Microsoft Word - Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report 19 October 2009

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

Acknowledgements

The survey and writing team consisted of Pulea Etiseli Ifopo (Ministry of

Natural Resources and Environment, Government of Samoa); James

Atherton and Sue Miller-Taei (Conservation International Pacific Islands

Programme); Paul Anderson and Tepa Suaesi (Secretariat of the Pacific

Regional Environment Programme); Jan Steffen and Suzanne Paisley (United

Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation); Greg Sherley (United

Nations Environment Programme).

We are grateful to the following for their assistance: Stuart Chape (SPREP)

and the New Zealand Airforce for aerial photography; Mike Harris and David

Butler (private individuals for help with data analysis); Poleta (UNESCO) and

François Martel (CI Pacific Islands Programme) and his staff for hosting the

team at the CI Offices.

Notice

This is an unpublished, un-refereed report requested by the Government of

Samoa and remains the property of the Samoan Government.

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

1. Executive Summary

A rapid assessment of the environmental impacts of the 29 September tsunami was

conducted by a multi-agency team from 3 to 14 October, 2009.

Fourteen “green” and 10 “brown” environmental variables were selected and measured based

on the experience of the survey team and similar reports from elsewhere. During a tour of the

affected area on Upolu by car and on foot those “assessable” variables were scored “high”

(over two thirds affected), “medium” (over one third, less than two thirds affected), “low” (less

than a third affected) or zero (unaffected). Manono and Savaii were surveyed by air with the

former showing evidence of some damage and the later apparently none or very little. The

most affected areas in Upolu were villages in the Aleipata, Lepa and Falealili districts with the

most obvious indicators of the tsunami’s impact being solid waste (sometimes resulting from

the complete destruction of a village), erosion of the beach and fore-shore and the (expected)

impact on marine resources. Other environmental variables assessed also showed similar

patterns. Impacts on a wharf/dry dock facility are also described (including lost fuel drums) as

are the possible environmental implications of new settlements created by displaced persons

(mainly revolving around sanitation, drainage and water supply).

A number of recommendations were identified and categorized as being needed in the short

(<3 months) or medium to long term (> 3 months).

Strategically the key recommendation for marine habitats is to implement actions that foster

the natural recovery and resilience of these areas.

Strategically the key recommendation for terrestrial habitats is to implement actions that focus

on restoration

based on ecological and resilience principles, such as replanting affected

coastlines with native wave resistant species and ensuring that all developments, rebuilding

and associated infrastructure (eg villages, tourism) are undertaken cognizant of both the

ongoing risk from tsunami, cyclones, sea level rise and other coastal hazards and follow

appropriate planning processes and codes of environmental practice to minimize

environmental impact to sensitive terrestrial and marine habitats.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS:

The existing district Coastal Infrastructure Management Plans developed in full

consultation with village governance systems (eg village fono) are an appropriate

planning mechanism for participatory planning of the restoration of villages on the

impacted coast.

Consideration should be made to revise the Coastal Infrastructure Management Plans to

include the management of coastal natural resources such as coral reefs, lagoon,

seagrass beds, beaches, swamps, mangrove areas, etc as well as built infrastructure.

Such CIM plans could be rephrased “Coastal Asset Management Plans” to reflect the fact

that all coastal assets are included.

The national coastal hazard zone maps and the CIM plans for affected districts should be

revised to include a specific tsunami vulnerability layer and the likelihood of a repeat

tsunami and areas most at risk from it must be factored into all planning

Relevant planning processes and codes of environmental practice should be followed for

all rebuilding and restoration work including new developments.

Those recommendations endorsed by the Government of Samoa should identify clear

decision making lead agencies, develop clear and costed terms of reference and invite

partnerships for resourcing and needed expertise in these from local and overseas

organizations.

Work carried out in the recommendations above should follow normal protocols in Samoa

for village and district approvals and participation. Existing governance structure eg MPA

District Committees, CIM committees should be used effectively.

Every effort should be made to capitalize on local expertise and supplement with

overseas expertise where needed.

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

Development of new settlements for displaced communities should follow relevant codes

of environmental practice and be planned in a participatory manner to mitigate potential

environmental impacts.

Every effort should be made to collaborate with partners in American Samoa to maximize

benefits and sharing of knowledge and experiences

Specific recommendations for marine and terrestrial habitats follow.

MARINE

Short term:

•

Clean up activities

Undertake offshore aerial check of debris and removal of any items posing risk to

shipping or the coast.

Undertake lagoon debris removal manually in impacted areas. Do not use dredging as

this will cause further impact. Find and remove lost diesel fuel drums in the vicinity of the

Aleipata Wharf.

Beach and foreshore area clean ups are required in partnership with communities and

after salvage of useful materials by owners.

Stabilization of immediate beach and foreshore areas and associated infrastructure eg

roading to prevent further impact to the marine environment eg from sediment run-off.

Care taken in the clean up of debris including solid waste in sensitive areas such as

mangrove and wetlands so as not to damage these sites.

Aleipata Wharf clean up and immediate stabilization of sources of further pollution eg

sediment run off.

•

Potential food source contamination

As a precaution, warn local villages of potential food source contamination particularly

shellfish, sea slugs and other near shore species in highly impacted areas including in

marine areas surrounding the Aleipata wharf.

Assays of key food species eg shellfish in heavily impacted areas to assess safety for

consumption. Based on results advise villagers accordingly.

•

Marine Rapid Assessment (MRA)

Undertake an in-water marine rapid assessment with focus on expected highly damaged

areas and those where previous information exists eg Aleipata and Safata MPAs.

As part of the MRA:

assess impact/vulnerability of key coastal features eg channels and embayments

identify sites for longer term recovery monitoring

assess loss of ecosystem function and impact on services eg food sources for people in

affected areas

•

A joint team should be lead by MNRE/Fisheries combined with local and overseas

expertise where needed. Expertise should include resource economist and at least one

marine surveyor with marine tsunami impact experience.

•

MPA and Fisheries no take zones

Undertake more detailed impact assessment of MPA and Fisheries no take zones and

their potential for recovery and/or need for relocation. Note pre impact information for

many of these sites is available ( MNRE, Fisheries)

Based on consultations and agreement with villages and districts remark no take zones.

•

Marine Food Source Supply

Using the results from the above undertake an assessment for marine food source supply

including specific recommendations for possible substitute sources and rebuilding fishing

capacity in a manner that does not significantly compromise marine area recovery eg

first focus on rebuilding offshore capacity that can benefit entire village, ban outside

commercial fishing in an offshore area to maximize local access.

•

Aleipata Wharf

Detailed assessment of tsunami impact and the ongoing risk, costs and benefits of the

wharf and its widened channel to nearby coastal villages.

•

Other marine stressors

Remove/reduce other stressors and impacts to the coastal marine systems eg ban on

sand mining, commercial fishing, and new reclamations to allow the best chance for

recovery.

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

Medium- long term:

•

Other marine stressors

Remove/reduce other stressors and impacts to the coastal marine systems eg ban on

sand mining, commercial fishing, new reclamations to allow best chance for natural

recovery.

•

Aleipata Wharf

Comprehensive assessment of long term risk, costs and benefits of rebuilding the wharf

assessed, including with local community input, before wharf rebuilding actioned beyond

the immediate stabilisation and clean up recommended above.

