Esia - 1416 Rehabilitation of Berths Report

KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

STUDY REPORT FOR REHABILITATION OF BERTHS 1-14
FINAL REPORT
PREPARED BY
HEZTECH ENGINEERING SERVICES
P.O. BOX 42269 – 80100
MOMBASA
October, 2017
CERTIFICATION PAGE
Certification by Firm of Experts:
We hereby certify that this Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Study report has been
prepared in accordance with the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003
and the methodology and content reporting conform to the requirements of the Environmental
Management and Coordination Act, 1999.
Signature_________________________ Date _____________
Name_____HEZEKIAH O. ADALA_____________
Address____P.O. BOX 42269 – 80100 MOMBASA_______________
For and on behalf of: HEZTECH ENGINEERING SERVICES
Certificate of Registration No________5194______
Certification by the Proponent
We, KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY hereby confirm that the contents of this report are a true
reflection at the site of the proposed works. We shall endeavour to implement mitigation measures
proposed in the report to ensure the project complies with applicable environmental regulations.
Name___________________________________________________________
Signature and Stamp ___________________________ Date ______________________
For and on behalf of KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY
Kenya Ports Authority 2 ESIA Study Report for Rehabilitation of Berths 1-14
ACCRONYMS
BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

BMU Beach Management Unit
CIDP County Integrated Development Plan
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
DfID Department for International Development
DO Dissolved Oxygen
EA Environmental Audit
ECDE Early Childhood Development Education
EHS Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines
EIB European Investment Bank
EMCA Environmental Management and Coordination Act
EMMP Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan
EMP Environmental Management Plan
ERL Effects Range Low
EPZ Export Processing Zone
ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
HABS Harmful Algae Blooms
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GoK Government of Kenya
IFC International Finance Corporation
IMO International Maritime Organization
IOC Indian Ocean Commission
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
KES Kenya Shillings
KFS Kenya Forestry Service
KMA Kenya Maritime Authority
KMFRI Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute
KPA Kenya Ports Authority
KWS Kenya Wildlife Service
LEL Lowest Effects Level
MPA Marine Protected Areas
NEM North East Monsoon
NEMA National Environment Management Authority
OM Organic Matter
OEL Occupational Exposure Level
PAP Project Affected Persons
PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
RCM Recording Current Meter
TEU Twenty foot Equivalent Units (of containers)
TMEA Trademark East Africa
ToR Terms of Reference
TSS Total Suspended Sediments
SDF State Department of Fisheries
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
SEM South East Monsoon
SEL Severe Effect Level
SGR Standard Gauge Railway
SHM Stakeholder Meetings
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
VCT Voluntary Counselling and Testing
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION PAGE .......................................................................................................... 1
ACCRONYMS............................................................................................................................... 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... 5
List of Figures ..............................................................................................................................................11
List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................................13
List of Plates .................................................................................................................................................14
List of Participating Specialists ..................................................................................................................17
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 18
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................................26
1.1 Project Location ..............................................................................................................................26
1.2 Present Conditions ..........................................................................................................................28
2.2.1 Berths 1-5 ...................................................................................................................................28
2.2.2 Berth 7 - 10 .................................................................................................................................29
1.2.3 Berth 11 - 14 ..............................................................................................................................29
2.3 Analysis of Alternatives ..................................................................................................................30
2.3.1. Do Nothing ......................................................................................................................................30
2.3.2 Patch Repair ...............................................................................................................................30
2.3.3 Cathodic protection ......................................................................................................................31
2.4 Proposed Repair Works .......................................................................................................................31
2.4.1 Berths 1-5 ...................................................................................................................................31
2.4.2 Berths 7-10 .................................................................................................................................31
2.4.3 Berths 11-14 ...............................................................................................................................31
2.5 Dredging and Reclamation..............................................................................................................33
2.6 Demolition Works............................................................................................................................35
2.7 Infrastructure Works ........................................................................................................................36
2.8 Equipment ........................................................................................................................................36
2.9 Project Timelines .............................................................................................................................36
2.10 Project costs and potential financing arrangements ...................................................................37
2.0 ESIA METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE .................................................................. 39
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................39
2.1 Preliminary Tasks ............................................................................................................................39
2.1.1 Screening .....................................................................................................................................39
2.1.2 Scoping ........................................................................................................................................39
2.1.3 Development of Terms of Reference (TOR) for Investigation of Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment ..................................................................................................................................................39
2.2 Project Description .........................................................................................................................40
2.3 Baseline Studies ...............................................................................................................................40
2.3.1 Characterization of the Biological Environment ............................................................................42
2.3.2 Characterization of the Physical Environment ...............................................................................43
2.3.3 Characterization of the Chemical Environment:............................................................................43
2.3.4 Socio-economic Survey ..................................................................................................................44
2.3.5 Fishery Survey .............................................................................................................................45
2.4 Stakeholder Consultation and Public Participation ....................................................................45
2.5 Policy, Institutional and Regulatory Considerations ..................................................................46
2.6 Identification of Potential Impacts ...............................................................................................46
2.7 Proposal of Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................46
2.8 Development of an Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan ................................46
2.9 Analysis of Alternatives ..................................................................................................................47
2.10 Socioeconomic Survey ....................................................................................................................47
2.11 Report Preparation ..........................................................................................................................47
3.0 LEGAL, POLICY, AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ............................ 48
3.1 Legal Framework .............................................................................................................................48
3.1.1 Constitution of Kenya, 2010 ........................................................................................................48
3.1.2 Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999 .................................................................48
3.13 Fisheries Management and Coordination Act No 35, 2016 ........................................................48
3.1.4 Forest Act, 2005 ........................................................................................................................49
3.1.5 Water Act, 2002 ........................................................................................................................49
3.1.6 Physical Planning Act, Cap 286, 1996 ......................................................................................49
3.1.7 Maritime Zones Act, Cap 371 ....................................................................................................49
3.1.8 Energy Act, No. 2006................................................................................................................50
3.1.9 Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, Cap 376 ................................................................50
3.1.10 Kenya Maritime Authority Act (Cap. 370).................................................................................50
3.1.11 Tourism Act, 2011 .....................................................................................................................50
3.2 Policies and Regulations .................................................................................................................51
3.3 Applicable World Bank Safeguards and International Conventions .......................................52
3.4 Inconsistencies between Kenyan Legislation and WB Safeguards Policies ............................53
4.0 SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 54
4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................54
4.2 Methodology for Socioeconomic Assessment ............................................................................54
4.3 Findings of socioeconomic study .................................................................................................54
4.3.1 Demographic characteristics of Mombasa ......................................................................................55
4.3.2 Respondent Characteristics ...........................................................................................................55
4.3.3 Economy.........................................................................................................................................58
4.3.3.1 Ports and Shipping .....................................................................................................................58
4.3.3.2 Tourism and hospitality ..............................................................................................................58
4.3.3.3 Manufacturing and other industrial production enterprises .............................................................59
4.3.3.4 Mining and minerals ..................................................................................................................59
4.3.3.5 Small-scale agriculture..................................................................................................................59
4.3.3.6 Artisanal fisheries........................................................................................................................59
4.3.3.7 Infrastructure development ............................................................................................................61
4.3.3.8 Transport ....................................................................................................................................62
4.3.3.9 Community Services .....................................................................................................................62
4.4 Respondent’s Perceptions about the Rehabilitation Works......................................................65
4.5 Analysis of Socioeconomic Impacts .............................................................................................66
4.5.1 Employment Creation ..................................................................................................................66
4.5.2 Boost in Trade .............................................................................................................................66
4.5.3 Improved safety ............................................................................................................................66
4.5.4 Traffic Congestion ........................................................................................................................67
5. ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT AROUND BERTHS 1-14 ........................... 68
5.1 Methodology and Approach ..........................................................................................................68
5.2 Results of Ecological Baseline Survey ..........................................................................................80
5.2.1 Phytoplankton Community Structure ...........................................................................................81
5.2.2 Zooplankton Community Structure ..............................................................................................84
5.2.3 Benthic Community Structure ......................................................................................................87
5.3 Impact determination, prediction and mitigation .......................................................................91
5.3.1 Dredging activities: Removal of sub-marine sediment and associated attached sessile organisms .......95
5.3.2 Dredging activities: Suspended sediment effects on sessile and slow-moving invertebrates ..................95
5.3.3 Dredging activities: Effects of Suspended sediment on fish ..............................................................96
5.3.4 Dredging activities: Effects of Suspended sediment on phytoplankton productivity and other aquatic
plants 96
5.3.5 Construction / dredging activities: Sedimentation on subtidal muddy and sandy habitats ...............97
5.3.6 Operational activities: Accidental oil spill effects on critical habitats (coral reefs, seagrass beds,
mangroves) and seabirds ...............................................................................................................................97
5.3.7 Operational activities: Accidental oil spill effects on marine life and habitats ..................................98
5.3.8 Operational activities: Ship wastes effect on marine life ..................................................................98
5.3.9 Operational activities: Discharge of ballast water and potential introductions of alien invasive species
99
5.3.10 Operational activities: Potential negative impacts specific to coral gardens and Mombasa Marine
Reserve 99
6.0 FISHERIES ASSESSMENT…………………………………………………………..100
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 101
6.2 Approach and Methodology ....................................................................................................... 101
6.3 Objectives of the fisheries assessment ...................................................................................... 101
6.4 General locations of fishing activities ....................................................................................... 101
6.4.1 Fish Landing sites in the creek area .......................................................................................... 103
6.4.2 The fishing grounds ................................................................................................................... 105
6.5 Fishing effort in the creek ........................................................................................................... 105
6.5.1 Fishing methods ........................................................................................................................ 105
6.5.2 Fishing vessels ........................................................................................................................... 107
6.5.3 Fishing gear technology .............................................................................................................. 107
6.6 Fish production ............................................................................................................................ 108
6.6.1 Fish families and species............................................................................................................ 108
6.6.2 Fish production trends............................................................................................................... 109
6.6.3 Seasonality of the Fishery .......................................................................................................... 111
6.6.4 Economic Value of the Creek Fishery ....................................................................................... 112
6.7 Fisheries Resource Management and Marketing ..................................................................... 114
6.7.1 Fisheries Co-management structures .......................................................................................... 114
6.7.2 Fish community characteristics ................................................................................................... 115
6.7.3 Market and trade ..................................................................................................................... 115
6.7.4 Mangrove conservation and mariculture activities........................................................................ 115
6.7.5 Habitats and Species of special concern ...................................................................................... 116
6.8 Key Challenges ............................................................................................................................. 116
6.9 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 116
6.10 Fisheries Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 117
6.10.1 Loss of access to traditional fishing grounds................................................................................ 117
6.10.2 Overall decline in fish catches and /or reduced availability of target species .................................. 117
6.10.3 Interference with fishing activity ................................................................................................. 117
6.10.4 Interference with habitat rehabilitation and temporary loss of habitats ......................................... 118
6.10.5 Impacts on aquaculture /mariculture activities in the creek......................................................... 118
6.11 Proposed Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................... 118
7.0 OCEANOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT .....................................................................120
7.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 120
7.2 Methodology for Oceanographic Assessment ......................................................................... 120
7.3 Numerical Modeling of Hydrodynamics of Kilindini Harbor ............................................... 121
7.4 Interpretation of Simulation Results ......................................................................................... 124
7.4.1 Scenario 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 124
7.4.2 Scenario 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 124
7.4.3 Scenario 3 and 4 ............................................................................................................................. 125
7.5 Potential for Sediment Resuspension. ....................................................................................... 126
7.6 Hydrodynamic Modelling of Water Quality Impacts ............................................................. 127
7.7 Concluding Remarks .................................................................................................................... 127
7.7.1 Hydrodynamic Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 127
7.7.2 Numerical Modeling ....................................................................................................................... 128
7.7.3 Offshore Dumping .................................................................................................................... 128
7.7.4 Tides ........................................................................................................................................ 129
7.8 Anticipated Oceanographic Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................. 129
7.8.1 Impacts of Dredging ........................................................................................................................ 129
7.8.2 Impacts of Changes in Bathymetry ................................................................................................... 130
8.0 CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT ...............................................................................132
Introduction ................................................................................................................................132
8.1 Methodology for Environmental Characterization ................................................................. 132
8.2 Samples collection and analysis .................................................................................................. 132
8.2.1 Water Quality Assessment ....................................................................................................... 132
8.2.2 Sediment Quality Analysis ....................................................................................................... 135
8.2.3 Air Quality Survey................................................................................................................... 135
8.2.4 Noise Level Survey ................................................................................................................... 135
8.3 Results and Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 136
8.3.1 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 136
8.3.2 Sediment Quality ..................................................................................................................... 141
8.3.3 Results of Air Quality and Noise Level Assessment ................................................................. 144
8.4 Potential Chemical Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 145
8.4.1 Water pollution resulting from dredging activities in front of the existing berths.................................. 145
8.4.2 Water and sediment pollution resulting from the storage and handling of chemical products during
construction activities ................................................................................................................................. 146
8.4.3 Water pollution resulting from domestic and non-hazardous construction waste produced during
construction activities ................................................................................................................................. 147
8.4.4. Water pollution resulting from deposition of dust during the civil works ............................................ 148
8.4.5 Potential Impact on air quality resulting from port operations ........................................................... 149
8.4.6 Impact on air quality resulting from Construction works................................................................... 150
8.4.7 Impact on air quality resulting from dredging in front of existing berths ............................................. 150
8.4.8 Noise resulting from Construction works ................................................................................... 151
8.4.9 Impact on noise levels resulting from dredging ................................................................................... 151
8.4.10 Noise resulting from improved port operations ............................................................................ 152
9 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ....153
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 153
9.1 Stakeholder Identification ........................................................................................................... 153
9.2 Stakeholder Meetings ................................................................................................................... 154
9.3 Issues Raised at Stakeholder Meetings ...................................................................................... 154
10 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN .......................158
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 158
10.1 Purpose of ESMP......................................................................................................................... 160
10.2 Water Quality Management ........................................................................................................ 160
10.2.1 Sources of Impacts..................................................................................................................... 160
10.2.2 Indication of Impacts................................................................................................................. 160
10.2.3 Monitoring Objectives ............................................................................................................... 160
10.2.4 Monitoring Methods ................................................................................................................. 161
10.2.5 Monitoring Locations................................................................................................................ 161
10.2.6 Monitoring Frequency ............................................................................................................... 161
10.3 Air Quality Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 161
10.3.1 Sources of Impact ...................................................................................................................... 161
10.3.2 Indicators of Impact .................................................................................................................. 162
10.4 Noise Level Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 162
10.4.2 Methodology for Noise Level Measurement ................................................................................ 163
10.4.3 Instruments to be used ............................................................................................................... 163
10.4.4 Parameters to be monitored ....................................................................................................... 163
10.4.5 Locations for Noise Level Measurement .................................................................................... 163
10.5 Monitoring of Marine Ecosystem .............................................................................................. 163
10.5.2 Significant Impacts on Environment .......................................................................................... 164
10.5.3 Indicators of Impact .................................................................................................................. 164
10.6 Monitoring of Livelihood Restoration ...................................................................................... 164
10.6.1 Sources of Impacts on Livelihood ............................................................................................... 164
10.6.2 Indicators of Impacts ................................................................................................................. 165
10.7 Monitoring of HIV / Aids Prevalence...................................................................................... 165
10.7.1 Sources of Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 165
10.7.2 Indicators of Impacts ................................................................................................................. 165
10.7.5 Monitoring Frequency ................................................................................................................... 166
10.8 Responsibility and Timeframe of ESMP .................................................................................. 166
10.9 Estimated Costs for Environmental Monitoring .................................................................... 167
10.10 Feedback Action........................................................................................................................... 170
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ESIA STUDY ..........................................171
ANNEX 2: SCREENING REPORT ....................................................................................173
ANNEX 3: MINUTES OF STAKEHOLDER MEETING NO. 1 ................................178
SHM I ATTENDANCE REGISTER ...................................................................................185
ANNEX 4: MINUTES OF STAKEHOLDER MEETING NO. II ...............................186
ANNEX 5: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................................197
List of References ..................................................................................................................................... 199
List of Figures
Fig 2.1: Map of the Port of Mombasa and its approaches……………………....…………....…….22

Fig 2.1: Aerial Map of Mombasa Port showing Berths 1-14 and associated yards…………....…….24
Fig 2.2: Damage to quay wall at Berth No. 9……………………………………………………....25
Fig 2.3: Corrosion attack on fenders Berth 11…………………….……………………………….26
Fig 2.4: Exposed Reinforcement at bottom Berth 11.……………...…….………….….………….26
Fig 2.5: Damage to quay beam berth 12………………………………...…………………………26
Fig 2.6: Corrosion attack on piles Berth at 14……………………………………………………...26
Fig 2.8: Location of sand mining sites……………………………………………………………..29
Fig 1.8: Proposed works at berths 11-14…………………………………………………………..33
Fig 1.9: Possible layout of berths 11-14…………………………………………………………....33
Fig 1.10: Section drawing of a typical container berth………………………………………...........35
Fig 1.11: Location of Sand Mining Sites Relative to the Port of Mombasa………………………...35
Fig 1.12: Georeferenced Locations of Sand Mining Sites………………………………………….35
Fig 4.1: Distribution of levels of education among the respondents……….………………………57
Fig 4.2: Roles of respondents in households……………..………………………………...………58
Fig 4.3: Occupation Structure in the study site…..........……………………………………...…….59
Fig 4.4: Number of fishers in Mombasa County 2004-2012…….…………....………………....….61
Fig 4.5: Fish landing sites in Mombasa County between 2004 and 2012……………..………...…..62
Fig 5.1: Map of the Mombasa Port environment showing smaller ports and sampling sites…….....71
Figure 5.2: The phytoplankton unity group abundances at sampling Berth 1-14…....…………..….82
Fig 5.3: Phytoplankton genus representation with more than single genus.……….……………….83
Fig. 5.4: Phytoplankton genus representation with single genus…………………….……………..84
Fig. 5.5: Zooplankton group Abundances at sampling Berth 1-14 sites...………………………….85
Fig. 5.6: The overall abundance of Zooplankton genera (grouped together)...……………………..86
Fig. 5.7: Total taxa of benthic macroinvertebrate fauna at sampled areas...……………….…….....90
Fig. 5.8: Impact significance rating scheme………………………………………………………..93
Fig. 5.9: Ecological and social resources around the Port of Mombasa……………………………94
Fig. 6.1: Map showing the location of the landing sites……………………………………….….103
Fig. 6.2: Landing sites within the two creeks and their respective overall areas………………...…104
Fig 6.3: Geo-referenced site locations for gazetted fish landing sites……………...……………...105
Fig. 6.4: Key fishing grounds in the Port Reitz creek..…………...……………………………….106
Fig. 6.5: Composition of fishing vessels in the creek area..…………………………..………...…108
Fig. 6.6: Fishing gear composition in the creek fishery…………………………….……..………109
Fig. 6.7: Fish families/species categorized into groups……………………………………..…….110
Fig. 6.8(a): Annual trends for demersal and pelagic fish species 2008 -2015……………………..111
Fig. 6.8(b): Annual trends for Cephalops, Oysters, Sharks, Rays, and Crustacea 2008-2015.............111
Fig. 6.9: Seasonality in fish catches (2013-2015)………………………………….………………112
Fig. 6.10: Comparison of annual landings and value for the creek and Mombasa County……......114
Fig. 6.11 Monthly ex-vessel value of fish landed in creek area…………...………………………114
Fig. 7.1: Raw data points of water depths around Mombasa island…………………..………........123
Fig. 7.2: Derived bathymetry of the Kilindini and Tudor Channels...……….……….……………124
Fig. 7.3 Result of two-dimensional bathymetric survey of Kilindini harbor and Approaches...........124
Fig. 7.4: Turbid water dispersion simulation at offshore dumping during NEM………...…....…...125
Fig. 7.5: Turbid water dispersion simulation (surface and bottom layers) at offshore dumping during
SEM season………………………………………………………………………………......….126
Figure 7.6: Turbidity water dispersion due to potential dredging works at Berths 1-14 during NE
Monsoon…………………………………………………………………………...……………126
Figure 7.7: Turbidity water dispersion due to potential dredging works at Berths 1-14 during SE
Monsoon………………………………………………………………………………………..127
Figure 7.8: Results of numerical simulations of siltation before and after dredging at Berths 1-14
during the SEM season and the siltation difference before and after dredging…………………....127
Figure 7.9: Results of numerical simulations of siltation before and after dredging at Berths 1-14
during the NEM season and the siltation difference before and after dredging……………….….128
Figure 7.10: Location of dredge dumping site and boundary of Mombasa Marine Park………….130
Figure 7.11: Results of wave penetration simulation showing that change of wave heights due to
dredging is negligible (less than 10%)……………………………………..….…………………..131
Figure 7.12: Numerical simulation results of created current velocities vector field in Kilindini
harbor including the offshore dumping site and the adjacent Tudor creek……………………….132
Figure 8.1: Map showing water and sediments sampling points…………………………………..134
Figure 8.2. TSS concentrations (mg/L) in water column (surface, mid and bottom) in the proposed
project area and the control……………………………………………………………………...138
Figure 8.3. Organic matter concentrations (mg/L) in water column (surface, mid and bottom) in the
proposed project area and the control…………………………………………………………...138
Figure 8.4 Chl-a Concentrations (mg/L) in water column (surface, mid and bottom) in the proposed
project area and the control……….............................................................................................................139
Figure 8.5 DO Concentrations (mg/L) in water column (surface, mid and bottom) in the proposed
Figure 8.6 BOD Concentrations (mg/L) in water column (surface, mid and bottom) in the proposed
Figure 8.7. Nitrates and Ammonia concentrations (mg/L) in water column (surface, mid and
bottom) in the proposed project area and the control…………………………………………....140
Figure 8.8. Phosphates concentrations (mg/L) in water column (surface, mid and bottom) in the
proposed project area and the control…………………………………………………………....141
Figure 8.9 Sediment organic matter surface and bottom sediment in the proposed project area and
the control……………………………………………………………………………………….142
Figure 8.10: Variation in TSS at selected berths in the project site……………………………..…142
Figure 8.11: Grain size analysis for sediments collected at the Kilindini Channel …………......….143
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Main Characteristics of Deep Water Berths……………………………………………23

