Academic Articles -- ޢިލްމީ ލިޔުންތަކުގެ ޖަމާ
Browse
7 results
Search Results
Item First addendum to the environmental impact assessment for the proposed harbour project in Nilandhoo, Faafu Atoll, Maldives(2016-07) SandcaysThis is the first Addendum to the EIA for the harbour project being undertaken in Nilandhoo, Faafu Atoll. The project is proposed by Ministry of Housing and Infrastructure. The project constitutes dredging of a large harbour for the people of Nilandhoo while at the same time creating land using dredged sand including additional dredging for proposed reclamation of 10hectares of land for housing and infrastructure development including semiindustrial activities. An environmental assessment was undertaken for this project in Nov 2015, which has been subsequently approved. According to the EIA report, the objective of the harbour project is to provide a sizeable harbour to accommodate the increasing number of vessels in the island and to restore the usability of the harbour that has been filled over time with the breakwater being damaged, especially following the tsunami of 2004. The harbour on the northeast side is too small given that Nilandhoo has a lot of large fishing vessels and has been serving as the regional hub with fuelling services established on the old (tsunamidamaged) harbour on the northwest. This addendum addresses the modification to the location of the borrow area. One of the main concerns is that the performance of the dredger is affected due to having to pump up to 1km from the borrow to the fill area. Therefore, it has been considered important to move the dredge (borrow) area closer to the fill area in order to enhance dredging performance and achieve cost-effectiveness. During the first Scoping Meeting, which was cancelled by EPA stating that the project justifications were not clear, EPA identified that the borrow area needs to be moved as far as possible from the proposed quaywall as there may be stability issues. Taking this concern into consideration, further alternatives to the borrow area were also considered by the Proponent in consultation with the Contractor and the representatives of Nilandhoo people. During discussions with the Council and people of Nilandhoo, they have raised concern regarding the need to protect the proposed harbour, which would involve huge costs if the proposed option were adopted although it had been mentioned in the original EIA that harbour protection will be considered in the future. Therefore, in order to reduce the overall cost of the proposed project and to increase the usability of the proposed harbour even during rough southwest monsoon, appropriate alternatives were considered to the harbour design as well although it is beyond the scope of this EIA. A number of alternatives to the proposed harbour design was considered in the original EIA report. Of these, the option of upgrading the existing harbour on the northwest has been given due consideration in the light of improving on social concerns related to limitations in land reclamation. An alternative analysis that have been done in the original EIA and during the current Addendum indicated that the preferred alternative to redesign the existing harbour would have several advantages over the proposed especially the ease of use during rough southwest monsoon while leaving the possibility of an external quaywall if it becomes necessary at a later stage. However, some stakeholders believe that the proposed option has advantages over the preferred alternative as it has better opportunities for future expansion and growth of the economic potential of the island. Some of the other alternatives considered in the original EIA report including the expansion of existing harbour on the northeast to the northwest has cost advantages while it has restrictions over future expansion that the recommended alternative in this Addendum provides. Environmental impacts were assessed for both the construction and operational phases of the project. Most of the direct, negative environmental impacts identified for the construction phase of the project were minor negative; the main impact being the impact on sedimentation from the proposed borrow area to the coral colonies in the vicinity and more importantly sedimentation during the filling of the proposed fill areas, which have already been covered in the original EIA report. Therefore, the impact of dredging has been considered in this Addendum. The main impact arising from the proposed new dredge area is the damage to the inner reef as a result of the dredging. There was a concern relating to the closeness of the dredge area to the proposed quaywall and the potential failure of the structure due to a collapse of the sides of the dredged basin. However, since the dredged basin would need to be dredged to less than 4m from the existing seabed, which is less than 6m in depth at present, there should not be such a problem. Only a few berths or quaywalls just adjacent to the reef edge dropping to 30m suddenly have failed whereas the proposed structure is over 110m from the dredge area, which will be dredged to only about 10m and not more than 13m under the current proposal. Furthermore, most of the naturally deep lagoon areas in similar islands would be about 10m in the middle areas with some areas having 15m depths. Therefore, the direct removal of some of the corals due to proposed option can be avoided by not dredging from the inner reef flat areas but the deep lagoon only, as in the proposed alternative. Reclamation of land considering current and future potential use is a favoured development activity in many islands today. However, based on the experience of most of the land reclaimed in many islands, the