Academic eBooks - ޢިލްމީ އީފޮތުގެ ޖަމާ
Browse
4 results
Search Results
Item Environmental impact assessment for the proposed mixed residential building in plot no. D2-3, Hulhumale’ – Rainbow Oceanfront Residence(2016-12) Musthafa, AmirThis report is based on the proposed mixed residential building construction in Plot No. D2- 3, Hulhumale’. 12 storeys in the structure will be allocated for residential purposes. The project is being developed and constructed by Rainbow Construction Pvt. Ltd. They are to undertake the construction works and project management including overseeing the EIA process. An Environmental Impact Assessment was necessary for the works as per the requirements of the signed agreement between Rainbow and Housing Development Corporation (HDC), and due to the fact that the structure exceeds 11 storeys as specified in the EIA regulation ‘Jadhuvalu R’ in the list of type of projects for which EIAs are required. In addition to meeting the regulatory requirements, the report would further assist the proponent and important stakeholders to make decisions based on favourable environmental conditions with the main focus on sustainability. The project also adheres to several other rules and regulations in the Maldives and has obtained permit from HDC to proceed. HDC is a 100% government entity being given the responsibility to set guidelines and oversee all developments in Hulhumale’. The project is part of larger program by HDC to establish mixed residential buildings in Hulhumale’. Apartments in these buildings can generally be regarded as being targeted towards middle to lower class members of the community. The project will contribute to the grand plan of reducing congestion in Male’ by providing more moderate to high quality housing opportunities in Hulhumale’. By 2019, it is projected that there will be over 1000 such housing units built in Hulhumale’. The existing environment at the project site does not consist of any significant vegetation and the water test result shows normal water quality. The only large vegetation that will still be removed are the roadside Fithuroanu gas. There are no residents living in close proximity to the site and there is no other structure at the site as well. Therefore, the project will not have any significant impact on a significant receptor. During the construction stage, health and safety standards of the workers at site, and waste generation is the only areas of concern. With proper planning and project management, this can be easily mitigated. Waste is the main concern during the operational stage of the project as well. Since this will be developed as a condominium with multiple tenants owning the rights of the building, it has to be ensured that the tenants are held responsible to properly manage the waste in addition to maintaining the building beyond the 2 years the developer is contractually responsible for. Regarding alternatives, there are no viable alternatives available for the project with respect to location. The no project option is also not plausible at this stage and possibilities are outside the scope of this study. Other alternatives including material, foundation type, construction methodology are not necessarily recommended. Recommendations had been made to proceed with the project as planned.An environmental monitoring plan is proposed to be carried out with 2 phases; one for the construction stage, and one for 2 years post construction. Factors to investigate include surveying the amount of waste generation, noise pollution, traffic flow, health and safety at site and water quality. All the impacts as highlighted in the project can be mitigated. The socio-economic benefits to Greater Male’ City from projects such as these is high. It also provides additional housing opportunities, which would contribute to alleviating the housing issues in Male’ City, and therefore mitigating the issues related to congestion. Thus, after consideration of all these perspectives, it is recommended that this project proceed as planned, after incorporating the mitigation measures given in this study with the commitment to implementing the monitoring plan given.Item Addendum to environmental impact assessment for the Male’ west coast re-development project(2016-01) Musthafa, AmirThis is the First Addendum to the approved main EIA prepared for the redevelopment of the Male’ west coast area. The main EIA was approved on 10th September 2015. The proponent of the project is Ministry of Housing and Infrastructure. This addendum is based on the proposed transplantation of 70 young coconut palms from K. Kaashidhoo to the on going Male’ West Coast Development project. It is a legal requirement under the Amended EIA Regulation 2012 that EIAs/Addendums be prepared and approved for projects that may generate negative environmental impacts. This Addendum has been prepared as per the approved Terms of Reference (TOR) on 7 December 2015. The scope of this EIA involves studying the existing environmental condition of the proposed project areas and surrounding environment, identifying potential environmental impacts, propose environmental management and mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts and propose an environmental monitoring plan. The palms are to be uprooted from the site for the proposed construction of jail and from households. This site for jail construction is at the western end of the island and is under the Jurisdiction of Maldives Correctional Services. It is envisaged that the project will have several socio-economic benefits. This includes