Table 1-2: Volumes of Dredging and Reclamation works…………………………………………28
Table 1-3: Geographical positions of sand mining sites…………………………………....………29
Table 1-4: List of Construction equipment………………………………………………………...37
Table 1-5: Summary of Project Timeline………………………………..…………………………38
Table 1-6: Outline of Project Costs………………………………………………………………..39
Table 2-1: Summary of Methodology and Approach for ESIA Study……………………………..33
Table 3-1: Policy Framework and Regulations applicable to Rehabilitation of Berths 1-14…..…….43
Table 3-2: Applicable WB Safeguard Policies and International Conventions …....…………….….44
Table 4-1. Demographic characteristics of Mombasa County……….……………………………..46
Table 5-1: Benthic macroinvertebrate fauna composition and abundance………………..……….88
Table 5-2: Total taxa of benthic macroinvertebrate fauna…………………....……………………89
Table 5-3: Mangrove community structure at the study plots in Port Reitz basin…….……………91
Table 5-4 A: Magnitude criteria for categorisation of impacts……………………..………………92
Table 5-4B: Frequency criteria for categorisation of impacts………………………………....……93
Table 5-5: Environmental risk assessment matrix for the proposed project………………....……..95
Table 5-6: Timing for recovery of seabed habitats after dredging (after Ellis 1996)……..…………96
Table 6-1: Distribution of effort in Port Reitz, Likoni, Mtongwe landing sites, Mwangala BMU................107
Table 6-2: Fishing gears and number of vessels and fishers using gear category ………….............107
Table 7-2. Fish catch landings (Likoni, Mkupe, Port Reitz and Tudor) 2011-2015……..……...….110
Table 7-3: Value of fish landed by years 2011-2015 and average Ex-vessel value by landing area …...…...113
Table 7-4 Membership in the BMUs in the area……………………………………...………….115
Table 8-1 Water quality analysis methods …………………...……………...…………..………...135
Table 8-2 Sediment quality analysis methods…………………………………..…………………136
Table 8-3. Temperature pH, Conductivity and Salinity at site and the control.....………...……….137
Table 8-4 Microbial contamination in the surface water samples at site and the control...…....…...141
Table 8-5. Sediments grain size classification for Clusters 1, 2, 3 and control site..............................143
Table 8-6. Heavy metals and oil and grease content in surface and bottom sediments at proposed
project area and the control…………………………………………………….……….………..143
Table 8-7. Comparison of heavy metals to the result of related studies……….…………………..144
Table 8-8 Concentration of Priority Air Pollutant………….……………………….……………145
Table 8-9 Noise levels in the project area comapred to permissible levels of Kenya Noise
regulations…………………………………………………………………………….…………146
Table 9-1 Issues raised by Stakeholders…………………………………………..………………156
Table 10-1 Summary of key impacts and mitigation measures……………………………………159
Table 10-2 Responsibility and Timeframe of ESMP ……………………....…….……………….167
Table 10-3 Estimated Costs for Environmental Monitoring……………………………………...169
List of Plates
Plate 4A: Fish landing site at Kwa Skembo / Port Reitz taken away by SGR development………..61
Plate 4B: Infrastructure development at Kwa Skembo – Port Reitz……………………….………62
Plate 4C: Bamburi Beach where residents of Mombasa West now have to go for recreation…....…64
Plate 5.1A: Approach to typical port murky waters near the berths and wharfs...………………….73
Plate 5.1C: Phytoplankton sampling around the channel areas…............................................................73
Plate 5.1D: Zooplankton sampling around the channel areas...................................................................73
Plate 5.2A: Scuba gear: survey crew on board a research vessel for marine assessments..………….74
Plate 5.2B: Safety at sea – part of the survey crew getting ready to dive for submarine
sampling………………………………………………………………………….……………….74
Plate 5.2C: Part of the attached benthic community flagged for assessment ………………………74
Plate 5.2D: Part of samples retrieved from sea floor…..............................................................................74
Plate 5.3A: Use of ropes to access sea-floor beneath wharfs due to poor visibility ………………..75
Plate 5.3B: Team-work within the survey crew for samples in heavy gear …………….…………..75
Plate 5.4A: Niskin bottle water sampler…………………………………….. ……………………76
Plate 5.4B: Combination of other oceanographic environmental probes for determination of various
environmental variables…………………………………………..……………………………….76
Plate 5.4C: Deep sediment core sampler ….................................................................................................76
Plate 5.4D: Shallow sediment core sampler………………………………………………………..76
Plate 5.4G: equipment for measuring current direction and speed to augment environmental quality
indicators………………………………………………………………………………………….77
Plate 5.4H: Upgraded Mombasa KMFRI GLOSS Tide Station also used to augment environmental
quality indicators…………………………………………………………………………………..77
Plate 5.5A: Mangrove formation around the control sites……………………………………...…..77
Plate 5.5B: mangrove structural assessments around the control sites…..…………………………77
Plate 5.5C: commonly occurring beach cast material off shelly beach…..…………………………78
Plate 5.5D: commonly used fishing gear (Malema) normally set on mangrove creeks at Port Reitz, or
on seagrass beds and lagoons off shelly beach…………………….………………………………78
Plate 6.5E: fish caught (5 kgs) by an effort of 2 fishermen in 2 hours in a pre-set Malema trap from
mangrove creeks displayed in one canoe (small boat)…………………………………...…………78
Plate 6.5F: fish caught (20 kgs) by an effort of 7 fishermen in 2 hours from pre-set 6 Malema traps
are sorted by groups and types for identification and characterization…………………………….78
Plate 5.5G: juvenile prawns caught (4 kgs) by an effort of 3 fishermen in 3 hours in a pre-set trap at
a mangrove creek near the Control site of the port sampling areas………………………………...79
Plate 5.5H: sample of shelled molluscs and crustaceans caught by women fishermen (effort of 1
woman in 5 hours day-time during low tide)………………………………………………………79
Plate 5.5I: Sampling for marine biota during high tide off shelly beach……………………………79
Plate 5.5J: Sampling for marine biota during low tide off shelly beach…...............................................79
Plate 5.5K: Diving team undertaking underwater census of biodiversity off shelly beach ............….80
Plate 5.5L: Catch of aquarium fish caught by licenced aquarium divers packed in oxygen bags for
sale/ trade………………………………………………………………………………………....80
Plate 5.6C: sorted and grouped benthic organisms are set under magnification for identification
using manuals and guides………………………………………………………………………….81
Plate 5.6D: Specialists taxonomists confirming the taxa …………….…….………………………81
Plate 8A Picture showing samples collection using Niskin bottle………………………...……….135
Plate 8B: Dust generation during offloading of bulk cargo is one of the sources of air pollution....145
Plate 8C: Equipment for measuring baseline aerosol quality indicators…………………………...145
Plate 9A: Delegates at Stakeholder Meeting I.……………………...………………………..…....155
Plate 9B: Mr M. Mutuku of KPA addresses delegates at Stakeholder Meeting I...……………..….155
Plate 9C: Delegates at Stakeholder Meeting II………………………………………………..…..155
Plate 9D: Mr D. Muganga of KPA addresses Delegates at Stakeholder Meeting II…………..…...155
List of Participating Specialists
Name Qualification / Affiliation Field of expertise
Mr Hezekiah B.Sc. (Mechanical Engineering) Team Leader,
Adala Registered EIA / EA Lead Expert with NEMA Environment Engineer /
Occupational Safety and
Health Expert
Mr Patrick MSc Ecological Marine Management Ecologist

Gwada Registered EIA / EA Lead Expert with NEMA
Dr. Eric PhD (Biogeochemistry and Ecotoxicology) Environmental Chemist

Okuku M Sc. Marine Ecology
B.Sc Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
Dr Charles Ph.D. Applied Science Oceanographer
Magori M. Sc. Physical Oceanography
BSc Mathematics
Mr. Jacob Master of Arts in Economics Socio-Economist
Ochiewo B.A (Economics)
Ms. Elizabeth M.Sc. (Environmental Science and Technology); Fisheries Expert
M. Musyoka B.Sc. (Fisheries Management and Aquaculture)
Mr Amon MSc Oceanography and Geology Oceanographer
Kimeli BSc. Geology
Mr. Marcel BSc. Environmental Science Associate Expert / Field
Otieno Registered Associate Expert with NEMA Assistant
Ms. Lenice
Ojwang BSc. Environmental Science Associate Expert / Rapporteur
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mombasa Port is the principal Kenyan seaport which plays an important role in the country’s
economic development and is expected to be one of the key players in the attainment of Kenya’s
Vision 2030. The port however requires upgrading in order to accommodate the rapidly increasing
cargo volume and to provide efficient logistics services for the country and neighbouring landlocked
countries such as Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo and Southern Sudan.
In response to these needs Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) which is the state corporation mandated to
manage the port of Mombasa, with the support of Trademark East Africa (TMEA) intends to
undertake the proposed projects, which are aimed at upgrading selected berths at the Port of
Mombasa. Following condition assessment study, three main project components were proposed as
follows:
 Rehabilitation, strengthening and deepening of Berths No. 1-5;
 Rehabilitation, strengthening and deepening of Berths No. 7-10; and
 Rehabilitation, strengthening and deepening of Berths No. 11-14.
Berths 1 to 5 and Berths 7 to 10 are located at the western part of the Port of Mombasa (Kilindini
Harbour), while the northern part of the port comprising of Berths 11 to 14 are located at Port
Reitz. The berths of Port Reitz and those of Kilindini Harbour are separated by a small creek. The
areas between Berth 5 and Berth 7, as well as between Berth 14 and Berth 16, comprise two small
bays where berthing facilities have never been built. To the south of Berth 1 there are the Lighter
Quays which are abandoned and no longer in use. The Dockyards, located south of the Lighter
Quays, are operated by KPA and comprise workshops, slipways and other facilities for maintenance.
At Mbaraki Creek there is a dry dock operated by African Marine and General Engineering Co Ltd.
The most southern part of the Port of Mombasa consists of the Mbaraki Wharf which is used for
handling of dry bulk cargo.
Within the port boundaries there are two oil jetties Shimanzi Oil Terminal (SOT) located to the
north of Berth 10, and Kipevu Oil Terminal (KOT) located directly to the west of Berth 19.
The location of Berths 1-14 is as in the outline map below.
Aerial map of the Port of Mombasa showing the proposed project area (Berths 1-14)
Details of the proposed works include:

a) Works at Berths 1-5
 Rehabilitation of areas with spalling and exposed reinforcement at the quay beam
 Sealing of cracks
 Installation of new bollards, fenders and life ladders
 Installation of new manhole covers.
b) Works at Berths 7-10
 Repair of the deck slab by shot-creting or cathodic protection
 Repair of the pile caps
 Installation of new bollards, fenders, manhole covers and life ladders.
c) Works at Berths 11-14
 Construction of a container terminal including all auxiliary works to gain an additional area
of 60,000 m²;
 Straightening of the quay line and increasing the water depth to 15 metres below chart
datum (– 15 mCD)
 Demolition and removal of existing infrastructure on the back-up area behind Berth 11 – 14
and existing quay wall (suspended deck structure)
 construction of embankments on both sides of the terminal and suspended deck structure
(length approx. 740 m)
 construction of reverted slope under suspended deck and scour protection
 provision of infrastructure at terminal area including utilities (electricity, fresh water, etc.)
 erection of reefer stacks
 construction of drainage system with oil separators and sediment tanks.
The reclamation plan and section drawings are as illustrated below:
Reclamation plan and section drawings of berths 11-14 (Source: Inros Lackner)
KPA anticipates that the above projects would lead to modernization of infrastructure facilities at
the Port of Mombasa hence improvement of efficiency in delivery of services.
Implementation of the proposed projects would create a wide range of environmental and social
impacts and thus requires Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA). Consequently the
KPA has undertaken this ESIA Study in order to ensure compliance with environmental regulations
prescribed by Kenya’s National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) as well as
requirements of international financing institutions such as the World Bank (WB), United Kingdom
Department for International Development (DfID), European Investment Bank (EIB) and German
KfW. In addition the proposed assessment is intended to ensure compliance with International
Finance Corporation’s (IFC) Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines.
The approach adopted for the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment was as follows:
 Screening: A rapid assessment of the project area to identify the environmental and
socioeconomic resources in the project area and determine the level of environmental
assessment that needs to be done.
 Scoping: This was undertaken as part of baseline studies to provide an implementation plan
for subsequent steps by making a preliminary assessment of methods needed to obtain
reliable baseline information. Upon completion of the scoping exercise the consultant
developed Terms of Reference for ESIA study and sent the same to NEMA for approval.
 Project Description: Involved giving a highlight of key components of the proposed project
such as description of the project site, nature and volume of construction works, project
timelines, implementing agents, a brief history of the project and a justification as to why the
project is necessary.
 Baseline studies: Establishing environmental, social and associated baselines for analysis of
potential impacts and for future monitoring purposes;
 Impact analysis: Examining in detail likely adverse environmental and social impacts directly
and indirectly attributable to the proposed project and prescription of mitigation measures
for the identified and associated impacts;
 Preparation of an Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) to ensure that
the proposed mitigation measures are implemented and the desired remediation effects
achieved;
 Stakeholder consultation and public engagement to share information about the proposed
project with stakeholders and collect their views for consideration during project
implementation.
Detailed ESIA Study involved conducting literature review of available documents relevant to the
study such as recent research papers and environmental assessment reports, review of local
environmental laws and regulations, international conventions and protocols to which Kenya
subscribes as well as reference to standards and guidelines issued by regulators such as NEMA and
other Lead Agencies. Field studies were also conducted within port areas and its environs to
document the baseline ecological and chemical conditions.
As part of the consultancy service the Consultant in liaison with the client undertook stakeholder
consultation and public participation processes in line with the provisions of the Environmental
Management and Coordination Act, 1999 and the Constitution of Kenya 2010. Two (2 no)
Stakeholder Meetings (SHM) were held during the course of the study. The 1st SHM was a key
informant SHM held at the scoping stage to brief the stakeholders on the project details and have
their concerns on board to be addressed during the study while the 2nd SHM was held at the end of
the study to present the key findings. The views gathered from the stakeholders were taken into
account in developing the ESIA report and feedback given to them on the findings of the study.
Key positive impacts identified during the study include:
 Implementation of the project would create employment opportunities for construction works
and market for construction inputs;
 Upon completion the port would have stable berthing structures that would ensure safety of
marine craft and seafarers, and reduce chances of marine casualties such as oil spills;
 Boost in trade due to improved efficiency of port operations as a result of the ultra-modern
facility.
Negative socio-economic impacts anticipated include:
Sector/activity Project Impacts/Issues identified Proposed mitigation measures

affected Phase
Fishing Construction Restriction of access to  Compensate fishers who would not be able to
some fishing grounds which use their traditional fishing grounds so that they
may be declared security can access alternative fishing grounds
zones; thereby displacing the  Empower the local fishermen to move to deep
artisanal fishermen from waters by offering training on deep-sea fishing
their traditional fishing methods and providing fishing gears and
grounds and landing sites. vessels that can enable them venture into
distant deep water fishing grounds
 Support provision of basic infrastructure in the
alternative fish landing sites such as cold
storage facilities and improvement of access
roads
Construction Probability of accidents at Demarcate passageways for small fishing vessels
sea separate from those used by ships
Tourism Construction Depreciation in value of Use clean technologies such as silt curtains and /or
mangroves and coral reefs coffer dams and ensure correct choice of dredging
due to effects of dredging period as proposed in the EMP to minimize
would impact on tourism damage to adjacent mangroves and corals due to
activities such as diving and effects of turbidity and sedimentation
snorkeling
Transport / Construction Expected increase in road Liaise with the County Government of Mombasa
Communication /Operation traffic due to transportation and the Kenya Police Service to post additional
of construction material at traffic marshals along affected roads during the
the construction phase and construction phase;
increased logistics traffic Make use of the standard gauge railway to
during the operations phase decongest roads.
as a result of increased
container volumes
Socio-cultural Construction Degradation of cultural and Protection / conservation of cultural and heritage
and Political heritage sites sites such as kayas that are located in close
proximity to the project site
Construction The rehabilitation works Adequate disclosure of information and
may attract attention from engagement of concerned NGOs and other
activists and pressure groups interested groups
who may make petitions.
Public Health Construction Potential for rise in new  Support HIV / Aids sensitization programs
cases of communicable  Avail and equip a Voluntary Counselling and
Sector/activity Project Impacts/Issues identified Proposed mitigation measures
affected Phase
diseases such as HIV/Aids Testing (VCT) Centre during the construction
due to interaction with period.
migrant workers
Negative environmental impacts include:
Sector/activity Project Phase Impacts/Issues Mitigation measures suggested
affected identified
Marine Construction Generation of suspended  Careful choice of dredging period (North East
Environment sediment during dredging Monsoon) when sediments would be
may reduce the propagated away from sensitive habitats;
productivity of  Reductions in the amount of suspended
phytoplankton and other sediment through use of appropriate civil
aquatic plants smother technology (dredger type, timing) will further
benthos on habitats reduce risks.
adjacent to the dredging  Continuous monitoring for developments and
/ construction sites accumulations of harmful algae blooms
Construction Physical removal from Reduction in the amount of suspended sediment
the seabed of submarine through use of appropriate civil engineering
sediments and their technology (dredger type, timing) will reduce risks
associated attached
sessile organisms will
result into destruction of
the infaunal and
epifaunal biota;
Critical habitats Operation Accidental oil spills and Put in place best practice procedures through IMO,
discharge of ship waste KMA’s and KPA’s port and shipping regulations to
from vessels during reduce probabilities of accidental and/or
operation phase may operational spills. Activate oil spill management
systems such as National Oil Spill Response
affect critical habitats and Contingency Plan in the event of spill.
seabirds due to oiling;
Air Construction Air pollution from dusty  Construction materials carried in vehicles
construction material at should be properly covered, unloading of bulk
the project as well as dust construction materials should be in areas
and particulate emission protected from the wind;
into the atmosphere  Enforce speed restrictions within the
during transportation of construction site.
construction material,  High moisture content on exposed surface and
demolition, excavation roads should be maintained by spraying with
and ground levelling water.
works
 Ensure efficient maintenance for construction
vehicles for optimum performance and reduced
emissions.
Sector/activity Project Phase Impacts/Issues Mitigation measures suggested
affected identified
Air Operation Air pollution as a result  Promote use of ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel
of emissions from ships, could reduce pollutants emissions.
as well as emissions from  Provide shore-based power connection for use
container handling by ships when docked at the berths
equipment and haulage
trucks.
Noise Construction Noise from on-site 
Minimize the generation of noise through the
construction activities use of equipment with complying to the
such piling, haulage of recommended standards
material and mixing of  Adherence to a good and regular maintenance:
concrete.  Personnel exposed to noise levels beyond
threshold limits should be provided with
protective gear like earplugs, muffs, etc.
Water Operation A rise in discharge of Enforce KPA policy that prohibits discharge of
ballast water in the ballast water within port areas.
harbour due to increased
shipping activities as a
response to the berths
availability may increase
the risk of introduction
of marine exotic species
Fishing activities Overall decline in fish  Empowerment of fishers to access alternative
catches as a result of fishing grounds during the dredging period;
temporary displacement  Equip affected fishers with modern fishing gear
of fish from the dredge and train them on how to use the gear;
and disposal sites due to  Compensation of fishers for loss of livelihood
elevated levels of during the dredging period
turbidity.
Details of the significance of these impacts and their duration are outlined in the thematic sections.
Mitigation measures have been proposed for each impact and an Environmental Management and
Monitoring Plan (EMMP) prepared to ensure that the proposed mitigation measures are
implemented and desired level of compliance attained.
Conclusion
The ESIA Study has established that the proposed rehabilitation works would create stable berthing
structures and additional container storage areas hence boosting port efficiency and the overall
economy of the country thereby creating employment. However the project area is located in the
neighborhood of sensitive ecosystems such as mangroves and coral reefs which act as habitat for key
fisheries resources on which the livelihoods of local communities depends. The proposed project is
likely to impact on these resources due to turbidity and sedimentation at the construction phase. A
detailed fisheries assessment has been undertaken as part of this ESIA study to determine the likely
impacts of the proposed works on fisheries resources and proposes mitigation measures to ensure
restoration of livelihoods of the project affected persons.
The proponent has committed to undertake the proposed works in an environmentally responsible
manner as demonstrated by commissioning the ESIA study to establish the inherent environmental
and social risks associated with the works, and inviting stakeholders to share with them the findings
of the study. An Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) prepared during this
study has estimated the cost of mitigation actions at about Ksh 129 million. It is proposed that this
provision be included in the capital budget of construction works to ensure implementation of the
EMMP.
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Project Location
The Port of Mombasa is located within a creek, on the west of Mombasa Island and on the
mainland at Kipevu. The geographic position of the port is approximately 4' 00' S, 39" 40' E. A
map of the region is shown in Figure 1.1.
Berths 1 to 5 and Berths 7 to 10 are located at the western part of the Port of Mombasa in Mombasa
island (Kilindini Harbour), while the northern part of the port comprising of Berths 11 to 14 are
located at Port Reitz. The berths of Port Reitz and those of Kilindini Harbour are separated by a
small creek. The areas between Berth 5 and Berth 7, as well as between Berth 14 and Berth 16,
comprise two small bays where berthing facilities have never been built. To the south of Berth 1
there are the Lighter Quays which are abandoned and no longer in use. The Dockyards, located
south of the Lighter Quays, are operated by KPA and comprise workshops, slipways and other
facilities for maintenance. At Mbaraki Creek there is a dry dock operated by African Marine and
General Engineering Co Ltd. The most southern part of the Port of Mombasa consists of the
Mbaraki Wharf which is used for handling of dry bulk cargo.
Figure 1.1: Map showing the Port of Mombasa and approaches
Within the port boundaries there are two oil jetties Shimanzi Oil Terminal located to the north of
Berth 10 (SOT) and Kipevu Oil Terminal (KOT) located directly to the west of Berth 19.
Characteristics of the main berthing facilities are listed in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1: Main characteristics of deep water berths
Top level
Apron Advertised
Length quay Year of Type of
Harbour Berth width water depth Usage
(m) apron construction construction
(m) (mCD)
(mCD)
Cruise liners,
1 181 15.2 5.49 -10.06 1926 Gravity wall ConRo, general
cargo
Cruise liners,
2 181 15.2 5.49 -10.06 1926 Gravity wall ConRo, general
cargo
Dry bulk cargo
3 181 15.2 5.49 -10.06 1929 Gravity wall
Conventional cargo
4 181 15.2 5.49 -10.06 1929 Gravity wall
Conventional cargo,
5 181 15.2 5.49 -10.06 1931 Gravity wall
RoRo, ConRo
Kilindini Harbour
6 No berth structure
Suspended deck
slab supported Conventional
7 198 20.3 5.49 -10.06 1942 - 1944
by reinforced cargo
concrete piles
Suspended deck
8 197 20.3 5.49 -10.06 1942 - 1944
by reinforced cargo
concrete piles
Suspended deck
9 205 21.0 5.49 -10.06 1956 – 1959
by reinforced cargo / soda ash
concrete piles
Suspended deck
10 203 21.0 5.49 -10.06 1956 - 1959
by reinforced cargo, edible oil
concrete piles
Suspended deck
slab supported
11 185 20.5 5.49 -9.75 1958/59 Container
by reinforced
concrete piles
Suspended deck
slab supported
12 183 20.3 5.49 -9.75 1958/59 Container
by reinforced
Port Reitz
concrete piles
Suspended deck
slab supported
13 183 20.3 5.49 -10.36 1958/59 Container
by reinforced
concrete piles
Suspended deck
slab supported
14 185 20.3 5.49 -10.36 1958/59 Container
by reinforced
concrete piles
1.2 Present Conditions
In 2014 KPA commissioned a firm of consulting engineers, M/s Inros Lackner to undertake a
condition survey on the target berths. Part of the target area shown in Fig 1.2 below (Berths 1-14)
has now been identified as the priority area for rehabilitation and is the subject of the current ESIA
study. The proposed project area is located within Kilindini Harbour between Berth No. 1
coordinates (39.64807, -4.05925) and Berth No 14 (39.63212, -4.04384). This location is designated
as a port operations area.
Fig 1.2: Aerial Map of Mombasa Port showing Berths 1-14 and associated yards (Source: Inros Lackner)
During condition survey of Berths 1 – 5, Berths 7 – 10 and Berths 11 – 14 it was found that the
quay walls are in poor to critical conditions as there are signs of advanced deterioration. In time if
left unrepaired this could lead to partial failure of the structures, which could then accelerate the
overall speed of deterioration. Specific concerns for each section are as follows:
2.2.1 Berths 1-5
Typical damages of the quay beam above water level are edge breakout, spalling and cracks. Those
damages were observed almost over the entire length of the quay beam. In some areas the
reinforcement is exposed. There are a series of vertical cracks through the masonry blocks along its
length, which extend from the bottom up to the fourth layer of the berths (Inros Lackner). On the sea
floor in front of the berths the large steel parts and chains from the fender fixings (Berth 1) were
noted. Some of these parts protrude from the sea bottom up to 1 m and pose a risk to mooring
vessels. The gravity wall at Berths 1 to 5 is in a poor condition. The main damages are:
 broken quay beam,
 cracks in the concrete block wall,
 missing or deformed and corroded life ladders,
 corroded bollards
 inappropriate fender system
 Blocked manholes.
2.2.2 Berth 7 - 10
Based on the results of the condition survey Berths 7 – 10 are in a poor condition. A major concern
of safety is the missing fenders or fender plates. The quay beams are in a fair to poor condition.
Typical observed damages are edge breakouts, spalling with exposed reinforcement and horizontal
and vertical cracks. At the bottom of the concrete slab there is general surface corrosion so that the
bottom reinforcement is partly exposed.
The piles are generally in a poor to serious condition showing signs of advanced deterioration such
as cracks and spalling.
Besides the above mentioned defects further damages were observed as follows:
 Missing fenders or fender plates,
 Corrosion of the concrete slab and piles,
 Missing or deformed and corroded life ladders,
 Corroded bollards
 Blocked manholes
Fig 1.3: Damage to quay wall at Berth No. 9 (Source: Inros Lackner)
2.2.3 Berth 11 - 14
Berths 11 - 14 are in a critical condition. Large areas of the concrete slab are highly corroded and
large areas of exposed and corroded reinforcement were noted. Heavy spalling and cracking of the
concrete in combination with severe loss of main reinforcement bars characterise the state of the
majority of structural parts of Berths 11 to 14. Such damages and losses of steel and concrete,
resulting in drastic deterioration, may lead to total closure of the berths in the near future.
Fig 1.4: Corrosion attack on fenders Berth 11 Fig 1.5: Exposed Reinforcement at bottom Berth 11
(Source: Inros Lackner)
The quay walls at Berths 11 to 14 are generally in a critical condition. As stated above, a total closure
of Berths 11 to 14 for regular port operations will be unavoidable very soon unless immediate action
is initiated for their reinstatement.
Fig 1.6: Damage to quay beam berth 12 Fig 1.7: Corrosion attack on piles Berth at 14
2.3 Analysis of Alternatives
The repair options that were considered include:

