Environment impact assessment for the proposed dredging component of the resort development project in Ithaafushi Reef, South Male’ Atoll

Abstract

This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report is the evaluation of the potential environmental, socioeconomic and natural impacts of the proposed dredging component of resort development project in Ithaafushi reef. The EIA Regulations published by EPA has been used as the basis for preparing this document. The proponent of this project is Ithaafushi Investments Private Limited. An EIA has been prepared and approved for the project on October 2015 under the Tourism Law. The First Addendum to the EIA was submitted MoT on June 2016 and is pending approval. This EIA has been specifically necessitated as the proponent has opted to use a Trailing Hopper Suction Dredger (THSD), which requires dredging from atoll lagoon. Any development outside the boundary of tourist property requires a separate EIA approval from EPA. Thus, this report only looks into the dredging component of the project. The overall project involves reclaiming a total area of 20.8 Ha in Ithaafushi Reef and the development of the necessary infrastructure for the functioning of a stand-alone 240 bed (120 room) bed capacity. The property will comprise of three separate islands but will be operated as single property. The component proposed under this EIA is to use a THSD to dredge about 500,000 cbm of sand from the atoll lagoon of North Male Atoll and reclaim the proposed island. The rationale for the proposed dredging technology is due to the availability of a TSHD in the Maldives. THSD was proposed as the preferred option on the original EIA if a ship was to become available. The proposed borrow area is located in the atoll lagoon in North Male’ Atoll approximately 27-30 km from Ithaafushi reef. Distance to nearest Marine Protected Area from the borrow site is 1.8 km and distance to sensitive environment is about 1.1 km. A total of 500,000 cbm of sand will be dredged for reclaiming Ithaafushi reef. The site has been identified due to the presence of sand, reusability and proximity to reclamation site. Dredging activity will take approximately two to two-and-a-half weeks and a total of 17 trips will be made by TSHD. Duration of the overall project is 24 to 30 months. The proposed borrow site has also been used to reclaim the Male’ SW harbour area. The proposed developments are generally in conformance to the relevant laws and regulations. Additional approvals are required for the following before commencement of project activities. They include dredging and reclamation approval from EPA, detailed drawings approval from the Ministry of Tourism and construction approval from Ministry of Tourism. Existing environment utilises the baseline data collected for the original EIAs. Works already completed in the reef include construction of sand bunds for Island B and dredging the entrance channel. For this report, borrow area sediment quality, marine environment and marine water quality around borrow sites was assessed. In addition, a detailed bathymetry survey was undertaken. Results of the assessment at proposed borrow site showed limited fines and 80 – 90% moderate sized material suitable for reclamation. The nearest MPA to the proposed dredging site Giraavaru Kuda Haa has excellent coral life and abundance fish. The most significant negative impact from this project during construction are typical impacts associated with dredging and reclamation. All marine organisms within the footprint of dredging will be lost. In addition, increased levels of turbidity and sedimentation inhibit corals ability to successfully reproduce. Others include impacts on ambient noise level, air quality and greenhouse gas emission, marine water quality, changes in hydronamics, impacts on unique habitats and impacts on visual amenity for nearby resorts. Main socioeconomic impacts include the impacts on marine biodiversity and visibility around house reefs of nearby resorts and dive spots in the region. Loss of marine fauna and impact on reef systems will cause a direct impact on the revenue of the resorts. The presence of sensitive environment within the vicinity is a concern, particularly due to the recent coral bleaching event, cumulative impacts from the recently completed Hulhumale’ reclamation project and cumulative impacts of dredging from the same site for Male’ SW harbour construction project. The key mitigation measures proposed for the construction stage include finding options to mitigate noise and air pollution, increased turbidity and sedimentation, resource and social conflicts. To mitigate turbidity and sedimentation, bund walls are proposed to control sediment dispersal during dredging and reclamation and use of ‘green valves’ in the TSHD to minimise impacts from the water overflow during loading into the hopper. Relevant stakeholder must be informed about the project at all stages to mitigate any resource and social conflicts. Alternative options were evaluated for the activities that are identified to have significant impacts on the project. Alternative options have been explored for no changes to dredging method, shore protection and to master plan. Alternatives have also been explored for harbour options, outfall locations and alternative locations for borrow sites. Given strong benefits for the project it is recommended to proceed with changes and preferred option for harbour is proposed northwest corner for aesthetics. Four sites have been studied for potential borrow sites, but South Male’ atoll is left untouched due to the manoeuvring difficulties for a large ship in the area. It is proposed to use the proposed borrow site with stringent adherence to TSHD overflow control. The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for this project is designed to produce a framework for anticipated impacts associated with THSD activities, including practicable and achievable performance requirements and systems for monitoring, reporting and implementing corrective actions. The Monitoring plan is designed to assess any changes to the physical environment as well as operational aspects of the resort, particularly in relation to THSD operations. The monitoring plan in the addendum has been updated as per the changes made to the project. The total cost of mitigation and monitoring are estimated to be USD 5,000 per year. Since the project already has a monitoring programme approved for the original EIA under MoT, the overall programme must incorporate the programme presented in this report. The report must be submitted to both MoT and EPA. Stakeholder consultations were held with Environmental Protection Agency, Marine Research Centre, The proponent, Baros Maldives, Centara Rasfushi Resort and Spa and Diver’s Lodge Maldives. Attempts were made to consults with Kohdhipparu island but were non-responsive. Stakeholder consulted raised concerns on the impacts dredging activity will have on notable dives spots and house reefs of the nearby resorts. Given the vicinity of a MPA around the dredging site, stakeholders recommended exploring alternative borrow sites. The proponent emphasized on the importance of the changes made to the project. EPA noted that a separate EIA may be required to be approved by EPA. This EIA has been initiated based on this suggestion. The main conclusion of this report is to move forward with the proposed changes with the proposed alternatives and the suggested mitigation measures. It has been proposed to move forward with THSD use as it reduces the timeframe of impacts by 6 months which is a substantial environmental benefit compared to a CSD.