Academic eBooks - ޢިލްމީ އީފޮތުގެ ޖަމާ
Browse
4 results
Search Results
Item First addendum to the environmental impact assessment of oceanside channel dredging project in Meedhoo Island, Addu City(2016-07) CDE ConsultingThe purpose of this document is to fulfil the requirements to get necessary environmental clearance from the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out the remaining works of the proposed Oceanside channel dredging project in Meedhoo, Addu City. A part of the channel has already been dredged and completed but the outer rim of the channel could not be dredged or dislodged using conventional methods. It is proposed to undertake controlled reef blasting to dislodge the hard substrate. The proponent of this project is Ministry of Housing and Infrastructure. The rationale for the proposal to blast the reef entrance is based on the fact that all other options available in the Maldives have failed to dislodge the hard substrate. The project already has had two contractors, both of whom had failed to cut through the outer reef rim. The present contractor was handed the task of finishing the project by Ministry of Housing based on a special request by the Meedhoo locals. The contractor has tried a number methods, including drop hammer, but has not been successful in dislodging the substrate. The only remaining financially feasible option is to use controlled blasting. The project has been dragging on for six years and the longer marine works continue, the higher the impacts on marine and coastal environment. Failure to complete the channel will also be a waste of public money as 90% of the project has already been completed. The site already has about a 905 m x 35 m channel dredged to a depth of -3.5 m. The originally planned channel was 920 m x 35 m. The area in question is the last 15 m of hard substrate before it reaches the ocean. The project proposes to dislodge the 15 m x 27 m section of the reef using about 50 bags of 25 kg Ammonia Nitrate placed 1 m apart along two rows. All proposed project activities are in conformance to the laws and regulations of the Maldives, and relevant international conventions that Maldives is party to. The key laws and regulations applicable to this project are: Environmental Protection and Preservation Act, Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation 2012 and Dredging and Reclamation Regulation. Significant impacts of this project during construction phase of the project are the potential impact of underwater noise and vibration on marine life, potential damage to property due to vibration, potential formation of reef slope cracks and sedimentation and turbidity associated with dredging. The project is being carried out in proximity to a listed sensitive area. All these impacts apart from potential geological impacts are reversible. Any damage to the reef substrate could be irreversible. Thus, the potential geological impacts will be a risk for this project. The main mitigation measures include carrying out construction activities during low tide hours and calm weather, carrying out the work during daylight hours, informing the public about blasting activities and, schedule and proper supervision of all activities by qualified personnel. A precautionary approach is required for this project due to the unknowns associated with the geological impacts. It is recommended to minimised the charges to the lowest required levels and reduce the critical ground vibration distance (i.e. 10 mm/s) from the blast site. The site should be monitored for reef cracks. If any cracks are observed and depending on the severity of the cracks, all reef blasting activity must be ceased until geological assessments determine it is safe to proceed. Windy days should be avoided especially if the wind is blowing from the west. There are safety risks associated with this project. It has been recommended not to allow any snorkelling or diving within a 1.5 km radius of the blast site. This should include sand miners, fishermen and tourists, among others. The “No Project” option was explored. The project involves significant risks to physical environment. Given the community’s desire to complete this channel, the benefits it bring to the fishing community, and potential loss of public money if this project is not completed, the No Project option has a higher opportunity cost. However, in the absence of a viable alternative, it was recommended that EPA consider approving this project based on conditions. Alternative methods to dislodge the hard substrate were considered, but these options have already been tried and failed. The monitoring plan is designed to assess damages to reef structure, infrastructure and housing, and loss of marine life. Physical environment damage will be checked using marine surveys and damage to nearby buildings will be undertaken in specific sites and based on complaint. Damage to biological environment will focus on larger fish and protected species. The management plan for this project has been updated to include the key management requirements before and during blasting activity. The support for this project is mixed. In the consultations undertaken for the original EIAs and this Addendum, there is overwhelming support by the locals from Meedhoo and Hulhudhoo for this project. The City Council supports this project but is apprehensive about reef blasting as they believe it is detrimental to the future of Addu City. EPA and MRC do not encourage reef blasting. This report has highlighted the risks and impacts associated with reef blasting on the site. It has also provided actions that can avoid or minimize the known risks. This report should now be used as a decision making tool by the implementing agency and regulatory authority to determine how to proceed with the project. There is no legal hindrance for this project to go ahead. If the proponent and EPA decides to move forward with the project, the following course of action is essential to align the project with sustainable development principles. 1. Use the minimum charge possible to effectively dislodge the substrate and minimise the radius of critical ground vibration (i.e. 10 mm/s) 2. Continuous monitoring of the site for reef cracks. If any cracks are observed and depending on the severity of the cracks, all reef blasting activity must be ceased until geological assessments determine it is safe to proceed. 