The Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment Against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TRADES, TOURISM, ENVIRONMENT AND LABOUR THE GOVERNMENT OF TUVALU

THE PROJECT FOR PILOT GRAVEL BEACH NOURISHMENT AGAINST COASTAL DISASTER ON FONGAFALE ISLAND IN TUVALU

FINAL REPORT (SUPPORTING REPORT)

April 2018

JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY

NIPPON KOEI CO., LTD. FUTABA INC. GE JR 18-058 MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, TRADES, TOURISM, ENVIRONMENT AND LABOUR THE GOVERNMENT OF TUVALU

THE PROJECT FOR PILOT GRAVEL BEACH NOURISHMENT AGAINST COASTAL DISASTER ON FONGAFALE ISLAND IN TUVALU

FINAL REPORT (SUPPORTING REPORT)

April 2018

JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY

NIPPON KOEI CO., LTD. FUTABA INC.

Table of Contents

Supporting Report-1 Study on the Quality and Quantity of Materials in Phase-1 (quote from Interim Report 1) ...... SR-1 Supporting Report-2 Planning and Design in Phase-1 (quote from Interim Report 1) ...... SR-2 Supporting Report-3 Design Drawing ...... SR-3 Supporting Report-4 Project Implementation Plan in Phase-1 (quote from Interim Report 1)...... SR-4 Supporting Report-5 Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report (PEAR) ...... SR-5 Supporting Report-6 Public Consultation in Phase-1 (quote from Interim Report 1) ...... SR-6 Supporting Report-7 Bidding Process (quote from Progress Report) ...... SR-7 Supporting Report-8 Inspection on the Pilot Construction ...... SR-8 Supporting Report-9 Marine Environmental Monitoring Report (No.1-3) ...... SR-9 Supporting Report-10 Technical Papers for APAC 2017 ...... SR-10

Supporting Report-1

Study on the Quality and Quantity of Materials in Phase-1

Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

5. Study on the Quality and Quantity of Materials for Gravel Beach Nourishment

5.1 Gravels

5.1.1 Overview

(1) Procedure for Selection of Borrow Site for Gravels

Figure 5.1.1 shows the criteria employed in the selection of borrow site for gravels, which have already been presented in the previous inception meeting.

Figure 5.1.1 Criteria for Selection of Borrow Site for Gravels (Source: JICA Study Team)

Four potential possibilities below were nominated as candidate borrow sources of gravels:

a) Inside Funafuti Atoll

b) North side of runway

c) Imported from Fiji

d) Sand spit at nearby island

Based on the survey results and information obtained in this study, these four sources were preliminary selected and evaluated.

Consequently, the other candidate sources were clarified based on the criteria shown in Figure 5.1.1.

5-1 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

5.1.2 Inside Funafuti Atoll

According to the results of the previous study (J-Pace Project), most of the seabed materials inside Funafuti Atoll are formed by sand. To ascertain this conclusion, a diving survey has been carried out at Area 1, Area 2, and six channels as shown in Figure 5.1.2.

1 2

Channel no.1 and 2 of the Te Ava I te Lape

Area 1

3 4 Channel no.3 and 4 Area 2 of the Te Ava Pua Pua 5 6 Channel no.5 and 6 of the Te Ava Mateika

Area 1 Area 2 1,000m

1,000m 1A 2B 2C 2D

1B 1,000m 2F 2G 1C 1D 2I 2J

1E 2K

Figure 5.1.2 Sea Bed Material Sampling Area (Source: JICA Study Team)

(1) Area 1

According to the diving survey and results of grain size analyis, deposition of gravels was not found in Area 1. Most of the samples taken from Area 1 are composed of coarse, medium, and fine sands. Grain sizes, 1A to 1E, are summarized in Table 5.1.1. The grain size with median diameter, D50 at 1C and 1D indicates comparatively suitable values such as 1.1 mm and 0.5 mm, respectively as material for sand nourishment. It is expected that this area will be one of the potential borrow sites for sand due to absence of gravels.

5-2 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Table 5.1.1 Summary of Grain Size Samples Survey and Grain size (D50) sampling point mm 1A 0.4 1B 0.4 1C 1.1 1D 0.5 1E 0.3 (Source: JICA Study Team) (2) Area 2 In Area 2, gravel materials were also not found, and most of the seabed material are composed of medium and fine sands, similar to that in Area 1. In addition, corals and coral reefs were found in the shallow area in a patchy fashion. According to the results of laboratory tests, the grain size D50 of sand was between 0.30 mm and 1.18 mm. It is expected that this area will also be one of the potential borrow sites for sand same as Area 1.

(3) Channnels The depth of center of all channels is less than 12 m. A lot of live corals and fishes exist in the channel as shown in Figure 5.1.3. Each of the two samples was taken from the seabed at the center of the channels. Subsequently, deposition of gravels and sands were found. However, most of the gravel materials are comparatively small and lightweight, and the thickness of gravel deposit is very thin with a thickness of approximately 20 cm on average. It is assumed that most of the gravel materials were produced from branched corals such as Acropora sp. In addition, it is difficult to take gravel from the channel because tidal current is always strong. Therefore, these areas are not suitable and recommended as borrow sites for gravels in consideration of quality and quantity of gravels, difficulty of construction, and impact on corals .

Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3

Channel 4 Channel 5 Channel 6

Figure 5.1.3 Seabed Condition in Channels (Source: JICA Study Team)

5-3 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

As a result, there were no potential borrow sites for gravels inside Funafuti Atoll.

5.1.3 Runway

(1) Outline

In the previous study (J-Pace Project), a consultation meeting with the Civil Aviation Department, who is the authority for controlling the runway, was held to explain the outline of the plan, and consult them on measures to be taken when gravel collection work is executed at the runway area. In addition, the exploitable gravel material volume was investigated. As a result, it was deemed that gravel material can be possibly collected in the area shown in Figure 5.1.4. Since the area is close to the existing runway, even if it is within the safety limits, the Civil Aviation Department pointed out the necessity for taking special care to prevent any structural damage, and to properly apply safety management to the existing runway. It especially noted that the area around the existing runway is used as swamp on the beach.

Total Gravel Area Area Gravel Zone Volume Volume LxBxDepth (m2) Percentage (m3) (m3) (A) North End 70m×60m×1.5m 4,200 6,300 85% 5,355 (B) 370m×20m×1.1m 7,400 8,140 85% 6,919 (C) 100m×30m×0.7m 3,000 2,100 80% 1,680 (D) 100m×30m×0.7m 3,000 2,100 80% 1,680 (E) 430m×25m×1.0m 10,750 10,750 85% 9,138 (F) South End 350m×20m×1.0m 7,000 7,000 85% 5,950 S/Total 30,722

Figure 5.1.4 Gravel Material Collection Site from the Existing Runway Area (Source: Previous Study (J-Pace Project))

Gravel collection work from the eastern side of the safety zone of the runway will consist of the following works:

1. Excavation and extraction of gravel,

2. Replacing with dredged sand,

3. Leveling and compaction, and

4. Cleaning and removal of equipment.

5-4 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Further discussion was conducted with the Civil Aviation Department in this study. The Civil Aviation Department informed that the high-voltage electrical power cable and telephone cable are buried parallel to the east side of the runway. Due to this, the Civil Aviation Department refused to take gravel materials from the east side of the safety zone of the runway. The Civil Aviation Department also informed that further discussion held in July 2012 together with technical consultant team of the World Bank was required for the possibility of taking gravels from the north side of the runway (Figure 5.1.5).

Figure 5.1.5 Conditions of Burial Cable around Runway Area and Candidate Gravel Collection Site (Source: JICA Study Team)

The discussion was held with the Tuvalu Civil Aviation in October 2012. During the meeting, held on 10 October 2012, it was informed that the north side of the runway will be designated as Runway End Safety Area (RESA) based on inspection conducted by ICAO in August 2012. Due to this decision, any construction works at this area was not allowed. The Tuvalu Civil Aviation sent an official letter to the JICA Study Team to prohibit the use of gravels at the north side of runway. Thus, the idea to take gravels from the north side of runway was also

5-5 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

eliminated from the list of candidate borrow sites. The official letter from the Tuvalu Civil Aviation is shown in Appendix 5.1.1.

5.1.4 Import from Fiji

(1) Outline

According to the information obtained from the supplier of gravels in Fiji in June 2012, they can provide both river gravel and crushed hill gravel materials, with sufficient supply quantity to meet the requirements. They have experience in exporting large volume of gravel to Kiribati. Fumigation is required when the gravel materials are imported to Tuvalu, which is commonly undertaken inside the container before leaving Fiji Port. The price of gravel has become high mainly due to the cost of transportation from Fiji to Tuvalu.

Based on further interview survey carried out in November 2012, the following information were obtained:

 The available annual supply of gravel materials is roughly 50,000 m3/year for one supplier.  They have a concession of gravel extraction from a specific area. Moreover, there is no environmental restriction for gravel extraction in Fiji.  Chartered ships are commonly employed for transportation of containers filled with gravel.  The unit price of gravel per cubic meter is approximately AUD 370/m3.

(2) Assessment of Potential Impacts in Case of Using Gravel Fumigated with Methyl Bromide

According to Tuvalu’s regulation, imported gravel will be required to be fumigated with methyl bromide. However, since methyl bromide is a toxic chemical, some concerns were raised by the stakeholders on the safety of using such fumigated gravel for beach nourishment. Hence, this section assesses the potential impacts of fumigated gravel, focusing on impacts to humans and marine organisms.

The assessment is based mainly on the study conducted under the OECD SIDS Programme, which evaluates the health and environmental risk of various chemicals by reviewing available literatures. The latest study on methyl bromide was conducted in 2001, and the results were compiled in SIDS Initial Assessment Report. This report was considered by the JICA Study Team as the most reliable and comprehensive information on methyl bromide.

1) General Properties of Methyl Bromide

Methyl bromide (chemical formula: CH3Br) is a gas at ordinary temperatures and pressures, as it has a boiling point of 3.56 ˚C. Although methyl bromide is very soluble in water (16.1 g/l

5-6 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

at 25 °C), its high vapor pressure (1893 kPa at 20 ˚C) and low tendency to absorb to sediments causes it to rapidly evaporate from water. In water, a half-life of 3 hours was calculated for a model river, which is mainly due to evaporation. As a result of evaporative transfer, abiotic and biotic processes are insignificant for methyl bromide due to the short residence time (OECD, 2001).

2) Toxicity of Methyl Bromide

Toxicity to humans: Exposure to high concentration of methyl bromide may cause death from narcosis and respiratory failure. Non-fatal symptoms may include, coughing, chest tightness or pain, dyspnea and cyanosis (OECD, 2001). The Japanese and Australian work safety standard for methyl bromide is 1 ppm (i.e., 4 mg/m3) (Decree 195 of Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare) and 5 ppm (standard of Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry), respectively.

Toxicity to aquatic organisms: Numerous acute toxicity tests have been conducted with aquatic organisms (mainly with freshwater invertebrates and fish). However, many of the studies were considered unreliable by the OECD SIDS study, mainly due to limited data or inappropriate testing procedure (test with methyl bromide should be conducted in a sealed system with no headspace over the water column to assure methyl bromide remains in the water column). The most reliable result was considered by the OECD SIDS study to be the toxicity test conducted by Wildlife International, which was conducted with Daphnia and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Table 5.1.2 shows the results of acute toxicity tests conducted by Wildlife International.

Table 5.1.2 Results of Acute Toxicity Tests conducted by Wildlife International Test subject Test method Critical effects Source Invertebrate Daphnia magna Exposed in static EC50 (48 hr.): 2.6 mg/l Wildlife system up to 48 hr. NOEC: 1.2 mg/l International Fish Oncorhynchus Juvenile Exposed in static LC50 (96 hr.): 3.9 mg/l Wildlife mykiss (rainbow (23 mm, system up to 96 hr. NOEC: 2.9 mg/l International trout) 0.13 g) LC50: Concentration at which 50% of test subject is killed EC50: Concentration at which 50% of test subject shows stressed behavior NOEC: Concentration at which there is no adverse effects on the test subject (Source: OECD (2001) )

The test results from Wildlife International indicate that methyl bromide with concentration of as low as 1.2 mg/l may be harmful to marine organisms. Therefore, this will be considered as the threshold value when assessing the impacts on marine organisms.

5-7 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Chronic toxicity tests have been conducted with freshwater fish and Daphnia. The fish studies indicated that concentrations of 1 mg/l and greater were lethal to embryos of these fish within days to weeks, and a concentration of 0.32 mg/l reduces their weight gain. In the Daphnia study (exposed for seven days) reproduction was inhibited at 0.1 mg/l (OECD, 2001). However, these test results will not be considered in the assessment, as they are considered unreliable by OECD SIDS study, and also because chronic impacts are unlikely to occur with methyl bromide as it will rapidly evaporate.

3) Bioaccumulation of Methyl Bromide

Methyl bromide is not expected to bioaccumulate in aquatic species, as its estimated bioconcentration factor1 is 4.7 (OECD, 2001). For comparison, bioconcentration factors of DDT (a highly persistent organic pollutant) for fathead minnows and rainbow trout are 154,100 and 51,335, respectively (WHO, 1995).

4) Potential Impacts on Humans

As described previously, methyl bromide is toxic to humans when inhaled at high concentration, which is most likely to occur when the workers unload gravel from containers and subsequently inhale residual methyl bromide. However, such incidents can be easily prevented by following standard safety measures. Following are suggested safety measures, which are based on Australian government guideline (AQIS Methyl Bromide Fumigation Standard):

 After fumigation, ventilate the gravels until residual concentration of methyl bromide is below work safety standard (1 ppm in case of Japanese standard). A low concentration methyl bromide detector tube (measurement range between 0.1 and 3.0 ppm) may be used for the measurement of methyl bromide. Measurement should be conducted at several representative points, including spaces between pieces of gravel.

Figure 5.1.6 Methyl Bromide Detector Tube (Source: JICA Study Team)

 Inspect the methyl bromide concentration again prior to unloading at Tuvalu. Unload the gravel only when residual concentration of methyl bromide is under work safety standard (1 ppm in case of Japanese standard).

1 Bioconcentration factor is the concentration of a particular chemical in a biological tissue per concentration of that chemical in water surrounding that tissue. Bioconcentration factor greater than 1,000 are considered high, and under 250 low, with those between classified as moderate (Chiou, C.T., 2002).

5-8 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

 All inspection and unloading procedures should be conducted by workers with appropriate safety gears.

Any adverse impacts to the local residents of the pilot construction site are unlikely, provided that the abovementioned safety measures are implemented, and the residual methyl bromide levels are below work safety standard (1 ppm in case of Japanese standard).

5) Potential Impacts on Marine Organisms

Provided that the abovementioned safety measures are implemented and the residual methyl bromide levels are below work safety standard, all potential adverse impacts (acute/chronic impacts and bioaccumulation) on marine organisms are unlikely to occur due to the following reasons:

 Any residual methyl bromide that dissolves into seawater will rapidly evaporate due to its high vapor pressure (1893 kPa at 20 ˚C). Therefore, the risk of any chronic impacts on marine organisms is extremely low.

 Although methyl bromide may be acutely toxic to marine organisms, provided that residual methyl bromide concentration of gravel is below the work safety standard (e.g., 1 ppm or 4 mg/m3), methyl bromide concentration in seawaters adjacent to the pilot construction site immediately after gravel placement should not increase by more than 0.004 mg/l2 + background concentration3. This level of concentration is three orders less than the conservatively set threshold value of 1.2 mg/l (see Table 5.1.2), and will also be rapidly diluted further by waves, currents, and evaporation. Therefore, the risk of any acute impacts on marine organisms is extremely low.

 While certain chemicals (e.g., DDT) can bioaccumulate in marine organisms even at low concentration, the risk of bioaccumulation by methyl bromide is extremely low due to the very low bioconcentration factor of methyl bromide (4.7).

6) Opinions of Japan Fumigation Technology Association

The JICA Study Team consulted the Japan Fumigation Technology Association to hear their opinions on the potential impacts of fumigated gravel. They expressed that methyl bromide concentration will rapidly decrease to safe levels as long as there is proper ventilation.

7) Conclusion for Potential Impact of Fumigation

Based on the information collected through literature survey and interview with Japan Fumigation Technology Association, it is concluded that the risk on any adverse impacts on

2 This value is the most conservative estimate as it is based on the assumption that the waters adjacent to the pilot construction site will become the same level as the residual methyl bromide concentration of the fumigated gravels (i.e., 1 ppm or 4 mg/m3). In reality, this is unlikely as seawater methyl bromide concentration will rapidly decrease due to dilution and evaporation. 3 According to WHO (1995), methyl bromide concentration measured in East Pacific Ocean was 1.2 ng/l (1.2 x 10-6 mg/l).

5-9 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

humans or marine organisms by using methyl bromide fumigated gravel are extremely low, provided that standard safety measures are implemented after fumigation.

However, for confirmation, implementation of the following monitoring activities is recommended during the gravel placement works:

 Monitoring of methyl bromide concentration in waters adjacent to the pilot construction site.

 Monitoring of marine organisms adjacent to the pilot construction site (e.g., checking of any abnormal mortality of marine organisms).

If any impacts are identified, the validity of the safety measures should be reconsidered, and in extreme cases, an alternative gravel procurement source may have to be considered.

References Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2011), AQIS Methyl Bromide Fumigation Standard (version 1.7) (http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/734464/mbf-v1.7.pdf) OECD (2001), SIDS Initial Assessment Report for 13th SIAM (Methyl bromide) (http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/methbrom.pdf) WHO (1995), International Programme on Chemical Safety, Environmental Health Criteria 166 (http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc166.htm#SubSectionNumber:7.2.1)

(3) Preliminary Evaluation

Based on the information from Fiji and impact study for fumigation, the idea to import the gravel from Fiji is at least unfeasible, even though the unit price is expensive. Thus, further comparison study was carried out and presented in Section 5.1.6.

5.1.5 Sand Spit from Islands

(1) Outline

The possibility of obtaining gravel from beaches at nearby islands was examined in this section. The most important requirement from an environmental point of view is that no new beach erosion problems shall be caused by taking gravels from such beach locations. Based on the survey results in this study, the most suitable area for taking gravel is from the tip of nearby islands. A mapping analysis using aerial and satellite photos for a long-term period was conducted to examine the change in area of each potential island. Information related to Cyclone Bebe, which attacked Tuvalu in 1972, and the results of the diving survey for checking the seabed condition at the west side of Funamanu Island were also taken into account in order to examine the formation process of gravel beach, the mechanism of gravel movement, and prospective impact by taking gravels from nearby island.

5-10 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

(2) Method of Analysis  Based on the field survey results in this study, the four islands selected as the potential sites for taking gravel are Fongafale, Fatato, Funangongo, and Funamanu islands. Some amount of gravel materials exist at the tip of each island. In other islands, there is difficulty in taking gravel due to insufficiency of available volume of gravel on the beach.

 A mapping analysis was conducted for these four islands by using aerial and satellite photos, which were taken in 1971, 1984, and 2010, in order to determine the change in area during such periods. From the analysis, it was noted that Cyclone Bebe attacked in 1972.

 Based on the results of change in area together with the obtained information from the diving survey for checking the sea bottom conditions of the surrounding islands, the mechanism of gravel movement, possibility for causing new beach erosion, and feasibility of taking gravel were examined.

 The obtained results on change in area for each island was also converted to volume change by applying the assumed representative height of gravel layer, and comparing the required quantity of gravel for the pilot construction.

(3) Information on Cyclone Bebe that Attacked in 1972 It is important and necessary to note the information on accumulation behavior of gravel when Cyclone Bebe attacked Tuvalu in 1972, in order to predict the mechanism for the movement of gravel. The necessary information is summarized as follows based on the previous technical paper (Maragos, 1973).

 A significant accumulation of gravel was caused by Cyclone Bebe in 1972. The detached storm ridge was formed on the reef flat at the southeast ocean side of Fongafale Island, with roughly 18 km alongshore distance.

 The detached storm ridge was formed at the position of several tens of meters far from the shore, and the width of the ridge was 3.5 m to 27 m.

 The estimated volume of newly formed detached storm ridge was 1.4 million m3 in total. Some of the gravel accumulated along the Fongafale coast were taken away intentionally, while most of them have naturally disappeared after a while.

(4) Geographical Condition between Each Island Figure 5.1.7 shows the geographical relationship between the islands. Low crested coral reef exists between the islands. During low tide conditions, spaces between the islands are dry, and the four islands become connected. On the other hand, the coral reef area is disconnected at the west side of Funamanu Island, and the open sea area with a water depth of more than 10 m exists between Funamanu and Falefatu islands.

5-11 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Fongafale

Fatato

Funangongo

Funamanu

02km Falefatu

Figure 5.1.7 Geographical Condition between Each Island (Source: JICA Study Team)

(5) Gravel Movement based on the Analysis of Area Change for Each Island

The aerial photos of the four islands (Fongafale, Fatato, Funangongo, and Funamanu islands) are shown in Figure 5.1.8. The shorelines in 1971, 1984, and 2010 were traced as shown in Figure 5.1.9. Figure 5.1.10 shows the change in area of each island. The upper figure (1) shows the total area change of each island. The middle figure (2) shows the area change at the west and east tip parts of the island, which is identified as the area bounded by a dotted line in Figure 5.1.9. The lower figure (3) shows the summation of area change at the tip part of each island. The following tendencies were observed from these figures.

(a) North of Fongafale Island

(b) From South of Fongafale to Westward Islands (Fatato, Funangongo, and Funamanu)

Figure 5.1.8 Aerial Photos of the Four Islands (taken in 2010) (Source: JICA Study Team)

5-12 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

(a) Fongafale Island

(b) Fatato Island

(d) Funamanu Island

Figure 5.1.9 Shoreline Change of Each Island (Source: JICA Study Team)

5-13 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

(1) Total Area of Each Island

(2) Area of East and West Tip Part (Enclosed Area using Dotted Line in Figure 2)

(3) Summation of Area Change of East and West Tip Part

Figure 5.1.10 Area Changes of Each Island (Source: JICA Study Team)

5-14 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Figure 5.1.11 Aerial Photo of West-side Tip of Funamanu Island (Source: JICA Study Team)

 The total area of all islands has been increasing since 1970. The increase in the total area from 1971 to 1984 was significant compared to that from 1984 and 2010 (Figure 5.1.10 (1)). On the contrary, the increase in the area at the tip part from 1984 and 2010 was more significant than that from 1971 and 1984, except for the west-side tip of Funamanu, the east-side tip of Fatatu, and the north-side of Fongafale as shown in Figure 5.1.10 (2).

5-15 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

 From the comparison between Figure 5.1.10 (1) and (3), it was realized that the increase in total area of islands was mostly caused at their tip parts.

 The decrease in area of the west-side tip of Funamanu from 1984 and 2010 was caused by the disappearance of unstable gravel, which was formed at the west-side tip of Funamanu after Cyclone Bebe, as shown in Figure 5.1.11.

 The increase in the area of the tip part of island was significant to the westward direction as shown in Figure 5.1.10 (3).

 The east-side tip of Fongafale Island has retreated in both sides from 1971 to 1984 and from 1984 to 2010. At same location, no increase in area was observed from 1984 to 2010.

From abovementioned tendencies of area change of the islands, the mechanism of the forming of gravel and its movement are estimated as follows:

 The increase in area of each island was significant to the westward direction. Furthermore, the increase of the west-side tip was significant compared to the east-side tip. From this tendency, gravel produced at the ocean side may be transported to the westward location.

 After Cyclone Bebe attacked in 1972, most of the newly accumulated gravel on the reef has disappeared. From this result, the gravels to be transported to the westward might be further transported somewhere. One of the possibilities is to drop into the deep ocean area through the open sea area between Funamau and Falefatu islands. To obtain further reliable evidence to prove this hypothesis, a diving survey was carried out between Funamau and Falefatu islands. (Details of diving survey results are described in item (8) of this section)

 The increase in total area of each island might have been caused by Cyclone Bebe. On the other hand, the tip part of each island, especially their west-side tips has extended and the area at tip part increased from 1984 and 2010 (after Cyclone Bebe attacked). This means that each island might be transformed to expand to the westward direction due to wave and current action, and gradually increase the area. Figures 5.1.12 and 5.1.13 show the general view on estimated gravel movement and deformation of the island, respectively.