2.3.1. Do Nothing
This option will lead to severe loss of steel section, loss of bond between steel and concrete leading
to significant reduction in structural capacity and ultimately structural failure of the berthing
structure. It is not feasible.
2.3.2 Patch Repair
Patch repair including replacement of steel with more than 10% section loss – This is necessary to
restore and preserve the capacity of the structure but will not stop ongoing corrosion. Corrosion
may actually accelerate in adjacent areas which have not been repaired. Patch repairs alone require
cutting out concrete behind the rebars, and to at least 50mm beyond and rust and corrosion damage
on the bars. If patch repairs are coupled with cathodic protection, only damaged concrete is
removed. This reduces the amount of propping required.
2.3.3 Cathodic protection
Cathodic protection is recommended for heavily chloride-contaminated structures. Cathodic
protection works by ensuring that cathodic reaction occurs on all the reinforcing steel. Cathodic
Protection would need to be applied to the whole of the underside areas of the berthing structures.
Therefore, galvanic cathodic protection is the most likely method of successfully protecting the quay
wall substructure elements.
Under this method a range of zinc based anodes are installed in or on the concrete to provide a high
level of corrosion protection. The system has very low maintenance requirements although it may be
necessary to replace the anodes at 10 to 15 year intervals. Installation does not necessarily require
high levels of skill and technology.
2.4 Proposed Repair Works
2.4.1 Berths 1-5

2.4.2 Berths 7-10
 Repair of the deck slab by shot-creting or cathodic protection
 Repair of the pile caps
2.4.3 Berths 11-14
The Works at Berths 11-14 comprise the construction of a container terminal at Berths 11 – 14
including all auxiliary works. It is intended, to expand the terminal area approx. 90 m towards the sea
to gain an additional area of 60,000 m² (see Figure 2.8 and 2.9 below)The quay line will be
straightened and the water depth will be increased to a depth of 15 metres below chart datum (– 15
mCD). The Works include, but are not limited to:
 demolition and removal of existing infrastructure on the back-up area behind Berth 11 – 14
and existing quay wall (suspended deck structure)
 dredging and dumping of dredged material and reclamation of land with suitable material
 construction of embankments on both sides of the terminal and suspended deck structure
(length approx. 740 m)
 construction of reverted slope under suspended deck and scour protection
 provision of infrastructure on terminal area including utilities (electricity, fresh water, etc.)
 delivery and installation of fenders, life ladders, bollards and other marine equipment
 erection of reefer stacks
 construction of drainage system with oil separators and sediment tanks
Fig 1.8: Proposed works at berths 11-14 indicating dredging and land reclamation areas
The main dimensions of the new container terminal are as follows:

 Length of quay wall: 740 m
 Additional yard area: 68,000 m² (incl. land reclamation at Berth 15)
 Complete future terminal area: 200,000 m²
 Maximum extensions of project site: 1,000 x 300 m
Fig 1.9: Possible layout of berths 11-14
2.5 Dredging and Reclamation
For the expansion of the container terminal, land adjacent to the existing quay structures will be
reclaimed. Both sides of the reclaimed area will be protected by dams with revetments. This is to
prevent dredged material from being eroded during the construction period and to protect the
created terminal area against wave attacks. The expected volumes of dredging and reclamation works
are as outlined in the Table 1-2 below:
Table 2-2: Volumes of dredging and reclamation works
Section drawings for berths 1-14 are as illustrated below:
Fig 1.10: Section drawing of a typical container berth
Sand shall be sourced from a location within the Indian Ocean from where the sand for the just
completed second container terminal was harvested. The geographical location for the site is as
shown in figure 1.11 below.
Fig 1.11: Location of sand mining sites relative to the Port of Mombasa
The geographical locations of these points are as shown in Table 2.3 below:
Table 1-3: Geographical positions of sand mining sites
UTM System (WGS84, Zone 37S) Geographic Coordinates (WGS84)

Point Easting Northing Longitude Latitude
1 578147 9546930 39 39’58’’E 4 9’28’’S
2 572308 9540990 39 39’41 4 09’49’’S
3 569731 9533900 39 38’52 4 11’46’’S
These are illustrated further in the georeferenced map in Figure 1.12 below:
Fig. 1.12: Georeferenced location of sand mining sites
2.6 Demolition Works

The existing quay structures, pavement and buildings will have to be partially demolished so that
they do not interfere with the new structures for the proposed container terminal. In a first step the
pavement including road surfaces and railway tracks has to be broken up and removed. Then the
deck, beams and pile caps have to be removed and the piles have to be cut at the level indicated in
the Tender Drawings and dismantled.
2.7 Infrastructure Works
New infrastructure will be constructed on the terminal area including roads, parking spaces,
container stacks, reefer stacks and other paved areas. Drainage and sewing systems will be installed
and lighting poles will be erected. The electric power supply to the various consumption points is
also included.
2.8 Equipment
The equipment proposed for use in the project are listed in Table 2.4 below:
Table 1-4: List of Construction equipment
2.9 Project Timelines
Implementation of the project is at preliminary stages with detailed design and ground investigations
ongoing. Upon conclusion of tendering and procurement processes the construction of Berths 11-
14 is expected to commence by April 2018. A detailed programme of the project is as outlined in
Table 2.5 below:
Table 1-5: Summary of Project Timeline
1 ESIA report submitted to NEMA September 2017

2 Financial appraisal and endorsement by donors/lenders Oct 2016-June 2017
3 Lenders, GOK & KPA negotiations Jan-Dec 2017
4 Procurement of contractors Oct 2017-Jun 2018
5 Construction Berth 11-14 Jul 2018-Jun 2021 (3yrs)
6 Construction Berth 1-5 Jul 2020-Jun 2022 (2yrs)
7 Construction Berth 6-10 Jul 2022-Dec 2024(2.5yrs)
2.10 Project costs and potential financing arrangements
The overall project cost estimate is USD 192,500,000 as summarised in Table 2.6 below. The project
cost estimates are based on feasibility and detailed design studies of the project. The detailed Design
studies were carried out by Inros Lackner and would be further informed by the pending
Geotechnical Investigations.
Table 1-6: Outline of Project Costs
Descriptions Amount USD)

o Insurance, technical documents etc. 5,200,000
o Demolition of container yard 3,200,000
o Soil replacement (depending on GI) 14,100,000
o Reclamation of Berth 15 1,700,000
o Re-assessment of dredging prices 5,950,000
o Introduction of STS cranes 6,550,000
o Heavy duty project cargo berth 1,100,000
o Longer piles (depending on GI) 6,200,000
o Berth facilities (OPS, water) 150,000
o Fender piles 1,800,000
o Enhanced corrosion protection 4,100,000
o Pavement and drainage container yard 22,650,000
o Utilities (electricity, reefers, lighting…) 15,850,000
Sub-Total USD 88,550,000
o Civil works 90,950,000
Total 1 179,500,000
Environmental related costs
o Environmental monitoring and mitigation 1,100,000
Total 2 1,100,000
Cost of Equipment
Ship to Shore (STS) cranes 10,000,000
Rubber Tyred Gantries (RTG) cranes 1,800,000
Terminal tractors 100,000
Descriptions Amount USD)
Total 3 11,900,000
Office building
Total 4
Grand Total (Total 1+2+3+4) 192,500,000
It is expected that the project will be co financed by GOK through KPA. Euroopean Investment
Bank ( EIB) and AFD are expected to provide debt financing on concessionary terms. This facility
will be blended with grant financing from the European Union. A Detailed Economic and Financial
appraisal of the proposed project is being carried out by Ernst and Young (EY).
2.0 ESIA METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE
Introduction
In order to fulfill mandate the consultant undertook literature review on available documents
relevant to the study such as recent research papers and environmental assessment reports, local
environmental laws and regulations, international conventions and protocols to which Kenya
subscribes as well as standards and guidelines issued by regulators such as NEMA and other Lead
Agencies.
Field studies were conducted within the port areas to document the baseline environmental
conditions and review the impact of the proposed project on the baseline environment. Upon
completion of impact analysis mitigation measures were proposed and an Environmental
Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) prepared that would ensure the proposed mitigation
measures are implemented and desired effects achieved.
2.1 Preliminary Tasks
Preliminary tasks that were undertaken during the study were:
2.1.1 Screening
This is a rapid assessment of the project area by use of a questionnaire to identify the environmental
and socioeconomic resources in the project area and the level of environmental assessment that
needs to be done to determine project impacts. Screening was done upon commencement of the
ESIA study so as to inform the issues that needed to be addressed at the scoping stage.
2.1.2 Scoping
The scoping exercise was undertaken as part of baseline studies and provided an implementation
plan for subsequent steps by making a preliminary assessment of methods and levels of study
needed to obtain reliable baseline information to evaluate baseline conditions.
The Scoping process involved:

 Review of project tasks and target location;
 Demarcation of Project Area using maps and sketches;
 Identification of key environmental and social issues within the project area;
 Development of sensitivity maps;
 Identification of issues to be addressed in the ESIA.
2.1.3 Development of Terms of Reference (TOR) for Investigation of Environmental and Social
Impact Assessment
Terms of Reference (ToR) were developed based on the findings of the Scoping Study and included,
among others:
 Description of the project site and surroundings;
 Description of project activities;
 Determination of baseline environmental conditions (air quality, water quality, sediment /
soil quality, noise & vibration, odour) of the selected site through sampling and analysis.
 Socioeconomic survey (livelihood, literacy levels, employment); prevalence of infectious
diseases such as HIV/Aids, Occupational Health and Safety aspects of the project, accidents
and emergency management as well as the impacts of climate change.
 Identification of aspects of the project that are likely to have adverse environmental and
social impacts, or whose impacts cannot be established by the scoping process;
 Detailed methodology for investigation of each item and to determine its environmental and
social impacts;
 Development of mitigation measures and an Environmental Management and Monitoring
Plan (EMMP).
Upon completion of scoping the consultant prepared a project report containing the Scoping Report
and Terms of Reference for ESIA study and sent to NEMA for approval. Detailed studies then
commenced in line with the detailed methodology outlined below.
2.2 Project Description
Key components of the proposed project were highlighted, including the implementing agents, a
brief history of the project and a justification for the project, as follows:
 A full description of the project using maps and sketches, objectives of the project as well as
potential benefits to the country and to the local communities;
 Geographical location and extent of study area as well as adjacent or remote areas considered to
be affected by the project such as areas targeted for dumping of dredged material, sources of
construction material, reclaimed land etc.
 Project tasks likely to be undertaken such as rehabilitation of berthing structures, construction of
administration buildings, dredging and land reclamation, materials to be used and waste likely to
be generated;
 extent and magnitude of site reclamation and/or clearance, excavation and concrete works;
 sediment containment, settling and turbidity control measures;
 project schedule `and life span;
 project sustainability and decommissioning of obsolete or abandoned works.
2.3 Baseline Studies
Baseline data was obtained through field studies at the proposed project site and its environs. Data
on biological resources and baseline environmental characteristics was obtained through sampling
and analysis at a NEMA approved laboratory. Socio-economic data was obtained through literature
review and field studies to determine what may have changed since the documents under review
were published.
The baseline information obtained during the study as well as the methodology are summarized in
Table 2.1 below
Table 2-1: Summary of Methodology and Approach for ESIA Study

Activity Methodology/ Approach
Physical environment: geomorphology, meteorology, sea currents Literature review and field
and bathymetry, surface hydrology, estuarine/marine receiving studies
water quality, and ambient noise. Hazard vulnerability and storm
surge
Geographical and topographical information (lake, river, channel, Literature Review
basin area, groundwater, vegetation), etc.
Biological environment: terrestrial and marine vegetation and fauna, Literature Review, field
rare or endangered species, wetlands, coral reefs, and other studies and consultation
sensitive habitats, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), species of with key informant
commercial importance, and species with the potential to become stakeholders
nuisances or vectors.
Chemical environment - water quality, soil quality and air quality; Literature review, sampling
solid waste generation and disposal systems; noise and vibration and analysis at a NEMA
approved laboratory
Socio-cultural environment: socio-economic activities, population Literature review, field
and land use, planned development activities, employment, studies and Stakeholder
recreation and public health, cultural heritage sites and social Consultation
facilities (schools, hospitals and religious facilities); vulnerable
groups, indigenous peoples, education level, and poverty levels;
infrastructure facilities such as roads, railways and electricity;
availability and use of domestic water; fishing activities and use of
the port, population, vulnerable and marginalized groups in project
area
Occupational Health and Safety aspects – Construction impacts Literature Review, field
such as noise, dust and vibrations, fires, Potential for marine studies and consultation of
casualties during construction due to proximity to the seafront, fire key informant stakeholders
safety preparedness, oil spill response coordination (oil spills may
result from oil tanker mishaps and from land based industrial
activities). Procedures for accident reporting and investigation,
Provision and use of Personal Protective Equipment
During Literature Review environmental and social impact assessment reports and related project
documents recently prepared for major infrastructure development projects around Mombasa port
were studied, including the following:
 The Master Plan for the Port of Mombasa, 2009;
 ESIA for the ongoing Mombasa Port Development Project;
 Feasibility Study for Construction of the Offshore Jetty and pipeline in Pungu / Dongo Kundu
area by National Oil Corporation of Kenya;
 ESIA Report for Dredging of the Access Channel at the Port of Mombasa
 Environment Sensitivity Atlas for the Coastal Area of Kenya;
 State of the Environment Report, Coast Edition; NEMA 2013.
 Republic of Kenya. 2010. 2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census
 Republic of Kenya 2016. Marine Fisheries Framework Survey.
Detailed methodologies for baseline studies for each thematic area are as outlined in the following
sub-sections:
2.3.1 Characterization of the Biological Environment
This was necessary so as to document the baseline ecological conditions of the project area such as
flora and fauna, and was be done through sampling and analysis. For each sampling sites and
sampling points, this included a description of vegetation (including dominant species, alien
invasive species and environmental weeds, species and assemblages of conservation significance, and
vegetation cover); fauna (including dominant assemblages, dominant species, species of
conservation significance, alien / invasive species and vermin/pest species), and habitats (including
major types and biological significance of each).
In particular, the following sensitive/critical habitats potentially impactable were assessed:
a) Marine Habitats
 Mangrove and other wetlands community sites;
 Coral reef and sponge community sites;
 Seagrass community sites;
 Rocky platforms with attached/sessile life-forms;
 Soft bottom communities with macro-benthos;
 Species of special/commercial such as rare and endangered species as per IUCN red-listings;
 Species with potential to become nuisances or vectors
b) Terrestrial Habitats / Species:

 Wild plants – floristic composition, physiognomy and growth form, ethnobotany,
economic species, endangered and rare species,
 Crop and plantation plants
 Invertebrates, small fauna and burrowers
 Visiting populations: birds, reptiles
 Wildlife populations – conventional big animals, bats,
 Livestock populations – domesticated animals
The inventory of fauna and flora in the area concerned was made by field survey, interviews with
conservation agencies and the benthic studies.
2.3.2 Characterization of the Physical Environment

An assessment was made of the physical environmental conditions such as:
 Geomorphology and sedimentology,
 Meteorology (rainfall, wind, surface hydrology),
 Oceanographic characteristics (bathymetry, circulation systems, sea currents {tidal, stream-flow,
wind-driven}, winds, pressure, waves and tides),
 The port near shore environment (lagoons, creeks, bays, sub-tidal, intertidal and supra-tidal
environments, estuarine/marine receiving water quality).
 Hazard vulnerability; vulnerability of port near shore environments to flooding and storm surge,
 Vulnerability of project area to effects of climate change.
2.3.3 Characterization of the Chemical Environment:

This was done to determine baseline chemical conditions such as soil quality, marine sediment
quality and marine water quality.
For each habitat type or sampling site, a determination was made of the physico-chemical properties
of the surface water (including, temperature, salinity, pH, transparency, and nutrients). Attention was
paid to physico-chemical characterization of sediments beneath the water sampling points as well).
The samples were taken to a NEMA approved laboratory (Polucon Services Kenya Limited) for
analysis. In particular, the following subcomponents were assessed:
A. Water Quality – Physico- Chemical Analysis:

