
!
Ì
!
Ì
!
Ì
!
Ì
!
Ì
!
Ì
!
.
!
.
!
.
!
.
570000.000000
600000.000000
630000.000000
660000.000000
!
.
19
Construction of a narrow vehicle road; San Pedro de la Puente - Puente Quinche
20
Construction of Allpamachay - Cusicancha irrigation channel
Concon - Topará
!
.
Construction of Huaytaccasa - Vizcapalca road
21
Relocation of the turbogas equipment from Mollendo thermal power station to Independencia - Pisco
Improvement of educative quality and educative management in the Huancavelica region
ROSARIO
22
Cerro Lindo Project
!
.
PAUCARA
Attention to the
affected by the political violence in the province of Huancavelica
!
.
Modification of Cerro Lindo Project
23
ELpopulation
CARMEN LOCROJA
CHURCAMPA
!
.
.de Tambo Irrigation
Extension of the San Juan!
R channel construction
!
Road Project Crossing the PLNG Route (Referential and estimated route from Project 7)
24
Water and energy supply to the desalinating plant of Cerro Lindo Project
Reforestation in degraded areas
25
SANTILLANA
YAULI
!
.
Reconstrution and remodeling of the major irrigation
Cachi river Special Project
!
. infraestructure of the Ica valley
26
ASCENSION
HUANCAVELICA
Tambopata
RIVER MANTARO
27
PASA (Support Program for Food Sanitation)
!
. - Ccoracocha Special Project
LA MERCED
!
.
U. E. A (Unit Economic Administrative) Antapite
ACOBAMBA
28
AGORAH (Association of Regional Governments of Ayacucho and Huancavelica)
WATERSHED
SAN MIGUEL DE MAYOCC
Esperanza 2001 Project Exploitation
!
. Lima road
Huayrapate - Pampa Aurora - Santa Rosa de
ANTA
29
!
.
Julcani Mine
30
Installation of fruit tree nursery
"El Milagro" Mining Project
31ACOBAMBA Chuschi - Totos road
Construction of Huaychanpallcca - Ahuay road and Bridge
R
!
Construction of Pacopata - Tucsen road
32
RIVER PAMPAS
Program of institutional strengthening and support for the environmental and social management of the Camisea Project
PROALPACA (regional Project, Apurimac,Ayacucho and Huancavelica)
Support for peasant sheperds working in high lands in the provinces of Apurimac, Ayacucho and Huancavelica -PROALPACA CALLANMARCA 33
WATERSHED
POMACOCHA
!
.
!
. Introduction of milk production cattle
34
Improvement of Villa de Arma path, Huancho Palca road
MARCAS
Development of potential agro - industrial
Improvement of the Lircay - Anchonga - PucaCruz (Paucará) road
35
!
. crops
LURICOCHA
ANCO
El Platanal Integrated Project
±
SANTA ROSA
ANDABAMBA
!
.
!
.
29
RIVER APURIMAC
WATERSHED
RIVER URUBAMBA
WATERSHED
!
P
CCOCHACCASA
CAJA
HUANCA-HUANCA
!
.
!
.
!
.
HUANTA
HUAYLLAY GRANDE
!
.
8560000.000000
!
12 Ì
HUACHOCOLPA
!
.
13
R
!
CONGALLA
18
14
!
Ì
35
CHINCHO
!
.
23
IGUAIN
HUAMANGUILLA
SAN MIGUEL
!
.
SECCLLA
R
!
QUINUA
PACAYCASA
!
.
LA MAR
!
.
!
.
27
27
!
.
!
.
ANGARAES
25
TAMBO
!
.
!
.
RIVER LIRCAY AND CACHI
WATERSHED
JULCAMARCA
LIRCAY
R
!
27
!
.
ANCHONGA
!
.
27
SANTIAGO DE PISCHA
8560000.000000
8590000.000000
MATRIX 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
540000.000000
8590000.000000
510000.000000
ANCO
!
.
!
.
!
.
SANTO TOMAS DE PATA
8530000.000000
!
Ì
15
16
ACOS VINCHOS
!
.
16
!
.
SAN JOSE DE TICLLAS
16
!
.
34
AYACUCHO
!
.
SAN JUAN BAUTISTA JESUS NAZARENO
!
P!.
22
!
.
!
.
22
!
.
27
TAMBILLO
26
SOCOS
26
CHILCAS
CARMEN ALTO
!
.
ACOCRO
!
.
LEGEND
CHUNGUI
LUIS CARRANZA
!
.
!
.
VINCHOS
Study Area
!
.
HUAMANGA
Watersheds
30
CHIARA
!
.
P
!
!
R
RIVER PAMPAS
WATERSHED
PILPICHACA
!
.
.
!
8530000.000000
11
Departament Capital
Province Capital
District Capital
Departament
Province
District
Asphalt Road
26
27
8500000.000000
16
RIVER PAMPAS
WATERSHED
22
26
PARAS
!
.
TOTOS
15
!
.
!
.CONCEPCION
31
V.2 : Matrix 2 projects added to the map, two project tables.
LOS MOROCHUCOS
!
.
32
CHUSCHI
!
.
V.1 :
Maps with 29 projects identified and Project Table.
VISCHONGO
SOCIAL EFECTS ASSESSMENT
!
.
MARIA PARADO DE BELLIDO
VILCANCHOS
COCHARCAS
!
.
!
.
!
.
CANGALLO
R
!
VILCAS HUAMAN
ALCAMENCA
SARHUA
1
RIVER GRANDE
WATERSHED
GNL2 Quarry
- Added North location.
- Added Version
number.
CHINCHEROS
OCOBAMBA
- Added changes to prior version.
!
.
- Correctly place project 20 on maps.
V.3 : - All projects consolidated into one Project Table based on the Final Report Matrix.
CHINCHEROS
- Names on the Project
Table checked against Final Report Matrix (only minor changes).
Rof Project Table
!
- Renumbering
projects based on Final Report Matrix numbering.
ANCO-HUALLO
RANRACANCHA
!
- Coloring of projects used for
. version 2 remains
!
. the same.
26
OVERLAPS CHART
RIVER ICA
WATERSHED
ONGOY
V.5 : - Added GNL2 Quarry
V.4 : - Added Scale.
RIVER PAMPAS
WATERSHED
2
Not paved Road
Track
!
.
CANGALLO
21
!
.
!
.
VICTOR FAJARDO
!
.
RIVER PAMPAS
WATERSHED
R
!
!
.
Identified Projects &
Watersheds
SANTA MARIA DE CHICMO
!
.
VILCAS HUAMAN
URANMARCA
SAURAMA
!
.
HUANCARAYLLA
HUAMANQUIQUIA
!
.
!
.
COLCA
!
.
Project:
Scale 1/450,000
10
5
0
R
!
540000.000000
570000.000000
!
.
!
.
10
HUANCAPI
HUAMBALPA
!
.
20
Kilometers
PET 1312
CARHUANCA
!
.
Version:
V.5
Date:
Elaborated by:
June 28th
Sheet:
Figure: 5.101
HUANCARAY
SAN ANTONIO DE CACHI
510000.000000
8500000.000000
27
Paved Road
HUACCANA
OCROS
600000.000000
630000.000000
!
.
!
.
!
.
660000.000000
!
.
R
!
!
.
!
.
!
.
SAN LUIS
RIVER CAÑETE
WATERSHED
IMPERIAL
!
.
!
.
4
SAN VICENTE DE CA¥ETE NUEVO IMPERIAL
R
!
!
.
!
Ì
!
Ì
TOPARÁ RAVINE
WATERSHED
GNL2 Quarry
CHAVIN
!
.
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
420000.000000
450000.000000
19
Construction of a narrow vehicle road; San Pedro de la Puente - Puente Quinche
20
Construction of Allpamachay - Cusicancha irrigation channel
Construction of Huaytaccasa - Vizcapalca road
21
Improvement of educative quality and educative management in the Huancavelica region
22
Attention to the population affected by the political violence in the province of Huancavelica
23
Extension of the San Juan de Tambo Irrigation channel construction
24
Reforestation in degraded areas
25
Cachi river Special Project
26
SANTA ANA
27
PASA (Support Program for Food Sanitation)
!
.
28
AGORAH (Association of Regional Governments of Ayacucho and Huancavelica)
Huayrapate - Pampa Aurora - Santa Rosa de Lima road
29
30
Installation of fruit tree nursery
Chuschi - Totos road
31
Construction of Pacopata - Tucsen road
32 CASTROVIRREYNA
PROV.
PROALPACA (regional Project, Apurimac,Ayacucho and Huancavelica)
33
34
Introduction of milk production cattle
Development of potential agro - industrial crops
35
El Platanal Integrated Project
Concon - Topará
!
Ì
!
Ì
AZANGARO
Relocation of the turbogas equipment from Mollendo thermal power station to Independencia - Pisco
!
.
Cerro Lindo Project
Modification of Cerro Lindo Project
CHUPAMARCA
Road Project Crossing the PLNG Route (Referential and estimated route from Project
7)
!
. AURAHUA
!
.
Water and energy supply to the desalinating plant of Cerro Lindo Project
!
.
Reconstrution and remodeling of the major irrigation infraestructure of the Ica valley
!
Ì
!
Ì
!
Ì
!
Ì
480000.000000
!
.
SAN PEDRO DE HUACARPANA
Tambopata - Ccoracocha Special Project
U. E. A (Unit Economic Administrative) Antapite
Esperanza 2001 Project Exploitation
!
.
Julcani Mine
!
. TANTARA
HUAMATAMBO
"El Milagro" Mining Project
ARMA
Construction of Huaychanpallcca - Ahuay road and Bridge
!
.
Program of institutional strengthening and support for the environmental and social management of the Camisea Project
Support for peasant sheperds working in high lands in the provinces of Apurimac, Ayacucho and Huancavelica -PROALPACA
Improvement of Villa de Arma path, Huancho Palca road
Improvement of the Lircay - Anchonga - PucaCruz (Paucará) road
7
2
8530000.000000
MATRIX 1
LUNAHUANA
!
.
1
CERRO AZUL
!
.
SAN JUAN
SAN JUAN DE YANAC
!
.
!
.
COCAS
RIVER CHICO - MATAGENTE
WATERSHED
LEGEND
!
.
CAPILLAS
HUACHOCOLPA
!
.
RIVER PISCO
WATERSHED
HUACHOS
!
.
8560000.000000
PO
C
W OT
AT O
ER R A
SH V I
ED NE
8560000.000000
!
.
±
390000.000000
!
.
R
!
16
CASTROVIRREYNA
MOLLEPAMPA
!
.
PILPICHACA
CHINCHA
Study Area
!
.
8530000.000000
360000.000000
QUILMANA
Watersheds
Departament Capital
!
.
Departament
SUNAMPE
Province
!
.
!
.
PUEBLO NUEVO
CHINCHA
District
TAMBO DE MORA
Asphalt Road
!
.
Paved Road
22
R
!
ALTO LARAN
CHINCHA BAJA
8500000.000000
RIVER PISCO
WATERSHED
OVERLAPS CHART
16
1
!
.
R
!
R
!
8470000.000000
HUMAY
!
. TUPAC AMARU INCA
!
.
!
.
SAN ANDRES
Matrix 2 projects added to the map, two project tables.
Maps with 29 projects identified and Project Table.
PARACAS
PROV. PISCO
VI
A
R
O ED
G
H
A
E L E RS
I
C
T
UR WA
M
V.5
24
16
TAMBO
!
.
15
15
SANTO DOMINGO DE CAPILLAS
Elaborated by:
RIVER ICA
WATERSHED
SUBTANJALLA
9
22
16
!
.
19
RIVER ICA
WATERSHED
SANTIAGO DE CHOCORVOS
SAN ISIDRO
!
.
!
Ì
10
LA TINGUIÑA
Scale 1/450,000
10
5
0
10
!
. PARCONA
20
Kilometers
!
. CORDOVA
QUERCO
!
.
OCOYO
!
.
SANTIAGO DE QUIRAHUARA
!
.
ICA
390000.000000
LARAMARCA
!
.
!
. SAN JUAN BAUTISTA
!
.
RIVER GRANDE
WATERSHED
SAN FRANCISCO DE SANGAYAICO
!
.
!
.
Sheet: 5.2 02
Figure:
360000.000000
22
16
!
.
8
SALAS
15
RIVER PAMPAS
WATERSHED
HUAYTARA
!
. SAN JOSE DE LOS MOLINOS
!
.
Version:
AYAVI
8
Identified Projects &
Watersheds
June 28th
NE
!
.
SOCIAL EFECTS ASSESSMENT
Date:
16
!
. HUAYACUNDO ARMA
!
.
22
!
.
- Added North location.
- Added Version number.
- Added changes to prior version.
- Correctly place project 20 on maps.
V.3 : - All projects consolidated into one Project Table based on the Final Report Matrix.
- Names on the Project Table checked against Final Report Matrix (only minor changes).
- Renumbering of Project Table projects based on Final Report Matrix numbering.
- Coloring of projects used for version 2 remains the same.
V.1 :
PROV. HUAYTARA
16
INDEPENDENCIA
PISCO
V.2 :
!
.
3
!
.
V.5 : - Added GNL2 Quarry
V.4 : - Added Scale.
15
QUITO-ARMA
HUANCANO
SAN CLEMENTE
PET 1312
!
.
!
.
GNL2 Quarry
Project:
20
22
EL CARMEN
Track
15
!
.
!
.
Not paved Road
2
16
!
.
8500000.000000
GROCIO PRADO
District Capital
.
!
17
TICRAPO
Province Capital
!
R
8470000.000000
P
!
!
P
420000.000000
450000.000000
!
.
480000.000000
!
.
!
PERU LNG Project
Table 5.5
August 8, 2007
Summary of Cumulative Effects Assessment: Third Party Projects
Page 51 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Table 5.6
Summary of Cumulative Effects Assessment: Cachi River Project
5.1.2.2
TgP Pipeline
Project Location
The proposed PERU LNG pipeline route runs parallel to the existing TgP pipeline for about
50% of its length (Figures 5.1.and 5.2). This project was not included in the list of Third Party
Projects compiled by Walsh as they had already assessed the potential for cumulative
impacts in the ESIA (Walsh, 2005, Volume 111, Section 2.2).
A summary of their assessment of the potential for cumulative impacts resulting from the two
pipelines during construction of the PERU LNG pipeline is presented in Table 5.7.
Table 5.7
ESIA Assessment of Cumulative Impacts Arising from Interaction of TgP and
PERU LNG Pipeline (ESIA, Vol. 111, Section 2.2)
Potential Impact
Assessment of Impact
Changes in gas and particulate matter concentration levels Low
Erosion
Minimal and manageable
Puna grassland and scrubland likely to be los
Loss of vegetation
due to revegetation difficulties
Possible around Chiara – Toccto where the
Sedimentation of wetlands
pipelines converge to between 50- 400m
Intentional damage to the TgP pipeline
Low potential
Increase in vehicular traffic
Insignificant and sporadic
This present CEA provides an opportunity to update the cumulative assessment presented in
the ESIA, based partly on new information, and partly from observations and experience
associated with other large scale pipeline projects.
Potential Cumulative Effects
On the basis of the current assessment, three types of impacts could potentially arise as a
result of the interaction between the two projects during construction of the PERU LNG
pipeline. These are summarized in Table 5.8 and discussed in further detail below.
Page 52 of 134
PERU LNG Project
Table 5.8
Projects
October 12, 2007
Potential Impacts Arising from the Interaction of the TgP and PERU LNG
VEC
Impact
Service
Erosion and sedimentation Provisioning
Sensitive ecosystems,
habitats and species
Regulating
Well being - Basic materials
Well being - Health
Provisioning
Regulating
Supporting
Well being - Basic materials
Well being - Health
Culture
Landscape
Social
Culture
Culture
Type
Food crops
Fresh water
Erosion control
Ability to have adequate clean drinking wate
Food crops
Fresh water
Animal products (food & game)
Animal products (non-food)
Water purification and regulation
Erosion control
Landform stabilization
Habitat
Primary production
Soil formation
Nutrient recycling
Supplies of food & water
Ability to have adequate clean drinking wate
Knowledge systems
Inspirational values
Aesthetics
Cultural heritage
Aesthetics
Livelihoods
Social cohesion
Freedom of choice about land use on the
ROW
Erosion and Sedimentation:
The cumulative effects of erosion and sedimentation are potentially important both in terms of
risk to pipeline integrity as a result of altered drainage, pipeline exposure, spanning, etc, as
well as off-site environmental and social impacts. This could be particularly important
between Acocro-Vinchos and Taccra-Huancacasa, where moderately to very steep mountain
slopes will be crossed and where revegetation of the TgP ROW has been challenging due to
the terrain and soil quality. This area could not be visited during the 2-day site
reconnaissance without special arrangements due to very limited access along this stretch of
the pipeline route and therefore the current extent of any erosion, and the potential for this to
be exacerbated during the planned PERU LNG construction phase, cannot be accurately
assessed. Follow up action is recommended (Section 8).
In terms of cumulative effect type, erosion and sedimentation are the result of physicalchemical transportation processes but have the potential to expand to spatial and temporal
crowding (Section 4.2.2).
Sensitive ecosystems, habitats and species:
The two pipelines converge and run parallel to each other at various distances ranging from
25 m to several kilometers for approximately 140 km. Some of the areas where they
converge coincide with a number of ecosystems and species of plants and animals that are
particularly sensitive, fragile, rare or endangered, as identified in the pipeline ESIA. These are
summarized in Table 5.9. It should be noted that PERU LNG conducted an ecological field
survey which included a search for evidence of these species in the area to be disturbed by
construction activities.
Page 53 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Table 5.9
Sensitive Resources Intersected by or in the Vicinity of the TgP and PERU
LNG Pipelines
Pipeline
Convergence
Zones (PERU
LNG Kp)
Sensitive Resource
(INRENA status shown in
parenthesis where relevant; refer
Tables 5.3, 5.4 above; and Walsh,
2005, Vol. 11B p 6-51)
65-150
Acocro and Vinchos cultivation
areas
205-260
High-Andean Zone 4 (includes
grass formations, grazing lands,
sedge swamps and lakes)
High-Andean Zone 4
Carica candicans (CR, plant)
Chersodoma arequipensis (CR,
plant)
Ephedra rupestris (CR, plant)
Cinclodes palliatus, White-bellied
cinclodes
(CR, bird)
Poospiza rubecula, Rufousbreasted warbling finch (EN, bird)
Relevant Kp
Sector
055+000 to
075+000
115+000 to
120+000
120+000 to
200+000
245+000 to
250+000
246-247
258-259
235
204- 205
Down slope from
Kp 249 in
Quebrada Salvia
(Río Huaytará
basin)
The sensitivity of the Acocro and Vinchos cultivation areas is due to a number of factors
including patch mosaic diversity, plant species diversity, percentage of crop fields and
ecosystem stability- factors that could be expected to be restored with good reinstatement and
appropriate compensation for lost production.
The sensitivity of the High-Andean Zone 4 is due to patch mosaic diversity, percentage of
lakes, sedge swamps and ecological stability (Walsh, 2005). The need for ongoing
maintenance of access roads will result in the permanent loss of some of this habitat.
While the actual areas lost or modified are individually small (the ESIA estimates ca 30 ha
located in five main areas: Kp 22 – 38, Kp 122– 138, Kp 159–174, Kp 189-195, Kp 249– 250,
representing sectors where the pipelines run adjacent to one another), a cumulative effect
arises due to ‘nibbling’. The significance of this ‘nibbling’ is potentially high due to the
importance of the wetland component of the High-Andean Zone 4 habitat, and a Critically
Endangered / Endangered species of bird that is associated with this habitat, as detailed
below.
The wetland component of the high-Andean puna grasslands are locally known as bofedales.
Technically they are defined as soligenous peat land-open water wetland complexes. These
habitats are referred to as an ‘under represented wetland type’ by the Ramsar Convention13,
while the same convention considers High Andean wetlands in general as ‘strategic
ecosystems requiring special attention’. These wetlands also support the White-breasted
cinclodes (Cinclodes palliatus), a bird listed as “Critically Endangered” by the Peruvian
legislation and “Endangered” by the IUCN, on the basis that their global population is
estimated at less than 1,000 individuals (see below and Tables 5.4, 5.9). Under the IUCN
13
The importance of Andean wetlands is recognised in the development of the "Regional Strategy for Conservation
and Sustainable Use of High Andean Wetlands” within the Ramsar Convention framework.
Page 54 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
classification, “Endangered” means that, according to the best available evidence, the species
is considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild.
Given the international importance of bofedales and Cinclodes palliatus, special mitigation
measures are warranted. At a minimum these should involve the following14:
•
Assessment of the applicability, technical feasibility and potential benefits of
establishing seasonal constraints on construction activities in bofedales to minimize
impacts during the mating and nesting period of the Cinclodes palliatus. Associated
with this assessment should be a review of the hydrodynamics of these systems to
determine the optimum timing of construction and restoration, while taking account of
the biological life cycle of Cinclodes palliatus concentrating on leking, mating, nesting
and rearing sites and requirements.
•
Pre- and post-construction surveys.
•
Assessment of the potential for, and benefit of, micro-re-routes, taking account of the
results of the above activities.
•
Review of the TgP’s successes and challenges associated with construction and
restoration activities in these habitats.
•
Assessment of the potential for offsets, in order to compensate for areas that cannot
be avoided.
In addition to Cinclodes palliatus, it is evident that a number of other animals as well as
several species of plants are listed as Critically Endangered or Endangered are known to
occur in the vicinity the sectors where the two pipelines are routed together, including
Poospiza rubecula (Rufous-breasted warbling finch). The construction of a second pipeline
has the potential to repeat and therefore compound any residual impacts caused as a result of
the construction and operation of the TgP pipeline, although it should be acknowledged that
based on limited visual observations, some areas along the TgP line are showing encouraging
signs of vegetation regrowth, suggesting that habitat restoration may be possible in the longer
term (Plate 5.1). In other areas, impacts appear to have resulted, which may have been
avoidable or minimized (Plate 5.2).
Using the same reasoning, mitigation measures should also be considered for the seven plant
species listed by IUCN and / or INRENA as Critically Endangered, and known to occur in the
vicinity of the pipeline corridor. In this respect the feasibility of establishing a seed collection
and or translocation program for Aralia soratensis, Carica candicans, Chersodoma
arequipensis, Ephedra rupestris, Kageneckia lanceolata, Polylepis racemosa and Puya
raimondii, should be assessed.
14
Each of these recommendations should be reviewed following reference to the new field survey data contained
in the just-completed (but unsighted for this CEA) Ecological Field Survey (PERU LNG, 2007), as some of the
recommended information may now be available.
Page 55 of 134
PERU LNG Project
Plate 5.1
October 12, 2007
Encouraging signs of vegetation regrowth, High Andean wetland
(The TgP pipeline corridor is visible running from upper centre right to middle centre left)
Landscape
Whether the pipelines will be considered a long-term environmental success will depend to a
large extent on the visual impact they leave on the terrain they cross.
