Annex F

Annex F – Environmental Appraisal

Introduction

F-1 This annex summarises the key environmental issues identified in an environmental scoping exercise undertaken during 2004 by Atkins Management Consultants as an integral part of the St Helena Access Feasibility Study. More detailed environmental information is available at Sections 8 and 11, and Appendices S, T and V of Atkins’ Feasibility Study Final Report (hereafter the Atkins’ study/report). A bibliography of relevant technical reports and other publications that have informed this work is contained in Appendix S.

F-2 The Atkins’ study examines the three short-listed options for access: a replacement for the current ship; a ‘medium runway’ capable of operating small business jets; and a longer runway capable of handling medium-sized aircraft such as Boeing 737-800s or equivalents. Environmental scoping has focused on the ‘long runway’ option since the impacts of the ‘medium runway’ option would be contained within that assessment. The replacement ship option would be largely neutral in environmental terms.

Background

F-3 The site selected for the construction of an airport at St Helena is located within a kilometre of the eastern coast of the island, on Prosperous Bay Plain, a relatively level area of dry, unpopulated land, with little vegetation, at an elevation of around 300m above sea level. It is bounded to the north, east and south by rugged topography and high sea cliffs. The Plain has been designated as a Habitat Management Area under the National Parks Ordinance (2003), largely on account of its unusual geological features and the unique assemblage of invertebrate fauna associated with these.

F-4 The ‘central basin’ of Prosperous Bay Plain – an area of about 60ha – has, in particular, been identified as a ‘hotspot’ of invertebrate endemicity (notably of spiders), deserving of rigorous protection and international recognition. This has been confirmed during ecological studies carried out in 2003/4 by UK specialists funded from the FCO’s former Environment Fund at the request of the SHG. At least twenty invertebrate species identified from Prosperous Bay Plain are reported to occur nowhere else in the world. The Plain is also an important habitat (among others on the island) for the endemic Wirebird and a number of endemic and indigenous plant species.

F-5 The proposal to undertake such a major project at this ecologically sensitive location has attracted considerable interest among international conservation NGOs and individual scientists. While it would appear that there is appreciation of the need for an airport at St Helena in order to meet the aspirations of its people and to secure long-term social and economic benefits, it can be anticipated that such organisations and individuals (and the media) will take a close interest in the development of the project. They will expect to see the highest standards of environmental assessment and risk management applied to the project by SHG and DFID.

F-6 As detailed elsewhere in this project memorandum, the airport will comprise a runway 2,250m in length (orientated north/south), and terminal and ancillary facilities, the construction of which, with associated earthworks, will involve the disturbance of approximately 100ha of the land surface of Prosperous Bay Plain, including approximately 15% of the area of the central basin. In determining the optimum runway alignment and the location of the terminal and other facilities, the feasibility study has taken full account of the environmental factors noted above. It has sought as far as possible to balance the technical and regulatory criteria for the establishment of air access at St Helena , with the need to protect and, if possible, enhance the environment at the chosen site and within the area of influence of the airport and access routes. The project provides an opportunity to bring about a long-term beneficial effect by arresting the gradual and uncontrolled decline of the adjacent habitat whose global biodiversity significance has only recently been fully appreciated.

F-7 The Environmental Scoping Report (Appendix S of Atkins’ study) builds on and updates earlier environmental screening and analysis, for example by Cairns-Wicks in 1999 and High-Point Rendel in 2001. It is based on a review of available literature, consultations with relevant specialists in the UK , and consultations and site investigations at St Helena in June 2004. The report reviews the history of environmental protection at St Helena; considers local institutional structures, procedures and capacity for undertaking environmental impact assessment; draws together available environmental information relevant to the short-listed access options (sea, medium runway, long runway); and provides impact scoping with respect to the airport, construction haul routes, operational access routes, and tourism development.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

F-8 Atkins’ study has confirmed the findings of previous work that in view of the scope, complexity and sensitivity of this major project, a full project EIA will be required. They have proposed that this should take the form of an integrated Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and have provided outline terms-of-reference for this at Appendix T of their final report. They have recommended that the ESIA should be undertaken following a public consultation and disclosure process in St Helena , through which terms-of-reference would be agreed and finalised. Such consultation would take place during the first 6 months of the project, with the ESIA starting about 15 months later in parallel with the final design process (see project implementation plan at Appendix AF of Atkins’ final report for detailed scheduling).