 Suspended and dissolved solids
 Temperature
 Salinity/conductivity;
 Dissolved oxygen
 pH, BOD, COD
 Dissolved N and Dissolved P
 Chloride
B. Water Quality – Microbiological Analysis:
 Total coliforms
 Fecal coliforms
 E. coli
 Enterococci
C. Sediments Quality Survey/Sampling:

Sediment Quality Survey: Seabed sediment material sampling was done at the same sampling points
as with water quality sampling; and the following parameters recorded:
 Grain size Analysis
 Total Organic Matter (Ignition loss)
 Moisture content
 Heavy metal content – Mercury, Arsenic, Lead, Chromium, Cadmium, Nickel, Iron, Lead, Zinc,
Copper
 PAH
 Total N and Total P
D. Air Quality and Noise Level Survey
Sampling for air quality was done at selected sampling points within the project area using a direct
reading air quality analyzer for monitoring gaseous pollutants whereas a particle counter was used to
measure airborne particulates.
Noise level was determined using a Sound Level Meter and equivalent noise level (Leq), maximum
sound pressure level (Lmax) and minimum sound pressure level (Lmin) parameters recorded to quantify
ambient noise levels.
The results of noise and air quality baseline levels were compared with area-specific noise guidelines
by World Bank and NEMA (Air Quality and Noise pollution guidelines).
2.3.4 Socio-economic Survey
This section of the study presents socio-economic conditions in the area including livelihoods,
security, health and education. Aspects covered include:
 Population distribution around the project area
 Social infrastructure (schools, health facilities, water, electricity, roads, sanitation etc.)
 Socio-economic profile – livelihood, security, health, education, land use activities, and
economic activities,
 Cultural profile – Identification of cultural resources (graveyards, shrines, historical sites) that
may be affected;
 Identification of project related activities that may cause temporary restriction of access to
sources of livelihood;
 Determination of existence of Vulnerable and marginalized groups.
The information was obtained through literature review of published reports and official
government records, and confirmed during field studies.
2.3.5 Fishery Survey
Fishery survey was undertaken through the identification of the fishing grounds, fishing villages, fish
landing sites, as well as review of fisheries records to determine the amount of fish landed,
marketing arrangements, income generated from fishing and the impact the sector may suffer from
the proposed development such as loss of the fishing villages, fishing grounds, landing sites, loss of
incomes, loss of employment and the available alternatives.
Identification was made of fishing resources such as fishing grounds or landing sites that may be
affected and fishermen and Beach Management Units (BMU) likely to suffer losses as a result of the
project. Quantification was made of the level of use of the channel and impact likely to result from
limitation of access to fishing grounds.
2.4 Stakeholder Consultation and Public Participation
Stakeholder Consultation and Public Participation was necessary to ensure compliance with The
Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the Environmental Management and Coordination Act 1999. The
consultants provided information on project activities and findings of ESIA study to stakeholders,
Lead Agencies, relevant government agencies and port users, and obtained the views of stakeholders
and affected groups. Details of the stakeholder consultation process are outlined in chapter 10 of
this report.
The following stakeholders were consulted and their concerns addressed:
 Stakeholders with environmental interests – Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute
(KMFRI), Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), Kenya Forest Service (KFS), NEMA, Kenya Maritime
Authority (KMA)
 Lead Agencies – County Government of Mombasa, Kengen, Kenya Pipeline Company, Kenya
Power, Kenya Bureau of Statistics, State Department of Fisheries, Kenya Revenue Authority,
Kenya Plant Health Inspection Services
 Port users - Logistics companies (Container Freight Stations, Shipping Companies),
Concessionaires (Grain Bulk Handlers Limited, Mbaraki Bulk Terminals Limited, Bamburi
Cement Limited, Tata Chemicals (Magadi), and
 The local communities particularly the fishers and people who use the area for recreational
purposes such as those that frequent Kwa Skembo beach.
Two (2 no) Stakeholder Meetings (SHM) were held during the course of the study. The 1st SHM was
a key informant SHM held at the scoping stage to brief the stakeholders on the project details and
have their concerns on board to be addressed during the study. The second SHM was held at the
end of the study to present the key findings and have stakeholder input on the same so that their
comments are incorporated in the final report.
2.5 Policy, Institutional and Regulatory Considerations
This involved identification, review and description of the regulations, policies and administrative
framework relevant to the proposed project. World Bank safeguard policies were also reviewed to
identify which of the policies are likely to be triggered by the proposed development.
2.6 Identification of Potential Impacts
Identification was made of impacts related to project elements such as berth rehabilitation, dredging,
land reclamation and construction of associated facilities. A distinction was also made between
significant impacts that are positive and negative, direct and indirect, and short and long term.
Special attention has been paid to:
 Impacts of the project on water quality and existing coastal ecosystems and resources,
 Impacts on the existing water activities such as fishing and on the rights/operations of any other
stakeholders,
 Impacts of the project on maritime traffic and road traffic,
 Impacts of the project on ambient air quality and noise levels,
 Impacts of the project on historical and cultural resources, and
 Potential impacts of the project on climate change.
2.7 Proposal of Mitigation Measures
Proposals have been made of possible measures to prevent or reduce significant negative impacts to
acceptable levels with particular attention paid to:
 Management of potential impacts on sensitive ecosystems;
 Control of impacts of dredging and disposal of dredged material;
 Measures to minimize disruption to existing socio economic activities;
 Contingency measures for prevention and containment of potential oil spills especially at the
operations phase;
 Disaster preparedness and management plans;
 Fire safety and security measures;
 Management of potential impacts on archeological and cultural resources
 Compensation for project affected persons (PAPs), where required.
2.8 Development of an Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan
Critical issues requiring monitoring to ensure compliance with the proposed mitigation measures
were identified and an impact management and monitoring plan for such issues prepared. The
monitoring plan proposed includes the parameters to be monitored, frequency and responsibility for
the monitoring tasks.
Monitoring of seawater quality would involve application of international standards and equipment
for taking samples, and analysing them at a NEMA approved laboratory. Parameters to be
monitored include temperature, pH, salinity, BOD, dissolved oxygen, COD, organics, nutrients,
heavy metals, coliforms, turbidity. Surveying sites may include areas adjacent to dredging and
reclamation areas, environmentally sensitive areas and at offshore sand extraction and dumping
areas.
Sediment quality monitoring would involve determination of levels of organic matter, oil and heavy
metal content and grain size determination. Biological monitoring would concentrate around the
number of micro-organism, the density of individuals, and animals at the sea bottom. Selective
parameters for air quality monitoring include dust, O2, CO2, H2S, SO2, NO2, CO while parameters
for noise level measurement would be Lmax, Lmin, Leq levels.
The EMMP prescribes the monitoring frequency for the different sites and the depth at which
samples would be extracted.
2.9 Analysis of Alternatives
This section gives a description of the alternatives to the proposed project that would achieve the
same objective including the “no action” alternative. Included here are alternative approaches for
rehabilitation of the dilapidated berths.
2.10 Socioeconomic Survey
Socioeconomic survey was undertaken as part of the ESIA process and involved an assessment of
population distribution, sources of livelihood, literacy levels, and employment levels, prevalence of
infectious diseases such as HIV/Aids, occupational health and safety aspects of the project,
accidents and emergency management.
The socioeconomic survey was carried out using questionnaires and involved focus group
discussions and key informant interviews. Focus group discussions were arranged in advance with
groups of 5-12 people to discuss peoples’ views. Key informant interviews were carried out with
opinion leaders. Data collected using questionnaires were coded and analysis carried out using
descriptive statistics and content analysis performed on the data generated through focus group
discussions and key informant interviews.
2.11 Report Preparation
This report, to be presented to NEMA, KPA and TMEA in electronic and hard copies, contains the
key findings of the study, focusing on significant environmental and social issues. Conclusions and
recommendations have been made supported by summaries of the data collected during the study
and citations for any references used in interpreting those data.
3.0 LEGAL, POLICY, AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
3.1 Legal Framework
Legislative provisions applicable to the proposed project are:

3.1.1 Constitution of Kenya, 2010
The current constitution was promulgated in 2010 establishing a system of devolved government
based on counties. The key constitutional provisions relevant to the proposed rehabilitation works
are:
 Article 10 on national values and principles of governance including 10(2a) on democracy
and participation of people;
 Fourth Schedule Article 10 on implementation of specific national government policies on
natural resources and environmental conservation;
 Fourth Schedule Article 22 under national government on the protection of the environment
and natural resources with a view to establishing a durable and sustainable system of
development;
 Bill of rights Article 42 which states that every person has the right to a clean and healthy
environment;
 Article 196 on public participation.
3.1.2 Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999
This is an Act of Parliament to provide for the establishment of an appropriate legal and
institutional framework for the management of the environment. The Act established the National
Environment Management Authority (NEMA) as the regulatory authority in charge of
environmental matters.
Relevant Provisions include mandates given to NEMA such as:

1. Section 2(a): Co-ordination of environmental management activities and promotion and
integration of environmental considerations into development projects.
2. Section 2(d): Examine land use patterns to determine their impact on the quality and quantity of
natural resources;
3. 2(e): Carry out surveys which will assist in the proper management and conservation of the
environment;
4. 2(l): Monitor and assess activities carried out by relevant lead agencies in order to ensure that the
environment is not degraded by such activities, that environmental management objectives are
adhered to, and adequate early warning on impending environmental emergencies is given.
3.13 Fisheries Management and Coordination Act No 35, 2016
This is an Act of Parliament is to provide for the conservation, management and development of
fisheries and other aquatic resources to enhance the livelihood of communities dependent on
fishing, and to establish the Kenya Fisheries Services; and for connected purposes.
Relevant provisions:
 Section 5(1): protect, manage, use and develop aquatic resources in a manner that is consistent
with ecologically sustainable development and to uplift the living standards of fishing
communities
 Section 7 which provides for the establishment of Kenya Fisheries Service as the state agency
responsible for conservation, management and development of Kenya’s fisheries resources.
3.1.4 Forest Act, 2005
This Act established the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) and supportive institutions for management
and conservation of all types of forests. The Act mandates the KFS to conserve and manage all
forests and sets out the roles and responsibilities of communities in managing forests.
Relevant Provisions:
Section (23) Upon the recommendation of the forest conservation committee for the area within
which a forest is situated, the local authority and the Board, the Minister shall declare any land under
the jurisdiction of a local authority to be a local authority forest where:
 land is an important catchment area, a source of water springs, or is a fragile environment;

 land is rich in biodiversity or contains rare, threatened or endangered species;
 forest is of cultural or scientific significance; or
 forest supports an important industry and is a major source of livelihood for the local
community.
3.1.5 Water Act, 2002
The Water Act (2002) makes provision for the conservation, control and use of water resources in
Kenya and for incidental and connected purposes. This Act aims at providing for harmonized and
streamlined management of water resources, water supply and sewerage services.
Section 6 of this Act provides that ‘An application for a license shall be the subject of public
consultation and, where applicable, be subjected to environmental impact assessment in accordance
with the requirements of the Environmental Management and Coordination Act of 1999’.
3.1.6 Physical Planning Act, Cap 286, 1996

The Act provides for preparation of regional and local physical development plans and grants local
authorities (now County Governments) powers to control development within the area under their
jurisdiction. Relevant sections are:
 Section 36: If in connection with a development application a local authority is of the opinion
that proposals for industrial location, dumping sites, sewerage treatment, quarries or any other
development activity will have injurious impact on the environment, the applicant shall be
required to submit together with the application an environmental impact assessment report.
3.1.7 Maritime Zones Act, Cap 371

This Act of Parliament is to consolidate the law relating to the territorial waters and the continental
shelf of Kenya; to provide for the establishment and delimitation of the exclusive economic zone of
Kenya; to provide for the exploration and exploitation and conservation and management of the
resources of the maritime zones; and for connected purposes.
3.1.8 Energy Act, No. 2006
The Energy Act, No. 12 was enacted in 2006 and has consolidated the law relating to energy whilst
simultaneously focusing on improved management and delivery of energy services. The Act brought
forth the Energy Regulatory Commission
Relevant provisions include:

Section 14: The Commission shall, in granting or rejecting an application for a license or permit, take
into consideration:-
(a) the impact of the undertaking on the social, cultural or recreational life of the community;
(b) the need to protect the environment and to conserve the natural resources in accordance with
the Environmental Management and Coordination Act of 1999;
3.1.9 Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, Cap 376
This Act provides for the protection, conservation and management of wildlife in Kenya and also
restricts entry into a protected area without proper permission, prohibits wilful or negligent cause of
bush fire, felling of trees, hunting, digging, laying, or constructing any pitfall, net, trap, snare or other
device whatsoever, capable of killing, capturing or wounding any animal.
3.1.10 Kenya Maritime Authority Act (Cap. 370).
An Act of Parliament to provide for the establishment of the Kenya Maritime Authority as a body
with responsibility to monitor, regulate and coordinate activities in the maritime industry and for all
other matters connected therewith. Relevant sections include the following functions of the
Authority:
 to ensure, in collaboration with such other public agencies and institutions, the prevention of
marine source pollution, protection of the marine environment and response to marine
environment incidents;
 to regulate activities with regard to shipping in the inland waterways including the safety of
navigation; and
 to implement and undertake co-ordination in maritime security;
3.1.11 Tourism Act, 2011

This Act provides for the development and management of stainable tourism and tourism-related
activities and services, and for connected purposes. Mombasa County is a popular tourist destination
and plans developed in the area have to comply with the Act. Under Section (5) of the Act the
Authority responsible for regulation of tourism activities shall, in considering license applications,
have regard to:
a) the protection of fragile environmental resources, ecosystems and habitats as provided for by the
ministry for the time being responsible for matters relating to the environment;
b) an environmental impact assessment license issued under Part VI of the Environmental
Management and Co-ordination Act, 1999 (No. 8 of 1999);
c) any representations received from members of the public.
The Act prohibits discharge of any dangerous materials, substances or oil into a designated tourism
development area and pollution of wildlife habitats and ecosystems, or discharge of any pollutant
detrimental to the environment contrary to the provisions of this Act or any other law.
3.2 Policies and Regulations
The table below highlights some of the relevant policies and their overall provisions as related to the
proposed rehabilitation works:
Table 3-1: Policy Framework and Regulations applicable to Rehabilitation of Berths 1-14
Policy Provision Applicable to Proposed Project
Environmental Management These Regulations guide on the procedure for conducting ESIA
and Coordination (Impact studies by detailing the issues to be addressed during the study
Assessment and Audit) as well as the parameters to be evaluated and guidelines for
Regulations, 2003 development of environmental management and monitoring
plans.
In addition the regulations provide guidelines for conducting

annual environmental audits.
Beach Management Units These regulations created Beach Management Units (BMUs)
(BMU) Regulations, 2007 comprising of stakeholders within fishing communities with
mandates of conservation, protection, monitoring and control of
fishery resources and the environment, and fisheries planning
and development in collaboration with government. The
participation of fisher-folks is in line with the general principles
of Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995).
BMUs act as co-management institutions and provide for
fisheries management at the grassroots level.
Environment Impact These guidelines were developed to support the Environmental
Assessment Guidelines And Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Audit (EA)
Administrative Procedures, processes and assist in the integration of environmental and
2002 social concerns in economic development to foster sustainable
development in Kenya.
Kenya Vision 2030 Kenya Vision 2030 is a long-term development blueprint for the
country to create a globally competitive and prosperous country
with a high quality of life by 2030. It aims at transforming Kenya
into “a newly-industrializing, middle income country providing a
high quality of life to all its citizens in a clean and secure
environment”.
National Environment Policy Upon the promulgation of Constitution of Kenya 2010, it was
and Guideline 2013 found necessary to review the draft policy of 2008 to
accommodate new developments due to time lapse and to align
it to the new Constitution.
National Energy Policy 2004 The Sessional Paper No. 4 of 2004 governed the policy direction
of the energy sector for past eight years, which has been aligned
to the new Constitution 2010 and made tandem with the Vision
2030. The overall objective of the energy policy is to ensure
affordable, sustainable and reliable supply to meet national and
county development needs, while protecting and consenting the
environment.
National Tourism Strategy The national tourism strategy is a culmination of extensive
2013-2018 stakeholders’ involvement and participation besides fulfilment
of the Tourism Act 2011, Section 3. The main aim of this
strategy is to address national issues confronting the Kenya
tourism sector and focus the players in the sector on sustainable
tourism.
Environmental Management These are described in Legal Notice No. 120 of 2006 and
and Coordination (Water provide for protection of ground and surface water from
Quality) Regulations, 2006 pollution, quality standards for sources of domestic water and
the limits and parameters of pollutants in treated waste water
which can be discharged into the aquatic environment.
Noise and Excessive Vibration These regulations apply to operation of equipment or machinery
(Pollution Control) Regulations, and engagement in commercial or industrial activity that is likely
2008 (Legal Notice No 61) to emit noise or excessive vibrations. The regulations specify the
limits or levels within which these shall be undertaken. The
Regulations also stipulate in the second schedule that
construction activities undertaken during the night should not
emit excessive noise beyond the permissible levels.
Environmental Management and These regulations outline the responsibility of the waste
Coordination (Waste generator and prescribe proper mechanisms for handling all
Management) Regulations, 2006 waste through segregation, recycling and reuse.
(Legal Notice No 121)
Environmental Management and These regulations provide for prevention, control and
Coordination (Air Quality) abatement of air pollution from premises, processes, operations
Regulations, 2009 or works, and prescribes exposure limits of air pollutants and
emission levels of hazardous substances.
3.3 Applicable World Bank Safeguards and International Conventions
The following international treaties, Conventions, and WB Policies have provisions applicable to the
proposed project:
Table 3-2: WB Safeguard Policies and International Conventions Applicable to Proposed Works
Sector Convention / Policy
EIA World Bank Operational Policy 4.01( Environmental Assessment)
Resettlement World Bank Operational Policy 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement)
Water Quality Ballast water management regulations (IMO Convention)
Disposal of Dredged  London convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Material and other Dumping of Waste and Other Matter(1972)
waste  International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships,
1978.(Marpol 73/78)
 World Bank Technical Paper Number 126 - Environmental
Considerations for Port and Harbor Development
Cultural and Convention Concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Historical sites Heritage, Paris 1972
Wetlands Convention on Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar, 1971)
Biodiversity Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)
WB OP 4.04: Natural Habitats
Wildlife  Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild
Animals
 Washington Convention on International Trade In Endangered
Species (CITES,1973)
Hazardous Waste Basel Convention on the Control of Trans-boundary Movement of
Hazardous Wastes (1989)
Oil Spill International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and
Cooperation(1990)
3.4 Inconsistencies between Kenyan Legislation and WB Safeguards Policies
A review of World Bank safeguards policies and EMCA regulatory provisions indicates that they are
generally aligned in principle and objectives but have few inconsistencies as follows:
 While World Bank OP 4.01 stipulates different scales of EIA for different categories of
projects, Kenya’s EMCA requires EIA for all projects listed under Schedule 2 of the Act
irrespective of their scale.
 Whereas EMCA requires Strategic Environmental Assessments as framework instruments
for large scale projects with impacts beyond the project location, WB Safeguards require that
an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) be prepared as a safeguard
document for projects whose exact boundaries and scale of impacts are not yet clear.
 EMCA recognizes other sectoral laws while WB has safeguards for specific interests.
 The national provisions for the management of resettlement related issues are not yet fully
developed and therefore not at par with the World Bank safeguard WB OP 4.12. Where
resettlement and compensation issues are encountered WB OP will be applied.
4.0 SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
4.1 Introduction
Mombasa Port is the largest port in the East African region serving Kenya and the landlocked
countries such as Uganda and Rwanda. The cargo handling volume in Mombasa Port has increased
drastically in the recent years, exceeding the previous future demand forecast. While this growth has
been occurring, berths 1-14 have deteriorated over time and require immediate rehabilitation. These
berths are located at the Kilindini Harbour which is surrounded by an area that is endowed with
diverse natural, human, financial and technological resources that support different economic
activities and provide livelihoods, employment and income to the inhabitants of Mombasa. The
berths are located in the port in the area that extends from Mombasa island to the West mainland
areas of Changamwe and Kipevu. The project site is also bordered by Likoni, Mtongwe and Dongo
Kundu on the south coast. Dongo Kundu is less developed and is set aside for development of the
Special Economic Zone. Some historical and cultural heritage sites exist in the Island and Mtongwe-
Dongo Kundu area within the proximity of the project site. These sites include the historic
Mombasa Old Town with its narrow streets, Fort Jesus, and Kayas. Most of these sites are protected
by the National Museums of Kenya.
4.2 Methodology for Socioeconomic Assessment
The socioeconomic assessment involved a review of the existing literature (published articles, official
Government documents, previous ESIA reports, and unpublished reports held by different
stakeholders), gap analysis, and key informant interviews to fill existing information gaps. The key
informant interviews involved use of interview guides in a personal face-to-face interview approach.
The interview guide was constructed taking into account the objectives of the ESIA study.
During the literature review, the main reports that were reviewed included:
 The Master Plan for the Port of Mombasa, 2009;
 Strategic Environmental Assessment for Special Economic Zone;
 ESIA for the ongoing Mombasa Port Development Project;
 EIA Report for Dredging of the Access Channel at the Port of Mombasa; and
 Environment Sensitivity Atlas for the Coastal Area of Kenya.
The government publications that were reviewed include:
 2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census;
 The State of the Coast Report for Kenya;
 Mombasa County Integrated Development Plan.
4.3 Findings of socioeconomic study
Key findings of the socioeconomic study are as follows:
4.3.1 Demographic characteristics of Mombasa
Mombasa County which houses the project site had a total population of 939,370 people in 2009 out
of which 486,924 were male and 452,446 were female (Republic of Kenya, 2010). Based on the 2009
population census statistics, it was projected that the total population of Mombasa County would
increase to 1,158,880 people by the year 2015 and 1,242,908 people by year 2017. In addition,
Mombasa County had a population density of 4,293 persons per square kilometre in 2009 and was
projected to increase to 6,640.5 in the year 2012. The population density is not even throughout the
county. It is much higher in Mvita, Changamwe and Nyali sub-counties and much lower in Kisauni,
Likoni and Jomvu sub-counties (population density in these last three sub-counties range between
2,188 to 4,040 persons per sq. km) (County Integrated Development Plan, CIDP). The population
density for Mombasa County in 2009 was much higher than the national population density of 66
persons per sq. kilometre as well as the coast region’s population density of 40 persons per sq.
kilometre.
The historical long distance trade and the recent developments in tourism development, shipping
and harbour activities and commerce provide opportunities for livelihoods, employment and leisure
and have attracted a large population to Mombasa County. Table 5.1 shows the distribution of
population in Mombasa County.
Table 4-1. Demographic characteristics of Mombasa County

