Environmental Management Plan - Term Paper Example

«Environmental management plan» Introduction This paper will describe two different projects/proposals that are perceived to have or have had far reaching effects on the surrounding environment. The impact of every project on various segments of the environment and the threats they pose will be elaborated in detail. Thereafter, the discussion will move towards understanding the various risk assessment strategies adopted by the stakeholders of each project that support the process of developing environmental management plans for respective projects, Project 1: Protection of Mutton Cove, South Australia The region in South Australia known as ‘Mutton Cove’ has experienced significant degradation since the period of European settlements. The area has been identified as one of the last remaining regions of biodiversity and is home to mangrove and samphire woodlands along the Le Fevre peninsula (Adam, 2005). The local community as well as the state government have evinced keen interest in ensuring that this key piece of land is protected. Further, the area has been recognized under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) as a crucial habitat for migratory birds (Bryars, 2003). The location and primary geography of the Mutton Cove is shown in the figure 1. Fig 1: geographical location of Mutton Cove The Mutton Cove is currently managed by the Coastal Protection branch of the Department of Environment and Heritage on behalf of the Ministry of Environment and Conservation. The Steering committee of the Coast protection board has allocated AUD 59,000 for the future protection, conservation, management and improvement of Mutton Cove. Some of the essential functions for which funds were allocated include (Deans, 2003): Removal of rubbish Restricting access through fencing Earthwork across the entire perimeter Enhancing the hydrological regime in the area An elaborate development application for these related sub-projects was planned and prepared for subsequent approval in mid 2003. The steering committee has further secured requisite funding and in-kind support for the conservation and protection of the cove to aid in its subsequent restoration. However, activities such as the removal of rubbish and the rehabilitation of the remaining salt marshes involves considerable human involvement which may be a cause for additional interference, the results of which may be detrimental to the original expectations and objectives of the project (Coast Protection Board, 2003). Hence, the project has devoted considerable time to undertaking a thorough risk assessment and the development of an environmental management plan which will be discussed in the coming sections of this paper. Project 2: Exploration drilling off the coast of Timor Leste The exploration area designated as Cova-1 exploration is proposed to be drilled for oil exploration purposes by Eni Timor Leste, This region is located in the northern Bonaparte basin and is under the jurisdiction of Timor-Leste. It lies approximately 100 kilometres off the South-east coast of Timor-Leste and is more then 700 kilometres north west of the Australian city of Darwin (Dunlop, 2005). The proposed exploration well will take approximately 45 days to drill and is planned to commence in July 2010 provided all prior environmental approvals are received. The well will be drilled by a special drillship known as the Saipem 10000 (Burke, 2006). The firm overseeing this project has submitted an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to the Direcção Nacional do Meio Ambiente (DNMA) (National Directorate of Environment) for assessment. This environmental management plan has been prepared keeping in view the requirements of the DNMA in accordance with the Article 17 of the Indonesian Government Regulation No. 27/1999 Analysis of Environmental Impacts at the behest of Eni Timor Leste (Eni, 2007). Eni operated under a production sharing contract (PSC) that provides access to the Cova field in addition to other projects in the capacity of a joint venture partner. Oil exploration has been an extensive activity in the Timor sea since the 1960s. Since then, a number of exploration drills have been drilled at many places in the region and has provided significant finds for companies including Eni, BHP Billiton Petroleum, Norcen International, Peko Oil, Shell and BP. The company has prior experience in oil drilling and has recently concluded the drilling of another rig under the ‘Kitan development project’, where production is expected to commence from 2011. Based on the historical profile of the region, the expected products that can be produced from most rigs in the region include Laminaria/Corallina (oil), Elang-Kakatua (oil) and Bayu-Undan (gas) (Eni, 2008). The proposed exploration project assumed wide significance as the pursuit for new sources of hydrocarbons has gained momentum in recent times. The petroleum exploration and production industry has huge stakes in the regional waters between Australia and Timor-Leste, which is home to some of the most delicate and widespread biodiversity in the