In many areas across the TgP route, reinstatement and vegetation regrowth appears to have
been successful. There remain, however, a number of areas where the results of restoration
appear to be less successful, based on visual observations, three years after completion of
construction, particularly near Ayacucho, and the arid puna grassland sector between KP 234000 and Kp 249+000. Here, revegetation is naturally slow because of poor soils, altitude and
climatic constraints and this has also been exacerbated due to low rainfall immediately
following TgP reinstatement (see Plate 5.4). The cumulative effect on the landscape is likely
to be locally significant. This may contribute negative feeling towards the PERU LNG project
and could serve to offset some community and regional benefits.
The Special Rio Cachi Irrigation Project will also visually impact the landscape. The main
channel of this scheme intersects the pipeline route at KP 71+267, near the Seccelabras
settlement; however, most of the components are more than 4 km from the pipeline route.
Nevertheless, there will be a cumulative effect that will diminish over time as bio-restoration of
the pipeline corridor proceeds.
In terms of cumulative effect type, the above effects on landscape can best be characterized
as temporal and spatial crowding, as defined in Section 4.2.2.
Page 56 of 134
PERU LNG Project
Plate 5.2
October 12, 2007
Existing access road constructed by TgP bisecting bofedales habitat
Plate 5.3
Sample of TgP pipeline corridor in the Andean Region 3 years after
completion of construction
Page 57 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Social Impacts
The acquisition, use, and restoration of the PERU LNG Right of Way (ROW) may result in a
variety of cumulative effects on land owners and people that have communal rights to land.
Some of the direct effects may include:
•
Temporary loss of land or restricted access for the period of construction.
•
Long term restricted use due to restrictions placed on land.
•
Long term access by pipeline operators for inspection, maintenance and emergency
response.
•
Periodic damage to communal land and private property resulting from the need to
respond to emergencies, and conduct remedial works, etc.
•
Local community tensions between those compensated and nearby neighbors that do
not receive any payments.
The key VECs potentially affected by these outcomes are:
•
Livelihoods
•
Social cohesion
•
Freedom of choice about land use on the ROW
The significance of these impacts can be minimized and often negated as follows:
•
Thorough preparation and planning for easement acquisition including assistance
programs designed to help restore livelihoods.
•
Collection of appropriate baseline data against which livelihood impact and restoration
can be measured.
•
Diligent execution of topsoil removal, reinstatement and restoration.
•
Dedicated and objective long term monitoring of land productivity and livelihood
restoration.
These are the minimum attributes of easement acquisition and economic displacement
programs and are standard practice for large easement acquisition activities conducted by
project land teams. Some of the above direct effects have the potential to be transformed into
cumulative effects where the PERU LNG pipeline is due to be constructed near to the TgP
pipeline, and where the success of compensation and livelihood restoration activities at the
conclusion of TgP were not as originally planned. The combination of these issues and the
social effects of the PERU LNG construction activities are likely to result in an additional set of
impacts.
5.1.2.3
Access Roads and Temporary Facilities
Description
Access roads and temporary facilities are an important part of construction activities for the
PERU LNG Projects. This is particularly true for pipeline access roads, which are not only
numerous, but can remain active throughout operations for the purposes of routine
surveillance, maintenance and repair work, and emergency response. For this reason, the
PERU LNG pipeline access roads and facilities form the main focus of the following
discussion.
Access roads and temporary facilities typically comprise the following:
•
New temporary access roads
Page 58 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
•
Roads requiring significant upgrading (particularly widening)
•
New access roads where there is a strong likelihood they will be left in place
•
Borrow pits
•
Quarries
•
Batch plants
•
Excess construction material (waste rock) sites
The environmental and social impacts of pipeline access roads and temporary facilities are
normally regarded as a source of direct impacts. They are normally assessed accordingly,
notwithstanding the fact that the number and location of these facilities can be difficult to
determine during the planning and ESIA stages of a project.
As mentioned in Section 4.3.2, the original assessment of these facilities was limited and this
CEA presents an opportunity to re-assess both direct and cumulative effects, partly due to the
availability of more information on the need for, and location of, these facilities since the
completion of the ESIA (e.g., the PERU LNG Pipeline Footprint Construction Management
Plan, PFCMP), and partly due to an improved understanding of the environmental and social
consequences associated with these facilities.
The latest information on access roads and temporary facilities is described in the PFCMP
and summarized in Figures 5.1 and 5.2. The actual number and location of access roads and
temporary facilities will likely vary from this inventory as it is typical for the contractor to be
given conditional discretion on what additional land and facilities are to be used over and
above those previously identified within the ESIA. This will be managed through a formal
approval process as detailed in the PFCMP referred to above.
The final project inventory will not therefore be known until construction is well advanced and,
even then, there will be potential for this to change through to final reinstatement.
While more information has become available since the completion of the ESIA and PFCMP,
detailed assessment of the significance of these impacts and the most effective forms of
mitigation cannot be precisely stated until the following activities have been completed:
•
Assessment of the existing infrastructure by the approved contractor (where
infrastructure covers roads and facilities, including but not limited to those used by
TgP)
•
Assessment of the need for additional land for new roads and facilities.
•
Land acquisition and compensation program.
Potential Direct and Cumulative Effects
The development, use and reinstatement of access roads and temporary facilities have the
potential to result in a number of direct and cumulative social and environmental effects.
Some of these have been covered in the ESIA and therefore the following discussion both
compliments the original assessment and adds more detail and some new issues, based on
more recent developments and information.
Loss and Restricted Use of Land
The development, use, and restoration of access roads and temporary facilities can result in a
variety of effects on land owners and people that have communal rights to land. Some of the
direct effects are as follows:
•
Temporary loss of land or restricted access for the period of construction.
•
Long term restricted use due to safety exclusion zones.
Page 59 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
•
Long term, shared access with pipeline operator (required for operations inspection,
maintenance and emergency response).
•
Periodic damage to communal land and private property resulting from the need to
respond to emergencies, conduct remedial works etc.
•
Damage or disturbance to land outside the pipeline corridors during normal or
abnormal operation periods.
•
Perceived or real disparities in land and loss of livelihood compensation payments.
•
Local community tensions between those compensated and nearby neighbors that do
not receive any payments.
•
Corruption and extortion linked to compensation payments.
The key VECs potentially affected by these outcomes (Table 5.2) are:
•
Livelihoods
•
•
Social cohesion
•
Secure access to necessary resources
•
Freedom of choice
The significance of these impacts can be minimized and often negated as follows:
•
Thorough preparation and planning, including the judicious use of existing roads and
facilities.
•
Collection of appropriate baseline data against which livelihood impact and restoration
can be measured.
•
Diligent execution of reinstatement and restoration.
•
Dedicated and objective long term monitoring.
As with pipeline easement acquisition, these are the minimum attributes of land acquisition for
access roads and economic displacement programs and are standard practice for large land
acquisition activities conducted by project land teams. They can, however, be overlooked or
less thoroughly completed in the case of access roads and temporary facilities, particularly
when the responsibility for these tasks is assumed by the construction contractor. Here, time
and cost pressures, as well as an absence of skilled specialists, can work against transparent
and considered transactions with affected individuals and communities. For this reason it is
preferable that project land teams deal with any additional land requirements rather than
contractors. If this is not possible, it is important that the contractor’s activities are closely
monitored.
Some of the above direct effects have the potential to be transformed into cumulative effects,
specifically where the PERU LNG pipeline is due to be constructed near to the TgP pipeline,
and where the success of reinstatement and restoration works at the conclusion of TgP were
not as originally planned. The combination of these issues and the environmental and social
effects of the PERU LNG construction activities, are likely to result in an additional, if only
temporary, set of impacts.
The potential social effects are likely to be variations of the above list, while environmental
effects relating to the loss and restricted use of land will most likely be limited to offsite
sedimentation, altered drainage patterns and water flow, and diminished water quality in
nearby waterways. The significance of these effects will vary locally, but should be temporary
and manageable if the provisions of the Contractor Management Plans are effectively applied.
Page 60 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
There is a positive aspect to PERU LNG’s intention to use as many of the access roads and
temporary facilities developed by TgP as feasible, and that is that the need to build new roads
in areas where the pipelines converge is minimized. Also, there will be an additional
opportunity to restore areas that should have been reinstated but, for various reasons, have
not.
Disruption to local traffic:
While compensation payments can offset and mitigate tangible losses, the disruption to local
communities caused by the use of local roads by construction vehicles for access purposes is
more difficult to assess and therefore redress.
Access to some houses and hamlets in mountainous areas is often via narrow, switch-back
roads and these present the only viable means of accessing the pipeline route. Locals, some
using animal-drawn carts, will be required to share these roads with heavy construction
vehicles. In other instances they will be required to use alternative roads, some of which may
add considerable time and effort to transport produce to markets, purchase goods, and fulfill
other daily activities. However, disruption to local traffic was in many cases minimal during
construction of the TgP pipeline and afterwards, due to improved roads with better
accessibility for local communities.
These issues equate to the following VECs, as outlined in Table 5.2:
•
Livelihoods
•
•
Access to goods
•
Social cohesion
•
Safety of persons and possessions
•
Secure access to necessary resources
•
Freedom of choice.
Location of access roads and temporary facilities will require special attention on a
community-by-community basis. If additional land is required, the process will need to be
repeated. Ongoing monitoring will be necessary during construction works.
The combined cumulative effect of these local traffic issues constitutes spatial and temporal
crowding (Section 4.2.2). The effects are potentially significant, even if generally confined to
the construction period.
Induced Access:
The construction of the TgP pipeline required the construction of new roads and upgrading of
existing ones to provide access to the ROW as well as temporary facilities. Many of these
continue to be used by TgP for operational purposes. Some will serve the access needs for
the PERU LNG pipeline but new access roads and off-ROW facilities will inevitably be
required, particularly in areas where the PERU LNG route deviates from the TgP pipeline
route.
Road transportation in the region has therefore improved as a result of the TgP project.
Access to previously inaccessible areas is now not only possible, but likely to have increased.
Experience in the pipeline industry has shown that this can increase hunting of wildlife,
poaching of livestock, increased timber gathering for domestic use (e.g., fire wood for heating
and cooking), as well as illegal logging, despite the assumed benefits to the local population of
improved access to markets and medical care, etc.
This experience can be illustrated by a local example. Vicuñas (Vicugna vicugna), a protected
species, are raised in some high-Andean pasturelands (puna), e.g. to the east of Huaytará in
the district of Ayaví. An audit of the TgP construction activities noted that vicuñas and
Page 61 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
vizcachas (a large Andean rodent, Lagidium peruanum) were not perturbed by construction
workers during construction of the TgP pipeline, and in the case of vicuñas the presence of
workers indirectly reduced poaching (Knight Piésold, 2003). While this implies a positive
outcome, the important point is that these protected species are vulnerable to poaching15, and
while construction activities may deter illegal activities, this is likely to be a short term
situation. In the long term, the deterrence could diminish when the construction crews
demobilize, at which time the incidence of poaching could increase as a result of enhanced
access. It should be noted that the National Council on South American Camelids (CONACS)
statistics for 2007 show that vicuña populations and wool production has increased in the
communities of Ayavi, Santa Rosa de Tambo and Huaytará, which are located near the
existing TgP pipeline and are likely to have been caused by a social investment program that
TgP implemented to finance communal guards for the vicuña breeding areas.
These issues have the potential to affect the following VECs:
•
Food crops
•
Animal products (food and game)
•
Animal products (non-food)
•
Plant products
•
Genetic resources
•
Water regulation and purification
•
Erosion control
•
Habitat
•
Livelihoods
Collectively, these potential cumulative impacts constitute a growth-induced effect, whereby
new or improved access may induce further actions to follow. To some extent these adverse
affects may be offset at a community level by the benefits derived from improved access to
markets, health services, etc, with the net effect being determined by the resilience and
recovery rate of those resources being exposed to greater levels of exploitation through
induced access, such as timber and highly valued wildlife.
Noise and Dust:
The PERU LNG Pipeline ESIA identifies noise and dust as a potentially significant aspect that
will, if not mitigated, impact local communities. Details of proposed mitigation measures and
anticipated residual impacts are detailed in the ESIA (Vol. III, Section 2).
These effects constitute a cumulative physical and chemical transport effect, particularly in
terms the incremental effect of construction traffic, and to a lesser extent, operations traffic, on
existing traffic flows.
Community Safety:
Community safety is an issue that has the potential to be directly affected by the development
and use of access roads.
There is also the potential for the incremental increase in traffic volumes associated with
construction and operational activities to have a significant adverse cumulative effect when
combined with existing volumes of non-project traffic, both on the access roads themselves,
as well as the feeder roads that provide linkages to villages and towns. The net effect has the
potential to increase the risks to community safety.
15
The main threat to vicuña is poaching and this has led to the species being considered as nationally “near
threatened”.
Page 62 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Community Safety and Construction Transportation Contractor Management Plans have been
prepared for the Plant and the Pipeline as a first step to manage this issue. These will be
mirrored by plans and training programs designed specifically for PERU LNG personnel for
both construction and operations.
The combined effect of these issues is predominantly a direct impact although the
combination of PERU LNG construction traffic (and at a later date, operations traffic) and TgP
operations traffic constitutes spatial and temporal crowding arising from the interaction of the
TgP and PERU LNG pipeline projects.
Reinstatement:
The project is committed to restore roads and infrastructure (bridges etc) to as close to their
pre-pipeline construction condition as reasonably practicable. Similarly, new roads not
required for operational uses are required to be reinstated unless otherwise agreed with local
communities. In these cases, the community benefits need to be weighed against the
adverse effects associated with induced access (see above) as well as ongoing security
issues.
Quarries and borrow pits established specifically for the project, also need to be reinstated,
although obviously not to their pre-construction condition. Pre-existing quarries and borrow
pits present several reinstatement options that need to be assessed in advance. Potential
scenarios are as follows:
•
Existing third party facilities: The contractor’s reinstatement obligations in relation to
existing commercial operations are typically determined on the basis of proportional
use/extraction, but factors such as the post-construction, commercial viability of the
operation will have bearing on the outcome of any reinstatement commitments,
particularly if this is to be carried out by the owner of the facility. The resources of
some third party facilities may be exhausted as a result of the demand for the pipeline
construction, in which case it may not be realistic to agree on proportional
reinstatement, particularly if the owner has no obligation, intention or resources to
carry out their part.
•
New facilities: It is highly likely that new facilities will be established as part of the
construction effort. These facilities will require case-by-case assessment and
approval, and development of the terms for reinstatement.
It will therefore be necessary for PERU LNG and the contractor to establish clear
reinstatement criteria in advance of any construction works. These will need to be detailed in
the appropriate Contractor Environmental and Social Implementation Plans.
Even in the event of successful reinstatement and bio-restoration, the residual effects
potentially constitute a ‘nibbling’, cumulative effect, the significance of which will depend on
site specific circumstances. While most of the land requirement has been planned, there are
still some unknowns as with any project of this type, and so, there are some uncertainties in
predicting the significance of the cumulative impacts. The actual significance of the
cumulative effects will depend on the final land requirement and local characteristics of
individual facilities, such as residual resource capacity at the conclusion of the PERU LNG
construction take, and third party reinstatement obligations and intentions.
5.1.2.4
Paracas Bay / Port of San Martin
Description
The Port of San Martin is located on the Paracas Peninsula at the open end of Paracas Bay.
The Paracas Reserve encompasses a large part of the area (both onshore and offshore),
generally lying immediately south of the project area. Truck traffic has to enter the Paracas
Reserve prior to reaching the Port of San Martin.
Page 63 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Paracas Reserve is known for its cultural value, landscape, and marine biodiversity. This
natural context is also characterized by its high fragility and vulnerability, as well as by its low
capacity to absorb environmental impacts. This situation makes it an area where various
social factors often have conflicting interests. An institutional effort exists (NGOs, local
governments, state entities) to build on a participatory basis a sustainable model for this area,
as part of the effort to protect the ecosystem’s resources, to preserve the cultural heritage of
the Paracas area, and to improve the living conditions of the local population.
Potential Direct and Cumulative Effects
Construction, start-up, and production activities related to the PERU LNG Projects may impact
both road and marine traffic into and out of the Port of San Martin and the Paracas Bay area,
near Pisco. While the LNG plant / marine terminal, quarry and pipeline are not in the Port of
San Martin / Paracas Bay area, material to be used in construction of the LNG plant and its
marine terminal breakwater may be transported through the Port of San Martin.
The potential direct and cumulative effects due these activities is measured against a baseline
set of activities in the Port of San Martin / Paracas Bay area, which includes operation of the
Pisco Fractionation Plant at its current production capacity (and associated product export by
marine tankers) and ongoing activities in the area such as fishing, general cargo traffic,
tourism and operation of the existing Petroperu terminal. It should be emphasized that the
Port of San Martin existed long before the construction of the Pisco Fractionation Plant.
The greatest potential direct effect is cargo or fuel spills from fishing, tourist and recreational
vessels, which contribute a major part of the total vessel traffic in the Port of San Martin /
Paracas Bay area. The next important contributor to the total baseline risk are cargo or fuel
spills from general cargo vessels using the Port of San Martin, followed by the spills from
product tankers operating from the LNG Plant. Other risks include fire/explosion scenarios on
vessels, fugitive releases from vessels to the marine environment, air quality impacts from
vapor / exhaust emissions from vessels and air quality impacts from dust/exhaust emissions
from road traffic.
According to a Cumulative Marine and Road Traffic Risk Analysis: Port of San Martin/Paracas
Bay (ERM, November 23, 2004), there was a significant but not excessive risk increase during
construction of the LNG Plant. The increase was due primarily to the significant increase in
road traffic movements in the construction scenario associated with the transport of material
for use in constructing the breakwater associated with the LNG plant. However, since this
analysis was conducted, the quarry location has been moved to an area located due east of
the LNG Plant site, and therefore no significant road traffic movements associated with the
transport of material for use in constructing the breakwater are anticipated in the Port of San
Martin/Paracas Bay area.
Therefore, the only remaining set of activities that could potentially affect in an adverse and
cumulative manner is the increase in marine traffic associated with the LNG Plant. Although
the proposed LNG Plant construction results in an increase of marine transport activities
associated with that facility, this represents only a small increase (a 2.6% increase from
baseline) in total marine traffic levels in the Port of San Martin/Paracas Bay area. For these
reasons, the potential for significant cumulative effects on the Port of San Martin/Paracas Bay
area is considered low and is not discussed further in this CEA.
5.2
5.2.1 Third Party Projects
The Third Party Projects that may contribute to the effects of the Upstream Projects include
the on-going Block 88 development, future oil and gas exploration activities in Blocks 57 and
58, and the management of Protected Natural Areas that lie partially within or abut portions of
the Upstream Projects study area.
Page 64 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Block 88 is planned solely to produce liquids; all natural gas is planned for reinjection. The
Block 88 concession agreement required the drilling of at least one well in the Cashiriari zone
in addition to the wells to be drilled in the San Martin zone.
The Peruvian government has issued oil and gas concessions for other blocks within the
Upstream Projects study area, specifically, Block 57 to Repsol and Block 58 to Petrobras.
Protected Natural Areas
The following Protected Natural Areas established by the Peruvian government, are partially
within the Upstream Projects study area (Figure 3.3):
•
Machiguenga Communal Reserve
•
Nahua-Kugapakori Territorial Reserve
•
Megantoni National Sanctuary.
In addition, three other Protected Natural Areas abut portions of the Upstream Projects study
area (Figure 3.3):
•
Alto Purus National Park
•
Manu National Park
•
Otishi National Park
The Machiguenga Communal Reserve (MCR) was established in 2003 by Supreme Decree
Nº 003-2003-AG; however, much of the area had been recognized as a protected area since
the creation of the Apurimac National Forest in 1963. The natural gas and liquids pipelines
(owned and operated by TgP) which transport Block 88 and 56 product from the Las Malvinas
Gas Separation Plant passes through a small portion of the MCR (a stretch of approximately
12 km through the south-easternmost extremity of the area). Also, portions of the MCR are
located within Blocks 57 and 58. During the planning and development of the of the TgP
pipelines, several of the Machiguenga communities inhabiting the MCR participated in the
public consultation process, negotiations, and in various project-related programs; for
example, TgP has agreed to support local park rangers for the MCR.
The Nahua-Kugapakori Territorial Reserve (NKTR) was established in 1990 by Ministerial
Resolution Nº 0046-90-AG-DGRA/AR and later expanded in 2003 by Supreme Decree Nº
028-2003-AG in order to protect the territory of the voluntarily isolated and nomadic Nahua,
Kugapakori and Nanti peoples (Gamboa Balbín, 2005). The reserve was established in light
of evidence for the presence of people connected with logging companies and settlements of
colonist along the banks of the Ticumpinia, Camisea, and Mishagua Rivers, who had
attempted to take lands through threats and acts of physical violence against the indigenous
peoples (Gamboa Balbín, 2005). The 2003 decree also strengthened the protection of the
NKTR by establishing the purpose of protecting the property rights of the indigenous peoples
(traditional use), the use of natural resources in the reserve, allowing for the subsistence use
of the natural resources of the area, prohibiting settlements by colonists, and prohibiting
economic (i.e., non-traditional) activities(Gamboa Balbín, 2005). Block 88 is superimposed
over a portion of the NKTR.
The Megantoni National Sanctuary is the one of the newest elements of Peru’s protected area
system and is located in the Andean foothills that border the southeastern limit of the
Upstream Projects study area, with only minor areas included below the 1,000-m contour.
Alto Purus National Park, in the river basin of the same name, is adjacent to part of the
northeastern limit of the Upstream Projects study area.
Manu National Park lies in the upper Madre de Dios Basin to the east of the NKTR.
Otishi National Park protects the northern extension of the Vilcabamba Cordillera and is
contiguous with the western boundary of the MCR, with only minor contact with the Upstream
Projects study area along portions of the 1,000-m contour.
Page 65 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
5.2.2 Geology, Geomorphology and Soils
The Upstream Projects, including the proposed Environmental and Social Management Plan
(ESMP) measures, and Third Party Projects would not have significant cumulative effects on
geology, geomorphology, or soils. The total amount of clearing and land disturbance for the
Upstream Projects and existing Third Party Projects (Block 88) is approximately 466 hectares,
of which 169 ha are occupied by the Malvinas Gas Separation Plant located in Block 58 (ESIA
for Block 56, Chapter 6.5, and information from Pluspetrol). This area accounts for
approximately 0.086% of the combined areas of the blocks affected by this land disturbance.
The ESMP proposes measures to stabilize and restore soils through revegetation of these
disturbed areas. The disturbed areas in Block 56 are distant from the areas disturbed in the
Block 88 development and those that may be disturbed during exploration activities in Blocks
57 and 58; hence there is little potential for synergistic or cumulative effects other than
sediment runoff effects on water quality, which is discussed separately. Expansion of the
Malvinas Gas Separation Plan will be confined to the existing Plant footprint. For these
reasons, the potential for significant cumulative effects on geology, geomorphology and soils
are considered low and is not discussed further in this CEA.
5.2.3 Groundwater
The Upstream and Third Party Projects will affect groundwater resources, principally through
the drilling of shot holes and detonation of explosives during seismic exploration. However,
these effects are minor and localized and therefore they lack the potential to interact and
result in cumulative effects. In addition, a Water Sustainability Assessment and a
Groundwater Vulnerability Evaluation of the Block 56 and Malvinas Gas Separation Plant
Expansion ESIA Supplemental Lender Information Package (SLIP) both conclude that the
Upstream Projects will have minor effect on groundwater dynamics (e.g., recharge/discharge
and water use) or groundwater quality. For these reasons, the potential for significant
cumulative effects on groundwater is considered low and is not discussed further in this CEA.