Sub-County Male Female Total Density
Mvita 71,135 71,993 143,128 9,751
Changamwe 70,309 62,383 132,692 8,306
Nyali 57,158 49,022 106,180 7,213
Kisauni, 139,745 134,130 273,875 2,826
Likoni 87,654 78,354 166,008 4,039
Jomvu 60,923 56,564 117,487 3,300
TOTAL 486,924 452,446 939,370 4,293
Source: Republic of Kenya, 2010.
Trends in the population and settlement patterns show that population increases towards unplanned
areas where land and housing is relatively cheap, and population increases in areas that have
inadequate or non-existent sanitation infrastructure since this is where land is available for
development.
4.3.2 Respondent Characteristics
4.3.2.1 Gender and age
70% of the 61 respondents who were interviewed during the study were men while 30% were
women. Respondents were aged 25 to 72 years with the mean age of 38 years and a mode of 50
years. Most of the respondents fell within the economically active age of 18-60 years.
4.3.2.2 Marital status
About 75% of the respondents were married while 18% were single, 2% were widowed and 5%
were divorced. The marital status shows that the respondents had different levels of responsibility
within their households.
4.3.2.3 Levels of education and available educational facilities
The respondents were characterized by low levels of education with most of them (70% of all the
respondents) having attained different levels of primary education or no education at all (see figure
4.1). Only 11% had attained O-level qualification while 3% had attained A-level and university
qualifications.
35.00%
30.00%
Percentage of total
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
Total
5.00%
0.00%
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
std6
std8
std2
std3
std4
std5
none
Std7
madrassa
Level of education
Figure 4.1: Distribution of levels of education among the respondents
In terms of educational facilities, there are 645 primary schools in Mombasa County. Out of this
number, 95 are public schools while 550 are private schools. On average, there are 70,345 students
in public schools and 76,301 students in private schools. Teacher-pupil ratio in public schools is
estimated to be 1:41. This compares well with the recommended ratio of 1:40. In addition, there are
35 public secondary schools with a student population of 15,538 and 423 teachers. There are four
youth polytechnics, one teacher training college, and a technical training institute. Furthermore,
there is one chartered Public University (Technical University of Mombasa) and four satellite public
university campuses namely University of Nairobi, Kenyatta University, Jomo Kenyatta University
of Agriculture and Technology, and Moi University. Besides, there are three private university
campuses namely Daystar University, Kenya Methodist University and Mt. Kenya University.
Mombasa County also has 770 Early Childhood Development (ECD) Centres out of which 85 are
public centres and 685 private centres with 47,867 students and 1,714 teachers.
Mombasa County has a relatively low literacy level of 86.3% despite the existence of free primary
education and subsidized secondary education. The main challenge facing education in the county is
inadequate school infrastructure, learning tools such as desks and chairs, and human resources.
4.3.2.4 Household Roles
Most of the respondents (75%) were heads of households who were responsible for the provision of
livelihoods to their households (Figure 4.2). Majority of them were men with women accounting for
about 30%. Their responses to the questionnaires were therefore influenced by their perceived
expectations from the project.
Figure 4.2: Roles of respondents in households
4.3.2.5 Occupational Structure

Figure 4.3 below presents the occupational structure of the respondents. It is evident from this
figure that 52% of the respondents are involved in small scale businesses as a means of earning
livelihood. The business activities in the area are varied and range from the small-scale food-selling
kiosks to the medium scale shops that sell household items, workshops and garages. The small-scale
businesses are operated by both men and women. Some of them have obtained credit facilities from
the micro-credit schemes that have been initiated to promote small and medium scale enterprise
developments. This is in line with the Government’s commitment to promote micro-small and
medium scale enterprise development as a means of creating self-employment and alleviating
poverty. The second largest occupation is employment. Many people are employed in the companies
that operate around the project site. Some people are employed as security guards by different firms
while others are teachers, nurses, among others. The occupation that ranks third in terms of the
number of people employed is artisanal fishing and the informal “jua-kali” sector.
Figure 4.3: Occupation Structure in the study site
4.3.3 Economy
The economy of Mombasa County is supported by maritime industry, tourism and hospitality,
manufacturing, mining, banking and micro-finance, agriculture, livestock, fisheries. The planned
rehabilitation works will take place in a built up commercial and industrial area with major oil
companies in Shimanzi and Kipevu located close to or within the Port of Mombasa.
4.3.3.1 Ports and Shipping

Mombasa has two natural harbours, the Kilindini Harbour (Mombasa Port) which is the main port
located along Kilindini Channel and the Old Port which is located along Tudor creek. Mombasa
Port is the largest port in the East African region serving not only Kenya, but also the landlocked
countries such as Uganda, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In the recent past, the
cargo handling volume in Mombasa Port increased drastically, exceeding the previous future
demand forecast. Besides Mombasa Port, the Old Port has also remained active and is important for
handling smaller vessels.
4.3.3.2 Tourism and hospitality
Mombasa County which houses the project site has many tourist attractions. These attractions
include World Heritage sites such as Fort Jesus Museum, the Likoni Ferry Services, the moulded
gigantic elephant tasks, the Mombasa Old town, the old port, sandy beaches, the Mombasa Marine
Park, Haller Park, and butterfly pavilion. The development of tourism in Mombasa County resulted
in clusters of beach hotels adjacent to the shoreline. Many hotels and restaurants have also been
built in the Island as well as other strategic locations in the County. There are about 430 beach and
tour operator firms that provide tourism related services. Over 201 registered hotels and lodges are
available in the County with a total bed capacity of 8,000 beds and average annual bed occupancy of
64%. Tourism and related activities have spurred other economic activities. Safari tour operators,
curio vendors, boat operators, entertainment spots, salons and boutiques, sport-fishing, snorkelling
and diving depend on the tourism. Tourism and related activities provide employment opportunities
for the inhabitants of Mombasa County. The activities also generate revenue to both County and
National Governments. In addition, tourism provides a market for produce and products from
agriculture and livestock sectors (Government of Kenya, 2009). The existing tourist hotels will benefit
from increased number of tourists once the project is completed due to projected increase in trade
at the Mombasa Port.
4.3.3.3 Manufacturing and other industrial production enterprises

There are several manufacturing enterprises in Mombasa. These range from export processing, flour
mills, glass ware, oil refineries and cement manufacturing. Many textile industries have also been
established in the export processing zones (EPZs). Many industries are also engaged in agro-
processing for both local consumption and export. These enterprises provide employment to the
residents of Mombasa City. The other industrial activities in Mombasa City include steel rolling
mills, iron smelting and bottling of drinking water. It is envisaged that measures will be put in place
to ensure that exports from these manufacturing enterprises and industrial production are not
negatively affected during the rehabilitation works. The same applies to the handling of some of the
production inputs that are imported for the manufacturing enterprises. The enterprises will however
benefit from increased efficiency at the port once the rehabilitation works are completed.
4.3.3.4 Mining and minerals
Some basic mining takes place in Mombasa and is limited to three minerals namely coral limestone,
weathered shale and sand. Coral limestone is mined by Bamburi Cement Limited for use as the basic
raw material for cement production. Weathered shale is mined in open pits near Nguu Tatu, West of
Bamburi for use as secondary raw material in the production of cement (Government of Kenya, 2009).
Coral limestone blocks are also extracted in some parts of the Mombasa for use in the building
industry. Pit sand which is an important building material is mined at Junda in Kisauni Sub-County.
It is worth noting that sand and limestone are currently being mined without supportive legislation.
4.3.3.5 Small-scale agriculture
The main crops that are grown in Mombasa include food crops such as maize and cassava and cash
crops such as mango, banana and coconut. The livestock that are kept in the area include cattle,
goats and poultry. Cattle and goat population is however limited since Mombasa is mainly an urban
County with very little space left for farming activities.
4.3.3.6 Artisanal fisheries
Artisanal fishing in the project area takes place in the adjacent Port Reitz and Makupa creeks as well
as the inshore waters around Shelly Beach in the south coast. Artisanal fishing is an important
economic activity employing many people in the fishery value chain. The number of artisanal fishers
in Mombasa County has increased from 957 in the year 2004 to 1,635 in the year 2012 (see figure
4.1). The number of fish landing sites in Mombasa County has increased progressively from 23
landing sites in 2004 to 31 landing sites in 2012 (see figure 5.5). Some of the fish landing sites are
under threat from private developers due to lack of title deeds. The number of fish sheds (bandas)
has remained constant at 2 between 2004 and 2012 while the number of working cold rooms
increased from 1 in 2004 to 2 in 2012 (Republic of Kenya, 2012).
Fish landing sites along the Kilindini Channel as well as in the adjacent Port Reitz and Makupa
creeks and Shelly Beach will be adversely affected by the dredging works. Artisanal fishers are
increasingly being marginalized with displacement and delays in compensation by different
development projects (Plate 4A and 4B below).
Plate 4A: Fish landing site at Kwa Skembo / Port Reitz taken away by SGR development
1800
1600
1400
Number of fishers
1200
1000
800
600 No. of fishers
400
200
0
2004 2006 2008 2012
Year
Figure 4.4: Number of fishers in Mombasa County 2004-2012
35
30
Number of fish landing sites
25
20
15
No. of landing sites
10
0
2004 2006 2008 2012
Year
Figure 4.5: Number of fish landing sites in Mombasa County between 2004 and 2012
4.3.3.7 Infrastructure development

Major infrastructure development works are currently being undertaken around the project area
particularly on the Port Reitz side (Plate 5B below).
Plate 4B: Infrastructure development at Kwa Skembo – Port Reitz
Road construction works are also going on in the Changamwe area. These projects are related to
operations of the port of Mombasa since they aim to improve off-take of cargo from the port and
ease congestion along the port access roads. The cumulative effect of the construction works by
other agencies and the proposed rehabilitation of berths 1-14 will be significant and needs effective
mitigation measures to be put in place.
4.3.3.8 Transport
The existing road network in Mombasa was originally designed for low traffic but the number of
vehicles has increased beyond the capacity of the roads. The situation has been further complicated
by a dramatic increase in the number of heavy commercial vehicles without upgrading of the roads.
This has resulted in increased traffic congestion along the different roads as well as rapid damage of
roads. The neighbourhood of the project area in particular experiences perennial traffic congestion
at the Makupa causeway due to increased number of trucks on the road particularly in the late
afternoon and evening hours. The congestion extends to Miritini along the Changamwe-Mikindani-
Miritini road. Construction material for berths 1-14 will be transported through the existing routes
and this is likely to worsen the situation during the period of rehabilitation. This situation is however
expected to improve once the rehabilitation works are completed and when the road construction
works in the mainland west are completed. Most residents of Mombasa City rely on public transport
(matatu) and therefore most of the people who will be involved in the rehabilitation works are likely
to use this mode of transport.
Besides road transport, air transport plays a critical role in meeting the transportation needs of the
residents of Mombasa as well as the transportation needs of the tourism sector in Mombasa City.
Moi International Airport is the main airport in the coast region is located in Mombasa County
(Government of Kenya, 2009). It handles both international and domestic air traffic. The project site is
also served by a railway line that transports cargo from Mombasa Port and passengers from
Mombasa City. The railway is currently being replaced by a Standard Gauge Railway whose
construction has just been completed.
Maritime transport especially the ferries that link the south coast with the Mombasa island is very
important to the residents. Traditional boats are also used to provide localized transport in some
areas around the project site.
4.3.3.9 Community Services
Community services are available in Mombasa County include health amenities, electricity, primary
and secondary schools, religious places (mosques and churches), piped water, telephone, banks and
security (police stations and county administration).
4.3.3.9.1 Health Amenities
Public hospitals available in Mombasa City include:
 A Level 5 referral hospital, the Coast General Hospital, which provides both in-patient and out-
patient services;
 Two level four hospitals namely Tudor and Port Reitz Hospitals that provide out-patient and in-
patent medical services;
 Thirty five (35) public dispensaries and health centres, and 18 clinics.
In addition, there are private clinics and pharmacies that provide health care services. As population
grows, there has been a tendency to open new private clinics to cater for increasing demand for
health care. Two medical training colleges also exist in the area. KPA also has a health facility that
provides first level treatment for its staff and refers them to the bigger hospitals when there is need.
The project will benefit from these diverse health facilities. It is however worth noting that these
health care facilities are not enough to cater for the health care needs of the whole population.
4.3.3.9.2 Electricity and other sources of energy

Most of the project area is served with electricity from the national grid. Electricity lines run parallel
to the main roads serving both the commercial and residential areas. The Kengen Power Station in
Kipevu generates electricity in close proximity to the project site. Households in the area depend on
electricity, cooking gas, kerosene, and charcoal to meet their energy needs.
4.3.3.9.3 Recreation
There has been a sandy beach at Kwa Skembo close to the project site. This sandy beach served as
an important recreational site for the residents of Mombasa mainland west (Port Reitz, Magongo,
Chaani and Migadini estates). However this recreational site has been displaced by infrastructure
development and those who depended on it are forced to consider the alternative sites which are
located far away from Kwa Skembo such as the Jomo Kenyatta Public Beach at Bamburi (Photo 2).
Plate 4C: Bamburi Public Beach where residents of Mombasa west have to go for recreation
4.3.3.9.4 Telephone
The project site is served by telephone lines as well as mobile phone networks particularly
Safaricom, Airtel and Telkom.
4.3.3.9.5 Potable water
Generally, a large part of Mombasa County is served with piped water. However, according to
reports from the Mombasa Water & Sewerage Company (2006), the water supply to Mombasa
currently stands at about 72,000m3/day against a demand of 160,000m3/day (Japan Port Consultants
et al., 2010). This translates to 45% of the demand being met. The 72,000m3/day of water is supplied
to consumers through rationing. Water for domestic use is also supplied by mobile vendors who sell
water as a business.
Exploitation of groundwater in Mombasa has been haphazard with no strict government control on
borehole drilling or well development. The current water supply shortages and increased urban
population has resulted in increased dependence by many residents of Mombasa on groundwater for
potable water needs (Adala et al, 2007).
4.3.3.9.6 Sanitation
Wastewater treatment has not been given adequate attention in Mombasa. Presently, only 30% of
the population in the Island and 15% of the population in the Mainland West is connected to the
sewer, while the rest is either served by septic tanks or cesspit including pit latrines. None of the
wastewater is treated, with most discharged to the Ocean causing localized pollution. Over 65% of
the coastal population is served by pit latrines and a mere 2% have a flush toilets. Over 25% have no
provision for domestic wastewater whatsoever. These data contrast somewhat with national averages
where 6% have a flush toilet and only 16% have no provision for sewage whatsoever (Republic of
Kenya, 2000).
4.3.3.9.7 Security
There are a number of Police Stations in the project area strategically located to provide security to
the area. In addition, the County Commissioner, Deputy County Commissioners, the location Chiefs
and Assistant Chiefs work together to ensure there is security in the project area. Community
policing has also been encouraged to promote networking between the National Police Service and
the public on matters of security.
4.3.3.9.8 Religion and Religious places

Islam and Christianity are the dominant religions in the neighbourhood of the project site.
Consequently, both mosques and churches are available in areas around the project site. Since Islam
and Christianity are the dominant religions the interventions that will affect the livelihoods and other
ways of life of the local communities must take cognizance of the values that are enshrined in both
Islamic and Christian faith.
4.3.3.9.9 Historical and cultural sites

Historical and archaeological sites such as old mosques, tombs, mounds and walls of ancient city
houses that were linked to Swahili Culture in East Africa were not reported by the respondents at
this stage. However, the respondents identified the presence of three Kaya forests namely Kaya
Mtongwe, Kaya Mihongani and Kaya Shonda/Pungu. The Kaya refers to unique indigenous forest
that is found along the coast. The Kaya forests are highly biodiverse and have high cultural
significance to the Mijikenda communities, who consider them as sacred and have used them for
traditional religious and spiritual ceremonies for centuries (Blackett, 1994; Government of Kenya,
2009). The Kaya have recently spurred the growth of forest tourism in the coastal region
(Government of Kenya, 2009). The Kayas are sacred sites that serve as the repositories of spiritual
beliefs of the Mijikenda communities. These cultural sites are used for performing cultural rites
which are important especially to the original inhabitants of the area. The other benefits of these
cultural sites include tourism attraction, bee keeping and attraction of rain.
4.3.3.9.10 Leadership
In terms of leadership arrangements, the main form of leadership is the formal Government
structures. The Chief and his assistants represent the Government authority at the location and sub-
location levels respectively. They are assisted by village headmen/women whom they have
appointed from amongst respected people in the villages or estates to administer these smaller units
and handle petty matters on their behalf. The chiefs report to the Assistant County Commissioners
who further report to the Deputy County Commissioners. County Government is in place with the
Governor as the head with administrative responsibilities over the County while the County
Commissioner is also present to coordinate National Government activities within the County.
Some form of traditional leadership arrangements also exist particularly in the peri-urban areas.
4.4 Respondent’s Perceptions about the Rehabilitation Works
An analysis of respondents’ perceptions about the rehabilitation works was carried out and the
results that were obtained have been presented in figure. 5.6 below. It is evident here that 10% of
the respondents felt that the project will have negative impacts and therefore did not approve of it.
7% of the respondents felt that the project would negatively affect them but if certain concerns are
addressed adequately then their perception about the project will change to be positive. 51% of the
respondents felt that the project is out-rightly good since in their view, it will create employment
opportunities to many people who reside in the area and will open up the area for increased
business. About 30% of the respondents felt that the project is good but the welfare of the affected
people should be adequately catered for and appropriate mitigation be put in place to curb any
negative impacts. About 2% of the respondents did not have any comment.
60
Percentage of respondents
50
40
30
20
10
0
Bad Bad but Good Good but Co comment
Perceptions
Figure. 4.6 Respondent’s perceptions about the planned rehabilitation works
4.5 Analysis of Socioeconomic Impacts
An analysis was performed on the likely positive and negative impacts of the project and the results
are as follows:
4.5.1 Employment Creation

Impact: Employment opportunities would be created for construction works and market for
construction inputs;
Nature of Impact: Positive
Duration: Short Term, as this would be only be expected during the construction phase
Likelihood: High
Significance: Medium
4.5.2 Boost in Trade
Impact: Increased efficiency will result into faster turn-around time of ships hence increased volume
of cargo handled at the port once the rehabilitation is completed.
Duration: Long Term;
Likelihood: High
Significance: High
4.5.3 Improved safety
Impact: The proposed rehabilitation works would result into construction of modern stable berthing
structures ensuring safety of marine craft and seafarers. This would also significantly reduce chances
of marine casualties such as oil spills;
Duration: Long Term
Likelihood: High
Significance: High
4.5.4 Traffic Congestion
Impact: Expected increase in road traffic due to transportation of construction material may cause
traffic congestion on the roads
Nature of Impact: Negative
Duration: Short Term, as this would be encountered at the construction phase only
Likelihood: High
Significance: High
Significance upon mitigation: Low
Mitigation:
• Liaise with the County Government of Mombasa to initiate effective traffic control by posting
of additional traffic marshals along the affected roads.
• Initiate road safety awareness programs
5. ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT AROUND BERTHS 1-14
5.1 Methodology and Approach
The methodology for ecological assessment was as follows:
 Reconnaissance visits and joint planning between study teams and KPA engineers,
environmental officers and operations office to familiarize with project area, proposed
development sites and safety requirements.
 Identification of the appropriate survey areas: The 14 berths for rehabilitation, strengthening,
deepening and modernization were clustered into 3 groups as follows:
a. Group 1: Berths 1 – 5;
b. Group 2: Berths 7 – 10;
c. Group 3: Berths 11 – 14.
 In addition to the 3 groups, two (2) more categories were identified to cater for:
a) Group 4: Control site locations on water quality and existing biodiversity;

b) Group 5: Control site locations on fisheries critical habitats (mangroves and
seagrass).
 Priority habitats and micro-habitats were sampled in the 5 groups selected (using appropriate
sampling protocol, tools and equipment), and involved the following methods:
a) Location mappers: GPS location (Fig. 5.1);

b) Water sampling for phytoplankton and zooplanktons;
c) Quadrat scrapes on pilings and wharfs for attached benthos and fouling
communities;
d) Large sediment cores (16 cm diameter) for sediment benthic infauna;
e) A collation of appropriate environmental data, including temperature, salinity, depth,
turbidity, nutrient concentration);
f) For the Control site locations on fisheries’ critical habitats (mangroves and seagrass),
an audit-based assessment on existing biotopes was undertaken;
 Collected samples from the 5 selected group sites were treated as per standard scientific
protocols (fixation, preservatives, storage and transport environments, etc,) and taken to KMFRI
laboratory for species characterization and functional group determinations using Internationally
Recognized Standard Operating Procedures and Laboratory Standards and References with
known traceability, and to a NEMA accredited laboratory (Polucon Laboratory Services in
Mombasa) for chemical and nutrient analysis.
 The marine ecology ESIA approaches are presented in the following plates:
 Plate 5.1: showing field activities related to water sampling for phytoplankton and
zooplanktons;
 Plate 5.2: showing field activities related to quadrat scrapings on pilings and wharfs for
benthos and fouling communities;
 Plate 5.3: showing field activities related to large sediment core sampling (18 cm diameter)
for sediment benthic infauna;
 Plate 5.4: showing field activities related to sampling for associated water quality and
environmental data;
 Plate 5.5: showing field activities related to sampling for fisheries control site indicator
results (mangroves, seagrass, seaweeds and coral lagoons).
 Plate 5.6: showing laboratory activities related to sample sorting and analysis for
characterization of taxa and functional groups.
Details of field and laboratory methods:
a) Port of Mombasa Spatial Field Strategy Plan
The Port of Mombasa is located on an extensive seasonal estuarine system that also supports a
number of industries adjoining it. The Mombasa Port environment can be subdivided into a number
of smaller port-zones and areas: Port Reitz, Port Kilidini, Port Tudor, Mombasa Harbour, including
the Old Port area (Figure 5.1), and the many adjacent marine habitats used by port operations.
Field sampling was conducted for a week (from 20th – 26th July, 2016). The sampling points were
georeferenced and were located at areas indicated in Figure 5.1 (point 1 to 15). The target for
sampling was for the documentation (presence / nil occurrence) of major groups of biota, an index
of their biomass or population, the documentation of any species of special concern (subsistence,
commercial or conservation concerns), and the documentation of species with potential to become
nuisance / vectors. It was not a scientific investigation to profile species structure and dynamics
which occur with diurnal, tidal or seasonal fluctuations of oceanographic or metrological parameters.
This means the data has to be interpreted with these limitations in mind.
B-12-14 B-11
B-9-10
B-6-7
C-15 water quality

