Academic Articles -- ޢިލްމީ ލިޔުންތަކުގެ ޖަމާ
Browse
38 results
Search Results
Item Environmental impact assessment for the proposed development of an agricultural island Dhurureha Thaa Atoll, Maldives(2017-09) SandcaysThis report discusses the findings of a social and environmental impact study under the proposed development of agriculture on Dhururehaa, Thaa Atoll. The project is proposed by Mohamed Latheef. The proponent aims at developing Dhurureha as an agricultural island; providing job opportunities, reducing dependency on imported produce and ultimately working towards economic diversification and growth of Maldivian economy. The agricultural activities on Dhurureha will be carried out in greenhouses as a hydroponics system. A total of 12 greenhouses (100ft by 50ft each) is proposed to be built for growing tomato, capsicum, bell pepper and lettuce. Additionally, a 60m by 30m nursery will be built on the island. Access to the island is to be provided by dredging an access channel and a 200m jetty. Water requirement for the project is to be met by utilizing an RO plant. A suitable size diesel generator will be used throughout the project to meet power requirement. Staff facilities such as accommodation, mesh room, mosque and office building will also be constructed on the island. A cold storage, general storage and small packaging facility will also be constructed on the island during construction stage. A waste collection and management station will be established for using during construction phase and operational phase of the project At present, Dhurureha is an uninhabited island not used for any purpose. However, locals of the nearby communities use the island to collect coconuts, go on picnics and gather firewood. Alternatives to project components have been identified in the project document. These include alternative uses of the island such as for a tourist resort. However, upon closer analysis of these options, the proposed development of the island for agricultural purpose was found to be more viable based on the present circumstances under which the island has been leased. Therefore, the consultants propose exploring use of alternative renewable sources to the proposed fuel based energy generation. Environmental impacts were assessed for both the construction and operation phase of the project. Most of the environmental impacts of the project have been identified as minor negative with highly positive socio-economic impacts. The main negative impacts from the project include habitat loss from vegetation clearance, sedimentation and consequent impacts on marine wildlife health and waste generation during the operational phase. The mitigation measures outlined for these impacts include conserving mature trees to the greatest possible extent, relocating large live corals at the proposed access channel area and establishing dust control plans in addition to employing best-practice guidelines during the operational phase. The most positive socio-economic impacts related to the project are increase in job opportunities, reduction in prices of agricultural produce and increase of national revenue. It is inevitable that there would be some negative environmental impacts. However, most of the impacts of the proposed project are minor compared to the positive socio-economic benefits of the proposed system. Yet, monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the proposed project would be necessary. Therefore, a monitoring component has been suggested which takes in to consideration, the most important elements that require regular checks. This monitoring component will be adhered to and will allow the assessment of changes due to construction and implementation of the proposed agriculture project. Monitoring is specifically focussed on employment opportunities, price changes in the market, direct and indirect economic ventures, ground and marine water quality, changes in the hydrodynamics of the project area as well as impacts on the reef or marine ecological area of importance. In conclusion, it appears justified from a technical and environmental point of view, to carry out the proposed project to develop Dhurureha as an agricultural island.Item Environmental impact assessment proposed milkfish aquaculture project Matu, Gaafu Alif Atoll(2017-07) SandcaysThis report addresses the environmental concerns of the proposed milkfish (Chanos chanos) hatchery project in Ga. Matu. The project is proposed by Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture. Concerns about live-bait availability over prolonged periods are being raised in recent years, especially in the southern atolls of Maldives. The development of aquaculture for selected bait species is seen as one possible measure to manage the live bait shortage currently faced by local fishermen. Cultured milkfish has been in use for the longlining industry in different parts of the world, and successfully piloted for the pole-and-line industry in Indonesia and Kiribati. Unlike most of the live bait species currently in use in the pole-and-line fishery, hatchery technology is well developed for milkfish. In addition, the relatively short duration to reach bait-size makes milkfish an ideal species for aquaculture development. Supplementing the tuna fishermen with cultured bait is expected to reduce the time spent on bait search, and in turn, result in increased effort directed to the tuna fishery. As live bait shortage is mostly reported from the southern atolls, the proposed hatchery site was selected from Gaafu Alif atoll, for logistical ease in distribution for the most needed areas can be made. The selected island, Matu from Ga. Atoll is 5.9 Ha small uninhabited island on the northern side of Ga.Atoll. The closest inhabited islands to the project site are Ga. Villingili and Kolamaafushi. The project aims to produce 100 tons of milkfish raised to the size of live bait used in the pole-and-line fishery. All required technical and support infrastructure will be