F-9 Atkins’ TORs required them (among other things) to inform the preparation of draft terms-of-reference for the environmental impact assessment at both project and strategic levels. While to the extent possible Atkins have scoped some of the off-site, indirect, potential impacts associated with tourism development, they have concluded (and DFID and SHG have accepted) that a strategic environmental assessment would not be appropriate in the absence of any specific current policy initiative on which it could be based.

Environmental legislation, assessment procedures and institutional issues

F-10 St Helena ’s Environment Charter, signed jointly with the UK Government in September 2001, commits SHG to ensuring that ‘environmental impact assessments are undertaken before approving major projects’ and ‘open and consultative decision making on developments and plans which may effect the environment’. Although St Helena has some environmental legislation of relevance to the project, there is no specific legislation relating to the conduct of EIAs, or for associated regulatory procedures. Local requirements relating to environmental impact assessment are currently based on planning guidelines rather than on legislation. Atkins have therefore recommended that where local guidelines do not exist or are not sufficient for the purposes of this project, a composite best-practice approach based on a combination of UK, European Commission and World Bank guidelines should be adopted.

F-11 The SHG’s human resource capacity in the field of environmental management and regulation is currently insufficient to handle a project of this magnitude, complexity and sensitivity. Nor is it necessarily optimally placed within the government system to be able to discharge its responsibilities effectively. The consultants have therefore proposed that the SHG should consider establishing an expanded and independent environment agency (or similar) with responsibility for all environmental regulatory and management functions including, initially, oversight of all environmental aspects of the airport project and associated developments.

F-12 Atkins have recommended that this agency should be supported by externally sourced specialist environmental technical assistance. This could be on a part-time basis initially, but would need to become full-time for the duration of the construction phase of the airport when an Environmental Regulator, with adequate delegated authority, will be required. The Environmental Regulator will be recruited by SHG/DFID and will report directly to the Project Management Unit. A local counterpart environmental technician (if available) would also be appointed to provide specialist support and continuity into the operational phase of the project. Financial provision for this technical assistance is included in overall project costs.

Impact scoping of the airport site

F-13 The main potential impacts of airport construction are on the Prosperous Bay Plain ecosystem and specifically on landscape, with just under 100ha affected by the construction (including the filling of Dry Gut) and on the globally important endemic invertebrate community in the Central Basin of the Plain as noted in F-4 above.

F-14 While the impact on the landscape and invertebrates will be significant, it is expected that through careful design, construction and subsequent restoration, the effects can be substantially mitigated. The interim findings of the ecological research on invertebrates referred to above has already influenced the proposed location and alignment of the runway during outline design. It could be argued that the engineering achievement of the runway, whose colours will largely blend into the landscape, may more than mitigate other visual loss. But as this is the only feasible site for an airport on the island, some change in the landscape will inevitably have to be tolerated. The visual impact of the substantial embankment in Dry Gut will be limited, other than when viewed from the seaward direction.

F-15 In addition to the major landscape impacts, the scoping study has identified and provided preliminary observations on a range of other potential environmental impacts and issues, many of which will require more detailed attention in the ESIA. These include impacts on flora, fauna (invertebrates, the Wirebird and other birds) and such issues as meteorological data, acquisition of construction materials, noise, air quality, fuel storage, drainage, water supply, solid and hazardous waste management, power supplies, navigation systems, emergency procedures, construction camp, and health and safety.

Impact scoping of haul and operational access routes

F-16 It is considered likely that the development of access routes to the airport site, both for construction and operational purposes, could potentially have at least as great an environmental impact as the construction of the airport itself. The ESIA will therefore pay particular attention to these.