cost recovery of the project is low and taxpayers have reason to question the outcome of the project. Yet, if the project objectives were achieved by renting the reclaimed land for semi-industrial activities and housing developments, it may be a justifiable cost. It is sad to note that the proposed reclaimed land has yet to find itself a landuse plan and development scenario after several months of EIA approval that had passed by. This is a cause for concern in terms of the afore-mentioned socio-economic impact of the project, although it is beyond the scope of the EIA. If the land is appropriately managed, the project is considered to have several socio-economic benefits that will certainly outweigh the negative environmental impacts, which are of low significance. Although the impacts are not significant due to the absence of sensitive ecological elements that would be directly impacted, some project-specific mitigation measures have been discussed. These include consideration of the preferred alternative (which is also the or one of the alternatives discussed in the original EIA report) to mitigate the impacts of wave activity at the proposed quaywall, to consider shore protection as the reclamation progresses to minimize erosion and to move any live corals that may be directly affected into safer locations. General mitigation measures, involving appropriate construction management such as working during low-tide as much as possible and rigorous supervision during project implementation are also recommended. It is recommended to carry out regular monitoring as proposed in this Addendum, which replaces the monitoring programme given and approved in the original EIA report. It would be important to assess the movement of the sediment plume regularly and to ensure that sediment plume does not severely affect the reef areas. Turbidity levels are expected to be measured within the sedimentation zone on a regular basis up to 6 months after the project. In conclusion, it appears justified, from a technical and environmental point of view, to carry out the proposed project. Since alternatives have not been considered or discussed with the relevant stakeholders including the Council, it is recommended to consider all potential alternatives, including those identified by the EIA Consultants, before proceeding with the project. The preferred alternative borrow areas including the existing harbour on the northwest is recommended.Item First Addendum : environmental impact assessment for the proposed reclamation of runway extension Gan International Airport Addu City, Maldives(2013-06) SandcaysThis report addresses the environmental concerns of the proposed dredging of access channel for the purpose of land reclamation to extend the existing runway on Gan, Addu City. This report shall be read in conjunction with the EIA report for the Proposed Reclamation of Runway Extension at Gan International Airport. This report examines expected environmental and social impacts of the newly proposed method for an access channel and potential mitigation measures. The existing airport in Gan was recently open for international flights and needed to increase length of the runway to accommodate potential larger flights was imminent. Hence, reclamation of necessary land using a cutter-suction dredger was proposed. However, due to the existing reef and shallow lagoon, an access channel for the dredger needs to be made. The initial proposal to make the access channel on the southern side of the island was not possible due to hard substrate and strong waves. An alternative access channel from north-east side of the island through the lagoon on southern side of the island was proposed by the contractor. It shall be noted that the shorter access channel from the western rim reef that was proposed in the EIA report was proposed based on the recommendations of the Contractor(s) and with the assumption that the works would be started as planned during the calm days in Feb 2013. The proposed access channel dredging is not envisaged to have major significant negative constructional impacts; however, there will be minor to moderate potential environmental impacts from the operations including loss of marine biota, habited and harm to coral from sedimentation. A number of mitigation measures such as use of sedimentation screens, relocation of larger colonies of live corals were identified by the consultants. Monitoring program outlined in the EIA report was found to be sufficient and additional environmental monitoring was not found to be necessary except for water quality at the proposed dredge and fill areas. Given that the project does not have major negative environmental impacts and is unavoidable to start construction of the project, it is recommended to allow the project to proceed as proposed.Item Environmental impact assessment for the proposed coastal modifications at Vakarufalhi Island Resort, South Ari Atoll, Maldives(2013-08) SandcaysThis report discusses the findings of an Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed dredging of the existing entrance channel and mooring area at the Service Jetty on the southwest lagoon of Vakarufalhi, South Ari Atoll. The project is proposed by Vakarufalhi Island Resort operated by Mount Lavinia Hotel Group. Vakarufalhi is one of the renowned resorts in the Maldives with luxury beach and water villas, spa, restaurants and bars. The project is targeted at improving access by dredging or maintenance dredging of the existing access channel and mooring area at the service jetty (Jetty B), which is used for supplies and other access needs apart from tourist movements. The dredging of the channel and mooring area is proposed to be undertaken using