•

Recovery Monitoring

Based on the MRA results institute a monitoring programme to understand recovery of

marine habitat from tsunami impacts.

Include in the recovery work monitoring of fishing capacity and ongoing need for any

substitution measures for marine food supply that were used in the short term.

TERRESTRIAL

Short term:

•

Clean up activities

Undertake clean up and removal of solid waste from terrestrial, wetlands, river habitats

and village areas. Care to be taken in clean up so that sensitive ecosystems are not

damaged eg by earth moving equipment

Maximize reusing and recycling materials and sort and remove remaining material into

disposable and hazardous rubbish. Link with JICA Clean Up project.

Specific focus on clean up and proper disposal of waste from illegal/improper dumps

exposed by tsunami eg Tuialemu, Lalomanu.

Review and update plan for effective local waste collection.

Stabilization of land based sources of sediment from wetlands, streams, infrastructure eg

roading to prevent further impact to the marine environment eg from sediment run-off.

•

Terrestrial Impact and Restoration Assessment

Perform a comprehensive assessment of impacts on sensitive coastal habitats such as

marshes and swamp areas and environmental impacts of new settlements

Assess restoration options for key terrestrial habitats made with costs clearly identified.

Build into these assessments a recognition of the ongoing tsunami risk and related

coastal area vulnerability/hazard zones eg from channels and embayment areas. This

should inform patterns of rebuilding and new development.

Medium- long term:

•

Replanting coastlines and river banks with native plants

Plant buffer zones of native salt resistant trees (eg niu, talie, fetau, milo, pu’a, mangrove

tree species etc) along the impacted coastline to reduce coastal erosion, hold together

the foreshore and protect infrastructure

Plant buffer zones of native salt resistant trees along impacted river banks to reduce river

bank erosion and protect infrastructure

•

Restoring and conserving sensitive coastal habitats

Sensitive coastal habitats (swamps, mangrove areas etc) should be restored and

protected from development and further degradation. Such areas provide multiple

ecosystem services including the protection of the coastline from erosion and adjacent

settlements from wave damage.

•

CIM Plans – Updating and Implementation

Ensure that findings from incoming geo-science teams are fed into planning processes

including revision of CIM plans as required.

Add a specific tsunami risk layer to the existing coastal hazard zone maps.

Seawall rebuilding should follow proper standards according to codes of environmental

practice as appropriate – in some areas natural alternatives may be preferable.

Restoration actions identified above should be included in a revision of the CIM plans

Ensure that a mechanism for implementing CIM plans including partner roles and

identification of resources needed is developed and then fully implemented

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

2. Introduction

The Cabinet of the Government of Samoa commissioned this rapid

Environmental Impact Assessment two days following the 29 September 2009

Tsunami. The Tsunami was triggered by an 8.3 earthquake centred on the

Tonga Trench about 220 miles south east of Samoa. Two waves, up to 8m in

some locations, caused localized devastation over the eastern and southern

coast of Upolu Island with generally less severe impacts further west.

Detailed accounts of the seismological and physical statistics of the Tsunami

will be reported by others elsewhere. A rapid EIA team was established

under the United Nations “Cluster” system of disaster management and

reporting to the Government of Samoa/UN Disaster Advisory Committee. The

EIA team comprised staff from the Ministry of Natural Resources and

Environment (MNRE, Government of Samoa), Conservation International

Pacific Programme (CI), the Secretariat for the Pacific Environment

Programme (SPREP), UNESCO (Apia) and UNEP (Apia). The team

members have co-authored this report and are listed in the

acknowledgements.

The objective of the assessment was to rapidly assess the impact of the

Tsunami on the coastal habitats of the south and eastern coast of Upolu,

Aleipata Islands (offshore of the south Upolu coast), Manono Island, and

southern coast of Savai’i. Based on these assessments the team was

requested to make recommendations for further detailed investigations of the

most affected assets and areas and associated expertise required.

Field work was undertaken from 2-8 October with initial findings and

recommendations presented to the Government of Samoa on the 9

October and the full report presented on the 14 October to the Government of

Samoa/UNDAC.

3. Methods

At each site tsunami impact on coastal terrestrial and marine habitat was

rated (“green issues”) and impact to environmental parameters (“brown

issues”) of pollution, water, sewage and impact to roading assessed.

Selection of these variables were made after reviewing other EIA’s following

disasters and judging which would be relevant for Samoa based on the team’s

prior knowledge of the affected areas. Appendix 1 gives the format of the

survey sheets used.

The same information was gathered from 44 localities on Upolu Island from

Tiavea Village (Aleipata District) as the northern most site through to Samatau

(Falelatai District) in the west. Site units were mostly villages although other

key sites were also visited eg Aleipata Wharf, tourist resorts. Aerial

photographs were used to assess impacts on sites which were not visited.

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

For each impact variable the following impact rating was used:

High

– at least two thirds of the area or resource being considered was

damaged beyond normal functionality.

Medium

– as above – between one third and two thirds

Low

– as above – up to one third

Zero

– no observable affect from the Tsunami

Assessed

– variable was systematically assessed in the locality visited

Not assessed

– for some reason the variable was/could not be assessed

Expected

– while the variable was not observed, common sense or prior

information meant the variable was able to be estimated.

Photographs illustrating each of the categories were taken and are included in

Appendix 2.

At each site photographs at a grid-referenced point (Garmin GPS 60CSX;

latitude/longitude in degrees to five decimal points) with a recorded direction

(photo-points) were taken to enable future comparisons. These images are

not included in this report and are available separately. Significant

photographic resources were obtained and are available of sites, impacts,

aerial photography and pre impact shots from team members’ photo libraries.

Data were compiled by site and analyzed for degree of impact and

summarized in Appendix 3 and in maps with relative rating indices given.

Key limitations of this rapid EIA are:

•

The report is a preliminary assessment that does not comprehensively

assess and cost tsunami impacts and mitigation measures. Rather,

the report identifies the extra investigations needed for a

comprehensive impact assessment to be undertaken.

•

This assessment does not account for impacts on agriculture because

these are reported elsewhere (e.g. MAF report to the Government of

Samoa)

•

Direct impacts from the earthquake itself were not assessed.

•

Impacts to the marine habitat beyond the immediate beach and

intertidal zones are inferred and rated relative to the adjacent coastal

impact. In-water assessments were not completed.

•

Some areas of the Upolu coastline and three offshore islands (Manono

between Upolu and Savai’i, and Nu’utele and Nu’uloa in the Aleipata

District) were not visited. However, these were inspected from a New

Zealand Army Iroquois helicopter by two of the survey team and

photographed. The NZ Airforce had already inspected the exposed

coasts of Savaii from about fifty feet above sea level and could not

detect any Tsunami damage.

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

4. Findings

4.1 Spatial Patterns of Impacts

Impacts were not evenly spread across the tsunami impact zone for each type

of impact- some areas were impacted much more than others. A number of

maps have been generated to show the spatial distribution of the following

observed impact parameters: septic tank pollution (figure 1); foreshore and

beach erosion (figure 2); impacts on village areas (figure 3); expected impacts

on MPA and Fisheries no take zones (figure 4); impacts on wetland areas

(figure 5); expected impacts on coral reef areas (figure 6); solid waste

pollution (figure 7); salinisation (figure 8) and a map showing the route of the

aerial photo survey of October 9, 2009 (figure 9). All maps have been colour

coded to show impacts in the three major categories- high, medium and low

impact for each parameter at each observation point.