5-16 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

West East

Drop to channel? Funamanu Funangongo Fatatu Fongafale

Open Channel

Figure 5.1.12 Image Showing Estimated Gravel Movement (Source: JICA Study Team)

West East West East

After wave & current action Island Island

1) Expand to westward 2) Total area gradually increases

Figure 5.1.13 Deformation of Each Island due to Wave and Current Action (Source: JICA Study Team)

(6) Assumed Available Volume of Gravels at Tip of Islands

In case of taking gravel from nearby island, the only possibility is to take gravel from their tips. Consequently, the potential volume of gravel was estimated based on the change in area. The quantity of gravel at the tip of island can be roughly estimated from the result of area change at the tip of each island, by assuming a representative height of gravel layers. A topographic survey was carried out at the tip of the islands to measure the height of gravel layers as shown in Figure 5.1.14.

Figure 5.1.14 Topographic Survey at the West-side Tip of Funamanu Island (Source: JICA Study Team)

5-17 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

In this report, 1.5 m was assumed as the representative height of gravel layers based on topographic survey results. The obtained estimates on potential volume of gravels are shown in Table 5.1.3.

Table 5.1.3 Estimated Volume Increase at the Tip of Island

Estimated Volume Increase at the Tip of Island Name 1971-1984 1984-2010 1971-2010 Fongafale 3,750 2,250 6,000 Fatato 4,500 6,000 10,500 Funangongo 4,500 9,000 13,500 Funamanu*) 21,000 1,500 22,500

*) Unstable accumuation was formed at west-side tip of Funamanu Island (see Fig.3.3.5) Due to this, volume increase in 1971-1984 is significant than other island, on the other hand, the volume increase in 1984-2010 becomes small (Source: JICA Study Team)

 The volume increase at the tip of the islands becomes higher to their westward directions. The most significant increase in volume was observed for Funamanu Island with 22,500 m3 in the recent 40 years (from 1971 to 2010).

 The volume increase from 1984 to 2010 was higher than that from 1971 to 1984 except the Funamanu Island. In Funamanu Island, unstable accumulation, which might have been formed by Cyclone Bebe, has remained at the west-side tip in 1984. Due to this effect, the volume increase during 1971 to 1984 seems too high. On the other hand, the volume increase from 1984 to 2010 seems too low.

(7) Diving Survey for Checking Seabed Condition Inside the Lagoon Between Funamanu and Falefatu Islands

To check the seabed conditions inside the lagoon between Funamanu and Falefatu islands, a diving survey was conducted in this study. Gravel is accumulated at the ocean side by wave actions, and basically no gravel exists on the seabed inside the lagoon. If a large amount of gravel exist on the seabed of this channel, these might have been pushed and transported from the ocean side. Moreover, some amount of gravel at the west-side tip of Funamanu Island might have dropped into the deep area.

As shown in Figure 5.1.15, the convex curvature of the contour (possibly the accumulation area) was identified at the lagoon in the west of Funamanu Island.

5-18 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Figure 5.1.15 Convex Contour Line at West-side of Funamanu Island (Source: JICA Study Team)

Figures 5.1.16 and 5.1.17 show the seabed condition inside the lagoon at the west-side of Funamanu, and between Fatatu and Funangongo islands.

 Large amounts of gravel were observed on the seabed at the west-side of Funamanu Island as anticipated. These gravel materials exist from lagoon side with a certain distance. After a certain distance from the open channel, seabed materials were all consist of sand with no gravel at the lagoon side. From the result, it was expected that gravel were pushed into the lagoon side with certain range due to wave action from ocean side.

 According to the information from divers, several tens of cubic meters of gravel were expected to exist in this area.

 It was confirmed that there were no gravel materials between Funamanu and Funangongo islands. The seabed was covered by corals in shallow water area, and by sand in deep water area. This means gravel could not be transported from the ocean side to lagoon side due to existence of the low crested coral reef between other islands.

This result serves as evidence to prove the estimated gravel transportation as shown in Figure 5.1.12.

5-19 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Figure 5.1.16 Seabed Condition at the West-side of Funamanu Island (Inside the Lagoon) (Source: JICA Study Team)

Figure 5.1.17 Seabed Condition between Funamanu and Funangongo Islands (Source: JICA Study Team)

5-20 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

(8) Conclusions and Recommendations in Case of Taking Gravel from Nearby Islands

The mechanism of gravel movement and the possibility to cause new beach erosion in the islands are summarized as follows:

 The area of each island increased towards the west, and the west-side tip of island which was formed by gravel has expanded more than the east-side tip. Further, based on the result of diving survey at the west side of Funamanu Island, large amounts of gravel were found on the seabed at the lagoon side nearby an open channel. From these results, it appears that the westward gravel transport exists, and transported gravels might have dropped into the open channel at the west side of Funamanu Island.

 The most significant increase in area (or volume) was observed in Funamanu Island. The volume increase at the tip of Funamanu Island was estimated to be roughly 22,500 m3 in the recent 40 years (from 1971 to 2010).

 From abovementioned results, no negative impact is expected to nearby islands by taking gravel from Funamanu Island, which is located at the west end of consecutive four islands.

 The required quantity of gravel for the pilot construction was roughly estimated to be 3000 m3. This quantity is smaller than the available volume of gravel at the tip of Funamanu Island.

As a conclusion, it was recommended to take gravel from the tip of Funamanu Island as one of the nearby islands.

5.1.6 Comparison Study

(1) Outline

Based on the abovementioned preliminary results and information, the first two candidate sites, namely, a) inside the Funafuti Atoll and b) north side of runway, were eliminated as potential borrow sites for gravel. The remaining two candidate sources namely, c) imported from Fiji and d) sand spit at nearby islands were evaluated based on established criteria.

(2) Comparison

Further evaluation of candidate sources c) imported from Fiji and d) sand spit at nearby island in accordance with the criteria are conducted as shown in Tables 5.1.4 to 5.1.7.

5-21 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Table 5.1.4 Evaluations on the Quantity and Quality of Gravel

Criteria c) Imported from Fiji d) Sand Spit Nearby Island Volume increase of sand spit during the recent 40 years was estimated at 22,500 m3 in Funamanu, 13,500 m3 in Funangongo, 10,500 m in Fatatu, Quantity Sufficient quantity of gravel can and 6,000 m3 at Fongafale. Such Advantages be supplied (based on interview quantities of gravel are sufficient for (Requirement: with a supplier in Fiji) For Pilot construction: the pilot construction. In view of the roughly available volume of gravel, 3,000 m3) Funamanu has the largest. (refer to Section 5.1.5) Quantity might be insufficient for Disadvantage None expected future full-scale project

Quality (size, shape, Gravel is of coral origin and composition, color) completely the same as that existing River gravel have round shape, Advantages in natural beaches in Tuvalu; hence, light color, and suitable size shape, color, and size pose no (Requirement from problem utilization point of view: Crushed gravel from hill rock has Less than100-150 mm, rough shape, and its color is round shape, light color) Disadvantage mostly dark; thus, it is not None suitable as filling material for beaches

(Source: JICA Study Team)

5-22 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Table 5.1.5 Evaluations on Implementation

Criteria c) Imported from Fiji d) Sand Spit Nearby Island -Project cost is lower than candidate source c) Procurement of Gravel Advantages Stable supply is possible Materials (cost, -Stockpile for gravel is not required restriction, etc.) -Fumigation is required inside the container during shipment. -Chartered ship is necessary for transportation Disadvantages None -Unit cost is expensive (AUD 370/m3). -Stockpile for gravel on site is required

Construction Schedule Construction schedule will be 1.5 Advantage None months shorter than c).

-It takes two months before materials are transported to Tuvalu due to prior shipping arrangements. Therefore, site Disadvantages works can only start from the None third month. -Construction period is longer by 1.5 months than procurement from Tuvalu.

Transportation Method -Transportation is easy if barge is It is possible to import 1,000 m3 available. Advantages of gravel by a chartered ship -Basically, the stockpile for gravel is not needed

-The cost for chartered ship is significantly expensive. -It is necessary to consider wave Disadvantages -Many containers are required for condition (it is difficult to implement gravel transportation and more during stormy weather conditions) stockpile area is required.

(Source: JICA Study Team)

5-23 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Table 5.1.6 Evaluations on Environment

Criteria c) Imported from Fiji d) Sand Spit at Nearby Islands -Westward gravel movement was predicted, and no negative impact is

expected on nearby island by taking gravel from Funamanu (refer to -No negative impact as expected Section 5.1.5).

-Excavating gravel in Fiji has Advantages -There is a possibility that local been legalized without expected deformation of the shore will affect environmental issues. Environmental Impact the neighboring areas. However, no impacts to residents and artificial structures are expected as these do not exist.

-Concerns were raised by the -Temporary jetty near sand spit stakeholders on the safety of might be required for transportation using methyl bromide fumigated of gravel. This will cause damage to gravels for beach nourishment. Its the coral habitat area. potential impacts were studied, -Turbidity occurrence during the and it was concluded that any excavation of gravel is expected to adverse impacts are unlikely be low, because the tip of the island Disadvantages provided that standard safety is formed solely by gravel materials. measures are implemented. However, strict control and -Frequent transportation of gravel monitoring is required to check the between the port and project site occurrence of impact to surrounding using dump truck may cause air corals. and noise pollution problems as -There is a possibility that local well as other hindrance to local deformation of the shore will affect residents. the neighboring area.

(Source: JICA Study Team)

Table 5.1.7 Evaluations on Feasibility for Future Full-Scale Project

Item of Criteria c) Imported from Fiji d) Sand Spit Nearby Island Feasibility for Future As a result of diving survey at the Full-scale Project deep channel located south of Funamanu in this study, the

Sufficient supply of quantity for abundant existence of gravel on the Advantages (Required quantity for full-scale project can be secured. seabed was confirmed. full-scale project is There is a possibility of taking assumed to several tens of gravel from the seabed for full-scale thousands of volume) projects.

Price of gravel is basically fixed The feasibility of taking gravel from even if the quantity increases. land side might be low considering Disadvantages Due to this, scale merit to reduce the available supply volume, the construction cost is not required volume, and its impact on expected. the surrounding environment.

(Source: JICA Study Team)

5-24 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

5.1.7 Summary and Recommendations for Gravel Borrow Site

The obtained results are summarized as follows:

 There are two feasible sources, namely, 1) imported from Fiji and 2) taking from nearby island at Funafuti Atoll.

 It was feasible to import the gravel from Fiji considering the potential volume and quantity. The treatment of fumigation is required when gravel materials are imported to Tuvalu. As a result of preliminary study based on previous technical papers and comments from authorized institutes in Japan, no negative impacts on coastal and marine environment are expected. On the other hand, the most disadvantageous issue is the high cost as compared to taking gravel from nearby island. Furthermore, it is desirable to employ “self-produced materials in Tuvalu” as much as possible taking into account the sustainability and ownership in Tuvalu.

 The gravel materials have been washed away due to wave action at the ocean side in Funafuti Atoll, and significant deposition of gravel was observed at nearby islands. Based on the results related to the mechanism of gravel movement, westward gravel transportation is expected. Thus, it is recommended to take gravel from Funamanu Island only for the pilot construction, taking into account the required quantity and potential volume of gravel in said island.

 On the other hand, it was not allowed to extract significant quantity of gravel for future full-scale projects considering the possibility of beach erosion in the surrounding beach. However, it was found that certain amounts of gravel exist on the seabed at the channel which is located at west side of Funamanu Island. Even though further investigation is required, there is a possibility that this location will be a potential borrow site for gravel to be utilized for future full-scale project.

5-25 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

5.2 Sand

5.2.1 Overview

The following three items were studied in order to grasp potential borrow sites and volume of sand for beach nourishment:

 Diving survey on borrow sites for sand [Section 5.2.2]

 Sieve and composition analysis [Section 5.2.3]

 Study of potential borrow sites and sand volume [Section 5.2.4]

The diving survey for sand was carried out at three areas such as the south area, offshore of Fongafale Island, and north area in Funafuti Atoll. According to diving survey and laboratory test results, three locations were selected as suitable potential borrow sites for sand as described in Section 5.2.4 in detail. In addition, potential volumes of suitable sand were estimated as described in Section 5.2.4. It was confirmed that the quality and volume of sand for the project are sufficient in Funafuti Atoll.

5.2 Sand

5.2.1 Overview

5.2.2 Diving Survey on Borrow 5.2.3 Sieve and composition 5.2.4 Study for potential Sites for Sand analysis borrow sits and sand volume (1) Diving survey for sand (1) Selection of samples for sieve and (1) Evaluation for potential sand (2) South of Funafuti Atoll composition analysis borrow sites in lagoon (3) Offshore of Fongafale Island (2) Result of sieve and composition (2) Estimation of sand volume at (4) North of Funafuti Atoll analysis for sand taken from potential borrow sites offshore (3) Result of sieve and composition analysis for sand taken from onshore

Figure 5.2.1 Overview of Section 5.2 (Source: JICA Study Team)

5-26 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

5.2.2 Diving Survey of Sand on Borrow Sites

(1) Diving survey of sand

According to previous studies conducted by SOPAC and J-PACE, and result of diving survey on potential borrow sites for gravel in Funafuti Atoll as mentioned in Section 5.1(4), some deposit areas of sand were confirmed and found offshore of Fongafale Island and south of Funafuti Atoll. In order to understand potential borrow sites for sand in Funafuti Atoll, diving survey for checking sand quality and quantity was carried out at three areas such as 1) south of Funafuti Atoll (Funafala), 2) offshore of Fongafale Island (Around pilot construction site) and 3) north of Funafuti Atoll (Fualifeke, Tepuka, and Amatuku) as shown in Figure 5.2.2. The locations of diving survey were determined considering not only previous studies but also simplified studies such as investigation of wide flat area with around 10–15 m in depth based on sea charts and satellite photograph data. This diving survey consists of the following activities:

 Sampling of sand,

 Measurement of thickness of sand deposits using a steel bar,

 Measurement of depth,

 Checking of existence of live corals in and around sampling points, and

 Measurement of location of sampling points using GPS.

In the south of Funafuti Atoll, the survey area was determined in reference to the result of sieve analysis and visual checking of samples, which were obtained from diving survey for gravel as mentioned in Section 5.1.(4).

5-27 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Fualifeke

North of Funafuti Atoll

Fongafale

Offshore of Fongafale Island

South of Funafuti Atoll Funafara

Figure 5.2.2 Location Map of Potential Borrow Sites for Sand (Source: JICA Study Team)

(2) South of Funafuti Atoll

In Funafala area in the south of Funafuti Atoll, the sand with medium and coarse sizes was confirmed in the shallow area with around 5 m in depth. The sand is composed of coral with shell fragments and/or Foramifera, and its color is almost white. However, corals and coral reef were found in the shallow area in a patchy fashion. Existence of fine sand was confirmed in the relatively deep area at a depth of 10 m or more in the western side of the diving survey area. Sand material was composed of Halimeda and/or coral.

5-28 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Table 5.2.1 List of Sampling Points and Quality of Sand in the South of Funafuti Atoll Coordinate Quality of sand sample Depth Thickness No. Position Grain size (m) latitude longitude (m) Component Color (Visual Check) 1 F11S 13.1 8°37'6.20"S 179° 5'41.10"E 1.00 Halimeda Fine White 2 F06S 12.7 8°36'59.58"S 179° 5'33.99"E More than 1.0 Coral with shell Medium sand White 3 F05S 8.3 8°37'6.05"S 179° 5'34.09"E 1.00 Coral with shell Coarse/medium sand White 4 F16S 1.5 8°37'12.50"S 179° 5'44.00"E 0.70 Coral with foram sand Medium/coarse sand White/Orange 5 F12S 5.8 8°37'11.00"S 179° 5'42.20"E More than 1.0 Coral with foram sand Medium/coarse sand White/Orange 6 F15S 8.1 8°37'30.20"S 179° 5'40.40"E More than 1.0 Halimeda with coral Fine White 7 F14S 7.0 8°37'21.80"S 179° 5'41.20"E 1.00 Coral with shell Medium/coarse sand White 8 F13S 8.0 8°37'16.00"S 179° 5'33.10"E 1.00 Coral with shell Medium sand White 9 F02S 6.4 8°37'4.90"S 179° 5'14.50"E 1.00 Coral Fine/medium White 10 F09S 8.1 8°37'0.00"S 179° 5'14.40"E More than 1.0 Halimeda Fine White 11 F10S 5.8 8°37'0.70"S 179° 5'9.00"E 0.35 Coral Fine/medium White (Source: JICA Study Team)

Figure 5.2.3 Location Map of Diving Survey in the South of Funafuti Atoll (Source: JICA Study Team)

(3) Offshore of Fongafale Island

On the offshore of Fongafale Island around the pilot construction area, a comparatively good quality of sand with medium and coarse size was confirmed both in the shallow area and in a relatively-deep area at a depth of 10 m or more. The sand was composed of coral with shell fragments and/or foram sand, and its color is almost white. However, large or small coral reefs were found offshore of the pilot construction site in a patchy fashion. Fine sand was confirmed in the relatively-deep area at a depth of 10 m or more. It is composed of coral with Halimeda and/or shell.

5-29 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Table 5.2.2 List of Sampling Points and Quality of Sand Offshore of Fongafale Island Coordinate Quality of sand sample Depth Thickness No. Position Grain size (m) latitude longitude (m) Component Color (Visual Check) 1 CB01S 14.1 8°30'50.20"S 179°11'32.60"E 0.95 Coral with shell Fine/medium sand White 2 CA02S 15.0 8°30'43.50"S 179°11'36.40"E 0.85 Coral with shell/foram sand Medium /coarse sand White 3 F116 13.5 8°30'27.20"S 179°11'42.40"E 0.80 Coral Medium white 4 F115 13.8 8°30'33.20"S 179°11'39.80"E 0.85 Coral Medium white 5 F114 14.1 8°30'41.70"S 179°11'33.50"E 0.80 Coral with shell/foram sand Medium /coarse sand White 6 F112 14.1 8°31'32.50"S 179°11'15.70"E More than 1.0 m Coral with shell Medium/coarse sand White 7 F113 14.0 8°31'38.30"S 179°11'12.40"E More than 1.0 m Coral with shell Medium/coarse sand White 8 F111 11.8 8°31'44.20"S 179°11'9.00"E 0.80 Coral Medium white 9 CA01S 16.0 8°30'42.30"S 179°11'31.10"E 1.00 Coral with shell Medium sand White 10 CA03S 10.9 8°30'44.20"S 179°11'42.60"E More than 1.0 m Coral with foram sand Medium sand White/orange 11 CA04S 9.2 8°30'41.80"S 179°11'46.20"E More than 1.0 m Coral with Halimeda Fine/medium sand White 12 CB03S 10.5 8°30'50.08"S 179°11'40.22"E 0.60 Coral with Halimeda Fine/medium sand White 13 CB04S 7.6 8°30'50.90"S 179°11'43.30"E 0.65 Coral with shell Medium sand White 14 CC04S 4.8 8°30'57.90"S 179°11'43.80"E 0.70 Coral with shell/foram sand Medium /coarse sand White 15 CD03S 4.8 8°31'2.80"S 179°11'39.30"E 1.00 Coral with shell Medium sand White 16 CD02S 5.2 8°31'3.50"S 179°11'36.10"E 0.60 Coral with foram sand Medium sand White/orange 17 CC03S 7.6 8°30'56.50"S 179°11'38.30"E 0.70 Coral with shell Medium /coarse sand White 18 CC02S 9.2 8°30'57.40"S 179°11'35.90"E 0.65 Coral with shell/foram sand Medium /coarse sand White 19 CD01S 7.1 8°31'4.00"S 179°11'30.80"E 0.75 Coral with foram sand Medium sand White/orange 20 CC01S 11.4 8°30'56.60"S 179°11'32.50"E More than 1.0 m Coral with shell Medium /coarse sand White (Source: JICA Study Team)

Fongafale-North

Figure 5.2.4 Location Map of Diving Survey in Fongafale Island (Source: JICA Study Team)

(4) North of Funafuti Atoll

In Fulalifeke area in the north of Funafuti Atoll, a comparatively good quality sand of medium and coarse sizes was confirmed in the relatively deep area of around 15 m in depth. The sand is composed of coral with shell fragments, and its color is almost white. The grain size of sand indicates presence of fine particles from deep area to shallow area. The coral reefs were rarely found in the diving survey area.

5-30 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

In Fualifeke and Amatuku area, a comparatively good quality sand with medium and coarse size was confirmed in the relatively deep area at a depth of 10 m or more. However, corals and coral reef in a patchy fashion were found in these areas, especially in Amatuku area.

Table 5.2.3 List of Sampling Points and Quality of Sand Offshore of Fualifeke Coordinate Quality of sand sample Depth Thickness No. Position Grain size (m) latitude longitude (m) Component Color (Visual Check) 1 Fa99 17.0 8°26'0.70"S 179° 7'3.40"E 0.65 Coral with shell Medium sand White 2 Fa96 16.0 8°26'1.40"S 179° 7'15.30"E 0.55 Coral with shell Medium sand White 3 Fu119 16.0 8°26'8.30"S 179° 7'9.80"E 0.75 Coral with shell Medium/coarse sand White 4 Fu118 16.5 8°26'10.60"S 179° 7'17.20"E 0.65 Coral with shell Medium/coarse sand White 5 Fu117 15.8 8°26'7.50"S 179° 7'21.40"E More than 1.0 m Coral with shell Medium sand White 6 Fa97 10.0 8°25'55.30"S 179° 7'7.10"E 0.60 Coral Fine/medium white (Source: JICA Study Team)

Fualifeke

Figure 5.2.5 Location Map of Diving Survey at Fualifeke Island (Source: JICA Study Team)

Table 5.2.4 List of Sampling Points and Quality of Sand in Tepuka Island

Coordinate Quality of sand sample Depth Thickness No. Position Grain size (m) latitude longitude (m) Component Color (Visual Check) 1 Tp111 15 8°26'46.60"S 179° 5'13.10"E 0.85 Coral with shell Medium /coarse sand White 2 Tp100 15.5 8°26'50.40"S 179° 5'6.70"E 0.5 Coral with shell Medium sand White (Source: JICA Study Team)

5-31 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Tepuka

Figure 5.2.6 Location Map of Diving Survey in Tepka Island (Source: JICA Study Team)

Table 5.2.5 List of Sampling Points and Quality of Sand in Amatuku Island Coordinate Quality of sand sample Depth Thickness No. Position Grain size (m) latitude longitude (m) Component Color (Visual Check) 1Am4（PT90) 10.0 8°26'22.80"S 179° 9'54.10"E 0.65 Coral Medium white 2Am92 18.0 8°26'25.90"S 179°10'0.80"E 0.85 Coral (Fine) sand Fine/medium white 3Am93 11.0 8°26'34.30"S 179°10'19.00"E 0.70 Foram sand with coral Medium /coarse sand Orange/white 4Am94 14.5 8°26'43.00"S 179°10'23.50"E 0.70 Coral with foram sand Medium White/orange (Source: JICA Study Team)

Amatuku

Figure 5.2.7 Location Map of Diving Survey Offshore of Amatuku Island (Source: JICA Study Team)

5-32 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

5.2.3 Sieve and Composition Analysis

(1) Selection of Samples for Sieve and Composition Analysis

In order to grasp the grain size and composition of sands, 16 samples taken from offshore as described above were selected for laboratory tests as shown in Table 5.2.6. Such tests were performed to confirm findings from visual checks and distribution condition of good quality sand as potential area. Four sand samples taken from onshore were also subjected to laboratory tests in order to understand the relationship between beach slope and grain size. The result of grain size analysis will be referred to in determining the design slope for beach nourishment.