5.2.4 Landscape
The Landscape is defined in the ESIA as including project effects on noise and landscape
quality. Although the Upstream and Third Party Projects will generate noise, the noise
sources are sufficiently far apart that there is little likelihood of cumulative noise effects.
Furthermore, drilling operations in Block 56 will be powered using electricity originating from
Malvinas. This significantly reduces noise emissions from drilling activities. The noise
generated by these projects may still affect wildlife, but that potential cumulative effect is
included in project effects on biological resources below.
The projects will clearly have an affect on landscape quality, but none of these effects were
classified as “Environmentally Severe” or “Environmentally Critical” (ESIA for Block 56,
Chapter 5.7). Furthermore, the proposed ESMP would minimize these effects in the shortterm (via revegetation – see ESIA for Block 56, Chapter 6.6) and the long-term (via facility
abandonment – see ESIA for Block 56, Chapter 6.11). For these reasons, the potential for
cumulative effects on the landscape is considered low and is not discussed further in this
CEA.
5.2.5 Social Resources
This section considers the cumulative social effects that could result from the Upstream and
Third Party Projects, and management of Protected Natural Areas that lie partially within or
abut portions of the Upstream Projects study area.
The exploration, construction, operation and decommissioning phases of hydrocarbons
projects in remote areas require high levels of equipment, materials and human resources. A
relatively large workforce is required in order to carry out all project activities, especially during
the exploration and construction phases, which will likely be the most resource intensive. A
Page 66 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
maximum of 1,500 workers are expected for all the project activities in Blocks 5616. For block
56, 90% of the workforce will be Peruvian nationals, 30% of which will be hired from local
communities. The make-up of the workforce for Block 88 is not stated, but it consists of a
combination of foreigners and Peruvian nationals. A similar relative level of activity is
anticipated to be necessary for the development of Blocks 57 and 58 should they adopt similar
development plans following seismic interpretation.
Summary of Social Environment of Project
The Upstream and identified Third Party Projects are located in the Lower Urubamba region of
the Peruvian Amazon. The area contains several native indigenous communities, including
the Machiguenga, Yine, and Ashaninka ethnic groups, among others. The communities living
in this region belong predominantly to the Machiguenga ethnic group, except for colonist
settlements that are scattered along the Lower Urubamba River.
At the national level, the Upstream and Third Party Projects are expected to spur economic
growth as a result of royalties paid to the government, gas export revenues, and an increase
in access to energy sources. At the regional and local levels, communities in the Lower
Urubamba region could be affected unless appropriate mitigation measures are taken as
described in the ESMP and by the recommended follow-up actions proposed in Section 7.2.
The Machiguenga population is believed to have had a presence in the Urubamba basin for
thousands of years17. Today these groups rely heavily on the area’s natural resources –
rivers, flora and fauna – for subsistence activities and for social and cultural purposes as part
of their daily lives. The majority of households fish year round as this activity yields the main
source of protein in their diet. Hunting and gathering activities supplement their diet.
Subsistence farming and raising of animals is also practiced among the indigenous
communities settled in the region18.
The demographic structure of the local population, those living within Blocks 56, 57, 58 and 88
can be generally characterized in the following way19:
•
Age and Sex: A young population, approximately half of which is below the age of 14.
The Machiguenga population, as a whole, has a higher percentage of males, although
gender distribution varies across different communities.
•
Family organization: Most homes maintain a nuclear family structure, while a smaller
percentage maintains the indigenous cultural extended family structure, wherein
several families reside in a single dwelling. In addition, there are single head of
household families, which are predominantly headed by women.
•
Migration: Historically, the population has predominantly remained in the same
geographic area over the years. However, today nearly a fourth of all households
have one or more family members residing outside of the household predominately
due to temporary employment in existing Upstream and Third Party Projects or
agricultural labor.
•
Trade: There are a number of traders, river intermediaries and community shops or
stores in and near communities. The number of stores visibly increased between
March-July 2004, which is possibly due to increase in purchasing power of
communities.
•
Education: In general, the population in this area has had access to formal education,
with nearly three-fourths of people having attended some level of primary or secondary
education. Men tend to be more educated than women, although recent figures reveal
a trend toward greater equality in terms of school enrolment.
16 ESIA for Block 56 (2004), Chapter 2, p. 8
17 Renard – Casevitz F.M (2004), Chapter 4, p. 26
18 ESIA for Block 56 (2004), Chapter 4, p. 141.
19 ESIA for Blcok 56 (2004), Chapter 4, Section 7: Socio-economic Characteristics of Communities in the Study Area.
Page 67 of 134
PERU LNG Project
•
October 12, 2007
Health conditions: Chronic malnutrition among children is common, in some instances
affecting 65 to 80 percent of children ages 1-5 years. Acute diarrhea and respiratory
infections are also prevalent. Most of the population lacks adequate health services
and suffers from poor basic sanitary services.
Communities Affected
The communities most affected by the operations of the Upstream and Third Party Projects
will be those within Blocks 56 and 88, and potentially those in Blocks 57 and 58 (depending on
the level of activity in these blocks) and communities located immediately outside of the
blocks. The Project will affect communities differently depending on their proximity to actual
project operations and to the Camisea and Urubamba rivers. For Blocks 56 and 88, eight
communities including Nuevo Mundo, Kirigueti, Shivankoreni, Camisea, Segakiato, and the
settler communities in the area known as Shintorini, will be affected. Communities within
Blocks 57 and 58 could also be potentially affected depending on the level of activity in these
two Blocks. The varying effects on these communities are depicted in Table 5.11 below.
Table 5.11
Communities Impacted by Operations in Blocks 56, 57, 58 and 88
Most affected
Communities
Nuevo Mundo
Nueva Vida
Kirigueti
Shivankoreni
Camisea
Segakiato
La Peruanita (settlers)
Las Malvinas (settlers)
Oropel farms (settlers)
Nueva Luz
Sensa
Miaria
Bufeo Pozo
Santa Rosa
Kuway
Timpia
Kitaparay
Puerto Huallana
Cashiriari
Chokoriari-Ticumpinia
Montetoni
Marankiato
Native nomads within NahuaKugapakori region
Kitempampani
Porotobango
Taini
Puerto Rico
Onconoshari
Ciudad de Sepahua (city)
Chirumbia
Sababantiari
Camana
Mayapo
Ticumpinia
Tangoshiari
Affected to a lesser degree
Affected by
Block 56
Affected by
Block 88
Potentially affected
Affected by
Block 57
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Page 68 of 134
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Affected by
Block 58
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
PERU LNG Project
Communities
Kochiri
Rural settlements Tupac
Amaru and Kuwai
Machiguenga Communal
Reserve
Ashaninka Communal
Reserve
October 12, 2007
Affected by
Block 56
N/A
N/A
Affected by
Block 88
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Affected by
Block 57
N/A
N/A
Affected by
Block 58
N/A
Methodology
This assessment was developed using existing information provided in the ESIAs for Block 56
and Block 88, in addition to publicly available information. Using the CEAA’s Cumulative
Effects Assessment methodology (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 1999), a
series of steps were undertaken to analyze and develop a list of the potential social
cumulative effects for the Upstream and Third Party Projects. These steps included:
•
Identifying social effects for Blocks 56 and 88 and extrapolating results to Blocks 57
and 58 (assuming a similar level of activity in these Blocks).
•
Cross referencing of effects with the social baselines and project description.
•
Determining cumulative effects.
•
Assessing mitigation measures proposed to address effects.
•
Assigning a significance rating for each cumulative impact pre- and post-mitigation
measures.
•
Recommending additional mitigation measures that would further help to reduce social
impacts beyond the post-mitigation measures already proposed for the Project.
Cumulative effects were assessed at the local level and at the regional and national levels
were relevant. These are defined as follows:
•
National – Peru: the Upstream and Third Party Projects will increase national access
to gas and hydrocarbon liquids, and generate tax revenues for the government of
Peru.
•
Regional – indirect area of influence: communities within the Lower Urubamba region,
but outside of Blocks 56, 57, 58 and 88 (i.e. the Upstream and Third Party Projects
could have cumulative environmental and macro-economic effects to the region
outside the Blocks especially given the common use of the river system for
transportation)
•
Local - the direct area of influence: Communities inside Blocks 56, 57, 58 and 88 or
immediately outside the blocks (i.e. the combined activities of the Upstream and Third
Party Projects could particularly affect indigenous communities and settlers living
within the Blocks).
Analysis of Effects
Several potential cumulative social effects associated with the Upstream and Third Party
Projects were identified. These effects are divided into major categories including: sociocultural factors, economic effects, access to natural resources, health, and archaeological
effects. Table 5.12 summarizes these effects, the environmental management plan and
proposed mitigation measures, and the significant rating (pre-ESMP mitigation and postESMP mitigation).
Page 69 of 134
PERU LNG Project
Table 5.12
Cumulative social effects
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
1
October 12, 2007
SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTORS / NORMS
AND CONFLICT
Disturbance of cultural norms,
practices and leadership structures of
local communities
Related to:
•
Increase reliance on cash economy
•
Unemployment after project activities
end
•
Disturbance to forest and river routes
limiting local mobility
•
Demographic changes from
introduction of new populations
•
Cultural influence from contact with
other local communities and regional
traders
•
Unwanted contact with workforce
•
Changes in relationship indigenous
peoples have with their traditional
lands
•
Loss of archaeological remains
Significance
rating preESMP
mitigation
MODERATE TO
MAJOR
Effect: Negative*
Population: local
indigenous
communities and
villages in the
Lower Urubamba
region
Severity:
Medium-High
Likelihood: High
*Note: There may
be some positive
effects from
changes in
cultural norms and
practices as a
result of project
operations;
however the
overall experience
of indigenous
communities in
the Amazon
reveals that these
developments
have traditionally
adversely affected
the cultural norm
and traditions of
Significance
rating postESMP
mitigation
Proposed ESMP Mitigation Measures
Access Control Plan to reduce unwanted
immigration
•
Provide clear information about employment
availability and manage community
expectations
•
Control entrance to work areas
•
Points of control for river transport and
access roads
•
Closed work camp policy
•
If immigration occurs, cases will be
documented and government authorities will
be notified
Community Relations Plan (CRP)
•
Communication and Consultation Program
•
Training Program for Pluspetrol and
Contractor Personnel
- Social sensitivity training
•
Local Employment Program
- locally hiring where possible to avoid
population increase and immigration to
area (consults local leaders to assist in
identifying local workers)
•
Program of Agreements, Compensation and
Indemnifications
- Compensations agreed upon by the
parties shall benefit the community as a
whole and be oriented to improve
education, health, production activities,
training, communications, indigenous
organizations and the role of women in
the local economy.
Page 70 of 134
MODERATE
•
Current
measures
will attempt
to control
unwanted
immigration,
reduce
contact with
local people,
and increase
awareness
of local
cultural
sensitivities.
Additional
recommendations
Additional
recommendations:
•
Acknowledge
existing
leadership
structures and tie
into any interface
with community
(i.e., consultation,
community
investment)
Significance
rating post
ESMP
mitigation +
additional
recommendat
ions
MODERATE
Although risk
remains at a
Moderate level,
the additional
mitigation
measure
proposed will
improve the
effectiveness of
the measures in
the ESMP.
PERU LNG Project
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
October 12, 2007
Significance
rating preESMP
mitigation
these
communities.
2
Conflict between local communities
and Upstream and Third Party Projects
Related to:
•
Cultural difference between
communities and workers
•
Noise pollution – nuisance for local
communities
•
Depletion of subsistence natural
resources could become a source of
grievance for communities
•
Introduction of new populations in
traditional areas
•
Unmet expectations that Project will
lead to long-term economic
opportunities for local communities
•
Visible change in landscape of
traditional areas changing
relationship indigenous peoples have
MAJOR
Effect: Negative
Population: local
indigenous
communities
Severity: High
Likelihood: High
- The material goods delivered as a part
of the compensations must not generate
dependency links from the native
communities towards the company.
•
Supervision and Control Program
- Ensure departure of workers from area
upon completion of their work contracts
•
Archaeology and Special Studies Program
- Research and development of
programs on socio-cultural issues,
gender, and community investment plans
- Monitoring program for archaeological
remains and unanticipated discoveries
plan to temporarily stop work.
•
Anthropological Contingency Plan
- No contact or exchange of goods
allowed
immigration
(refer to description above)
Community Relations Plan (CRP):
•
Communication and Consultation Program
•
•
•
Indemnifications
•
Supervision and Control Program
•
Anthropological Contingency Plan
Other:
•
Noise Monitoring Program
•
Regulation for river traffic
Page 71 of 134
Significance
rating postESMP
mitigation
MODERATE
Additional
recommendations
Additional
recommendations:
Establish a grievance
procedure for local
communities that ties
into the development
of mitigation
measures and
operational practices.
Significance
rating post
ESMP
mitigation +
additional
recommendat
ions
MODERATE
TO MINOR
Establishing a
grievance
system that
records and
addresses
community
concerns will
play an
important role in
managing the
relationship
between the
company and
the
communities.
PERU LNG Project
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
with their land
Unwanted contact with non-local
workforce
•
Concerns that workers will “bother”
women from the communities
•
Fear of changes to livelihoods (e.g.
introduction of disease)
Conflict between local communities
and immigrants
Immigrants may be drawn to the Project
area by the expectation of employment
and/or to sell their goods.
Conflicts may be related to:
•
Conflict from cultural differences of
various ethnic groups residing in
same region
•
Increased competition for jobs and
natural resources
•
Income disparity since economic
opportunities from project are limited
Competition to sell goods from
increase of traders attracted to area
Increased vulnerability of certain
subgroups of the population, including
women and children
Related to:
•
Changing roles for women as a result
of the temporary absence of male
population working at Project may
leave less time for child rearing and
could impact children, especially
those under the age of 5 that already
have a high incidence of malnutrition.
•
Communities are concerned with
effects of promiscuous behavior
October 12, 2007
Significance
rating preESMP
mitigation
Significance
rating postESMP
mitigation
Additional
recommendations
Significance
rating post
ESMP
mitigation +
additional
recommendat
ions
•
3
4
MODERATE TO
MAJOR
Effect: Negative
Population: local
indigenous
communities and
villages in the
Lower Urubamba
region
Severity:
Medium-High
Likelihood: High
MODERATE TO
MAJOR
Effect: Negative
Population: local
indigenous
communities
Severity: Medium
Likelihood: High
immigration
MODERATE
Additional
recommendations:
Social investment in,
and outside, the
Project area.
MODERATE
This rating
depends on the
level of social
investment.
This rating could
go down as low
as moderate to
minor.
MINOR
•
Women: the
absence of
males will
mean that
the burden
of all
household
and child
rearing
responsibiliti
es will only
fall on
No additional
recommendations
N/A
•
- Work with local officials to develop
systematic hiring plan of local workers
•
•
The CRP should focus on developing
alternative income generating opportunities
for men and women in their home villages to
mitigate retrenchment impacts post
construction (e.g., enhanced agricultural
methods, improved transport of goods to
markets, and other initiatives to improve the
local economy).
Other:
•
Code of conduct prohibits contact between
Page 72 of 134
PERU LNG Project
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
October 12, 2007
Significance
rating preESMP
mitigation
involving workforce and local women
workers and local communities.
Significance
rating postESMP
mitigation
Additional
recommendations
Significance
rating post
ESMP
mitigation +
additional
recommendat
ions
N/A
N/A
women
(temporarily)
MODERATE
•
Children
with
chronic
malnutrition
: if burden of
increased
responsibiliti
es on
women
reduces
households
ability to
obtain
sources of
protein
(hunting,
fishing),
dietary
effects could
have
negative
effects on
children
5
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
Improvement in the economic situation
of local Indigenous communities
Related to:
•
Direct and indirect employment
during project activities
•
Procurement of goods and services
from local communities
MINOR TO
MODERATE
Effect: Positive
Population: local
indigenous
communities and
Enhancement Measure
•
- Work with local officials to develop
systematic hiring plan of local workers
•
The community development program should
focus on developing alternative income
Page 73 of 134
MINOR TO
MODERATE
PERU LNG Project
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Most employment will only be temporary
during construction. The short term
increase in buying power could result in
long term economic benefits if the money
is well spent or invested.
6
Enhancement of local skills and
experiences
Related to:
•
Hiring of local workforce for lowskilled jobs
NOTE: This benefit greatly depends on
whether there will be future projects in the
region that will allow communities to use
the skills they acquired through the
projects.
7
Tax revenues
Related to:
•
Taxes paid to government by project
October 12, 2007
Significance
rating preESMP
mitigation
villages along the
Lower Urubamba
region
Severity: LowMedium
Likelihood: High
Additional
recommendations
Significance
rating post
ESMP
mitigation +
additional
recommendat
ions
MINOR
N/A
N/A
MODERATE TO
MAJOR (at
National Level)
N/A
N/A
Significance
rating postESMP
mitigation
generating opportunities for men and women
in their home villages to mitigate
retrenchment impacts post construction (e.g.,
enhanced agricultural methods, improved
transport of goods to markets, and other
initiatives to improve the local economy).
MINOR
Effect: Positive to
Neutral
Population: local
indigenous
communities
Severity: Lowmedium
Likelihood:
Moderate
MODERATE TO
MAJOR
Effect: Positive
Population:
National
Severity:
Medium-High
Likelihood: High
and
MINOR
(at local and
regional levels)
MINOR
Effect: Positive
Population: local
and regional
Page 74 of 134
PERU LNG Project
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
8
9
Development benefits to the region
Related to:
•
Project contributions to local
development through community
investment program
ACCESS TO LAND AND WATER
RESOURCES
Cases of increased poverty (reduction
of well-being) from perceived depletion
of natural resources and reduced
access to traditional hunting, gathering
and fishing areas (the perception may
be greater than the reality).
Related to:
Access
•
Project operations obstructing
traditional hunting, gathering and
fishing routes/areas
Resource availability
•
Damage to subsistence farming plots
by project construction and activities
October 12, 2007
Significance
rating preESMP
mitigation
Severity: LowMedium
Likelihood:
Moderate
MINOR
Effect: Positive
Population: local
and regional
Severity: LowMedium
Likelihood:
Moderate
MODERATE to
MAJOR
Effect: Negative
Population: local
indigenous
communities
Severity: Medium
Likelihood: High
Significance
rating postESMP
mitigation
Additional
recommendations
Significance
rating post
ESMP
mitigation +
additional
recommendat
ions
•
gender, community investment plans,
infrastructure works
•
Community investment programs that are
based on needs assessment, involve the
participation of local communities, and focus
on providing long-term sustainable benefits
could significantly benefit Project Area
communities, especially if invested in
improving infrastructure and health services.
MODERATE
No additional
recommendations
N/A
immigration
MINOR
No additional
recommendations
N/A
•
•
Indemnifications
•
Other:
•
Participatory monitoring involving the local
villages should be encouraged to assure that
perceptions and reality are aligned as best as
Page 75 of 134
PERU LNG Project
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
•
•
•
•
•
•
10
11
October 12, 2007
Significance
rating preESMP
mitigation
Increase in river traffic
Construction disturbances
Noise
Pollution
Pressure on local infrastructure due
to workforce and unwanted
immigration
Illegal hunting, fishing and trade of
species
HEALTH EFFECTS
Increase in morbidity and mortality
from the spread of endemic diseases
(those transmitted by vectors, water
borne illnesses, fecal-oral
contamination)
Related to:
•
Contamination of soil and water
sources from project activities
•
Improper handling of waste and
storage of food attracting vectors
•
Changes in landscape (e.g., creation
of stagnant pools of water) creating
ideal environments for the spread of
diseases
Negative health effects from dietary
changes*
Related to:
Change in lifestyle
•
Reduction in protein from changes in
fishing/hunting practices as a result of
•
•
•
•
•
•
Effect: Negative
Population: local
indigenous
communities
Severity: Low
Likelihood:
Medium
•
MODERATE TO
MAJOR
•
•
Indemnifications
Effect: Negative
Population: local
indigenous
communities
•
Additional
recommendations
possible.
Consultation with local population regarding
location and characteristics of important flora
species
Erosion Control and Revegetation Plan
Implementation of River Traffic Regulation
Helicopter flight rules (will not fly over areas
classified as “sensitive” and will not fly below
300m)
Noise Monitoring Program
MODERATE
•
Significance
rating postESMP
mitigation
Significance
rating post
ESMP
mitigation +
additional
recommendat
ions
Immunizations and periodic medical
examinations for personnel
Measures to control waste and stagnant
water management
Development of sanitary barriers and pest
control to avoid foreign fauna and flora in
area
Communication with communities
Other:
Page 76 of 134
MINOR
MODERATE
Current
mitigation
measures
address
restoration to
Additional
recommendations:
•
Collaboration
with local health
personnel to
monitor disease
prevalence and
outbreaks
Additional
recommendations:
•
Investment in
nutrition
education /raising
awareness in the
MINOR
This measure
will help to
accurately
monitor the
state of disease
transmission
and outbreak
which can help
local health staff
more effectively
deliver
interventions
and prevent
outbreaks.
MODERATE
Although
education
cannot
guarantee
behavior
change it is an
PERU LNG Project
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
•
•
•
abandonment of traditional practices
or depletion of natural resources.
Difficulty adapting to rapid changes in
type of food consumed (i.e., natural
resources vs. processed foods)
High rates of chronic malnutrition in
children increase susceptibility to
negative effects
Increase accessibility and use of
alcohol
October 12, 2007
Significance
rating preESMP
mitigation
Severity:
Medium-High
Likelihood: High
•
•
•
•
•
•
Significance
rating postESMP
mitigation
Soil restoration to affected areas
Consultation with local population regarding
location and characteristics of important flora
species
Hazardous Substance Management Plan
Erosion Control and Revegetation Plan
300m)
natural
resources.
Medical testing of workers before entering
project
Monitoring and treatment of workers
Close camp policy (i.e. contact between
workers and community strictly prohibited)
MODERATE TO
MAJOR
Additional
recommendations
communities.
Significance
rating post
ESMP
mitigation +
additional
recommendat
ions
important step
in raising
awareness and
eventually
changing
behavior.
Change in access to resources
•
Depletion of natural resources leads
to disturbance to subsistence
livelihoods
12
*Increased buying power could also have
positive effects on diet of local
communities
Increase in morbidity and mortality
from the introduction and transmission
of sexually-transmitted diseases
(HIV/AIDS, syphilis, and Hepatitis B)
Related to:
•
Native communities have more
contact with people from outside
(generally referred to as “traders”).
•
Local workers have higher incomes
from working for Upstream and Third
Party Projects allowing them to travel
to other towns.
•
Potential increase in prostitution
•
Potential introduction of diseases
(HIV/AIDS) from “traders”, and nonlocal and international workers
MODERATE TO
MAJOR
Effect: Negative
Population: local
indigenous
communities and
villages along the
Lower Urubamba
region
Severity: High
Likelihood:
Moderate
•
•
•
Additional
recommendations:
For Project Workers
•
STD prevention
/safe sex
education for
workers
At the Community
Level
•
Collaboration
with local health
personnel to
develop culturally
appropriate STD
prevention /safe
Page 77 of 134
MODERATE
PERU LNG Project
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
•
•
October 12, 2007
Significance
rating preESMP
mitigation
Significance
rating postESMP
mitigation
Additional
recommendations
Increase in the spread of existing
STDs
Lack of infrastructure and capacity of
local health center to manage an
increase in disease incidence.