B-4-5
C-15 biotopes
B-1-3
Fig 5.1: A grab of the Mombasa Port environment showing smaller port-zones (Port Reitz, Port Kilindini, Port Tudor, Mombasa Harbour) and Sampling areas
b) hyto-plankton sampling
i. Field Sampling
The phytoplankton survey followed the methodologies outlined in the CRIMP port survey protocols
(Hewitt & Martin 2001), adapted to suit local ecological conditions at KPA Mombasa Port waters. A
total of 14 sampling sites were selected within the areas of berths 1-14, and associated habitats
(C15). The selection of these sites was motivated by an increased likelihood of its proximity or
relationship to areas proposed by KPA for berth improvements, reconstructed, and other potential
sink areas where species may be deposited due to currents and circulation patterns. At all the berth
sampling sites (Berths 1-14) and control sites (C15), a fibre glass boat platform was used for
phytoplankton sampling. At every sampling point, water samples were collected using a bucket of
known volume and passing the measured volume of water (i.e., 20 litres) through 20µm mesh-size
plankton net for plankton concentration.
These concentrated plankton samples were collected into a receptor bottle attached at the bottom of
the plankton net (Plate 5.1 A – C). The concentrated plankton samples were then transferred to
sample bottles, each bottle pre-labelled with date, sampling station, and immediately fixed with
Lugols’ iodine solution for quantitative analysis later in the laboratory.
ii. Laboratory Methods

At the laboratory, an inverted light microscope fitted with 10x (20x) and 40x objectives / lenses was
used for examination of the samples. For each sample preserved in Lugols’ iodine solution, 1µl
aliquot sub-samples were pipetted into a Sedgwick-Rafter counting cells and observed under a light
microscope at the two objective lens magnifications. The specimen obtained therein were identified,
counted, and grouped according to orders, classes and genus. The appropriate phytoplankton taxa
were identified, and where possible to the species level, using Hasle and Syvertsen (1977)
“Identification Manual of Harmful Marine Microalgae”, IOC-UNESCO Manual and Guides NO 41
on “Potentially Harmful Microalgae of the Western Indian Ocean”, and Botes (2003)
“Phytoplankton Identification Catalogue”.
c) Zooplankton
i. Field Sampling
The same sampling duration and platform used in phytoplankton applied for zooplankton. At each
sampling location, water samples were collected in triplicates (Plate 5.1D). Zooplankton water
samples were collected at each location by obliquely towing a zooplankton net with a mesh size of
100 μm and a mouth radius of 30 cm in subsurface water for 10 minutes within about 100 m
distance. The mouth of the net was fitted with a flow meter to estimate the volume of filtered water.
Samples were immediately preserved in 5% buffered formalin. Only one towing was conducted to
cover for two sites (i.e., Berth 1 was combined with Berth 5; 7 with 10; and 11 with 14) where the
distance between the sites was shorter to allow for respective individual site towing.
ii. Laboratory Methods
At the laboratory, whole zooplankton samples were first inspected under a Wild Heerbugg
microscope (with a maximum magnification of 400X). Each sample was further sub-sampled (1/10),
and all present individuals identified and grouped in their taxonomic categories. “A guide to the
Marine Life of Southern Africa” by Branch G.M. and Griffiths C.L., (1994) and “Zooplankton of
the South-Western Indian Ocean” by Conway, (2003) identification guides were used as guides for
identification of the zooplankton to the appropriate taxa, and where possible to species level.
Plate images showing field and laboratory operations
Plate 5.1: Water sampling for phytoplankton and zooplanktons
Plate 5.1A: approach to typical port murky waters near the Plate 5.1B: phytoplankton sampling near the
berths and wharfs berths
Plate 5.1C: phytoplankton sampling around the channel Plate 5.1D: zooplankton sampling around the
areas channel areas
Plate 5.2: Quadrat scrapes on pilings and wharfs for benthos and fouling communities
Plate 5.2A: SCUBA gear – part of the survey crew on Plate 5.2B: SAFETY AT SEA – part of the survey crew
board a research vessel for marine-based field getting ready to dive for submarine sampling
assessments
Plate 5.2C: part of the attached benthic community Plate 5.2D: part of retrieved samples from sea floor:
flagged for assessment using standard methods (CRIMP mixed fouling organisms put into retaining bags and
protocols adapted to local conditions) well labelled
Plate 5.3: Large sediment core sampling (18 cm diameter) for sediment benthic infauna extraction
from submarine sediments
Plate 5.3A: use of ropes to access sea-floor beneath Plate 5.3B: team-work within the survey crew to ensure
wharfs due to poor visibility – purpose: for sub-marine- samples in heavy gear are brought on board vessel
sampling
Plate 5.3C: sample extraction from corer to receiving Plate 5.3D: part of retrieved samples from sea floor:
pre-labelled bags soft sediment put into retaining bags and well labelled
Plate 6.4: Environmental Data Sampling,
Plate 5.4A: Niskin bottle water sampler for determination Plate 5.4B: Combination of other oceanographic
of water limnological conditions (for coupling to biological environmental probes for determination of various
conditions) environmental variables
Plate 5.4C: Deep sediment core sampler extracted by Plate 5.4D: Shallow sediment core sampler for
divers (for determination of geo-chemical conditions for sediment extraction from boat (for determination of
coupling to biological conditions) geo-chemical conditions)
Plate 5.4G: equipment for measuring current direction and Plate 5.4H: Upgraded Mombasa KMFRI GLOSS Tide
speed to augment environmental quality indicators Station also used to augment environmental quality
indicators
Plate 5.5: Fisheries control site indicator results (mangroves, seagrass, seaweeds and coral
lagoons).
Plate 5.5A: mangrove formation around the control sites Plate 5.5B: mangrove structural assessments around the
control sites
Plate 5.5C: commonly occurring beach cast material on Plate 5.5D: commonly used fishing gear (Malema)
sandy beaches and lagoons off shelly beach normally set on mangrove creeks at Port Reitz, or on
seagrass beds and lagoons off shelly beach
Plate 5.5E: fish caught (5 kgs) by an effort of 2 fishermen Plate 5.5F: fish caught (20 kgs) by an effort of 7
in 2 hours in a pre-set Malema trap from mangrove fishermen in 2 hours from pre-set 6 Malema traps are
creeks displayed in one canoe (small boat) sorted by groups and types for identification and
characterization
Plate 5.5G: juvenile prawns caught (4 kgs) by an effort of Plate 5.5H: sample of shelled molluscs and crustaceans
3 fishermen in 3 hours in a pre-set trap at a mangrove caught by women fishermen (effort of 1 woman in 5
creek near the Control site of the port sampling areas hours day-time during low tide)
Plate 5.5I: sampling for marine biota during high tide off Plate 5.5J: sampling for marine biota during low tide off
shelly beach shelly beach
Plate 5.5K: part of the diving team undertaking Plate 5.5L: catch of aquarium fish caught by licenced
underwater census of biodiversity off shelly beach aquarium divers packed in oxygen bags for sale/ trade
The assessment on critical habitats and fisheries control site indicator results also looked at existing
and gazetted fishing areas and fish landing sites. These were geo-referenced and mapped. 3 fish
landing sites (near the control sites) were surveyed for primary catch data (gill-net, trap-fisheries, and
prawn-fisheries).
Plate 5.6: Laboratory pre-treatment and analysis for characterization of taxa and functional groups
Plate 5.6A: fixing samples and sorting them further Plate 5.6B:computor-aided identification of plankton
for appropriate storage prior to analysis groups
Plate 5.6C: sorted and grouped benthic organisms Plate 5.6D: specialists taxonomists confirms the taxa and
are set under magnification for identification using assigns ID tags
manuals and guides
5.2 Results of Ecological Baseline Survey

Results are presented by the 5 groups:
a) Water sampling results for phytoplankton and zooplanktons;
b) Quadrat scrapes results for attached benthos and fouling communities;
c) Large sediment cores (16 cm diameter) results for benthic infauna;
d) Critical habitat and biodiversity at the control sites;
e) Fisheries sites indicator structure (mangroves and seagrass).
5.2.1 Phytoplankton Community Structure
The phytoplankton taxa group composition and abundance varied between sampling Berth sites
(Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.2: The phytoplankton community group abundances at sampling Berth 1-14.
The phytoplankton taxa group composition and abundance when grouped together indicated varied
composition (Figure 5.3).
Fig. 5.3: Phytoplankton genus representation with more than single genus (all sampling Berth 1-14 grouped)
Fig. 5.4: Phytoplankton genus representation with single genus (all sampling Berth 1-14 grouped)
Flagellates:
 An important bloom-forming flagellate recorded from this port assessment was the
bioluminescent dinoflagellate Noctiluca scintillans;
 Extensive blooms of this species were observed in Berths 1 to 7 sampling sites ;
 These species forms spectacular red-tides having the potential of removing oxygen from
the water column after the death of the bloom;
 However, majority of these toxin producing phytoplankton do not need to be in a
bloom-state to be of risk to the marine environment and fisheries;
 This is because some of the species such as Dinophysis acuta, D. acuminata, D. norvegicus and
Alexandrium catenela (also recorded during this assessment) can be toxic even at
concentrations of just a few hundred cells litre-1.
5.2.2 Zooplankton Community Structure
The zooplankton taxa group composition and abundance are presented in Fig 3.
Figure 5.5: Zooplankton group Abundances at sampling Berth 1-14 sites.
The zooplankton taxa group composition and abundance when grouped together also indicated
varied composition (Figure 5.5).
Figure 5.6: The overall abundance (Numbers) of Zooplankton genera (grouped together).
Significant statements:
 The zooplankton comprised a total of forty-five (45) genera including;

 The most abundant genera were; Sagitta (17); Brachyura (16); Paracalanus (14); Eucalanus
(12); Lucifer (11) amongst others (Figure 5.5).
 The copepods formed the greatest proportion of them in most sites with an exception
only in the control site CT9b;
Copepods:
 The copepod population was almost entirely of the sub-order calanoida. However,
Oithona sp. of the sub-order cyclopoida was also present in low biomass;
 Copepods constitute major prey items for the larvae of many commercial fish species
which at first feed on copepod nauplii, but as they grow, feed on larger copepod prey
items;
 However, the abundance of copepods may vary throughout the year depending on the
abundance of their food – the phytoplankton.
Crustacean zooplankton:
 The pelagic shrimp-like crustacean zooplankton (often referred to as “krill”, the
euphausids) were also observed during this assessment study;
Other zooplankton
 Others were the filter feeder small pelagic tunicate group of larvaceans or
appendicularians of Oikopleura spp.; numerous relatively large (up to 4cm) annelid species
in the class polychaeta; chaetognaths, often referred to as the active planktonic arrow-
worm predators within the genus Sagitta; and gelatinous zooplankton covering
coelenterates and ctenophores grouped as macro / mega plankton due to their relatively
large sizes (Tait, 1992). Majority of these coelenterates are carnivorous, and therefore if
found in high enough abundances may lead to a significant predatory effect on copepods
and fish larvae (Bunn et al., 2000).
Resting stages
 Both phytoplankton and zooplankton organisms can produce resting stages (encysting
organisms or as diapause eggs) that are capable of sinking into the sediment and
remaining buried therein for considerable periods of time before hatching;
 Some species in the port waters such as Acartia, Centropages and Temora spp. observed
during the assessment study are all known to produce resting stages at water depths of
between 20m and 80m with low seabed stress and near to tidal fronts (Lindley, 1990;
Mauchline, 1998).
 In phytoplankton, the most common and abundant group of encysting organisms are the
dinoflagellates (Marret & Scourse, 2002);
5.2.3 Benthic Community Structure
The benthic taxa composition and abundance are presented in Table 5-1 and 5-2, as well as in Fig
5.6.
Table 5-1: Benthic macroinvertebrate fauna composition and abundance at sampled Berth 1-14 areas.
Sample Phylum Class Taxa No

Berth3. Annelida Polychaeta 359
Berth3. Arthropoda Malacostraca 68
Berth3. Nematoda Enoplea 1
Berth3. Echinodermata Ophiurida 19
Berth3. Mollusca Bivalvia 3
Berth3. Sipuncula Sipunculidea 2
Berth3. Arthropoda Maxillopoda 10
Berth3. Porifera Demopspongiae 5
Berth9. Annelida Polychaeta 379
Berth9. Annellida Oligochaeta 1
Berth9. Cnidaria Anthozoa 1
Berth6. Annellida Polychaeta 256
Berth6. Arthropoda Pycnogonida 1
Berth10. Arthropoda Ostracoda 7
Berth10. Arthropoda Pycnogonida 2
Berth11. Arthropoda Ostracoda 2
Berth11. Mollusca Gastropoda 1
Control Annellida Polychaeta 2
Control Arthropoda Malacostraca 8
Table 5-2: Total taxa of benthic macroinvertebrate fauna (all Berths 1-14 grouped together).
Class Taxa No
Polychaeta 3981
Anthozoa 503
Bivalvia 132
Demospongia 91
Sipunculidea 81
Enoplea 52
Gastropoda 32
Malacostraca 22
Maxillopoda 10
Oligochaeta 4
Pycnogonida 3
Ophiurida 1
Ostracoda 1
Fig 5.7: Total taxa of benthic macroinvertebrate fauna at sampled areas (all Berths 1-14 grouped together).
Significant statements:
 The most diverse group were the Polychaete worms (3981 individuals), followed by marine
anthozoa (503),
 Other benthos existed at intermediate levels: bivalvia (132), demospongia (91) sipunculidea (81)
enoplea (52), gastropoda (32), malacostraca (22), maxillopoda (10),
 The rare ones were oligochaete (4) pycnogonida (3), ophiurida (1), and ostracoda (1)
A. Biodiversity at control sites, and including fisheries indicator sites

Critical habitats structure and biodiversity at the control sites were represented as follows:
Biota:
a) Seagrass
At Port Reitz control sites, there was no occurrence of seagrasses.

b) Seaweeds
The seaweeds structure of Port Reitz control sites comprised mostly blue-greens loosely attached on
silty sediments. The main groups were represented by patches of Enteromorpha crassa, followed by
Padina, Ulva and floating Sargassum. Some species were found epiphytic on mangrove roots (e.g.,
Enteromorpha, Bostrychia and Murrayella spp. on Avicennia).
Epiphytic seaweed community

Epiphytic seaweed communities encountered included some Ulva, Caulerpa, Colpomenia, Hydroclathrus,
Pocockiella, Jania, Amphiroa, and Gracilaria.
c) Mangroves
Table 3 summarizes the general characteristics of the main mangrove formation near the control
sites surveyed (existing forest area > 0.5 acres), and in the traditional mangrove areas of Port Reitz
creek.
Table 5-3: Mangrove community structure at the study plots in Port Reitz basin
Parameter Site
Kilindini Control sites at Port Reitz Channel
Channel
Site-1 Site-1 Site-2 Site-3 Site-4 Site-5 Site-6 Site-7 Site-8 Site-9 Site-10 Site-11
Mweza Mangrove Mangrove Mangrove Mwagonde Dongo R. Tsunza Mwache Mkupe- Kwa Kitanga
Creek Is-1 Is-2 Is-3 Kundu, Chasimba Maweni Skembo Juu
Creek
Avg area studied (Ha) 1.5 0.5 1.2 0.5 1.5 2 2 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 0.5 ≥
Spp comp Rm, Ct, Sa Sa Sa Rm, Ct, Sa, Rm, Sa, Rm, Sa, Xg, Sa, Xg, Sa, Xg, Xg, Rm, ≥
Bg, Am, Am, Sa Ct, Bg, Ct, Bg, Rm, Rm, Ct, Rm, Ct, Rm, Ct, Am, Lr
Lr, Sa Am Am, Lr Ct, Bg, Bg, Am, Am Bg,
Am, Lr Lr Am, Lr
Dominant adult species Rm - Ct Sa Sa Sa Am Sa - Sa - Rm Sa Sa - Am Am Am Am ≠
Rm
Dominant young species Ct - Rm Sa Sa Sa Am Rm - Rm - Am Rm - Rm - Sa Rm - - ≥
Sa Ct - Am
Avg ht (m) - adults 2.4 1.7 1,3 0.9 3.8 3.1 3.4 2.2 3.52.1 3.1 2.7 ≥
Avg density (no/10m2 11 ± 3.6 4 ± 2.2 3 ± 1.2 3 ± 1.6 7 ± 4.2 18 ± 19 ± 17.6 13 ± 15 ± 5.6
8 ± 5.1 3 ± 2.8 0.2 ± ≥
pots) - adults 8.1 6.9 1.6
Dominant regeneration III III III III I II III III II - - - ≠
status (class I, II, III)
Understory cover
Halophytes (% 10 0 0 0 6 3 5 0 2 5 5 2 ≤
substratum cover)
Associated substratum sandy to sandy sandy sandy silty sandy silty sandy sandy sandy rocky
(feel) silty to silty to silty to silty
Control sites data are shown in bold. Adults1 description based on UNESCO 1984; regeneration2 status based on UNESCO 1984 and Kairo 1995.≤
is less than, ≥ is greater than, ≠ is not comparable
Key:
Am Avicennia marina Ct Ceriops tagal Xg Xylocarpus
granatum
Rm Rhizophora Lr Lumnitzera Hl Heritiera littoralis
mucronata racemosa
Bg Bruguierra Sa Sonneratia alba
gymnorhiza
5.3 Impact determination, prediction and mitigation

Based on the project design and proposed activities, a determination was made on the impacts likely
to arise from implementation of the project and categorised according to the following
consequences citeria:
Table 5-4 A: Magnitude criteria for categorisation of impacts
Table 5-4B: Frequency criteria for categorisation of impacts
The two tables were compounded to come up with the rating scheme outlined in Figure 5.8 that was
then used to determine the significance of impacts
Figure 5.8: Impact significance rating scheme (based on a 5-grade score)
The ecological and social resources in the project area that are likely to be impacted by the proposed
project are as illustrated in Figure 5.9 below:
Figure 5.9: Ecological and social resources around the Port of Mombasa
The key marine impacts, their likelihoods and significance are therefore presented in Table 6.5 and
the narrative in the text that follows:
Table 5-5: Environmental risk assessment matrix using the consequence and likelihood scores and
weighted significance.
B 1 -14 Reonstruction potential

consequence criteria likelihood criteria significance
environmental hazards
Ecol/ Soc-ec context
consequence score
geographic extent
significance score
impact frequency
hazard frequency
likelihood score
probability
magnitude
duration
Dredging activities: Removal of
sub-marine sediment and
3 2 2 2 9 3 3 4 10 90
associated attached sessile
organisms
Dredging activities: Suspended
sediment effects on sessile and 2 2 3 3 10 2 2 3 7 70
slow-moving invertebrates
Dredging activities: Effects of

2 2 3 3 10 1 2 4 7 70
Suspended sediment on fish
Dredging activities: Effects of

Suspended sediment on
2 2 4 2 10 3 3 5 11 110
phytoplankton productivity and
other aquatic plants
Construction / dredging activities:

Sedimentation on subtidal muddy 3 2 3 2 10 3 2 3 8 80
and sandy habitats
Operational activities: Accidental

oil spill effects on critical habitats
4 3 4 5 16 4 4 3 11 176
(coral reefs, seagrass beds,
mangroves) and seabirds
Operational activities: Accidental

oil spill effects on marine life and 3 2 2 4 11 3 2 3 8 88
habitats
Introductions of alien species 2 3 2 5 12 3 2 3 8 96
Chemical waste hazards 4 3 3 4 14 3 4 4 11 154
Solid waste hazards 2 2 3 2 9 3 4 3 10 90
Operational activities: Potential

negative impacts specific to coral
3 2 3 2 10 2 2 3 7 70
gardens and Mombasa Marine
Reserve
Wellness: occupational health and