Table 5.2.6 Sand Samples Taken from Offshore for Laboratory Test No. Position Location Depth (m) Thickness (m) 1 F11S Funafara 13.1 1.00 2 F06S Funafara 12.7 More than 1.0 3 CB01S Fongafale 14.1 0.95 4 CA02S Fongafale 15.0 0.85 5 F116 Fongafale 13.5 0.80 6 F115 Fongafale 13.8 0.85 7 F114 Fongafale 14.1 0.80 8 F112 Fongafale 14.1 More than 1.0 m 9 F113 Fongafale 14.0 More than 1.0 m 10 F111 Fongafale 11.8 0.80 11 Fa99 Fualifeke 17.0 0.65 12 Fa96 Fualifeke 16.0 0.55 13 Fu119 Fualifeke 16.0 0.75 14 Fu118 Fualifeke 16.5 0.65 15 Fu117 Fualifeke 15.8 More than 1.0 m 16 Tp111 Tepuka 15 0.85 (Source: JICA Study Team)

Table 5.2.7 Sand Samples Taken from Onshore for Laboratory Tests

No. Position Location Slope 1 PT102 Fualifeke 1:9.7 2 PT104L Amatulu-North 1:10.3 3 PT105L North Tengako 1:11.9 4PT70 South of project site 1:11.8 (Source: JICA Study Team)

(2) Results of Sieve and Composition Analysis of Sand Taken from Offshore

The results of sieve and composition analysis are shown in Table 5.2.8. Since yield of finer sand is lower than fine sand, silt and fine sand obtained from 30% or more samples exhibit dark color. Moreover, although the sample containing many Halimeda has larger grain size based on sieve analysis, it also exhibits dark color, since it is easy to break and becomes smaller than fine sand.

5-33 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Table 5.2.8 Results of Sieve and Composition Analysis

Sand(%) Gravel(%) d50(mm) Silt(%) Comp. Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse CA02S 0.84 1.3 10.0 39.0 24.8 15.9 9.0 0.0 C, S CB01S 0.32 8.2 32.1 40.0 14.5 4.1 1.0 0.0 C F11S 0.21 12.8 44.9 35.2 5.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 H F111 0.48 6.5 23.8 37.9 18.5 10.4 3.0 0.0 C, S F112 0.99 3.6 9.7 31.0 29.6 21.0 5.0 0.0 C, S F113 0.66 1.0 12.3 46.2 26.9 11.6 2.0 0.0 C, S F114 0.59 0.3 16.4 43.0 22.5 13.9 4.0 0.0 C, S F115 0.57 2.1 13.2 50.2 24.8 8.7 1.0 0.0 C F116 0.42 3.6 27.1 49.5 17.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 C Fa96 0.45 1.2 26.5 45.5 17.8 8.1 1.0 0.0 C Fa99 0.63 0.9 19.1 36.8 20.7 17.6 5.0 0.0 C, S FO6S 0.78 6.5 20.2 25.2 26.5 20.6 1.0 0.0 C, S Fu117 0.58 0.5 13.8 47.1 20.9 11.7 6.0 0.0 C Fu118 0.56 0.3 13.7 51.3 21.3 10.4 3.0 0.0 C, S Fu1190.950.47.339.021.117.315.00.0C, S TP111 1.01 1.4 14.3 29.7 23.6 25.1 6.0 0.0 C, H PT70 0.43 0.4 27.6 47.3 13.8 5.8 5.0 0.0 F PT102 0.89 0.1 2.6 43.5 37.7 9.1 7.0 0.0 F, S PT104L 0.52 0.0 1.3 72.3 8.8 3.6 11.0 3.0 F, S PT105L 0.82 0.0 0.0 52.7 36.2 5.1 6.0 0.0 C, F C: Coral, S: Shell, H: Halimeda, F: Foram (Source: JICA Study Team)

(3) Results of Sieve and Composition Analysis of Sand Taken from Onshore

To determine the design condition of the slope for beach nourishment, samples were extracted from the land part. Their particle diameters, front beach slopes, and composition are shown in Table 5.2.9. Figure 5.2.8 shows the relationship between beach slope and grins size. From this, it reveals that beach slope becomes about 1:10 in general, as grain size is 0.4 mm or more.

Table 5.2.9 Results of Beach Slope and Composition Analysis

Coordinate Grain Size No. Position Location Slope Component latitude longitude (mm : d50) 1 PT102 Fualifeke 8°25'42.90"S 179° 7'20.30"E 1:9.7 0.89 Foram sand with coral 2 PT104L Amatuku-North 8°26'5.60"S 179° 9'58.60"E 1:10.3 0.52 Foram sand with coral 3 PT105L North Tengako 8°26'56.70"S 179°10'42.90"E 1:11.9 0.82 Coral with foram sand 4 PT70 Project site - - 1:11.8 0.43 Coral

(Source: JICA Study Team)

5-34 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Figure 5.2.8 Relationship between Grain Size and Slope (Source: JICA Study Team)

5.2.4 Study for Potential Borrow Sites and Sand Volume

(1) Evaluation for Potential Sand Borrow Sites in Lagoon

Tables 5.2.10 to 5.2.14 show the overall evaluation for potential sand borrow site at each diving survey areas. This evaluation was considered according to the following three criteria:

1) Quality for nourishment material, especially grain size

 Smaller than fine sand : Low quality  Bigger than medium sand : High quality 2) Impact to shoreline considering water depth

 Shallower than 5 m : High potential impact  5– 10 m in depth : Medium potential impact  Deeper than 10 m : Low potential impact 3) Impact to environment considering distance from existing coral reef

 Less than 300 m : Medium and high potential impact  More than 300 m : Low potential impact Overall evaluation method is determined based on the result of items individually evaluated as follows:

 If low quality sand or number of high or medium impact is more than two, overall evaluation is rated as “Not Acceptable”.  If number of medium and/or high impact is only one, overall evaluation is rated “Acceptable, but detailed survey is required”.  If all items are evaluated to be of high quality and have low impacts, overall evaluation is rated as “High Potential”.

According to these evaluations, high potential areas as suitable borrow sites for sand were identified in Fongafale-north (F115 and F116) and Fongafale-south (F111, F112, and F113) as shown in Table 5.2.11, and Fulalifeke (Fu117, Fu118 and Fu119) as shown in Table 5.2.12. Locations of these areas are shown in Figures 5.2.9 to 5.2.11.

5-35 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

The acceptable potential area was also confirmed offshore of Tepuka and Amatuku. However, these areas are subject to detailed survey of impact to corals because patched corals exist, and distance between sampling points and live coral might be narrow in accordance with the results of visual diving survey.

Table 5.2.10 Overall Evaluation for Potential Sand Borrow Site in the South of Funafuti Atoll (Funafala)

Table 5.2.11 Overall Evaluation for Potential Sand Borrow Site Offshore of Fongafale Island

Impact to Impact to Quality for nourishment material Overall shoreline environment evaluation for Distance from coral reef No. Position Shallower than 5m: High Remarks More than 300 m : Low potential sand Depth : 5-10m : Middle Laboratory test Visual Less than 300 m : Medium Deeper than 10 m :Low borrow area & High 1 CB01S Medium sand － - - Not acceptable Acceptable, but detail 2 CA02S Medium sand － Low Medium & High survey is required. 3 F116 Medium sand － Low Low High potential 4 F115 Medium sand － Low Low High potential Acceptable, but detail 5 F114 Medium sand － Low Medium & High survey is required. 6 F112 Coarse sand － Low Low High potential 7 F113 Medium sand － Low Low High potential 8 F111 Medium sand － Low Low High potential Acceptable, but detail 9CA01S － Suitable Low Medium & High survey is required. Acceptable, but detail 10 CA03S － Suitable Low Medium & High survey is required. 11 CA04S － Low - - Not acceptable 12 CB03S － Low - - Not acceptable 13 CB04S － Suitable Middle Medium & High Not acceptable 14 CC04S － Suitable High Medium & High Not acceptable 15 CD03S － Suitable High Medium & High Not acceptable 16 CD02S － Suitable Middle Medium & High Not acceptable 17 CC03S － Suitable Middle Medium & High Not acceptable 18 CC02S － Suitable Middle Medium & High Not acceptable 19 CD01S － Suitable Middle Medium & High Not acceptable Acceptable, but detail 20 CC01S － Suitable Low Medium & High survey is required. (Source: JICA Study Team)

5-36 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Table 5.2.12 Overall Evaluation for Potential Sand Borrow Site in the North of Funafuti Atoll (Fualifeke)

Impact to Impact to Quality for nourishment material shoreline Overall environment evaluation for No. Position Remarks Distance from coral reef Shallower than 5m: High potential sand More than 300 m : Low Depth : 5-10m : M iddle Laboratory test Visual Less than 300 m : Medium borrow area Deeper than 10 m :Low & High Acceptable, but detail 1 Fa99 Medium sand － Low Medium & High survey is required. Acceptable, but detail 2 Fa96 Medium sand － Low Medium & High survey is required. 3 Fu119 Coarse sand － Low Low High potential 4 Fu118 Medium sand － Low Low High potential 5 Fu117 Medium sand － Low Low High potential 6 Fa97 － Low - - Not acceptable Acceptable, but detail 7 Fa121 － Suitable Low Medium & High survey is required. (Source: JICA Study Team)

Table 5.2.13 Overall Evaluation for Potential Sand Borrow Site in the North of Funafuti Atoll (Tepuka)

Impact to Impact to Quality for nourishment material shoreline Overall environment evaluation for No. Position Remarks Distance from coral reef Shallower than 5m: High potential sand More than 300 m : Low Depth : 5-10m : M iddle Laboratory test Visual Less than 300 m : Medium borrow area Deeper than 10 m :Low & High Acceptable, but detail 1 Tp111 Coarse sand － Low Medium & High survey is required. Acceptable, but detail A live corals exist in a 2 Tp100 － Suitable Low Medium & High survey is required. patchy fashion (Source: JICA Study Team)

Table 5.2.14 Overall Evaluation for Potential Sand Borrow Site in the North of Funafuti Atoll (Amatuku)

Impact to Impact to Quality for nourishment material shoreline Overall environment evaluation for No. Position Remarks Distance from coral reef Shallower than 5m: High potential sand More than 300 m : Low Depth : 5-10m : M iddle Laboratory test Visual Less than 300 m : Medium borrow area Deeper than 10 m :Low & High Am4 Acceptable, but detail A live corals exist in a 1 － Suitable Low Medium & High （PT90) survey is required. patchy fashion A live corals exist in a 2Am92 －－ - - Not acceptable patchy fashion Acceptable, but detail A live corals exist in a 3Am93 － Suitable Low Medium & High survey is required. patchy fashion Acceptable, but detail A live corals exist in a 4Am94 － Suitable Low Medium & High survey is required. patchy fashion (Source: JICA Study Team)

5-37 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Fongafale-North

70,784 m2

Figure 5.2.9 Potential Borrow Site for Sand in Fongafale-North (Source: JICA Study Team)

Fongafale-South

108,888 m2

Figure 5.2.10 Potential Borrow Site for Sand in Fongafale-South (Source: JICA Study Team)

5-38 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Fualifeke

101,060 m2

Figure 5.2.11 Potential Borrow Site for Sand in Fualifeke (Source: JICA Study Team) (2) Estimation of Sand Volume at Potential Borrow Sites

The sand volumes at high potential borrow sites were estimated based on potential area and thickness of sand deposits determined from diving survey as shown in Table 5.2.15. The estimated potential sand volumes at Fongafale-north, Fongafale-south, and Fualifeke were estimated at 56,627 m3, 130,666 m3, and 70,742 m3, respectively. In addition, average grain size at potential borrow sites is shown in Figure 5.2.16.

The gross amount of potential sand from Funafuti Lagoon is 280,732 m3, which were estimated based on result of simple diving survey. Hence, it is expected that potential sand volume might even increase if accurate thickness and area are determined based on detailed investigation and survey,

Table 5.2.15 Estimated Sand Volume at Potential Borrow Sites Potential Potential Potential No. Location Area Thickness Vo l u me ( m 3) (m2) (m) 1 Fongafale-North 70,784 0.8 56,627 2 Fongafale-South 108,888 1.2 130,666 3 Fualifeke 101,060 0.7 70,472 (Source: JICA Study Team)

Table 5.2.16 Average Gain Size at Potential Borrow Sites Grain Size (D50): mm Average No. Location 1 2 3 (mm) 1 Fongafale-North 0.57 0.42 0.50 2 Fongafale-South 0.48 0.99 0.66 0.71 3 Fualifeke 0.58 0.56 0.95 0.70 (Source: JICA Study Team)

5-39

Supporting Report-2

Planning and Design in Phase-1

Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

6. Planning and Design of Gravel Nourishment

6.1 Overview

The procedure for planning and design of gravel nourishment is shown in Figure 6.1.1.

6.2 Setting of Conservation Target

6.3 Selection of the Type of Gravel Nourishment

6.4 Design Condition

Waves Tide Topography

6.5 Basic Design

Design Principle

Nourishment Sand Stopper Backshore Wall and 1) Layout 1) Layout Hump 2)Profile (Length, 2) Cross Section 1) Layout Width, Height, slope) (Length,Width, 2)Cross Section 3) Material Height) (Length,Width, Height) 3) Material 3) Material

6.6 Impact Analysis on Surrounding area

6.7 Initial Examination of Effectivenessarea

(Chapter 7 Detailed Design)area

Figure 6.1.1 Procedure for Planning and Design of Gravel Nourishment (Source: JICA Study Team)

6.2 Setting of Conservation Target

The target in terms of protection function, environment, and utilization was set for the planning and design of the gravel nourishment.

6-1 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

(1) Target on Protection Function

The target on protection function was determined taking into account the present beach condition at the project site.

 Wave run-up and wave overtopping into the land area and private property can be prevented.

 Further beach retreat due to beach erosion can be stopped.

(2) Target on Utilization

The target on beach utilization was determined taking into account the opinions of both the Tuvaluan government and the community.

As presented in Chapter 11, several stakeholder meetings were held during the study to obtain the opinion of the residents and community who mainly utilize the project beach area. The opinions and requests from Tuvaluan side are summarized as follows:

 The people requested to recover the previous beach conditions before the occurrence of beach erosion. The previous beach at lagoon side was basically sandy beach with gravel parts.

 The project beach area is utilized mainly by the residents as recreation and fishing boat landing space. Thus, it was requested not to disturb these activities, and if possible to enhance these activities.

 The community hole was located at the hinterland, and the project area is one of the most important and crowded spaces in Funafuti community area. Considering this, the project beach is expected to be a model beach in Funafuti area.

From the above opinions, the target on utilization is set as follows:

 The selected beach conservation measure should contribute to enhance the beach utilization, such as for recreation and boat landing activities.

 The selected beach conservation measure is expected to transform the beach into a model beach and the most attractive area in Funafuti community area.

(3) Target on Environment

The target on environment is as follows:

 Undertaking the beach protection measures at the project site should not cause new beach erosion problem at surrounding beaches.

6-2 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

 The implementation activity should not cause the deterioration of marine biota such as corals, fish, sea glass, etc.

 It should not cause new beach erosion problems at borrow sites for gravels and sands.

6.3 Selection of the Type of Gravel Nourishment

Generally, there are two types of nourishment method, namely, dynamically stable method and statically stable method. The former method basically involves filling the sand without any coastal structures which have a function to trap the littoral sand drift. Thus, this method will allow littoral sand movement and it is common to consider periodical sand refilling (or sand recycle). On the other hand, the latter method consists of nourishment with coastal structures such as groins, headlands, offshore breakwaters, etc., to minimize sand outflow due to littoral sand drift.

From both economical and management points of view, it is basically difficult for the Tuvaluan side to undertake periodical sand refilling after completion of the project, and thus, it is desirable to minimize future maintenance (sand refilling). Thus, it was recommended to employ the statically stable method to minimize the further refilling of sand.

With regard to the coastal facilities which have a function to trap the littoral sand drift, the following shall be taken into account. The purpose of this pilot project is only to show the effectiveness of gravel nourishment in order to select the suitable beach protection measures for future full-scale project. The Tuvaluan government has informed that they have a plan to undertake the full-scale beach conservation project in the near future by following the method of this pilot project after evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed beach conservation measures based on gravel nourishment. Taking this into account, the coastal facilities are designed as temporary facilities only for the pilot project in order to be adopted for the full-scale project and to consider the construction cost of the pilot project.

The sand stopper (groin) was recommended as the coastal facility in the pilot project.

6.4 Design Condition

(1) Geographical and Geological

The natural beach at the lagoon side of Fongafale Island is in a state wherein gravel is deposited in the onshore side of the sandy beach. The basement depth was estimated at approximately 1000 m by seismic experiments.

The average elevation of the storm ridge at the lagoon side is +4.0 m above C.D.L.

6-3 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

(2) Littoral Drift

The wave direction which acts on the beach is from WSW to NE, and W is the largest energy wave. The annual average energy wave direction is N288.4ºE. This wave acts perpendicular to the beach at the project site. Therefore, it is thought that the coastal sand drift at the project site changes by north and south waves, and is almost balanced throughout the year.

(3) Tide Condition

The tide level related to the design is as follows:

H.H.W.L. = C.D.L. +3.42 m

H.W.L. = C.D.L. +2.8 m

M.S.L. = C.D.L. +2.0 m

L.W.L. = C.D.L. +1.2 m

(4) Wave Condition

The wave conditions which are related to the design of coastal facilities are shown in Table 6.4.1 with reference to the previous study (JICA Development Survey Report (2011)).

Table 6.4.1 Wave Conditions Classification Height (m) Period (s) Direction Average maximum yearly wave 0.85 4.1 - Average energy wave 0.52 3.6 N288.4ºE A return period 10 years wave 1.2 4.2 - A return period 50 years wave 2.2 5.6 - (Source：Completed JICA Development Survey Report (2011))

(5) Wind

Annual winds are predominant from an easterly direction of ENE to SE. Winds stronger than 8 m/s are observed from a westerly direction of SW to N. During the wet season from December to February, northeasterly winds from N to ENE are predominant. Strong westerly winds of more than 12 m/s are also observed during this season. During the dry season from May to September, easterly or southeasterly winds from ESE to SE are predominant, but winds of more than 8 m/sec are rarely observed.

6-4 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

6.5 Basic Design

6.5.1 Design Principle

The design principles are presented as follows:

 For the type of nourishment, statically stable method with sand stopper as the coastal facility was employed.

 Originally, only gravel filling was proposed as the recommended profile of the gravel nourishment by following the previous study (F/S study). However, considering the request from the community, the target of the project is to recover the previous beach conditions before the occurrence beach erosion. This means that the desirable beach should have gravel nourishment with sandy slope for it to have the same image as the original natural beaches at the lagoon side of Fongafale Island.

 The project area was decided at the Malefatuga area as mentioned in Chapter 1. Taking into account the requests from both the Tuvaluan government and Funafuti community through the stakeholder meeting held during the study period, the exact project area was set from Amatuku Jetty as the north end up to the existing seawall as the south end with approximately 185 m length. Thus, the sand stopper is set at these north and south boundaries and gravels and sands are filled into this enclosed area.

 To design the profile of the gravel nourishment, it is necessary to determine the beach width, crest elevation, and beach slope.

 The actual beach profile at the lagoon side on site is the result of wave action over a long period. Based on this fundamental understanding, crest elevation and beach slope shall be determined by following the same condition of the existing beaches. The detail is presented in Section 6.5.2.

 To determine the beach width, the following should be considered: 1) stability of the profile, 2) effectiveness of function, 3) environmental impact, and 4) cost impact. It is noted that the backshore area with certain width is part of the coastal protection facility (part of the section for nourishment), and no utilization of the backshore area is considered. The detail is presented in Section 6.5.2.

 As mentioned before, the sand stopper is required at both ends of the area of nourishment. This sand stopper is designed as a temporary facility by considering the near future plan of the full-scale project. Based on this principle, no active use of the crown part of the sand stopper is considered.

 The setting of the backshore wall is considered as supplementary coastal facility in order to minimize the scattering of filling gravels due to strong wave action and to reduce the

6-5 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

outflow of soil from the landside due to heavy rain, taking into account the opinion of the community from the stakeholder’s meeting. Further, some spaces shall be considered for the construction of backshore wall so as not to prevent the boat landing to the private property.

 For the materials for nourishment of gravels and sands, it is considered to use materials which are produced in Tuvalu considering both the self-sustainability of the Tuvalu project and construction cost. From these points of view, it was recommended to take gravels from the nearby island (Funamanu Island) and sands from Funafuti Atoll as presented in Chapter 5.

 It is also considered to reuse existing gravels including concrete debris which exists on site. These existing materials will be reused as filling materials for the construction of the sand stopper, underlayer of the gravel section, etc.

 From the environmental and utilization viewpoints, it is considered to maintain the existing trees on the beach as much as possible. For this, the alignment of the backshore wall shall be set properly.

6.5.2 Layout Design

Figure 6.5.1 shows the satellite image and the distance of each existing facilities to clear the project site. The landmark facilities include the Catalina Ramp, Amatuku Jetty, new slipway, and private seawall.

From the result of the bathymetric survey as shown in Figure 6.5.2, the deep water area exists at the north side of the Amatuku Jetty. Considering the possibility for the filling sand to flow into the deep water area, it was proposed to set new slipway as the north boundary of the project area in the beginning of this study. In order to keep the continuity to the existing sandy beach located at the south side, the project area was set to approximately 200 m.

After collecting the opinions from the Tuvaluan government and Funafuti community in this study, both of them requested to start the project from the farther north side taking into consideration the community hall located behind the new slipway.

On the other hand, there was an objection to remove the private seawall which exists at the nearby south end of the project area. The owner of the private seawall basically had an objection to remove due to the pilot project. Considering this as well as the project scale and resulting cost, it was finally proposed to shift the project area slightly to the north side at a distance of 186 m as shown in Figure 6.5.2.

The final proposed layout plan is as shown in Figure 6.5.3.

6-6 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Catalina Ramp

Amatuku Jetty

Private seawall New slip way

Figure 6.5.1 Existing Coastal Facilities (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-7 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

350

300

250

200 Deep Water Area Final Proposal (186m) 150 1st Proposal (Approx. 200m) 100

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Figure 6.5.2 Bathymetric Survey Result (June 2012) (Source: JICA Study Team)

Figure 6.5.3 Final Proposed Layout Plan (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-8 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

6.5.3 Profile Design for Nourishment

(1) Profile Image

Originally, only gravel filling was proposed as the recommended profile of the gravel nourishment by following the previous study (F/S study). However, the final proposed profile was combined gravels and sands. The reasons why the combined gravel and sand nourishment was employed in this pilot project are as follows:

 It was realized that originally, the sandy beach with gravel part was formed at the lagoon side based on the field investigation of the surrounding islands, which still maintain the good condition of the beach at the lagoon side. The condition of the original natural beach at the lagoon side might be a desirable and stable beach condition and thus the beach must recover this similar condition.

 Based on the result of the stakeholder’s meeting, the community requested to provide convenience of beach utilization such as for recreation and fishing activity (especially boat landing).

 Taking into account the limited volume of gravels planned to be taken from the nearby island (Funamanu Island) even if only for the pilot project, it is desirable to reduce the volume of gravels as much as possible. On the other hand, there are plenty of white sands at Funafuti Atoll, which are the only materials to be obtained in Tuvalu. Thus, the effective use of these sands was considered in the implementation of the pilot project.

The images of the proposed profile in the original and final proposals are shown in Figure 6.5.4.

Figure 6.5.5 shows the definition of representative design items which are required for the determination of the profile for gravel nourishment.

6-9 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

1) Current Condition

2) Previous Proposal (only gravels)

3) Final Proposal (Gravels and Sands)

Figure 6.5.4 Image of Proposed Profile (Source: JICA Study Team)

Backshore Width

Crest Elevation

Gravel

Sand Beach Width

Figure 6.5.5 Definition of Representative Items for Gravel Nourishment (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-10 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

(2) Backshore Width

The backshore width is determined to secure the protection function of the coastal protection facilities and to consider the required beach utilization. There was no realistic mathematical formula to establish the backshore width. Thus, the backshore width is determined based on the survey results and taking into account the required target in this study.

The requirements for setting the backshore width are as follows:

Requirement 1: The stability of the gravel section is secured (as the buffer zone to protect the landside property).

Requirement 2: The target position of the shoreline is almost the same position as in the previous condition which is before the occurrence of beach erosion. The reason was that the previous position was thought as the most stable position of the shoreline against wave action.

Requirement 3: As long as the above requirements can be fulfilled, the backshore width is minimized to secure the self-sustainability function on sand transportation, and to minimize the project cost.