•
13
Increase in morbidity and mortality due
to accidents related to project activities
Related to:
•
River accidents
•
Air accidents
•
Spills
•
Explosions
MODERATE
Effect: Negative
Population: local
indigenous
communities
Severity: Medium
Likelihood: LowMedium
•
•
•
•
Contingency Plan:
- Risk mitigation measures for accidents
related to operations
- Emergency response plans
- Medical response
300m)
In emergency situations only, medical
facilities at operations will extend services to
local communities.
Page 78 of 134
MINOR
Significance
rating post
ESMP
mitigation +
additional
recommendat
ions
sex education
campaigns for
community
members and
migrants (e.g.
“traders”).
Campaigns may
include the
distribution of
condoms if
deemed culturally
appropriate by
leaders of the
indigenous
communities.
Collaboration
with local health
personnel to
monitor disease
prevalence and
outbreaks
No additional
recommendations
N/A
PERU LNG Project
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
14
ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Loss of archaeological artifacts
Related to:
•
Exposure of remains due to
disturbance of vegetation cover, root
removal and earth movement
•
Accelerated deterioration of remains
•
Damage to remains
October 12, 2007
Significance
rating preESMP
mitigation
MINOR
Effect: Negative
Population: local
indigenous
communities
Severity: Medium
Likelihood: Low
•
Collection of archeological remains as well as
disturbance of places identified as
archeological sites prohibited
•
gender, community investment plans,
infrastructure works
- Monitoring program for archaeological
remains and unanticipated discoveries
plan to temporarily stop work.
Page 79 of 134
Significance
rating postESMP
mitigation
MINOR
Additional
recommendations
No additional
recommendations
Significance
rating post
ESMP
mitigation +
additional
recommendat
ions
N/A
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
A summary of the social cumulative effects and their significance rating after taking into
account the effects of mitigation measures in the ESMP and the additional recommended
measures (i.e., those presented in Table 5.12 and section 7.2) is presented in the Table 5.13.
Table 5.13
Significance of Cumulative Effects Post- ESMP Mitigation and Additional
Recommended Measures
Effects
“– “ signifies a negative impact
“+” signifies a positive impact
National Level
SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTORS / NORMS AND CONFLICT
1. Disturbance of cultural norms, practices NA
and leadership structures
2. Conflict between local communities and NA
Upstream and Third Party projects
3. Conflict between communities and
NA
immigrants
4. Increased vulnerability of certain
NA
subgroups of the population, including
women and children
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
5. Improvement in the economic situation
NA
of local Indigenous communities
6. Enhancement of skills and experiences + MODERATE
TO MAJOR
7. Tax and export revenues, royalties,
+ MODERATE
employment and energy
TO MAJOR
8. Development benefits to communities
NA
within blocks
ACCESS TO LAND AND WATER RESOURCES
NA
9. Cases of increased poverty (reduction
of well-being) from depletion of natural
resources and reduced access to
traditional hunting, gathering and fishing
areas
HEALTH EFFECTS
NA
10. Increase in morbidity and mortality
from the spread of endemic diseases
(those transmitted by vectors, water borne
illnesses, fecal-oral contamination-- such
as malaria and typhoid fever)
11. Negative health effects from dietary
NA
changes
NA
12. Increase in morbidity and mortality
from the introduction and transmission of
sexually-transmitted diseases (HIV/AIDS,
syphilis, and Hepatitis B)
13. Increase in morbidity and mortality due NA
to accidents related to project activities
ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
14. Loss of archaeological artifacts
NA
Page 80 of 134
Regional
Local
- MODERATE
- MODERATE
NA
- MODERATE
TO MINOR
- MODERATE
- MODERATE
NA
- MINOR TO
MODERATE
NA
NA
+ MINOR TO
MODERATE
+ MINOR
+ MINOR
+ MINOR
NA
+ MODERATE
NA
- MINOR
NA
- MINOR
NA
- MODERATE
NA
- MODERATE
NA
- MINOR
NA
- MINOR
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Evaluation of Significance
National Cumulative Effects
The development of the Upstream and Third Party Projects is expected to boost the national
economy and contribute to the achievement of national development objectives. A significant
cumulative effect of the Upstream and Third Party Projects at the national level is the increase
in access to natural gas and hydrocarbon liquids – a cleaner source of energy – for
consumption and for export. The effects of the project itself, in terms of employment, taxes,
royalties and payments to public authorities, will represent a major source of socioeconomic
development.
Regional Cumulative Effects
Positive economic effects at the regional level will depends on revenue management
practices, and the amount of reinvestment in the region. The Upstream and Third Party
Projects do not have regional context requirements to hire workers for Project activities. The
jobs set aside for local workers will be filled by men residing within communities in Blocks 56
and 88. At this stage it is unclear what type of local hiring practices would be applied at
Blocks 57 and 58 if and when they are fully developed. Therefore, the socioeconomic effects
of the Upstream and Third Party Projects at the regional level will likely depend on the degree
to which taxes, indirect jobs (i.e. trade as a result higher buying power among local
communities), and other benefits (e.g., infrastructure development, services) reach
populations at the regional level.
Local Cumulative Effects
There is the potential for conflicts arising from the increase in competition for jobs and natural
resources as a result of in-migration to the communities within the project area. Even though
several measures will be taken to discourage in-migration, it is likely that people from outside
the Lower Urubamba area will be drawn by the expectations of employment and a market to
sell their goods. This has already been noted as a result of Block 88 development where
there has been a visible increase in the number of traders, river intermediaries and community
stores, as described by the social baseline assessment for the ESIA for Block 5620. Income
disparity between those that hold jobs with the Upstream and Third Party Projects and those
that do not, and an increase in competition to sell goods and services may also increase the
potential conflict between communities within the blocks and immigrants.
The disturbance of cultural norms and local leadership structures is also expected to be a
cumulative social impact of the Upstream and Third Party Projects. Many elements of culture
are likely to be affected by factors such as exposure to new ways of life/values from inmigration; an increase in buying power; reliance on a cash economy; disturbance to river and
forest routes from project activities; depletion of natural resources and contact with non-local
workers. The Upstream and Third Party Projects also have the potential to have health
effects resulting from the introduction of contagious diseases (e.g., HIV/AIDS, syphilis, and
Hepatitis B), changes in diet, and the potential for accidents.
5.2.6 Biological Resources
This section of the CEA considers the cumulative effects on biological resources that could
result from the Upstream and Third Party Projects, and management of Protected Natural
Areas that lie partially within or abut portions of the Upstream Projects study area. The
following sections include a general summary of biological resources in the Lower Urubamba
region, a description of the methodology used for the biological CEA, a presentation of the
analysis results, a summary of the cumulative effects that were identified through the analysis.
Summary of Biological Resources of the Project Area
20
ESIA for Block 56 (2004), Chapter 4, p. 138.
Page 81 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
The climatic, soil, and geographic characteristics of the Lower Urubamba region support a
complex and heterogeneous ecosystem. Two major vegetation communities occur within the
Lower Urubamba region: primary rainforest and secondary forest or ‘purmas’, which is
characterized by a mosaic of disturbed forest, croplands, and regenerating vegetation
communities. Over 135 species of mammals, 400 species of birds, 80 species of
herpetofauna, 100 species of fish, and 900 species of arthropods have been documented
within the Lower Urubamba region (ERM, 2004). Collectively, these species comprise over
25% of animal species known to occur in Peru (ERM, 2004). Of the species documented to
occur in the region, 6 species of reptiles, 17 species of birds, and 55 species of mammals are
considered rare and have some national or international preservation or threat status (ERM,
2004). This area is predominately characterized as primary tropical rainforest and falls within
the widespread Southwest Amazon Moist Forest Ecoregion (see Sears, 2001). Although the
geographic scope of the CEA is larger than the region considered in the ESIAs, the areas are
ecologically similar and so the baseline described for Blocks 56 and 88 is representative of the
Upstream Projects study area generally.
Biological resources and the indigenous communities within the Lower Urubamba region are
intricately related. The Project will potentially affect eight Machiguenga communities that
depend on the availability and quality of biological resources for subsistence fishing, hunting,
and extraction of forest products. As such, effects on biological resources also indirectly
affect indigenous communities.
Methodology
The CEA for biological resources included the following steps:
1. Definition of Spatial and Temporal Boundaries for the Analysis: The CEA Upstream
study includes a portion of the Lower Urubamba region from the Pongo de Mainiqui
rapids to the confluence of the Sepahua River, encompassing approximately
15,100km2. This CEA spans the time period from approximately 1980 when
exploration of natural gas resources in the project area commenced, to about 2050,
the expected timeframe for decommissioning of the project.
2. Identification of Biological VECs: Based on a review of the environmental and social
baseline data and the ESIAs for Blocks 56 and 88, two VECs were identified that
encompass the primary biological resource issues within the study area: habitat
quality; and biodiversity and rare species.
Habitat quality describes the overall condition of plant and animal habitat, considering
spatial continuity, species diversity, macro- and micro-habitat heterogeneity, and
physical structure. Habitat quality was identified as a VEC because it is susceptible to
cumulative effects from past, current, and future actions and it indirectly influences
other ecosystem components including biodiversity, the abundance and distribution of
rare species, and the availability of natural resources to indigenous communities in the
Lower Urubamba region.
Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources, and the
ecological complexes of which they are part: this includes diversity within species,
between species, and of ecosystems (United Nations Environmental Program, 1993).
Biodiversity and rare species were included as a VEC because they are susceptible to
cumulative effects from past, current, and future actions and preserving biodiversity
and rare species in the region is of high conservation importance at local (e.g.
indigenous communities), National (e.g. Peruvian government), and international (e.g.
NGO) levels.
3. Impact model analysis: According to the Canadian CEA protocol (CEAA, 2003),
cumulative effects may be analyzed using one or a combination of the following
methods: impact models, GIS-based spatial analysis, landscape level indicators of
change, or numerical modeling. The factors that influence the analytical method used
for the CEA include the complexity of the issues and effects to be analyzed; the types
Page 82 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
of VECs; and the quantity, quality, and accuracy of available baseline data. These
impact models were employed for this CEA because they are particularly well suited
for analyzing complex projects with large temporal and geographic scopes.
Impact models for the two VECs were developed, which involved three steps: 1)
defining an impact statement for the VEC; 2) developing a pathway diagram that
identified the potential pathways and linkages by which effects to the VEC could occur;
and 3) validating the pathways and linkages. Pathways are defined as the
mechanisms (i.e., a series of steps) by which effects on a VEC can occur. Linkages
are defined as the steps that comprise a pathway (i.e., multiple linkages make up a
pathway). The pathways were validated by assessing the soundness and likelihood of
occurrence of each of the linkages that comprise a pathway. Those pathways with
biologically sound linkages that have a greater than 50 percent chance of occurring
were considered valid pathways.
4. Determination of significance of pathways and identification of cumulative effects: The
next step in the biological CEA was to determine the significance of the valid
pathways. The significance of a pathway (and the effect it creates) is a function its
magnitude, duration, frequency, and confidence. Significant pathways were defined as
those that: 1) that have moderate or high magnitude; 2) have a medium or long-term
duration; 3) have a continuous frequency; and 4) have a high confidence of occurring.
Insignificant pathways do not meet these criteria and would cause minimal or no
impairment to a VEC (e.g., recovery to pre-project conditions within one year of the
action). Definitions of the significance terms, as defined in the Canadian CEA
methodology (CEAA, 2003), are listed below:
o
Magnitude: The magnitude of a pathway (and associated effect) relates to the
potential for the VEC to recover. Magnitude is expressed as low (minimal or no
impairment), moderate, (measurable effect over the short- to medium term with
expected recovery to pre-project conditions), or high (measurable effect over
the life of the project or beyond with limited or no expectation for recovery).
o
Duration: The duration of a pathway (and associated effect) is the time period
over which the pathway is expected to occur. Duration is expressed as short
term (<1 year or less than one generation), medium term (1-10 years or one
generation), or long term (>10 years or one generation).
o
Frequency: The frequency of a pathway (and associated effect) refers to the
frequency at which a pathway (or corresponding effect) would occur.
Continuous impact pathways operate on a regular basis at regular intervals and
sporadic impact pathways operate rarely and at irregular intervals.
o
Likelihood: The likelihood of a pathway (and associated effect) relates to the
confidence that a pathway would occur (i.e., produce an effect). Confidence is
expressed as low (0-25% likelihood of occurrence), moderate (25-50%
likelihood of occurrence), or high (51-100% likelihood of occurrence).
Next, the significant pathways were considered in the context of the Upstream Projects
study area and the duration (permanency) of potential effects and then rated them as
minor, moderate, or major, depending on their contribution to the condition of the
VECs at the regional scale and the ability of a VEC to recover to pre-project
conditions. A pathway had minor significance when it would affect less than one
percent of the Lower Urubamba region and the affected VEC would be expected to
recover to pre-project conditions within ten years of project decommissioning. A
pathway had moderate significance when it would affect less than one percent of the
region and the affected VEC would take more than ten years (roughly one generation
for many animal species) post-project decommissioning to recover. A pathway had
major significance when it would affect more than one percent of the Lower Urubamba
region and/or the affected VEC would not be expected to recover to pre-project
conditions.
Page 83 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Finally, the significant pathways were examined to determine whether these could
result in residual and cumulative effects on biological VECs when considered in
combination with the other past and future actions. To determine if an effect could be
residual, it was determined whether (and at what magnitude) the effects would
continue to occur after implementation of the mitigation measures that have been
defined for the Upstream and Third Party Projects (as defined in the ESMPs). To
determine if an effect was cumulative, it was determined whether the magnitude or
scope of the effect would increase significantly if combined with other effects within the
Lower Urubamba region.
Analysis of Effects
Habitat Quality VEC
Figure 5.3 provides the pathways diagram for habitat quality and illustrates the mechanisms
(pathways and linkages) through which the Upstream and Third Party Projects have the
potential to affect habitat quality. Table 5.14 summarizes the CEA for each of the pathways
illustrated in the habitat quality pathways diagram and documents the decision-making
process for identifying significant pathways.
The analysis identified ten pathways that could result in cumulative effects on habitat quality
(Table 5.14). The significance ratings of the ten pathways ranged from minor (6 pathways) to
moderate (4 pathways). Eight of the ten pathways could adversely affect habitat quality
through changes in vegetation, increased noise, and emissions to air and water. Of the eight
potentially adverse pathways, three are related to past seismic operations and the existing
Upstream and Block 88, four are related to the Upstream Projects, and three are related to
potential future developments in the Upstream and Third Party Projects. The remaining two
pathways would help restore habitat quality in the future (Project decommissioning) through
the elimination of Project-related noise and restoration of vegetation (Table 5.14).
The ESMPs for the Upstream Projects and Block 88 outline the mitigation and enhancement
measures that have been established for these projects. The effects of these mitigation
measures on the significant Project-related pathways were evaluated and determined
whether, and to what degree, the effects would continue to occur following implementation of
the measures. Noise abatement, sediment and erosion control measures, emissions controls,
and vegetation protection, restoration, and monitoring could reduce the significance ratings of
these pathways to insignificant or minor (Table 5.14).
For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that future exploration activities in Blocks 57
and 58 will follow a similar approach (e.g., an “offshore inland policy”) and implement similar
or improved environmental and social management measures to those implemented in the
Upstream Projects and Block 88.
Page 84 of 134
PERU LNG Project
Figure 5.3
October 12, 2007
Pathway Diagram for Habitat Quality VEC
Impact Statement: The synergistic effects of past, current, and future activities have the potential to impact terrestrial and aquatic habitat quality
in the Lower Urubamba River region.
Page 85 of 134
PERU LNG Project
Table 5.14
October 12, 2007
Linkage Validation and Evaluation of Significance of Potential Cumulative Effects on the Habitat Quality VEC
Links
Pathway
Scope
1b, 2d, 3a
Operation of the existing Upstream and Third Party
Projects creates noise (e.g., Malvinas, boat and
helicopter traffic), potentially affecting habitat
continuity and habitat quality
Boat traffic associated with operation of the existing
Upstream and Third Party Projects can cause erosion
and sedimentation in the river, potentially affecting
water quality/aquatic habitat quality
Projects produces water emissions, potentially
affecting water and aquatic habitat quality
Projects produces air emissions which could cause
changes in vegetative species and structural
complexity and habitat quality
Construction, operation, and maintenance of the
existing Upstream and Third Party Projects impacted
vegetation (direct loss from construction, long-term
effect of ongoing maintenance), affecting habitat
continuity, vegetative species and structural
complexity, edge: interior ratio, and habitat quality
Local commerce and subsistence practices can
create noise, potentially affecting habitat continuity
and habitat quality
cause erosion and sedimentation, potentially
affecting water and aquatic habitat quality
Local commerce and subsistence practices (boat
traffic, timbering, illegal mining) can produce air and
water emissions, potentially affecting water and
aquatic habitat quality
Moderate
Moderate
Long-term,
Continuous
High
Direction6/
Significance7
Pre-ESMP
Mitigation8
- MINOR
Moderate
Low
Long-term,
Sporadic
High
- MINOR
- MINOR
Moderate
Moderate
Long-term,
Continuous
High
- MINOR
- MINOR
High
Low after
construction
Long-term,
Continuous
Low
Insignificant
Insignificant
Moderate
Moderate
Long-term,
Continuous
High
MODERATE
- MINOR
Low
Low
Long-term,
Continuous
High
Insignificant
Insignificant
Low
Low
Long-term,
Continuous
High
Insignificant
Insignificant
Moderate
Low
Long-term,
Continuous
Moderate
Insignificant
Insignificant
1c, 2e, 3b
1d, 2f, 3b
1d, 2g, 3c
1e, 2h, 3a
1e, 2i, 3c
1e, 2j, 3d
1g, 2d, 3a
1h, 2e, 3b
1i, 2f, 3b
1
2
Magnitude
Page 86 of 134
Duration/
Frequency3,4
5
Likelihood
Significance
Post-ESMP
Mitigation
- MINOR
PERU LNG Project
Links
1j, 2h, 3a
1j, 2i, 3c
1j, 2j, 3d
1k, 2d, 3a
1l, 2e, 3b
1m, 2f, 3b
1m, 2g, 3c
1n, 2h, 3a
1n, 2i, 3c
1n, 2j, 3d
1o, 2d, 3a
1p, 2h, 3a
1p, 2i, 3c
1p, 2j, 3d
1q, 2d, 3a
October 12, 2007
cause changes in habitat continuity, vegetative
species and structural complexity, edge: interior ratio,
and habitat quality
Upstream and Third Party Projects will cause noise,
potentially affecting habitat continuity and quality
Low
Low
Long-term,
Continuous
Low
Direction6/
Significance7
Pre-ESMP
Mitigation8
Insignificant
Moderate
Moderate
Long-term,
Continuous
High
- MINOR
Upstream and Third Party Projects could cause
erosion and sedimentation, potentially affecting water
quality and aquatic habitat quality
Upstream and Third Party Projects will produce air
and water emissions, potentially causing changes in
water quality, vegetation, and habitat quality
Upstream and Third Party Projects will impact
vegetation (direct loss from construction, long-term
effect of maintenance) causing changes in habitat
continuity, vegetative species and structural
complexity, edge: interior ratio, and habitat quality
Project decommissioning will result in a reduction in
noise, potentially affecting habitat continuity and
habitat quality
Project decommissioning will result in revegetation,
causing changes in habitat continuity, vegetative
and habitat quality
Potential future gas exploration and development
could cause noise, potentially affecting habitat
continuity and habitat quality
Moderate
Moderate
Mediumterm,
Sporadic
High
- MINOR
Moderate
Moderate
Long-term,
Continuous
Low
- MINOR
Moderate
Moderate
Long-term,
Continuous
High
MODERATE
- MINOR with
vegetation
mitigation
measures and
monitoring
Moderate
Moderate
Long-term,
Continuous
High
NEUTRAL
NEUTRAL
Moderate
Moderate
Long-term,
Continuous
High
High
Moderate
Short-term,
Sporadic
High
NEUTRAL –
restoration of
disturbed
areas
Insignificant
NEUTRAL with
monitoring to
ensure native
revegetation
Insignificant
Pathway
1
Scope
2
Magnitude
Page 87 of 134
Duration/
Frequency3,4
5
Likelihood
Significance
Post-ESMP
Mitigation
Insignificant
- MINOR due to
noise abatement
at Malvinas,
natural noise
attenuation,
helicopter and
boat restrictions
Insignificant with
effective
sediment and
erosion control
- MINOR with
emissions
controls
PERU LNG Project
Links
1r, 2e, 3b
1s, 2h, 3a
1s, 2i, 3a
1s, 2j, 3d
October 12, 2007
1
2
Pathway
Scope
Magnitude
Future gas exploration and development could cause
erosion and sedimentation, potentially affecting water
quality and aquatic habitat quality
Future gas exploration and development could cause
changes in vegetation, habitat continuity, vegetative
and habitat quality
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
1
Duration/
Frequency3,4
Mediumterm,
Sporadic
Long-term,
Continuous
5
Likelihood
High
High
Direction6/
Significance7
Pre-ESMP
Mitigation8
Insignificant
MODERATE
Significance
Post-ESMP
Mitigation
Insignificant
- MODERATE
Scope: low=effects restricted to a small site, moderate=effects restricted to the project footprint or within a few kilometers of the project footprint, high=effects extend throughout the region
Magnitude: low = minimal or no impairment, moderate = measurable effect over the short- to medium term with expected recovery to pre-project conditions, high = measurable effect over the life of the
project or beyond with limited or no expectation for recovery
3
Duration: short term = <1 year or less than one generation), medium term = 1-10 years or one generation, long term = >10 years or one generation
4
Frequency: continuous = operates on a regular basis at regular intervals, sporadic = operates rarely and at irregular intervals
5
Likelihood: low = 0-25% likely, moderate = 25-50% likely, high = 51-100% likely
6
Direction: + = beneficial effect on VEC, - = negative effect on VEC, 0 = neutral effect
7
Significance: Insignificant = minimal or no impairment to VEC and recovery to pre-project conditions expected within 1 year of project construction; Minor = affects less than one percent of the CEA study
area, recovery to pre-project conditions expected within ten years of project decommissioning; Moderate = affects less than one percent of CEA study area, recovery to pre-project conditions expected >
10 years after Project decommissioning; Major = affects more than one percent of CEA and/or recovery to pre-project conditions not expected.
8
Mitigations, as defined in the ESMPs for Blocks 56 and 88. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that future exploration activities in Blocks 57 and 58 will incorporate similar or improved
environmental and social management measures to those implemented in Blocks 56 and 88.
2
Page 88 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Biodiversity and Rare Species VEC
Figure 5.4 provides the pathways diagram for biodiversity and rare species and illustrates the
mechanisms (pathways and linkages) through which the Upstream and Third Party Projects
have the potential to affect biodiversity and rare species. Table 5.15 summarizes the CEA for
each of the pathways illustrated in the biodiversity pathways diagram, and compares the
significance of the primary (pre-mitigation) effects and residual (post-mitigation) effects on
biodiversity and rare species.
