Ecology Controversy

Words: 1142
Pages: 5

1. Ecology controversy
Dredging and filling operations have developed into one of the most controversial of all civil engineering activities as related toeffects on natural ecosystems including fisheries and all other types of aquatic biota. This is because of the recognition that theswamps and other shallow water areas often used for dredging/filling are often the zones where the aquatic ecology is mostproductive. Thus it is the general consensus today that shallow aquatic zones which are probably the reproduction zones forimportant fisheries (including shellfish) should not be dredged nor filled except under very carefully controlled conditions, basedon scientific surveys and valuations, which will serve to protect the natural ecological
…show more content…
Evaluation of these possible effects require field investigations to establish the without-project status of the key species present andtheir relationship to environmental factors such as depth, nature of the benthos, etc., so that it can be shown that the proposedaction will not result in adverse impacts on values which need to be protected. On the positive side, dredging can be very helpful:
a) In improving navigation; b) in furnishing sand and aggregate essential to construction based on use of concrete; and c)indirectly furnishing filling materials which contribute to land reclamation projects.
Filling operations, like dredging, can raise havoc with the natural ecosystem unless properly controlled: hence the sameprecautions should be employed as for dredging. The positive benefits of filling are essentially from: a) enablinghighways/railways to pass over low-lying areas; b) reclamation of land needed for urban development including housingindustries, airports, schools, and other public institutions; and c) disposal of solid wastes (including land
…show more content…
Changes, per se, are not impacts. Ask the question, “Who cares, and why?” about eachchange in the environment. The answers are impacts on human health, welfare, andecosystems.
IMPACTS LEAD TO MITIGATION
4. Where it seems likely that the impact is adverse and unacceptable, devise mitigativemeasures and project changes to prevent and/or ameliorate the impacts; and plan monitoringto assure the implementation of the measures and to determine whether other unforeseenimpacts occur.
The SSA requires the development of conceptual models that represent the causal chain: activity -changes - impact - mitigation. For example, Table 3-12 illustrates the activities, changes, impacts, and mitigationmeasures for agriculture projects. Often the best way to represent these causal chains is as network diagrams.
The network diagrammatic representation of the causal chain that begins with application of inorganic fertilizers(from Table 3.12) is presented in Figure 3.3. In this case, the application of the fertilizer set in motion a series ofdirect and indirect changes in the environment. The application first increases the nutrients nitrogen andphosphorus in the soil. Some fraction of these nutrients is carried into water bodies by run-off. Once in thewater, the nutrients become available to plants, both algae and aquatic macrophytes. This leads to increasedgrowth and biomass in the water bodies, which may ultimately reduce dissolved oxygen