1) Requirement 1

In order to determine the backshore width to secure the stability of the gravel section, one of the approaches is to check the existing site condition at the lagoon side. The survey to check the existing backshore width of gravels at the lagoon side was carried out at several points of Fongafale Island as shown in Figure 6.5.6. The observed backshore width at the lagoon side was distributed from 2.7 m to 5.7 m, and 3.8 m on average. From these survey results, the backshore width is recommended to be at least more than 3–4 m.

Figure 6.5.6 Measurement of Backshore Width (near South Tip of Fongafale Island) (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-11 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

2) Requirement 2

It is usual to set the target on the beach width for the nourishment. One of the common ideas is to keep almost the same position as that of the previous shoreline before the occurrence of beach erosion. The reason is that the position of the previous shoreline was formed by long-term wave actions, and the resulting condition was deemed as the most stable natural condition.

6-12 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Figure 6.5.7 Aerial and Satellite Photos in 1941, 1943, and 2010 (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-13 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Based on this understanding, the previous shoreline was compared with the present using old aerial photograph and satellite image.

Figure 6.5.7 shows the aerial and satellite photos of the beach conditions at the project site in 1941, 1943, and 2010 with the exact same scale and area. In 1941, the sandy beach exists at the project site. In 1943 (during the Second World War), the United States Navy undertook the construction of seawall and backfilling (reclamation) on the foreshore area to make space for the landing of aircraft as shown in Figure 6.5.8. As a result, the shoreline extended 25 m to 30 m beyond the natural coast line in 1941. The Catalina Ramp was also constructed during this period.

Figure 6.5.9 shows the comparison of shorelines between 1941 and 2010. Roughly 9 m to 10 m retreat of the shoreline was observed between 1941 and 2010. From this result, the target position of the shoreline after recovery was set at 10 m.

Figure 6.5.8 Profile Image of the Reclamation Carried Out in 1943 (Source: SOPAC Project Report 54 in 2006)

Figure 6.5.9 Comparison of Shoreline between 1941 and 2010 (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-14 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

The beach width is defined as the distance from the seawater line, taken during the mean tide condition (MWL). However, it was difficult to identify the tide condition when each photograph was taken. Considering the uncertainty of tide condition, the beach width was defined from the seawater line during the high tide condition (HWL) as the case of minimum beach width. As presented later, the crest elevation and slope for the gravel section were set to +4.0 m and 1:3.5, respectively. The high tide elevation (HWL) at Tuvalu is +2.8 m. Based on this information, if 6 m is set as the backshore width, almost 10 m of beach width can be secured even at HWL.

From the result, the backshore width was set to 6 m to secure the position of the previous shoreline.

3) Requirement 3

As long as the above requirements can be fulfilled, the backshore width is minimized in order to secure the self-sustainability function on sand transportation, and to minimize the project cost.

Figure 6.5.10 shows the image of the littoral sand transportation. The wider the beach width than that of the surrounding beach, the more interruption to the natural sand income due to littoral sand movement. This natural sand income is called the self-sustainability function. From this point of view, suitable beach width shall be selected.

Figure 6.5.11 shows the image of the relation among the project cost, stability of the profile for nourishment, and backshore width. The project cost basically increases in proportion to the widening of the beach width. On the other hand, the stability of the profile for nourishment does not increase from a certain width. The backshore width of 6 m is thought as a suitable width taking into account both cost and stability.

In case of suitable width sand

In case of wide width

sand

Figure 6.5.10 Image of Influence of Self-Sustainability Function due to Difference of Beach Width (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-15 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Figure 6.5.11 Relation among Stability, Cost, and Backshore Width (Source: JICA Study Team)

4) Checking the Validity of Beach Width using Mathematical Formula

As a method to evaluate the validity of the beach width, the wave run-up was calculated for the decided backshore width by assuming the proper wave condition. According to the Beach Planning and Design Manual (2005), the backshore height was suggested to be the height of wave run-up for the case of storm waves during HWL which occur several times in a year. The wave run-up to the backshore was calculated using the mathematical formula called virtual slope method and proposed by Nakamura in 1972. For checking under more serious wave condition, the calculation was also made to employ the probability wave height with 10-year return period, following the previous F/S study. The input wave condition is shown in Table 6.5.1. The calculated height of wave run-up under the different backshore width of each type of profile for nourishment was compared with the designed crest elevation of nourishment as shown in Table 6.5.2.

Table 6.5.1 Input Wave Condition for Checking Wave Run-Up Case Wave Condition H1/3 (m) T (s) Tide Condition Storm Waves 1 0.85 4.1 HWL (+2.8 m) (several times/year) 2 10-year return period 1.2 4.2 HWL (+2.8 m) (Source: JICA Study Team)

Table 6.5.2 Calculation Result for Wave Run-Up Case Case-1 Case-2 (Storm wave height) (Probability wave height with 10-year return period) Backshore Wave Evaluation Backshore Wave Evaluation Elevation Run-up Elevation Run-up Present +3.8 +3.9 No +3.8 +4.3 No Only Gravel +4.0 +3.9 OK +4.0 +4.1 No Gravel + Sand +4.0 +3.7 OK +4.0 +3.9 OK (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-16 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

(3) Crest Elevation (Backshore Elevation)

There is no realistic formula to determine the crest elevation of the nourishment. As presented before and in the previous F/S report, the islands at Funafuti Atoll were formed by run-up coral gravels and the storm ridge was formed as a result of the long-term wave action at both the ocean and lagoon sides of the beach as shown in Figure 6.5.12. Considering the process of beach formation at Tuvalu Island, it is recommended to follow the same elevation of the storm ridge and hinterland as the crest elevation for the nourishment. The survey to check the height of storm ridge and hinterland at just behind the storm ridge was carried out at several points in this study.

(1) Ocean Side (2) Lagoon Side Figure 6.5.12 Storm Ridge (Source: JICA Study Team)

Figure 6.5.13 Observed Elevation of Storm Ridge and Hinterland (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-17 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Figure 6.5.13 shows the obtained results of the elevation of the storm ridge and hinterland at both ocean and lagoon sides. The elevation of the storm ridge was distributed from 4.3 m to 5.3 m (4.9 m on average) at the ocean side, and from 3.6 m to 4.9 m (4.1 m on average) at the lagoon side. The elevation of hinterland ranged from 4.1 m to 5.5 m (4.9 m on average) at the ocean side, and from 3.4 m to 4.8 m (4.0 m on average) at the lagoon side. From these results, the crest elevation (backshore elevation) of the nourishment was set to 4.0 m.

(4) Beach Slope

The beach slope for each gravel and sand section was also determined based on the survey result. According to the design manual of nourishment (2005), the slope of the gravel is nearly constant at approximately 1:3 if the size of gravel is more than 2 mm. Figure 6.5.14 shows the relation between the size of gravels and slope, which was obtained from the survey result in this study. The slopes at the ocean and lagoon sides ranged from 1:3 to 1:4 and from 1:4 to 1:5, respectively. The slope of the gravel section was almost constant, independent of gravel size. Based on this result, the beach slope at the gravel section was set to 1:3.5.

the relation between shore slope and grain size 6

3 gradient 2 ocean side 1 lagoon side

0 0 20406080100120140 median grain size(mm) Figure 6.5.14 Relation between Beach Slope and Gravel Size (Source: JICA Study Team)

To determine the slope of the sand section, the beach slope and grain size of sand were investigated at several sandy beaches. In terms of the general relationship between the slope and grain size of sand, the beach slope becomes steep in proportion to the course of sand. However, the significant relation between beach slope and grain size of sand was not observed as shown in Table 6.5.3.

Table 6.5.3 Observed Beach Slope and Grain Size (D50)

Sample Location Beach Slope D50 (mm) 1 Fualifeke 1:9.7 0.89 2 Amatuku-North 1:10.3 0.52 3 North Tengako 1:11.9 0.82 4 South of Project Site 1:11.8 0.43 (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-18 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Table 6.5.4 shows the grain size at the three candidate borrow sites of sands inside Funafuti Atoll, which were presented in Chapter 5. Sample No. 4 was taken from the south of the project site.

Table 6.5.4 Grain Size (D50) at Candidate Borrow Sites of Sands

No. Candidate Site Distance from Shore (m) Depth (m) D50 (mm) 1 Fongafale (south) 470 14 0.43 2 Fongafale (north) 300 14 0.50 3 Fualifeke 600 15-16 0.70 (Source: JICA Study Team)

The grain size at the candidate borrow sites is coarser than that at the south of the project site shown in Table 6.5.3 (Sample 4). Considering the difference of grain size, the beach slope at the sandy section was set to 1:10.

(5) Change in Profile due to Wave Action

It is noted that even if the profile of the beach nourishment was designed appropriately based on the results of the survey and analysis as presented before, this designed beach profile is only for the initial beach condition. One of the typical characteristics of the nourishment is the flexibility of its shape due to waves. The beach shape such as beach width, slope, crest elevation, alignment, etc., will change owing to the wave action as shown in Figure 6.5.15. The filled sand and gravel will be moved, and might sometimes flow out when a strong wave attacks.

incident

Figure 6.5.15 Flexibility of Shape for Nourishment (Source: JICA Study Team)

(6) Idea to Reduce the Volume of Gravels

As presented in Chapter 5, it was recommended to obtain gravels from Funamanu Island taking into account the impact on environment, project construction method, and cost for the

6-19 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

pilot project. (For the future expected full-scale project, it was not recommended to take gravels from the nearby island considering the availability of gravels in the islands and the required volume.)

Although a certain amount of gravel exists at both tips of Funamanu Island, it is desirable to reduce the volume as much as possible taking into account the time duration for the recovery of gravels. Furthermore, there are some amounts of concrete debris on the project beach. It is desirable to consider the reuse of these concrete debris.

As shown in Figure 6.5.3, the position of the crest of the beach in the current condition is variable along the shore. On the other hand, the alignment of the crest after nourishment is planned to be almost straight line. This means that the backshore width at some cross sections will be wider than the designed 6 m width. To reduce the volume of gravels, it is recommended to do backfilling at this wider area as shown in Figure 6.5.16. To secure the stability of the backfilling area, it is recommended to use sand bags.

To consider further reduction of the volume of gravels, the existing concrete debris will be reused as the underlayer of the gravel section as much as possible.

(1) General Cross-Section Back Filling 6m

Reuse of Existing Concrete Rubble

(2) Wide Cross-Section Figure 6.5.16 Backfilling at Wider Cross Section Area with Width of more than 6 m (Source: JICA Study Team)

6.5.4 Sand Stopper (North and South)

The sand stopper is required at both boundaries of the nourishment under the statically stable method. As presented before, the planned sand stopper is a temporary facility until commencement of the full-scale project. The following shall be considered in the design of the sand stopper:

6-20 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

 The function of the sand stopper is to minimize the outflow of gravels and sands from the project area to the outer area. The length and height of the sand stopper shall be designed based on this function.

 On the other hand, it is desirable to reduce the volume of materials as much as possible. The active use of the sand stopper (e.g., for recreation, boat mooring, landing facility, etc.) is not taken into consideration.

 Considering that it is not a permanent facility and that existing concrete debris on site will be reused, net gabion will be employed as the armor layer. The sand bags will be employed for the underlayer as impermeable layer.

From this point of view, the representative dimension of the sand stopper was determined as follows:

 The crown height at the trunk part shall be above the crest elevation of the gravels (+4.0 m). Thus, +4.5 m (0.5 m above the crest elevation) was set as the crown height at the trunk part.

 To reduce the volume of the composite materials, the crown height is planned to gradually reduce toward the head part. However, more than 1.5 m above the elevation of the sand section shall be maintained. As a result, the crown height at the head part is set to +2.0 m (same as MWL).

 Taking into account the change of beach angle due to wave action after the project, and in order to minimize the sand outflow offshore, the toe of the head part is set to extend 10 m farther from the toe part of the sand section. As a result, the length of the sand stopper is set to 44 m at the south side and 53 m at the north side.

 The crown width and slope are set considering the installation method for the net gabion. The net gabion is flexible type. Thus, it is difficult to completely fix the crown width and slope. In the design, the crown width was set to 1.5 m and the side slope was set to 1:1 considering the assumed representative size of the flexible gabion.

The typical drawing of the sand stopper is shown in Figure 6.5.17.

6-21 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Figure 6.5.17 Sand Stopper (North) (Source: JICA Study Team)

6.5.5 Backshore Wall and Hump

The backshore wall is installed at the boundary between the nourishment area and existing property. The purposes of the backshore wall are as follows:

 To reduce the scattering of gravels and movement into the property area during the strong wave condition;

 To avoid the soil outflow from the landside due to heavy rain;

 To identify the boundary between the private property and nourishment area as public facility.

 To enhance the beach utilization to residents by providing sitting bench facility alongshore.

Considering the abovementioned purposes, the crown height of the backshore wall is set to 50 cm from the ground level, and the crown width is set to 30 cm. The structure design detail is presented in the detailed design part in Chapter 7.

It is also necessary to consider some spaces for boat landing from the beach into the property. Based on the field survey result, seven boat landing spaces were identified. Thus, in the layout

6-22 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

design, it is considered to keep the same number of boat landing spaces at the same position. On the other hand, there is a possibility that these spaces will weaken the function of preventing the scattering of gravels as well as soil outflow from the landside. To minimize this adverse effect of keeping the space for boat landing along the backshore wall, a hump with a height of 20 cm is installed at this space.

The layout and cross section of the backshore wall are shown in Figure 6.5.18.

Figure 6.5.18 Layout Plan and Cross Section of Backshore Wall (Source: JICA Study Team)

6.5.6 Summary and Volume of Materials to be Employed

(1) Nourishment

1) Gravels

 As presented in Chapter 5, it was recommended to take gravels from Funamanu Island considering the impact on environment, project construction method, and cost for the pilot project.

 The total assumed volume for the gravel section is 3070 m3 (the detail is presented in Chapter 7). Based on visual checking on the project site, the volume of existing concrete debris on site was assumed to be approximately 500 m3. The existing concrete debris is assumed to be utilized as the underlayer of the gravel section.

6-23 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

 The remaining volume of gravel, at approximately 2500 m3, is taken from Funamanu Island. It is assumed that approximately 2000 m3 and 500 m3 of gravels are taken from the west and east tips of the island, respectively.

2) Sands

 As presented in Chapter 5, it was recommended to take sands from the seabed of Funafuti Atoll. Based on the results of the diving survey, three candidate borrow sites were recommended, which were offshore areas of Fongafale Island (south and north) and Fualifeke Island.

 The total assumed volume for the sand section is 3550 m3.

3) Backfilling at the Part with Backshore Width of more than 6 m

 At the area where the backshore width is more than 6 m, backfilling using sand bag is conducted. The assumed volume of the backfilling is 174 m3.

(2) Sand Stopper

1) Flexible Gabion for Armor Layer

 The volume of armor layer using flexible net gabion is 626 m3.

 Concrete debris which consist the Catalina Ramp are assumed to be used as the filling materials for the flexible net gabion.

2) Core Layer

 The volume of core layer using sand bag is approximately 325 m3.

 Sands taken from the recommended borrow sites in Funafuti Atoll, which are similar to the sands for nourishment, are employed as the filling materials of the sand bag.

6-24 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

6.6 Verification of Stability and Function Using Numerical Method

(1) Outline

The function and stability of the proposed design of the gravel nourishment were verified using numerical method.

Gravels and sands with two different slopes were finally proposed as the profile of the nourishment. The stability and function of this complex type of profile were verified using the numerical computation model. The BG model, which can consider the compound grain size of composite materials (Serizawa et al., 2006), was employed as the numerical model to predict the beach profile and shape.

Further, the stability of the layout of the nourishment was also verified using the same numerical model.

(2) Verification of Stability and Function of the Proposed Profile

To check the conditions under different compositions of gravels and sands, the following four cases of computations were conducted as shown in Table 6.6.1. The initial beach slope was set to 1:5, and the grain sizes of gravel and sand were assumed at 100 mm and 1 mm, respectively. The input wave condition was set to H=1 m and T=4 s, and the tide condition was set to mean high water level MSL (MHWL, CDL +2.8 m).

Table 6.6.1 Cases of Different Compositions of Gravel and Sand Case Composition of Gravels (%) Composition of Sands (%) 1 0 100 2 100 0 3 50 50 4 25 75 (Source: JICA Study Team) Figures 6.6.1 shows the results for each case. In Case-1, the filled sand with 1 mm grain size was unstable under the initial slope of 1:5. The sand was transported to the offshore side and obtained a stable condition with the slope of 1:10. An opposite phenomenon was obtained in Case-2. The gravel was transported to the onshore side and obtained a stable condition with the slope of 1:3.5. In the composite type (Case-3 and Case-4), even though the initial slope was constant at 1:5, sand was transported offshore and gravel was transported onshore. Finally, the complex slope with changing slope points (Point A) was formed.

As a result, it was proved that sand and gravel were transported onshore and offshore until obtaining their equilibrium slopes. The proposed profile was designed to be the same profile of the equilibrium slopes based on the computation, and it was expected as the most stable shape.

6-25 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Figure 6.6.1 Computed Profile for Each Case (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-26 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

(3) Stability of the Layout of Nourishment

The stability of the layout of nourishment was verified using the same numerical model. Figure 6.6.2 shows the topography at the surrounding area and computation area for beach change.

Figure 6.6.2 Beach Topography and Computation Area for Beach Change (Source: JICA Study Team)

In this computation, the most important consideration is the setting of the incident wave direction. According to the results of wave forecasting analysis based on the observed wind data, the average energy equivalent wave height was estimated as N288.4E. This direction is almost perpendicular to the shoreline at the project area. On the other hand, the suitable incident wave direction, which was employed in the computation for beach change, was set so that the computed angle of the shoreline can be consistent with that in 1941. To find the suitable incident wave angles, several trial computations with different incident wave angles between N295E to N310E at 5 intervals were conducted.

Figure 6.6.3 shows the computed stable beach shape for each incident wave angle.

Even though the incident wave angle estimated from the wave forecasting analysis was N288.4E, the incident wave direction computed so that it will be consistent with the initial beach shape in 1941 was N300E. The incident wave angle obtained was slightly inclined in

6-27 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

the northern direction compared to the wave forecasting result. The result of the computation using this incident wave direction as input condition was shown in Figure 6.6.4. Almost the same shape of beach contour was shown in the actual and computed results.

Figure 6.6.3 Computed Beach Shape for Each Incident Wave Direction (Source: JICA Study Team)

-400 -2.5 -350 -2.5 -300 -2.0 -250 0.01.0 Y(m)

-200

-150 Initial Topography (Survey data in 1941)

-100 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 X(m)

Computed Result

Figure 6.6.4 Comparison between Actual Initial and Computed Topography (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-28 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Using this incident wave direction as input condition, the distributions of wave height and direction were calculated as shown in Figure 6.6.5.

The computation to check the stability after the nourishment was conducted using this wave calculation result. The sand stopper was set at both ends of the nourishment area with distance of 185 m similar to the proposed design. In the computation, it was assumed that sand outflow through the sand stopper did not occur. Thus, sufficient length of sand stopper was assumed.

Figure 6.6.6 shows the initial condition of the assumed alignment of nourishment (before computation) and the computed result after obtaining the stable condition. The stable condition was obtained after five years. Figure 6.6.7 shows the comparison of computed shoreline change before and after five years. Any change of shoreline was not observed after five years. Further, the obtained stable shoreline after the nourishment was drawn on the satellite photo showing the current beach condition, and compared with the proposed layout design as shown in Figure 6.6.8. The stable shoreline after the nourishment was just shifted offshore from the present shoreline. The proposed layout design was also the same alignment as the computed alignment. From this result, the layout design of the nourishment was validated.

Figure 6.6.5 Distributions of Computed Wave Height and Direction (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-29 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

a) Initial Topography (Before Computation)

SandSopper (south) SandSopper (North)

b) After Computation

SandSopper (south) SandSopper (North)

Figure 6.6.6 Comparison between Initial Topography and Computation Result (Source: JICA Study Team)

a) from initial condition to 5 years

b) from 5 years to 10 years

After5 years

Figure 6.6.7 Comparison of Shoreline Change before and after Five Years (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-30 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Figure 6.6.8 Comparison between Obtained Stable Shoreline and Proposed Design (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-31 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

6.7 Influence to Surrounding Coast

The influence to surrounding coast was examined from the results of the comprehensive analysis of littoral sand drift based on aerial and satellite photos, site investigation, numerical analysis, etc. The sandy beach exists at the south side of the project area at approximately 400 m alongshore. Special attention must be paid in order not to affect this existing sandy beach.

(1) Understanding from Previous Study

Figure 6.7.1 shows the process of the formation of the central area of Fongafale Island (Xue and Malolonga, 1995). The central area of Fongafale Island was formed by accumulated sands which were transported from both the south and north sides. As the result, the central area was as “sand gathering area” due to this mechanism of littoral drift. This is the reason why the central area is wider than the other areas.

Figure 6.7.1 Coastal Process at Central Area of Fongafale Island (Source: Xue and Malolonga, 1995) (Reference): Xue, C. and F. Malolonga (1995). Coastal sedimentation and coastal management of Fongafale, Funafuti Atoll Tuvalu. SOPAC Technical Report 221.

(2) Understanding from Site Investigation

Figure 6.7.2 shows the location of the coastal area surrounding the project site. There exists an impermeable type concrete jetty with a length of 46 m (Point A). Figure 6.7.3 shows the beach condition at both sides of this jetty, which was taken in May 2012. It is clear that the northward littoral drift exists in this area. Figure 6.7.4 shows the beach condition at both sides of Point B. The sandy beach exists from the north side from Point B.

6-32 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

The beach conditions in May 2012 and in March 2013 were compared. According to the wind condition presented in Chapter 3, the waves at the lagoon side become strong during the summer season (from December to March). Figures 6.7.5 and 6.7.6 show the nearly south end of the sandy beach (Point C). Although the sandy beach existed in May 2012, it disappeared in March 2013. The disappearing of sand might be caused by the strong waves during the summer season. Figure 6.7.7 shows the difference of elevation at the foreshore area. The elevation at the foreshore area was declining at approximately 20 cm to 30 cm. Assuming the beach slope is 1:12 based on the survey result, this decrease in elevation is equivalent to 3 m to 4 m of beach retreat.

A C D B E F

Figure 6.7.2 Location of Surrounding Coast Area (Source: JICA Study Team)

Figures 6.7.8 and 6.7.9 show the beach condition at the small slipway located in the middle of the sandy beach (Point D). Northward littoral drift, even with very small magnitude, was identified in May 2012. However, the slightly opposite littoral drift seems to exist in March 2013.

Figure 6.7.10 shows the beach condition consisting of sands and gravels at Point E. In May 2012, the gravel and sand sections were clearly separated. Gravels existed at the shoulder part of the foreshore area and the sandy beach existed in front. In March 2013, however, gravels were scattered in the foreshore area, and the sandy part was limited.

6-33 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

(1) North Side (2) South Side Figure 6.7.3 Beach Condition at Point A (May 2012)

(1) North Side (2) South Side Figure 6.7.4 Beach Condition at Point B (May 2012) (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-34 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

(1) May 2012 (2) March 2013 Figure 6.7.5 North Side of Point C

(1) May 2012 (2) March 2013 Figure 6.7.6 South Side of Point C

(1) May 2012 (2) March 2013 Figure 6.7.7 Near Point C (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-35 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

(1) May 2012 (2) March 2013 Figure 6.7.8 Slipway (Point D)

(1) May 2012 (2) March 2013 Figure 6.7.9 Slipway (Point D)

(1) May 2012 (2) March 2013 Figure 6.7.10 North of Sandy Beach (Point E)

(Source: JICA Study Team)

6-36 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

(1) May 2012

(2) February 2013

(3) March 2013 Figure 6.7.11 North of Sandy Beach (Point F) (Source: JICA Study Team)

6-37 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Figure 6.7.11 shows the beach condition at the north end of the sandy beach area (Point F) in May 2012, February 2013, and March 2013. The time interval between the photos taken in February 2013 and in March 2013 was only one week. In May 2012, there was no sandy beach around this area. On the other hand, in February 2013, the sandy beach existed, and the area of sandy beach extended 85 m to the north. However, this sandy beach suddenly disappeared just after one week (March 2013), and returned to the same condition as before in May 2012. The storm waves attacked during this period (from February to March 2013). As a result, it was found that sand was always moving not only along the shoreline direction but also along the onshore-offshore direction due to the variable strength of wave actions. Based on these results, the mechanism of sand transportation was concluded as follows:

 From the difference of beach conditions at both sides of the impermeable jetty at Point A, northward littoral drift surely exists in this area located 900 m away from the project site.