The analysis identified eight pathways that could result in cumulative effects on biodiversity
and rare species (Table 5.15). The significance ratings of the eight pathways ranged from
minor (2 pathways) to moderate (6 pathways). Six of the eight pathways could adversely
affect biodiversity and rare species through direct mortality from construction, operation, or
maintenance activities of the existing or proposed projects or through indirect mortality
(reduced fitness from habitat changes, displacement from disturbed areas and associated
increased competition and/or stress). Of the six potentially adverse pathways, two are related
to past seismic operations and the existing Upstream Projects and Block 88, two are related to
the current Upstream Projects, and two are related to potential future development in the
Upstream and Third Party Projects. The remaining two pathways could help restore
biodiversity and rare species in the future (Project decommissioning) through the restoration
of habitat quality and protection of Protected Natural Areas.
The proposed Upstream Projects includes several mitigation measures designed specifically
to minimize the extent of adverse effects on biodiversity and rare species. These measures
include Project design elements such as minimizing the project footprint, consulting with
biodiversity/rare species experts regarding the alignment of the flowlines and power lines,
adopting a no-permanent-roads policy; and implementing specific practices for protecting,
maintaining, and restoring vegetation and wildlife habitat during the construction, operation,
maintenance, and decommissioning phases of the Projects. Other measures such as noise
abatement and erosion and sedimentation control also will minimize the potential effects of the
proposed Projects on biodiversity. In addition to these measures, a comprehensive
Biodiversity Monitoring Program will be carried out to ensure that biological issues are
identified and addressed in a timely and appropriate manner. Implementation of these
measures would reduce the significance ratings of the Project-related pathways from
moderate to minor (Table 5.15).
Page 89 of 134
PERU LNG Project
Figure 5.4
October 12, 2007
Pathway Diagram for Biodiversity and Rare Species VEC
Impact Statement: The synergistic effects of past, current, and future activities have the potential to impact biodiversity in the Lower Urubamba
River region.
Page 90 of 134
PERU LNG Project
Table 5.15
VEC
October 12, 2007
Linkage Validation and Evaluation of Significance of Potential Cumulative Effects on the Biodiversity and Rare Species
1
2
Duration/
Frequency3,4
5
Pathway
Scope
1a, 2a, 3a
1a, 2b, 3c
Prior seismic gas exploration caused direct mortality to
plants and wildlife through operation of machinery and
removal of vegetation, potentially causing local changes
in biodiversity/rare species
existing Upstream and Third Party Projects potentially
caused direct mortality to plants and wildlife through
operation of machinery and removal of vegetation,
resulting in changes to biodiversity/rare species
existing Upstream and Third Party Projects have
potentially caused indirect mortality to plants and wildlife
through changes in habitat quality or induced access,
resulting in changes in biodiversity/rare species
Seismic gas exploration associated with the Upstream
and Third Party Projects could cause direct mortality to
plants and wildlife through operation of machinery and
removal of vegetation, potentially resulting in changes in
biodiversity
Local commerce and subsistence practices result in
direct mortality of plants and wildlife, potentially causing
changes in biodiversity/rare species
Local commerce and subsistence practices may cause
indirect mortality to plants and wildlife through changes
in habitat quality or induced access, potentially resulting
in changes in biodiversity/rare species
Moderate
Low
Short-term,
Sporadic
High
Moderate
Moderate
Mediumterm,
Continuous
High
MODERATE
-MINOR
Moderate
Moderate
Mediumterm,
Continuous
High
MODERATE
-MINOR
Moderate
Low
Short-term,
Sporadic
High
Insignificant
Insignificant
Low
Low
Long-term,
Continuous
High
Insignificant
Insignificant
Low
Low
Long-term,
Continuous
High
Insignificant
Insignificant
1d, 2c, 3a
1d, 2e, 3c
1d, 2d, 3b
1e, 2a, 3a
1e, 2b, 3c
1g, 2a, 3a
1g, 2b, 3c
1h, 2c, 3a
1h, 2d, 3b
1h, 2e, 3c
Page 91 of 134
Likelihood
Significance
Post-ESMP
Mitigation
Links
1c, 2a, 3a
1c, 2b, 3c
Magnitude
Direction6
and
Significance
PreMitigation7
Insignificant
Insignificant
PERU LNG Project
Links
October 12, 2007
Pathway
Scope1
Magnitude2
Duration/
Frequency3,4
Likelihood5
Direction6
and
Significance
PreMitigation7
MODERATE
1j, 2a, 3a
1j, 2b, 3c
Construction and maintenance of the Upstream and
Third Party Projects will cause direct mortality to plants
and immobile wildlife through operation of machinery
and removal of vegetation, potentially affecting
biodiversity/ rare species
Moderate
Moderate
Mediumterm,
Continuous
High
1k, 2c, 3a
1k, 2d, 3b
1k, 2e, 3c
Upstream and Third Party Projects may cause indirect
mortality to plants and wildlife through changes in
habitat quality or induced access, potentially causing
changes in biodiversity/rare species
Moderate
Moderate
Mediumterm,
Continuous
High
MODERATE
1l, 2a, 3a
1l, 2b, 3c
Project decommissioning would eliminate project-related
mortality of plants and wildlife by eliminating the
operation of machinery and maintenance of vegetation,
potentially resulting in changes in biodiversity/rare
species
Moderate
Moderate
Long-term,
Continuous
High
NEUTRAL
1m, 2c, 3a
1m, 2d, 3b
Project decommissioning could improve habitat quality
and reduce access to project areas, potentially resulting
in changes in biodiversity/rare species
Moderate
Moderate
Long-term,
Continuous
High
NEUTRAL
Page 92 of 134
Significance
Post-ESMP
Mitigation
-MINOR with
vegetation
mitigation
measures and
monitoring of
vegetation,
wildlife, and
rare species
-MINOR with
vegetation
mitigation and
monitoring of
vegetation,
wildlife, and
rare species,
noise
abatement, and
sediment and
erosion control
NEUTRAL with
native
revegetation,
invasive
species control,
and monitoring
NEUTRAL with
native
revegetation
and monitoring
and invasive
species control
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Links
Pathway
1o, 2a, 3a
1o, 2b, 3c
Future gas exploration and development may cause
direct mortality to plants and wildlife through operation
of machinery and removal of vegetation, potentially
resulting in changes in biodiversity/rare species
Future gas exploration and development may cause
indirect mortality to through changes in habitat quality or
induced access, potentially resulting in changes in
biodiversity/rare species
1p, 2c, 3a
1p, 2d, 3b
1p, 2e, 3c
Magnitude2
Duration/
Frequency3,4
Likelihood5
High
Moderate
Long-term,
Continuous
Moderate
High
Moderate
Long-term,
Continuous
Moderate
Scope1
Note: Definitions of terms used in this table are presented as footnotes to Table 5.14.
Page 93 of 134
Direction6
and
Significance
PreMitigation7
MODERATE
MODERATE
Significance
Post-ESMP
Mitigation
-MODERATE
-MODERATE
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
To determine if a pathway (and resulting effect) was cumulative, it was considered whether
the magnitude or scope of the effect could increase significantly if combined with other
significant effects within the Lower Urubamba Region (Table 5.16). This involved an
assessment of whether past, current, and future effects could act cumulatively within the
region (e.g. could past or future effects add to the effects of the proposed Upstream Projects),
the significance of the effect relative to the region (e.g. percent of the region that could be
affected), and the permanency of the effects.
The analysis identified three cumulative effects on habitat quality and biodiversity: changes in
vegetation and habitat quality, direct and indirect plant and animal mortality, and changes in
wildlife use (Table 5.16).
Changes in Vegetation and Habitat Quality`
The structure, species composition, and contiguity of vegetative communities are important
biological factors determining habitat quality in the Lower Urubamba region. During seismic
exploration, direct disturbance of vegetation associated with construction of mobile camps and
helipads was localized, yet diffuse throughout the project area. The impacted areas were not
close enough to overlap with each other and the sites are currently being restored and
revegetated. Thus, seismic exploration likely contributed little to ongoing cumulative effects
on vegetation communities and habitat quality in the Lower Urubamba region.
Potential impacts associated with the drilling and flowline components of the proposed
Upstream Projects will be more geographically widespread than impacts associated
with seismic exploration, and will have a greater potential for cumulative effects on
habitat quality. Clearing and maintenance of the well fields and flowline rights-of-way
will disrupt the continuity of the forest (e.g. create forest edge) in the immediate vicinity
of these sites. This impact will be ongoing throughout the life of the projects and will
affect habitat quality and wildlife in these areas by changing microclimate (e.g. greater
sunlight, greater exposure to wind and rain thus changing the vegetation community)
and increasing the potential for introducing human and animal (e.g. edge-specialist
predators and parasites) disturbance. However, the magnitude of the impact will
decrease after construction as most of the cleared areas will be revegetated during
reinstatement. For example, the 20-m wide flowline right-of-way will be reduced to a
5-m maintenance corridor. These changes will cause a shift in the vegetation and
wildlife communities from interior-forest dwelling, disturbance-sensitive species to
edge-dwelling species. This effect will be restricted to the areas surrounding the well
fields and flowlines (0.012% of the LUR), but would act cumulatively with other
vegetation clearing activities (i.e., edge-creating activities) occurring in the Lower
Urubamba region. This effect would occur throughout the life of the projects and
beyond (habitat recovery), but will not be permanent because after Project
decommissioning, any remaining open areas will be replanted with native vegetation
and revert to natural conditions, with limited maintenance activities to promote habitat
quality and prevent the establishment of non-native or exotic species.
Page 94 of 134
PERU LNG Project
Table 5.16
Potential
effect
Changes in
noise
Erosion and
sedimentation
Emissions to
air and water
October 12, 2007
Determination of Cumulative Effects on Habitat Quality and Biodiversity within the Lower Urubamba Region (LUR)
Present
Future
Significance relative
to Project Area
Existing
Upstream
Projects and
Block 88
contribute
noise in the
vicinity of
Malvinas and
along heliand boat
routes.
Boat traffic for
existing
Upstream
Projects and
Block 88
contributes to
erosion and
sedimentation
in Camisea
and
Urubamba
Rivers.
Existing
Upstream
Projects and
Block 88
produce
emissions to
air and water.
Construction
/operation of
proposed
Upstream Projects
will contribute
noise but
mitigation will
minimize this,
reducing the
magnitude of the
effect.
Construction
/operation of
proposed
Upstream projects
should not
contribute to
additional erosion
and sedimentation
if mitigation
measures are
implemented
Potential future
exploration/
development will
contribute noise.
Project
decommissioning will
eliminate project-related
noise, potentially
neutralizing other noise
inputs.
MINOR adverse
cumulative effect on
VECs from noise
associated with
operation of the existing
and proposed projects.
The effect is limited to
the vicinity of Malvinas
and along heli- and
boat routes.
Will revert to preProject conditions
immediately after
decommissioning.
Potential new
exploration/
development could
cause erosion and
sedimentation but
magnitude is unknown.
Project
reduce effects from
related boat traffic.
Insignificant assuming
no effect from proposed
Project (implementation
of effective sediment
and erosion control and
boat speed limitations).
Ongoing effects
from existing project
will cease after
decommissioning.
During of potential
future effects is
unknown.
Negligible
because the
proposed Project
is not expected to
contribute to
erosion and
sedimentation so
it cannot act
cumulatively.
Construction
/operation of
proposed
Upstream Projects
will produce
emissions but
mitigation will
minimize this,
reducing the
magnitude of the
Potential new
development could
cause emissions but
magnitude is unknown.
Project
eliminate related
emissions.
MINOR adverse
cumulative effect on
VECs from emissions
associated with
operation of the existing
and proposed projects.
The effect is minor with
respect to the LUR.
Emissions from
existing and
proposed projects
will cease after
decommissioning.
Negligible due to
minor significance
within LUR and
non-permanent
nature.
Page 95 of 134
Duration
(permanency)
Overall
Cumulative
Effect
Negligible due to
minor significance
within LUR, nonpermanent nature,
and expected
habituation by
some wildlife.
Past
PERU LNG Project
Potential
effect
Past
October 12, 2007
Present
Future
to Project Area
Duration
(permanency)
Overall
Cumulative
Effect
effect.
Changes in
vegetation
Construction
of existing
Upstream
Projects and
Block 88
resulted in
loss and
impairment of
vegetation.
Operation and
maintenance
of projects
has ongoing
impact.
Construction
/operation of
proposed
Upstream Projects
will cause direct
loss and
impairment of
vegetation.
Operation and
maintenance of
projects will have
ongoing impacts
Potential new
exploration/
development will cause
loss/impairment of
vegetation although
magnitude of this effect
is unknown. Project
improve vegetation
conditions through
restoration/revegetation.
Past: direct loss of
forest from existing
Upstream Projects and
Block 88.
Current: 160 ha. of
direct (permanent) loss
of forest from proposed
Upstream Projects
(0.01% of LUR).
Future: unknown
Project lands will
revert to pre-Project
conditions > 10
years after
decommissioning
with implementation
of mitigation
measures. .Lands
affected by past and
future actions may
not revert to preproject conditions.
Direct plant
and animal
mortality
Construction
of existing
Upstream
Projects and
Block 88
caused direct
loss of plants
and wildlife
and reduced
habitat quality
near
disturbed
areas.
Operation and
maintenance
of projects
has ongoing
impact on
Construction of
proposed
Upstream Projects
will cause direct
loss of plants and
wildlife and reduce
habitat quality.
Operation and
maintenance of
projects will have
ongoing impacts
on vegetation and
wildlife habitat.
Potential new
exploration/
development will cause
loss/impairment of plant
and animal populations
in disturbed areas,
although the magnitude
of this effect is
unknown.
The extent of
permanent (direct)
losses of plants and
wildlife is minor due to
localized impact areas
(0.01% of LUR) and so
not expected to result in
population- or
landscape - level
effects. Well
development involves
opening of isolated
patches of forest cover
and will not lead to
significant barrier to
organisms and gene
flow. Flowline
construction involves
Some plants and
animals
permanently
affected but loss is
not expected to
cause populationlevel effects. After
reinstatement, 5-m
maintenance
corridor will remain
during lifetime of
project. This narrow
corridor will be
covered by canopy
within 1-2 decades
and will be
revegetated after
project
Page 96 of 134
MINOR adverse
cumulative effect
due to small effect
within LUR (0.01
% of LUR) and
non-permanent
nature of effects
from proposed
Project. Scale of
total affected
habitat similar to
the area of
cultivated lands
by indigenous
communities
within Block 56.
MINOR adverse
cumulative effect
due to short
duration and small
extent within the
LUR (0.01 % of
LUR).
PERU LNG Project
Potential
effect
Past
October 12, 2007
Present
to Project Area
Future
vegetation
and wildlife
habitat.
Changes in
wildlife use
Operation and
maintenance
of Upstream
Projects and
Block 88 has
ongoing
impacts on
vegetation
and wildlife
habitat and
causes
wildlife
disturbance,
altering
wildlife habitat
use.
Construction of
proposed
Upstream Projects
will reduce habitat
quality in the
vicinity of disturbed
areas. Operation
and maintenance
of project will have
ongoing impact on
vegetation and
wildlife habitat.
Potential new
development will
change wildlife use in
disturbed areas,
although the magnitude
of this effect is
unknown.
Project
improve conditions for
plants and wildlife
through reduced
disturbance and
restoration/revegetation.
temporary 20-m wide
linear disturbance
approximately 30 km in
length.
The area affected by
past and current
projects encompasses
(0.0108 % of LUR).
Page 97 of 134
Duration
(permanency)
Overall
Cumulative
Effect
abandonment.
Displaced wildlife
expected to move to
undisturbed areas
within LUR and
return to affected
areas postdisturbance, habitat
restoration, and/or
project
decommissioning.
MINOR adverse
cumulative effect
due to small effect
within LUR
(0.0108 % of
LUR).
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
The footprints of the existing Upstream and Third Party Projects (primarily in Block 88) and the
proposed Upstream Projects (Block 56) are geographically isolated from each other and so
will not act cumulatively with each other. The Block 56 Pagoreni wells will not be directly
connected to the Block 88 wells by either temporary access roads or flowlines. Also, the
distance between the Block 56 (Pagoreni) and Block 88 (San Martin and Cashiriari) well
areas is no closer than 14 km (in the case of the Pagoreni A and San Martin 2 well locations)
and at such a distance there are no possible cumulative edge effects or noise effects. The
synergistic effects of the main flowlines of the existing Third Party Project and the proposed
Upstream Projects will be most significant between Malvinas and the Camisea River, where
the flowlines are closest to each other. This area has been impacted by past and ongoing
activities associated with the Malvinas plant, but consists of three types of primary forest:
Closed Primary Forest, Semi-closed Primary Forest with bamboo, and Scarce Primary Forest
with bamboo. The only portions of the two pipelines that would be within the same forest type
are approximately 2.25 km of flowline associated with the proposed Upstream Projects and
approximately 1.75 km of existing flowline associated with the existing Upstream and Third
Party Projects . These segments account for less than ten percent of the total flowline length.
East of the Camisea River, the two flowlines are over 6 km apart at their closest point, and are
separated by natural habitat boundaries such as forest type boundaries and watercourses.
The proposed expansion of the Malvinas plant will be limited to already cleared areas and
thus will not contribute to further forest fragmentation in this area.
Due to the scarcity of roads in the Upstream Projects study area, the Camisea and Urubamba
Rivers serve as the primary transportation routes for indigenous communities and other
groups. As such, most aquatic and riparian organisms have adapted to this disturbance. The
Upstream and Third Party Projects will result in increased boat traffic to the area (both directly
and indirectly) during the construction phase and thus contribute to cumulative impacts on
aquatic and riparian biodiversity, but the magnitude of this impact will be minimal since the
aquatic and riparian ecosystems in the region have been subject to regular human influence
for decades and the potential project related impact will be of short duration.
Direct and Indirect Mortality
The Upstream and Third Party Projects will cause direct plant and animal mortality by
removing organisms within the footprint of the seismic investigation sites during the
exploration phase and well sites, power line and flowline alignments, and the expansion area
of the Malvinas plant during the construction phase. The Upstream and Third Party Projects
will also have the potential to cause indirect mortality by temporarily fragmenting habitat and
displacing organisms from their existing ranges. The most significant source of direct
mortality associated with the Upstream and Third Party Projects will be mortality of organisms
that are unable to avoid injury from terrestrial machinery and boats. Small, cryptic wildlife
have the most potential to be killed by machinery because their natural response mechanism
to stress is often to hide in place rather than flee. Larger wildlife tend to flee in response to
disturbance, which will likely reduce the incidence of direct mortality associated with
construction on these species assuming these organisms are able to detect disturbance prior
to being wounded or killed. Although flight could increase indirect mortality through stress, in
healthy organisms the flight response is typically triggered at sub-lethal stress thresholds, so
increases in indirect mortality from machinery will not likely be significant.
Changes in Wildlife Use
Insects, small rodents, and other fauna with relatively small home ranges will be minimally
impacted by habitat fragmentation because they will have a relatively small chance of having
their home ranges impacted by the project activities. Conversely, large mammals with
expansive home ranges, animals that are highly intolerant of human activities, and animals
that undertake large scale migrations as a vital part of their life cycles will have a higher
probability of being impacted by the cumulative effects of habitat fragmentation associated
with installation, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning. The most susceptible
species will be exclusively arboreal, non-avian species that require large home ranges and
Page 98 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
are dependent upon an intact forest canopy to move between patches. The proposed Project
will also affect the distribution of vegetation and fauna by fragmenting habitat and displacing
organisms from their existing ranges. The cumulative impact of these effects will be a
decrease in habitat use by wildlife within the immediate vicinity of Upstream and Third Party
Projects, and potential decreases in wildlife use of habitats adjacent to seismic investigation
sites, helipads, well sites, power line and flowline alignments, helicopter routes, and the
Malvinas plant that will be isolated by deforestation, human activity, or noise.
Cumulative Effects on Protected Natural Areas
The Lower Urubamba Region includes portions or abuts various Protected Natural Areas, as
well their buffer zones (see Figure 3.3 above). Block 56 does not include or abut any
Protected Natural Areas, but does include small portions of the Machiguenga Communal
Reserve Buffer Zone; none of the planned Block 56 project activities are within this buffer
zone.
Much of Block 88 is located within the Nahua-Kugakapori Territorial Reserve (NKTR), which
also corresponds with the buffer zone of the Manu National Park and the Megantoni National
Sanctuary. The San Martin 3, Cashirari 1, and Cahshiriari 2 wells are located within the
NKTR. The Block 88 ESIA was approved in 2002 and in 2004 Pluspetrol implemented a
Compensation Program Block 88 Indigenous Communities, which included compensation for
the activities within the NKTR.
Block 57 includes portions of the Ashaninka Communal Reserve, the Machiguenga Reserve
(MCR), and the NKTR. Block 58 includes a larger portion of the MCR and a smaller part of
the NKTR. It is not known at present where activities within these blocks may be located.
Both of these blocks are also within the buffer zones of their respective Protected Natural
Areas.
The potential adverse cumulative effects of the development of the Upstream and Third Party
Projects on Protected Natural Areas in the absence of adequate controls would be primarily
those related to the increased access to presently remote areas through the construction of a
network of access roads and uncontrolled pipeline/flowline rights-of-way, as well as
fragmentation of continuous forests by these openings. The existing Upstream and Third
Party Projects, however, have incorporated the necessary access controls and revegetation
plans into their ESMPs and it would be reasonable to presume the Peruvian Government
would require similar controls and mitigations from future projects. Potentially beneficial
cumulative effects on Protected Natural Areas are the increased level of scientific studies in
these areas and the potential support for the consolidation and management of the protected
areas generated by the Projects.
5.2.7 Surface Water Quality
Summary of Existing Water Quality
Water quality in the Lower Urubamba region is generally consistent with tropical riverine
systems. The pH distribution in the surface water is typical of the natural pH balance in
tropical forest watersheds. Dissolved oxygen ranges from 7.5-8.3 mg/L, and is typical of well
circulated, oxygenated systems. Conductivity, temperature, and turbidity are also typical of
relatively unimpacted systems. However, it should be noted that during the rainy season
water quality is significantly impacted due to increased natural turbidity. No hydrocarbon
derived compounds were detected in samples from the Urubamba River and its tributaries that
were monitored, indicating that petroleum contamination has not been a concern in surface
waters in the Upstream Projects study area.
Page 99 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Methodology
The potential for cumulative effects on water quality were evaluated by identifying the ways
the project may affect water quality, the water quality parameters that may be affected, the
potential for cumulative effects, and the significance of these effects.
Analysis of Effects
The Upstream and Third Party Projects have the potential to affect water quality in several
ways, including spills and leaks from land-based sources or boat engines, increased turbidity
from erosion of cleared or graded areas, and pollution from stormwater or wastewater
discharges to surface waters.
Upstream and Third Party Projects flowlines could potentially leak or spill hydrocarbons into
surface waters. The flowlines will cross numerous streams and the Camisea River. Methanol
will be used for the cleaning of the pipes, which could also be released accidentally through
spills or leaks to surface waters. Routine inspection and maintenance of the flowline would
minimize the risk of an accidental release of hydrocarbons to the environment. Accidental
releases of hazardous waste, raw materials, or other contaminants from extraction pipes and
pumps into the surface waters of the Lower Urubamba region represent other potential
sources of surface water contamination, but these risks would likewise be mitigated through
routine inspections and maintenance, and the application of best operational and
management practices.