constructed during the construction phase of the project. The operational phase will involve water circulation, feeding and rearing of cultured stock. In addition to hatchery, nursery and broodstock modules built on land, sea cages will be built for brood stock. Power will be provided for the project via diesel generators, while potable water will be provided via RO plants. Accommodation for staff and administrative buildings and waste management centre will also be constructed on the island. Access to the island will be provided via access channel and a jetty. The naturally deep lagoon will be used as a harbour during the project. Social and environmental concerns regarding the proposed project include: • Vegetation clearance during site preparation for construction of land infrastructures. This impact is considered minor negative as outmost care will be taken to reduce cutting down mature vegetation. Buildings will be adjusted as much as possible to reduce requirement of cutting or relocation of mature trees. When unavoidable, two plants for every tree cut will be planted on the island. • Sedimentation during excavation of access channel and construction of main jetty. This impact is considered as negligible as the excavation involved is very minor. Measures to reduce this impact such as working during calm weather and low-tide has been suggested as mitigation measures. • Minor impacts due to human activity in the area including littering both during construction and operational phases. • Increased nutrient loadings from faeces and uneaten food wastes, which will either dissolve or settle on the seabed beneath the cage. Since the water is deep and adequate currents exist, eutrophication is, however, unlikely. The proposed project is expected to be managed in conformity with local and international regulations and standards of relevance, especially environmental regulations and standards. Therefore, environmental impacts will be well managed, minimized and mitigated. Given that the project has major socio-economic benefits and some environmental benefits (potential to reduce pressure on wild populations of baitfish), it is recommended to allow the project to proceed as proposed. It is important to consider uncertainties and continue to monitor the project impacts and undertake appropriate mitigation measures in consultation with the EPA and other relevant government agencies. It is also necessary to undertake regular environmental monitoring activities.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 Environmental impact assessment for the proposed commercial sand mining project at Fushidhiggarufalhu, South Malé Atoll(2017-11) SandcaysThis report discusses the findings of an environmental impact assessment undertaken for the purpose of approval for commercial sand mining at Fushidhiggarufalhu in South Malé Atoll. The project is proposed by Endheri and Sons, who are currently involved in manual sand mining activities in Kaafu Atoll. The EIA is required because the Proponent wishes to use pumps for sand mining to increase their productivity and subsequent sales. The project involves the mining of sand by using sand pump at Fushidhiggarufalhu in South Malé Atoll. This lagoon has been approved for sand mining by the government. However, according to the Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, sand mining using sand pumps or other machinery and mining of large volumes of sand for commercial purposes would require EIA for approval. The Proponent wishes to use a 4 or 6-inch sand pump for mining sand from Fushidhiggaru lagoon. The project does not cover the fill location but pumping into containers and transporting the containers in dhoni or other vessel. Appropriate locations have been identified at the edges of the deep lagoon areas. It is estimated that if these areas are dredged to the same depth as the adjoining deep lagoon, over 600,000m3/ of sand may be taken from these areas. This would be equal to about 3 years of continuous sand mining using a 6-inch sand pump. Environmental impacts identified for the project are slightly positive overall due to the socio-economic benefits from the project. The main positive impacts are revenue and employment opportunities. The use of pumps will also reduce the safety concerns associated with manual mining, which has added benefits. The use of pumps makes the mining process less manual, therefore, safer for the workforce while increasing the productivity. This does not necessarily mean reduced workforce as additional job opportunities would be created. However, the socio-economic benefits of the project are not so strong due to the scale of the project. There is the concern that other sand miners will follow suit in which case it would be necessary to identify different locations for different miners and geographic areas that can be mined and to make other arrangements such as security posts. There is the potential for growth in the sand mining industry especially with the growing construction industry and several resorts in Malé Atoll where regular beach nourishment is a necessity but where there are no lagoon areas from which sand can be pumped. However, there are very few places in Malé Atoll from where sand can be mined as most of the lagoons have been leased for resort development. In fact, Fushidhiggarufalhu was previously leased for resort development and would possibly be leased again in the near future. There are no positive environmental impacts related to the project although it may be argued that sand mining would be an important activity that will reduce the dependence on imported construction material, which has large environmental impacts related to transport. The negative environmental impacts related to mining of sand using sand pumps include increased sedimentation during filling. The sediment as it flows from the vessel and into the marine environment would have some degree of unwanted particles including traces of oil and rust particles that would be on the