 Sandy beach still remains from Point C to Point F at approximately 400 m alongshore. Based on the result of beach change in three different periods from 2012 to 2013, sand is moving both alongshore and in the onshore-offshore direction due to enforcing wave action in a short period. Based on the result of beach change at both sides of the slipway at Point D, the direction of littoral drift seemed to change, and no significant littoral drift was observed.

 There was no sandy beach at the north side of the project area. Also, no significant difference of beach change at both sides of the Catalina Ramp was observed. It was expected that there was no littoral drift at the north side of the project area.

 From the results, no impact on both sides of the beach is expected even though beach nourishment is planned to be implemented at the project site.

(3) Understanding from Wave Characteristics

As presented in Section 6.6 (3), the predicted average direction of the incident waves around the project site was almost perpendicular to the alignment of the shoreline. Also, the stable beach alignment was almost similar to the designed alignment based on the result of the beach change computation. Thus, no significant impact to the surrounding beach and change of the alignment of the beach nourishment are expected based on the results of the numerical analysis.

6-38

Supporting Report-3

Design Drawing

6.00 11.40

+4.20 1 : 3.5 +3.00 1 : 11 ( Initial )

CROSS SECTION LC - 11

6.00 10.81

+4.20 1 : 3.5 +3.00

1 : 11 ( Initial )

CROSS SECTION LC - 12

6.00 10.88

+4.20 1 : 3.5 +3.00

1 : 11 ( Initial )

CROSS SECTION LC - 13 6.00 9.68 +4.20 1 : 3.5 +3.00 1 : 11 ( Initial )

CROSS SECTION LC - 14

4.48 6.00 9.56

+4.20 1 : 3.5 +3.00 1 : 11 ( Initial )

CROSS SECTION LC - 15

2.59 6.00 9.08

+4.20 1 : 3.5 +3.00 1 : 11 ( Initial )

CROSS SECTION LC - 16 0.77 6.00 9.25

+4.20 1 : 3.5 +3.00 1 : 11 ( Initial )

CROSS SECTION LC - 17

6.00 9.70

+4.20 1 : 3.5 +3.00 1 : 11 ( Initial )

CROSS SECTION LC - 18

6.12 6.00 10.39

+4.20 1 : 3.5 +3.00

1 : 11 ( Initial )

CROSS SECTION LC - 19 6.00 10.07

+4.20 1 : 3.5 +3.00 1 : 11 ( Initial )

CROSS SECTION LC - 20

2.46 6.00 10.26

+4.20 1 : 3.5 +3.00 1 : 11 ( Initial )

CROSS SECTION LC - 21

3.42 6.00 9.97

+4.20 1 : 3.5 +3.00 1 : 11 ( Initial )

CROSS SECTION LC - 22 3.08 6.00 9.51

+4.20 1 : 3.5 +3.00 1 : 11 ( Initial )

CROSS SECTION LC - 23

3.96 6.00 7.57

+4.20 1 : 3.5 +3.00 1 : 11 ( Initial )

CROSS SECTION LC - 24 2.52 6.00 7.51

+4.20 1 : 3.5 +3.00 1 : 11 ( Initial )

CROSS SECTION LC - 25

3.52 6.00 7.17

+4.20 1 : 3.5 +3.00 1 : 11 ( Initial )

CROSS SECTION LC - 26

Supporting Report-4

Project Implementation Plan in Phase-1

Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

8. Project Implementation Plan

8.1 Overview

Most construction materials and construction equipment such as backhoe excavators, wheel loaders, crawler cranes, barges, and tugboats need to be procured from foreign countries, mainly from Fiji, as these are not available in Tuvalu. Moreover, ordinary sea transportation arriving at Funafuti Port from Fiji is not so frequent therefore establishing an effective and efficient delivery schedule will be crucial in implementing the pilot construction. Additionally, foremen and construction equipment operators need to be hired from Fiji, while skilled and unskilled workers can be employed in Tuvalu.

Meanwhile, gravels to be used for beach nourishment will be taken from Funamanu Island, as a result of in-depth consideration on suitable mining sites. Gravels will be collected/gathered and stockpiled on the island, and then, will be transported by means of a barge to the pilot construction site. It is therefore necessary to construct a temporary causeway to load gravels onto the barge at Funamanu, hence, sufficient water depths have to be secured at the barge mooring area.

Sand mining will be carried out inside a lagoon and collected sand will be used for beach nourishment and sand bags. Sand mining areas have been determined as a result of the diving surveys, as well as, the seabed material analysis, confirming the potential volume of sand. A self-propelled barge will be used for sand transportation to the pilot construction site. A temporary causeway will be constructed near the Amatuku Jetty.

Other ancillary facilities include sand stoppers to delineate the pilot construction area, and backshore walls plus humps, which will be situated behind the gravel nourishment area. A construction yard will be secured just behind the pilot construction site for the purpose of stocking sand, gravels, and for fabricating gabions and sand bags. Existing concrete debris scattered in the pilot construction site will be utilized as much as possible.

The pilot construction site is located inside a lagoon, providing comparatively calm oceanographic conditions while cyclones may hit Tuvalu during the rainy season (November to March). Therefore, beach nourishment activities should be completed before the rainy season starts, and therefore, such restrictions should be considered in establishing a construction planning and implementation schedule. The construction period is expected to take 5.5 months, including mobilization and demobilization.

8-1 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

8.2 Construction Planning

8.2.1 Procurement

(1) Construction Materials

Table 8.2.1 shows the procurement schedule for construction materials.

Table 8.2.1 List of Construction Materials

Materials Tuvalu Fiji Other South Pacific Nations Geo-textile  Gabion Net  Sand Bags  Cement  (Source: JICA Study Team)

(2) Manpower

Table 8.2.2 shows the manpower procurement schedule.

Table 8.2.2 List of Labor Manpower Tuvalu Fiji Other South Pacific Nations Operator   Crew  Skilled Labor  Unskilled Labor  (Source: JICA Study Team)

(3) Construction Equipment

Table 8.2.3 shows the procurement schedule for construction equipment.

Table 8.2.3 List of Construction Equipment Construction Equipment Tuvalu Fiji Other South Pacific Nations Barge (Self-propelled)  Barge  Tug Boat  Crawler Crane  Backhoe Excavator  Wheel Loader   Breaker  Dump Truck   (Source: JICA Study Team)

8-2 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Figure 8.2.1 shows a self-propelled barge available in Fiji, which is suitable for the pilot construction.

Figure 8.2.1 Self-propelled Barge in Fiji

(Source: JICA Study Team) 8.2.2 Construction Method

(1) Temporary Works

1) Temporary Yard

A temporary yard should be secured near the pilot construction site to be used as material storage for gravels from Funamanu and sand from the lagoon area, and fabrication space for gabions and sandbags for the sand stoppers. The total area required for the temporary yard is assumed at approximately 1500 m2.

The possible temporary yard is situated behind the Prince William Ramp as shown in Figure 8.2.2, and permission for its usage should be obtained from Kaupule.

Candidate of Temporary Yard

Figure 8.2.2 Temporary Yard Area around the Nourishment Site (Source: JICA Study Team)

8-3 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

2) Temporary Access to the Site

The following five access methods have been considered, and a temporary off-loading method has been selected as the best approach to the nourishment area. Table 8.2.4 shows a comparison among the access methods to the nourishment area.

Table 8.2.4 Comparison of Temporary Access to the Site

No. Access Method 1 Temporary off-loading constructed near the site  2 Direct off-loading to site with floating system  3 Transport from Vaiaku Wharf to the site × 4 Transport from Funafuti Port to the site × 5 Transfer from off-shore barge to small barge × (Source: JICA Study Team)

3) Temporary Causeway

(i) Temporary Causeway at the Pilot Construction Site

A temporary causeway for off-loading materials and construction equipment needs to be constructed for easy access to the beach nourishment site. The temporary causeway should be situated near the nourishment site for smooth transportation of collected gravels and sand. Securing sufficient water depths for a barge near the pilot construction site should be the most important factor in selecting the location of a temporary causeway as well as minimizing the volume of the materials.

The materials for the temporary causeway can be obtained from the existing concrete structures. After completion of the transportation of gravels and sand, the materials of the temporary causeway can be used as filling materials for gabions. Figure 8.2.3 depicts the location of the temporary causeway near the nourishment site.

8-4 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Temporary causeway A ppox. 35m ppox.

Figure 8.2.3 Temporary Causeway near the Nourishment Site

(Source: JICA Study Team) (ii) Temporary Causeway at Funamanu Island

The temporary causeway at the gravel borrow pit (Funamanu) should be constructed for easy loading work onto a barge. The location and size of the causeway have been examined to minimize required material volume and damage against the existing corals. Taking into account the draft of a barge and the surrounding water depths with due consideration of tidal fluctuations, a causeway with a length of approximately 20 m needs to be constructed.

The materials to be used for the temporary causeway can be existing gravels under high water levels. The side slope of the causeway can be 1:1.2 and the top elevation and the width of the causeway will be +3.2 m and 3.5 m, respectively. Figure 8.2.4 depicts the temporary causeway on Funamanu Island.

8-5 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Causeway

0 50 100 m

Figure 8.2.4 Temporary Causeway on Funamanu Island

(Source: JICA Study Team)

(2) Beach Nourishment

The nourishment work along the coastline will be carried out from the north to the south in consideration for smooth material transportation due to the narrow accessibility to the nourishment area. Also, in terms of the coastline sections, the removal of the existing concrete debris on the coast shall be done first, then secondly, backfilling with sand from the borrow pit area, and later with the cover materials, the gravels from Funamanu Island, are scheduled. The concrete debris will be filled in as the layer under the cover materials. The following explains the beach nourishment methodology, including gravel collection at Funamanu Island.

Removal of the existing concrete debris along the coastline of the nourishment area

- The existing concrete debris at the present coastline will be shifted to a nearby area by a backhoe excavator prior to backfilling the material from the borrow pit area to the nourishment area.

Gravel collection

- Firstly, a backhoe excavator for gathering gravels from the tidal area and fuel will be brought to Funamanu Island by barge directly under high tide condition. - Gravels should be taken below M.H.W.L. by the backhoe excavator and these will be placed on the crown part of the island. Then, the excavated gravels will be collected and stockpiled at one place.

8-6 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

- Gravels will be collected from the western part of Funamanu Island; however, if the volume of the collected gravels is not sufficient, gravels from the eastern part of the island will also be collected. In this case, a small pontoon will be deployed to transport the gravels collected from the eastern to the western part.

Figure 8.2.5 depicts the gathering method and position in the section of the shoreline. Figure 8.2.6 shows the topography at the western area of gravel collection on Funamanu Island.

Gravels stockpiled at a high place in Funamanu

MHWL+2.80 m

Collect gravels below MHWL

Figure 8.2.5 Gathering Method and Position in a Section of the Shoreline

(Source: JICA Study Team)

Figure 8.2.6 Location of Gravel Gathering in Funamanu Island

(Source: JICA Study Team)

8-7 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Transportation of gravels from Funamanu Island to pilot construction site

- The gravels will be loaded onto the barge by wheel loader. Figure 8.2.7 shows the transportation route of the gravels collected from Funamanu Island to the pilot construction site.

Figure 8.2.7 Transportation Route of Gravel

(Source: JICA Study Team) Transportation of gravels to nourishment area

- The gravels transported by barge from Funamanu Island to the temporary causeway near the nourishment site will be off-loaded from the barge and conveyed to the proper area by dump truck using the temporary causeway and access in front of the present coastline.

Filling and leveling gravels

- The gravels will be filled and leveled by the backhoe excavator and power shovel.

Sand nourishment

- The borrow pits of sand are located about 500 m to 1000 m from the nourishment site. Figure 8.2.8 shows the locations of sand borrow pit areas and the nourishment site.

8-8 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Catalina Ramp

Top of Catalina Ramp Sand Dredging Site Catalina Ramp

Pilot Project Site

Figure 8.2.8 Relationship between Place of Sand Borrow Pit and Site

(Source: JICA Study Team)

Three dredging methods have been examined by means of dredging equipment for sand collection for beach nourishment and sand bags. Table 8.2.5 shows a comparison of dredging methods for sand collection.

8-9 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Table 8.2.5 Comparison of Dredging Methods for Sand

Dredging Conditions Barge with Sand Pump Barge with Cramshell Bucket Barge with Airlift-pipe

More than 10m depth at Impact to workability Little impact to workability Impact to productibity the borrow area Dredging for varied Depth Affect to the workability Small affect to workability Affect to productibity of sea bed Pollusion around dredging Small affect to the Small affect to the environment Affect to the environment point environment Affect to the environment Pollusion on land area No affect No affect due to overflow water Controll of the dredging Difficult to keep the dredging Easy to control Easy to control point point Productivety Constant Constant Not constant

Maintenance for the Not easy due to various Easy Easy equipment size Total Judgement ○◎ △

(Source: JICA Study Team)

The barge with clamshell method has been selected as the most suitable for dredging work. The following describes the construction method expected to be applied for dredging, transportation, and filling of the sand material from the sea bottom area to the nourishment area according to the working process.

- Firstly, a crawler crane with a clamshell bucket and wheel loader will be installed on the barge in order to dredge sand from the seabed and off-load the sand from the barge to the nourishment area; - Method and procedure of dredging and transporting the sand from the borrow pit to the nourishment area; - Dredging will be carried out by a self-propelled barge (or a barge plus tugboat) composed of one crawler crane with clamshell buckets and one wheel loader; - The barge will be set up in a dredging position with an anchor system continuously to keep the dredging work in the same area. Then, after completion of the proper volume of the dredging, the barge will be moved to the temporary causeway in the nourishment area. The wheel loader and dump trucks will be used for off-loading and transporting sand from the barge to the designated area in the nourishment site; - At the final stage of the nourishment work, sand will be filled into the offshore area by the barge only due to the tidal condition and site situation; and - Final filling and leveling of the sand.

8-10 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Ancillary facilities (backshore walls, sand stoppers)

- Sand stoppers (groins) at both sides of the nourishment area will be constructed in connection with the filling progress in the area. - Firstly, the sandbags to be placed inside the gabions will be filled with sand and kept at the stockyard to set in position at any time. The net gabions will also be filled with gravels and stockpiled in the stockyard. - Both works will be carried out by local manpower with crawler crane and backhoe excavator. - Prior to setting the sandbags in position, some areas under the sandbag would be excavated by the backhoe excavator. Then, the net gabions will cover the sandbags to prevent these from damage. - The progress of these works would be carried out from the coastline side to the off-shore side. - Backshore walls will be constructed with concrete debris. Cement mortar will be used to keep the walls in proper shape.

8.2.3 Construction Flow Chart

The flowchart for the construction procedure is shown in Figure 8.2.9.

8-11 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Mobilization of material & equipment

Fabrication of Modification of barge causeway and yard for transporting sand sandbags, temp. and gravels

Constructing causeway Building up stopper Excavating for sand- on Funamaru Island using concrete debris bag for stopper

Collecting gravels by Transporting sand Removing concrete Setting sandbag backhoe excavator from borrow pit debris from shoreline inside stopper trench

Transporting gravels Backfilling sand from Fabrication of gabions from Funamaru Island sand borrow pit for stopper

Covering gravels on Setting gabion for backfilling sand stopper (groin)

Filing gravels on slope

Construction hump and backshore wall

Filling sand on slope

Cleaning site

Demobilization of equipment

Figure 8.2.9 Construction Flow Chart

(Source: JICA Study Team)

8-12 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

8.3 Cost Estimates

8.3.1 Conditions of Cost Estimates

(1) Manpower

Table 8.3.1 shows the manpower costs used for the estimates. Skilled and unskilled labors are available in Tuvalu while other manpower should be procured from Fiji.

Table 8.3.1 Manpower Costs Description Unit Rate (FjD/month) Foreman 26,850.00 Skilled labor 1,300.00 Unskilled labor 900.00 (Source: JICA Study Team)

(2) Construction Equipment

All the construction equipment will be brought from Fiji and/or other South Pacific nations. A barge with a self-propeller system is suitable for this project because of the narrow and shallow access considering the existing water depths to the nourishment area and the gravel collection site. Table 8.3.2 shows the unit costs applied for construction equipment. The unit costs include operators and fuel costs.

Table 8.3.2 Construction Equipment Costs

Description Specifications Unit Cost (FjD/day) Barge (self-propelled) 300 ton-class 5,560.00 Crawler Crane 50 ton 1,490.00 Backhoe Excavator 20 ton 1,250.00 Wheel Loader 2 m3 1,050.00 Dump Truck 10 ton 835.00 (Source: JICA Study Team)

(3) Materials

Most materials for construction works should be imported to Tuvalu. Table 8.3.3 shows the unit costs for materials.

8-13 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Table 8.3.3 Material Costs

Description Unit Unit Cost (FjD) Sandbag Number 30.00 Gabion Net Number 170.00 Interlocking Concrete Block M2 210.00 Base Gravel M3 25.00 (Source: JICA Study Team)

(4) Exchange Rates

The exchange rates dated 1 March 2013 were used for cost estimates as follows:

- FD 1.00 = JPY 52.93 - AUD 1.00 = JPY 94.76 - USD 1.00 = JPY 92.93

8.3.2 Construction Costs

Based on the preceding conditions, the construction costs were estimated as shown in Table 8.3.4.

8-14 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

Table 8.3.4 Construction Costs

Unit Rate Amount Amount No Description Unit Q'ty in Fj$ in Fj$ in JPY 1 General Requirement 1-1 Mobilization Ls. 1 344,750.00 344,750 18,247,618 1-2 Demobilization Ls. 1 216,350.00 216,350 11,451,406 Sub - Total 561,100 29,699,023

2 Grave l Works 2-1 Gravel Mining m3 3,068.0 202.69 621,840 32,913,991 2-2 Gravel Transportation m3 3,068.0 150.94 463,080 24,510,824 2-3 Gravel Filling & Leveling m3 3,068.0 134.28 411,960 21,805,043 2-4 Excavation of Existing Concrete Debris m3 485.0 48.62 23,580 1,248,089 2-5 Filling of Existing Concrete Debris m3 485.0 122.41 59,370 3,142,454 Sub - Total 1,579,830 83,620,402

3 Sand Works 3-1 Sand Mining m3 4,532.0 125.49 568,710 30,101,820 3-2 Sand Transportation m3 4,532.0 62.18 281,790 14,915,145 3-3 Back Fill Sand m3 174.0 44.38 7,722 408,725 3-4 Sand Filling m3 3,548.0 77.80 276,030 14,610,268 Sub - Total 1,134,252 60,035,958

4 Sand Stopper (Groyne) 4-1 Net Gabion Nos. 994.0 275.67 274,014 14,503,579 4-2 Sand Bag Nos. 325.0 304.98 99,120 5,246,422 Sub - Total 373,134 19,750,000

5 Backshore Wall & Hump 5-1 Backshore Wall L.M 148 353.15 52,266 2,766,439 5-2 Hump L.M 20 2,220.96 44,419 2,351,108 Sub - Total 96,685 5,117,548

Total 3,745,002 198,222,931

Contingencies (10%) 374,500 19,822,293

Grand Total 4,119,502 218,045,224

(Source: JICA Study Team)

8-15 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

8.4 Implementation Schedule

8.4.1 Construction Schedule

(1) Tender Stage

A tentative tender schedule for the pilot construction has been prepared as shown in Table 8.4.1.

Table 8.4.1 Tentative Schedule for Tender Stage

Month 1st 2nd 3rd Work Items Month Month Month 1 Invitation (Prequalification) 2 PQ Evaluation 3 Concurrence by JICA 4 Issuance of Tender Documents Tender 5 Tender Preparation by Tenderers Stage 6 Submission of Tender 7 Tender Evaluation 8 Negotiation for Contract 9 Concurrence by JICA 10 Contract (Source: JICA Study Team) a) Invitation (for Prequalification)

Pre-qualification (PQ) documents will be distributed to applicants who show their intention to implement the pilot construction. Announcement of prequalification will be issued in the local newspapers in Fiji. Seven days will be given for the distribution of the PQ documents.

b) PQ Evaluation

PQ evaluation will be conducted in accordance with PQ evaluation criteria, which are prepared in advance. Depending on the number of applicants who submit PQ documents, the PQ evaluation will be completed within five working days in normal cases. The JICA Expert Team will prepare a PQ evaluation report for JICA’s concurrence.

c) Issuance of Tender Documents

The results of the PQ evaluation will be announced once JICA’s concurrence is received. Then, the tender documents will be distributed to prequalified applicants. The tender documents include the following:

- Instruction to Tenderers - Forms of Contract - Conditions of Contract

8-16 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

- Bill of Quantities - General Specifications - Technical Specifications - Drawings - Addendum (if any)

d) Tender Preparation by Tenderers

Tenderers are advised to visit in advance the pilot construction site and gravel collection site for better understanding of the pilot construction. The tenderers will be given 28 days for tender preparation and if they have questions about the tender documents, then they can submit a letter to indicate such within 14 days after distribution of the tender documents. If deemed necessary, the JICA Expert Team will issue addenda to the documents.

e) Tender Evaluation

Tenders include technical and financial envelopes, which are separately sealed properly. Initially, technical evaluation will be carried out based on the tender evaluation criteria, which are prepared in advance. Then financial evaluation will proceed. The first ranked tenderer will be invited to negotiate and this will include clarifications. If the negotiation is successful, a tender evaluation report will be prepared and submitted to JICA for their concurrence. The tender evaluation, negotiation with the tenderer and JICA’s concurrence are expected to take 14, 3, and 14 days, respectively.

f) Commencement of Construction Works

After the issuance of a “Notice to Proceed” (NTP) by the JICA Expert Team, the Contractor will mobilize their personnel and equipment.

(2) Construction Stage

The construction schedule is shown in Table 8.4.2

Table 8.4.2 Construction Schedule

Work Itemss 1st month 2nd month 3rd month 4th month 5th month 6th month

Mobilization and Site Preparation

Removal of Concrete Debris

Gravel Work

Sand Work

Gabion Work

Backshore Walls & Humps

Demobilization

(Source: JICA Study Team)

8-17 Project for Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island in Tuvalu Interim Report

8.4.2 Implementation Schedule

The construction period is expected to take 5.5 months. Activities for the pilot construction should be carried out taking into account the oceanographic conditions, i.e., during the monsoon season, beach nourishment activities should be avoided. After completion of the pilot construction, monitoring will be carried out at the pilot construction site. Table 8.4.3 presents an overall implementation schedule.