F-17 Three options for haul routes were examined in detail. The one via Turks Cap was eliminated because of rock fall risks and poor landing potential. The route from Prosperous Bay would be short (at 3.8 km) and the cheapest to construct. It would also offer the advantage of rapid access from the airport site to the sea in the event of an emergency. But it has few other advantages and would represent a significant intrusion into a largely unknown (ecologically) and wild landscape. The route from Rupert’s Bay would be much longer (14.2 km) and although it would have some impact on Deadwood Plain - an important Wirebird habitat - this could be mitigated by a combination of careful route planning, the timing of construction to avoid the main breeding/nesting season, and the creation of additional Wirebird habitat in adjacent areas. This route would appear to offer development potential and could also be used as an operational access route.

F-18 Five potential operational routes, all of approximately a similar distance from the air terminal to Jamestown , were examined (but not in detail) as part of the scoping study. Choice of a route will ultimately depend on a range of wider developmental and other factors, eg zoning for tourism infrastructure and commercial development, traffic flows, public safety, and ease of access for emergency vehicles. Short-listed options will require further scrutiny from an environmental perspective during the ESIA. The two potential routes running through Fisher’s Valley would require particular attention as this valley has been identified as possibly the only site on the island with potential for designation under the Ramsar Convention as a wetland site.

Impact scoping of tourism development

F-19 The environmental impact of tourism development is expected to be minimal while tourist numbers remain below 200/day. As numbers increase to 200-500/day, impacts may occur on some marine activities (such as dolphin watching) and in some wilderness walking areas (such as the central peaks) in which case some level of control may be required. Above 500/day, impacts would increase significantly both on the natural environment and on use of utilities. The consultants have recommended that carrying capacity assessments should form an important part of the ESIA.

Environmental impact assessment process and public consultation

F-20 Atkins have proposed that the key stages of the ESIA process should be as follows:

· Finalise draft ESIA TORs

· Develop public consultation and disclosure plan

· Develop project description and distribute to stakeholders together with TORs

· Hold public meetings to receive stakeholder feedback on the TORs

· Finalise ESIA TORs

· Undertake ESIA simultaneously with design stage

· Develop mitigation strategy and environmental management plan

· Consult with stakeholders on draft ESIA report

· Finalise ESIA

· Implement environment management plan

F-21 The public consultation and disclosure process is important both for reasons of transparency and information dissemination, and so that there can be the widest possible input by interested and affected parties, with a view to achieving consensus on desired outcomes, promoting ownership of the process, and reducing the potential for misunderstandings and conflict.

Environmental management plan, mitigation and monitoring

F-22 The objective of the environmental management plan (EMP), which would be developed during the ESIA and constitute its main output, would be to provide a framework for the implementation of the ESIA recommendations for best practice in environmental management and of the mitigatory actions proposed. The EMP would address such matters as: environmental management policies and systems (to include a pollutant spill contingency plan); health and safety management plan; waste management plan; training plan; traffic management plan; mitigation and restoration policies, plans and procedures; monitoring activities; and a plan for integrating implementation of the EMP with the overall project development plan. Relevant elements of the EMP, which will be developed in conjunction with the final design process, will be carried forward into construction as contractual obligations.

F-23 Atkins’ study has identified outline mitigation strategies and cost estimates for these. For example, key strategies will be developed for land reinstatement programmes for the airport environs and access routes, with the objective of creating environmental conditions favouring recolonisation by invertebrates and endemic plants. Other mitigatory activities will be dependent on the choice of access routes; for example further investigations on Wirebird ecology and the creation of additional habitat may be required if the Rupert’s haul/operational route is selected.

F-24 Throughout the construction process compliance monitoring of the EMP will be the responsibility of a full-time Environmental Regulator, assisted by a local counterpart ecologist, both of whose costs will be met through the project.

Costs

F-25 The cost of undertaking further environmental work associated with the development of the ‘long-runway option’ for air access is estimated to amount to a total of █████. At less than 1% of the total estimated project cost this falls within the norm for a project of this nature. Of this, the environmental and social impact assessment would account for █████; the mitigation costs (including further ecological studies) █████; and institutional support costs █████.

Contents