whole world (Heyward, 2007). So far, no wells have been drilled under the Cova project shown in the figure 2: Fig 2: Geographical location of the drilling project off Timor-Leste Risk assessment of the two projects Project 1 Traditional protection mechanisms in South Australia involve the elimination of any contamination through treatment, removal, containment and management. Such measures do take into consideration both the current and future intended uses of the land and are evaluated using a thorough risk assessment procedure (Johansen, 1996). Thus, any risk assessment initiative is driven by the purpose of utilizing the land thereafter that provides the evaluation and assessment experts a basic framework to work with. Using an appropriate assessment regime, the risk assessment has been undertaken based on the guidelines stipulated by the National environment protection measure 1999. As mentioned earlier, the future purpose of restoring Mutton Cove is to convert it into a conservation reserve besides incorporating it as an elaborate public open space. However, the management plan developed for the local environment has been restricted in accessing previous studies that have explored the possible extent of site contamination in the area. Thus, much of the data has been sourced from the Kinhill Delfin Joint Venture Studies that have evaluated the site in 1991. The corresponding report was published by an environmental consulting firm – Maunsell Pty. Ltd. In 1995 and depends on assessment of parameters such as soil content and texture using bore holes (Jessop, 2006). So far, no physical sampling has been done by any study within the existing boundaries of the Mutton Cove reserve and the surrounding areas except using boreholes in a couple of nearby areas whose results have been used here to identify all potential risks. The location of the boreholes in the region are shown in the figure 3 and are marked in red using the alphabet ‘M’ (Maunsell, 1995). Fig 3: Location of bore holes The borehole along the western edge of the site (marked as ‘M7’) is situated to the north of the location where a fluvial fill drain enters the site. It reveals that the entire area is filled with fluvial material and caustic wastes such as limestone grits. Such contamination has widespread implications on the pH levels in the vicinity although this has not been designated as a metals hazard as most metals based on their caustic structures are virtually insoluble. With time, these caustic compounds will convert into a form of limestone that cannot be distinguished from natural limestone (Tindale, 2007). On the other hand, the fluvial material is largely composed of sand and seaweed together with kunkar or local calcrete. Such material has been retrieved in the form of clays and lumps during deepening operations for port waterways. Another borehole, M70, in the south-western fill area was found to contain sand, cinders and seaweed while the borehole M71 in the south-east provided samples containing sand, organic materials (likely debris from sea grass), cinders and a type of red-brown clay. The presence of cinders facilitated a faster percolation of rainwater through the fill and may be the reason behind the presence of tar-like, phenolic substances in the groundwater (Simpson, 1996). In fact, cinders retrieved through coal from different parts of the world have normally contained elevated concentrations of zinc and mercury. Cinders on the surface produce a very fine dust that can pose as an irritant and is usually produced through crushing by heavy machinery. As the site is not planned for residential purposes or other potentially sensitive uses, the best and perhaps the most appropriate solution to deal with any likely contamination is to contain and effectively manage the entire conservation project (Turner, 2001). The goal should be to minimize the risk of contaminating the groundwater as well as the estuary with any solutes that may result from cinders. Moreover, effort should also be directed towards restricting the exposure to any crushed cinders and prevent it from becoming airborne. Project 2 A thorough risk assessment exercise on Eni Timor Leste’s proposed exploration drilling project has revealed the following risks and the corresponding steps the company proposes to take to mitigate all such identified risks. Noise pollution The proposed drilling operations can cause extensive noise pollution through activities such as drilling and movement of vessels. Such operations can cause disturbances among turtles, crustaceans, seabirds and fish. However, the Cova-1 field is not known to act as a feeding or breeding ground for various marine fauna. Besides, the noise levels from drilling operations have been measured to be below 150db, which is the limit above which interference can be caused to cetaceans (Jasarevic, 2007). Further, most sea life including turtles and cetaceans are known to demonstrate some avoidance behaviour from distances as far as 2-8 km from any drilling sites on sensing unusual frequencies. Further, Eni has followed all standards stipulated for cetacean interaction as per the maritime