Table 8.4.3 Implementation Schedule (Pilot Construction and Monitoring)

Month 1234567 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Work Items Tender Stage

Construction Stage

Monitoring Stage

(Source: JICA Study Team)

8-18

Supporting Report-5

Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report (PEAR)

The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report

March 2015

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Trade, Tourism, Environment and Labour

The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Project justification ...... 2 3. Relevant laws and regulations ...... 2 4. Project description ...... 2 4.1 Location and design ...... 2 4.2 Sources of gravel, sand and rocks ...... 8 4.3 Construction plan ...... 11 4.3.1 Construction method ...... 11 4.3.2 Construction equipment ...... 12 4.3.3 Temporary yard ...... 12 4.3.4 Construction schedule ...... 12 4.3.5 Workforce ...... 13 4.4 Maintenance and management ...... 13 5. Environmental status ...... 13 5.1 Physical environment ...... 13 5.1.1 Climate ...... 13 5.1.2 Hydrology ...... 13 5.1.3 Coastal topography ...... 14 5.1.4 Air quality ...... 16 5.1.5 Noise ...... 16 5.1.6 Seawater quality ...... 16 5.2 Social environment ...... 18 5.2.1 Demography ...... 18 5.2.2 Livelihood ...... 19 5.2.3 Land/water use ...... 19 5.2.4 Fisheries ...... 19 5.3 Biological environment ...... 20 5.3.1 Protected area ...... 20 5.3.2 Threatened species ...... 20 5.3.3 Ecosystem ...... 21 6. Analysis of alternatives ...... 26 7. Potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures ...... 27 7.1 Scoping of environmental impacts ...... 27 7.2 Method of impact assessment ...... 29 7.3 Construction phase ...... 30 7.3.1 Physical environment ...... 30 7.3.2 Natural environment ...... 32 7.3.3 Social environment ...... 33 7.4 Post‐construction phase ...... 34 7.4.1 Physical environment ...... 34 7.4.2 Natural environment ...... 34 7.5 Accumulative impacts ...... 34 7.6 Grievance mechanism ...... 35 8. Public consultation ...... 35 9. Environmental management plan ...... 36 9.1 Mitigation measures ...... 36 9.2 Environmental monitoring plan ...... 40 10. Conclusion ...... 44 List of References

Appendix 1 Minutes of Meeting with Funafuti Community Appendix 2 Minutes of Meeting with Fale Kaupule

The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

List of abbreviations

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment FCA Funafuti Conservation Area DO Dissolved oxygen DoE Department of Environment GoJ Government of Japan GoT Government of Tuvalu IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency PEAR Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report PPE Personal Protective Equipment PWD Public Works Department SWAT Solid Waste Authority of Tuvalu

The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

1. Introduction

Tuvalu, comprised of small atoll islands with an elevation of almost less than 2 m above mean sea level, is susceptible to coastal disaster especially from high waves generated from cyclones and low pressure systems. The ongoing coastal erosion and sea‐level rise from climate change effects will also increase the risk of coastal disaster in the future.

Under such circumstances, the Government of Tuvalu (GoT) requested the Government of Japan (GoJ) in 2008 to conduct a comprehensive study on strengthening the resilience of the coastal area. A coastal protection plan for Fongafale Island was subsequently established through Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) project titled “the Study for Assessment of Ecosystem, Coastal Erosion and Protection/Rehabilitation of the Damaged Area in Tuvalu (hereinafter abbreviated as “J‐PACE”)”. Considering the unique natural and social environment of Tuvalu, the study proposed gravel nourishment as a countermeasure to reduce the disaster risk associated with high waves and coastal erosion. The main concept of gravel nourishment is to artificially recreate the natural beach that existed in the past, which used to protect the coastline by its natural wave absorbing function. In addition, gravel nourishment has numerous natural and social environmental benefits compared to other hard‐structure measures such as:

 enables easier beach access  does not restrict beach use  provides natural habitat to marine organisms  does not obstruct the intertidal ecosystem  no obstruction to natural landscape

However, since gravel nourishment has never been applied in Tuvalu, the GoT requested the GoJ for assistance to examine the effectiveness and adequacy of gravel nourishment in Tuvalu. For this purpose, JICA established the “Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island (hereinafter abbreviated as “Project”)”. On a pilot basis, the Project will conduct gravel nourishment along the coast of Senala, Fongafale Island, and then examine its effectiveness and adequacy by monitoring the Project site and adjacent areas after the construction works are completed. GoT officers will also be trained by JICA so that monitoring can be continuously implemented on a long‐term basis.

This Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report (PEAR) was prepared with the assistance of JICA experts, and in accordance to the requirements stipulated in the Environment Protection Act 2008 and Environment Protection (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2014 (hereinafter abbreviated as “EIA Regulation”). The requirements under the JICA Guidelines for Environmental and Social Considerations 2010 (hereinafter abbreviated as “JICA Environmental Guideline”) were also adhered were appropriate. While this report is a PEAR, it incidentally also covers the requirements of a Full Environmental Impact Assessment (Full EIA) under Part III of the EIA Regulation. This is because the requirements of JICA Environmental Guideline are more or less in line with the requirements of Full EIA. Table 1‐1 shows the key requirements of a Full EIA and the corresponding requirements of PEAR and JICA Environmental Guideline. The table also shows the relevant chapters in this report.

1 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Table 1‐1 Key requirements of Full EIA and corresponding requirements of PEAR and JICA Environmental Guideline Key requirements of full EIA Requirements of PEAR Requirements of Relevant chapter (Regulations 12, 13, 16) (Regulation 8) JICA Guideline in this report Description of the project Required Required Ch. 4 Justification of the project Required Required Ch. 2 Description of project affected area Required Required Ch. 5 Analysis of alternatives including no option Not required Required Ch. 6 Assessment of environmental impacts Direct and indirect impacts Required Required Ch.7 Accumulative impacts Not required Required Ch. 7.5 Proposal of mitigation measures Required Required Ch.7 & 9.1 Monitoring plan Not required Required Ch.9.2 Public consultation Not required Required Ch.8

2. Project justification

The shoreline along the coast of Senala area is under serious threat from coastal erosion and high waves. The area is especially sensitive to such threats as residential houses (around 30 households) and important social infrastructures (e.g. Tausoalima community hall) are located immediately behind the shore. While concrete blocks have been installed in the past as protective measures, these measures have not been as effective as initially planned and most are damaged or destroyed. From such reasons, the coast of Senala area was chosen as the Project site based on the decision of Fale Kaupule.

3. Relevant laws and regulations

Table 3‐1 lists Tuvalu’s environmental laws and regulations that are relevant to the Project.

Table 3‐1 Tuvalu’s environmental laws and regulations relevant to the Project Category Title Basic environmental law Environment Protection Act EIA regulation Environment Protection (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2014 Conservation area Conservation Areas Act (1999) Kaupule o Funafuti Conservation Area Order (1999) Wildlife protection Wildlife Conservation Act (2008) Marine pollution prevention Marine Pollution Act (2008) Waste management Wastes Operations and Services Act (2009) Jurisdiction of foreshore area Foreshore and Land Reclamation Ordinance (1978)

In Tuvalu, there are currently no environmental quality standards (e.g., water quality, air quality, noise, and wastewater). Hence, the standards of other countries, international standards or other projects will be referred to when necessary.

4. Project description

4.1 Location and design

Gravel nourishment will be implemented over a distance of approximately 180 m along the coast of Senala; from Amatuku jetty and up to the private seawall located southward. Figure 4‐1 shows the location of the Project site.

2 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Figure 4‐1 Location of the Project site

Although the Project is termed gravel nourishment, sand will also be used for additional protection and to enable easier and safer water access. Groins will be constructed at both edges of the gravel nourishment to prevent/minimize outflow of gravel and sand by waves. Rocks will also be placed along the landward edge of the gravel nourishment to mark the boundary between private and public land as well as to minimize gravel scattering inland. However, gaps will be left in areas where boat landing is conducted. Figure 4‐2 shows an image of the gravel nourishment. Figure 4‐3 shows the layout of the gravel nourishment. Figure 4‐4 shows a typical cross‐section of the gravel

3 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island nourishment. Figure 4‐5 shows the cross‐section of the groin. Figure 4‐6 shows an image and cross section of the backshore boundary. Table 4‐1 provides the main specifications of the gravel nourishment structures.

Figure 4‐2 Image of gravel nourishment (left: before, right: after)

4 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Figure 4‐3 Layout of the gravel nourishment

5 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Figure 4‐4 Typical cross‐section of the gravel nourishment

6 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Figure 4‐5 Cross‐section of the groin (south side)

Figure 4‐6 Image and cross‐section of the backshore boundary

7 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Table 4‐1 Main specifications of the gravel nourishment structures Type Specification Gravel nourishment Length: approx. 180 m Width: approx. 20 m (during mean water level) Sand volume: approx. 3,900 m3 (design vol.) Gravel volume: approx. 2,700 m3 (design vol.) Groin Length: approx. 46 m (south side), 51 m (north side) Max. bottom width: approx. 10 m Armor rock: 0.5 t and 1 t Backshore boundary Rock: 1.5 t / unit, Diameter: approx. 80 cm

4.2 Sources of gravel, sand and rocks

Gravels will be collected from the northern and southern spits of Funamanu and the southern spit of Papaelise. Figure 4‐7 shows the location of the gravel collection sites.

Figure 4‐7 Location of gravel collection sites

8 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Among other candidate sites (Fongafale and Fatato), these sites were selected as they were identified as having the highest rate of gravel accumulation over the past decades (see Chapter 6 for more details). Gravels will be collected only from the intertidal zone below the high water line (H.W.L). Figures 4‐8 to 4‐10 shows the gravel collection area of each site. Table 4‐2 shows the volume of gravel collection of each site.

Figure 4‐8 Gravel collection area of south Papaelise

9 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Figure 4‐9 Gravel collection area of north Funamanu

Figure 4‐10 Gravel collection area of south Funamanu

10 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Table 4‐2 Volume of gravel collection of each site Site Quantity (m3) Main use Papaelise 1,340 Coral material of groin and gravel beach Funamanu south 1,350 Gravel beach under layer Funamanu north 900 Gravel beach surface later Total Approx. 3,600 Note: The total gravel volume required is greater than the design volume (2,700 m3). This is because of expected gravel loss during construction.

Sand is planned to be collected from the sand stockpile available through the New Zealand Aid burrow pit project (waiting for GoT approval). The stockpile is planned to be located on the northern tip of Fongafale at around the waste disposal site. The required volume is around 4,500 m3.

Armor rocks for constructing the groins and marking public‐private boundary will be procured from Fiji. Prior to import, these rocks will be fumigated in Fiji in accordance to Fiji and Tuvalu regulations and standard. (The Fiji authority (Biosecurity Authority Fiji) will check whether fumigation was successfully conducted. Necessary documents will then be submitted to GoT for import approval. The JICA supervising consultants will also check whether the necessary procedures have been followed.)

4.3 Construction plan

4.3.1 Construction method

Following provides a brief description of the construction procedure. Note that the construction plan is still not finalized and is still subject to changes. Any major alterations will be reported to DoE and PEAR amended if necessary. The construction works will be supervised throughout by the JICA supervising consultants.

1) Gravel/sand collection and transportation

At each sites, gravels will be collected from the foreshore zone with a backhoe excavator. The collected gravels will then be loaded onto small barges for transportation to the Project site with a tug boat. Once the barge arrives at the Project site, the gravels will be dumped directly onto the gravel nourishment area. Care will be taken to minimize coral damage during these processes.

Sand will be transported from the sand stockpile with dump trucks. Two dump trucks will be used which is estimated to travel through the island’s main road around every one hour at peak times.

2) Groin

Groins will be constructed from both the land and sea sides. Construction works in general will be carried out by first constructing the core layer with core materials (e.g. concrete debris, rubbles), and then placing armor rocks over the core layer. Machines such backhoe and crawler crane will be used. As for the offshore component of the groins, the above works will be conducted from the sea by loading a backhoe on to barge.

3) Gravel nourishment

Gravel nourishment works in general will be carried out through the following steps:

 Step 1: Backfilling of the backshore area with concrete debris and rocks available at the Project site.  Step 2: Filling of the under layer with rough gravels from Funangongo. Smooth gravels from

11 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Funamanu will then be laid over the rough gravel layer.  Step 3: Once the gravels are placed, sand will be laid into the foreshore area.

Machines such backhoe and wheel loader will be used for the gravel component. Sand will be dumped directly from the dump truck.

4) Backshore protection

Armor rocks will be placed along the land boundary of the gravel nourishment with backhoe.

4.3.2 Construction equipment

Table 4‐3 shows the main equipment/machines required for the construction.

Table 4‐3 Main construction machines required for the construction Type Quantity Main use Specification Barge 1 Transportation of heavy equipment 160 t Small barge 6 Transportation of gravels 20 t, full draft: 1.0 m Tug boat 1 Tugging of barge ‐ Small tug boat 12 Tugging of small barge ‐ Backhoe excavator 4 Collection of gravel (3 excavators) 20 t Gravel laying works at Project site (1 excavator) Wheel loader 1 Gravel laying works at Project site ‐ Crawler crane 1 Placement of armor rocks ‐ Dump truck 2 Transportation of sand, rocks etc. 10 t

4.3.3 Temporary yard

A temporary yard will be established for stocking construction materials and equipment in the vacant space around Tausoalima community hall.

4.3.4 Construction schedule

Construction is currently scheduled roughly between July 2015 and December 2015. Table 4‐4 shows the schedule of major construction works.

Table 4‐4 Schedule of major construction works 123456 No Work Item Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

1 Mobilization & preparation

2Removal of concrete debris

3Gravel transportation & filling

4Groin construction

5Sand transportation & fill

6Backshore protection

7 Demobilization

Offshore work Land work

12 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

4.3.5 Workforce

The total workforce is estimated to be around 45 workers. Around 5 will be skilled workers (e.g. machine operator) and 40 unskilled workers. The local workforce will be employed as much as possible especially for unskilled works.

4.4 Maintenance and management

Subject to the Foreshore and Land Reclamation Ordinance, the ownership of the new gravel nourishment beach will lie under the GoT. Beach maintenance and management will be conducted by Funafuti Kaupule and GoT. Daily management requirements (e.g. beach cleaning, waste collection) will be the responsibility of Funafuti Kaupule with the support of the local community (see Appendix 2 for the agreement between Fale Kaupule and GoT). If any significant maintenance is required (e.g. additional sand filling), it will be considered by GoT and Funafuti Kaupule.

5. Environmental status

5.1 Physical environment

5.1.1 Climate

1) Wind

Tuvalu is located within the trade wind zone, hence wind pattern is strongly influenced by the easterly trade winds. According to the meteorological data of Fongafale Island (1999‐2008), winds most frequently blow from between the northeast and southeast direction. During the dry season (May to September), southeasterly winds predominate. Although winds can be quite strong during this season it rarely exceeds 8 m/s. During the wet season (December to February), northerly winds becomes most frequent, fluctuating between northeast and northwest directions. The northwesterly winds can be very strong during this season, occasionally exceeding 12 m/s.

2) Rainfall

According to Tuvalu’s meteorological data, average annual rainfall from 1993‐2008 was 3,493 mm. Monthly rainfall was highest from December‐March (around 350‐400 mm). Monthly rainfall in the other months (April‐November) fluctuated between around 200‐250 mm.

5.1.2 Hydrology

1) Currents

Currents inside Funafuti lagoon is driven mainly by wind and tide. According to SOPAC (2008), during spring tide, tidal current becomes stronger and overcomes wind‐induced current, and vice versa during neap tide.

According to the current measurements conducted by J‐PACE in November 2004, in the Project’s offshore area (i.e. Vaiaku reef), average current speed was 2 cm/sec. Current direction alternated mainly between the east and west directions. The westward current tended to be stronger.

2) Waves

Table 5‐1 shows the wave observation results conducted by J‐PACE in the offshore area of the Project site. The results show that waves are generally stronger during the wet season (February) compared

13 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island to the dry season (November).

Table 5‐1 Wave observation results in the offshore area of the Project site Observation period Wave category Nov. 1‐21, 2009 Feb. 2‐19, 2010 Feb. 20‐Mar. 19, 2010 Significant wave height Max. 0.3 m 0.9 m 1.4 m Ave. 0.2 m 0.4 m 0.4 m Significant wave period Max. 4.0 sec. 4.5 sec. 4.5 sec. Ave. 2.5 sec. 3.6 sec. 3.1 sec. Wave direction Ave. 70.7˚ 79.8˚ 76.8˚ Source: J‐PACE

5.1.3 Coastal topography

1) Fongafale and Project site

The coastline of Fongafale lagoon side extends over a distance of around 12 km, more or less in the north‐south direction. The coastline is bordered by a shallow reef flat with varying width. The reef flat is widest at the central area of the island (around 200‐300 m) where the project is located.

The shoreline of Fongafale is comprised of a mixture of gravel and sandy beach, which is sometimes interspersed by man‐made structures such as seawalls, ramps, jetties and port. The shoreline at the Project site is mostly comprised of gravel and debris of old seawalls. Figure 5‐1 shows the shoreline at the Project site during low tide.

Figure 5‐1 Shoreline at the Project site (left: north‐side, right: south‐side)

The longshore drift processes of Fongafale has been analyzed through comparison of past aerial photos/satellite images, relevant literatures and numerical simulation (Details of these analyses are included the Interim Report (March 2013) of phase 1 of this Project). According to these analyses, no major longshore drift has been identified to occur around the Project site partly due to the presence of artificial structures (e.g. ramps, wharfs, port) in the down and upstream areas.

A sandy beach of approximately 300‐400 m length lay south of the Project site. It is one of the longest remaining sandy beach in Fongafale. The shape of this sandy beach show seasonal changes, which is most drastic during the wet season (December‐March) when strong westerly waves frequently hit the coast. Figure 5‐2 shows photos of the sandy beach in May 2012, February 2013, March 2013 and February 2015, taken more or less from the same place. Note that the sand present in February 2013 had completely disappeared in March 2013, probably due to the storm that occurred during this period. However, it appears that the beach has the capability to recover as evidenced by the photo of February 2015.

14 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

May 2012 February 2013

March 2013 February 2015 Figure 5‐2 Changes in the profile of the sandy beach south of the Project site

The shoreline north of the Project site after Catalina ramp is mainly comprised of gravel beach.

2) Gravel collection site

The shorelines of Funamanu and Papaelise are comprised from a combination of coral rocks and rubble. It is fringed by a shallow reef flat with varying width. Figure 5‐3 shows the shoreline of the gravel collection sites.

Figure 5‐3 Shoreline of the gravel collection sites (left: south Funamanu, right: Papaelise)

15 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

5.1.4 Air quality

While there are no air quality data available around the Project area, air quality should be relatively good due to limited air pollution sources.

5.1.5 Noise

A preliminary noise survey was conducted on the morning of February 13th, 2015 (Friday) at the Project site and at sensitive receptors found along the main road of Fongafale. Each measurement was conducted for 10 minutes, using IEC‐compliant sound level meter (RION NL‐27). Table 5‐2 shows the results of the noise survey.

Table 5‐2 Results of noise survey Main noise source St. Location Time L (dB) Aeq (numbers indicate traffic volume) Entrance of waste disposal site N1 08:45‐08:55 59.2 Truck: 2, bike: 1, wave 08°27'30.37''S / 179°11'01.49''E Front of Taunu church N2 09:05‐09:15 52.7 Truck: 1, bike: 8 08°28'43.42''S / 179°11'30.11''E Project site N3 09:40‐09:50 46.7 None 08°31'05.54''S / 179°11'51.09''E Front of Nauti primary school N4 09:55‐10:05 63.6 Truck:1, bike: 43, car: 4, school bell, students 08°30'58.53''S / 179°11'57.08''E

The main findings of the survey are as follows:

 Noise level was highest in front of Nauti primary school (Station N4: 63.6 dB), mainly due to the passing bikes and cars. The Japanese daytime noise standard for roadside area is 65 dB.  Noise level was lowest at the Project site (Station N3: 46.7 dB), as there was no major noise source. The Japanese daytime noise standard for residential area is 55 dB.

5.1.6 Seawater quality

Water quality survey was conducted on October 2012 in the offshore area of the Project site and at the reef of south Funamanu. Figure 5‐4 shows the location of the surveyed sites at the offshore area of the Project site. Surveyed parameters were water temperature, salinity, turbidity and dissolved oxygen (DO). A multi‐parameter water quality meter (RINKO Profiler ASTD‐102) was used for the survey, which was set to measure every 0.5 m. Table 5‐3 shows the results of the water quality survey.

16 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Note: Station 7 is not included in the figure as it was located in Funamanu. Prepared using Google Earth Figure 5‐4 Location of water quality survey sites (offshore of Project site)

Table 5‐3 Results of water quality survey Water Salinity Turbidity DO conc. St. GPS coordinate Depth (m) DO sat. (%) temp. (°C) (‰) (FTU) (mg/l) 1 8°30'58.80''S 0.5‐2.5 29.75 35.16 0.00 102.37 6.38 179°11'38.02''E 3.0‐5.0 29.74 35.15 0.00 101.94 6.36 5.5‐7.5 29.73 35.15 0.09 101.28 6.32 2 8°30'52.56''S 0.5‐2.0 29.77 35.13 0.00 106.33 6.64 179°11'29.34''E 2.5‐4.0 29.77 35.14 0.00 106.40 6.64 4.5‐6.0 29.71 35.15 0.05 104.79 6.54 3 8°30'59.32''S 0.5‐2.0 29.78 35.15 0.01 108.58 6.77 179°11'30.33''E 2.5‐4.0 29.74 35.14 0.03 106.92 6.67 4.5‐6.0 29.69 35.14 0.21 103.43 6.46 4 8°31'09.88''S 0.5‐2.0 29.84 35.11 0.25 111.69 6.96 179°11'25.66''E 2.5‐4.0 29.82 35.12 0.46 111.08 6.92 4.5‐5.5 29.80 35.12 0.07 108.70 6.78 5 8°31'16.38''S 0.5‐1.0 29.77 35.06 0.08 105.49 6.59 179°11'26.37''E 1.5‐2.5 29.77 35.06 0.13 105.69 6.60 3.0‐3.5 29.77 35.06 0.14 105.55 6.59 6 8°31'22.93''S 0.5‐1.0 30.05 35.01 0.69 130.26 8.11 179°11'33.90''E 1.5‐2.0 30.05 35.02 0.90 138.22 8.59 7 8°33'53.26''S 0.5‐4.5 30.48 35.05 0.13 109.73 6.76 179°07'49.06''E 5.0‐9.0 30.38 35.04 0.07 103.03 6.36 (reef at Funamanu) 9.5‐13.5 30.35 35.03 0.00 102.88 6.36 Note: The values are average of respective depth range. Survey of Station 7 was conducted on November 2012.

The main findings of the survey are as follows:

 Water temperature and salinity were more or less uniform throughout the water column for all the sites. Water temperature was around 29‐30°C. Salinity was around 34‐35 ‰.  Turbidity was within the range of 0‐0.5 FTU. Slightly higher turbidity was recorded at St.6 (0.69‐0.90 FTU), which was probably due to sediments suspended through strong onshore wind condition.

17 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

 Except for St.6, DO concentration was more or less similar at all the sites and depths (around 6‐7 mg/l), and were all well saturated. DO concentration (8.11‐8.59 mg/l) and saturation (130‐138%) at St.6 were higher than the other sites.

5.2 Social environment

5.2.1 Demography

According to the 2012 Population and Housing Census, the population of Funafuti is around 6,200 people, accounting to around 60% of the country's population (Kaly, UL and Peacock‐Taylor, C, 2014).

The JICA Project Team conducted a social survey in July 2012 (hereinafter abbreviated as “JICA 2012 social survey”) targeting specifically the residential area behind the Project site. Figure 5‐5 shows the boundary of the JICA 2012 social survey. According to this survey, there were 34 households within the survey boundary with a total population of 255 people; consisting of 77 adult male, 80 adult female and 98 children (below age of 18). Over half of the households (19) were from Funafuti. Four households were from Nukufetau. Three households were from Nukulaelae. Four households were from Nanumanga (2) and Vaitupu (2). Three households were from Nui (1), Nanumea (1) and Niutao (1).

Prepared using Google Earth Figure 5‐5 Boundary of the JICA 2012 social survey

There are no permanent residents in Funamanu. Around two families live in Papaelise but they are far from the gravel collection site.

18 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

5.2.2 Livelihood

According to the July 2012 social survey, occupations of the residents behind the Project area were: government/council officers, fishermen, retail, carpenter, seafarer, teacher, labor and so on. Some residents were unemployed or retired.

5.2.3 Land/water use

The land behind the Project area is mainly residential area. Other notable land uses are Tausoalima community hall and Fetuaolima church. The sea area in front of the Project site is used for swimming, subsistence fishing, washing, toilet and boat mooring. According to the JICA 2012 socioeconomic survey, twelve households owned a boat, which were either moored in the adjacent sea or parked near their house. The boats are used mainly for fishing, coconut collection and transportation. The boats are moved ashore during adverse weather conditions and maintenance by using private boat ramps. Figure 5‐6 shows the main land and water use features around the Project site.

Prepared using Google Earth Figure 5‐6 Main land and water use features around the Project site

A navigation tower was recently installed at the south side of Funamanu, as part of Tuvalu Ship to Shore Transport Project. The gravel collection works will not affect the navigation tower.

