COMMENTS

ON
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
NEW MAURITIUS HOTELS LIMITED RESORT HOTEL
AT LES SALINES RIVIÈRE NOIRE
By Platform Moris Lanvironnman

For all reasons and arguments stated in the present Note, we are of the opinion
that any request for additional information will not be sufficient to have the EIA
report conform to Clause 18 (2) of the EPA without significant redrafting of the
various chapters.
Platform Moris Lanvironman therefore calls upon the Ministry
of Environment to:
 Reject the application for an EIA licence for the proposed Beach Resort
Hotel.
 Reject any proposal for the constructionof jetties, coastal works including
dredging works, creation of bathing experience in the lagoonar water,
any marine structure including mooring, pontoons etc. at Les Salines
until the pertinent marine studies are carried out to investigate the causes
of the coastal erosion at La Preneuse and its environs.
 As the authority vested with the stewardship of the Environment as per
Environmental Protection Act, commission a Strategic Environment
Assessment (SEA) for the Development of Les Salines Peninsula.
 For the sake of transparency and good governance, disclose on their
website all requests for additional information and the replies of the
Promoters.

1. Preamble

1|Page PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

1. Preamble
1.1 New Mauritius Hotels Ltd (thereafter referred to as The Promoters) has
submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report for their proposed
Resort Hotel at Les Salines- Riviere Noire in December 2017. The EIA report is
available on the website of the Ministry of Environment and sustainable
Development1.
1.2 NMH has been in the forefront of tourism development in Mauritius. NMH
has carried out implementation of several hotel projects in Mauritius and abroad
and their technical staff is well versed in environmental issues pertaining to this
type of development.
1.3 As disclosed in the EIA report, The Promoters have appointed ARUP as the
Environmental Consultant for the preparation of the EIA report. It is in the public
domain that ARUP (or ARUP SIGMA as it was known until recently) has carried
out numerous EIAs in the development of coastal hotel projects among others.
1.4 As disclosed in the EIA report, the Hotel Development Project contains
several components that each by itself is an undertaking that requires an EIA
licence as per fifth schedule, Part B of EPA 2002 as amended in 2008 (thereafter
referred to as EPA), namely:
 Construction of breakwaters, groins, jetties, revêtements and seawalls
(Item No.7)
 Desalination plant (Item No.12)
 Hotel or Integrated Resort Scheme, including extension, with first
boundary within 1 kilometre from high water mark (Item No.19)
 Housing Project2 and apartments above 50 units within 1 kilometre of
high water mark (Item No.20)
 Land clearing and development, including installation of high tension
lines in environmentally sensitive areas such as water catchment areas,
waterlogged areas, wetlands, mountain slopes and islets (Item No.24)
 Modification of existing coastline such as beach reprofiling, coastal
protection works and removal of basaltic and beach rock (Item No.31)
The EIA report recognises the above mentioned undertakings and this is stated
explicitly in section 1.5.1 of the said report.

1
Website http://environment.govmu.org/English/eia/Pages/EIA-Reports.aspx
last consulted on 21 May 2018.
http://environment.govmu.org/English/eia/Documents/Reports/2017/2712-hotel%20les%20salines/apendi.pdf
2
Note: As disclosed in the EIA report, the Project includes sixty
(60)BeachcomberBrandedApartments,mixof2and3bedrooms(150roomstotal) and as per
section 1.3.1 of the EIA report it is stated that “It is also worth noting that the proposed
Beachcomber Branded Apartments may under a separate application to the Board of
Investments (BOI) be incorporated into an Invest Hotel Scheme (IHS)”

2|Page PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

1.5 Hence it is expected that the EIA report addresses each of the above
project components (undertakings) in a comprehensive manner in
conformity with section 18(2) (d) to (o) in particular; regrettably this is not
the case as will be demonstrated later.
1.6 Actually, we are dismayed at the statements, analyses etc. made in the EIA
that are far from being true and fair and the EIA report contains several flaws
when scrutinised for conformity with the requirements of the Environmental
Protection Act.
1.7 In the main, the flaws identified in the EIA report include inter alia:
 Lack of baseline data that allow genuine qualitative and quantitative
assessment of impacts and hence the sufficiency/validity of several of
proposed mitigation measures are questionable;
 Numerous discrepancies, inconsistencies, deficiencies and omissions;
 Gross oversights, errors and lack of scientific interpretation from
information provided in specialist reports;
 Proposed mitigation systems not in conformity when assessed from data
disclosed in the EIA report itself;
 Poor/lack of assessment of impacts;
 Proposed engineering solutions/Environmental interactions not
demonstrated clearly leading to underestimated/erroneous impact
assessment.
This Note will provide at least one example each of the flaws mentioned above.

1.8 The comments made on the EIA report in this Note are based solely on
information disclosed in the said report. The Promoters and their EIA
Consultant bear the sole responsibility of failure to disclose the requisite
information as laid out in the EPA.

2. Untested Government Policy for Hotel Development of Les Salines

Peninsula

2.1 Although there appears to be an existing government policy for tourism

development for the Les Salines Peninsula, yet this policy is being severely tested;
the hotel development sites with environmental, social and ecological constraints
have not been evaluated as part of the policy formulation. This policy has not
been the object of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) that would have
recommended the most appropriate type of tourism development that meets the
environmental, social and economic objectives of the Site and its surroundings.
As with the Les Salines Peninsula, two other tourism development „zones‟,
namely Bel Ombre and St Félix - designed at the same time - have not been the

3|Page PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

object of a SEA. Both zones have the same environmental and ecological
constraints with environmentally sensitive areas, including coastal wetlands in the
case of Bel Ombre3, and with significant coastal erosion that has necessitated
coastal protection works for existing hotels.