excavator and truck or mini loader used for moving sand ashore. The volume of the dredged sand is estimated to be about 8500m3 and is proposed to be disposed to the beach after sieving the sand and leftover rubble will be disposed appropriately, either on identified location on land or dumped offshore. Environmental impacts were assessed for both the construction and operation phase of the project. Most of the impacts of the project have been identified as positive resulting mainly from improved access and mooring, improved services, direct and indirect employment opportunities, increase in related business ventures, and so on. The main negative environmental impact of the project is identified to be the possible movement of sediment towards the reef. The movement and settlement of fine sediments are expected to occur mainly on the reef flat, which is predominantly dead. The sedimentation on the reef slope and edge is expected to be low and sediment settlement almost negligible due to good flushing and currents in the area. Therefore, the environmental impacts of the project are considered to be of minor significance and short-term. The project is undertaken due to the socio-economic benefits that entail including easy access at all tides creating improved guest transfers and services. The impact matrices done for the project indicates a net positive impact, however, the magnitude of the net positive impact is small possibly due to the small size of the project. Important mitigation measures that have been identified include the following: 1. Proper setting out of the dredge area to ensure that only the areas where dredging is required will be dredged and coral damage is minimized. 2. Upon setting out, all live coral in the dredge area (borrow areas) shall be moved to safety and transplanted in the nearest safe location prior to dredging. The safe location shall be determined based on the prevailing current direction. 3. Sieve the dredge material before using the material for beach nourishment, so that beach is free from rubble. 4. Excavator movement shall be minimized, therefore, truck or mini loader shall be used for moving the sand from the borrow area to land. Truck movement between the island and the dredge area shall be by using a temporary low bed that is at or slightly below low tide level. Therefore, the moving the dredge material to land would take place during low to medium tide for the safety of the operation. This is considered sufficient based on experience from similar projects. This bed shall be removed at the end of the construction phase. 5. General mitigation measures such as appropriate supervision during the civil works and staff awareness on environmental protection shall be in place. Supervision and environmental guidance shall focus on ensuring that fuelling of excavator and other machinery is undertaken with caution. During the construction phase, it is also vital to undertake daily in-situ monitoring of total suspended solids and turbidity to ensure that water quality criteria are met and sedimentation on the reef does not occur. In addition, monitoring of low tide line, high tide line, water quality and drogues shall be undertaken for a minimum of 2 years. It is recommended to incorporate these into an island-wide monitoring programme, which is not within the scope of this EIA report. In conclusion, it appears justified from a technical and environmental point of view, to carry out the proposed project to dredge the existing entrance channel and proposed mooring area on the southwest of Vakarufalhi resort.Item Environmental impact assessment for the proposed rehabilitation of harbour Kurendhoo, Lhaviyani Atoll, Maldives(2011-02) SandcaysThis report addresses the environmental concerns of the proposed harbour rehabilitation in Kurendhoo, Lhaviyani Atoll. The primary objective of the project is to provide safe and adequate access to the island. As such the project encompasses maintenance dredging of existing entrance channel and basin, dredging of an additional 30m to the south with quaywall and a boat beaching area to the south. The replacement of existing quaywall and breakwater is also within the scope of the renovation works. The harbour is located on the northwest corner of the island, which is a natural sand accumulation area (thundi). As a result, the channel gets easily filled and the area behind it gets eroded. Therefore, there are location as well as design issues. Since changing the location would not be feasible now, it would be necessary to make adjustments to the design proposed for the renovation works in consultation with the community. Some senior members of the community have indicated that while the proposed extension of 30m to the south is plausible, it would be worth the while to extend a further 30m and then create the beaching area so that the existing Health Center in the area is not prone to the dust and noise from the boat repair works carried out in the boat beaching area which at present is just opposite the Health Center. The erosion on the northeast of the entrance channel is also a serious cause for concern and the community is desirous of some improvements to that area as part of the harbour renovation works. Therefore, it is also recommended to consider the possibility of placing the dredge material in this area while providing some form of coastal protection to the recreated shoreline. The proposed concept has not been discussed with the community so far. Therefore, community views that have been incorporated in this EIA report needs to be given consideration in finalising the design. However, the community has been waiting for the project for quite some time and the first elected Island Council is under a lot