3 4 3 3 13 4 4 5 13 169
safety concerns
Decommissioning setbacks 4 3 3 4 14 3 4 3 10 140
The impacts identified are summarized as follows:
5.3.1 Dredging activities: Removal of sub-marine sediment and associated attached sessile
organisms
Nature of impact – Submarine sediments and their associated attached sessile organisms will be
physically removed from the seabed with consequential destruction of the infaunal and epifaunal
biota;
Duration – Short: recolonization is predicted to take about one year on silty clays (see Table 5.4);
Intensity – Medium: majority of the attached benthic organisms are likely to die, but quite a number
will relocate by migration (Hall 1994, Kenny and Rees 1994, 1996, Newell et al. 1998, Herrmann et al.
1999, Ellis 1996, 2000); Long-lived species, like molluscs and some crustaceans will need longer to
re-establish the natural age and size structure of the population (Kenny and Rees 1994, 1996);
Probability – Definite;
Status of impact – Negative;
Degree of confidence – High;
Significance – Medium: due to the short duration and medium intensity of the impact;
Mitigation – Deep sites that will not be dredged will act as undisturbed patches (reservoirs between
the dredging areas), to speed up recolonization and recovery. This is already implied in the works
structure as dredge areas are discrete and clearly marked and some areas will remain undisturbed.
Significance upon Mitigation: Low, regeneration may take about 3 years
5.3.2 Dredging activities: Suspended sediment effects on sessile and slow-moving invertebrates
Nature of impact – Generation of suspended sediment plumes during dredging may have sublethal or
lethal impacts on sessile and slow-moving invertebrates;
Duration – Medium: potential effects extend over the duration of the dredging activity (expected to
last few months);
Intensity – Low: area already under high turbidity regimes and existing organisms are adapted to those
local high turbidity levels (cf past studies: Globallast 2004, Adala et al 2007, Adala et al., 2009,
Gwada 2011, this ESIA study);
Probability – Definite: elevated suspended sediment concentrations are a very typical by-product of
soft bottom marine sediment dredging;
Significance – Low, due to the medium duration and low intensity of the impact;
Mitigation – Reductions in the amount of suspended sediment through use of appropriate civil
technology (dredger type, timing) will further reduce risks.
Significance upon Mitigation: Low, maximum recovery period is 5years (Table 5.6)
Table 5-6: Timing for recovery of seabed habitats after dredging (after Ellis 1996)
Sediment type Recovery time
Fine-grained deposits: muds, silts, clays, which can contain some rocks and 1 year
boulders
Medium-grained deposits: sand, which can contain some silts, clay and gravel 1-3 years
Coarse-grained deposits: gravels, which can contain some finer fraction and 5 years
some rock and boulders
Coarse-grained deposits: gravels with many rocks and boulders >5 years
5.3.3 Dredging activities: Effects of Suspended sediment on fish

Nature of impact – Generation of suspended sediment plumes during dredging may have sub-lethal or
lethal impacts on fish and/or may result in avoidance behaviour;
Duration – Medium: potential effects extend over the duration of the dredging;
Intensity – Low: fish are mobile and will move out of the affected area. Effects on fish vary greatly
and critical exposure levels can range from ~500 mg/l for 24 hours to no effects at concentrations
of >10 000 mg/l over 7 days (Clarke and Wilber 2000);
Probability – Definite: elevated suspended sediment concentrations are a typical by-product of soft
bottom marine sediment dredging;
Significance – Low, due to short duration and low intensity of the impact;
engineering technology (dredger type, timing) will further reduce risks. Support community
developments in locally managed areas as compensation for lost fishery habitats and abundances.
Significance upon Mitigation: Nil, fish will readily return to their habitats once situation is contained.
5.3.4 Dredging activities: Effects of Suspended sediment on phytoplankton productivity and other
aquatic plants
Nature of impact – Generation of suspended sediment plumes in the dredging may reduce the
productivity of phytoplankton and other aquatic plants;
Duration – Low: potential effects extend over the duration of the dredging;
Intensity – High: the proportion of very fine sediment is very high (over 80%) and the settling of the
material out of the photic zone will be slow. Results from a geophysical survey by Japan Port
Consultants (Adala et al, 2009) and confirmed in this ESIA study showed that organic matter in the
vicinity of the Berths 11 – 14 is high;
Probability – Definite: elevated suspended sediment concentrations are a very typical by-product of
soft bottom marine sediment dredging;
Significance – low, due to the low duration and high intensity of the impact;
technology (dredger type, timing) will further reduce risks. Continuous monitoring for developments
and accumulations of harmful algae blooms (HABS).
Significance upon Mitigation: Nil
5.3.5 Construction / dredging activities: Sedimentation on subtidal muddy and sandy habitats
Nature of impact – Settling of material from construction works may smother benthos on subtidal
muddy and sandy habitats adjacent to the dredging / construction sites;
Duration – Medium to long: recovery can take from <1 year (muddy habitats) up to 3 years (sandy
habitats) (see Table 4);
Intensity – Medium: depending on the sediment layer thickness many organisms may burrow to the
surface through the deposited sediment and many filter-feeders are highly adaptable to increased
sediment loads
Probability – Definite;
Significance – Low: due to the small extent of the impact;
technology (dredger type, civil works deign, etc) will further reduce risks.
Significance upon Mitigation: Insignificant
5.3.6 Operational activities: Accidental oil spill effects on critical habitats (coral reefs, seagrass beds,
mangroves) and seabirds
Nature of impact – Accidental and/or operational oil spills from vessels during dredging and post
dredging operational phase may affect critical habitats and seabirds due to oiling;
Duration – Very long term: due to (1) potential damage to mangroves which takes several decade-
years to clean, and (2), potentially reduced breeding success of some seabirds;
Intensity – High: (1) on severe spills, oil-smoothed mangroves will die and so do their ecosystem
services; and (2) seabirds die or their breeding success is reduced and this may have international
implications;
Probability – Unknown: no predictions are made for the likelihood of increases in oil spill with
increased ship traffic or for possible accidents during dredging or during the operational phase; the
assumption is the use of international best practice will prevail;
Significance – High: mangroves and birdlife thereon are protected in Kenya (mangroves – Kenya
Forest Service; Birds – Birdlife International, Nature-Kenya, Kenya Wildlife Service and National
Museums of Kenya), and impacts on them have international implications through the Biodiversity
Convention, Important Birdlife Areas, and IUCN conservation;
Mitigation – Through IMO, KMA’s and KPA’s port and shipping regulations, and best practice
procedures to be put in place, such as activation of the National Oil Spill Response Contingency
Plan. Seek to reduce probabilities of accidental and/or operational spills through enforcement of
vessel traffic and oil spill management systems. However, due to devastating effects of even one
large spill significance would remain high but mitigation can help reduce probabilities of accidents.
Compensation by restoration of degraded habitats that are identified and associated with civil works
is proposed.
Significance upon Mitigation: Medium (even with contingency measures threat of oil spill remains, hence
the need for sustained vigilance)
5.3.7 Operational activities: Accidental oil spill effects on marine life and habitats
Nature of impact – Accidental and/or operational oil spills from vessels during dredging and post
dredging operational phase may affect marine life due to direct toxic effects and/or habitat
alteration;
Duration – Medium (but chronic);
Intensity – Low;
Probability – Probable;
Degree of confidence – Medium;
Significance – Low, most of the potentially affected organisms are widely distributed in the port area,
and in the Western Indian Ocean region;
Mitigation – Through IMO, KMA’s and KPA’s port and shipping regulations, and best practice
procedures to be put in place, seek to reduce probabilities of accidental and/or operational spills
through enforcement of vessel traffic and oil spill management systems. However, due to
devastating effects of even one large spill significance would remain high but mitigation can help
reduce probabilities of accidents. Application of EMCA’s Polluter pays principle.
5.3.8 Operational activities: Ship wastes effect on marine life

Nature of impact – Potential waste from ships docked at the refurbished berths may affect marine
organisms;
Duration – Unknown: depends on the waste;
Intensity – Unknown, depends on the waste;
Probability – Improbable, when regulations of no discharge are followed (under IMO, KMA’s and
KPA’s port and shipping regulations);
Degree of confidence – Low, due to unknown duration and intensity;
Significance – Low, when IMO, KMA’s and KPA’s port and shipping regulations of no discharge into
water are followed;
Mitigation – enforcement of compliance and conformance to IMO, KMA’s and KPA’s port and
shipping waste management regulations. Application of EMCA’s Polluter pays principle.
5.3.9 Operational activities: Discharge of ballast water and potential introductions of alien invasive
species
Nature of impact – A rise in discharge of ballast water in the harbour due to increased shipping as a
response to the berthing of ships may increase the risk of introduction of marine exotic species;
Duration – Unknown, depends on the introduced organisms but likely to be very long term or
permanent when an introduced alien becomes invasive;
Intensity – Unknown, depends on the introduced organisms;
Probability – probable, but KPA prohibits discharge of ballast water within port areas (plans are
under way to establish ballast water regulations through KMA and IMO’s initiatives);
Degree of confidence – Low, due to unknown duration and intensity;
Significance – Medium: currently, no policy of management of ballast water in Kenya;
Mitigation – Abide by the interim provisions of the Management of Ballast Waters in Port states
currently under development by IMO; ratify and implement the Ballast water convention.
Application of EMCA’s Polluter pays principle. Compliance with KPA policy which prohibits
discharge of ballast water.
Significance upon Mitigation: Low
5.3.10 Operational activities: Potential negative impacts specific to coral gardens and Mombasa
Marine Reserve
Nature of impact – A hydrodynamic sediment plume modelling done by the Japan Port Consultants
(Adala et al, 2009) and confirmed in this ESIA study indicates that during the South East Monsoon
(SEM) months, a discharge of plume at designated points off the KPA port entrance will result in
plume direction moving northwards and into parts of the Marine Protected Area (MPA). However,
the deleterious plume of over 50mg/l is not expected to move into the coral reef areas. The model
predicts the plume with total suspended solids of 50mg/l will be limited to depths beyond 50m
contour for most of the time. However, if done in the North East Monsoon the plume direction is
away from the MPA and coral gardens;
Duration – Unknown, depends on the activity timing with the Monsoon phase, but likely to be
deleterious when done in SEM and un-deleterious when done in NEM;
Intensity – Unknown, depends on the activity phasing;
Probability – probable, given that there is no guarantee that the work plan will strictly coincide with
proper monsoon timing (past experiences during the dredging phase had a similar lapse);
Degree of confidence – Unknown, due to unknown activity duration and intensity;
Significance – Medium: currently, no strict enforcement in activity operations to international
standards;
Mitigation – Abide by the national and international best practice in dredge spoil management, i.e.
dredging be done during NEM but silt curtains deployed in the event that dredging is done during
SEM; develop and implement an operational plan that strictly meets the International conventions.
Application of EMCA’s Polluter pays principle.
Significance upon Mitigation: Low
6.0 FISHERIES ASSESSMENT
6.1 Introduction
Capture fisheries is the main type of fisheries and is predominantly undertaken by artisanal
fishermen in the shallow waters and within the reef using small non mechanized boats. Semi
industrial fishing vessels do land their catches in Mombasa for export and local consumption.
Therefore the marine fisheries resources are very beneficial to the economy and wellbeing of the
local community. Determining the status of fishery resources helps in maintaining the long term
prosperity and sustainability of the resources for the future generations. Port Reitz and Makupa
creeks together form the key fishing grounds neighbouring the project area.
Small scale fisheries in Port Reitz creek is carried out in the scattered fishing grounds along the creek
area. The area is characterized by unique marine habitats, with migratory marine fauna, diverse flora
and extensive mangrove habitats in the peninsular.
6.2 Approach and Methodology

In order to understand the fishery and the fishers likely to be impacted, a questionnaire-based survey
was conducted at selected landing sites within each Beach Management Unit in the two creeks
looking into the type of fish landed, sizes, fishing patterns, fishing gears and overall fishing effort in
the area. Information on the market and trade was also collected. Desktop analysis was also
conducted and analysis done from the fisheries data and information available at the Department of
Fisheries. Reports of previous studies done in the area were reviewed with specific reference on the
type and nature of project including the impacts highlighted and mitigation measures proposed. The
field survey targeted at least 30% of the total number of fishers or traders. The interviewed fishers
were as follows; Mtongwe (Shaza, Mweza Mtongwe , Migigo and Hawaii landing sites)-29; Mwangala
BMU (Dongo Kundu. Mkunguni, Mwangala, Mwakuzimu and Teja) -47; Tudor -6; Kitanga Juu –
10; and Mkupe-10; Mwandumbo (Tsunza)- 12.
6.3 Objectives of the fisheries assessment

The overall aim of the assessment was to analyse the fisheries resources within the Port Reitz and
Makupa creeks in order to understand the status of the fishery in terms of the amount and value of
fish caught. The two creeks are in close proximity to the project area and the local fishers depended
on creek fishery hence it would be important to understand the likely impacts of the proposed
rehabilitation works.
6.4 General locations of fishing activities

The Port Reitz creek lies in the south-west of Mombasa Island and is a major fishing ground shared
by fishers from both Mombasa and Kwale Counties. The spatial location of some of the landing
sites is as shown in the map below (figure 6.1).
Figure 6.1: Map showing the location of the landing sites and proposed project area
6.4.1 Fish Landing sites in the creek area
The creek fisheries resources are harvested by fishers from Changamwe and Likoni sub counties of
Mombasa. Major landing sites as recorded in the Marine Frame survey of 2016 include; Mwagonda,
Tsunza Teja, Mwakuzimu, Mwangala, Dongo kundu, Mkunguni, Mtongwe and Old ferry on the
Likoni- Mtongwe area of the creek. Other fishers utilizing the creek are from Kitanga Juu and
Mkupe- Maweni in Changamwe Sub County.
The proposed project is also likely to impact on the fishery in the Makupa creek with the fishers
forming part of the Tudor BMU and mostly landing at the Shimanzi landing site. Details of the
specific landing sites that have been considered in the assessment and with reference to overall areas
for data are captured are geo-referenced in Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3 below.
It is important to note that data is reported at sub-county level for Mtongwe and Mangala BMUs.
Mkupe-Maweni and Port Reitz the reported data reflects the landings at specific sites.
Figure 6.2: Landing sites within the two creeks and their respective overall areas (for data reporting) within the
five BMUs considered in the assessment (* indicates Landing sites considered under the assessment area)
Figure 6.3: Geo-referenced site locations for gazetted fish landing sites. The three landing sites enclosed in red (Kwatane, Kwaskembo,
Kitangutu) shape have since been ceded to KPA Port development and SGR
6.4.2 The fishing grounds
Fishing grounds utilized in the creek are numerous with over 27 areas recorded for Kitanga Juu
fishers based on Catch Assessment survey data 2013-2014 (Government of Kenya State Department of
Fisheries- Catch assessment surveys 2013-2014). The most important fishing areas include; Dongo Kundu,
Mto wa Mvuo, Manguzoni, Tonesa, Chamba cha Amani, Mtongwe, Mwangala, Mwishimo, Mto wa
Ngare, Mshahame, Maboyani, Mkupe and Tsunza as indicated in Figure 6.4. Fishers from Likoni
areas are also known to fish within the creek especially Mweza creek and Port area.
Figure 6.4. Key fishing grounds in the Port Reitz creek (Catch Assessment Survey 2013)
6.5 Fishing effort in the creek

6.5.1 Fishing methods
The methods and fishing gears used are a determining factor of the amount of catch and also the
sustainability of the fish resource. The fishermen use non-motorized traditional vessels with the
most common vessels being the dugout canoe and the dau whose method of propulsion is the
paddle. The low catch during the South East Monsoon season (SEM) within the area can be
attributed to the ineffective fishing gears and vessels used by the fishers.
In total the number of fishers fishing within the creek area is estimated at 605 and fish traders that
depend on fish landed in the various landing beaches are 195. The distribution of the all fishers
either registered or not registered with the BMU in the beaches as in Table 6.1
Table 6-1: Distribution of effort in Port Reitz, Likoni and Mtongwe including Mwangala and Tudor BMU landing
sites in the project area (FID Mombasa County)
Landing No of No of vessels Average no of No of traders

site/BMU Fishers (All) (non- fishing days
mechanized
Shimanzi (Tudor) 10 5 30 5
Kitanga Juu 140 42 25 25
Mkupe/Maweni 230 72 30 80
Mtongwe 130 36 30 35
Mwangala 80 41 30 50
Likoni ** 15 - 30 -
Mwandumbo >80
*Likoni is an area and not a treated as a landing site in the assessment.
Most of the fishers are reported to use seine nets in shallow areas, cast nets, monofilament gillnets,
multifilament gillnets and hand lines. The average number of vessels used for a particular technology
and the number of fishers involved in use of the gear is detailed in Table 6.2
Table 6-2 Fishing gears and number of vessels and fishers using gear category in the creek fishery (Fisheries
Department – Marine Frame survey 2016)
Fishing method Average No. of No. fishers

vessels
Beach Seine 8 72
Cast net 31 64
Fence Trap 4 13
Gillnets (multifilament) 21 42
Hand gathering 0 5
Handline 8 40
Hooked stick - 12
Longline 5 30
Monofilament gillnet 14 51
Prawn seine 7 14
Pointed stick - 1
Reef seine 3 9
Small basket trap 7 9
Scoop net 2 46
6.5.2 Fishing vessels
Fisheries information from the County indicates that fishing in the creeks mainly done by artisanal
fishers. Most common fishing vessel is the dug-out canoes (67%) propelled by paddles and dau
comprises only 7% of the vessels in the area (Figure 6.5). Frame survey results 2016 indicate 23%
the fishery is comprised of fishers without vessels. Outboard engine is rarely used.
Figure 6.5: Composition of fishing vessels in the creek area
6.5.3 Fishing gear technology

The most commonly used fishing techniques within the creek traps referred to as traditional gear are
cast net, hand lines and small meshed gill net termed as modern fishing technology. Castnets
contribute to majority of the gears (21%), gill nets (14%), and small basket traps (12%) as shown in
Figure 6.6. It important to note that while some gears basically catch fish species depending on the
mode of deployment, castnets, prawn seines and traps specifically target to catch sardines, prawns.
Hooked stick is used by fishers targeting crabs.
.
Figure 6.6: Fishing gear composition in the creek fishery (Marine frame survey 2016)
6.6 Fish production

6.6.1 Fish families and species
The fish caught within the creek includes pelagic species comprising mainly Baracuda (Sphyraena
spp.), Kingfish (Scomberomorus spp.) and Mullets (Mugil spp.) Demersal species including rabbitfishes
(Siganus spp.), Scavengers (Lethrinus spp.), Snappers (Lutjanus spp.), Grunters (Terapon Spp.) and
Pouters (Gerres Spp.). Crustacean fisheries are dominated by prawns comprising the Indian prawn
(Fenneropenaeus indicus) harvested in the shallow waters and mangroves areas. Mangrove crabs are also
harvested in the area. Other Spiny lobsters of the family Palinuridae caught in the shallow water
fishing grounds though in small quantities. The Cephalopod fisheries mainly target squids
(Loliginidae) and octopus (Octopodidae) categorized as mollusks.
Figure 6.7 below summarizes the species/ families that contribute to the creek fisheries.
Figure 6.7: Fish families/species categorized into groups. * indicate most common fish species/families in the
creek fisheries
6.6.2 Fish production trends
The annual production of artisanal fish catches is estimated between 380 -1381 metric tons (MT)
with an average of 697.68 MT annually Table 6-3.
Table 6-3. Fish catch landings (Likoni, Mkupe, PortReitz and Tudor) 2011-2015
Year Landings (Mt) Area/Location Average Catch (Mt)
2011 551.55 Tudor 36.99*
2013 1381.02 Likoni 377.27*
2014 477.27 Port Reitz 146.53
2015 380.87 Mkupe/maweni 85.97

**Fish catch landings includes fish not caught within the creeks
Most of the fin fish, crustacea and oysters, squids are landed at Kitanga Juu (146.5 MT) and Mkupe
(86 MT) landing sites. Likoni area fish landings include fish caught in Mtongwe and Mwangala BMU
landing sites but also include catch from the open sea not necessary from the creek area. The
landings from Tudor include fish catch from Makupa creek. These estimates are from pooled data
from the four areas namely Likoni, Mkupe / Maweni, Port Reitz and Tudor as well as fish records
from other landing sites not part of the current assessment (See Figure 6.6).
Figure 6.8(a): Annual trends for demersal and pelagic fish species 2008 -2015
Figure 6.8(b): Annual trends for Cephalops, and oysters, sharks and Rays, and crastacea 2008-2015
The overall annual fish landings indicate a decline from 970 MT in 2010 to the 700 MT in 2015. The
highest demersal fish catches was recorded in 2012 mainly for rabbit fishes (siganus spp.) 84 MT and
scavengers (Lethrinids) at 68 MT. The pelagic fish species catch was highest in 2012 for barracudas
and little mackerel of 26MT and 30MT respectively. However, catches of most species has
fluctuated over time with the lowest catch recorded in 2015. In 2012 prawn catches were as high as
151 MT and 28 MT for crabs. The declining trend is similar for sharks and rays and sardines from
66 MT for sharks and rays in 2012 to 21MT in 2015. Sardines declined from 57MT in 2012 to 24
MT in 2015. The overall trend for all fish groups is shown in Figures 6.8(a) and 6.8(b).
6.6.3 Seasonality of the Fishery
Fishing in the two creeks is conducted throughout the year based on the responses from the fishers
conducted during the survey. Fishing is done mainly in the shallow waters of the creeks with only
less than 10% of the fishers reported to fish in the open sea. Fish production is influenced by the
two seasons, northeast monsoons (NEM) between November-March and southeast monsoons
(SEM) between April-September. These oceanographic processes also cause noticeable seasonality
in small-scale fisheries within the creek, with high fishing catches recorded during the NEM season.
The seasonal variations also influence the way fishing effort is distributed with resultant adaptations
including modification of gears, change of gears and even migrations of effort (fishers) between the
creek and open waters.
Figure 6.9: Seasonality in fish catches (2013-2015)
Comparative monthly landings between 2013, 2014 and 2015 for pooled data for all fish catches
(figure 6.9) indicate seasonal changes in amount caught within the creek. High catch records are
indicated in 2013 and 2015 from October to March but the trend is different for 2014 when fishing
is active in the month of May normally a time when the winds are strongest. This change could be
attributed to changes in weather pattern hence delayed changes in the monsoons but can also be due
to other factors not considered during the analysis.
Fish spawning behavior is dictated by photoperiod and the water temperature. Most of the fish
including the crustaceans, the fin fish and the mollusks spawn between the months of May and
August.
6.6.4 Economic Value of the Creek Fishery
The average annual value for the creek fishery is Kenya shillings 119 million with the value declining
the lowest value estimated at 84 million KES in 2011 and 95 Million in 2015. The highest ex-vessel
value is reported for the catch landed in Likoni area. However most of the catches within the creek
is landed in Mkupe and Port Reitz areas with an estimated value of 17-19 million Kenya shillings
annually. Summary of estimated ex-vessel value by years and by area is shown in Table 6-4. The
price per kilo for prawn ranges from KES 600 to KES 800 depending on the season, while that of
fish ranges from KES 250 -350 a kilo depending on the species.
Table 6-4. The Value (Million KES) of fish landed by year (2011-2015) and average Ex-vessel value (million KES)
by landing area
Year Value (Million KES) Area/Location Average Ex-Vessel Value (Million
KES)
2011 84.86 Tudor 5.29
2013 186.16 Likoni 310.57
2014 107.74 Port Reitz 18.83
2015 95.92 Mkupe/maweni 16.91
Landings (mt) Mombasa County
Landings (mt) PortReizt creek
Ex-vessel value (Million Kshs) Overall
Ex-vessel Value ( Million (Kshs) PortReizt
191
1,000 200
Ex-vessel value (million KES.)