laws of both Timor-Leste and Australia. Further, all personnel are required to report and document any crustaceans sightings and are supposed to prevent the possibility of disturbing natural marine activity. Further, the company has stated that it intends to observe for any marine mammals before any wire line seismic activity and to implement only soft start procedures when drilling (Marsh, 2003). The effect from waste discharges such as drilling fluids is another area of concern as it may contaminate sea water and damage the water quality. Such fluid is used during drill cuttings and is thereafter disposed off overboard. The drilling fluids are known to have high dilution rates (1:100) within a perimeter of 20m around the area of discharge (Sandlund, 2001). Further, all such fluids that will be used have been designated as possessing low toxicity although the combined effect of using large quantities of these fluids may still have undesirable effects. There is a need to examine and review these drilling fluids on the basis of their technical suitability and determine their eco-toxicity and dosing requirement characteristics. It is recommended to install a drill floor drainage system that can catch any spills and transfer them to the oil in water separator (Wijffels, 2006). The drainage can further be minimized by having cuttings shakers equipment onboard that can be used to dispose any spills along with the cuttings. An exploration platform such as the one that will be utilized for the proposed drilling project is dependent on several workmen and is thus a human intensive exercise. As many as 173 people are expected to live and work onboard which presents similar problems of water contamination through sewage, grey water and other putrescible wastes (Wyatt, 2004). Such wastes can cause damage to marine resources by introducing new diseases against which the marine animals may have no defence, degrade the quality of sea water and reduce the nutrient enrichment and bio-stimulation of the water around the drillship. The dangers are especially profound as the average volume of sewage produced on a per individual basis is over 60 litres per day. However, the risk assessment demonstrates that any sewage water released would be in relatively small volumes and would be confined to a localised area. Even with protracted estimates of over 140 litres per day of grey water being released per person, such volumes are small and miniscule in comparison to the volume of the surrounding seawater (Eni, 2007). It is advised that all such sewage wastes be treated with proper anti-bacterial chemicals before releasing them so that no biological harm is done to the sea life in the vicinity. Further, all chemicals such as soap and detergents along with other toxic chemicals must be properly neutralized on board the platform before subsequent release. As a reference, all such treatment and discharge must be done in accordance with the guidelines stipulated under MARPOL Annex IV (Wijffels, 2006). All scraps from food and putrescible wastes are supposed to be reduced to sizes below 25mm as per the regulations under MARPOL Annex V (Marsh, 2003). An elaborate risk assessment procedure that lists other potential risks and their respective measures is listed in the end under the appendix. Assessment methodology and Environment management plan The philosophy behind managing the identified environmental risks is driven by the objective to mitigate or remove all identified risks during the initial design and conception phases. The effective management of risks developed through design is dependent upon the identification, during the early stages of the project, the pathways and sources through which environmental impacts can occur and the sensitivities of the receiving environment in which the project is situated (Simpson, 1996). In this context, the risk assessment methodology has been devised so as to assess the expected or potential impacts associated with the drilling of Cova-1. Following are the aspects that the adopted risk assessment methodology provides for (Adam, 2005 & Tindale, 2007)): 1. Determining every project activity and its associated environmental aspects; 2. Identifying the environmental values/attributes at risk within and adjacent to the area; 3. Defining the potential environmental effects of aspects identified in Step 1 on those values/attributes at risk identified in Step 2 above; 4. Identifying the likelihood of occurrence; 5. Identifying the consequences of potential environmental aspects; and 6. Evaluating overall environmental risk levels using a likelihood and consequence matrix. A generic representation of this risk assessment methodology in the case of the Timor-Leste project is presented in Figure 4. A major proportion of the outcomes derived through the risk assessment methodology are based on the target company’s extensive knowledge and experience of risks and impacts gained through previous drilling projects in the Timor Sea (Eni, 2007). Further, most of these points have been corroborated with inputs from previous studies conducted in the region pertaining to several other related