2.2 A SEA for the Les Salines Peninsula would have identified the
environmental and ecological character of the Les Salines Peninsula that need to
be preserved with no or minimum human intervention; these environmental
constraints would then have been part of the conditions of any lease agreement.
2.3 The inclusion of the preservation of environmental and ecological character
as conditions of the lease agreement a priori would not only have ensured that a
level playing field is assured but also reduced the risks of undue pressure from
politicians on civil servants to compromise environmental assets on the ground of
„national economic development‟.

2.4 For the Promoters, this ensures a level playing field if environmental and
ecological constraints are already determined as most often Promoters must
remedy or bear the costs of environmental solutions for untested policy decisions
that they may identify only during the preparation of the environmental impact
assessment.
2.5 The proposed hotel development project puts the above issues to test as will
be shown below.

3. Beachcomber Resort Hotel / Les Salines Beachcomber Resort &

Spa
3.1 The EIA report refers to the hotel as Beachcomber Resort Hotel whereas the
Masterplan in Appendix A of the EIA report defines the Project as Les Salines
Beachcomber Resort & Spa.
3.2 It is the contention of the Promoters that normally the prerequisite for the
development of a Resort hotel is a beachfront with an attractive bathing
experience (see section 1.4, 1st para.)
3.3 Indeed, as disclosed in the EIA report, the Promoters requested
governmental consultations which took place at two meetings held at the Ministry
of Housing and Lands on 22 August and 1st September 2017 at the invitation
of“the Minister of Social Security, National Solidarity, and Environment and
Sustainable Development (Environment and Sustainable Development Division”
(see section 1.4.1). As per EIA report: “The purpose of these meetings was to

3
Platform Moris Lanvironnman (PML) has been advocating the reintroduction of the SEA in the
EPA which was removed from EPA following the promulgation of the Business Facilitation Act of
October 2006; the most recent occasion being in its submission and proposals in the pre-budget
consultations.

4|Page PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

put forward outline proposals for the development and receive comments and
views from the various parties.”
The various parties on the government side including parastatal bodies were:
 The Ministry of Environment, Sustainable Development, Disaster and
Beach Management
 The Ministry of Ocean Economy, Marine Resources, Fisheries,
Shipping and Outer Island,
 The Ministry of Tourism
 The Department of Continental Shelf
 The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Centre
 The Mauritius Oceanography Institute
 The Board of Investment
 The Forestry Services – Ministry of Agro-Industry
 The National Parks & Conservation Services

3.4 It is surprising to note the omission from the above list of a representative of
the Ramsar Committee, given that wetlands had been identified within the Les
Salines Peninsula.
3.5 At the first meeting, the Promoters “…presented a potential option for the
creation of a beach / bathing experience, through the dredging of parts of the
shallow water in front of the hotel site, and the creation of offshore breakwaters,
as indicated in Figure 2…”
3.6 As summarised in points 2 and 3 of sub-section 1.4.1.1, there appeared to be
a general consensus between the Prime Minister‟s Office (PMO) and the
Department of Environment (DoE) on one side and the Promoters on the other
side, that dredging of the intertidal zone will have significant impacts on the
habitat/ecosystems.
3.7 It appeared, as reported in point 4, that the idea of creating an “inland
beach/lagoon” was mooted by PMO/DoE, which considered it as “…an option
which may offer ecological credibility with the intertidal zone remaining largely
intact...”
3.8 But the Promoters had an additional prerequisite as stated in point 5,namely:
“...boat access to the lagoon at all tidal conditions was an essential
component to a hotel project…”
3.9 The Promoters went further to state the following (point 6):
“Beachcomber mentioned that without an attractive bathing experience and
without boat access to the sea, there could be no Beachcomber hotel project
at this site.”

5|Page PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

It is clear that the above unwarranted statements put severe pressure on civil
servants who would later have to answer to the politicians if the project does not
go ahead. This could have been avoided if a no-dredging-of-the-lagoon condition
or other condition protecting the ecologically sensitive area had been made known
to the Promoters as part of the conditions for an application to an Industrial Lease
for the Site.
3.10 At the second meeting (see section 1.4.1.2), the Promoters presented an
alternative option that consists of the following:

 An inland bathing lagoon, in lieu of the creation of a beach bathing

experience,

 The construction of a jetty for access to the lagoon,

 Floating pontoons for water sports activities,

 Fixed boat moorings and

 The cleaning / recapping of “ a short section of the beach”.

3.11 According to what is reported in the EIA report, it appeared that the above
option “… was generally well received…”.
3.12 But the above statement surprises us; it is simply astounding that the
representatives of the Ministry of Environment (MoE) and DoE did not raise any
questions on the presence of a wetland that would require backfilling to
accommodate some of the proposed hotel components. It is recalled that
MoE/DoE commissioned the technical report on Environmentally Sensitive Areas
dated 2009. It is not reported in the EIA report whether DoE/MoE raised any
concerns on the presence of the wetland on the freehold part of the Site, but if this
is not the case, then MoE/DoE has failed in their duty of stewardship of the
environment as the ESA report of 2009 clearly identifies a wetland of
conservation Category 1, having high conservation value, on the freehold part of
the Site (see section 3.4.4 of the EIA report).
3.13 On the other hand, one would have expected the Promoters to carry out an
environmental screening at least with all the options prior to their presentation to
the same Authorities; but regrettably this has not been the case.