3. Given the potential impact of this project on the public and the future generations, it is recommended that EPA take all possible measures to solicit views from the public for this EIA 4. Safety precautions are essential. Divers, sand miner, fishermen and swimmers need to be properly informed in a timely manner and monitored during work days.Item Environment impact assessment for the proposed nationwide submarine cable by Ooredoo Maldives(2016-05) CDE ConsultingThis document is submitted by the proponent to the Environmental Protection Agency to fulfil the requirement for an EIA under the Environmental Protection and Preservation Act (4/93). The EIA Regulation 2012 has been used as the basis for preparing this document. The proponent of this project is Ooredoo Maldives. The project involves laying a communication submarine cable stretching the entire archipelago of Maldives. The estimate length of the cable is 11,000 km, and is divided into 5 main segments with 6 landings sites. The main rationale for the project is to increase the capacity, and improve the quality of all telecommunication services provided by Ooredoo Maldives. The proponent estimates that they will not be able to cater for the growing demand for telecommunication services in a near future with the existing system. In each island a cable ship will lay the submarine cable and it will be passed to the reef flat using experienced divers and small boats. A concrete stabiliser clamped on reef flat will be used to pass the cable line from reef flat to a precast concrete trench on the seabed in each island. An existing trench will be used in B.Eydhafushi and Hulhumale’. Cable line will pass through the trench to Beach Manhole (BMH). In Gdh, Thinadhoo, geo-bags at beachfront will have to be cleared to facilitate the transfer of cable to BMH. MTCC has been contracted to clear the geobags and to build the precast concrete trench in Thinadhoo. Submarine cable will be connected to a land cable inside BMH and the land cable will then pass through an earth trench to Connecting Landing Station (CLS) in each island. The proposed development plans are generally in conformance to the laws and regulations of the Maldives. The key laws and regulations applicable are: Environmental Protection and Preservation Act, Maldives Telecommunication Act, Fisheries Act, Environmental Impact Assessment Regulation 2012, Waste Management Regulation 2013, The Environmental Liability Regulation, EIA decision note is required before implementation of this project. The cable landing sites for all the proposed islands are existing Ooredoo Antenna Stations and does not require the removal of any vegetation from these areas. The cable laying route (on land) up to the cable landing site in each of the islands follow an existing road or pathway from the beach with the exception of Hdh.Kulhudhuffushi and S.Hithadhoo. The reefs flat at all islands are mainly made up of rocky bottom, with low live coral coverage. Large seagrass patch occurs on the reef flat near shore along the cable route in Kolhufushi. Live coral abundance is higher mainly near the reef edge of all islands. Highest live coral coverage was recorded at Thinadhoo, while the lowest was recorded in Kulhudhuffushi. The most significant negative impacts from this project during construction stage would be, loss of sessile marine life within the cable route, and the potential health and safety risks to the workers and general public associated with offshore cable deployment, and excavation works on land. The project mainly has positive socio-economic benefits; via improvement in quality and speed of telecommunication service provided by Ooredoo Maldives across the Maldives. The key mitigation measures proposed for the construction stage include relocation of live coral colonies on the reef flat of project sites to nearby locations, and strict measures to minimize healthy and safety risks to workers and the general public from the project. Alternative options were evaluated for the activities that are identified to have significant impacts on the project. Alternative options have been considered for method of excavation on land. Main concern of the utility providers and telecommunication service providers in all the islands is potential damage to their existing infrastructure in the footprint of proposed land cable during excavation works. Manual excavation has been recommended over the use of an excavator to reduce the risk of damage to existing cables and pipelines. It has also been recommended to inform these institutions prior to commencing the earth trenching works. The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for this project is designed to produce a framework for anticipated impacts, including practicable and achievable performance requirements and systems for monitoring, reporting and implementing corrective actions. In addition, provide evidence of compliance to legislation, policies, guidelines and requirements of relevant authorities. Monitoring plan is designed to assess any changes to the physical environment as well as operational aspects of the project. The total cost of mitigation and monitoring are estimated around US$ 4000 annually. The main conclusion of this report is to move forward with the proposed development after with the proposed alternatives and the suggested mitigation measures. PreparedItem First addendum to the environment impact assessment prepared for the proposed Hulhule’-Male’ bridge project(2016-01) CDE ConsultingThe purpose of this document is to assess the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed changes to the Hulhulé-Malé Bridge project. This document is an addendum to the original Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prepared for the Bridge project in November 2015. The proponent of this project is Ministry of Housing and Infrastructure. The main changes to the project includes expansion of the work site in Malé, and the addition two concrete batching to the project work site in Malé. The main rationale for these changes is to speed up the project, and to reduce the project costs. The study area for the purpose of the addendum is the project work site in Male’ and Hulhumale’. The baseline conditions of the site are largely based on the original EIA documents. Additional information on major changes to the environment is provided where appropriate. The proposed developments are generally in conformance to the laws and regulations of the Maldives. The key impacts from the proposed changes are due to site clearance of Male’ worksite and operation of batching plants at Male’ worksite. The clearance of the proposed expanded work site requires removal of hundreds of trees. Trees will be relocated where possible. Impacts from the operation of the batching plants include high noise levels, loss of visual amenity and specific impacts related to the wastewater disposal. Significant impacts on the natural environment include impacts on terrestrial ecology from the site clearance of the expanded worksite. Hundreds of trees may potentially need to be removed or relocated. Further impacts on natural environment include impacts on marine ecology due to disposal of wastewater from the batching plants. Social impacts from the additional components include high noise levels from the operation of batching plants and loss of visual amenity. A number of mitigation measures are proposed for the most significant impacts from the project. These include testing and monitoring of wastewater quality before disposal, limiting hours of batching plants operation to daytime and use of fences or walls to prevent transmission of dusts. Alternatives have been proposed for wastewater disposal methods, waste water dispose location, location of the batching plants and alternative location for Male’ worksite. Options for wastewater disposal methods include direct disposal of wastewater via the existing sewerage network, direct disposal into sea, and reuse of wastewater after passing through a settling tank and after treatment. The last option is identified as the most ecologically preferred option, however, the option may not be feasible due to significantly high cost. This report is prepared in accordance to the technical guidelines and EIA regulations, prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the terms of reference issued by the EPA for this EIA addendum.Item Environment impact assessment for the proposed dredging component of the resort development project in Ithaafushi Reef, South Male’ Atoll(2016-07) CDE ConsultingThis 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.