The general spatial patterns of the impact of the tsunami are summarised

below (see also Figures 1 to 8):

•

On Upolu the impacts were generally highest in the south and

eastern end of Upolu in Aleipata, Lepa and Falealili districts and

diminished westwards towards Falelatai;

•

On Manono island the south and eastern coasts were most

seriously impacted;

•

Impacts on Savaii were minimal;

•

Impacts on marine systems beyond intertidal areas are inferred by

damage to the adjacent coast. No in-water assessment was

completed and a more detailed marine impact assessment will be

required.

•

Marine habitats that are or expected to be highly impacted by the

Tsunami are beaches and foreshore, lagoon habitat (seagrass,

patch reefs, shellfish beds), coral reefs and channels, and

mangrove areas;

•

Channel or ava areas and associated embayments clearly funneled

the wave in to the coast causing greater damage whilst areas that

had extensive lagoon and offshore reef were clearly more protected

from the tsunami force;

•

Terrestrial habitats most severely impacted were beach and coastal

vegetation, riverine systems and marsh and swamp areas;

•

Impacts to village areas range from minimal to severe devastation;

•

Ten to 15 metres of coastline has eroded inland and beach profiles

have dropped up to 1.5m in some areas, especially in Aleipata. This

means significant sand and sediment has been washed into the

lagoon and reefs causing further impact.

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

4.2 Impacts, consequences and recommendations for each habitat category

– tabulated information with commentary

(interpretation, summary, explanation)

General

Habitat/Site

Specific

Habitat

Impact Summary

Consequences

Recommendations

Offshore

(outside the

reef)

Pelagic, open

sea

Floating debris fields, localized

sediment plumes of mainly

marine and partially terrestrial

sediment origin, extending up to

1 km from the coastline were

observed during the first 3 days

after impact.

Sediment plume impact is expected to be short term

and quickly dispersing in offshore areas.

Larger floating debris will either disperse or drift

ashore in the short to medium-term.

Within the first 1-2 weeks after the

Tsunami marine transport and

fishery vessels must be warned of

large floating debris in offshore

areas

Outer Reef

Reef slope

Expected impact from quake

and tsunami waves causing

physical breakage, smothering

by sediments, as well as

damage from land-based

sediment, pollutants and

moving debris.

Note no in-water marine

assessments were complete in

this rapid EIA.

Due to decreased coastal

vegetation increased coastal

run off may be experienced in

some affected villages during

the next rainy season.

In many villages unquantified

amounts of reef fish were

washed onshore by the waves.

Reduction in reef quality and its ability to support

marine life including food sources and coastal

protection values.

Increased vulnerability of damaged corals, potential

medium- to long-term impacts from coral diseases

may be caused by terrestrial pathogens in the

terrestrial sediment plumes.

Due to the combined factors causing stress and

damage to slow-growing corals, there is a risk that

some affected coral reef areas will experience a

benthic community shift from coral to algal

dominance. Strongly affected coral communities

may require 5-10 years for natural recovery in the

case of

Acropora

- dominated communities, which

are common on much of the affected shallow reef

areas. Damage to communities dominated by

larger massive corals such as

Porites

may require

several decades or more to recover.

A comprehensive Marine Survey

is required and could be carried

out late October/November to

quantify impacts on reef structure,

live coral cover and associated

reef biota/food sources, such as

reef fish communities, mollusks,

echinoderms, sponges and

crustaceans.

Based on the survey results a

monitoring program based on

permanent transects may be

required to document reef

recovery and to determine

community shifts and coral

disease impact.

Reduce other impacts or

stressors on reefs as much as

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

General

Habitat/Site

Specific

Habitat

Impact Summary

Consequences

Recommendations

Most affected villages, which rely on outer reef

areas for subsistence fisheries, may experience a

short-term decrease in catch.

possible e.g. destructive and

commercial fishing to support the

natural recovery process.

Ava/channels

Higher degrees of damage to

coastal infrastructure and an

increased amount of broken

coral and coral rubble were

associated in several cases

with the presence of reef

channels (Avas).

These channels and their

related embayment areas

funneled the wave energy and

caused higher damage to

lagoon and coastal areas.

In the vicinity of channels

higher expected sand scouring

of corals and other sedentary

organisms.

Lagoon and inshore areas in the vicinity of these

channels are at a consistently higher risk of tsunami

impact.

Marine Survey of tsunami

damage in key channel areas.

Rebuilding of coastal

infrastructure, such as roads and

housing should be cognizant of

channel locations and the

associated risk.

A cost-benefit and environmental

impact analysis may be of value

in cases where widening of avas

may be considered, such as near

the Aleipata wharf.

Back reefs

General

observations

Not directly assessed yet there

was significant coral rubble in

these areas e.g. from impact by

cyclone Heta. It is evident that

coral rubble has been washed

inshore and also may have

been washed down the outer

reef slope.

Movement of preexisting coral rubble has added to

damage inshore in the lagoon and possibly the

outer reef slope.

There is a risk that back reef areas undergo a shift

to algal dominance.

Marine Survey of Tsunami

damage in back reef areas.

Lagoon areas

General

observations

Not directly assessed yet

except for near-shore areas.

Sediment plumes, solid waste

All affected villages rely to a significant extent on

lagoon areas for subsistence food resources.

Physical damage, sand scouring, sediment and

Removal of marine debris may

need to be carried out manually,

dredging to remove debris in the

lagoon is likely to cause further

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

General

Habitat/Site

Specific

Habitat

Impact Summary

Consequences

Recommendations

and debris accumulation, as

well as physical wave damage

and removal of sand are the

main impacts in nearshore

lagoon areas.

Patches of mainly land-based

sediment plumes, consisting of

sand, mud and silt were

observed on the Upolu east

coast between Samusu and

Satitoa, as well as on the South

coast near Vailoa, Poutasi,

Maninoa and Saanapu.

localized impact of contaminants such as diesel fuel

and sewage impact may have decreased the

capacity of lagoon resources to support human

needs.

Filter feeders may be contaminated in areas

impacted by sediments, fuel or oil spills.

damage.

Contamination assays of key

lagoon food species to ensure

safety for human consumption.

Marine Survey of tsunami

damage in lagoon areas.

Seagrass

Seagrass has a limited

distribution in Samoa. The

largest seagrass bed on the

Aleipata east coast adjacent to

Malaela and Lotopue was

already impacted by wharf

construction. The tsunami

caused a sediment plume,

debris and likely scouring and

physical damage to this

important seagrass bed.

Seagrass is a rare habitat in this area, important for

feeding green turtles, as a nursery area for fish

species, as well as providing lagoon fisheries

resources including shellfish and edible algae.

Increased protection for

remaining seagrass areas to

facilitate recovery.

Soft coral beds

The Aleipata east coast had

significant soft coral beds (e.g.

inshore form Namua Island)

which are likely to be

extensively damaged from

wave action, sand and

sediment.

Patch reefs

Patch reefs were mainly

The construction of any form of

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

General

Habitat/Site

Specific

Habitat

Impact Summary

Consequences

Recommendations

dominated by branching

Acropora

and less frequently

massive

Porites.

Significant

physical damage is expected as

evidenced by the amount of

Acropora

fragments washed

ashore. Remaining patch reefs

may be vulnerable to infection,

disease and smothering from

sediments.

artificial reefs is not

recommended. A common sense

approach to remove stressors to

the lagoon and reef systems is

likely to support the highest rate

of recovery.

