| Abstract: | This report addresses environmental concerns of the proposed change to the current ongoing shore-protection Project at Hoarafushi Island. The EIA of the project was submitted in December 2016 to EPA and EIA approval was issued to undertake this project on 4th April 2016 from EPA; Ref: 203-EIARES/438/2016/59. Presently the project is ongoing and changes to the borrow location has been proposed by the proponent to expedite the project and complete on time.
The initial proposal had the borrow site to obtain backfilling sand on the northern side of the island’s lagoon. However, due to operational and practical difficulties, dredging (using excavators) is logistically and practically difficult due to the sites exposure to strong currents and waves throughout most part of the year. Initial attempts were made to borrow from the north side, but due to many challenges and difficulties, it was decided to change the borrow area, as it was getting too costly and difficult to manage the process.
The proponent therefore proposes to change the borrow location to the south-west side as indicated in the project description section. All other methods remain the same including dredging methodology and machinery. The new borrow site will be located within 500 metres from the project site as per the EIA regulation 2012.
Although the only proposed change is the location, there is a significant change to the predicted environmental impacts during the initial EIA process. The most significant of which is the loss of sea grass beds and dispersal of sediments to the western side coral reef and lagoon. The changes will also bring hydrodynamic modifications, especially the movement of currents and the absorption potential of wave energy.
Compared to the previously proposed area for borrowing, the present location will have more negative environmental impacts. As identified in the EIA process, during dredging, there will be sedimentation in the area. In addition, due to the relative protected state of the western side, sediment dispersal may not spread to a very large area and stagnate for a relatively longer time than usual. However, due to strong currents along the southern tip of the island, any sediments caught or moving southern areas will dissipate sediments to a greater geographical footprint. Lastly but not least, part of the sea grass beds will be destroyed permanently.
Due to the change in the borrow location, the negative impacts predicted for the proposed changes and mitigation measures have been identified in the report.
The first EIA addendum to the EIA of proposed shore protection at Hoarafushi, Haa Alifu Atoll.
Page 14
Environmental impacts were assessed for both the construction and operation phase of the project. The main constructional impact is the direct destruction of the lagoon, sea grass beds and the bottom substrate. In terms of sedimentation the impacts will be high. The socio-economic impacts of the project are expected to be positive as completing the project early would save cost and bring a variety of indirect positive impacts. In addition, the project will allow a reasonably deep lagoon on the western side for smaller boats to move around where they could be moored safely. However, this is a debatable issue as the dredging is not necessarily undertaken to allow safe maneuvering of boats along the western side. Small boats will definitely benefit from this change, but not the big vessels. Hence, this benefit will be mostly felt on the owners of small boats and vessels in the island.
This is a good example of a project where unnecessary environmental damage could have been minimized if the EIA assessment was undertaken thoroughly. During the initial EIA, the advantages and disadvantages of the first borrow areas should have been studied more thoroughly, not only physically but through community consultations as well.
As the EIA report outlines a comprehensive monitoring protocol to capture the areas of concern in the present project itself, this monitoring report will be followed. For the project components that are changing, stakeholder consultations were also undertaken with the contractor and the island council as indicated in the TOR. |