4. Does a Resort Hotel need access to bathing experience/lagoon

access?

4.1 We dispute the statement made in the EIA report that a Resort Hotel must
have access to sea bathing experience/lagoonar access etc.
4.2 The EIA Consultant should know better that there is at least one example in
Mauritius where a Beach Resort Hotel is not dependent upon sea bathing
experience/lagoonar access in front of their beach front. Indeed, Le Chaland

6|Page PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

Resort Hotel, presently under construction, has not planned any seawater activities
in the lagoonar waters in front of their site. ARUP SIGMA/ARUP was
responsible for the preparation of the EIA report in 2012. We are even more
surprised that this was not disclosed and assessed in this EIA report in the project
justification.
4.3 We dispute the assertion of the Promoters that “without an attractive
bathing experience and without boat access to the sea, there could be no
Beachcomber hotel project at this site.” If such is the case, then the Promoters
should simply return their lease and this could have provided the opportunity for
other Promoters to show their interest on the said Pas Géometriques land.
Furthermore, the Promoters should have disclosed in the EIA report the value-
added of access to the beach front as well as their proposed lagoonar infrastructure
via the leased land, to their proposed sixty (60) Beachcomber branded Apartments
that form part of the Hotel Resort Project, which as stated in the EIA report “…
the proposed Beachcomber Branded Apartments may under a separate
application to the Board of Investments (BOI) be incorporated into an Invest
Hotel Scheme (IHS)”. Similar value-added is likely for the other portions of
freehold land belonging to the Promoters.
4.4 It is noted that the lessee of the Pas Géometriques land is Les Salines Golf
& Resort Limited. One would expect that the Project should include a golf course.
Indeed the Lease Agreement makes reference to a golf course as per Article 22
(Special Conditions) (d) that states:
“The lessee should use its best endeavours to make the golf course accessible to
other hotel developers on a request basis. The Promoter shall operate the golf
course in accordance with the Golf Course policy of the Government….”
4.5 Hence it is argued that the main feature of the Resort would have been the
golf course. However the EIA report is mute on the fate of the golf course.

5. Other Hotel Sites in the Les Salines Peninsula

5.1 It is reported that there are four or five other hotel Sites within the Les
Salines Peninsula.

5.2 Should each hotel Site, while meeting the same environmental conditions,
request the same „attractive bathing experience and boat access to the sea” as
prerequisite to the development of the Site, we might end up having several jetties
crisscrossing the lagoon, etc. On what grounds will the Authorities reject or accept
the other applications?

6. Coastal Erosion
6.1 Beach/coastal erosion is a phenomenon observed at several places around
the island.

7|Page PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

6.2 Coastal erosion is conspicuous at La Preneuse Public Beach, which is
located some 1.9km north of the Project site (see Appendix E, Drawing EIA -
002). Despite coastal protection works, erosion has not been contained and
observations by local communities indicate that erosion has been exacerbated
since dredging works were carried out as part of works for the creation of the La
Balise Marina in the late 2000s.

6.3 Unconfirmed reports suggest that the dredging of the estuary of La Balise
Marina has removed more than three times the volume of sediments than
originally planned. DoE should be in a position to confirm this as part of their
Environmental Monitoring at construction. Do the dredging works of the estuary
impact on the sediment transport processes?

6.4 It has been reported that as early as 2016, the Management of La Balise
Marina applied to DoE to carry out maintenance dredging; this can be confirmed
by DoE. Is the dredged estuary acting as a sediment sink/trap?

6.5 Since no study has been reported on sediment transport in the lagoon and
sea in the vicinity of the proposed marine works as well as regionally, and in the
light of the above, not only should an application for dredging works not be
entertained but the same should also be applied to the construction of jetties and
other marine structures until the completion of such study.

6.6 It must be noted that proposed jetties, beach/lagoon cleaning for bathing
experience, floating pontoon etc. that promote lagoon water flow perturbations,
are extremely important factors in beach erosion.

7. Beach sand genesis

7.1 The EIA report fails to address the issue of Beach sand genesis. Beach sand
genesis is a major, and increasingly important issue, worldwide and especially on
the Mauritian coastline. In this regard as described above, significant coastline
changes at Black River on the northern (La Preneuse side) are observed – with
changes to the coast and lagoon on the south side -, similar effects are to be
expected on the southern (Salines) side.

7.2 The EIA report should have assessed the impacts of all the proposed marine
works (jetties, moorings, platforms, beach cleaning etc.) on beach sand genesis,
factors to take into consideration for this area include inter alia:

a. Recent changes in the flow patterns of water in the Black River

estuary, subsequent to dredging and construction within the estuary
(these measurements should have formed part of the environmental
monitoring plan as part of the EIA La Balise Marina).

8|Page PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

 b. Increasing pressure on reef fishes, by recreational fishing activities,
with a massive decline in the transformation of coral into coral sand
by fishes..
c. Coral bleaching events which have decreased the coral production in
this are coral offtake.

8. Issues with the Lease Agreement

8.1 The EIA report states that the Hotel Development Site consists of leased Pas
Géometriques Land and freehold land belonging to New Mauritius Hotels Ltd.

8.2 According to the Lease Agreement, the Lessee is Les Salines Golf &Resort
Limited incorporated with the Registrar of Companies on 26th day of August
2005 – company No 58187.

8.3 The EIA report is mute on the relationship between Les Salines Golf Resort
Limited and New Mauritius Hotels Ltd, the Promoters of the Project.