Shell fish beds

Shellfish beds - likely erosive

impact, sand scouring and

possible contamination.

Marine

Protected

Areas, No

Take Zones

and Fisheries

Reserves

Aleipata and Safata MPA ‘No

take’ zones are likely

significantly impacted by

physical damage, rubble and

smothering sediments and

possible other pollutants. Other

Fisheries and MNRE ‘no take’

zones e.g. in Poutasi were also

heavily impacted.

Many ‘no take’ zones have lost

100% of the marker buoys in

heavily impacted areas. Based

on marker buoy loss 11 of the

12 no take zones in Aleipata

MPA are thought to have had

strong impact. Two of the 9

Safata MPA ‘no take’ zones are

thought to be heavily impacted

on basis of buoy loss (Mulivai,

The no take zones will have lost some or all function

in terms of providing the spillover effect to support

subsistence fishing by the villages. Recovery will

vary.

Depending on the type and severity of tsunami

impact these functions are likely to take significant

time to recover (2-5 years). If coral areas are largely

smothered by sand or sediment, these areas may

not recover and of MPA relocation may need to be

considered.

More detailed ‘no take’ zone

survey as part of marine impact

assessment, assess potential for

natural recovery and recommend

MPA relocation, where needed.

With village, and for the MPAs

District, consultation and

agreement, remark and reinstitute

‘no take’ zones as soon as

possible.

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

General

Habitat/Site

Specific

Habitat

Impact Summary

Consequences

Recommendations

Tafitoala).

Beaches and

foreshore

General

observations

Impact severe in many areas

with significant removal of sand,

deposit of solid waste and

debris.

Wave impact and associated

erosion carried marine

sediments inland and

transported land-based

sediments out into lagoon and

reef areas, likely leading to

scouring and smothering of

coral and associated benthos.

Beaches and foreshore areas of much of the south

coast, especially Aleipata District, have been

severely impacted. Damaged coastal infrastructure

e.g. roads, buildings have been the subject of other

surveys and are not summarized here.

Allow villages/owners time to

remove materials of value to them

followed by a more general and

comprehensive clean up of all

debris.

Recovery and restoration of

beaches and foreshore is

important and should be guided

by ecological and restorative

principles e.g. planting of robust

plants e.g. ‘talie’ which are

resilient to wave damage.

Serious consideration required in

the rebuilding phase on how

much and what kind of

infrastructure is required adjacent

to beaches/foreshore/ coast.

Coastal

Infrastructure

See summary by village

ranging from low to high impact.

Includes road, housing and

other buildings, power, phone

lines etc.

Stabilize roads and other coastal

infrastructure quickly to minimize

further run-off of sediment and

other pollutants to the coastal

areas, especially before advent of

rainy season.

Previous land

reclamation sites

Reclamation has previously

occurred in several areas,

especially Aleipata District. This

has reduced productivity of the

already limited lagoon area.

These reclaimed areas are

highly vulnerable to tsunami

Further erosion of beaches, foreshore areas and

adjacent inland areas may pose a significant risk to

the natural recovery process in lagoon and reef

areas, especially with advent of the rainy season.

New reclamation proposals

should undergo a comprehensive

EIA.

Reclamations often have a ‘groin’

effect, which can increase erosion

as well as sand and sediment

deposition in adjacent areas

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

General

Habitat/Site

Specific

Habitat

Impact Summary

Consequences

Recommendations

impact as they extend into the

lagoon and are low-lying.

relative to current flow.

Previous sand

mining sites

Significant sand mining has

previously occurred in different

areas, especially in Safata

District. This increases

vulnerability of nearby land to

marine erosive impacts,

including tsunami.

Any new sand mining proposals

should undergo a comprehensive

EIA.

Seawalls

Evidence of both protective and

destructive impact of seawalls.

Care taken in the rebuild or

construction of new seawalls is

advised and not to be used as a

basis for reclamation.

Investigation into stabilizing

seawalls to prevent rocks acting

as ‘missiles’ needs to be looked

at.

Septic tanks

A significant number of septic

tanks were observed to be

damaged or emptied by the

wave, dispersing sewage to

adjacent areas on land and in

the sea, posing a low to

medium risk of contamination of

groundwater lens and food

sources.

Serious consideration may be

required in the rebuilding phase

on how much and what kind of

infrastructure is required adjacent

to beaches/foreshore/ coast.

Septic tanks should not be

replaced in these areas but

further inland and/or other

technologies e.g. composting

toilets used.

Rubbish dumps

An illegal rubbish dump was

exposed by the waves on the

Tuiolemu Peninsula near

Lalomanu, comprising mainly

plastic and glass bottles

Illegal dumping of rubbish needs

to be stopped. Awareness of

proper waste management needs

to be improved. Clean up needs

to be instituted and fines e.g.

through MPA need to be

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

General

Habitat/Site

Specific

Habitat

Impact Summary

Consequences

Recommendations

implemented.

Aleipata Wharf

The widening of the channel for

the wharf may have reduced

tsunami coastal protection and

funneled the wave in.

Significant loss of sediment and

some fuel (40x44 gallon drums

of diesel)

Significant damage to the wharf

has been sustained.

The wharf poses an ongoing

risk to the marine environment

including through acting as an

ongoing source of sediment

and pollutants.

Clean up of the wharf to reduce ongoing risk to

marine environment is needed.

Serious consideration given to the ongoing risk and

increased vulnerability of this type of infrastructure

in a high tsunami and other coastal hazards zone.

Wharf clean up should operate to

minimize any further

environmental damage to

adjacent lagoon and reefs.

Wharf channel should not be

widened as increases risk to

coastal areas.

Pollutants eg diesel drums should

be searched for and removed

from lagoon/reefs.

Serious consideration should be

given to whether there should be

this type of infrastructure in a high

coastal hazard zone.

Intertidal

vegetation

Mangroves

In highly impacted areas large

amounts of large debris and

damage to mangroves.

However affected mangrove

areas are most likely to recover

in the short to medium-term and

may not suffer long-term

damage.

Mangroves clearly had a

protective function in several

areas, e.g. in Safata.

Recovery potential post clean up of mangroves is

high.

Protective values of mangroves should be promoted

e.g. as in Safata MPA .

Mangrove clean up once villages

have had the needed time to

salvage items.

Possible restoration of some

areas with replanting, checks for

invasive species etc.

Villages should be strongly

encouraged to conserve

mangrove areas as cost effective

coastal protection.

Coastal Marshes

Damage to marsh areas from

wave action, sediment loading,

salinization, contamination with

Possible restoration of some

areas with replanting, checks for

invasive species etc.

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

General

Habitat/Site

Specific

Habitat

Impact Summary

Consequences

Recommendations

polluted water and debris, solid

waste and general pollution

Villages should be strongly

encouraged to conserve

marshland areas as cost effective

coastal protection.

Terrestrial

Vegetation

Shrub

communities and

freshwater

swamps

Damage to swamp areas from

wave action, sediment loading,

salinisation, contamination with

polluted water and debris, solid

wastes and general pollution

Loss of habitat for valuable marsh plants (e.g.

‘lauieie’) and animals (e.g. feeding grounds for reef

heron & grey duck).