projects and initiatives. While the universe of methods and techniques that can be used to identify and evaluate environmental risks is enormous, the choice of the selected approaches depends on the factors and constraints that affect the specific project and location (Heyward, 2007). In both the projects, the risk assessments have been performed by the implementing company, external consultants and researchers as well as government agencies and regulators. Thus, the inputs and the basis for defining the appropriate assessment methodology have been devised after obtaining a thorough holistic overview of the outcomes identified by all these stakeholders (Wyatt, 2004). As such, it is firmly believed that the chosen methods for developing the environment management plans are adequate and justified. Fig 4: risk assessment methodology for Timor-Leste project Environmental management strategies The effectiveness of the risk assessment strategies chosen in either case is evaluated on the basis of the results and conclusions generated and the range of environmental protection strategies that they have helped develop. The environmental objectives identified in the case of the Timor-Leste project are based on the identified environmental hazardous events, associated environmental effects and the assessed risks, corporate policies and performance commitments and applicable legal requirements. Additionally, all environmental objectives and targets have been aligned against relevant key performance indicators (KPI’s). Based on the findings, plans and strategies have been developed for management of six key areas: Marine pests Marine Fauna Marine Waste Hydrocarbon and Chemical spills Marine discharges Atmospheric emissions On the other hand, the success of any environment management plan or risk mitigation strategy in the case of the Mutton cove project is primarily dependent on extensive community involvement from all possible quarters including local residents, experts, companies and government agencies. Thus, community involvement is a key factor of the Mutton Cove management plan. Many of the activities that are otherwise costly if undertaken commercially are found to be feasible if supported by enough volunteers. Moreover, use of community members also raises the public face of a Reserve and provides participants with a sense of achievement and belonging. Adequate support should be given to actions that may involve community members. These actions involve many of the tasks within the monitoring program, as well as re-vegetation efforts, weed removal and the occasional guided walk for other community groups. References 1. Adam (2005), Saltmarsh” in Zann, LP. and P. Kailola, eds. (1995) State of theMarine Environment for Australia. Canberra: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2. Bryars (2003), An inventory of important coastal fisheries habitats in South Australia. Adelaide: Fish Habitat Program. 3. Coast Protection Board (2003), Coastline 33: A Strategy for Implementing CPB Policies on Coastal Acid Sulfate Soils in South Australia. Adelaide: South Australian Coat Protection Board. 4. Deans (2003), Sea level rise – implications for coastal management in South Australia. Adelaide: Coastal Protection Branch. 5. Jessop (2006), Flora of South Australia, Vols 1-4, The Flora and Fauna of South Australia Handbooks Committee. Adelaide: SA Govt Printer. 6. Johansen (1996), Terrestrial fauna of the Gillman site of MFP Australia. Adelaide: Eco Management Services, Adelaide. 7. Maunsell (1995), Outer Harbor site development study, a consultant’s report for South Australian Ports Corporation,. Adelaide: Maunsell Pty Ltd. 8. Simpson (1996), Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Melbourne: Viking Press. 9. Tindale (2007), The wanderings of Tjirbruke: a tale of the Kaurna people of Adelaide, Records of the SA Museum. 10. Turner (2001), Conserving Adelaide’s Biodiversity: Resources. Adelaide: Urban Forest Biodiversity Program. 11. Burke (2006), Reefs at Risk in Southeast Asia. World Resources Institute. 12. Dunlop (2005), Distribution and abundance of seabirds in the Eastern Indian Ocean: an analysis of potential interactions with the offshore petroleum industry. A report to the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association. 13. Eni (2007), 3D Seismic Survey Environmental Management Plan. London: Routledge. 14. Eni (2008), Albacora 3D Survey Report. FishBase. 15. Heyward (2007), Big Bank Shoals of the Timor Sea: an Environmental Resource Atlas. Brisbane. 16. Jasarevic (2007), Reviving fisheries in East Timor – Casting nets for development. UN 17. Marsh (2003), Some Aspects of the Zoogeography of NorthWestern Australian Echinoderms. Bulletin of Marine Science. 18. Sandlund (2001), Assessing Environmental Needs and Priorities in East Timor. 19. Wijffels (2006), The WOCE Indonesian Throughflow Repeat Hydrography Sections: I10 and IR6. New York: Wiley. 20. Wyatt (2004), Preliminary survey of the nearshore coastal marine environment of the south coast of East Timor: a baseline for assessing the impacts of a developing nation. University of Western Australia. Read More