5.2.4 Fisheries

In Funafuti, fishing activities are conducted on a subsistence and commercial basis. Commercial fishery is conducted by licensed fishermen and their catches are sold to the local residents. They

19 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island mainly fish in the open sea by trolling and handline.

Subsistence fishery is conducted freely by the local residents for self‐consumption. They fish in the open sea and throughout the lagoon (except the Funafuti Conservation Area), but their fishing range is inevitably limited by mode and capacity of transport (e.g. motorboat, canoe). Coral reefs and reef passages are some of the main fishing areas. The main fishing methods are handline, spear fishing, gill net, scoop net and diving (for shell collection).

The seas adjacent to the Project site and gravel collection sites are rarely fished due to limited fish resources.

5.3 Biological environment

5.3.1 Protected area

The Funafuti Conservation Area (FCA) is established under Tuvalu Conservation Area Act and Kaupule o Funafuti Conservation Area Order. It covers 33 square kilometers of water and land on the western side of the atoll. It includes reef, lagoon, channel, ocean and islands habitats. Fishing, hunting and collecting of animals and marine plants and destruction of habitats by any people is prohibited. Figure 5‐7 shows the boundary of FCA.

Source: Kaupule o Funafuti Conservation Area Order Figure 5‐7 Boundary of Funafuti Conservation Area

5.3.2 Threatened species

There is limited information on the status of threatened species in Tuvalu. According to one study (Job, S., et al. 2012), at least 11 fish species in Tuvalu are classified as threatened under IUCN Red List,

20 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island which include sharks, rays, wrasses and groupers. Within this list, the following two fish species have been spotted at Funamanu by J‐PACE’s survey, which are both categorized as Vulnerable (VU) under IUCN Red List:

 Blacksaddled coralgrouper (Plectropomus laevis)  Squaretail coralgrouper (Plectropomus areolatus)

These species are reliant on a healthy coral ecosystem. Hence damage to corals must be minimized during this Project.

5.3.3 Ecosystem

1) Project site

A shallow reef flat stretches along the Project site, which extends offshore for about 200 m before sloping to deeper waters. Diving survey was conducted along the reef flat adjacent to the Project site in June 2012 to study the marine flora/fauna characteristics. Survey was conducted along 8 transects of 200 m length with 50 m interval between each transect. Following are the main findings of the survey:

 The seabed mainly consisted of sandy and rocky substrate.  Although the rocky substrates were once colonized by corals, they are now mostly dead and instead dominated by algae growth, most notably Sargassum sp. According to local people, these Sargassum sp. were formerly non‐existent and has only rapidly increased in recent years.  Some corals that remained included, Acropora sp., Porites sp., Pocillopora sp., Montipora sp., Goniastrea sp. and Pavona sp. but as mentioned above vary rare and stressed by algae.  Common algae species were Padina sp., Sargassum sp., Turbinaria sp., Halimeda sp., Cauperpa sp. and Dictyopteris sp.  Other common fauna included sea cumber (Holothuria atra) and young reef fishes such as damsel fish, butterfly fish and triggerfish.  Based on the above findings, the seas adjacent to the Project site appear to be in a stressed or degraded state, probably due to human activities. (No significant changes were observed in the area when field reconnaissance was conducted in 2015)

Figure 5‐8 shows common marine flora/fauna at the surveyed area.

21 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Sargassum sp. Dead coral covered by algae

Live coral stressed by algae Sea cucumber Note: Photo taken during June 2012 survey Figure 5‐8 Common marine flora/fauna at the surveyed area

A more detailed diving survey was also conducted by J‐PACE along the coast of Fongafale in 2010. Figure 5‐9 shows the coral distribution and percent coverage along the central area of Fongafale based on the survey results. The figure shows that coral distribution is limited to the offshore area and in general very low percent coverage (1‐5%). Relatively high coral coverage (5‐20%) is found in the offshore reef patches but these corals are also highly threatened by algae.

22 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Source: J‐PACE Figure 5‐9 Coral distribution and percent coverage in the central area of Fongafale

2) Gravel collection site

Diving surveys were conducted in June 2012 and February 2015 along the reefs adjacent to the gravel collection sites: southern tip of Papaelise and northern/southern tip of Funamanu. In general, the three sites had similar reef profiles. The shallow inner reef flat was mainly comprised of sand, rubbles, algae with patchy distribution of live and dead corals. An exception was at the southern tip of Funamanu, were live coral coverage was high (around 20‐50%) from the nearshore area. In the outer reef flats and reef slope, live branching and tabular Acropora corals were densely distributed. No significant changes were observed in the area between 2012 and 2015. Figure 5‐10 shows a

23 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island typical cross‐section profile of the reefs adjacent to the gravel collection sites.

Note: Photo taken during February 2015 survey Figure 5‐10 Typical cross‐section profile of the reefs adjacent to the gravel collection sites

A more detailed diving survey was also conducted by J‐PACE at Funamanu in 2010. Figure 5‐11 shows the coral distribution and percent coverage at south and north of Funamanu based on the survey results. The figures show that coral coverage is relatively high (>50%) at the outer reef area. A similar trend was seen during both the June 2012 and February 2015 surveys.

24 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Source: J‐PACE Figure 5‐11 Coral distribution and percent coverage at Funamanu (left: southern tip, right: northern tip)

25 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

6. Analysis of alternatives

Various alternatives were considered during the course of determining the gravel collection sites. Initially, the following three options were considered:

Option 1: Gravel spits of Fongafale, Fatato, Papaelise and Funamanu (Figure 6‐1) Option 2: North side of the airport runway Option 3: Import from Fiji

Prepared using Google Earth Figure 6‐1 Location of candidate gravel borrow sites of Option 1

Through the initial screening procedure, Option 2 was eliminated as the area has been designated as Runway End Safety Area (RESA) by the Civil Aviation Authority, which prohibits any activity apart from airport related development. Option 3 was also eliminated mainly due to its high cost. As a result, Option 1 remained as the only viable option.

Further investigation was conducted to select the most appropriate sites within Option 1 by taking into account the volume of past gravel accumulation along the island spits. Gravel accumulation was estimated by comparing aerial photos of 1971 and 1984 and recent satellite image (2010). Figure 6‐2 shows the fluctuation of gravel spit surface area of Fongafale, Fatato, Papaelise and Funamanu during the period between 1971 and 2010.

26 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Papaelise

Note: The estimated areas include both northern (E) and southern (W) spits of the islands. Figure 6‐2 Fluctuation of gravel spit surface area of Fongafale, Fatato, Papaelise and Funamanu (1971‐2010)

According to the analysis, the surface area of the gravel spits of all islands have increased since 1971, which is partly due to the 1972 Hurricane Bebe creating enormous rubble piles along the reef flat of the outer atoll (Maragos et al., 1973). Within these islands, Funamanu had the highest increase rate (approx. 15,000 m2) and then decreased in the order of Papaelise (approx. 9,000 m2), Fatato (approx. 7,000 m2) and Fongafale (approx. 4,000 m2). The two islands with the highest gravel accumulation rate: Funamanu and Papaelise were selected as the most appropriate gravel collection site.

7. Potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures

7.1 Scoping of environmental impacts

This chapter will assess the potential environmental impacts of the construction and operation phases, covering physical, biological and social environmental aspects. The potential environmental impacts have been identified through a scoping exercise based on JICA’s “Guidelines for environmental and social considerations (2010)”, which provides a list of items to be considered in the scoping process. Scoping was conducted based on information collected through field surveys, interview surveys, field reconnaissance and so on.

Table 7‐1 shows the results of the scoping including the rationale behind the rating. Items rated as having potential negative impacts (e.g. A‐, B‐, C‐) are assessed in detail in the ensuing sections.

27 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island Table 7‐1 Results of scoping Category Stage Rating Rationale 1 Air pollution C B‐ Dust and exhaust gases emitted from construction works may affect the local residents. PC D There are no air pollution sources. 2 Water pollution C B‐ - Sand‐dumping works will generate turbid plumes. - Possible oil leakage from construction machines. PC B+ The new gravel/sand is expected to improve the local

seawater quality through its purification function. 3 Soil pollution C, PC B+ Possible oil leakage from construction machines. 4 Waste C B‐ Construction wastes (e.g. solid waste, waste oil, human waste) may contaminate the environment if not environment managed properly. PC B‐ Beach users may litter on the beach. 5 Noise/vibration C B‐ Noise generated from construction works may become Physical a nuisance to the local residents. PC D There are no major noise sources. 6 Ground subsidence C, PC D There are no activities that may cause ground subsidence. 7 Offensive odor C, PC D There are no odor sources. 8 Bottom sediment C, PC D There are no sediment pollution sources. 9 Conservation area C, PC D No impacts expected to Funafuti Conservation Area as it is located far from the Project site. 10 Ecosystem, C B‐ - Corals along the nearshore of Funamanu and flora/fauna Papaelise may be damaged through gravel collection

works. - Benthic organisms at the Project site will be buried by gravel and sand. - Some trees along the shoreline may have to be cut if

Environment they obstruct construction works.

PC B+ The new gravel/sand beach is expected to provide new natural habitat.

Natural 11 Hydrology C, PC D There are no activities that may affect the hydrology. 12 Topography C B‐ The shoreline of Funamanu and Papaelise may be affected by gravel collection. PC B‐ Groin may affect the sandy beach south of the Project site. 13 Involuntary C, PC D There will be no involuntary resettlement. resettlement 14 Vulnerable social C, PC D There are no vulnerable social groups at the Project site. groups (poor, indigenous people etc.) 15 Livelihood, living C B+ Construction works will provide employment environment opportunities to the local people. Environment:

B‐ Construction works and presence of workers may become a nuisance to the local residents.

Social PC B+ The Project should improve the living conditions of the local residents by reducing the risk of disasters. 16 Land use C B‐ Some of the existing land use will be restricted due to construction works. PC D No restrictions or alteration of existing land use.

28 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island Category Stage Rating Rationale 17 Local resource C, PC B‐ Gravel and sand will be procured locally, which if not collected sustainably will significantly affect the local resource. 18 Water use C B‐ Some of the existing water use (e.g. boat mooring, bathing) will be restricted due to construction works. PC B+ The new gravel/sand beach will provide safer access to the sea. 19 Social C, PC D There are no activities that may have adverse impacts infrastructures and on social infrastructures and services. services 20 Social institutions C, PC D There are no activities that may have adverse impacts (social capital, local on social institutions. decision‐making institutions) 21 Misdistribution of C, PC D The Project in general should mutually benefit the local benefit and losses people by enhancing coastal protection. 22 Local conflicts of C, PC D No major conflict of interest is expected. interest 23 Cultural heritage C, PC D There are no cultural heritages around the Project site. 24 Landscape C D While construction works will temporary change the landscape, its impacts will be insignificant due to the limited duration and scale. PC B+ The landscape will improve as the current debris‐comprised beach will transform into a natural gravel/sand beach. 25 Gender C, PC D There are no activities that may trigger gender issues. 26 Children’s rights C, PC D There are no activities that may violate children’s rights. 27 Infectious diseases C, PC D The risk of spreading infectious diseases is low as the (HIV/AIDS etc.) number of incoming foreign workers is limited. 28 Occupational C, PC D The risk of occupational accidents is low providing that safety standard safety practices are implemented. 29 Accidents C, PC B‐ Risk of accidents especially in relation to dump truck transportation. 30 Trans‐boundary C, PC D The Project does not involve any activities that may

Others and climate change have trans‐boundary or climate change impacts. impacts Legend of Project stage: C: Construction phase PC: Post‐construction phase Rating criteria: A+/‐: Significant positive/negative impact is expected. B+/‐: Positive/negative impact is expected to some extent. C+/‐: Extent of positive/negative impact is unknown. D: No impact is expected.

7.2 Method of impact assessment

The degree of the environmental impacts was rated into four levels (major, moderate, minor and no impact) by considering factors such as magnitude, spatial extent and duration of the impacts. The positive effects of mitigation measures were also taken into account in the assessment. Table 7‐2 shows the assessment criteria applied for the impact rating. Note that some impacts are not rated due to the uncertainties involved in the assessment.

29 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island Table 7‐2 Assessment criteria applied for impact rating Impact Assessment criteria rating Physical environment Natural environment Social environment Major High likelihood of human Permanent alteration of Permanent change in health impacts with very little ecosystem, and major loss of livelihood with significant potential for improvement. biodiversity with very little financial loss with very little potential for recovery. potential for improvement. Moderate Possible impacts on human Possible impacts on Possible change in livelihood health but good potential for ecosystem and biodiversity and financial loss but good improvement. but with good recovery potential for improvement. potential. Minor Possible impacts on human Possible impacts on Possible change in livelihood health but likelihood very ecosystem and biodiversity and financial loss but low. but likelihood very low. likelihood very low. No impact No change from present No change from present No change from present status status status

7.3 Construction phase

7.3.1 Physical environment

1) Air pollution

Dust and exhaust gases emitted from construction machines (e.g. backhoe, wheel loader) and vehicles (e.g. dump trucks) may affect the local residents near the Project site. However, as the construction works are of relatively limited scale and intensity, air pollution from the above sources are considered to be intermittent and limited in the area. Furthermore, for most of the time, dust and exhaust gases are expected to disperse seawards as the predominant wind direction during the construction period is southeasterly i.e. from land to sea. Nevertheless, the following measures will be implemented to minimize impacts:

 Water spraying in case of excessive dust  Covering of dump trucks with a sheet in case of excessive dust  Bringing of well‐serviced construction machines and vehicles  Regular inspection and maintenance of construction machines and vehicles

Impact rating: Minor

2) Noise

Noise from construction works and machines may become a nuisance especially to the residents near the Project site. To minimize noise impacts, the following measures will be implemented:  Bringing of well‐serviced construction machines and vehicles  Regular inspection and maintenance of construction machines and vehicles  Informing of community and Kaupule prior to activities of high noise levels  In principal, heavy construction works at the Project site will be limited during normal work hours unless permitted by Kaupule  In principal, no works on Sundays and public holidays unless permitted by Kaupule

30 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island  In case of consistent complaints, noise monitoring will be conducted to confirm compliance

Impact rating: Moderate

3) Water pollution

Suspended sediments generated from sand‐dumping works will temporary increase the turbidity of the surrounding waters, which may have adverse impacts on marine organisms and may also be nuisance to nearby water users (e.g. bathing). To minimize sediment dispersion, silt protector will be installed in front of the Project area. Turbidity levels will also be monitored at the adjacent beaches and additional measures implemented if turbidity values exceed set threshold level (see Chapter 9.2 for details of the monitoring program).

Oil leakage and spills from construction machines will contaminate the marine environment. To prevent oil contamination, construction machines will be inspected regularly for any oil and fuel leaks. Any leaks will be repaired immediately and such equipment removed from the marine environment until such repairs are completed. Presence of oil films will also be visually monitored. In case of oil spills, the incident will be reported immediately to DoE, and the Contractor will be required to take immediate actions in accordance to its Oil Spill Response Plan.

Impact rating: Moderate

4) Soil pollution

Oil leakage and spills from construction machines may contaminate the soil. To prevent oil contamination, construction machines will be inspected regularly for any oil and fuel leaks. Any leaks will be repaired immediately and not used until such repairs are completed. In case of oil spills, the incident will be reported immediately to DoE, and the Contractor will be required to take immediate actions in accordance to its Oil Spill Response Plan.

5) Impact rating: MinorWaste

Construction works will generate various types of wastes, which may contaminate the environment if managed in an uncontrolled manner. Table 7‐3 shows the draft waste management plan for each waste type. The waste management plan will be finalized prior to the construction through consultation with relevant government authorities (DoE, SWAT, Kaupule, PWD).

Table 7‐3 Draft waste management plan for construction waste Waste type Management method General solid waste (e.g. plastics,  Waste bins for general solid wastes will be placed at all wrappings, paper) construction sites including gravel collection sites.  Littering at the constriction sites and into seawaters will be strictly prohibited.  Daily clean‐up at the construction sites.  General solid wastes will be disposed at the authorized local landfill site. Hazardous waste (e.g. waste oil, Hazardous wastes will be kept in leak‐proof containers and waste battery) transported to SWAT storage site. Hazardous wastes not accepted in Tuvalu will be transported back to the contractor’s country for disposal. Human waste [Gravel collection sites] Installation of temporary toilet. Sludge will be buried and covered at the site to biodegrade.

31 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island [Project site] Use of public toilet and/or installation of temporary toilet. Sludge will be collected through PWD. Ship bilge water Discharge of bilge water inside the lagoon and channels will be strictly prohibited. Discharge will only be allowed in open ocean with sufficient distance from the coast.

Impact rating: Minor

7.3.2 Natural environment

1) Marine ecosystem

The corals in the reefs adjacent to the gravel collection sites could be affected by:

 Contact with the bottom of the gravel‐transporting barges  Anchors of gravel‐transporting barges  Dispersion of sediments suspended through gravel extraction works

To minimize such impacts the following measures will be implemented:

 Entrance and exit of reef area only from a fixed route to minimize wide‐range coral damage (the route will be fixed with buoys)  Entrance and exit of reef area during high tide to minimize contact with coral  Use of small barge with small draft to minimize contact with coral  Installation of mooring anchor to minimize coral damage by anchoring  Implementation of coral monitoring (see Chapter 9.2 for details)

Sand and gravel dumping works at the Project site will bury sessile or low‐mobile benthic organisms that are within the filling area, such as seaweeds and sea cucumber. However, such impacts should be negligible due to the lack of marine organisms of any significance. The area should also be rapidly recolonized once the construction works are completed as the gravel and sand will provide new natural habitat. Sand‐dumping works may indirectly affect marine organisms by sediment dispersion. To minimize such impacts silt protector will be installed in front of the Project site. While impacts on the marine ecosystem are considered minor, the status of marine organisms will be monitored at the start and end of construction (see Chapter 9.2 for details).

Impact rating: Moderate

2) Flora

Some trees or branches growing along the shoreline may have to be cut if they obstruct construction works. In such case, the Project will obtain approval from the owner prior to construction and compensate if necessary.

Impact rating: Minor

3) Coastal topography

Gravel collection works will inevitably alter the shoreline topography of Funamanu and Papaelise. To

32 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island minimize topographic impacts, gravels will be collected only from areas where its quantity has been increasing over the past decades for example due to strong storms. In the long‐term, gravels are also expected to be replenished through the natural gravel accumulation process that is characteristic of the area.

Erosion of the adjacent shoreline is considered unlikely as the shoreline is mostly composed of stable coral bedrock covered with rock and rubble. Nevertheless, the Project will monitor the shoreline topography at the start and end of construction as well as in the post‐construction period (see Chapter 9.2 for details).

Impact rating: Minor

7.3.3 Social environment

1) Living conditions

Around 30 workers will be working at the Project site including from overseas. The presence of such construction workers may become disturbing to the local residents especially if they behave in a disrespectful manner. To avoid such social disturbances, all construction workers will be required to strictly abide with the Code of Conduct that will be developed for this Project. Any breaching of the Code of Conduct may lead to dismissal from the job. The Code of Conduct will among others include the following:

 No defecation at the construction area except at designated toilets  No drinking or bringing of alcohol in the construction area  No littering in the construction area and into sea  Refrain from making unnecessary noises (e.g. shouting, playing music)  No harassing of women  No intrusion into private property unless in permitted areas

Impact rating: Minor

2) Land and water use

The local residents will experience the following restrictions in land and water use during the construction period:

 For safety reasons, entrance inside the construction area will be restricted, including the area for temporary stockyard (i.e. vacant space around the Tausoalima community hall)  Boat landing inside the construction area will be restricted. Hence boat owners will be required to use an alternative location outside the construction area. Provision of a boat trailer is under consideration for common use by the affected boat owners.  Bathing and boat mooring will be prohibited at waters in front of the construction area.

Impact rating: Moderate

3) Accidents

Construction works will involve certain risks of accidents for both the workers and local people. To

33 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island prevent accidents, construction works will be conducted in accordance to JICA’s safety guideline “The Guidance for the Management of Safety for Construction Works in Japanese ODA Projects (2014)”. Construction workers will be required to take safety training and also wear personal protective equipment (PPE).

One of the major accident risks for the local people will be the dump trucks that will frequently travel between the Project site and sand stockyard located in the north of the island. To prevent such accidents the following safety measures will be implemented:

 Strict compliance to speed limits  Avoidance of sensitive areas to the extent possible (e.g. schools)  Placement of traffic control officers

Impact rating: Minor

7.4 Post‐construction phase

7.4.1 Physical environment

1) Waste

Beach users may discard their wastes on the beach. This will be unpleasing to the local residents as well as detrimental to the environment. To prevent littering, sign posts and waste bins will be placed on the site. Wastes will then be regularly collected and disposed by Funafuti Kaupule.

Impact rating: Minor

7.4.2 Natural environment

1) Coastal topography

The groins may enhance erosion/accretion of the sandy beach located south of the Project site by altering the local coastal hydrodynamics. However, it is difficult to accurately predict how the shoreline will change over time as there are multiple external factors involved on how the sandy beach is shaped. The Project will therefore monitor the shoreline topography in the post‐construction periods in combination with wave and current observations.

Impact rating: Uncertain

7.5 Accumulative impacts

The construction period of the New Zealand Aid burrow pit project is likely to overlap with the construction period of this Project. This as a consequence may cause accumulative impacts especially when both construction areas are in close vicinity (e.g. when NZ project dredging is conducted near the Project site). The Project will therefore continue to liaise closely with the NZ project to identify when such accumulative impacts are likely to occur and discuss together on how such impacts can be avoided or minimized. Figure 7‐1 shows the candidate dredging area (pink and purple patches) of the New Zealand Aid burrow pit project.

34 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Source: Kaly, UL and Peacock‐Taylor, C (2014) Figure 7‐1 Candidate dredging area (pink and purple patches) of the New Zealand Aid burrow pit project

7.6 Grievance mechanism

The Project will establish a grievance mechanism for the construction period to ensure that any people or community have the opportunity to formally raise complaints against any adverse impacts that they may experience through construction works (e.g. excessive noise, misbehavior of workers). Although the grievance procedure is still not finalized, care will be taken so that it does not discourage people (e.g. vulnerable social groups) to submit their complaints by for example maintaining their confidentiality or by providing several options for complaint procedure (e.g. through representatives of vulnerable social groups).

8. Public consultation

Public consultation meeting was held with the Funafuti community on February 23rd 2015 to explain the basic plan of the project and likely environmental impacts and planned mitigation measures. The meeting was convened by informing the community groups namely the: women’s association, fisheries association and Masao associations. All the participants were supportive of the project once their concerns were answered, and agreed to the basic plan of the project. Minutes of the meeting is

35 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island attached as Appendix 1.

On the following day on February 24th 2015, the basic plan of the project and likely environmental impacts and planned mitigation measures were explained to Fale Kaupule. All the participants were supportive of the project once their concerns were answered, and agreed to the basic plan of the project. Minutes of the meeting is attached as Appendix 2.

9. Environmental management plan

Based on the results of the environmental impact assessment, an environmental management plan is prepared to ensure that the project proponent and other related entities implement the Project efficiently with minimal environmental impacts. The environmental management plan provides information on the proposed environmental mitigation measures and environmental monitoring plan.

9.1 Mitigation measures

Tables 9‐1 and 9‐2 show the proposed mitigation measures during the construction and post construction phases respectively, including information on the timing of implementation and responsible entities.