Continued demise of marshes may increase

exposure of coastal communities to the risks of

severe wave actions and strong winds.

Assess impacts on all sensitive

coastal habitats & recommend

recovery and restoration options

for heavily impacted habitats
Clean-up all debris from coastal

marshes especially that which

may cause long term pollution

(e.g. from vehicles)
Protect coastal marshes from

further degradation and

development so they can

continue to act as a buffer against

tsunami and storm surge

Riverine Systems

& Water Courses

Significant erosion of river

banks and water courses

Increased vulnerability of riverine communities &

infrastructures to future flooding risks – erosion &

landslide.

Review and update the natural

disaster risk vulnerability of all

affected areas for future planning

(e.g. CIM plans and coastal

hazard zone mapping).
Replant river banks with

appropriate native plants

Littoral

Vegetation

Damage to littoral vegetation

from direct wave action and

from salinisation

The role of coastal vegetation,

Increased vulnerability of coastal infrastructures &

communities to the risks of severe wave actions and

strong winds.

Review and update the natural

disaster risk vulnerability of all

affected areas for future planning

(e.g. CIM plans and coastal

hazard zone mapping).

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

General

Habitat/Site

Specific

Habitat

Impact Summary

Consequences

Recommendations

especially large coastal trees

such as fetau and talie in

reducing coastal erosion and

holding together the foreshore

was obvious in many places

Replant the coastline with

appropriate native coastal plants

to act as a buffer for coastal

hazards and to reduce coastal

erosion

Species of

Special

Consideration

Sea turtles

Reports of numerous turtles

washed ashore and villagers

returning them to the sea.

Damage and potential loss of only significant green

turtle feeding area.

For green turtles the loss in area and quality of the

seagrass bed north of the Aleipata wharf is of

concern as this is the only bed of its size in the area

and a vital green turtle feeding habitat. This

seagrass bed has suffered impact from the Aleipata

wharf development.

Increased protection for seagrass

beds and investigation into

recovery options.

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

4.3 Summary of impacts and consequences on impacted areas

Appendix 4 summarises impacts and consequences on affected communities and

provides specific recommendations for these communities including recovery,

rehabilitation and medium to long-term solutions.

4.4 Tsunami settlement survey

A visit was made to two areas where new settlements have been established by

persons displaced by the tsunami. Details are reported in Appendix 5. Most of the

recommendations centre on sanitation, water supply and access, and integrating all

these issues into a single planning process.

4.5

Photo review and collation of qualitative comments

Photographs were taken from the ground and the air to illustrate the damage to the

various habitats and the environmental problems created by the tsunami (Appendix

2). These include examples of the various categories of damage (high, medium,

low). Photographs were taken facing a fixed direction were also taken for future

comparisons. These positions were all recorded with a Geographic Positioning

System.

During the course of the survey, team members recorded qualitative observations as

they passed through the impact zone (e.g. wash zone, miscellaneous impacts,

occasional accounts from individuals etc).

Both of the above categories of information will be compiled onto an excel

spreadsheet so that the images may be accessed directly from the comment relating

to a known point. Scanned images of the original data-sheets and field maps will

also be included. This database can be made available to readers on request.

5. Recommendations

These are listed specifically for marine and terrestrial habitats and categorized as

being needed in the short (<3 months) or medium to long term (>3 months. General

recommendations are also listed.

Strategically the key recommendation for marine habitats is to implement actions

that foster the natural recovery and resilience of these areas.

Strategically the key recommendation for terrestrial habitats is to implement actions

that focus on restoration

based on ecological and resilience principles, such as

replanting affected coastlines with native wave resistant species and ensuring that all

developments, rebuilding and associated infrastructure (eg villages, tourism) are

undertaken cognizant of both the ongoing risk from tsunami, cyclones, sea level rise

and other coastal hazards and follow appropriate planning processes and codes of

environmental practice to minimize environmental impact to sensitive terrestrial and

marine habitats.

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

MARINE

Short term:

•

Clean up activities:

Undertake offshore aerial check of debris and removal of any items

posing risk to shipping or the coast.

Undertake lagoon debris removal manually in impacted areas. Do

not use dredging as this will cause further impact. Find and remove

lost diesel fuel drums in the vicinity of the Aleipata Wharf.

Beach and foreshore area clean ups are required in partnership

with communities and after salvage of useful materials by owners.

Stabilization of immediate beach and foreshore areas and

associated infrastructure eg roading to prevent further impact to the

marine environment eg from sediment run-off.

Care taken in the clean up of debris including solid waste in

sensitive areas such as mangrove and wetlands so as not to

damage these sites.

Aleipata Wharf clean up and immediate stabilization of sources of

further pollution eg sediment run off.

•

Potential food source contamination

As a precaution, warn local villages of potential food source

contamination particularly shellfish, sea slugs and other near shore

species in highly impacted areas including in marine areas

surrounding the Aleipata wharf.

Assays of key food species eg shellfish in heavily impacted areas to

assess safety for consumption. Based on results advise villagers

accordingly.

•

Marine Rapid Assessment (MRA)

Undertake an in-water marine rapid assessment with focus on

expected highly damaged areas and those where previous

information exists eg Aleipata and Safata MPAs.

As part of the MRA:

assess impact/vulnerability of key coastal features eg

channels and embayments

identify sites for longer term recovery monitoring

assess loss of ecosystem function and impact on services eg

food sources for people in affected areas

A joint team should be lead by MNRE/Fisheries combined with local

and overseas expertise where needed. Expertise should include

resource economist and at least one marine surveyor with marine

tsunami impact experience.

•

MPA and Fisheries no take zones

Undertake more detailed impact assessment of MPA and Fisheries

no take zones and their potential for recovery and/or need for

relocation. Note pre impact information for many of these sites is

available ( MNRE, Fisheries)

Based on consultations and agreement with villages and districts

remark no take zones.

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

•

Marine Food Source Supply

Using the results from the above undertake an assessment for

marine food source supply including specific recommendations for

possible substitute sources and rebuilding fishing capacity in a

manner that does not significantly compromise marine area

recovery eg first focus on rebuilding offshore capacity that can

benefit entire village, ban outside commercial fishing in an offshore

area to maximize local access.

•

Aleipata Wharf

Detailed assessment of tsunami impact and the ongoing risk, costs

and benefits of the wharf and its widened channel to nearby coastal

villages.

•

Other marine stressors

Remove/reduce other stressors and impacts to the coastal marine

systems eg ban on sand mining, commercial fishing, and new

reclamations to allow the best chance for recovery.

Medium- long term:

•

Other marine stressors

Remove/reduce other stressors and impacts to the coastal marine

systems eg ban on sand mining, commercial fishing, new

reclamations to allow best chance for natural recovery.

•

Aleipata Wharf

Comprehensive assessment of long term risk, costs and benefits of

rebuilding the wharf assessed, including with local community input,

before wharf rebuilding actioned beyond the immediate stabilisation

and clean up recommended above.

•

Recovery Monitoring

Based on the MRA results institute a monitoring programme to

understand recovery of marine habitat from tsunami impacts.

Include in the recovery work monitoring of fishing capacity and

ongoing need for any substitution measures for marine food supply

that were used in the short term.