of pressure to initiate the works. Therefore, it is recommended to allow the project to proceed while the additional extension and coastal protection measures can be finalized in consultation with the relevant stakeholders during the construction phase. Taking this into consideration the environmental impacts have been assessed for the worst case scenario in which the Proponent takes into consideration all demands of the community and provide the final detailed design to the EPA in due course. The recommended alternative proposed in this EIA report has been based on informal community consultations held with some key members of the community including some of the nominated members of the Island Council. The overall environmental impacts of the project have been assessed using appropriate matrices and the results indicated that the proposed project has net positive impact. Given that the project has several socio-economic benefits although there would be some negative environmental impacts, it is recommended to allow the project to proceed as proposed.Item Environmental impact assessment for the proposed development of a harbour Kurinbi, Haa Dhaalu Atoll, Maldives(2010-08) SandcaysThis report addresses the environmental concerns of the proposed harbour development in Kurinbi, Haa Dhaalu Atoll. The primary objective of the project is to provide safe and adequate access to the island. As such the project encompasses dredging and removal beach rock/reef flat, construction of quaywall and breakwaters and the filling of dredged materials on either side of the proposed harbour. The proposed harbour is located on eastern side close to the existing access channel. The proposed harbour project falls within the Access Improvement Programme, the size of proposed harbour under the programme is 150ft x 300ft. However, the island community in the community consultation meeting proposed to increase the width of the harbour from 150 ft to at least 200 ft by extending the harbour into landward side. Extending the breakwater into seaward side may not be possible due to close proximity of outer reef edge to shoreline where high swells and strong wave action take place. There are three access channels in use by the community. The most commonly used access channel is located at southern end of the proposed harbour location. However, the harbour location has been proposed in a fresh location. In the consultation meeting held with IDC the committee suggested that it would still be better if the proposed harbour location moved towards south approximately 200 ft such a way that harbour front will be at the eastern end of main road. The existing access channel at the southern side of the proposed harbour has been decided to use for boat beaching and services. The recommended harbour location, however is to move further south to enclose the existing channel within the proposed harbour basin. In terms of impact to environmental, moving the proposed harbour location to an already damaged location would be beneficial to environment as it would minimize further damage to natural environment dredging cost. The area is already been subjected to the impacts of dredging and is in active use, further cumulative impacts to this area would be preferable to impacts on new fresh areas in their natural state. It was also identified from the environmental surveys that the percentage of dead coral (25%) in the proposed location compared to the percentage (34%) of dead corals in the location already in use is low. Also in the environmental survey conducted in these locations indicated that fish population was more live and more diverse in the proposed location compared to the existing access channel area. Kurinbi located in the middle of the atoll, unlike other islands in the region, is continuously subjected to high swells and strong wave actions in all directions. Hence there is limited space for extending the harbour towards seaward side due to swell induced wave action. Hence the size of the harbour, particularly the width has been maintained at 150 ft by MHE which apparently is the maximum possible width that can draw from the available safe space while minimizing damage to the environment. The IDC raised the issue of small size of the harbour particularly the width of the harbour during the consultation meeting held at Kurinbi office on 17 July 2010. Community suggested increasing the width by extending towards landward side. This area is regarded as the face of the island. The overall environmental impacts of the project have been assessed using appropriate methodologies including data collection through a field survey, purpose build checklists and professional judgments. The overall results indicated that the proposed project had net positive impact. Given that the project has major socio-economic benefits although there would be some negative environmental impacts, it is recommended to allow the project to proceed as proposed. Environmental monitoring recommended for the project includes the monitoring of the shorelines of Kurinbi water quality and drogue studies of the coastal area for at least two years from the onset of the proposed project implementation. Monitoring is also expected to cover public views and grievances about the project and future harbour management information such as nos. of vessels that use the harbour. Annual monitoring reports have to be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency over the monitoring period.Item Environmental impact assessment for the proposed rehabilitation of harbour in Holhudhoo, Noonu Atoll, Maldives(2011-03) SandcaysThis report addresses the environmental concerns of the proposed harbour rehabilitation in Holhudhoo, Noonu Atoll. The primary