The Upstream and Third Party Projects will generate domestic sewage, sanitary/gray water,
stormwater runoff, and industrial wastewater. Discharges of wastewater generated by the
project activities will be treated and monitored in order to prevent water quality impacts.
Domestic sewage generated at the Project will be treated at an automatic unit for aerobic
digestion. Treated liquids should be monitored prior to discharge. Solids and semisolids from
the treatment plants will be treated and periodically conveyed to sludge beds and then
analyzed for disposition. Sanitary or gray water effluents will be monitored and passed
through a grease trap before being discharged onto the ground surface for natural percolation.
Grease traps will be cleaned as necessary to ensure correct operation. These control
measures should be performed in accordance with the procedure described in the waste
management plan in the ESMP of this study. Waste produced from domestic sewage and
sanitary/gray water should also be disposed of in accordance with procedures outlined in the
waste management plan of the ESMP.
Industrial wastewater from drain lines, equipment containment areas, drainage liquids from
the stabilization zone, from hot oil zone, fuel gas system, slug catcher discharges, launching
and receiving facilities, the cryogenic area, compressors and natural gas liquids (NGL)
storage area, nitrogen generators and air compressors, firewater tank discharges, generators,
and venting systems will be piped to water separators where hydrocarbons and other
contaminants will be removed. The separated wastewater will then be diverted to a dedicated
industrial wastewater treatment and discharge system. Stormwater runoff from mud and fuel
storage areas will accumulate in an external collector system installed around the drilling
platform and conveyed to a skimmer where oil will be recovered and retained in absorbent
material, then stored in cylinders for transport and final disposition. After being monitored for
discharge, stormwater runoff will be sent to the industrial wastewater treatment system.
All wastewater and stormwater from industrial areas will be treated before discharge to the
stream system. During project operations, the number of employees at the Malvinas Gas
Separation Plant is relatively small (approximately 20) and therefore the amount of at least
domestic wastewater will also be small. Erosion control measures will be implemented for
disturbed area, and these areas will be promptly revegetated to minimize the potential for
sediment to reach the stream system. The ESMP includes contingency plans that would be
implemented in case of any spill, runoff, or leak to recover spilled material and decrease the
potential cumulative effects of any spills.
Page 100 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
During the construction phase of the Malvinas Gas Separation Plant expansion project, water
from the Urubamba River will be used for consumption and other camp necessities. This river
has a minimum flow of approximately 400 m3/s during the dry season.
At present, the peak demand for water use at Malvinas plant does not exceed 0.002 m3/s.
During construction, demand is expected to reach a maximum of 0.005 m3/s, or 0.00125% of
the Urubamba River’s minimum discharge, a negligible percentage of the flow. Peak water
use during construction is anticipated to not exceed 0.0025 m3/s. While this represents a 20%
increase over current peak use rates, the increased volume of water utilized is imperceptible
even at minimum flow stages of the Urubamba, representing approximately 0.000125% of the
minimum river flow.
The increased uptake of river water for use during the construction and operation of the
proposed gas plant expansion will have insignificant impacts on the availability of Urubamba
River water for downstream use by local communities. As described in the ESIA (Chapter 4,
Section 8.2.1), most of the communities obtain water for domestic uses from smaller
tributaries to the Urubamba, not from the Urubamba main stream.
Surface runoff discharges from the 7.77-km2 Las Malvinas Micro-basin were estimated by the
application of hydrologic balance model, followed by a first-order Markovian simulation. The
estimated annual average runoff volume was 16.777 million cubic meters for the entire Las
Malvinas Micro-basin, with a seasonal variable discharge rate ranging from 0.093 m3/s in
August to 1.103 m3/s in December (see Appendix E).
All of the runoff from the Las Malvinas Micro-basin is discharged into the Urubamba directly
and the micro-basin does not contribute to the local streams utilized by downstream
communities. When compared to the estimated surface runoff rates from the Las Malvinas
Micro-basin itself, the projected water uses during construction and operations represent
approximately 5.4% and 2.7% of the minimum estimated micro-basin discharge, respectively.
Thus, when compared to even the dry season flows, the anticipated peak surface water uses
during the construction and operation of the gas plant expansion project are minimal at the
micro-scale and undetectable at scale of the Urubamba River itself.
Previous water quality monitoring has not identified any significant water quality impacts from
work associated existing Upstream and Third Party Projects, although in a few cases, there
were excursions from effluent standards. It is expected that exploration activities for future
Third Party Projects will be conducted in a manner similar to that proposed by the ESMPs for
the proposed Upstream Projects and the existing Third Party Project and that similar or
improved protection and mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, based on the
surface water monitoring results for existing Upstream and Third Party Projects, the presence
of contingency plans, and the quantity and quality of discharges anticipated, it is concluded
that the significance of the cumulative effects on water quality would be minor.
5.2.8 Air Emissions
Existing Context
In general, the air quality in the Upstream Projects study area is excellent and complies with
Peruvian and international standards.
Methodology
In order to evaluate potential cumulative effects of the Upstream and Third Party Projects, all
existing and proposed emission sources were inventoried and quantified. The primary
emission source in the Upstream Projects study area is the existing Malvinas Gas Separation
Plant and proposed expansion, including the sum of gas emissions from new equipment (the
addition of generators, compressors and furnaces) that will be a part of the operations. Table
5.17 shows the list of emission sources and their spatial and temporal occurrences.
Page 101 of 134
PERU LNG Project
Table 5.17
#
October 12, 2007
Upstream Projects study area emission inventory
Emission Source
Stage
1
Aerial Transportation by helicopters
Mainly during
construction and
decommissioning
Mainly during
construction and
Malvinas Gas
Separation Plant
operation
Construction
2
Fluvial traffic
3
The use of heavy equipment such as
cranes, forklifts, front lifts, motor grader,
belts, etc.
4
Incinerator of organics waste
Operation
5
Incinerator of industrial waste
Operation
6
The operation of six turbo generators
Operation
7
The operation of five turbo-compressors
Operation
8
The operation of six furnace (Hot oil)
Operation
Analysis of Effects
The Upstream and Third Party Projects would have temporary air emissions during
exploration and construction phases associated with construction equipment and
transportation (e.g., helicopters, small aircraft, and boats); mentioned activities would not have
significant cumulative effects.
The expansion of the Malvinas Gas Separation Plant as part of the proposed Upstream
Projects will have cumulative effects on air quality in combination with the existing facility built
in conjunction with Block 88. The identified generated emissions are: CO2, SO2, combustion
gases like carbon monoxide, nitrogen and sulfur oxides, particulate matter (CO, NOx, SO2,
PM), volatile organic compounds (VOC´s), and products from the fuel used.
Significant air quality effects are defined as those that exceed ambient air quality standards.
The air emissions from the Malvinas Gas Separation Plant were evaluated using an air
dispersion model (which is included as part of the Block 56 ESIA SLIP, The results
demonstrate that the emissions from the Malvinas Gas Separation Plant would comply with
World Bank and Peruvian air quality standards. The emissions from the Malvinas Gas
Separation Plant represent almost all of the emissions caused by the collective Upstream and
Third Party Projects. Therefore, the overall cumulative effects of the Upstream and Third
Party Projects on air quality would be minor.
Page 102 of 134
PERU LNG Project
6.0
October 12, 2007
CONCLUSIONS
The CEA concludes that, of the 29 Third Party Projects identified as existing, proposed or
reasonably foreseeable for the PERU LNG Projects, only four are likely to have any
interaction with the PERU LNG Projects. None of the four is likely to have a significant
medium or long term impact on any VEC identified in the region.
A number of short term impacts have been identified for a new road construction that crosses
the pipeline route, and for an irrigation project near the village of Seccelabras (KP 71 +267).
However, existing project mitigation measures and management plans, if properly executed,
should be sufficient to limit the adverse effects of these impacts to low to negligible levels.
The CEA also assessed the potential effects of the interaction of the TgP Pipeline, and access
roads and temporary facilities. In general, the cumulative effects of these interactions are
likely to be more significant that those resulting from the Third Party Projects.
Three areas of potential cumulative impact were identified in relation to the TgP Pipeline.
They were:
•
Erosion and sedimentation
•
Sensitive ecosystems, habitats and species
•
Landscape
Of these, the potential effects on ecosystems and their components could be significant as
they involve internationally important habitats (bofedales) and several listed species (birds and
plants). Additional investigation may be warranted in conjunction with the findings of the
recently completed pre-construction ecological field survey, to develop enhanced mitigation
measures to minimize damage and disturbance, improve the prospects of successful
biorestoration, and collectively manage these tasks.
The use of existing access roads and temporary facilities, and particularly the construction
and development of new ones, will result in a number of environmental and social outcomes.
The significance of these outcomes cannot be assessed in specific terms until a final inventory
of roads and facilities has been determined, as the contractor will have the flexibility to create
additional access within a formal assessment and approval framework. Nevertheless, this
CEA has identified a number of relevant issues that have formed the basis of an initial
assessment of potential impacts. These are:
•
Loss and restricted use of land
•
Disruption to local traffic
•
Induced access
•
Noise and dust
•
Community safety
•
Reinstatement
Of these, the management of noise and dust, community safety and reinstatement are either
covered in the ESIA in terms of mitigation or in the more recent Contractor Management
Plans.
Loss and restricted use of land issues is understood to have been addressed in a recently
completed Land Acquisition and Compensation Management Plan.
The remaining two issues - disruption to local traffic and induced access – are potentially
significant; however, as they very much depend on local circumstances, they must be
assessed on a case-by-case basis. This in turn will depend on the final choice of access
roads and facilities.
Page 103 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
The assessment concludes that no cumulative effects are likely in relation to the LNG Plant or
the quarry. This reflects the lack of evident interactions with other projects.
The CEA concludes that the cumulative effects arising from interactions with the Port of San
Martin and Paracas Bay are considered to be low, given the distance from the LNG Projects,
and the relatively low increase in marine traffic associated with the LNG Projects through the
Port of San Martin and Paracas Bay.
No significant, unavoidable cumulative effects on the area’s archaeological or cultural
resources are envisaged on the basis that there is little chance of an adverse cumulative
effect from the third party projects due to the absence of any spatial overlap (except maybe at
one point with the Rio Cachi project). There could be an argument for a ‘nibbling’ cumulative
effect with respect to new access roads etc.; however, a Late/Chance Finds procedure will
allow any damage to be avoided. In this regard it should be noted that:
•
The Project Footprint CMP includes provision for a Project Cultural Heritage Manager
and a Field Cultural Heritage Manager and Supervisor –presumably to deal with
Chance Finds.
•
A Temporary Work Suspension Notice may be issued by PERU LNG to Contractor
where violations of Project environmental, community affairs, cultural heritage or
health and safety commitments are identified during monitoring.
If there is a cumulative effect it is likely to be positive as the knowledge / understanding factor
will be increased following the discovery of new artifacts, but again for reasons outlined
above, uncertainties remain.
With regard to the Upstream Projects, the CEA concludes that numerous cumulative effects
arising from interactions with Blocks 57, 58 and 88 exist, including cumulative effects on social
resources, biological resources, water quality, and air quality. The analysis indicates that the
cumulative effects on biological resources, Protected Natural Areas, water quality and air
quality would be minor. Cumulative effects are expected to impact social resources,
especially at the local community level; however, with mitigation, the Project’s adverse
cumulative effects on social resources are considered moderate to minor.
Finally, from a regional and national perspective, the PERU LNG Projects are expected to
have a net positive cumulative impact as a result of a combination of factors: tax revenues,
royalties, job creation and export revenues. The regional significance of the job creation
opportunities and any inward investment resulting from community or environmental
investment programs could serve as an important stimulus given the depressed socioeconomic condition of the study area.
Page 104 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
7.0
RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1
PERU LNG Projects Study Area
As a result of this CEA, the following recommendations are presented for the PERU LNG
Projects study area. These recommendations apply to PERU LNG.
1.
Erosion and sedimentation:
a) The cumulative effects of erosion and sedimentation could be particularly important
between Acocro-Vinchos and Taccra-Huancacasa, where moderately to very steep
mountain slopes will be crossed and where revegetation of the TgP ROW has
been challenging. Areas such as this, where the two pipeline ROWs run very close
to each other, warrant attention in order to monitor erosion control and resultant
sedimentation issues associated with the earlier construction and to implement
effective measures to avoid cumulative effects from the new construction. PERU
LNG should develop an erosion and sedimentation monitoring plan, specifically in
areas where the PERU LNG pipeline is routed near the existing TgP pipeline.
b) In areas where rilling and gullying are evident, or are showing signs of
development, PERU LNG should develop a remediation plan, with the objective of
stabilizing the land surface in affected areas, if possible in association with TgP.
This will not only minimize existing direct local and downstream impacts, it will also
pre-empt potential cumulative effects that will likely occur when the PERU LNG
pipeline is installed, as well as limit the threats to the integrity of both lines.
2.
Sensitive ecosystems, habitats and species:
The following actions are recommended:
a) PERU LNG should assess the applicability, technical feasibility and potential
benefits of establishing seasonal constraints on construction activities in bofedales
to minimize intrusion during the mating and nesting period of the Cinclodes
palliatus. Associated with this assessment should be a review of the
hydrodynamics of these systems to determine the optimum timing of construction
and restoration, while taking account of the biological life cycle of the Cinclodes
concentrating on leking, mating, nesting and rearing sites and requirements.
b) PERU LNG should conduct pre and post construction surveys of Cinclodes
palliatus and Poospiza rubecula.
c) PERU LNG should assess the potential for, and benefit of, micro-re-routes, taking
account of the results of the above activities.
d) PERU LNG should review TgP’s success and challenges associated with
construction and restoration activities in wetland habitats, and reflect these in
appropriate method statements and monitoring programs.
e) PERU LNG should assess the potential for wetland offsets or offset programs, in
order to compensate for areas that cannot be avoided.
f)
PERU LNG should assess the feasibility and value of establishing a seed collection
and or translocation program for Aralia soratensis, Carica candicans, Chersodoma
arequipensis, Ephedra rupestris, Kageneckia lanceolata, Polylepis racemosa and
Puya raimondii, seven plant species listed by IUCN and / or INRENA as Critical,
and known to occur in the vicinity of the pipeline corridor.
Page 105 of 134
PERU LNG Project
3.
October 12, 2007
Landscape
a) In inhabited areas where the TgP and PERU LNG corridors run adjacent to one
another and where biorestoration of the TgP corridor has not been as successful
as hoped, PERU LNG should gauge community feelings towards the visual (and
other) impact of the resulting landscape feature. PERU LNG should use this
information to review proposed local community consultation plans, community
liaison personnel resources and deployment arrangements, and reinstatement
plans.
b) PERU LNG should determine the successes and failures of the construction/
reinstatement effort in these areas. PERU LNG should modify Construction
Management Plans and Contractor Environmental and Social Implementation
Plans accordingly, to the extent that the contractual process will allow. Otherwise,
PERU LNG should explore alternative avenues for incorporating Lessons Learned
into practice.
4.
Disruption to local communities
PERU LNG should assess local community transport and travel needs and alternatives
where narrow, single point access roads prevent or seriously impede simultaneous
flow of two-way traffic. This activity should be completed before commencement of
construction activities. In the event that additional land is required for unplanned
access roads and facilities, it is recommended that this issue be addressed as part of
the formal application prescribed in the PFCMP.
5.
Loss and restricted use of land
a) Consider practicality and contractual options for PERU LNG Project Land and
Easement Acquisition Teams assuming responsibility for all land acquisition,
compensation, hand-back, and livelihood monitoring activities associated with
additional land take, rather than construction contractors. At the very least,
Construction contractor land acquisition activities should be closely monitored by
PERU LNG, if possible in association with TgP.
b) PERU LNG should develop a process to locate absent owners (should they exist)
well in advance of the need to acquire land.
c) PERU LNG should ensure that all types of proprietary interest in land (ownership,
lease, customary and usufruct use, third party use rights, etc) are fully understood
and that the bases for acquiring rights over these (and related compensation
requirements) are fully understood, recognizing that clear legal title to land and
property does not always exist.
d) If private landowners or users are to be involved in transactions with Contractors,
PERU LNG should offer legal assistance, such as through NGOs or other sources.
e) PERU LNG should keep logs of all new site locations cross reference to pre activity
photo log, GPS site boundary co-ordinates, “mini ESIA” etc as per the PFCMP.
f)
PERU LNG procedures should be clear and transparent.
g) PERU LNG should collect appropriate baseline data: livelihood restoration
/compensation is only as good as the social and economic data upon which it is
based.
h) PERU LNG should establish grievance mechanisms and communicate these to all
communities and land owners.
Page 106 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
i)
PERU LNG should consider using NGOs/third parties to monitor transactions with
the Contractor, and provide support and assistance as needed to any private
parties these may involve.
j)
Under no circumstances should PERU LNG commence land acquisition without
knowing how land will be handed back upon construction completion, and how
restrictions of use will be applied.
k) PERU LNG should not pay excessively high compensation or deliver overly
generous compensatory benefits – this leads to envy between beneficiaries and
non-beneficiaries, increases the risk of creating conflict/opening divisions within
and between communities, and provides increased incentive to fabricate false or
spurious compensation claims.
6.
Induced access
Once the final access road and temporary facility inventory is known, PERU LNG
should assess resources that might be compromised by induced access. (See also
Recommendation 7 below) and develop appropriate mitigation measures.
7.
Reinstatement criteria for temporary access roads and facilities
PERU LNG should establish clear reinstatement criteria for temporary access roads
and facilities in advance of any construction works and incorporate these in relevant
Contractor Management Plans and contractor method work statements.
8.
Access Strategy
a) PERU LNG should prepare a strategy for access roads and temporary facilities in
order to reconcile the potentially conflicting objectives of:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Biorestoration;
Erosion control;
Livelihood restoration;
Emergency response;
Repair and maintenance;
Community expectations;
Inspections and surveillance;
Security;
Local community adherence to land use restrictions; and
Induced access.
b) PERU LNG should integrate this strategy with equivalent ROW strategies.
7.2
The CEA made the following recommendations for the Upstream Projects study area.
Pluspetrol
1.
Social Resources:
a) In order to prevent or minimize the cumulative effects associated with ingress to
primary rainforest, fragmentation of ecosystems, illegal hunting and interference
with cultural norms, etc., Pluspetrol should develop and implement an Access
Control Plan in partnership with stakeholders in the local community. The plan
Page 107 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
should include provisions for regular monitoring to measure the effectiveness of the
avoidance, mitigation and management measures identified in the plan. The
implementation of such a plan would also minimize the depletion of natural
resources and reduced access to traditional hunting, gathering and fishing areas.
b) Pluspetrol should ensure that the local people have access to periodic medical
examinations in order to minimize increases in morbidity and mortality from the
spread of endemic diseases; and in to minimize increases in morbidity and
mortality from the introduction and spread of sexually-transmitted diseases
(HIV/AIDS, syphilis, and Hepatitis B) resulting from the influx of workers.
c) All Pluspetrol mitigations and commitments relating to indigenous peoples should
be incorporated into a comprehensive Indigenous Peoples Development Plan.
2.
Biological Resources
a) Pluspetrol should develop and implement a Clearing and Deforestation Control
Plan and a Fauna Rescue and Relocation Plan in order to minimize changes in
vegetation and direct plant and animal mortality.
3.
Water Quality
a) Pluspetrol should develop a Cuttings Pit Management Plan should be developed in
order to minimize potential impacts to water quality.
b) Pluspetrol should conduct appropriate maintenance and reinstatement of
temporary access roads, water body crossings and special crossings in order to
minimize impacts to water quality.
Government of Peru - Regional Planning and Coordination
In addition to standard good practices and Environmental, Social, and Health & Safety
management plans already proposed by Pluspetrol as part of their project-specific ESIAs and
ESMPs, there is a great need for a regional planning and coordination function to address
potential cumulative impacts of future Upstream and Third Party Projects in the Lower
Urubamba Region. The Peruvian government is best placed to fulfil this function.
a) At the time this CEA was prepared, a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
for the Lower Urubamba Region was being prepared by the Peruvian Ministry of
Energy and Mines. The Peruvian Government should compare the SEA, when
finished, with the PERU LNG CEA to identify areas of overlap. This would provide
potential opportunities for improvement for both documents. A workshop should be
held to discuss the SEA and CEA findings and foster dialogue and alignment
among the stakeholders.
b) Other oil and gas companies that may operate in neighboring blocks should be
required to implement congruent, coordinated Access Control Plans to ensure that
methods, including those used for monitoring are adequately designed to identify
regional trends and issues. The Peruvian Government’s regulatory authorities are
ideally positioned to provide the overarching view on issues affecting the region. It
is therefore recommended that neighboring operators be engaged by the
appropriate Peruvian Government authorities to promote a regional approach to
access control and biodiversity monitoring efforts, and to support Peruvian
Government initiatives where mutually beneficial to all stakeholders. Such a
regional approach would go a long way in reducing risks of social unrest due to
inconsistent criteria applied by several different project companies, in reducing
impacts to isolated indigenous communities at a regional scale and in reducing
disruptions of communities’ traditional institutional organizations due to competing,
inconsistent and uncoordinated efforts and initiatives by several project companies.
Page 108 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
c) The Peruvian Government should mandate that river traffic and helicopter flights
adhere to industry best practice to minimize conflict between local communities
and the gas extraction projects. Noise monitoring should also be consistently
applied.
d) It is recommended that all the companies involved in current and future
hydrocarbon extraction in the different blocks within the Upstream Projects study
area implement Grievance Procedures. The implementing companies should
coordinate such that these procedures are consistent across the entire region.
Similarly, social investment in the region could be made more efficient if all of the
companies working in the region would coordinate their efforts. It is also
recommended that each company develop its own Community Relations Plan and
Code of Conduct. Periodic medical examinations for personnel, measures to
control waste and stagnant water management and development of sanitary
barriers and pest control to avoid the introduction of foreign flora and fauna to the
region should also be implemented by each company. Other actions such as soil
restoration, erosion control and revegetation plans, the preparation and
implementation of hazardous substance management plans, and implementation
of camp policies are best managed by each company individually. The companies
operating in the region may have already developed or implemented some of these
measures; therefore a collaborative effort among all stakeholders in the form of
coordination meetings should be arranged and led by the Peruvian Government.
e) The Peruvian Government should foster an expansion of the Camisea Biodiversity
Monitoring Program (BMP) to a regional scale to cover the blocks in the Lower
Urubamba Region, including Blocks 57 and 58. These blocks should be
incorporated into the BMP during the Environmental Baseline phase of their
respective Environmental and Social Impact Assessment processes, with
assurance that the baseline data collection is consistent with the BMP in order to
provide comparable baseline data for reference during future monitoring.
Page 109 of 134
PERU LNG Project
8.0
October 12, 2007
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beanlands, G.E., and Duinker. 1983. An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact
Assessment in Canada, Institute for Resources and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie
University.