TERRESTRIAL

Short term:

•

Clean up activities

Undertake clean up and removal of solid waste from terrestrial,

wetlands, river habitats and village areas. Care to be taken in clean

up so that sensitive ecosystems are not damaged eg by earth

moving equipment

Maximize reusing and recycling materials and sort and remove

remaining material into disposable and hazardous rubbish. Link with

JICA Clean Up project.

Specific focus on clean up and proper disposal of waste from

illegal/improper dumps exposed by tsunami eg Tuialemu,

Lalomanu.

Review and update plan for effective local waste collection.

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

Stabilization of land based sources of sediment from wetlands,

streams, infrastructure eg roading to prevent further impact to the

marine environment eg from sediment run-off.

•

Terrestrial Impact and Restoration Assessment

Perform a comprehensive assessment of impacts on sensitive

coastal habitats such as marshes and swamp areas and

environmental impacts of new settlements

Assess restoration options for key terrestrial habitats made with

costs clearly identified.

Build into these assessments a recognition of the ongoing tsunami

risk and related coastal area vulnerability/hazard zones eg from

channels and embayment areas. This should inform patterns of

rebuilding and new development.

Medium- long term:

•

Replanting coastlines and river banks with native plants

Plant buffer zones of native salt resistant trees (eg niu, talie, fetau,

milo, pu’a, mangrove tree species etc) along the impacted coastline

to reduce coastal erosion, hold together the foreshore and protect

infrastructure

Plant buffer zones of native salt resistant trees along impacted river

banks to reduce river bank erosion and protect infrastructure

•

Restoring and conserving sensitive coastal habitats

Sensitive coastal habitats (swamps, mangrove areas etc) should be

restored and protected from development and further degradation.

Such areas provide multiple ecosystem services including the

protection of the coastline from erosion and adjacent settlements

from wave damage.

•

CIM Plans – Updating and Implementation

Ensure that findings from incoming geo-science teams are fed into

planning processes including revision of CIM plans as required.

Add a specific tsunami risk layer to the existing coastal hazard zone

maps.

Seawall rebuilding should follow proper standards according to

codes of environmental practice as appropriate – in some areas

natural alternatives may be preferable.

Restoration actions identified above should be included in a revision

of the CIM plans

Ensure that a mechanism for implementing CIM plans including

partner roles and identification of resources needed is developed

and then fully implemented

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS:

•

The existing district Coastal Infrastructure Management Plans developed in

full consultation with village governance systems (eg village fono) are an

appropriate planning mechanism for participatory planning of the restoration

of villages on the impacted coast.

•

Consideration should be made to revise the Coastal Infrastructure

Management Plans to include the management of coastal natural resources

such as coral reefs, lagoon, seagrass beds, beaches, swamps, mangrove

areas, etc as well as built infrastructure. Such CIM plans could be

rephrased “Coastal Asset Management Plans” to reflect the fact that all

coastal assets are included.

•

The national coastal hazard zone maps and the CIM plans for affected

districts should be revised to include a specific tsunami vulnerability layer

and the likelihood of a repeat tsunami and areas most at risk from it must

be factored into all planning

•

Relevant planning processes and codes of environmental practice should

be followed for all rebuilding and restoration work including new

developments.

•

Those recommendations endorsed by the Government of Samoa should

identify clear decision making lead agencies, develop clear and costed

terms of reference and invite partnerships for resourcing and needed

expertise in these from local and overseas organizations.

•

Work carried out in the recommendations above should follow normal

protocols in Samoa for village and district approvals and participation.

Existing governance structure eg MPA District Committees, CIM

committees should be used effectively.

•

Every effort should be made to capitalize on local expertise and supplement

with overseas expertise where needed.

•

Development of new settlements for displaced communities should follow

relevant codes of environmental practice and be planned in a participatory

manner to mitigate potential environmental impacts.

•

Every effort should be made to collaborate with partners in American

Samoa to maximize benefits and sharing of knowledge and experiences

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

References (incomplete)

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. (2000) Coastal Hazard Zone

Mapping Stage II Report. Report prepared for Government of Samoa by Beca

International consultants, Apia, Samoa.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. (2006) Coastal Infrastructure

Management Plan Aleipata Itupa i Lalo District.

Implementation Guidelines

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. (2006) Coastal Infrastructure

Management Plan Aleipata Itupa i Luga District.

Implementation Guidelines

Park, G. Hay, J. Whistler, A. Lovegrove, T. and Ryan, P. (1992)

The Ecological

Survey of Western Samoa: The Conservation of Biological Diversity in the

Coastal Lowlands of Western Samoa

. Report by the NZ Department of

Conservation for the Ministry of External Relations and Trade.

Pearsall, S. H. and Whistler, W. A. (1991)

Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping for

Western Samoa.

A report prepared for the Government of Western Samoa,

South Pacific Regional Environment Programme and East-West Center and

Policy Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.

Whistler, W. A. 2002.

The Samoan Rainforest. A Guide to the Vegetation of the

Samoan Archipelago

. Isle Botanica, Hawaii.

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

Appendix 1: Survey sheets

Environmental Assessment of Samoa Tsunami- Green Impacts

Village/Site Name:

Date:

Observers:

Lat:

Long:

Elevation

(m)

IMPACTS

Impact

Level*

Erosion

Level

Ass./NotA/E

xp.

Notes:

MARINE

(circle

response)

(circle

response)

(circle

response)

Coral Reef

H M L U 0

A NA E

Lagoon

H M L U 0

A NA E

MPA NTZ

H M L U 0

A NA E

Seagrass

H M L U 0

A NA E

Beach/intertida

H M L U 0

A NA E

Foreshore

H M L U 0

A NA E

Mangrove

H M L U 0

A NA E

Ass./NotA/E

xp.

Notes:

TERRESTR

IAL

Wetland

H M L U 0

A NA E

Forest

H M L U 0

A NA E

Freshwater/str

eam

H M L U 0

A NA E

Pastoral

H M L U 0

A NA E

Agricultural

(crops)

H M L U 0

A NA E

Village Area

H M L U 0

A NA E

Invasive Risk

H M L U 0

A NA E

Photos

Taken

Y/N

Photo

Numbers:

Video Taken

Y/N

*Impact levels:

High (H)

Medium (M)

Low (L)

(Unknown)

0 (zero

impact)

Further Observations

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

Appendix 4a: Summary of Marine & Terrestrial Impact Characterisation (Magnitude &

Areas Affected) – Brown variables

TYPE OF IMPACTS

NO OF

OBSERVATIONS

IMPACT MAGNITUDE

AVERAGE FOR ALL

OBSERVATIONS

H=High, M=Medium,

L=Low

VILLAGES AFFECTED

IMPLICATIONS FOR DETAILED

ASSESSMENT & COMMUNITY

REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Solid Waste

H=33%

Lalomanu, Ulutogia, Satitoa, Mutiatele, Saleaumua,

Explore effective management

measures

M=21%

Tafitoala, Poutasi, Lotofagá, Vavau, Utufaalalafa,

for waste & pollution control and sound

L=46%

Samatau, Siufaga, Virgin Cove, Siumu, Vaovai, Satalo, Salani,

Utulaelae, Sapo’e, Aufaga, Lepa, Saleapaga, Vailoa, Tiaveatai,

disposal in consulation with severely

affected communities.

Hydrocarbons

H=17%

Satitoa,

Investigate the potential effects of toxins

M=17%

Lalomanu, Vailoa,

and hydrocarbons on food and water

source

L=67%

Vaovai, Salani, Lotofaga, Vavau,

and appropriate mitigation measures.