9. Validity of the Lease Agreement

9.1 Referring to Appendix C, the Lease Agreement between State of Mauritius

(the Lessor) and Les Salines Golf Resort Limited (the Lessee) was registered on
27 November 2007.

9.2 On the cancellation of the lease, according to Article 15:

The lease is cancelled “de plein droit” and without payment of any
compensation if:
(a)The Lessee fails to start the erection of the buildings referred to in
Article 2 within eighteen (18) months4 from the date of signature of the
lease;
(b)The Lessee fails to complete the construction works of the building up to
the plinth level as per approved plans within three (3) months after the
initial period of eighteen (18)months referred to at paragraph (a)
above;5
…….
…….
9.3 The EIA report does not state if the Lease Agreement is still valid and provide
evidence thereto.

10. Site Topography/Land Surveyor’s Plan

4
Bold in Lease Agreement

9|Page PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

10.1 The EIA report refers to Site Topography (see section 3.1.3) and the
Topography Plan duly signed by the Sworn Land Surveyor‟s as given in
Appendix D of the EIA report and according to the EIA report this is in
conformity with clause 18 (1) (c) (ii) of EPA.

10.2 Actually, Clause 18 (1) (c) (ii) of EPA requires:

“A site plan prepared and signed by a land surveyor” . However, the site plan
given in Appendix D of the EIA report does not show explicitly:
 Clear site boundaries except for some drawn lines in various colours but
for which no legend are given,
 The boundaries of the leased land,
 The presence of a wetland and its contour although some features are
shown such as drain, trees, electric pole etc. are shown,
 The extent of the freehold land of 11.30306ha as stated in section 3.1.1 as
well as other sections of the EIA report.

10.3 Hence in our opinion the site plan disclosed in Appendix D of the EIA
report does not conform to the requirements of the EPA.

11. Site Extent – Inconsistencies in the EIA report

11.1 Based on the information disclosed in the EIA report, it is apparent that
there are serious inconsistencies in the drawings and the description provided in
the EIA report as highlighted below.

11.2 Leased Land and Freehold Land

In the EIA report (see section 3.1.1 page 20 EIA report), it is stated that the Hotel
Development site will comprise of:
 11.30306ha on freehold land owned by New Mauritius Hotels Ltd
 5.8141ha on Pas Geometriques of Les Salines leased from the Ministry of
Housing and Lands.
11.3 In section 3.1.2 (Site Ownership) of the EIA report, it is stated that
“ The project site is partly on freehold land of an extent of 11ha3036m² belonging to
New Mauritius Hotels Limited as evidenced by the Notary Certificate of Ownership
drawn before Notary Me. Marie Joseph Bernard d’Hotman de Villiers…” (1st Para).
11.4 According to the notary certificates given in Appendix C, the first certificate
refers to freehold land of 16, 291.32m2 (i.e.1.6291ha) and the second certificate is
for a freehold land of 6.8927ha.

11.5 Assuming that as stated in the same section, an extent of 1ha5087m2 has
been the object of a land swap between New Mauritius Hotels and the Ministry of
Lands and Housing (no supporting document given in the EIA report).

10 | P a g e PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

 “It is to be noted that the portion of land of an extent of 1ha5087m²
originally earmarked for the construction of the access road to the Pas
Géométriques Les Salines has been subject to a land swap of the same
extent following the realignment of the public road.”
11.6 Then the total surface area of freehold land is as follows:
(1.6291+6.8972+1.5087): 10.035ha which is not 11.30306ha as stated in
section 3.1.1 as well as other sections of the EIA report.
11.7 Hence there is a discrepancy in the extent of Site as evidenced by the
documents disclosed in the EIA report.
11.8 The EIA report does not show:
1. A scaled drawing with the above plots of land clearly delineated but
instead all drawings showed the total extent of 17ha1177m2 of the hotel
development (lease and freehold lands together)
2. Clear boundaries between the hotel plots of land (lease and freehold) and
the adjacent surrounding plots of land (Pas Géometriques, freehold land
and others).

12. Drawings and Development not in conformity with the Articles of

the Lease Agreement.

12.1 As per lease agreement given in Appendix C of the EIA report, all of the
drawings including the masterplan given in Appendix A do not show a clear track
of not less than 60cm wide running along the boundaries of the leased land.
Indeed the following Article of the Lease Agreement have clearly not been
observed:
Article 11- Clear Space along boundaries
“The Lessee shall keep open and maintain on the land leased a clear
track of not less than sixty (60) centimetres6 wide running along the
boundaries of the land leased”.
Furthermore, Article 12- Failure to clear space long boundariesof the signed lease
Agreement clearly stipulates that
“If the Lessee fails to keep the clear track provided under Article 11, the
Lessor shall cause the boundaries to be clear and the cost of the clearing
shall be recovered from the Lessee.”
12.2 The Promoters have not respected Article 11 of the Lease Agreement and it
can be deduced from the masterplan (as well as other drawings) that some of the
hotel components lie on the boundary of the leased land.

6
Bold in Lease Agreement

11 | P a g e PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

12.3 Consequently, the Promoters should be requested to amend the masterplan
as well as other drawings to conform to Article 11 of the Lease Agreement.

13. ESA Wetland 76

13.1 The EIA report recognises the presence of a wetland on the proposed Hotel
Development Site (freehold), yetit appears that at the Meetingof 1 September
2017 at Ministry of Housing and Lands as reported in the EIA report (section
1.4.1.2 of EIA report) the issue of backfilling of the wetland to accommodate
some components of the proposed hotel, was not raised at all as stated previously.