ERM. 2001. Estudio de Impacto Ambiental del Proyecto Desarrollo del Yacimiento de Gas
de Camisea – Lote 88. ERM Peru: Lima.
http://www.minem.gob.pe/archivos/camisea/estudios/proyectocamisea/proyectocami.htm
ERM. 2004. Estudio de Impacto Ambiental y Social Lote 56. ERM Peru. Lima.
http://www.minem.gob.pe/archivos/camisea/estudios/pluspetrol/pluspetrol.htm
ERM. 2004. Block 56 Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Supplemental Lender
Information Package.
ERM. 2004. Cumulative Marine and Road Traffic Analysis, Port of San Martin/Paracas Bay.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 1999. Cumulative Effects Assessment
Practitioners Guide, prepared by Hegmann, G., C. Cocklin, R. Creasey, S. Dupuis, A.
Kennedy, L. Kingsley, W. Ross, H. Spaling and D. Stalker (AXYS Environmental Consulting
Ltd. and the CEA Working Group). CEAA. Ottawa. http://www.ceaaacee.gc.ca/013/0001/0004/index_e.htm
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2003. Canadian Environmental Assessment
Act. CEAA: Ottawa. (http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/013/act_e.htm)
Gamboa Balbín, C. 2005. Grupos culturales en la Amazonía peruana: análisis jurídico sobre
las reservas territoriales del Estado a favor de pueblos indígenas en aislamiento voluntario y
en contacto inicial. Derecho y Cambio Social 2(6).
http://www.derechoycambiosocial.com/revista006/CARATULA.htm
IFC (2001): Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan.
Knight Piésold (2003): Environmental and Social Monitoring and Auditing of the
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Natural and Gas Liquids Transportation
Systems Camisea. Monthly report - February 2003
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005): Ecosystems and Human Well Being. Island
Press
Mittermeier, R. A., P. Robles Gil, M. Hoffman, J. Pilgrim, T. Brooks, C. Goettsch Mittermeier,
J. Lamoreux & G. A. B. da Fonseca. 2005. Hotspots revisited: Earth’s biologically richest
and most endangered terrestrial ecosystems. Conservation International: Washington, D.C.
Narayan, D, Chambers, R, Shah, M.K., and Petesch, 2000: Voices of the Poor: Crying out for
Change, Oxford University Press, NY, 314 pp
Narayan, D, Chambers, R, Shah, M.K., and Petesch, 1999: Global Synthesis: Consultations
with the Poor, World Bank, Washington DC, 41pp
PERU LNG (2007): Ecological Field Survey for The PERU LNG Natural Gas Pipeline Project;
Prepared with assistance from: Domus Consultoría Ambiental
Renard-Casevitz, F.-M. (org.). 2004. Yavireri inti Yayenshi igíane = El dios Yabireri y su
cargado Yayenshi. Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos: Lima.
Sears, R. 2001. Southwest Amazon moist forests (NT0166).
http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/nt/nt0166_full.html
Shoobridge, D. 2004. Perfil de Área Protegida - Perú: Reserva Comunal Machiguenga.
ParksWatch. http://www.parkswatch.org/parkprofiles/pdf/macr_spa.pdf.
Technical Secretary of the National Agreement (2006): National Agreement: Report on the
policies of the State
Page 110 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
United Nations Environmental Program. 1993. Convention on Biological Diversity. 1760
United Nations Treaty Series 143, 31 I.L.M. 818.
Walsh Peru S.A. (2005): ESIA Natural Gas Transportation Project, Project No. PET 1239
Walsh Peru S.A. (2007): Cumulative Environmental and Social Effects Assessment, Project
No. PET 1312, January 2007
World Resources Institute (2000): World Resources 2000-2001, People and Ecosystems, The
fraying Web of Life, UNDP, UNEP, World Bank, WRI
Page 111 of 134
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
APPENDIX A
Table A1: MATRIX OF IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS FOR THE
FIRST COMPONENT OF THE STUDY AREA
(Prepared by Walsh Peru S.A., 2007)
Number
Name of the Project Area of intervention Description
Time of
execution
Financial entity
Primary sources
of Information
Environmental Impacts Social Impacts
(Direct)
(Direct)
PROVINCE OF LIMA
1
2
21
22
EL PLATANAL
INTEGRAL
PROJECT
Upper part of
Cañete and Yauyos
CONCÓN –
TOPARÁ 22
Uncultivated lands
of the Concón –
Topara Valley.
Between the valley
of Chincha and
Cañete. The
project is located in
the Coastal area,
on top of recent
The project will
have regulating
reservoirs in the
Paucar Cocha
lagoon and in the
catchments
Capillucas. In
addition, it is
expected to
generate 270 MW
and irrigate the
uncultivated
Pampa21 of
Concón-Topará
between Cañete
and Chincha
The project aims
to regularize,
through the
Ministry of
Agriculture, the
sale of an area of
22,159.9960
hectares that was
purchased
In process
In study
PRIVATE
Joint
investment
(Cementos
Lima,
Cementos
Andino and
Banco de
Crédito)
Public
Large lands where water is not available and that cannot be used for agricultural purposes.
Related to the integrated project El Platanal. This project is being assessed by all future governments.
Page 112 of 134
OSINERG
(Peruvian Energy
Investment
Supervisory
Agency)
Municipality of
Chincha
Its environmental
impacts are far away
from the surrounding
area of the gas pipeline
(it is located t more than
20 Km from the
pipeline). Smaller
impacts are expected
due to earth works
during pipeline
construction and the
implementation of water
reservoirs.
Its social impacts are
far away from the
gas pipeline area.
The project will
change the
ecological and socioeconomic conditions,
mainly because the
main activity is
subsistence
agricultural and that
the generation of
power will improve
the quality of life.
Environmental impacts
are within the gas
pipeline area. The
project is located in the
Coastal area, on top of
recent alluvial deposits.
Soils can be used for
permanent crops. It is
characterized by scarce
Social impacts are
within the gas
pipeline area. Social
conflicts are
expected due to the
dissatisfaction of the
settlers regarding the
expectations raised
by the likely creation
PERU LNG Project
Number
October 12, 2007
alluvial deposits.
Soils can be used
for permanent
crops. It is
characterized by
scarce or no
vegetation with
saline and
permeable soils,
forming sensitive
ecosystems.
Time of
execution
Financial entity
Primary sources
of Information
directly
(i.e. Not the
usual procedure)
for the project’s
benefit.
(Direct)
(Direct)
and use of
or no vegetation with
agricultural lands23.
saline and permeable
soils, forming sensitive
As a result of the
ecosystems.
lack of an agreement
regarding clearly
Smaller environmental
defined borders in
the jurisdiction
due to the movement of between the
machinery and the
provinces of Cañete
generation of noise and and Chincha,
dust.
conflicts are
expected.
PROVINCE OF ICA
3
RELOCATION OF
THE TURBO GAS
EQUIPMENT
FROM
MOLLENDO
THERMAL POWER
STATION TO
INDEPENDENCIAPISCO
District of
Independencia,
Province of Pisco,
Province of Ica
Relocation of the
Turbogas units
that are currently
in the Mollendo
Thermal Power
Station.
A pipeline will be
constructed to
connect the
Thermal Power
Station to the
Camisea main
pipeline.
September
2006
(In study)
Arequipa
Energy
Generation
Company
(EGEA)
Regional
Directorate of
Energy and
Mines-Ica
are within the gas
pipeline area. The
project is located in a
Coastal area. Possible
due to earth works24,
causing the temporary
loss of agricultural
lands, generation of
particulate material25,
noise, emission of
gases generated by the
gas turbine.
Social impacts are
within the gas
conflicts are
expected due to the
temporary damage
of agricultural lands
during the
construction of the
gas pipeline and the
likelihood of
accidents during civil
work, provoking
occasional
uneasiness among
the population.
Agricultural lands are the main source of economic activity in many towns in the high Andean areas of Peru, where agriculture is at a subsistent level (only personal consumption). Therefore, any
damage caused to these lands will result in social conflicts.
24 Areas to be disturbed and removed for the construction of civil works.
25 Dust particles with diameters smaller than 10 microns.
23
Page 113 of 134
PERU LNG Project
Number
4
October 12, 2007
CERRO LINDO
PROJECT
Topará Basin in the
Chavín district,
province of
Chincha, Province
of Ica
Exploitation and
production of
copper lead and
zinc
concentrations.
Time of
execution
2004 – to
date
Financial entity
Private: Milpo
S.A.A. Mining
Company
Page 114 of 134
Primary sources
of Information
(Direct)
(Direct)
Regional
Directory of
Energy and
Mines-Ica
are outside of the gas
pipeline area. Potential
impacts include fuel
spillages during the
transportation of
minerals, generation of
particular matter,
gaseous emissions and
acid rock drainage in
the material. .
Social impacts are
located outside of
the gas pipeline
area. Social
conflicts are
expected, as a result
of the use of water
sources and
discomfort caused
by earth works in
areas near bodies of
water causing water
pollution.
PERU LNG Project
Number
5
6
October 12, 2007
MODIFICATION
OF CERRO LINDO
PROJECT
ROAD PROJECT
CROSSING THE
PERU LNG
ROUTE
An area of 2.15 km2,
corresponding to the
micro basin
Pahuaypite, sub
basin of the Topara
River and Capital city
of the Chavín district
and the Chavín Rural
Community.
Environmental
impacts are located
outside of the gas
pipeline area. The
project is located in a
watershed, in a sector
with moderate-tosteep slopes, with a
predominance of
laminar erosion and
ditches. The
vegetation is mainly
formed by bushes.
Districts of Chincha,
Chapín, Grocio Prado
and Pueblo Nuevo in
the Province of
Chincha, Region of
Ica.
In the map the
location is only
estimated because
the project was not
officially proposed at
the time the map was
Relocation of the
tailings deposit
from the
concentration
plant dumps for
disposal of
clearing wastes to
avoid the use of
water from the
Pucasalla dam
and reservoir.
Time of
execution
June 2006
In study
Financial entity
Private (Milpo)
Primary sources
of Information
(Direct)
(Direct)
Regional
Directorate of
Energy and
Mines and
Municipality of
Chincha
are located outside of
the gas pipeline area.
The project is located in
a watershed, in a sector
with moderate-to-steep
slopes, with a
predominance of
laminar erosion and
ditches. The vegetation
is mainly formed by
bushes. Potential
impacts are expected,
as a result of the slope
modification, opening of
access routes, damage
to the quality of surface
water.
Municipality of
Chincha
Its environmental
impacts are within the
gas pipeline area.
Potential impacts are
expected, as a result of
fuel spillages during the
transportation of
minerals.
Social impacts are
located outside of
the gas pipeline
area. However,
social conflicts are
expected because of
the damages to the
pasture areas26 of
the Chavín
community during
the construction
phase of the project.
Not needed.
The road route
goes from Jahuay
beach to 2,200
meters m.a.s.l.,
area of the
project location in
the Chavín
district.
The road
was
executed and
is mentioned
in the
Environment
al Impact
Study of
project N° 7.
Private: Milpo
S.A.A. Mining
Company
Impacts are not
expected, the road
crosses mountains
and not hillsides.
Therefore, third-party
lands and water
bodies are not
affected.
Pasture areas are crop areas used for the sowing of pasture or fodder and are located near water bodies (such as rivers, streams, pasturelands with lakes, etc.). The raising of cattle relies on
these pasture areas. This activity is the main source of income in some Peruvian towns. Therefore, the damage caused to these areas will result in unease in the beneficiaries.
26
Page 115 of 134
PERU LNG Project
Number
October 12, 2007
Time of
execution
Financial entity
Primary sources
of Information
(Direct)
(Direct)
completed
7
WATER AND
ENERGY SUPPLY
AND
DESALINATING
PLANT OF CERRO
LINDO PROJECT.
Districts of Chapín,
Grocio Prado and
Pueblo Nuevo in the
Province of Chincha
in the region of Ica.
The project covers
areas from Coastal
plains to mountain
slopes at 2,200
m.a.s.l. In the Coast,
it crosses sectors with
alluvial deposits and
dejection cones of
periodically active
torrential basins. In
the mountains, it
crosses stable and
unstable mountain
slopes. In regards to
vegetation, on the
coast, it crosses
coastal plains without
areas of vegetation or
crops. However, in
the mountains, it
crosses agricultural
lands and bushes.
It will include the
use of a pumping
system f to pump
a distance of 45
Km and to an
altitude of 2,000
m.a.s.l. (reservoir
tank) in an area
of 2.5 hectares.
May 2006
In study
Private (Milpo)
Page 116 of 134
Regional
Directorate of
Energy and
Mines Ica and
Municipality of
Chincha
are within the gas
pipeline area. Expected
impacts are: slope
modification, generation
of particulate matter,
generation of noise, gas
emissions, and increase
of erosion.
Social impacts are
within the gas
conflicts are
expected, because
of the movement of
agricultural lands
and earth works in
river beds during the
pipeline trajectory
from the desalinating
plant up to the
reservoir tank.
PERU LNG Project
October 12, 2007
Number
8
RECONSTRUCTIO
N AND
REMODELING OF
THE MAJOR
IRRIGATION
INFRASTRUCTUR
E OF THE ICA
VALLEY
All districts of the
province of Ica. The
the Ica river valley,
where intensive
agriculture practices
are predominate in
the local market.
La Achirana
Intake for 50 m3/s
TAMBOCCORACOCHA
SPECIAL
PROJECT
All districts of the
province of Ica. The
the Ica river valley; in
Coastal alluvial plains
where intensive
agricultural practices
are predominate in
the local market.
Building of
Avenue retention
wells and
construction of
the flood relief
and recharge
channel Villacurí
9
Time of
execution
2004 – In
process
2004 – In
process
Financial entity
Public
Public
Page 117 of 134
Primary sources
of Information
(Direct)
(Direct)
Regional
Government of
Ica
are within the gas
pipeline area.
Temporary impacts are
expected due to
construction activities
(earth works, noise, and
particulate matter).
Regional
Government of
Ica
Social impacts are
within the gas pipeline
area. Temporary
due to construction
activities (earth works,
noise, and particulate
matter).
Social impacts are
within the gas
pipeline area. It is
expected that the
improvement of
irrigation systems in
22,000 hectares of
cultivatable land will
increase crop
production.
Social impacts are
within the gas
pipeline area. The
decrease of flood
vulnerability in the
city of Ica and
cultivated lands
results in confidence
and security in
normal daily
economic activities.
PERU LNG Project
Number
October 12, 2007
Time of
execution
Financial entity
Primary sources
of Information
(Direct)
(Direct)
PROVINCE OF HUANCAVELICA
10
11
U.E.A. (UNIT
ECONOMIC
ADMINISTRATIVE)
ANTAPITE
ESPERANZA 2001
PROJECT OF
EXPLOITATION
Province of Huaytará;
in the headwaters of
the Ica y Grande
rivers at an altitude of
3,300 m.a.s.l.
In the districts of
Córdova, Ocoyo and
Santiago de
Chocorvos.
Llullucha stream, in
the Iscaysiqui Hill and
Lajaipampa stream in
the Western mountain
range of the Andes,
between 4,200 and
5,000 m.a.s.l.
Politically, it
corresponds to the
district of Lircay and
the Province of
Angaraes.
Underground
mining of gold
and silver and
processing of
minerals to a
capacity of 1,000
TM. In addition,
the installation of
90 Km of 60Kb
transmission
lines, providing a
maximum
demand for
10MW, from Ica
to Antapite.
Underground
mining
exploitation of
zinc and silver.
Its environmental
gas pipeline area.
2001 – to
date
In execution
PRIVATE
Mining
investments of
the South
(INMINSUR)
property of
Buenaventura
Mines S.A.A.
PRIVATE
Buenaventura
Mining
Company
Page 118 of 134
Website of The
Buenaventura
Mines Company
S.A.A.
E.I.A. Project of
exploitation
Esperanza 2001.
expected due to the
modification of
pasturelands caused by
the use of areas for
storage of sterile
material (clearing of
trees). In addition,
potential impacts are
also expected regarding
the modification of
surface and
underground water
quality, due to the
permanent presence of
water bodies.
Its environmental
impacts are outside of
Impacts are expected,
as the loss of
pasturelands due to the
use of areas for the
project facilities; fuel
spillages during the
transportation of
minerals.
within the gas
conflicts are
expected due to the
use of water sources
and the modification
of the water quality.
outside of the gas
pipeline area.
Positive impacts are
of signed
agreements between
the company and the
Carhuapata
Community, such as
the improvement of
communication
routes connecting
the Libertadores
PERU LNG Project
Number
12
October 12, 2007
JULCANI MINE
District of
Ccochaccasa,
Province of
Angaraes, Province
of Huancavelica; at
64.0 Km. Southeast
of Huancavelica at an
altitude between
4,200 and 4,600
m.a.s.l.
Underground
mining of silver,
lead, copper, zinc
and gold.
Time of
execution
Financial entity
1980 – to
date
PRIVATE
Investments of
the south
(INMINSUR)
property of
Buenaventura.
Page 119 of 134
Primary sources
of Information
Website of the
Mining Company
Buenaventura
S.A.A.
(Direct)
(Direct)
road, among others.
However, conflicts
are expected due to
the management
and spillage of
hazardous materials,
and expectations of
job opportunities for
neighboring settlers,
causing the increase
of immigration to the
area thereby
exceeding the
mining company’s
available work
opportunities.
outside of the gas
pipeline area.
Its environmental
expected because of
agreements signed
between the
Impacts are expected,
company and rural
as the loss of
pasturelands due to the communities
involved in the
use of land for the
project area.
project facilities;
However, social
spillages of fuel and
conflicts continue
hazardous materials
during the transportation due to the
management and
of materials.
spillages of
hazardous materials,
which pollute
cultivated areas and
PERU LNG Project
Number
13
14
27
October 12, 2007
“EL MILAGRO”
MINING PROJECT
Locality of
Rumichaca –district
Lircay – province of
Angaraes.
Project of
exploration
CONSTRUCTION
OF
Huaychanpallcca Ahuay
ROAD AND
BRIDGE
Province AngaraesDistrict of Lircay
with its populated
centers. Local
pathway Lircay
Sickle (especially
the Ahuay
community). The
project is located at
30 km from the duct
axis. The line
trajectory crosses
puna areas with
relative
morphodynamic
stability.
Vegetation
formations are:
pasturelands with
lakes, scrub
lands/puna grass.
Strategic project
due to the
interconnection of
the Lircay district
(capital city of the
province of
Angaraes),
creating the
access and
integration with
the markets of the
Region by way of
the LircayHuancavelica
route and the
extra regional
Lircay-SecclaJucamarcaAyacucho route.
In this way
production in the
region is joined. .
Time of
execution
Financial entity
Primary sources
of Information
In execution
PRIVATE
Buenaventura
Mines
Company
S.A.A.
Directors of the
mining company
PUBLIC
PASA
(Support
Program for
the Food
Sanitation),
Regional
Government,
Municipality,
Beneficiaries
Regional
Government of
Huancavelica,
Office of
MIMDES
(Ministry of
Women and
Social
Development),
European
CommunityRegional
Government of
Huancavelica
June 2006 to
October
2006
Fragmentation of pasturelands refers to the alteration or loss of these ecosystems.
Page 120 of 134
(Direct)
(Direct)
bodies of water.
Its environmental
outside of the gas
Smaller impacts are
conflicts are
expected due to earth
expected due to
works and the
earth works, which
generation of temporary
could affect the
noise caused by the use
pasturelands.
of explosives.
Its environmental
The project is located
30 Km from the duct
axis. The pipeline
outside of the gas
crosses areas of puna
pipeline area. By
with relative
reducing transport
morphodynamic
time and costs,
stability. Vegetation
improvements in the
formations are:
revenues of small
pasturelands with lakes
producers are
and scrublands/puna
expected, therefore
grass. Moderate
also improving the
environmental impacts
quality of life of the
are expected, as
population in the
deforestation due to
area of influence of
earth works,
the project.
fragmentation of
pastured lands27 (high
Andean wetlands),
blasting of rocks and
cutting of slopes during
PERU LNG Project
Number
October 12, 2007
15
PROGRAM OF
INSTITUTIONAL
STRENGTHENING
AND SUPPORT
FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL
AND SOCIAL
MANAGEMENT OF
THE CAMISEA
PROJECT
Provinces: Lima,
Ica, Cusco,
Ayacucho,
Huancavelica.
Province of
Huancavelica:
Huaytará (Huaytará
Pilpichaca
San Antonio de
Cusicancha
Quito-Arma
Huayacundo Arma
Ayavi
Tambo
Santo Domingo de
Capillas
16
SUPPORT FOR
PEASANT
SHEPHERDS
WORKING IN
HIGH LANDS IN
THE PROVINCES
OF APURÍMAC,
AYACUCHO AND
HUANCAVELICA PROALPACA
Provinces:
Ayacucho,
Huancavelica,
Apurímac.
Province of
Huancavelica:
Huancavelica
(Huancavelica,
Angaraes,
Tayacaja,
Castrovirreyna,
To contribute to
and strengthen
the Peruvian
Government‘s
capacity to
supervise and
audit the
environmental
aspects of the
Camisea Gas
Project. Likewise
to implement
programs,
projects and
mechanisms to
encourage
sustainable and
harmonic
development in
the area of
influence of the
Project.
The project is
aimed at
improving the
breeding and
management
techniques for
alpacas and
cameloids.
Time of
execution
--
--
Financial entity
Primary sources
of Information
Responsible:
Ministry of
Energy and
Mines.
PUBLIC/
PRIVATE
Ministry of
Economy and
Finances –
National System
of Private
Investment
(SNIP)
PUBLIC
Donations and
transfers
Responsible:
Ministry of
Agriculture.
Page 121 of 134
Ministry of
Economy and
Finances –
National Public
Investment
System (SNIP)
(Direct)
(Direct)
the execution of civil
works.
Support actions for
environmental
management are within
Without negative
Social impacts are
within the gas
pipeline area. The
project will generate
a vision of
sustainable
development, with
special attention to
environmental and
socio-cultural
aspects.
within the gas
pipeline area.
Potential impacts are
expected in the
improvement of the
quality of life of the
settlers, because the
training of breeding
alpacas and
cameloids will
PERU LNG Project
Number
October 12, 2007
Time of
execution
Financial entity
Primary sources
of Information
(Direct)
(Direct)
increase their
knowledge in the
management and
production for
commercial
purposes.
PUBLIC/
PRIVATE
Regional
Government.
Regional
Development
Fund
(FONCOR) and
Fund of Canon
(FOCAN)
and
Buenaventura
Company.
Regional
Government of
Huancavelica –
Office of
MIMDESEuropean
CommunityRegional
Government of
Huancavelica
Its environmental
gas pipeline area.
expected, as the
generation of particulate
matter and noise by the
earth works and
handling of machinery.
Huaytara)
17
18
IMPROVEMENT
OF VILLA DE
ARMA PATH
HUANCHO –
PALCA
ROAD
Province
Castrovirreyna.
District: San Juan de
Castrovirreyna. The
areas of puna with
relative
morphodynamic
stability.
Predominant
vegetation includes
scrubland/puna
grass.
IMPROVEMENT
OF THE LIRCAYANCHONGAPUCA CRUZ
(PAUCARÁ).
ROAD
Province AngaraesDistricts: Lircay,
Anchonga, Anta,
Rosario, Paucará.
The project is
located in areas of
puna with relative
morphodynamic
stability. The
predominate
vegetation are
pasturelands (high
Andean wetlands)
and scrubland/puna
grass.