vessel. Therefore, it would be important to keep the top of the vessel, where the containers are filled, clean and tidy at all times. The proposed borrow areas are several hundred metres from the reef areas, therefore, the impacts of sedimentation are not expected to degrade the closest reef areas. Yet, sediment control measures shall be in place in and outside the vessel. Since the project has minor negative impacts, an assessment of alternatives was not considered necessary. However, since the approved Terms of Reference requires alternative borrow areas and methods to be identified, three alternative borrow areas in Malé Atoll (near Malé) and alternative work methods of excavation including using of excavator has been identified. The only possible alternative borrow locations in Malé Atoll are Gulhee Falhu, Thilafalhu and the southwest end of Velassarufalhu. These locations would have greater conflicts of interest than the Fushidhiggarufalhu at present. However, Fushidhiggarufalhu will have conflicts in case it is leased for resort development, which could be the case soon. The alternative of using excavator for mining sand would not be acceptable due to the large degree of sedimentation that it would cause followed by aesthetic impacts. It would also not be feasible due to depth limitations. However, grab hoppers with large grab buckets may be considered a more feasible option for sand mining using machinery. In conclusion, it appears justified from a technical, administrative and environmental point of view, to carry out the proposed project. While a strict monitoring programme is not necessary, it is proposed to monitor and report to EPA the depths of the dredged areas and marine transect from a fixed location in the closest marine areas every six months.Item Environmental impact assessment for the proposed development of an agricultural island Faadhoo Lhaviyani Atoll, Maldives(2017-11) SandcaysThis report discusses the findings of a social and environmental impact study under the proposed development of agriculture on Faadhoo, Lhaviyani Atoll. The project is proposed by Open Blue Pvt. Ltd. The project aims to use Faadhoo island for agriculture, and produce both local varieties, and some of the imported food. Among the proposed activities to be carried out on the island include the horticulture of watermelons, papayas, tomatoes, lettuce, herbs, salads, and mushrooms. Under the proposed project, there will be clearance of about 1.7ha of the land for construction of necessary infrastructure and construction of a jetty for access to the island. Services related to the proposed project such as water, sewerage, energy and waste will also be established during the construction phase. At present, Faadhoo is an uninhabited island not used for any official industrial or recreational purpose. There are two wetland areas listed as an environmental sensitive area (by EPA) on the island. The larger of the two wetlands has a mangal vegetation of 2.8ha (including the water body), dominated by Rhizophora mucronata (Ran’doo) and Bruguiera cylindrica (Kandoo); while the smaller one has a mangal vegetation of 0.5ha; with same species of mangroves. The proposed project activities will not fall within the boundary of these areas and the proponent has included a buffer zone between the ESA and project infrastructure. The small size of the Maldivian islands, and the absence of adequate natural freshwater supplies make it hard for the majority of food in the Maldives to be grown and harvested on a commercial scale within the country. Furthermore, climatic factors render it difficult to produce the imported food as well. However, there are some species such as melons, papayas, tomatoes, bananas, various herbs, and salads which can be farmed and harvested economically. The produce can be sold to the tourism industry, which imports majority of the agricultural products from other countries. Hence, the main goal of this project is to develop the agricultural industry of the Maldives, and to potentially cater for the market demand from tourism, as well as the local market. Alternatives for the proposed project have been identified in this document. These include alternative uses of the island such as development of the island as an ecotourism site due to the presence of a mangrove site, or leaving the island as it is in its natural state, which in the future may potentially increase the value of the island. The consultants recommend exploring use of renewable energy alternatives highlighted as well as organic farming and vertical farming to increase efficiency of space usage under this project. Environmental impacts were assessed for both the construction and operation phase of the project. Most of the environmental impacts of the project have been identified as minor negative, with positive socio-economic impacts, especially if the agricultural methods are done organically, or with limited use of fertilisers and pesticides. The main negative impacts from the project include biomass and habitat loss from vegetation clearance, sedimentation and consequent impacts on marine wildlife, and waste generation and effluents, especially during the operational phase. The mitigation measures outlined for these impacts include conserving mature trees to the greatest possible extent, creating vegetation buffer zones, and habitat corridors, using organic agricultural methods, using natural biofertilizers and pesticides and establishing dust and emission control plans, in addition to employing best-practice guidelines for agriculture during the operational phase. The most positive socio-economic impacts related to the project are reduction in prices of agricultural produce, and increase of national revenue, and job opportunities. A monitoring mechanism to ensure the effectiveness of the proposed project is also included in this document. This monitoring component allows for the assessment of changes that will occur during the construction and implementation of the proposed