13.2 Although this wetland is, according to the EIA report, a man-made wetland,
the Technical Report on Freshwater Wetlands (June 2009)classifies ESA Wetland
76 as a Category 1 Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) having High
Conservation value. The Technical report, as quoted in the EIA report, states that
the “Wetlands within this classification have high biodiversity and are relatively
intact with respect to habitat degradation, often supporting endangered plant
species.” The EIA report further states that “the first function of this wetland isits
richness in native biodiversity and migrant birds in particular, due partly to its
significant un-fragmented length.” (Section 3.4.4)

13.3 Aside from its function as a biodiversity habitat, ESA Wetland 76 also
plays a water purification and filtration function that contributes to protect the
lagoon.

13.4 Though recognising all this, the EIA report does not provide an adequate
justification for the back-filling of this Category 1 Wetland and the creation of
a new wetland system in as much as it has not

1. Provided a baseline study of the wetland, identifying the biodiversity

(flora, fauna, etc.) and ecosystems, their importance and relevance.
2. Provided a water quality assessment in the existing wetland that will
provide insight of the functioning of the wetland with regard to surface
water, underground water and tidal movement.
3. Ascertained that ESA Wetland 76 is a tidal wetland.
4. Demonstrated why the area of existing ESA Wetland 76 (on the hotel site)
can be decreased by over 11,000 m2
5. Estimated the silt /sediment load that is presently contained in the existing
wetland and the amount being discharged into the sea via the existing
overflows.
6. Demonstrated how the surface flow within the catchment areas will be
diverted into the proposed „tidal‟ wetland and the required infrastructure to
„ train‟ stormwater.

12 | P a g e PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

 7. Provided the methodology used for the translocation/recreation of the
biodiversity existing at ESA Wetland 76 and maintaining habitat integrity.
8. Demonstrated that the proposed construction of a new wetland will be an
efficient and effective compensatory measure with regard to the above
among others.
9. Provided a wetland management plan including methods to be used to
ensure “similar ecosystem and performance” as proposed in Section 5.3.9.

13.5 The above constitute major shortcomings of the EIA report which thereby
fails to demonstrate how the major adverse impact of backfilling Wetland 76 will
be transformed into a “moderate adverse impact during the implementation of the
works and a neutral impact in the long term” and how the proposal for
development will contribute to maintaining and enhancing the character of the
area as stated in Section 1.5.3.1.

13.6 Without the demonstration through a detailed and thorough baseline

study of the existing wetland and its ecological and environmental functions,
the justification for the backfilling of the existing wetland and its
replacement by a ‘tidal’ wetland as compensatory measure has not been
shown and their impact assessment fails the test of scrutiny as required in
Clause 18(2) of EPA.

14. Proposed Conservation Areas - Native Coastal forest and Restored

Sand Dune

No justification in terms of location, size and composition, and no

methodology have been provided for the creation of the Native Coastal forest
and Restored Sand Dune.

15. Coastal environment

15.1 The intertidal zone at Les Salines Rivière Noire is a highly sensitive area
and holds a valuable ecosystem. In the nearshore, seagrass is present and the
seafloor consists of “fine brown sediment that is easily uplifted in the water
column to create very turpid waters”. Close to the water channels far from the
shoreline, “the areas was less turbid” and had “live corals and more brown
macroalgea”. (Marine Biodata Survey – Appendix K)

15.2 A 100m T-shaped jetty, 2 pontoons and 10 anchoring buoys are proposed as
the Promoter argues that it needs boat access to the lagoon at all tidal conditions
and that it is important for it to have “direct access for lagoon based activities”
such as “boat trips, snorkelling, diving, fishing, dolphin watching etc.” (Section
4.10.1)

13 | P a g e PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

15.3 At the same time, the Promoter proposes to create an artificial inland salt
water lagoon where bathing and some water sports like kayaking, stand up paddle
boarding, pedalo would take place, thus “transforming the site into an idyllic
beach paradise.” (Section 4.9). It further states that the inland bathing lagoon
“will form a central feature and key attraction of the Beachcomber Resort Hotel
and is a particularly important component given that the existing beach front does
not offer a bathing experience that is attractive to hotel guests. The proposed
large expanse of the the inland bathing lagoon allows the hotel to be focused and
developed inland, and retain more of the existing natural character of the existing
beach.” (Section 4.9)

15.4 However, the EIA report does not

1. Demonstrate why both marine activities (including a lagoon bathing

and paddling area) and a 1.7 ha inland lagoon are needed.
2. Sufficiently assess the environmental and social impacts of the
operation of the jetty, pontoons, fixed moorings and of the sea-based
activities (snorkelling, windsurfing, water skiing, etc.)
a. on the marine ecosystems in a zone within the Black River
Fishing Reserve and where the presence of dolphins and
whales are regularly observed;
b. on the fishing community;
c. and concomitantly with other existing operators and
activities in the area.

15.5 Although dredging of the site has been ruled out, part of the beach – of an
area of 12,450 m2 as per Drawing in Appendix E, EIA-015 -will be “cleaned” and
sand-capped to create a bathing and paddling area in the intertidal zone (Section
4.10.2). It is not demonstrated how silt from upstream as well as silt-laden
sediment from the surrounding rivers and streams will be prevented from
contaminating the proposed sand-capped bathing area.

15.6 Regarding the creation of this lagoon bathing area, the origin of the silt and
the estimated frequency of “beach cleaning” operations over time are not given.
Furthermore beach cleaning appears benign, but systematic removal of shells,
corals and other lagoon debris have important beach erosion roles. In the past,
hotels systematically clear tonnes of organic and calcareaous material from
beaches, day in day out, year in year out, then complain that beaches disappear.

