Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Environmental impact assessment report for coastal modification of V. Alimatha Eastern shore line
Authors: Land and Marine Environmental Resources Group
Keywords: Coastal modification
Groyne construction
Marine surverys
Environmental impacts
Mitigation measures
Regulation on sand and aggregate mining
Tourism Act (Law no. 2/99)
Environment Protection and Preservation Act of Maldives
Second National Environmental Action Plan (1999)
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
Issue Date: Mar-2010
Citation: Land and Marine Environmental Resources Group. (2010). Environmental impact assessment report for coastal modification of V. Alimatha Eastern shore line. Male': Maldives
Abstract: The non technical summary outlines the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed coastal modification of Alimatha eastern side. The resort at Alimatha is operated by Safari Tours Pvt Ltd. The proposed project involves construction four groyne segments constructed using the rock debris from the demolition of revetment wall. The groyne segment will have a length of 20m, while the width will be 1.5m. The groyne will have a plastered finish, while the groyne head will be circular and landscaped to make it aesthetically pleasant. The existing seawall is very weak and damaged at some areas, therefore it will not be difficult to demolish manually. No heavy machinery will be used for the demolition work. The existing burrow area for beach maintenance work is located approximately 350m North West of the project site, sand will be transported by the pipeline to western side where wand will be filled on gunny bags which will be transported to project site. Total volume of sand required for beach fill work is 1,500m3. The length of beach fill area is approximately 114m, while the beach fill width is 10m. The berm height of the area will be 1.5MSL. Since the wall section is quite high, during removal of retainment wall, the ground will be sloped; therefore sand requirement will be low. In terms of increase of land area, approximately 650m2 of land will be increased due to the coastal modification work, which is just about 1% increase of land area. A scoping meeting was held at EPA on 2nd of February 2010 with personnel from EPA, project proponent, Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture, Ministry of Housing, Transport and Environment and the Environmental consultant to formulate a ToR for the EIA. The ToR was approved by EPA on 23rd February 2010. Data collection or field was carried out during February 2010 for assessment of existing environment. Since the scope of work of the proposed project is small, existing environment data was limited to beach profile collection and seawater quality assessment. Since the proposed projects scope is small and project boundary restricted on land, direct impact to environment was minor. Impacts identified were possible sedimentation impacts during beach fill work and demolition of retainment wall. Mitigation measures are discussed for the construction and operational stage of the project. During the construction stage it is important to take measures to minimize sedimentation impacts and noise impact. Considering alternatives for the proposed project it has to be note that the scope of work for the proposed project is small. In terms of type of coastal protection, the proposed method is setting up of a groyne field along with removal of existing retainment wall. Alternatives can be off shore breakwaters to reduce wave energy received at the area along with removal of existing retainment wall and beach fill work. In this regard the groyne field at the western side (existing groyne field) seems to functioning well along with routine maintenance of beach. Therefore in terms of coastal protection measures, the groyne field seems to be most ideal option considering functionality and cost. In regard to the alternatives to burrow area, the proposed burrow area is an existing burrow area for beach maintenance work, therefore using this area would avoid be the most ideal option. Choosing this option would reduce overall impact to the reef, since additional burrow areas will not be created, this limits the boundary of impact area.
Appears in Collections:ތިމާވެށި
Environment A

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
V. Alimatha EIA for Coastal Modification.pdf3.54 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in Saruna are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.