Toxins

H=0%

Investigate the potential effects of toxins

M=100%

Satitoa

and hydrocarbons on food and water

source

L=0%

and appropriate mitigation measures.

Water Courses

H=33%

Salani, Aufaga, Saleapaga, Ulutogia,

Investigate potential contamination and

loss

M=33%

Poutasi, Lotofagá, Vavau, Lepa,

in capacities of water supply and

measures for immediate and long term

restoration.

L=33%

Virgin Cove, Siumu, Vaovai, Tiaveatai

Water Lens

H=0%

Investigate potential contamination and

loss

M=33%

Poutasi,

in capacities of water supply and

measures

L=67%

Siumu, Vaovai,

for immediate and long term restoration.

Salinization

H=37%

Poutasi, Salani, Lotofagá, Lalomanu, Vailoa, Ulutogia, Satitoa,

Mutiatele, Saleaumua,

Investigate nature of productivity loss

M=22%

Siumu, Vaovai, Vavau, Aufaga, Saleapaga, Utufaalalafa,

in affected agricultural lands due to

L=41%

Samatau, Siufaga, Saanapu, Lotofaga, Tafitoala, Satalo, Utulaelae,

Sapo’e, Lepa, Tiaveatai, Savaia-Faleseela,

salinization and measures for restoration

in consultation with affected

communities.

Effluent/

Contamination

H=14%

Lalomanu,

Investigate extend and levels of potential

contamination with hazardous effluents

and

M=14%

Vailoa, Satitoa,

clean-up / restoration measures in

L=71%

Tafitoala, Siumu, Poutasi, Satalo, Utulaelae, Sapo’e, Lotofagá,

Vavau, Utufaalalafa, Tiaveatai

consultation with all affected

communities.

Septic Tanks

H=17%

Lalomanu,

Explore effective short and long term

M=17%

Vailoa, Satitoa,

sewerage in constuation with all affected

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

TYPE OF IMPACTS

NO OF

OBSERVATIONS

IMPACT MAGNITUDE

AVERAGE FOR ALL

OBSERVATIONS

H=High, M=Medium,

L=Low

VILLAGES AFFECTED

IMPLICATIONS FOR DETAILED

ASSESSMENT & COMMUNITY

REHABILITATION PROGRAM

L=67%

Tafitoala, Siumu, Poutasi, Satalo, Utulaelae, Sapo’e, Lotofagá,

Vavau, Aufaga,

communities.

Roading/ rerouting

H=14%

Ulutogia,

Investigate public infrastructural

restoration

M=29%

Poutasi, Vaovai, Lalomanu,

and rebuilding that are enviornmentally

L=57%

Virgin Cove, Lotofagá, Saleapaga, Vailoa, Mutiatele, Saleaumua,

Tiaveatai,

sound and more resilient to future

coastal

Environmental

impact

H=27%

Saleapaga, Lalomanu, Ulutogia, Satitoa,

natural hazards impacts in consultation

M=0%

with all affected communities.

L=73%

Saanapu, Lotofaga, Poutasi, Vaovai, Sapo’e, Lotofagá, Vailoa,

Mutiatele, Saleaumua,

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

Appendix 4b: Summary of Marine & Terrestrial Impact Characterisation (Magnitude &

Areas Affected) – Green variables

TYPE OF

IMPACTS

NO OF

OBSERVATIONS

IMPACT MAGNITUDE

Average per Total

Observations

H=High, M=Medium,

L=Low

VILLAGES AFFECTED

IMPLICATIONS FOR DETAILED ASSESSMENT &

COASTAL COMMUNITY RECOVERY PLANNING

Coral Reef

H=36%,

Vaovai, Aufaga, Saleapaga, Lalomanu, Ulutogia, Satitoa,

Malaela, Lotopu’e, Mutiatele, Saleaumua,

Review the extend of community dependence on

M=31%

Fusi, Fausaga, Tafitoala, Mulivai, Poutasi, Tafatafa,

Salesatele, Utulaelae, Lotofagá, Lepa, Vailoa,

coral reefs resources for food and income earning

L=33%

Vaiee, Siumu, Satalo, Sapo’e, Vava’u, Utufaalalafa, Samusu,

Amaile, Ti’aveatai, Savaia-Faleseela,

for future recovery planning.

Lagoon

H=39%

Poutasi, Vavau, Aufaga, Lepa, Saleapaga, Lalomanu, Vailoa,

Ulutogia, Satitoa, Malaela, Lotopu’e, Mutiatele,

Review the extend of community dependence on lagoon

resources and ecological services for food

M=17%

Tafitoala, Siumu, Vaovai, Salani, Sapo’e,

and income generation for future recovery

L=44%

Samatau, Siufaga, Saanapu, Sataoa, Lotofaga, Vaiee, Fusi,

Fausaga, Mulivai, Tafatafa, Satalo, Utulaelae, Lotofaga,

Saleaumua, Utufaalalafa, Samusu, Amaile, Tiaveatai,

planning.

MPA – No Take

Zone

H=36%

Mulivai, Vaovai, Lalomanu, Ulutogia, Satitoa, Lotopu’e,

Mutiatele, Saleaumua,

Explore the potentials of NTZs for rapid recovery

M=28%

Sataoa, Lotofaga, Vaie’e, Fusi, Fausaga, Tafitoala, Lepa,

of coral reefs and lagoon waters of MPA and

L=36%

Siumu, Tafatafa, Satalo, Salesatele, Utufaalalafa, Samusu,

Amaile, Ti’aveatai, Savaia-Faleseela,

non-MPA but severely affected communities.

Seagrass

H=80%

Malaela, Lotopu’e, Mutiatele,

Review of seagrass recovery and potential for

M=0%

reef and lagoon recovery in consultation with

L=20%

Saanapu,

MPA communities.

Beach/intertidal

H=39%

Vaovai, Aufaga, Saleapaga, Lalomanu, Vailoa, Ulutogia,

Satitoa, Malaela, Lotopu’e, Mutiatele, Saleaumua,

Investigate the extend of beach and foreshore erosion in

severely affected areas and appropriate

M=14%

Mulivai, Poutasi, Utulaelae, Lotofagá, Lepa,

ecologically sound technical and policy options

L=47%

Samatau, Siufaga, Sataoa, Lotofaga, Vaie’e, Fusi, Fausaga,

Tafitoala, Siumu, Tafatafa, Satalo, Salesatele, Sapo’e,

Vavau, Utufaalalafa, Samusu, Amaile, Tiaveatai, Savaia-

Faleseela

for restoration in consultations with affected communities.

Foreshore

H=41%

Vaovai, Aufaga, Saleapaga, Lalomanu, Vailoa, Ulutogia,

Satitoa, Malaela, Lotopu’e, Mutiatele, Saleaumua,

Investigate the extend of beach and foreshore erosion in

severely affected areas and appropriate

M=14%

Mulivai, Poutasi, Lotofagá, Lepa,

ecologically sound technical and policy options

L=46%

Samatau, Siufaga, Sataoa, Lotofaga, Vaie’e, Fusi, Fausaga,

Tafitoala, Siumu, Tafatafa, Satalo, Salesatele, Sapo’e,

Utufaalalafa, Samusu, Amaile, Tiaveatai, Savaia-Faleseela

for restoration in consultations with affected communities.