agriculture project. Monitoring is specifically focussed on environmental aspects such as ground and marine water quality, changes in the hydrodynamics of the project area, as well as impacts on the reef or marine ecological area, agricultural methods, and social aspects such as labour and occupational health and safety aspects. In conclusion, the proposed project is justified in terms of environmental impacts based on predicted economic and social benefits of the project. As such, the consultants are of the opinion the project may proceed as proposed; provided the recommended mitigation measures and environmental monitoring program is implemented.Item First addendum to the environmental impact assessment for the proposed sewerage system in Hulhudheli, Dhaalu Atoll, Maldives(2016-07) SandcaysThis report addresses the environmental concerns of the proposed changes to the vegetation clearance component in the vegetated areas of the island, the details of which were not provided in the original EIA for the Proposed Sewerage System in Dh. Hulhudheli. During the construction phase it was found necessary to remove some vegetation, which had not been considered in the initial planning and design. In order to provide some of the newly registered plots with sewerage connections, the pipe network in these areas required vegetation clearance consisting mainly of coconut palms. Compensation has to be paid for some of the trees which are owned by the community. Therefore, a special announcement was made by the Council and only 2 members of the community claimed ownership of 2 coconut palms. According to the Council, they would make the necessary arrangements to pay compensation to these 2 parties. Since the trees in consideration being mature coconut palms with a few younger palms, the younger palms will be replanted and the rest will be used for timber wood. For each tree that is cut down, two trees will be planted in the newly reclaimed area where extensive plantation of coconut palms have been already carried out by the community in the recent past. Therefore, the proposed vegetation clearance would not have any additional impacts and no additional mitigation measures would be necessary. There are also no additional requirements for monitoring. However, the number of coconut palms cut down and those transplanted as well as the number of coconuts planted as compensation will be included within the revised monitoring programme provided in this report.Item Environmental impact assessment for the proposed shore protection project in Kurendhoo, Lhaviyani Atoll, Maldives(2015-12) SandcaysThis report discusses the findings of an environmental impact study under the shore protection project proposed for Kurendhoo in Lhaviyani Atoll. The project is proposed by Ministry of Environment and Energy. The project comprises of the protection of the eroding area on the southeast corner end of the island, adjoining the football ground. Shoreline at this part of the island has to be protected for safeguarding the football ground and protect the area from severe erosion. A 220m long rock boulder revetment has been proposed. The project also involves backfill of the proposed revetment area and behind the previously proposed breakwater on the north by getting sand from approved borrow areas. The project will be undertaken together with the ongoing harbour project and is estimated to take about 120 days with a manpower requirement estimated at 27 and involving heavy machinery including excavator, dump truck, loader and crane. A number of alternatives to the proposed project components have been identified in this document. Of these, the preferred alternative is a groyne field with a nearshore submerged breakwater. The cost of the preferred alternative is similar and the protection to updrift and downdrift locations are further enhanced by appropriately-designed groyne field. Other alternatives include just a groyne field or a semi-submerged breakwater. Rock boulders is the preferred material for the proposed shore protection while geotextile bags or geotextile tubes may be used as a cheaper alternative but would not be as effective as rock boulders. There are not many options to be identified as borrow areas since the island is surrounded by quite narrow reef flats and there are no lagoon areas with fine sand. Therefore, the alternative would be to bring material from a lagoon nearby and have the material taken to the fill location in trucks or pumped to fill location. However, due to the small scale of the project, alternative borrow areas have not been considered except those areas that have already been approved. 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 sedimentation during the filling of the proposed fill areas. However, these impacts are of low significance while the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the negative impacts including the protection to the football field, shore protection to the beach in the area as well as downdrift locations. The fill areas shown in the proposed project are the same areas identified in the EIA and the EIA Addendum for the harbour project. Therefore, in principle those areas have been approved. However, for the purpose of this EIA, the borrow areas are different from those proposed earlier. According to the Council, the area identified on the SW side is preferable for dredging because this area is more suitable for a creating an area for swimming since the reef extent on this area is greater than in other areas. Since it does not have adequate swimming depths, deepening this area provides the required fill for the southeast end while creating swimming area for the island that lacks swimmable area around the island. The creation of the swimming area or an artificial beach in the proposed area, however, is not within the scope of this EIA report. The impact on coral reef is also less in this area since the net flow in this area is generally towards the eroded southern end and the reef flat and slope are devoid