36 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Table 9‐1 Proposed mitigation measures during construction phase Timing of Responsible Category Environmental impacts Proposed mitigation measures implementation entities Air pollution Dust and exhaust gases from  Water spraying in case of excessive dust Throughout Construction construction works  Covering of dump trucks with sheet in case of excessive construction period contractor dust  Bringing of well‐serviced machines and vehicles  Regular inspection and maintenance of construction machines and vehicles Noise Noise from construction works  Bringing of well‐serviced machines and vehicles Throughout Construction  Regular inspection and maintenance of construction construction period contractor machines and vehicles Monitoring: JICA  Informing of community prior to activities of high noise levels  In principal, heavy construction works at the Project site will be limited during normal work hours unless permitted environment

by GoT and Kaupule  In principal, no works on Sundays and public holidays unless permitted by GoT and Kaupule

Physical  In case of consistent complaints, noise monitoring will be conducted to confirm compliance Water pollution Dispersion of suspended  Installation of silt protector During sand Construction sediments through  Monitoring of turbidity dumping works contractor sand‐dumping works Monitoring: JICA Oil leakage from construction  Regular inspection of oil and fuel leaks Throughout Construction machines  Visual monitoring of oil films construction period contractor Monitoring: JICA Waste Generation of construction  See Chapter 7.3.1 4) for details. Throughout Construction wastes construction period contractor

37 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island Timing of Responsible Category Environmental impacts Proposed mitigation measures implementation entities Marine Impact of gravel collection  Entrance and exit of reef area only from a fixed route to During gravel Construction ecosystem works on corals minimize wide‐range coral damage collection works contractor  Entrance and exit of reef area during high tide to minimize [Monitoring] contact with coral JICA  Use of small barge with small draft to minimize contact with coral  Installation of mooring anchor to minimize coral damage by anchoring environment  Monitoring of coral Impact of sand dumping works  Installation of silt protector to minimize sediment During sand Construction on marine organisms dispersion. dumping works contractor Natural Flora Cutting of trees and branches  Obtain approval from owner and compensate if necessary ‐ Undecided Coastal Impact of gravel collection  Collection of gravels from areas with significant natural Throughout Construction topography works on shoreline gravel accumulation. construction period contractor  Monitoring of shoreline topography. Monitoring: JICA Living conditions Disturbance from presence of  Establishment of Code of Conduct Throughout Construction construction workers construction period contractor Land/water use Restriction of boat landing  Provision of boat trailer for common use (under Throughout Construction consideration) construction period contractor Accidents Risk of accidents by  Compliance with JICA’s “The Guidance for the Throughout Construction construction works Management of Safety for Construction Works in Japanese construction period contractor ODA Projects (2014)” environment

 Implementation of safety training of construction workers and provision of PPE.

Social Risk of accidents by dump truck  Strict compliance to speed limits Throughout Construction movement  Avoidance of sensitive areas to the extent possible (e.g. construction period contractor schools)  Placement of traffic control officers

38 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island Table 9‐2 Proposed mitigation measures during post‐construction phase Timing of Responsible Category Environmental impacts Proposed mitigation measures implementation entities

Waste Littering by beach users  Placement of sign posts and waste bins Throughout Undecided  Regular collection of wastes post‐construction Waste collection: period Kaupule Physical environment

Ecosystem Impact of gravel collection  Coral monitoring Every 6 months JICA works on corals until end of 2016 Coastal Impact of groins on adjacent  Monitoring of shoreline topography 4 times until end of JICA

Natural topography shoreline 2016 environment

39 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

9.2 Environmental monitoring plan

Environmental monitoring will be conducted during both the construction and post‐construction phases, to confirm the environmental status and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. Depending on the monitoring results, the mitigation measures may be revised until impacts are reduced to satisfactory levels.

1) Monitoring of water quality

Aim: To monitor to the impacts of sand‐dumping works on water quality. Location: Following three (3) sites (see Figure 9‐1 for the approximate locations)  One (1) site at the construction site boundary  One (1) site at the beach south of the Project site (approx. 200 m from the construction site boundary)  One (1) site at the beach north of the Project site (approx. 200 m from the construction site boundary)

Prepared using Google Earth Figure 9‐1 Approximate location of the water quality monitoring site

Frequency: Daily during sand‐dumping works Parameter: Turbidity Method:  Turbidity levels will be measured at the surface layer with a portable turbidity meter. Additional measures will be considered if turbidity levels at the beach monitoring sites exceed 15 NTU*. *: The threshold level was set based on values used by other marine development projects in Tuvalu. The threshold level may be adjusted during the course of construction, if it is found that the level is unreasonably high or low.

40 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Responsible entity: JICA Reporting: Monitoring results will be reported 1/month to DOE or whenever required.

2) Monitoring of coral

Aim: To monitor the impacts of gravel collection works on corals Location: Gravel collection sites (south Papaelise, north and south of Funamanu) Frequency: Once a month during gravel collection works and once every 6 months in post‐construction phase until end of 2016. Method: a. Baseline survey Prior to the start of construction, three (3) transects will be set: one in the barge entrance route, and one each on either sides of the barge entrance route. Then two monitoring quadrats (e.g. 2 m x 2 m) will be set along each transect: one each in the reef flat and reef edge. Figure 9‐2 shows an example of the coral monitoring setup.

Prepared using Google Earth Figure 9‐2 Example of the coral monitoring setup

At each transect underwater photographs will be taken every 10 m. At each quadrat, information such as percent live‐coral coverage, percent bleaching and coral health status will be recorded. Underwater photographs will also be taken for record. b. Monitoring survey (construction phase) During the construction phase, the same monitoring protocol will be conducted monthly. Additional measures will be implemented if there is reduction in live coral coverage or if signs of coral stress (e.g. color change, excess mucus production, sedimentation) are identified at the monitoring quadrats. The health status will be evaluated by a local coral expert. c. Monitoring survey (post‐construction phase) Monitoring will be conducted in the post‐construction phase, if corals are significantly damaged during the construction works. The damaged corals will be tagged to observe their recovery every 6

41 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island month. Responsible entity: JICA in cooperation with Fisheries Department Reporting: Monitoring results will be reported 1/month to DOE during construction phase. In the post‐construction phase, monitoring results will be reported after each survey.

3) Monitoring of marine life

Aim: To monitor the impacts of the gravel nourishment works on marine life Location: Reef in front of the Project site Frequency: Once each in pre‐construction and post‐construction stages Method: The type of marine life will be observed along three (3) transects set in front of the Project site. Figure 9‐3 shows the approximate location of the monitoring transects.

Prepared using Google Earth Figure 9‐3 Approximate location of the monitoring transects

Responsible entity: JICA in cooperation with Fisheries Department Reporting: Monitoring results will be reported to DOE after each survey.

4) Monitoring of shoreline topography

Aim: To monitor the change in shoreline of the Project site and gravel collection sites Location:

42 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

 Project site and adjacent shoreline (see Figure 9‐4)  Gravel collection sites (south Papaelise, north and south of Funamanu) and adjacent shoreline

Prepared using Google Earth Figure 9‐4 Approximate survey area (Project site) Frequency:  Pre‐construction (baseline survey)  Post‐construction (4 times until end of 2016) Method: The cross‐section profile of the shoreline will be measured with auto‐level around every 50 m. Responsible entity: JICA in cooperation with Land Department

Reporting requirements: Monitoring results will be reported to DOE after each survey.

43 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

10. Conclusion

The Project will provide numerous benefits to the local people by for example providing: coastal protection; easier and safer access to the sea; employment opportunities and so on. However, since the Project will involve certain level of civil works, there will likely to be some environmental impacts that are unavoidable. While the Project has considered carefully on ways to avoid environmental impacts through planning and designing considerations, where such impacts are unavoidable, appropriate mitigation measures were considered to minimize such impacts within the constraints of construction budget and time. The Project will also implement a comprehensive monitoring program to check the effectiveness of the planned mitigation measures. A grievance mechanism will also be established and transparency maintained through active and timely information disclosure. Construction methods will be reconsidered and additional measures implemented if significant impacts arise through the constriction works or consistent complaints are raised by the locals.

In conclusion, since the construction is of relatively small scale and short duration, and providing that the proposed mitigation measures and monitoring programs are appropriately implemented, environmental impacts of the Project are likely to remain within minor to moderate level.

List of References

JICA, 2011. The study for assessment of ecosystem, coastal erosion and protection / rehabilitation of damaged area in Tuvalu.

Kaly, UL and Peacock‐Taylor, C (2014) Tuvalu Borrow Pits Project Phase II Design: Environmental & Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) and Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report (PEAR) (Volume 3). Report to New Zealand Aid Programme / MFAT and Spiire New Zealand Ltd, 130pp.

Job, S., Ceccarelli, D., 2012. Tuvalu Marine Life－Scientific Report

Maragos,J.E., Baines,G.B., Beveridge,P.J., 1973. Tropical cyclone Bebe creates a new land formation on Funafuti atoll. Science 181(4105), 1161‐1164.

SOPAC, 2008. Hydrodynamic Model of Funafuti: Water Circulation and Applications

44 The Project for Gravel Beach Nourishment against Coastal Disaster on Fongafale Island

Appendix

45 Appendix 1 Minutes of Meeting with Funafuti Community

Minutes of Meeting with Funafuti Community

Date: 23rd February 2015 Time: 09:00‐12:00 Venue: Tausoalima community hall Participants: Department of Environment: Faoliu Teakau Kaupule: Mr Pasefika (President) JICA Project Team: Mr. Onaka, Mr. Ichikawa, Mr. Sato Funafuti community: see attached attendant list

1. Opening remarks Mr Pasefika, the president of Kaupule opened the meeting with few words.

3. Question and answers

Questions Answers 1 How long is the construction period? Construction is planned to start around June/July and end around November/December. 2 Will there be needs for local workers during the Yes, there will be needs for local workers but the constructions? exact numbers is uncertain at the moment. 3 Have JICA constructed any similar project like this on This is the first in the Pacific but JICA have other small islands in the Pacific? How effective were constructed similar beach nourishment on other they and were there any environmental impacts? countries like in Mauritius. The Project has been successful with no major environmental impacts. 4 What is your advice about using the gravel and sand Gravels will be taken only from areas were gravel for the project for we are worried/concerned about volume has increased over the past years. our very limited resources, and will there be any Monitoring will be conducted as well to see if there is possible environmental impacts on the islet when the any impacts to islet and the surrounding area where gravel is removed? the gravel will be taken from. 5 How can the Funafuti people propose for a full‐scale Please request to JICA or other major donors as it will project if they see this project is successful? be large funding. 6 What if we propose to other big donors like UNDP, JICA can help but with the success of this pilot EU, and other big countries for funding and they turn project. However, the people must play their parts in us down. Will JICA help us? keeping the beach in good shape and to follow what control measures needed to maintain the beach in good condition. 7 How long will the profile of the beach change after It is very hard to give a precise answer as the profile the construction? changes according to the wave’s strength, but there will be a time when it reaches its stable state. Then there will be not much different to the profile of the beach. 8 If there is a change to the profile of the beach how At this stage we cannot answer straight how much much will be needed to fund the sustainable state of fund will be needed for sustaining the beach. This will the beach by the government and the Funafuti become more clear after monitoring and evaluating Appendix 1 Minutes of Meeting with Funafuti Community

Questions Answers people? the effectiveness of the pilot project. 9 Have JICA discussed about the boundary mark with “Yes” the matter has been discussed with the the Government and the Kaupule? Kaupule. The boundary mark will show to the land owner his/her land’s boundary in relation to the gravel beach which will be public land. 10 How many times after the construction will you The JICA team will continue to monitor the beach monitor the beach? after the construction for 1 ½ years in cooperation with the Kaupule and the Government. 11 Who will conduct monitoring in the absence of JICA Kaupule and the Government will conduct team? monitoring with the help of the local community. The project will enhance the monitoring capacity of the Tuvalu side through training and technical transfer. 12 Will the Project conduct EIA? Can the Funafuti people The Project will submit PEAR. Although, there is no or the Kaupule access to the report or how can we obligation to publicize the EIA under Tuvalu EIA access to such report? regulation, it may be possible to read the report at DoE. We will ask the Director of DoE regarding this matter. 13 Have you negotiated with the New Zealand aid and We are still in the negotiating stage but so far there the Government of Tuvalu and the Kaupule about the have been no negatives remarks. planning of using the stock pile of sand for the project? 14 I believe that the project should have started around The project was on pending as a misunderstanding 2012. Why it’s been pending for this long? developed between GoT and JICA. GoT requested to reclaim land about 10 meters out to the lagoon. However, beach nourishment is really a totally different thing and hence the delay. The project is to try and return the natural beach and to protect the coastal area from the force of the waves. 15 Any possible environmental impact to the islet when Gravel will be collected only from areas were its the gravel is removed? quantity has been increasing such as due to Hurricane Bebe. Although impact on the shoreline is unlikely, we will continue to monitor the shoreline after the construction. 16 How will the gravel be transported to the project Gravels will be loaded onto a barge and then site? transported to the project site. 17 Have you considered the impact of the barge to the We are planning to use a small barge with shallow living organism like the living coral? draft to transfer the gravel from the islet so to minimize damage to the corals. We will also try to identify a route to the islet with least coral damage. We will also conduct coral monitoring. 18 Will you transport the gravel straight to the project The gravels will be transported straight to the project site or will they be piled up somewhere? site without stockpiling. 19 During the construction stage what will the team do The construction is scheduled to avoid such storm if a strong storm hits the project site and damage the season. All marine works is scheduled to finish by project? November before the storm season. 20 What are you going to do with the present bricks or The bricks will be used as core materials for the blocks at the Community hall shore? beach and sand stopper.

4. Closing remarks Mr Onaka the JICA team leader thanked all the participants for their comments and questions. Appendix 1 Minutes of Meeting with Funafuti Community

5. Conclusion All the participants were supportive of the project once their concerns were answered, and agreed to the basic plan of the project. The agreement form is attached.

Annex-1

ATTACHED DOCUMENT TO MINUTES OF MEETING

1) Objective and Concept of the Project Stakeholders understood and agreed on the following characteristic of gravel beach:  Beach profile will change by absorbing wave energy and this is one of the most important characteristics of the beach.

3) Participation in Beach Control and Monitoring after Construction Stakeholders agreed to participate following items of beach control and monitoring:  Regulation on beach use against dumping, littering, stealing of gravel and sand, and private construction on beach area (i.e. clarification of public and private boundaries)  Participation in beach cleaning  Participation in beach monitoring by taking photos

4) Possible Environmental Impact and its Mitigation Measure Stakeholders understood the possible environmental impact and its mitigation measure and agreed on temporary restriction during the implementation.

Possible Environmental Impacts Temporary Restriction  Noise from construction works and  Relocation of boat mooring area machines  Need to land boat from alternative  Dispersion of turbid water area  Risk of accidents  No bathing near construction works  Impact on adjacent shoreline  No entrance behind Tausoalima topography community hall as the space will be used as temporary yard

Attendant List of Stakeholder meeting on the Basic Plan of the Pilot Gravel Nourishment with Funafuti Communities (Funafuti Women Group, Funafuti Fishermen Group, Funafuti Masaua Group, Other Island Group) 23rd February, 2015

No. Name Designation

1. Elisa Kaitu Deputy Leader of Women Group

2. Lototasi Morikao Member of Women Group

3. Liani Panapa Member of Women Group

4. Pualuku Roy Member of Women Group

5. Kaniva Tusitala Member of Women Group

6. Finiki Siaosi Leader of Masaua Group

7. Puga Naseli Member of Masaua Group

8. Maimoaga Mesako Member of Masaua Group

9. Sigikiagi Taulamati Member of Masaua Group

10. Kaiau Niu Member of Masaua Group

11. Fili Siaosi Member of Masaua Group

12. Ioapo Tapumanaia Leader of Fisherman Group

13. Tuiee Vailahi Leader of Other Island Group, Member of Fisherman Group

14. Lotonu Maui Member of Other Island Group

15. Pasefika Penitusi President of Funafuti Kaupule

16. Faoliu Teakau Department of Environment

17. Susumu Onaka Team Leader, JICA Expert Team

18. Shingo Ichikawa JICA Expert Team

19. Takeshi Sato JICA Expert Team

Appendix 2 Minutes of Meeting with Fale Kaupule

Minutes of Meeting with Fale Kaupule

Date: 24th February 2015 Time: 09:00‐11:00 Venue: Tausoalima community hall Participants: Department of Environment: Faoliu Teakau Kaupule: Mr Pasefika JICA Project Team: Mr. Onaka, Mr. Ichikawa, Mr. Sato Fale Kaupule: see attached attendant list

1. Opening remarks Mr Pasefika, the president of Kaupule opened the meeting with few words.

2. Presentation of the project The JICA Project Team presented the concept and basic plan of the Project followed by a presentation on the potential environmental impacts and planned mitigation measures. During the presentation, the participant expressed their support for the gravel burrow sites and beach control activities such as beach cleaning.

3. Question and answers

Questions Answers 1 How much gravel will be needed for the project? Around 3000 m3 but might vary on the final plan and design. 2 How long is the construction period and will be local Construction will start from June/July to Nov/Dec. labors need? For the labor it will be up to the contractor but there will certainly be demand for local labour. 3 Will the labor be picked from the masaua and not the We will consult with Kaupule and may ask Kaupule to outer island peoples? find labor. 4 Will there be restrictions in using the Tausoalima Restriction will apply only to where the temporary community hall? stockyard will be put up for their equipment for safety purposes, but for the hall the people will be free to use it as now. 5 If there is a need for a full scale project will JICA still This will depend on the success of this pilot project. be interested to help? We cannot promise at the moment how JICA will be involved in the full scale project as there are plenty of other big donors who might be interest in funding the full scale project. But if there is a chance for JICA to come back, they will be for sure happy to assist but it will be a big project with big fund required. 6 What is the length of the beach from land to the sea? The length is around 10 m but can vary with the final plan and design. 7 Have JICA talked to the Kaupule or the Government Negotiation is still ongoing but we have faced no about using the sand stock pile? major objections so far. 8 Why doesn’t JICA extract sand by their own as This is just a pilot project and it is not really feasible planned initially? to bring a dredgers. It is much more feasible to use sand stockpile from the NZ project. 9 What will be the option if the government or the If sand from the stockpile cannot be used, we will Appendix 2 Minutes of Meeting with Fale Kaupule

Questions Answers New Zealand project doesn’t want to give sand? need to change the plan by for example reducing the size of the project or not used sand. 10 Who will own the beach after the construction? The law states that GoT has the ownership of territorial sea starting from the foreshore area. However, the authority of the foreshore area lies under Kaupule. Therefore, the beach will be owned by GoT but managed by Kaupule. 11 Why don’t you start from the back of the Amatuku Since the north side of Amatuku jetty is quite deep, it jetty? was considered not suitable area for the pilot project. 12 Can JICA leave all their construction equipment for All equipment will belong to the contractor and the Kaupule? therefore it is not possible to answer your question. 13 Can the project provide a boat trailer as suggested in We will seriously consider your request as we the past by JICA? A boat trailer will be needed understand the needs for it. because as stated in the presentation there will be restrictions in boat landing at the project site during construction.

4. Closing remarks Mr Pasefika thanks the elders for their support on the project with all their opinion views. Mr Onaka the JICA team leader thanked all the participants for their comments and questions.

5. Conclusion All the participants were supportive of the project once their concerns were answered, and agreed to the basic plan of the project. The agreement document is attached.

Annex-1

ATTACHED DOCUMENT TO MINUTES OF MEETING

2) Confirmation on the Basic Plan Stakeholders confirmed and agreed on the following contents of basic plan:  The Pilot Project area is ranging from Amatuku jetty (north end) to near side of existing private seawall(south end). The Project area may be slightly changed based on the final construction plan.  Big rocks will be placed along the boundary of grave part to 1) identify boundary between private and public area and 2) reduce gravel scattering toward inland. Space for boat landing (i.e. no placement of these rocks) will be secured at existing boat landing slope.  Sand-stoppers will be placed at the both ends of the Project area to reduce outflow of nourished grave and sand  Gravel will be procured from north and south tips of Funamanu Island and south tip of Funangongo (Papaelise) Island. Sand is planned to use a part of stocked sand from the Borrow Pit Project by NZ though it depends on the Government’s decision.  Concrete block wall that was constructed by Kaupule will be removed and reused as core materials of gravel beach nourishment and/or sand-stoppers.

Possible Environmental Impacts Temporary Restriction  Noise from construction works and  Relocation of boat mooring area machines  Need to land boat from alternative  Dispersion of turbid water area  Risk of accidents  No bathing near construction works  Damage to corals at gravel collection  No entrance behind Tausoalima site community hall as the space will be  Impact on adjacent shoreline used as temporary yard topography

Attendant List of Stakeholder meeting on the Basic Plan of the Pilot Gravel Beach Nourishment with Funafuti Falekaupule

24th February, 2015

No. Name Designation

1 Andrew Ionatana Island Chief

2 Antelea Omeli Deputy Chief

3 Tomasi T Kaitu Falekaupule Secretary

4 Siaosi Finiki Member of Falekaupule

5 Ioasa Tilaima Member of Falekaupule

6 Lauina Mika Member of Falekaupule

7 Lita Failoga Member of Falekaupule

8 Liki Kafolau Member of Falekaupule

9 Nia Faleula Member of Falekaupule

10 Falaima Natano Member of Falekaupule

11 Satalaka Misilusi Member of Falekaupule

12 Folau Tapumanaia Member of Falekaupule

13 Meneua Teagai Member of Falekaupule

14 Semeli Manase Member of Falekaupule

15 Mesako Usufono Member of Falekaupule

16 Seanoa Opeta Member of Falekaupule

17 Polau Kofe Member of Falekaupule

18 Peniata Tui Member of Falekaupule

19 Mataio Uale Member of Falekaupule

20 Niu Alefaio Member of Falekaupule

21 Aleni Kaumana Member of Falekaupule

22 Toma Liveti Member of Falekaupule

23 Kalepou Tili Member of Falekaupule

24 Vaguna Penileta Member of Falekaupule 25 Puga Naseli Member of Falekaupule

26 Aso Ianuali Member of Falekaupule

27 Teava Saulo Member of Falekaupule

28 Pasefika Penitusi Kaupule President

29 Kaitu Nokisi Officer of Kaupule

30 Susumu Onaka Leader , JICA Expert team

31 Shingo Ichikawa JICA Expert team

32 Takeshi Sato JICA Expert team

Denartment of Environment Ministrv Ministrv of Forei e: n Affairs.τ 'r ades.τburism. Environment and Labour

Environmental Assessment R 怠nort

NameandL ∞ ation of Project 自笠 ne じ官官 Project for Gr avel Beach

No 山 ishrnent again s t Coastal Disaster on Fongaf aJ e Island Location :Appro x. 18 0m aJ ong the coast of

Sen aJ a; from Am atuku jetty up to the priva 悼

seawallloca 也， d sou 出ward Name and Address ofDeveloper or Agent M i:ni s町 ofForeign Aff airs ，Trades ，Tourism ，

) Environment Environment and Labo 町 (MFATTEL) Date Date of PEAR lodged

Name and Te l. Extension ofReviewing 0 節目r EIA and Director Department Department of Environment application Is application prope r1 y completed ? a Name and address of developer Mr . Temate Melitiana Permanent Permanent Secretary MFATTEL

b Na 皿 e 佃 d address of developer 's agent(if To be ad v ised applicable) applicable)

c Brief description of the development propo sa1 Gr avel nourishment will be imple 皿 ented over a distance distance of approximately 180 m aJ ong the coast of of Sen aJ a; from Am atuku je 仕y and up to the

¥J private seawall locat 怠d southward . Sand will

aJ so be used for addition aJ protection 剖 d to

enable enable easi 町田d sa 色r water al ∞ ess

Gr oins will be cons 甘ucted at both edges of 出e gravel gravel nourishment to preven tl minimize outflow

ofgravel 皿 d 坦 nd by waves .Rocks w il¥ aJ so be placed placed aJ ong the landward edge of the gravel nouri shment to mark the boun ぬry between

private private and public land as well 描 to mm lI mze gravel gravel scattering inland . However ， gaps w il¥ be le 仕 in areas where boat landing is ∞ nducted

f Recommendations

ηle co 田町ct lO n comp 田 Y to conduct regular repo 市 of progre ss and ch aJ leng 田 faced in the

co 町田ofwork to 白e Director of Environment

To have a regular ins 戸ction of the progre ss of the work by 出e Environment Department

specific aJI y on any impac 匂 to 出e environment when the work is in progress Tohave aco 凶 reef asse s sment before ， during and after the work done to monitor the ecology of the the reefs Ensure Ensure that waste materi aJ sa s a re sult of the work are properly di s posed according to the PEAR

Recommended by Director of E! lV ironm 興，MFATTEL

Date : 22 ;σチ:えJ51.s 似品刃向.~ ム↓ l4 -〆

Approved by Minister for Forei 伊伊airs ，MFAπEL

守』 Date ~話可t# 11 . blf . 2.. 01>