Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://saruna.mnu.edu.mv/jspui/handle/123456789/4999
Title: | First addendum to the environmental impact assessment for the proposed reclamation of Feydhoo, Addu City, Maldives : change of borrow area |
Authors: | Musthafa, Amir |
Keywords: | Land reclamation Dredging Existing marine environment Environmental impacts Mitigation measures Environmental monitoring Environmental impact assessments |
Issue Date: | May-2016 |
Citation: | Musthafa, A. (2016). First addendum to the environmental impact assessment for the proposed reclamation of Feydhoo, Addu City, Maldives : change of borrow area. Male': Maldives |
Abstract: | This report is the Addendum to the EIA undertaken for the Proposed Reclamation of
Feydhoo, Addu City, Maldives. This addendum is based on the change of borrow area after
the sand search campaign has been undertaken.
An Environmental Impact Assessment was necessary for the works outlined in this report as
they fall under the ‘Jadhuvalu R’ of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations
2012 of the Maldives. This report would further conform to the Dredging and Reclamation
regulation. In addition to meeting the regulatory requirements, the report would further
assist the proponent and important stakeholders to make decisions in an environmentally
sound manner.
The new dredging location is about 1.5km North of the proposed borrow area 1 given in the
original EIA. The overall environmental impacts of the project have been assessed using
frameworks found on literature and the results indicate that the proposed project has
minimum negative impact and have an overall net positive outcome. The main
environmental positive impacts due to this change comes from the fact that it is slightly far
from the inhabited area, and therefore direct impact on inhabitants will be minimised.
However, the change results in the borrow area being located relatively closer to the manta
point, kuda kandu, and maa kandu, which a popular dive spot and sensitive areas
respectively. However, the dredging location is still over 3-4km away from the sites. The
area is slightly closer to the british loyalty wreck is also 3km away from the dredge area.
Dredging activities will no doubt increase sedimentation impacts in the area, although
lasting impacts are not envisaged. There are no additional impacts due to reclamation as
there is no change in scope with regards to this component. Furthermore, it is important to
note that the approved dredge locations in the initial EIA had similar distances away from
other sensitive areas in the South.
Important new stakeholders for the project include dive centres and fishermen who may use
the surrounding region of the borrow area. While some dive centers had significant
reservations and had been reported to be outright against the project taking place in the area,
their reasons are not backed by sound science and there is simply a lack of information to
conclude the dredging in this area will result in any lasting impact to the popular dive spots.
Alternative borrow area options are not viable as the sand search campaign concluded that
there are no other significant sand depots within Addu Atoll. Alternative areas are those that
have already been excluded. The only other viable alternative is to source sand from another
region. Importing sand from abroad will be very costly and will have further negative
impacts at the reclaim site.
It is recommended to continue to monitor the impacts of the proposed project by regular
monitoring of marine water quality. The monitoring plan proposed in the original EIA is
slightly updated to include more monitoring locations, near borrow area. A two stage
monitoring plan is given, which recommends quarterly monitoring during the 1st year and
less frequent monitoring for the next 5 years. Undertaking the monitoring, along with the
mitigation measures is necessary to ensure the sustainable development of the project with
minimum harm to the environment.
It is thus recommended that since the project has major socio-economic benefits and
environmental benefits, it is advisable to allow the project to proceed as proposed.
Moreover, since the change in scope is relatively small, and since the initial EIA has been
approved, and also considering the fact that the sand search campaign resulted in only one
location within Addu Atoll to obtain sand, there is no viable reason to postpone or cancel
the project due to this change. |
URI: | http://saruna.mnu.edu.mv/jspui/handle/123456789/4999 |
Appears in Collections: | ތިމާވެށި Environment A
|
Items in Saruna are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.