of live coral and mainly with bedrock. For the fill area on the north, the harbour area would be quite suitable as it would provide sufficient material for the proposed fill area while keeping the impacts to an already impacted area. Therefore, it is considered most suitable to dredge material for the northern fill from the harbour area and that for the southeast fill from the southwest lagoon. The small borrow area shown on the north may be considered only if adequate fill material cannot be obtained. Since there are a few impacts, there are no specific mitigation measures for the proposed project. General mitigation measures, involving appropriate construction management such as working during low-tide as much as possible and rigorous supervision during project implementation are recommended Since monitoring has not been undertaken in the past for the harbour project, it is recommended to carry out monitoring for this project. This project has linkages with the harbour project and therefore the recommended mitigation measures and monitoring programmes in the EIA and Addendum for the harbour project shall be undertaken in conjunction with the proposed shore protection project. In conclusion, it appears justified, from a technical and environmental point of view, to carry out the proposed shore protection project. Since alternatives have not been considered or discussed with the relevant stakeholders including the Council, it is recommended to consider all potential alternatives to shore protection, including those identified by the EIA Consultants, before proceeding with the project.Item Environmental impact assessment for the proposed sewerage system in Ihavandhoo, Haa Alifu Atoll, Maldives(2015-11) SandcaysThis report discusses the findings of an environmental impact study under the proposed sewerage system project at HA. Ihavandhoo. The project is proposed by Ministry of Environment and Energy. The project entails establishment of a proper island-wide sewerage system with a sea outfall. The proposed project will involve installing a pipe network to collect sewage from all the households on the island and necessary pumping stations. Currently raw sewage is disposed onto the ground via house-level soak-pits; polluting groundwater greatly. The proposed outfall will pump wastewater beyond the house-reef at over 7m depth. A number of alternatives to the proposed project components have been identified in this document. Of these, the preferred alternative is to change the outfall location. It is also proposed to consider a treatment plant in the design, though the consultants are of the opinion, proposed system without a treatment plant but changed outfall location is the best option. Other alternatives include considering different disposal options; ground and lagoon, which are not recommended for reasons of greater environmental pollution. Environmental impacts were assessed for both the construction and operational phase of the project. Most of the environmental impacts identified for the construction phase of the project were minor negative; these include sedimentation from installing the outfall and temporary salinization of groundwater from de-watering to lay out the pipe network and pump stations. However, the impacts identified for the operational phase of the project were mostly moderate to major positive; improvement of groundwater quality from stopping the current sewage disposal practise and reduction of related health hazards. Disposal of sewage via proposed sea outfall is considered to have a minor negative impact. The main mitigation measures for this project during the construction phase are similar to other sewerage projects such as dust control plans, working during low- tide as much as possible and rigorous supervision. In case of deterioration of groundwater quality due to potential dewatering during construction of lifting stations in residential area, measures to water plants in the area that may be affected due to dewatering shall be in place. The design shall also ensure that dewatering is minimized. As for the operational phase trained maintenance staff to service the sewerage system and regular check-ups has been suggested in addition to monitoring water quality as well as reef health for potential impacts. Increasing awareness on groundwater conservation and promoting sustainable groundwater aquifer management, especially the skimming well technology has been suggested. The Proponent is willing to undertake monitoring during and after the construction phase in addition to undertaking the mitigation measures proposed by the consultants. In conclusion, it appears justified from a technical, administrative and to some extent environmental point of view, to carry out the proposed sewerage system development project. The alternative of wastewater treatment will involve greater operational costs; therefore, it is recommended to proceed the project as proposed while keeping the option open for future wastewater treatment, as and when required.Item Environmental impact assessment for the proposed sea water cooling system in Addu City, Maldives(2016-05) SandcaysThis report discusses the findings of an environmental impact study under the proposed sea water cooling system for the electrical generator sets in the central power station of Addu city. Central Power House at Addu City requires Engine cooling by using saline water. The system will require installing three boreholes with multi stage submersible pumps, supply line for pressure header and feeding lines with valves and flanges. The proponent of this project is Fenaka Corporation Ltd. Rotary-mud drilling will be employed for the construction. The depth of borehole will be determined in accordance with the existing guidelines; i.e. if electrical conductivity of discharge water has reached 50-60mS/cm before reaching 30m depth, drilling will continue until it has reached 30m. Furthermore, if electrical conductivity of discharge water at 30m depth is measured less