providing a means of shelter and relaxation to the community in Male’ City, especially in the Maafannu district. Moreover, it would assist in alleviating the burden these large no. of trees had been causing the community in K. Kaashidhoo. From this perspective, the project can be regarded as means to balance the amenities in both communities. The economic benefits to the coconut tree owners from the sale of the coconut palms could also be considered as a direct positive impact. Furthermore, the Kaashidhoo council had committed to plant 2 trees for each palm that has been removed in more strategic locations in the island, where tree plantation is required. Negative impacts include the holes that would be left after the digging. It may become a public nuisance, although the area is seldom used by the community. As a mitigation measure, the holes would be filled with sand available onsite, without the need for dredging. Provisions such as monitoring are proposed to understand the overall impacts of the project over the long term. Therefore, considering the beneficial nature of the project for both communities, and minimum environmental impact that can be easily mitigated, it is proposed to proceed with the project. However, it is recommended to have proper monitoring in place to observe any future impacts that project may result in.Item First environmental impact assessment addendum for the proposed reclamation of Himmafushi, Kaafu Atoll, Maldives : change of borrow area(2016-06) Musthafa, AmirThis report is the Addendum to the EIA undertaken for the Proposed Reclamation of K. Himmafushi, Maldives. This addendum is based on the change of borrow area after the sand search campaign has been undertaken. An Environmental Impact Assessment was necessary for the works outlined in this report as they fall under the ‘Jadhuvalu R’ of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2012 of the Maldives. This report would further conform to the Dredging and Reclamation regulation. In addition to meeting the regulatory requirements, the report would further assist the proponent and important stakeholders to make decisions in an environmentally sound manner. Potential borrow areas in Kaafu Atoll was originally investigated and subsequently Ari Atoll area was also studied. The dredging location chosen is about 10 km west of the proposed borrow area 1, area 2, and area 3 given in the original EIA. The overall environmental impacts of the project have been assessed using frameworks found on literature and the results indicate that the proposed project has minimum negative impact and have an overall net positive outcome. The main environmental positive impacts due to this change comes from the fact that it is relatively closer to some resort islands and sensitive areas than the originally proposed areas. However, the dredging location is still over 500m away from any location of importance. Dredging activities will no doubt increase sedimentation impacts in the area, although lasting impacts are not envisaged. Bait fishing in the vicinity of the borrow area will have an impact for the duration of the project. There are no additional impacts due to reclamation as there is no change in scope with regards to this component. Furthermore, it is important to note that the approved dredge locations in the initial EIA were closer to the “Havza Thila” a popular diving spot. Important new stakeholders for the project include Atoll council, AA. Ukulhas council, AA. Mathiveri council and AA. Bodufulhadhoo council in addition to resort islands. The main reservations by the stakeholders is the fact that sand is borrowed from Ari Atoll for a reclamation in Kaafu atoll. All the stakeholders expressed their disapproval at this. Moreover, they expressed their concerns on the impact of dredging works on the fisheries and tourism of the Atoll. AA. Bodufulhadhoo council especially did note that the shallow reef North of the borrow area was used for bait fishing, and fishermen from Mathiveri and Bodufulhadhoo use the general area and channel for fishing. The stakeholders were informed of the previous islands reclaimed under the same project and how the impacts were minimal. Addendum to the EIA for the Reclamation of K. Himmafushi Alternative borrow area options are not viable as the sand search campaign concluded that there are no other significant sand depots within either North Male’ Atoll or North Ari Atoll. Alternative areas are those that have already been excluded. The only other viable alternative is to source sand from even further away, which was not feasible at all. Importing sand from abroad will be very costly and will have further negative impacts at the reclaim site. It is recommended to continue to monitor the impacts of the proposed project by regular monitoring of marine water quality. The monitoring plan proposed in the original EIA is slightly updated to include more monitoring locations, near borrow area. A two stage monitoring plan is given, which recommends quarterly monitoring during the 1st year and less frequent monitoring for the next 5 years. Undertaking the monitoring, along with the mitigation measures is necessary to ensure the sustainable development of the project with minimum harm to the environment. It is thus recommended that since the project has major socio-economic benefits and environmental benefits as detailed in the initial EIA, it is advisable to allow the project to proceed as proposed. Moreover, since the change in scope is relatively small, and since the initial EIA has been approved, and also considering