15.7 Paddling is mentioned as one of the proposed activities in this area.

However, the EIA report does not assess the likelihood of paddlers venturing onto

14 | P a g e PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

the seagrass beds and causing turbidity by the action of paddles and does not
propose measures to prevent paddling over seagrass beds.

15.8 A major issue on the beaches along Salines, are the “haches d‟armes” and
other foot-cutting molluscs buried in the sand. There is a tendency to see their
removal as part of the “cleaning” process to maintain the proposed lagoon bathing
areas as well as paddling activities. Again, as a cumulative experience, their
removal will affect water quality and the ecology of the beaches. A pre-
development survey on the distribution and abundance of all the sessile lagoon
plants and animals have not been carried out as part of the baseline survey and
monitoring of their population should be used as a gauge of lagoon health in years
to come.

15.9 Works and activities are planned at both ends of the lagoon at the site
without their impacts having been sufficiently assessed. Seagrass beds are not
only rich habitat but are also carbon stores and contribute in attenuating waves,
enhance sedimentation and prevent erosion. It is crucial therefore that in this
highly ecologically sensitive area the condition of the seagrass beds is maintained
by minimising - or better, forgoing - intervention and activities that will cause
turbidity and damage to the seagrass.

15.10 We consider that the information disclosed in the EIA report on the
proposed sea activities on the marine environment and the assessment of the
impacts and sufficiency of mitigation measures are not in conformity to
Clause 18(2) of EPA.

16. Maximum Probable Sea water Level Rise and the Insufficiency of
30m setback

16.1 The maximum probable sea water level rise has been estimated in the EIA
report (see section 3.5.3) as 1.10m re MSL which in fact should have been +1.4m
AMSL as the estimation wrongly states that the maximum sea level rise under
high water spring tide as +0.3m instead of +0.5m and the non-inclusion of the
effect of coastal piling up due to wind, even under cyclonic condition reported to
be a maximum of +0.1m.

16.2 Hence mean sea level rises during cyclones will allow waves of around
1.5m to propagate in the lagoon and reach the beach with consequent risk of
flooding.

16.3 Assuming that as reported in the EIA report that the swash line observed at
Pointe du Tamarin, reaching the beach at +1.64m as a first estimation, then as per

15 | P a g e PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

Figure EIA-015 in Appendix E of the EIA report, based on the existing contour
lines shown on the said diagram, it is highly probable that some of the buildings
of the proposed hotel (public area, Blocks A and B, etc.) will be flooded. In the
event of the swash line reaching between +2.62m and +2.95m observed at some
areas around Mauritius as reported by the same authors cited in the EIA report,
then the risk of flooding to other areas of the proposed hotel increases
significantly.

16.4 Consequently, taking into account additionally the effects of sea level rise
due to global warming, the 30m setback from High Water Mark appears
insufficient to mitigate flood risks of the proposed hotel.

16.5 Hence, based on the information disclosed in the EIA report, a setback of
30m from the high water mark is insufficient to prevent flooding of at least
some areas of the proposed hotel. Again this is a significant shortcoming of
the EIA report.

17. Proposed Desalination Plant

17.1 It is recalled that borehole (seawater?) water abstraction is an important

component for the proposed development to provide seawater for the proposed
crystal lagoon and raw water intake for the proposed desalination plant.

17.2 The Crystal lagoon - for which the amount of water it will contain is not
stated in the EIA report -will use water from the drilled intake borehole and will
require 100m3/d of borehole water (assuming it has sea water characteristics) for
daily top-up (see Figure 17 of the EIA report).

17.3 The proposed desalination plant will produce 600m3/d of desalinated water.
The various sections in the EIA report that pertain to desalination plant are in the
main:
 Section4.8.3
 Appendix G: Factual Report for Borehole Drilling and Pumping Test
Salines Pilot- Riviere Noire- November 2012
 Appendix I: Desalination Plant by PROMINENT- 01.12.2017
17.4 Below we shall demonstrate some blatant inconsistencies, misleading data
and parameters used and significant deviations associated with the proposed
desalination plant and the use of raw water from the proposed drilled borehole.

17.5 Water Quality of the proposed intake borehole for the Desalination
Plant

16 | P a g e PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

 17.5.1 Inconsistencies of Data
(a) The water quality of the borehole drilled in 2012 is given in the factual
report of the drilling specialist (see Appendix G of the EIA report). The
detailed results of the parameters determined for the water quality are
given in Appendix D of the said factual report.
(b) In the factual report itself, there is an inconsistency between the key
parameter Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) reported in Table 3.1 of the
factual report and the laboratory report in Table 3.1 TDS is reported as
37,100mg/l compared to 3752 mg/l. There is no indication in the EIA
report that this discrepancy has been addressed.
(c) On the other hand, Figure 16 (Characteristics of intake borehole)itself
contains many inconsistencies with respect to the laboratory test results,
including the TDS which is reported as 37,100mg/l.
17.5.2 The Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) parameter is a key parameter
not only in the design of a desalination plant but also in the evaluation
of impacts and proposed mitigation measures.

