|Abstract: ||This report addresses the environmental concerns of the proposed beach nourishment on the eastern end of Kanifinolhu as part of the proposed coastal modifications on Kanifinolhu, North Malé Atoll. This report shall be read in conjunction with the EIA report for the proposed coastal modifications at Club Med Kanifinolhu. The proposed coastal modifications include maintenance dredging of existing channel to the supply jetty, beach nourishment on
western and eastern side and removal of seagrass on the western side of Kanifinolhu. The eastern side is also subjected to erosion and beach nourishment of the eastern side was considered to be included as a second phase with some shore protection measures following further studies of coastal processes for about six months as indicated in the EIA report, therefore, the focus of the original EIA was on the beach nourishment on the western side. For
this reason, although beach nourishment has been considered for all beach-ridden areas, no specific details of beach nourishment have been given for the eastern side. However, during the proposed works, it was found that the material from the proposed maintenance dredging of the channel would be mainly fine sand (over 95%) and that it would be more appropriate to place this sand on the eastern beach rather than literally throw it away at the STP island. The impacts given in the original EIA have been assessed for sand pumping whereas this Addendum covers the nourishment of eastern beach using sand borrowed from the proposed maintenance dredging of the channel. Hence, the Consultants felt that there may be a need to incorporate this in the EIA as an Addendum to the original EIA report although the impacts may not differ. The main socio-economic impact of the project is enhancing the beach using soft interventions while maximising tourist satisfaction and demand. This and other positive socioeconomic impacts of the project have been covered in the original EIA report. Environmental impacts of beach nourishment have also been covered in the original EIA report, the main
impact being sedimentation and sediment re-suspension in the nearshore environment. The specific environmental impacts of the proposed beach nourishment using sand borrowed from the maintenance dredging of the entrance channel would be as follows:
a. Excavators and lorry will be used to move the material to the beach, as a result of which backshore may be slightly hardened. For the eastern side, this impact may be considered a positive impact, as it would help to slow down erosion.
b. There will be siltation as the sand bed is moved to the shore. Given the high currents in the area, silt will be rapidly cleared. Silt is expected to move to the northwest where the shallow lagoon gradually connects with a deep lagoon (vilu) during the proposed short period in which work activities will be undertaken. Very small volumes of silt may accumulate neashore in the northwest corner, which will gradually disperse since
the area is open with good natural circulation throughout the year.
c. The sand disposal at the foreshore will have less impacts of sedimentation compared to that of sand pumping since the dry material will be moved and carefully placed and spread on the foreshore.
d. Since the material to be disposed is from maintenance dredging of the channel, over 95% of the material will be fine sand. There may be some rubble, which can be removed manually. No sieving will be required. Rubble is also naturally present on the eastern beach and the material from dredging is expected to be much finer material. In terms of their significance, all of the above impacts are considered to be minor to negligible. There are no direct or indirect impacts on the reef or other ecologically significant areas. The minimized sedimentation on the foreshore as a result of the proposed methodology involving placing sand using lorry is considered to counter the sedimentation from moving the dredged sand to the shore, which is considered in (b) above. Hence, no additional impacts of sedimentation can be envisaged as a result of the proposed methodology. Additional environmental monitoring has been identified to be water quality for the same physical parameters as in the EIA report. They are temperature, pH, electrical conductivity/salinity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and total suspended solids. This does not change the cost of the monitoring programme. Therefore, the commitment to mitigation measures and the arrangements for monitoring during constructional and operational phase remains the same as that proposed in the EIA report. Given that the project has major socio-economic benefits and few minor negative environmental impacts, it is recommended to allow the project to proceed as proposed.|