Rehabilitation of
11.74 Km. of road
The project will
rehabilitate 42
Km of the road in
the towns LircayAnchomgaChaca
punco-San Pablo
de OccoHuayanayChanquil-Puca
Cruz (Paucará).
March 2006
– September
2006
August 2006
to November
2006
PUBLIC
Regional
Government of
Huancavelica
Page 122 of 134
Regional
Government of
HuancavelicaManagement of
Infrastructure.
Its environmental
expected, as the
matter and noise by
earth works and the
handling of machinery.
within the gas
pipeline area. A total
of 20,000 people will
benefit from this
project, by
increasing their
socio-economic
levels.
expected, which will
benefit the dynamic
activity of the
districts LircayAnchonga-AntaRosario and
Paucará, benefiting
11,250 inhabitants
(year 2004), by
improving the socioeconomic level of the
population. Trading
of different products
will be carried out at
larger scale and in
less time.
PERU LNG Project
Number
19
October 12, 2007
CONSTRUCTION
OF A NARROW
VEHICLE ROAD;
SAN PEDRO DE
LA PUENTE PUENTE
QUINCHE
Province of
Huaytará. District:
San F. de
Sangayaico
(community: Lucas,
San Antonio de
Rurupa, Acora,
Santa Cruz de
Tomacc, San F, de
Sangayaico).
District: Santiago
de Chocorvo
(communities: San
Pedro de la Puente,
Santa Rosa de
Ututo). The project
area crosses
mountain slopes,
with a
predominance of
surface runoff,
furrows, gullies and
surface landslides.
Predominant
vegetation types
include: crop areas,
under brush and
high Andean
pasturelands.
The project is the
construction of a
narrow vehicle
road from San
Pedro de la
Puente to the
Bridge Quinche,
in the district of
San Francisco de
Sangayaico, at a
distance of 13+00
Km. It will have a
road platform 3.5
m wide, with a
minimum slope of
2.5% and a
maximum slope
of 5%. The
surface drainage
system (ditches,
sewer, gutters,
and the like),
works of
stabilization of
slopes, extension
of the turning
curves, will be
carried out with a
ratio no smaller
than 30.00 m.
according to
standards. The
kilometric
markers will be
placed by
reducing
transport time
and costs.
Time of
execution
Financial entity
June 2006 to
November
2006
PUBLIC
Ministry of
Women and
Social
Development
(MIMDES),
Fund of
Cooperation
for Social
Development
(FONCODES)
and
Municipality,
beneficiaries.
Page 123 of 134
Primary sources
of Information
Regional
Government of
Huancavelica –
Office of
MIMDESEuropean
Community –
Regional
Government of
Huancavelica
(Direct)
(Direct)
Its environmental
gas pipeline area.
Some impacts are
expected, such as the
loss of soil and
vegetation cover,
destabilization of
slopes, intensification of
water erosion,
temporary generation of
particulate matter and
noise by earth works
and the handling of
machinery.
Social impacts are
within the gas
pipeline area.
Potential
beneficiaries of this
project are 687
inhabitants, forming
137 peasant families
who work in the
agricultural. The
trade of products to
local markets will be
facilitated.
PERU LNG Project
Number
20
21
October 12, 2007
CONSTRUCTION
OF
ALLPAMACHAYCUSICANCHA
IRRIGATION
CHANNEL
CONSTRUCTION
OF
HUAYTACCASAVIZCAPALCA
ROAD
Province Huaytará.
District: San
Antonio de
Cusicancha
(locality Jatos
Pampapuquio). The
a high Andean
agricultural area
with the
predominance of
moderate to steep
slopes and
processes of
laminar and
concentrates.
Construction of a
12 Km o channel
(10 Km covered
and 2 Km of land
l) and
geotechnical
work. It will be
carried out in the
Pampapuquio
and Limapaccha
communities. Its
implementation
will make the
irrigation of 240
hectares of
agricultural
surface possible.
Province Huaytará.
District: Pilpichaca
The area is located
in an area of puna
with relative
morphodynamic
stability, with the
predominance of
puna,
scrubland/grass.
The construction
of a 8.00 Km road
extension,
facilitating the
district of
Pilpichaca to join
the province of
Huancavelica
providing for the
products
produced in the
area to be
transported to the
capital city of
Huancavelica,
Lima, Ica and
Ayacucho.
Time of
execution
September
2006 - June
2007
July /2006 –
November
/2006
Financial entity
PUBLIC
Regional
Government of
Huancavelica.
Regional
Development
Fund
(FONCOR)
PUBLIC/
PRIVATE
Regional
Government of
Huancavelica.
Regional
Development
Fund
(FONCOR)
and Fund of
the Canon
(FOCAN).
Page 124 of 134
Primary sources
of Information
Regional
Government of
Huancavelica –
Management of
Infrastructure
Regional
Government of
Huancavelica –
Office of
MIMDESEuropean
Community –
Regional
Government of
Huancavelica
(Direct)
(Direct)
Its environmental
gas pipeline area.
expected due to the
emission of particles;
loss of soils by earth
works.
Impacts are within the
gas pipeline area.
Some impacts are
expected such as the
loss of soils and
vegetation cover, slope
destabilization,
intensification of water
erosion, temporary
matter and noise.
within the gas pipeline
area. It will benefit a
population of 370
inhabitants (103
families). The project
implementation will
impact the production
in the area improving
the current level of
productivity of their
crops, contributing to
the development of the
benefiting towns and
the district of San
Antonio de
Cusicancha.
Social impacts are
within the gas
pipeline area.
expected, resulting
from the increase of
per capita income by
47% during the
project’s projected
operation life;
increasing dynamics
in the economic
activity of all
populated centers
located within the
area of influence of
the project as well as
local and regional
PERU LNG Project
Number
22
October 12, 2007
IMPROVEMENT
OF EDUCATIVE
QUALITY AND
EDUCATIVE
MANAGEMENT IN
THE
HUANCAVELICA
REGION
Regional. In the
areas of our
interest, there are
pilot projects in the
following districts:
Lircay,
Castrovirreyna,
Ticrapo,
Huachocolpa,
Huaytará,
Pilpichaca, San
Antonio de
Cusicancha, San
Francisco de
Sangayaico,
Santiago de
Chocorvos.
The project
promotes the
change of the
educational
model, articulated
with projects of
regional and
national
development
based on the
Andean view of
the world. The
implementation of
the project will
allow for quality
education with
equity,
developing the
skills and
potential of
students and
teachers. A
bilingual and
productive
intercultural
education will
also be possible.
Principals and
teachers selected
in the different
educational
Time of
execution
October
2004/
December
2007
Financial entity
PUBLIC
Regional
Government of
Huancavelica.
Page 125 of 134
Primary sources
of Information
Subadministration of
educational
management,
culture, science,
technology and
sports – Regional
Management of
Social
Development –
Regional
Government of
Huancavelica.
(Direct)
(Direct)
consumption
markets (Ayacucho,
Pisco, Lima).
Without environmental
impacts.
within the gas
pipeline area.
expected in which
children, teenagers,
young adults and
adults of
Huancavelica will
have an educational
system that
guarantees their
comprehensive
development. They
will have a bilingual
and intercultural
education, with a
participative,
effective and
transparent
management
meeting the
demands of regional
development and
diversity.
PERU LNG Project
Number
October 12, 2007
Time of
execution
Financial entity
Primary sources
of Information
(Direct)
(Direct)
institutions of the
regional area are
direct
beneficiaries.
23
ATTENTION TO
THE POPULATION
AFFECTED BY
THE POLITICAL
VIOLENCE IN THE
PROVINCE OF
HUANCAVELICA
24
EXTENSION OF
THE SAN JUAN
DE TAMBO
IRRIGATION
CHANNEL
CONSTRUCTION
Regional. A
census of the
regional population
is being carried out.
However, in the
Province of
Angaraes (district
of Chincho), it is
being carried out as
a pilot program for
reparations.
Province Huaytará.
District: Santa Rosa
de Tambo
(localities: Tambo,
Quishuar, Yanama,
Ullpacancha,
Reyes). The area of
The project will
serve a total
population of
37,655
inhabitants
affected by the
phenomenon of
political violence
between 19802000. The
project is the first
experience of
giving attention to
the population
that was affected
by the political
violence at the
national level,
included within
the terms of
reparations.
Extension of the
trajectory of the
irrigation channel
of San Juan de
Tambo and use
of the waters of
the Tambo River
January
2006/Decem
ber 2007
June 2006 to
October
2006
PUBLIC
Regional
Government of
Huancavelica;
Regional
Direction of
Health; World
Food Program.
Regional
Management of
Social
Development –
Regional
Government of
Huancavelica.
Without environmental
effects.
PUBLIC
PASA,
(Support
Program for
Food
Sanitation ),
Regional
Regional
Government of
Huancavelica,
Office of
MIMDESEuropean
Community-
Its impacts are within
expected such as
matter, loss of
vegetation, and
Page 126 of 134
outside of the gas
pipeline area.
expected, with an
increase in the
socio-economic
levels of the
population affected
by the political
violence by the end
of the project
assessment (four
years).
within the gas
pipeline area.
Conflicts are
expected due to the
temporary impact on
properties.
PERU LNG Project
Number
October 12, 2007
the project covers
areas of puna with
relative
morphodynamic
stability, with a
predominance of
the following
vegetation
formation:
pasturelands (high
Andean wetlands)
and puna
scrubland/grass).
Time of
execution
for irrigation
purposes.
Financial entity
Government,
municipality,
beneficiaries
Primary sources
of Information
Regional
Government of
Huancavelica
(Direct)
(Direct)
destabilization of slopes However, there are
caused by cuttings and
also positive impacts
infiltration.
such as the increase
of land values and
the generation of
employment.
PROVINCE OF AYACUCHO
25
26
REFORESTATION
IN DEGRADED
AREAS
CACHI RIVER
SPECIAL
PROJECT
San Miguel. The
project is located
on mountain slopes
with moderate
dissections.
Underbrush and
pasturelands are
predominant. The
most important
morphodynamic
processes are:
laminar and
concentrate
erosion, in some
cases very intense.
Chiara,
Tambocucho,
Tambillo, part of
Cangallo.
Reforestation with
pine and
eucalyptus trees.
Construction and
equipping the
hydro
infrastructure to
improve
economic
2003 – 2006
PUBLIC
Provincial
Government of
La Mar
1985 - 2006
Regional
Government of
Ayacucho
Page 127 of 134
SubManagement of
Productive
Development of
the Provincial
Government of
La Mar
Its environmental
gas pipeline area.
Some impacts are
expected such as water
erosion control, positive
changes in the local
microclimate.
within the gas
pipeline area. The
project improves the
involved population’s
quality of life through
the recovery of
affected landscapes.
Submanagement of
Planning of the
Regional
Government of
Ayacucho
Its environmental
gas pipeline area.
Some impacts are
expected such as:
within the gas
pipeline area. The
improvement of the
population’s quality
of life from self
PERU LNG Project
Number
October 12, 2007
Time of
execution
Financial entity
Primary sources
of Information
activities that are
organized and
developed in the
following sectors:
agriculture, cattle
rising, agronomy,
fish farming,
commerce.
(Direct)
(Direct)
sufficient
modification of the
landscape as a result of consumption to the
market economy. the execution of civil
works; introduction of
Changes in the way
several varieties of
of life as a result of
plants due to the
the link with the
increase of irrigated
market.
lands.
Creation of new
towns.
27
28
28
PASA
(SUPPORT
PROGRAM FOR
FOOD
SANITATION)
La Mar and part of
Cangallo
AGORAH
(ASSOCIATION OF
REGIONAL
GOVERNMENTS
OF AYACUCHO
AND
HUANCAVELICA)
Attention given to
children under
five years of age
to reduce the rate
of malnutrition in
this area.
The objective of
the project is to
improve the road
infrastructure and
to equip schools
with furniture
such as desks,
chairs,
blackboards, etc.
2001 – to
date
Regional
Government –
European
Union
Agreement
SubManagement
Planning
Regional
Government of
Ayacucho
PUBLIC
2005 –to
date
Regional
Government –
European
Union
Agreement
Percentage of soil used by a certain types of vegetation.
Page 128 of 134
Regional
Government
Without significant
Its environmental
gas pipeline area.
expected during the
construction phase of
road infrastructure such
as: noise, generation of
dust and impacts on the
vegetation cover28.
Its impacts are within
the gas pipeline
area. The execution
of this project
reduces malnutrition
in children under five
.
within the gas
pipeline area.
Impacts are
expected in the
improvement of the
quality of education
for the school
population.
PERU LNG Project
Number
29
30
October 12, 2007
HUAYRAPATEPAMPA AURORASANTA ROSA DE
LIMA ROAD
INSTALLATION OF
FRUIT TREE
NURSERY
Anco - La Mar
Luis Carranza. The
agricultural areas of
medium elevations
(2,000 – 3,000
m.a.s.l.
Civil works in the
construction of a
road.
Increase of the
fruit production
through the
introduction fruit
seedlings such as
peaches, lúcuma,
avocados and
oranges).
Time of
execution
Scheduled
for
November
2006
2005-2006
(to be
extended)
Financial entity
Primary sources
of Information
Regional
Government
Regional
Government
PUBLIC
Provincial
Government of
La Mar
SubManagement of
Productive
Development of
the Provincial
Government of
La Mar
Page 129 of 134
(Direct)
(Direct)
Its environmental
Minor impacts are
expected which will not
affect the area of
interest.
outside of the gas
pipeline area. The
improvement of the
quality of life for
neighboring
populations is
expected, mainly
due to the access
their products have
to the market.
Its environmental
gas pipeline area.
Significant impacts are
not expected.
Social impacts are
within the gas
pipeline area. The
improvement of the
of life is expected, to
meet the economic
needs.
PERU LNG Project
Number
31
32
October 12, 2007
CHUSCHI TOTOS
ROAD
CONSTRUCTION
OF PACOPATA –
TUCSEN ROAD
Cangallo. The
project area is
located at km 31 s
of the gas pipeline.
It crosses highly
dissected mountain
slopes with a
predominance of
underbrush and
small, self sufficient
farm crops. The
most common
morphodynamic
processes are:
landslides, laminar
and concentrate
water erosion
(moderate to
intense).
Cangallo. The
project is located at
km 27 s of the gas
pipeline. It crosses
unstable mountain
slopes with a
predominance of
surface landslides.
Predominant types
of vegetation
include crop areas
(for small, self
sufficient farm
consumption),
underbrush and
high Andean
Road
infrastructure
Road
infrastructure
Time of
execution
Scheduled
for 2006
Executed
2006
Financial entity
PUBLIC
Regional
Government
PUBLIC
Regional
Government
Page 130 of 134
Primary sources
of Information
Regional
Government
Management of
Infrastructure
Regional
Government
(Direct)
(Direct)
Its environmental
impacts are located
outside of the gas
pipeline area. Impacts
are expected such as
loss of vegetation cover,
instability of slopes, and
intensification of
concentrate erosion.
Temporary impacts
include the generation
of noise and particulate
matter.
outside the gas pipeline
area. Temporary
such as the loss of soils
and vegetation cover,
destabilization of
slopes, intensification of
water erosion,
temporary generation of
particulate matter and
noise. In general,
impacts will be
moderate because it
does not cross
pasturelands
Social impacts are
outside of the gas
pipeline area. The
improvement of the
of life is expected.
outside the gas
pipeline area.
However, an
improvement in the
quality of life of
populations is
of the easy market
access and to the
faster connection
with other towns.
PERU LNG Project
Number
October 12, 2007
Time of
execution
Financial entity
Primary sources
of Information
pasturelands.
33
34
35
PROALPACA
(REGIONAL
PROJECT,
APURIMAC,
AYACUCHO AND
HUANCAVELICA
INTRODUCTION
OF MILK
PRODUCTION
CATTLE
DEVELOPMENT
OF POTENTIAL
AGROINDUSTRIAL
CROPS
Apurímac,
Ayacucho
Huancavelica
Improvement of
cameloids for the
trade of fiber.
Ninabamaba -San
Miguel. The project
covers agricultural
areas of medium
elevations (2,000 –
3,000 meters above
the sea level).
Introduction of
genetically
improved cattle
species to
increase the milk
production in the
area.
District San Miguel.
The project covers
high Andean
agricultural areas.
Installation of
crop areas for
wheat, barley and
beans. In
addition, a plant
for the processing
of grain.
2001 – to
date
European
Union
Submanagement of
Regional
Government
Planning
(Direct)
(Direct)
(wetlands).
Without negative
2004 - 2007
PUBLIC
Provincial
Government of
La Mar
SubManagement of
Productive
Development of
the Provincial
Government of
La Mar
Its environmental
gas pipeline area.
Significant impacts are
not expected.
September
2006
December
2007
PUBLIC /
PRIVATE
Fund Italian
Peruvian –
Provincial
Municipality La
Mar
SubManagement of
Productive
Development of
the Provincial
Government of
La Mar
Its environmental
gas pipeline area.
Minimal and temporary
impacts are expected as
a result of the
generation of noise and
particulate matter during
the construction phase.
Page 131 of 134
Improvement of the
quality of life of
benefiting
populations.
within the gas
pipeline area. An
improvement in
income is expected
as a result of the
incorporation of
genetically improved
cattle.
within the gas
pipeline area. An
improvement in the
economic income
level is expected as
a result of the
processing of raw
materials. .
October 12, 2007
APPENDIX B
SPECIES, RESOURCE AND/OR ECOSYSTEM OF COMMUNITY INTEREST AT DISTRICT
LEVEL
In September 2005, 12 workshops were organized in the communities of Ayacucho and
Huancavelica in order to identify the species and/or ecosystems that had the largest
importance and economic and conservation interest for the population. This process involved
the participation of approximately 1,150 people from 12 districts (8 districts of Ayacucho and 4
districts of Huancavelica). The results of this assessment are relevant in the assessment of
significance of impacts on VECs, and are summarized in Tables B1.1 and B1.2.
Table B1.1:
Department
Ayacucho
Species, resource and/or ecosystem of community interest at district level
Province
District
Community
Huamanga
Acocro
1) Pomapuquio
2) Virgen de Asunción de
Seccelambras
3) Santo Domingo de Acocro
Huamanga
Acos
Vinchos
1) San Francisco de Asís de
Mayupampa
2) Huaychao
Huamanga
Tambillo
1) Pinao – Yantapacha
La Mar
San
Miguel
La Mar
Anco
1) General Córdova de
Socos
2) Túpac Amaru de
Patibamba
3) Uras
4) Virgen Cocharcas de
Cochas (Anexos de Cochas
Alta, Cochas Baja, Putacca
and Callhuapuquio
5) Anexo de Allpacorral
1) Anexo de Ccollpa (C.C.
de Chiquintirca)
2) Anchihuay
Page 132 of 134
Species/ resource/
ecosystem
Animal: Tinamou, viscacha,
frog, trout, livestock (cattle,
sheep).
Plant: Eucalyptus, mutuy,
potato
Animal: Viscacha, deer, fox,
trout, livestock.
Plant: Matico
Resource: Water, soil.
Animal: Cameloids, trout.
Plant: Wood plants, fruit
trees, and potato.
Animal: Deer, livestock
(cattle, sheep)
Plant: Broom, molle, tara,
Indian fig opuntia, eucalyptus,
unchuchuco, waranhuay,
crops (potato, corn, etc), fruit
trees (peach)
Resource: Water, soil
Ecosystem: Nayacocha
Lagoon, Cochas Alta swamp.
Animal: Spectacled bear,
deer, Peruvian guemal,
condor, domestic animals,
livestock (cattle, sheep, etc).
Plant: Medicinal plants, wood
plants, muña.
Resource: Soil, water.
Ecosystem: Yanacocha
Lagoon.
Huancavelica
October 12, 2007
Huamanga
Vinchos
1) Anexo de Pampamarca –
Pampancca (C.C. de
Paccha)
2) Anexo de Ccoñani –
Chucllahuaycco (C.C. de
Paccha)
3) Anexo de Minas Corral
(C.C. de Paccha)
4) Rosaspata
5) Anexo de Cayramayo
(C.C. de Paccha)
6) Rosaspampa
7) Occollo
8) Anexo de Ccochapunku
(C.C. de Vinchos)
9) Anexo de Rosaspampa
(C.C. de Churia
Rosaspampa)
10) Anexo de Ranracancha
– Ccasanccay
11) Sallalli
12) Anexo de Ccasanccay,
(C.C, de Vinchos)
13) Urpaypampa
14) Anexo de San Juan de
Pichas
15) Anexo de Concahuaylla,
(C.C. de Vinchos)
16) San José de
Mayobamba y Anexo de
Mayobamba I
17) Anexo de Orcconchupa
1) Ccarhuaccpampa
Cangallo
Paras
Huamanga
Socos
1) Toccyascca
2) Tambocucho
Huaytará
Ayaví
1) Ayaví
Huaytará
Huaytará
1) Huaytará
2) Santa Cruz de
Huancacasa
Huaytará
Pilpichac
a
1) Pilpichaca
2) Llillinta – Ingahuasi
Page 133 of 134
Animal: Cameloids (vicuña,
alpaca, llama), viscacha,
deer, fox, duck, huachua,
quivio, tinamou, toad, frog,
Guinea pig, trout, livestock
(cattle, sheep, goats, horses,
pies), secondary animals
(rabbit, poultry).
Plant: Wood plants
(eucalyptus, pine, cypress,
tasta, culli, quenual), natural
grass (ichu, grama grass),
medicinal plants (tuyca,
muña, mint, tocca,
huamanripa, yawar soco,
huallha, pimpernel,
huayrasacha), cactus, crops
(potato, barley, bean, oat,
pea, oca, ulluco, wheat,
vegetables), nettle, flowers.
Ecosystem: River, spring
Animal: Camelids (alpaca),
frog, livestock (cattle, sheep),
trout.
Plant: Garlic
Animal: Camelids (vicuña),
viscacha, livestock (cattle)
Plant: Wood plants, crops
(potato, tarwi, barley)
Resource: Water
Ecosystem: Spring
frog, trout
Plant: chickpea, occe quichca
(use: wood fuel and
shampoo)
Animal: Camelids (vicuña,
alpaca, llama), tinamou, trout.
Plant: South American palm,
tara, Indian fig opuntia,
matico, grasslands and
forage
Resource: Soil, water
Animal: Camelids (vicuña,
alpaca), viscacha, tinamou,
Huaytará
October 12, 2007
Tambo
1) Santa Rosa de Tambo
trout.
Plant: Quenual, medicinal
plants, pastures
Resource: Water
livestock (cattle), trout
Plant: Medicinal plants
(conoca, valerian,
huamanripa, huayramaccasa)
Resource: Water
The degree of importance ascribed to different plant and animal species was also assessed by
assigning a score of 5 to species of greatest importance and 1 to species of less importance. A
weighted scoring system was then used to determine the priority given to species across the two
districts. The results are summarized in Table B2.
Table B2:
Fauna and flora species prioritized by the communities of Ayacucho and
Huancavelica
Fauna
Total Score
Camelids
Trout
Viscacha
Telmatobius frogs
Cattle
63
52
44
36
26
Flora
Total Score
Woody plants
Natural grass
Potato
Medicinal plants
Muña
21
18
15
15
12
Page 134 of 134