17.5.3 High levels of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and Biological

Oxygen Demand (BOD5) of proposed Intake Borehole
(a) The presence of high levels of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) of
1000mg/l7 and an associated Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5) of
340mg/l as shown from the results of water analyses carried out by
CHEMCO Laboratory Services (see Appendix G of the EIA report:
borehole drilling factual report of the borehole specialist (Water Research
Co Ltd, last two pages).
(b) With reference to the said Factual report, the drilling specialist draws the
attention of NMH (and the reader) on the water quality as follows:
“...The concentration of the Chemical and Biological oxygen demands
indicate that the sample is heavily contaminated, however at the time
of collection, there was no visual and olfactory evidence of the
polluted water sample.” (see section 3.4, 2nd last para.).
(c) Despite this explicit caution on the high level of organic pollutants, the
EIA Consultant fails to take cognizance of it, and they merely reproduce
the COD and BOD5 parameters in their Figure 16.
(d) Indeed if these high levels of COD and BOD5, if confirmed, not only raise
concerns on the desalination plant itself but also on the proposed Crystal
Lagoon as the latter depends upon supply from the said borehole (see
Figure 17 of the EIA report).

7
Note: The units of several parameters in Figure 16, including for COD and BOD 5 are wrongly
reported – please refer to Laboratory test results for correct units.

17 | P a g e PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

 (e) The origin of the high COD and high BOD5 is unknown. At the very least,
additional tests on the water quality from the borehole should have been
done to determine the origin of the high level of organic pollutants.
(f) The high COD and BOD5 in the intake borehole water means that the said
water cannot be used directly for the desalination plant and for the Crystal
Lagoon. The borehole water will need to be treated for removal of COD
and BOD5. Given that for the proposed desalination plant assumes (see
Annex I of the EIA report section 5 point 2) that the borehole water intake
shall have a COD <5mg/l, the treatment plant shall then have to achieve a
COD reduction of at least 99.5percent.
(g) For COD and BOD5 abatement, the treatment plant will need to treat a
flow of 3,700m3/d8 (assuming the supply flow estimated in Figure 17 is
correct). This will have not only significant environmental impacts but
also economic and financial implications.

17.5.4 Quality of Desalinated water (potable permeate)

(a) The EIA report makes at least two statements on the quality of the
desalinated water with respect to the concentration of TDS.
In section 4.8.3.8(first para.) of the EIA report, it is stated that “The
desalinated water will have a Total Dissolved Solid of not more than
2000mg TDS/l.”
Whereas in section 4.8.3.4(last para.), it is stated that “The total output
of the desalination units will be 600m³ of potable water with a Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS) of not more than 200 ppm.”
(b) These statements - whose sources are not stated - are sufficient to cause
confusion not only in terms of stated maximum values but also in terms of
expressed units.
(c) The EIA Consultant does not seem to understand the difference between
TDS and Salinity as these terms are used interchangeably. For example, in
section 4.8.3.8, it is stated that “…The mass balance for TDS is as
indicated in Figure 17…” whereas in Figure17 the parameter indicated is
Salinity. For a person having knowledge in SWRO plant/desalination
process, it is known that TDS is the parameter used and not salinity.
(d) Saline raw water supply from BH1 to SWRO, Saline raw water supply for
brine dilution and Saline raw water supply for Crystal lagoon top-up are
reported to have the same salinity concentration of 36007mg/l. Assuming
that all three saline raw water supply is from the drilled borehole (as per
Factual report), then the Salinity concentration determined by CHEMCO

8
Note: As per figure 17 of the EIA report, provision is made for brine dilution using 2,100m 3/d of
the same water from the borehole water intake; as this will reappear as a wastewater with COD
and BOD5 in excess of discharge permissible standards for these parameters; the diluted brine will
have to be treated – hence the assumption that all 3,700m3/d of treatment of borehole raw water.

18 | P a g e PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

 Laboratory Services is stated to be 34,600mg/l which is the same as
reproduced in Figure 16 of the EIA report (main text).
(e) In the light of the major discrepancies described above and in this section,
there are significant uncertainties on the validity of the estimated flows
reported in Figure 17 (Volumes and salinity of desalinated water) as their
methods of estimation are not only unknown but based on the wrong
parameter and value.

17.5.5 Proposed Desalination Processes and Plant Details

(a) In the EIA report there are two sections that describe the processes for the
proposed desalination plant, namely Section 4.8.3 and the processes as per
specifications of the supplier given in Appendix I.
(b) The only relation between section 4.8.3 and the supplier is that the EIA
report makes reference to the desalination plant process flow diagram as
shown in Drawing No.2017101956_0000_57 attached in Appendix I
(section 4.8.3, last para.).
(c) Appendix I of the EIA report contains a quotation from a Supplier
addressed to Beachcomber Hotel Group for a 2 x300m3/d desalination
plant submitted in December 2017. What is indeed surprising is that the
supplier is proposing processes, plant and equipment for desalination using
a theoretical composition of water intake that has nothing to do with the
measured composition of the intake borehole as determined in Appendix G
of the EIA report with high COD and BOD5 concentrations; it is recalled
that the supplier stated that the intake water must have a COD that is less
than 5mg/l.
Hence it has been demonstrated that, again based on information disclosed in
the EIA report, both desalination processes disclosed in the EIA report (as
per above) fail the test of scrutiny.