objective of the project is to provide safe and adequate access to the island. As such the project encompasses maintenance dredging of existing entrance channel and basin, replacement of existing quaywall and breakwater and improvement of existing boat beaching area. The harbour is located on the northern side of the island. This location is appropriate in terms of beach dynamics since beach material hardly moves to this location. It may be possible that only part of the beach on the northwest side moves towards the harbour. As a result the northwest shoreline has been severely eroded and it is the primary location identified for placing the dredge material. Since this area needs protection and also the powerhouse is in this area with possible fuelling stations for dhonis and other vehicles, it is recommended that, as an alternative, to consider moving the boat beaching area to this side as the northeastern end where the beaching area currently exists is a predominantly residential area. Therefore, zoning light industrial activities to the powerhouse area would be sensible. It has also been suggested by the community to expand the harbour towards the west after creating a T-jetty at the western end of the existing harbour. Therefore, the recommended alternative given in the report has taken these landuse zoning and community aspirations into consideration. The proposed concept involves the maintenance dredging of the existing harbour basin and provision of new quaywall and breakwater. However, the concept has not been discussed with the community so far. Therefore, community views that have been incorporated in this EIA report needs to be given consideration in finalising the design. Since, the community has been anxiously waiting for the project for quite some time, it is recommended to allow the proposed project to proceed while further modifications can be finalized in consultation with the relevant stakeholders during the construction phase. Taking this into consideration the environmental impacts have been assessed for the worst case scenario in which the Proponent takes into consideration all demands of the community and provide the final detailed design to the EPA in due course. The overall environmental impacts of the project have been assessed using appropriate matrices and the results indicated that the proposed project has net positive impact. Given that the project has several socio-economic benefits although there would be some negative environmental impacts, it is recommended to allow the project to proceed as proposed.Item Environmental impact assessment: coastal components of proposed refurbishment Chaaya Lagoon Hakuraa Huraa, Meemu Atoll, Maldives(2010-06-01) SandcaysThis report addresses the environmental concerns of the proposed coastal components of the refurbishment planned for 2010 for Chaaya Lagoon Hakuraa Huraa, Meemu Atoll. The primary objective of the project is to enhance the natural environmental of Hakuraa and to improve the services offered to guests thereby minimizing operational and environmental costs. As such the project encompasses modifications to the existing jetty head to incorporate a fixed seaplane platform that would bring an end to dhoni transfers from existing floating platform, deepening of the existing reef entrance channel so that it can be used by supply and other dhonis saving time and fuel and providing beach on the southside shoreline where there is no beach. Hence, different options for the proposed project, especially the beach enhancement component have been evaluated and the most practicable options not entailing excessive costs have been recommended. Since the resort is already closed for renovation, it may not be possible to get all the proposed activities done in time for reopening. Therefore, the beach enhancement and entrance channel deepening may have to be put off. Hakuraa is surrounded by a large expanse of lagoon. Therefore, only the proposed channel deepening activity is expected to impact the coral reef. The impact on the reef is not considerably large as the reef flat in the area has very low cover of live corals and the live corals on the reef slope is expected to be cleared of sediment within a short period by the current in the area. However, it would be useful to monitor such changes. It has also been recommended to transplant any coral that may be directly impacted and may not recover from the effects of sedimentation. In fact, all proposed activities would have short term sedimentation impacts, with the water quality returning to normal within weeks. The overall environmental impacts of the project have been assessed using appropriate matrices and the results indicated that the proposed project had net positive impact. That is, the project has no major adverse impacts on the environment as far as current knowledge is concerned. Given that the project has major socio-economic benefits and some environmental benefits, it is recommended to allow the project to proceed as proposed. However, alternative analysis for the coastal protection or beach enhancement component indicates that there is a strong argument for added coastal protection. It has, therefore, been recommended to consider headland revetments using geotextile containers in order to retain the sand that has been planned to be added to the southside shore. Other feasible alternatives also have been considered. Environmental monitoring recommended for the project includes the monitoring of the shorelines of Hakuraa and neighbouring island and water quality and drogue studies of the coastal area for three years from the onset of the proposed project implementation. Annual monitoring reports have to be submitted over the monitoring period.