than 50-60mS/cm, drilling will be continued until electrical conductivity reaches to 50-60mS/cm. The extracted earth and saline water from drilling activities will be deposited on a purpose-built plastic sheet and water will be separated from the solids. The water extracted from this is proposed to be disposed off into the lagoon via the reject line in the operational phase. The most significant impact from the proposed project would be temporary deterioration of local freshwater quality during borehole installation and seawater quality at the disposal site. The impact on groundwater during borehole construction is of low magnitude and temporary. The impact is also of little significance. The impact of seawater quality at discharge location is almost negligible given that the discharge water has similar characteristics to the lagoon water in terms of salinity although the water would be hot at the time of discharge. Since the discharge location is a reef flat area with no coral the impact is negligible. Furthermore, the area gets dry at low tide and there is no recreational value in this area as it is the rim reef flat. Alternatives have been identified in the EIA, however it is seen that the best method to carry out the project is the proposed method of using boreholes. The alternative is to use a seawater intake, however, due to the distance of a feasible intake location with the rim reef closest to the location, boreholes are considered to be more suitable. The consultations with the Council also revealed that the proposed route for the discharge pipeline is not suitable, as there is no road in the proposed route. Therefore, as per the Council’s recommendation, it is proposed to consider the alternative route that would dispose at the same location as the existing brine discharge pipe. Since there were no significant environmental impacts identified for the proposed project, mitigation measure were general construction phase guidelines such as dust control measures and appropriate waste management. The alternative route for the discharge pipe may also mitigate some social concerns and is recommended to consider the alternative route. There would not be additional costs associated with this alternative route, and even if there is, there would not be a considerable cost difference. Environmental monitoring is not considered necessary for this project. However, monitoring has been proposed for about one year to assess and examine changes to the environment, if any. It covers the monitoring of marine water quality at the discharge location for temperature and salinity only at 3-monthly intervals for a maximum of 2 years. This can be integrated within a monitoring programme for the powerhouse. Water quality testing that may be necessary to be performed upon completion of the borehole, which has been indicated in the Borehole Guidelines shall also be performed. In conclusion, it appears justified from a technical and environmental point of view to carry out the proposed project to construct a cooling water system for the existing powerhouse in Hithadhoo, Addu City. However, it is recommended to consider the alternative route for discharge pipeline, as recommended by Addu City Council.Item Environmental impact assessment for the proposed beaching area in HA. Dhidhdhoo, Maldives(2015-12) SandcaysThis report discusses the findings of an Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed development of a beaching area in HA. Dhidhdhoo. The project is proposed by Ministry of Housing and Infrastructure. At present, unavailability of space has forced boat owners to travel great distances to do small scale servicing to boats. In cases where boats are beached on Dhidhdhoo, being too close to residential areas has made these activities a public nuisance and a health hazard. The project aims at providing a suitable space for boat owners of Dhidhdhoo and nearby islands for vessel beaching and related work on the island away from residential areas. The proposed project entails dredging a 24m by 266m access channel, 110m by 76m manoeuvring area and reclamation of 0.54Ha at the southwest side of the island. There are very few practical alternatives to the proposed project; alternatives to reclamation shape and location are assessed in the report. Environmental impacts were assessed for both the construction and operation phase of the project. Most of the environmental impacts of the project have been identified as positive resulting mainly from improved socio-economic situation of Dhidhdhoo. The main negative environmental impact of the project is identified to be the possible movement of low to moderate levels of sediment on the reef during dredging and reclamation. Movement and settlement of fine sediments are expected to occur on the reef flat to a small degree. However, effects of this would not be severe as sediment plume is not expected to last longer and live coral cover at the location is minimal. Overall, the negative environmental impacts of the project are short-term and of moderate significance while long term socio-economic benefits are numerous. Hence the impact matrices done for the project indicates a net positive impact. Impact mitigation measures are few. In order to mitigate movement of sediment plume onto the reef, bunds around reclamation area and creating settlement ponds during reclamation is suggested. Regular environmental monitoring and reporting is an essential element of the EIA process. During the construction phase, in-situ monitoring of total suspended solids and turbidity is usually undertaken in dredging and reclamation projects to ensure that water quality criteria are met and sedimentation on the reef does not occur. 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 develop a beaching area in Dhidhdhoo. However, before start of construction phase, the consultants recommend evaluating alternative reclamation shape proposed in this report; as to reduce potential impact of interrupting longshore sediment movement.