Mangrove

H=27%

Mulivai, Malaela, Lotopu’e,

Explore the potentials and feasibility of planting

M=27%

Tafitoala, Poutasi, Vaovai,

mangroves as effective coastal natural disaster

L=45%

Saanapu, Sataoa, Lotofaga, Vaiee, Fusi,

defences in consultation with affected villages.

Wetland

H=30%

Sapo’e, Mutiatele, Saleaumua,

Detail study of loss of acquatic life and function

M=10%

Vaovai, Poutasi,

of marshes as part of defences against natural

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

TYPE OF

IMPACTS

NO OF

OBSERVATIONS

IMPACT MAGNITUDE

Average per Total

Observations

H=High, M=Medium,

L=Low

VILLAGES AFFECTED

IMPLICATIONS FOR DETAILED ASSESSMENT &

COASTAL COMMUNITY RECOVERY PLANNING

L=60%

Samatau, Matautu, Lotofagá, Mulivai, Tafatafa, Satalo,

Salesatele,

coastal hazards for future recovery plans.

Forest

H=0%

No forest covers in most heavily impacted areas

M=0%

requires comparisons with heavily forested coasts

L=100%

Samatau, Siufaga, Sataoa, Lotofaga, Tafitoala, Mulivai,

Siumu, Tafatafa, Satalo, Salani, Utulaelae, Sapo’e, Lotofagá,

Vavau, Aufaga, Lalomanu, Amaile, Tiaveatai,

to ascertain potential of coastal forest covers as effective

defences against future tsnami impacts.

Freshwater/strea

H=9%

Lotopu’e,

Critical studies required to ascertain and enhance

M=27%

Salesatele, Salani, Mutiatele,

potential of freshwater springs,, wells and springs

L=64%

Sataoa, Lotofaga, Mulivai, Tafatafa, Lotofagá, Vavau, Lepa,

destroyed for future water supply planning.

Pastoral

H=0%

No significant pastoral lands in coastal areas were

M=0%

Impacted and may not be considered in detail

L=100%

Tafatafa,

assessment and near future coastal planning.

Agricultural

(crops)

H=25%

Lalomanu, Ulutogia, Satitoa, Malaela, Mutiatele,

Extensive study is necessary to ascertain

M=8%

Vailoa, Saleaumua,

value and feasibility of recovering affected

L=67%

Samatau, Siufaga, Sataoa, Lotofaga, Tafitoala, Siumu,

Tafatafa, Satalo, Salesatele, Utulaelae, Sapo’e, Lotofagá,

Vavau, Lepa, Saleapaga, Lalomanu, Amaile, Tiaveatai,

plantation and food cropping for future coastal food and

agriculture planning.

Village Area

H=43%

Poutasi, Vaovai, Lalomanu, Aufaga, Lepa, Vailoa, Satitoa,

Malaela, Lotopu’e, Mutiatele, Saleaumua,

Critical review of existing CIM Plans to ascertain

M=29%

Samatau, Siufaga, Satalo, Siumu, Utulaelae, Sapo’e,

Saleapaga, Ulutogia, Utufaalalafa

the effectiveness in coping with current tsunami

L=29%

Mulivai, Salesatele, Lotofagá, Vavau, Tiaveatai, Savaia-

Faleseela,

Impacts for further strengthening.

Invasive Species

H=50%

Satitoa,

further information and detail necessary to

M=0%

ascertain any potential outbreak of invasives

L=50%

Tafatafa,

sSpecies in severely impacted areas.

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

Appendix 5

Survey of new settlements post-tsunami

Two of the survey team (James Atherton and Greg Sherley), accompanied by

Charmina Saili (RC’s Office, UNDP) visited the area newly settled after the Tsunami

on 10

October 2009. They spent about an hour driving the road slowly, observing

and taking images. About five people in three groups were casually interviewed.

The traffic was heavy including heavy vehicles installing new power lines. There

was no other evidence of infrastructural development apart from some rudimentary

clearing of land for building sites and (dirt) roading.

New settlements (in effect following an existing access route into plantations) were

observed along the Lepa and Saleapaga plantation road (14.02852E; 171.49579N;

243m elevation highest point). While driving the road groups of tents and shelters

(including utility shelters such as latrines, storage etc – termed here as “households”)

belonging to the same extended family were scored and plotted roughly on a

schematic map (below). On the day of the survey (Saturday 10

October)

approximately 65 households

were seen – 35 from Lepa,15 from Saleapaga and

another 15 spread out along the lower reaches of the road above the coastal village

of Lepa. Each household may have accommodated between 6 to 12 people. Note

that further households almost certainly occurred out of sight – well back from the

road edge and along the dotted plantation road partly drawn into the diagram.

Hence the above figures are certainly an underestimate.

Power was being connected to the road using permanent materials and high voltage

cable. Pit latrines have been built (some to a standard specification) and “Portaloos”

were also seen. There is no water reticulation and women were seen walking

containers down the road for filling at the coast (another colleague pers.comm).

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

Figure 10:

Sketch map showing new settlements behind Lepa and Saleapaga as at

October 2009 (“h/h” = “households”)

The access road to the bat crater at Luo-o Fafine (inland from Lalomanu) was driven

to check the new settlements there. Two resettled households were seen but the

larger settlements in the area were not visited.

Surveyors considered that the main environmental issues which faced the new

settlements were –

•

sanitation in the absence of proper septic tanks (including for “grey”

waste/water) – likely to be compounded during heavy rain with spill over

•

the absence of reticulated water compromising the consumption of potable

water, hygiene standards in washing up clothes and kitchen ware, and

personal hygiene

•

many of the roads and tracks to households were little more than cleared dirt

access ways. These will be come extremely muddy and possibly impassable

with the advent of wet weather. The mud may compound sanitation issues

•

new habitations will inevitably result in more solid waste which will need to be

managed so that further solid waste (and possible POP’s and hazardous

waste) is not aggravated.

•

land clearance may impact some native trees with flow-on effects to native

wildlife

•

new settlement may result in a new focus towards harvesting traditional food

such as pigeons, doves and bats

Many of the above issues will be exacerbated with either or some of the following

and other factors not identified –

•

heavy rain – almost certainly due soon with the advent of the rainy season

•

water storage and reticulation issues

Coastline

Plantation

Road

New Lepa

settlement

New Saleapaga

settlement

Approx 15 new

h/h along Rd

Approx 35 h/h

along Rd

Lepa

Old

Saleapaga

Approx 15 h/h

along Rd

Plantation

Road

Draft Samoa Tsunami rapid environmental impact assessment report

•

managing sewerage disposal either through septic tanks or a reticulated

service

•

planning the above using standard methods well known to practitioners

Recommendations explicit to the new settlements

•

create a planned approach to the new settlements as soon as possible to

accommodate the issues described above and avoid establishing settlements

which will create issues in future

•

consider supplying water tanks supplied by either or both a reticulated

scheme or roof-fed rain water as soon as possible

•

stabilize the road with compact roading material as soon as possible

•

set up monitoring of variables as described above – including those relating

to the environment and human welfare (i.e. done in tandem)

•

proper environmental impact assessments should be completed for any

major developments in the new settlement areas- such as tapping nearby

crater lakes for water supply. Such crater lakes harbour sensitive crater

marsh ecosystems and can be easily destroyed or damaged

•

codes of environmental practice should be followed for all major

developments