17.5.6 Rejection Borehole

(a) The EIA report confirms that the characteristics and tests of the rejection
borehole have not been established yet although the location of the
rejection borehole has been shown as per DrawingEIA-011, Appendix E
of the EIA report.
(b) Further, the EIA report assumes that “From the geology encountered for
BH1, and assuming similar geology for the proposed BH2, no problems
are envisaged with the safe rejection of diluted brine(fourth para. below
Figure 16).
(c) We disagree with the above assumption that the geology of BH2 is similar
to BH1 as the geotechnical report of Appendix G actually shows that the
soil profiles are heterogeneous around the Site. Furthermore, we totally
disagree with the conclusion of the EIA report that “…no problems are
envisaged with the safe rejection of diluted brine” without having

19 | P a g e PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

 determined in situ the soil transmissivity and the hydrogeological nature of
the surrounding rejection borehole.
(d) The EIA report further states: “However, this will need to be proved
during drilling and testing which is planned to take place in parallel with
the EIA determination process” (same para.).
(e) We totally disagree that an environmental impact assessment on the brine
disposal for the desalination plant can be carried out a posteriori given the
major negative impacts associated with concentrated brine on the ecology
and environment. Hence this major shortcoming is not in conformity with
Clause 18(2) of EPA.
The above are blatant examples that show that the assessment and
information presented on the desalination plant in the EIA report are not
true and fair and do not conform to Clause 18(2) of EPA.

18. Traffic Impact

18.1 The EIA report lists two sources of road traffic generated the construction
phase (see section 5.3.1) :
 Transportation of construction workers
 Transportation of imported construction material, i.e, ready mixed
concrete, reinforcement, road materials and other construction
material
18.2 Impact receptors are mentioned to be “The residents of the dwellings due
east of the proposed development”

18.3 The Promoters propose three mitigation measures before concluding that
“The potential road traffic impacts during construction are therefore assessed
as Minor Adverse.” (5.3.1 last para.)

18.4 However, the EIA report estimates the volume of material needed for
raising the site up to the “required level of +3.0m ASML in the vicinity of the
roads and buildings.” as around 100,000 m3 (see section 4.8.13) but fails to
indicate the source(s) thereof.

18.5 Based on the reported volume of backfill required being around 100000m3
and assuming a maximum of 30m3 per lorry trip, 3 300 one-way trips of backfill
material will be needed over a maximum period of two months. It is known that
the Black River coastal road is congested along several stretches throughout the
day.Hence it can be surmised that traffic will be severely impacted during the
construction phase of the proposed hotel. The conclusion reached in the EIA
report as to traffic impact being “Minor Adverse” is erroneous.

20 | P a g e PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

We consider therefore that the assessment of the impact of traffic at the
construction stage disclosed in the EIA report is erroneous and therefore not
in conformity to Clause 18(2) of EPA.

19. Cultural and Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA)

19.1 The hotel site and the adjoining area contain structures and buildings with
heritage value. The EIA report states that the part of the salt pans still in operation
will be preserved and remain operational.

19.2 The Batterie de l‟Harmonie, which is classified National Heritage as per

Schedule (section 2) of the National Heritage Fund Act 2003 adjoins the site.
19.3 The declared heritage site adjoins the proposed Hotel Site and the road
which is being constructed leads up to within a few meters of the historic
buildings, with absolutely no physical buffer; whereas it is recognized that there
must be a buffer zone of at least 10m between the developments and the heritage
site, with an adequate separation (trees/bund etc.) which does not deform the
heritage site‟s historical context.
19.4 Furthermore, the EIA report contains no assessment

 of the heritage value of the salt pans and of the material used in their
construction, in this case cut stones;
 of the impact of the project on the Batterie de l‟Harmonie.

19.5 We call upon the Department of Environment and the National

Heritage Fund to request a CHIA as part of the application for an EIA
licence.

20. Conclusions

20.1 This Note has demonstrated that the EIA report lacks qualitative and
quantitative analysis, is deficient in baseline data, is deficient in scientific and
technical arguments, does not provide true and fair assessments of the
environmental benefits or effects of the proposed undertaking and overall it
simply does not conform to requirements of Clause 18(2) of EPA.

20.2 True, the EIA report abounds with wide and sweeping statements on
protection of ecological character, conservation, and development of biodiversity,
etc. but with all the deficiencies, inconsistencies and shortcomings presented, the
EIA report fails the test of scrutiny of Clause 18(2) of the Environmental Protect
Act (2002) as amended in 2008.

21 | P a g e PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA

20.3 The EIA Consultant has proposed engineering solutions but have failed to
assess their sufficiency as mitigation measures for impacts that they have failed to
identify or/and evaluated for lack of baseline data but even when these have been
stated in the report, no genuine impact assessment has been carried out.

20.4 The serious issues related to the conducting of the EIA report itself, the lack
of baseline information, discrepancies, poor understanding of the
engineering/environment interactions, contradictory statements, poor
methodology, significant errors, inaccuracies and omissions, and above all the
levity with which environmental concerns and impact assessment have been dealt
with in the EIA report are simply overwhelming and in any event do not conform
to the requirements of Clause 18 (2) of EPA.

20.5 For all reasons and arguments stated above, we are of the opinion that any
request for additional information will not be sufficient to have the EIA report
conform to Clause 18 (2) of the EPA without significant redrafting of the various
chapters.

Consequently, Platform Moris Lanvironman calls upon the

Ministry of Environment to:
20.6 Reject the application for an EIA licence for the proposed Beach Resort
Hotel.

20.7 Reject any proposal for the construction of jetties, coastal works including
dredging works, creation of bathing experience in the lagoonar water, any marine
structure including mooring, pontoons etc. at Les Salines until the pertinent
marine studies are carried out to investigate the causes of the coastal erosion at La
Preneuse and its environs.

20.8 As the authority vested with the stewardship of the Environment as per
Environmental Protection Act, commission a Strategic Environment Assessment
(SEA) for the Development of Les Salines Peninsula.

20.9 For the sake of transparency and good governance, disclose on their website
all requests for additional information and the replies of the Promoters.

Platform Moris Lanvironnman

29 May 2018

22 | P a g e PML – Note on NMH Les Salines EIA