the fact that the sand search campaign resulted in only one location within reasonable distance from Himmafushi to obtain sand, there is no viable reason to postpone or cancel the project due to this change. However, mitigation measures should be in place and continuous monitoring should be undertaken.Item Environmental impact assessment for the proposed deep sea dredging to reclaim and develop 3 resort islands in North Male’ Atoll lagoon(2016-08) Musthafa, AmirThis report is the EIA undertaken for the Proposed deep sea dredging to reclaim and develop 3 resort islands in North Male’ Atoll lagoon (4o40’28.8”N 73o32’02.2”E - 4o40’18.4”N 73o32’24.6”E). The EIA for the 3 Resort island reclamation and development have been approved by the Ministry of Tourism on 26th May 2016. This EIA only studies the proposed borrow area for the deep sea dredging and the conditions and impacts of dredging from this area. An Environmental Impact Assessment was necessary for the works outlined in this report as they fall under the ‘Jadhuvalu R’ of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2012 of the Maldives. This report would further conform to the Dredging and Reclamation regulation. In addition to meeting the regulatory requirements, the report would further assist the proponent and important stakeholders to make decisions in an environmentally sound manner. Although this is for a tourism development, since the borrow area is not within an area dedicated for tourism activities, an approval from the EPA was necessary. Potential borrow areas in the northern areas of North Male’ Atoll close to the project area was investigated. The dredging location chosen is about 5 km west of the Project site. The overall environmental impacts of the project have been assessed using frameworks found on literature and the results indicate that the proposed project has minimum negative impact and have an overall net positive outcome. The approved EIA discusses both lagoon dredging using a Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD), and deep sea lagoon dredging using a Trailer Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD) The main environmental positive impacts due to opting for TSHD is that there will be virtually no impact on the house reef of the project site due to the dredging activities. Furthermore, the proposed borrow area is not even remotely close to any site designated as a sensitive area or protected area by the EPA. There are some locations that are used by Divers close to the borrow area. However, the dredging location is still over 500m away from these locations. Dredging activities will no doubt increase sedimentation impacts in the area, and diving at these 3-4 locations during the dredging activities will not be pleasant. However, lasting impacts are not envisaged based on other similar projects undertaken recently. There are no known popular bait fishing grounds near the borrow area. There are no additional impacts due to reclamation as there is no change in scope with regards to this component from the approved EIA. Important stakeholders for the project include Helengeli Island Resort, Gaafaru council, Ministry of Tourism, and Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture. The main reservations by the stakeholders is the fact that sand is borrowed from area perceived to be close the respective stakeholders property. Moreover, they expressed their concerns on the impact of dredging works on the fisheries and tourism of the North Atoll. Gaafaru council did note that they did not have much concerns with regards to the project due to the proximity of Gaafaru with respect to the borrow area, and due the presence of deep sea in-between. The stakeholders were informed of the previous islands reclaimed under the same project and how the impacts were minimal. Alternative borrow area options are not viable as the sand search campaign concluded that there are no other significant sand depots within close proximity to the project area. However, another sand deposit 11.5km from the project site was investigated. It is envisaged that this area can barely the supply of sand required. Importing sand from abroad will be very costly and will have further negative impacts at the reclaim site and is not regarded as a realistic alternative. It is recommended to continue to monitor the impacts of the proposed project by regular monitoring of marine water quality and marine environment. The monitoring plan proposed in the approved EIA is slightly modified to include more monitoring locations, near borrow area. A two stage monitoring plan is given, which recommends monitoring during dredging activities, and a monitoring trip straight after completion of dredging.. Undertaking the monitoring, along with the mitigation measures is necessary to ensure the sustainable development of the project with minimum harm to the environment. It is thus recommended that since the project has major socio-economic benefits and environmental benefits as detailed in the initial EIA and summarised in this report, to allow the project to proceed as proposed. Moreover, since the proposed borrow area is at a considerable distance from any sensitive area, and since the initial EIA has been approved, and also considering the fact that the sand search campaign resulted in only 1 location within reasonable distance from the project to obtain sufficient volumes of sand, there is no viable reason to postpone or cancel the project due to this change. However, mitigation measures should be in place and continuous monitoring should be undertaken.