900 165 167
157
800 147
135 150
Landings (mt)
700 117
600 98 104
87 93
500 82 100
400
300
50
200
100
0 0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Years
Figure 6.10: Comparison of overall annual landings and value for the creek and Mombasa County
The creek contributes largely to fish catches caught in Mombasa County. 429 MT out of the average
of 879 MT caught between 2008 and 2015 is from the creek as shown in figure 6.10. The value of
the fishery has increased with the highest 104 Million KES estimated in 2014.
Figure 6.11 Monthly ex-vessel value of fish landed in creek area
The value of the fishery is highest between October and March ranging 8.3 to 9.1 million Kenya
shillings. In January the NEM winds are stronger hence fishing is disrupted during this time of the
year. Figure 6.11 shows the monthly changes in value of fish in the two creeks.
6.7 Fisheries Resource Management and Marketing
6.7.1 Fisheries Co-management structures
Fisheries co-management involves interaction between the government, fishers, fisheries

stakeholders, coastal stakeholders and external agents. This is a flexible management structure which
enhances power sharing, decision making, conflict management and dialogue among resource users,
stakeholders and the government. The Beach Management Units (BMUs) liaise with the county
fisheries officers with an aim of managing the fishing activities to ensure sustainability. Illegal fishing
gears such as the beach seine have been banned by the national and county government to prevent
overfishing and destruction of the aquatic habitat. Fishermen are required to obtain fishing licenses
and to register their boats.
Beach Management Units (BMUs) act as co-management institutions and provide for fisheries
management at the grassroots (resource) level. BMUs are composed of stakeholders in fishing
communities with mandates of conservation, protection, monitoring and control of fishery
resources and the environment, and fisheries planning and development in collaboration with
government. BMUs are guided by BMU Regulations of 2007 (GoK, 2007). The participation of
fisher-folks is in line with the general principles of Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
(FAO, 1995).
The BMU with the largest number of members is Mwadumbo which has 262 members. There are
seven (7) Beach Management Units (BMUs); Mwangala, Kitanga Juu, Mkupe and Mwandumbo
(within Tsunza peninsular) all in the upper part of the Port Reitz creek while Mtongwe and Likoni
beach management units are in the lower area of the creek area. Tudor is within the Makupa creek
represented by one landing site namely Shimanzi. Fishers from these BMU are likely to be impacted
during and after implementation of the proposed project. The number of BMU members and
registered fishers based on the 2015 register with the State Department of Fisheries Mombasa
County and confirmed from the field data collection survey is approximately 1000. The number of
fishers registered with the respective BMU range from 10 to 186 based on the various landing sites
with details given in Table 6-5. This is an indication of community involvement in sustainable
management of the fishery. The rest of the members are either fish traders/dealers or youth groups
involved in mangrove conservation activities or fish farming in the intertidal zones.
Table 6-5 Membership in the BMUs in the area

Beach Management Unit BMU members (based on No of registered fishers (2015 BMU
survey) register
Tudor 85* 10**
Mwangala 226 77
Mkupe/Maweni 256 151
Mtongwe 220 119
Kitanga Juu/Ngare 203* 116*
Likoni area 234* 186 (15**)
Mwandumbo 262 -
*Data covers all members in several landing sites **Number of fishers considered under proposed area
6.7.2 Fish community characteristics
A total of 117 questionnaires were administered among respondents (92.3% males and 7.7%
females) at landing sites of the BMUs within the proposed project area. Most of the people
engaging in the fishing activities are males with the majority being in the age bracket of 30- 50 years
based on the socio-economic survey. Their level of education is quite low with over 90% having
acquired knowledge up to the primary level, less than 10% have attained secondary school
certificate. This means most of the school leavers engage in fishing as the only source of livelihood
while others take up the trade from their parents. Fishing is done communally or in groups although
some fishers reported to be undertaking fishing activities on their own. Between 70- 80% of the
fishermen use hired boats while 5-10 % own their fishing vessels. The rest of the fishers wade to
shallow grounds or in the mangrove areas during low tide.
6.7.3 Market and trade
The fish destination market is around the landing site and restaurants in Mombasa town. No
preservation is applied in this case because once the fish is obtained it is sold immediately hence the
fish quality is high although the quality may deteriorate at markets far away from landing sites as no
ice is used in the process.
6.7.4 Mangrove conservation and mariculture activities
The mangrove forest has been greatly degraded over the last decade due to human activities and oil
spills hence the communities have stepped up initiatives to rehabilitate this important ecosystem.
The neighbourhood of the project area has a mangrove cover important for the sustainability of
fishery which should be protected and enhanced.
There are youth groups involved in mangrove rehabilitation and conservation within the project
area; one in Mkunguni / Dongo Kundu area known as Dongo Kundu Youth group and another
group that occupies the area from Dongo Kundu to Mwangala known as Mbuta Mazingira youth.
The youth groups are also involved in economic activities such as bee keeping especially the area
from Dongo Kundu to Makombeni (Oyster area) as well as also mangrove crab farming. In Tsunza
area the BMU is involved in Prawn and milk fish farming as well as crab farming as alternative
source of livelihood.
In general the area is suitable for crab, finfish and prawn farming as alternative livelihoods. The
BMUs have plans to develop fish farming in the area which fits in the larger strategic plans of the
county government to enhance aquaculture development. Aquaculture development is important in
this area of the county as it is one of the places where farming of the prawns, crabs and marine fish
can be done within the mangrove area.
6.7.5 Habitats and Species of special concern
Large sharks and rays visit the area during high tide and are caught in set gillnets during these times.
Some shark species are threatened and listed in Appendix I and II of the IUCN Red List hence their
protection is vital. Research findings have indicated the important role of shallow areas and
estuarine areas which form habitats for early life of marine and brackish water organisms.
6.8 Key Challenges

From the analysis of existing data and from the survey it was established that fishery is faced with a
lot of challenges. Although fishery may seem to support local communities the quantities are quite
low and some of the reasons attributed to current status of the fishery include:
1. Declining of fish catches in the Port Reitz creek. This may be attributed the numerous projects
recently undertaken in the area including the Dredging of the Access Channel, Construction of
the second container terminal, Standard Gauge railway projects, among others. Dumping of
waste at Kibarani areas and construction activities around the Makupa creek may also have
attributed to the declining fish catches.
2. Due to decline of fish catches some fishers have resorted to use of illegal fishing gears such as
beach seines.
3. Lack effective fishing gears and vessels has put fishing pressure in the shallow area 10-15 m, and
in case of harsh conditions such as storms they cannot fish due to small vessels that are unable
to venture into the deep sea.
4. Low prices of fish attributed to deterioration of quality due to lack of preservation facilities and
far off markets, and size of fish.
5. Lack of proper fish handling facilities at the landing sites leading to post-harvest losses.
6. Harassments of fishers by the authorities at the port area which is considered as a restricted area.
6.9 Conclusions
1. The fishing area within the two creeks has reduced overtime due to projects that are being
undertaken to support port development and associated infrastructure development hence
fishing challenges have increased overtime.
2. The fishing area is shared by all the fishers in the creek hence there is need for a joint co-
management area to support sustainable fishing activities and community development in the
area. There are numerous landing sites in the area creating challenges in data capture within the
creek.
3. The area is a key ground for the prawn fishery and other commercially important finfish species.
4. The creeks are ecologically important with mangroves and patchy reefs that play an important
role as feeding and nursery habitats. The sheltered creeks also provide temporary feeding area
for pelagic fish and large predators like the sharks.
5. The Port Reitz creek has potential mariculture sites and especially in the upper creek sites
including the peninsular.
6. Fishery activity in the Makupa creek is limited to a few fishers. The creek area has shrunk due to
construction of Container Freight Stations (CFS) around the creek and infiltration of solid waste
from Kibarani dumpsite spreading to the sea hence the water quality a concern.
7. Fish marketing systems and trade is not centralized hence traditional trade system between the
fishers and traders across Port Reitz creek exists.
6.10 Fisheries Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Direct impacts on fisheries resources and fishing operations including habitat loss due to dredging
works may be regarded as low. This is because the dredge area is small (Figure 6.1) and the project
area is classified as a protected port area and not a fishing area. However there other anticipated
adverse indirect impacts such as:
6.10.1 Loss of access to traditional fishing grounds
There will be temporary restriction of access to traditional fishing grounds while the dredger is in
operation. Whereas the loss due to restriction of access may be temporary, the actual loss of the
fishing grounds is likely to be significant if the entire area is declared a port security zone.
Extent of Impact: Localised
Probability: Certain
Duration: Short term, only during the dredging period
Magnitude/ Intensity: Low
Significance: Moderate
6.10.2 Overall decline in fish catches and /or reduced availability of target species
Fish catches may be affected by dredging, dumping and reclamation due to localized, short-term
peaks in suspended sediment concentration and elevated levels of turbidity, forcing fish to move to
clear waters if level of suspended sediments is too high. This effect is expected during and after
dredging. Fish population may take 3-4 years to recover (taking into account the construction period
of 2-3 years and another 1year for biodiversity recovery) depending on the extent of degradation of
the habitats. Previous fish catch trends also provide useful information on the likely period of the
recovery for key species such as the demersal fish, crustacea and molluscs.
Extent of Impact: May impact in fishing areas beyond the site
Probability: Likely
Duration: Short term, only during the dredging and recovery period
Magnitude/ Intensity: Moderate
6.10.3 Interference with fishing activity
There is the potential for interference with fishing vessels since the vessels are not highly mobile as
most of them are propelled by paddles or sails. Indirect effects are likely to include an increased risk
to navigational safety, increased risk of gear damage as the dredger may interfere with set fishing
gear during operations and even disposal of the dredge material. However the effect is expected for
a short-term duration and highly localized but the level of impact may be significant.
Extent of Impact: Local
Probability: Moderate
Duration: Short term, only during the dredging period
Magnitude/ Intensity: Low
6.10.4 Interference with habitat rehabilitation and temporary loss of habitats
The creek is important ecologically and there will be negative ecological impacts on the important
fishery ecosystems in the area (Mangroves, coral reefs, river system). These are covered in detail in
the ecological assessment.
Extent of Impact: May impact beyond the site depending on extent of propagation of sediments
Probability: Likely
Duration: Medium, as ecosystem recovery may take up to 4 years (Bolam S. & Rees. H. 2003)
Magnitude/ Intensity: Moderate
6.10.5 Impacts on aquaculture /mariculture activities in the creek.
Reduction in aquaculture and mariculture activities during the dredging period as a result of
escalated turbidity levels due to increased suspended solids. The aquaculture depends on the seed or
larvae from the wild and the effect on the eggs and larvae may adversely affect the aquaculture
activities in the creek hence indirect effect on alternative livelihoods.
Loss of source of income from fishing and fish trading due to reduced fishing ground and impacts
of the fisheries leading to reduced fish catches
6.11 Proposed Mitigation Measures

According to the assessment the proposed mitigation measures include avoidance, minimization or
compensation. In view of the short-term construction and dredging work for the project, it is
predicted that there will be fisheries impacts associated with the project and especially with reduced
fish catches during the dredging and the recovery period of the habitats and fishery that may take
over 3-4 years. It is important to implement mitigation measures against water quality that will
minimize the levels of suspended solids including the use of silt screens. Proposed compensation
mechanisms could include:
1. Compensation during project implementation and recovery phase for a period of 4 years. To
implement the compensation an understanding between the Beach Management Units (BMUs),
State Department of Fisheries (SDF) and other relevant stakeholders should be developed and
an exhaustive census of all affected persons(Fishers, traders, BMUs) need to be carried out with
socio-economic status of each one in order to avoid conflicts among the fishing communities
2. Improvement of the cold chain system through provision of cold storage facilities eg freezers
and cool boxes to minimize postharvest losses.
3. Enhancement of the fishing capacity through provision of better fishing vessels and gears with
capacity to access the open sea fishery.
4. Development of a centralized market for their fish. This can be through construction of fish
bandas at the landing sites to act as a platform for selling the fish.
5. Construction of fish stores with cold storage facilities at the landing site.
6. Develop mechanism for ensuring safety and security with regard to the fishers who fish in the
Port Reitz creek and access to offshore fishing grounds.
7.0 OCEANOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT
7.1 Background
Many of the world’s seaports, harbors and navigational channels are located on estuaries and ready
access requires maintenance of navigation channels. Estuaries are also effective sediment traps, and
this is a problem for ports. A significant feature of most estuaries is a zone of high-suspended
sediment concentration near the head of the estuary, also known as turbidity maximum zone. This
zone often contains high concentrations of contaminants to which are added pollutants from
effluent discharges (Martin, 1999). The accumulation of sediments in harbors and navigational
channels makes it necessary to carry out dredging works to ensure safety of navigation.
Due to geometrical complexity of most estuaries, both field observations and numerical models are
needed to understand the hydrodynamics. Knowledge of the hydrodynamics of estuaries is necessary
for a better understanding of how sediments are transported and dispersed within the system and
how the channel is flushed through exchange with offshore waters. The fate and transport of
materials in the system are strongly related to the hydrodynamic conditions. Among a wide range of
factors influencing sediment transport in estuaries, tidal range and current speed are the most
important (Althausen and Kjerfve, 1992; Lindsay et al., 1996).
7.2 Methodology for Oceanographic Assessment
The methodology for oceanographic assessment was as follows:
Key Issues to be investigated

• Sediment transport (Turbidity plumes);
• Currents speed and direction (water movement);
• Water level variations (sea level rise);
• Wind and waves;
• Assessment of impacts of the proposed activities on the physical environment.
Main Activities
• Desktop synthesis and numerical modelling of hydrodynamic and sediments information on
the proposed site.
• Estimation sediment loadings and collection of water and sediment samples, for the
determination of total suspended sediments (TSS) and grain-size distribution.
• In situ measurement of physico-chemical parameters using CTD and obtaining the ocean
current velocities & directions using Aquadopp Recording Current Meter (RCM).
• Water level measurements from KMFRI Mombasa tide gauge station.
• Analysis of time series data and development of hydrodynamic models (Harmonic & spectral
analysis).
Expected Outcomes
• Baseline data and information on hydrodynamic characteristics of the Port of Mombasa.
• Ocean current velocities and directions
• Sediment movement models
• Mitigation measures and EMP for proposed activities
7.3 Numerical Modeling of Hydrodynamics of Kilindini Harbor
Due to the large spatial and temporal variability in water levels, current velocities and salinity that
exist, a large number of field observations must be carried out in order to determine the
hydrodynamic characteristics of estuaries. The costs associated with data collection are usually quite
high. A way out of this situation is the use of numerical models as sophisticated techniques for
interpolation of field data in both special and temporal domains.
This report presents the hydrodynamic characteristics of Kilindini Channel (inclusive of the specific
Berths 1-14), Mombasa. This analysis has been done holistically on the whole channel because the
processes that occur (e.g. sediment transport, wave behaviour) are a function of the cumulative
influences of the whole system (in this case the Kilindini channel). In this study, numerical
simulations were applied by means of a model that couples hydrodynamics and diffusion of Total
Suspended Sediment (TSS) and sedimentation of dumped soils.
The approach was as follows:

 Obtaining the water levels measurements for one-year period from the tide gauge station located
at the Kilindini (latitude -4.067 and longitude 39.65) operated by Kenya Marine and Fisheries
Research Institute, KMFRI.
 Time series of current velocity and water temperature data were observed for a period of 30
days. Investigations were done to determine the factor(s) responsible for water movements,
circulation patterns and establish if there is tidal asymmetry in the harbour.
The aim of the numerical modelling studies was to provide detailed information on the
hydrodynamic and sedimentation effects due to the proposed channel straightening, strengthening
and deepening and to also support studies relating to the Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment (ESIA). The key result area was to develop a model which accurately represented natural
tidal conditions and hence sediment movement within the study area. The model provided a means
to assess the following:
 Prediction of the currents and hence how a sediment plume may behave;
 Prediction of sediment deposition during dredging and disposal.
In order to generate a better spatial resolution data for model calibration and validation, stations
were established at selected locations within Kilindini Harbor and in close proximity to Berths 1-14
to monitor tides, currents and suspended solids as well as salinity.
Four scenarios were examined during the numerical simulations:
Scenario 1: Offshore dumping in NE Monsoon season at designated Point

Scenario 2: Offshore Dumping in SE Monsoon Season at Designated Point
Scenario 3: Basin Dredging Operation at Berths 1-14 and potential turbidity dispersion during
NEM Season
Scenario 4: Basin Dredging Operation at Berths 1-14 and potential turbidity dispersion during SEM
Season
After extensive validation against available observations, the model was used to predict the effects of
the proposed scheme on tidal flows, waves and sediment transport.
During the simulation field setting, the following cases were considered:
 Latest bathymetry measured in this study (see Figure )
 Current measured in this study.
Bathymetry
Below are figures showing the raw water depths (Figure 7.1) data and the subsequently generated
bathymetry (Figure 7.2) map for the Kilindini Harbor. The bathymetry in itself can be used to infer
on the sediment movements within the port channel. Figure 8.3 however shows the bathymetry
extending to the outer reef.
Figure 7.1: Raw data points of water depths around Mombasa Island (Kilindini and Tudor Channels).
Figure 7.2: Derived bathymetry of the Kilindini and Tudor Channels with the
highest interpolated water depth at ~60 m and the shallowest at ~1 m.
Figure 7.3 Result of two-dimensional bathymetric survey of Kilindini harbor and its approaches
The simulation period of the model continued for 10 days during spring tide duration, in which
turbidity levels had increased and reached constant values.
7.4 Interpretation of Simulation Results
Results of the simulation exercise can therefore be interpreted as follows:

7.4.1 Scenario 1
Turbid water will disperse toward SW direction from dumping point; however, 10 mg/l contour will
not reach to -50m depth contour, which is understood as deepest outer fringe limit of Coral Reefs
(Figure ).
Figure 7.4: Turbid water dispersion simulation (surface and bottom layers) at offshore dumping during NEM
season (Jan – Apr).
7.4.2 Scenario 2
Turbid water will disperse toward NE direction from dumping point. On the water surface in
southwest-end of the Mombasa Marine National Reserve, temporally turbidity increase by 20 mg/L
will be observed (Figure ). However, no increase higher than 10 mg/L will reach the -50m depth
counter in bottom layer, which is understood as deepest outer fringe of Coral Reef. (See Figure 8.5).
Figure 7.5: Turbid water dispersion simulation (surface and bottom layers) at offshore dumping during SEM
season (Jul – Oct).
7.4.3 Scenario 3 and 4
No significant difference is shown between scenario 3 and 4. No turbid water will be moved out
beyond the port entrance. High turbidities indicated by red color are shown in the deepest area of
Port Reitz. However, these are caused by re-suspension of existing fine materials due to extreme
shallowness of the area, but it is difficult to eliminate the indications from the output of the
simulation results (Figures 8.6 and 8.7).
Figure 7.6: Turbidity water dispersion due to potential dredging works at Berths 1-14 during NE Monsoon.
Figure 7.7: Turbidity water dispersion due to potential dredging works at Berths 1-14 during SE Monsoon.
7.5 Potential for Sediment Resuspension.
The results of the hydrodynamic model were then used to assess, amongst other things the
sedimentation and turbidity as a result of dredging activities and consequently potential impacts on
marine flora, fauna and biological processes within the study area. Figure 7.8 and Figure 7.9 shows
the predicted extent and level of concentrations of suspended sediment expected at Berth 1-14 and
offshore site.
Net Difference
Figure 7.8: Results of numerical simulations of siltation before and after dredging at Berths 1-14 during the
South East Monsoon season and the siltation difference before and after dredging.
Net Difference
Figure 7.9: Results of numerical simulations of siltation before and after dredging at Berths 1-14 during the
North East Monsoon season and the siltation difference before and after dredging.
7.6 Hydrodynamic Modelling of Water Quality Impacts
Dredging increases water turbidity and relocation of dredged material to an offshore site can spread
the plume over a greater area. The aim of developing the hydrodynamic model for the project was to
predict the spatial extent of impact from turbid plumes as well as the concentrations of suspended
sediments that would be experienced by biota through the reduction in available photosynthetic light
and through physical smothering of deposited dredge sediments.
This approach enabled the project team to predict turbidity related impacts and develop
management and mitigation strategies prior to the commencement of the dredging project and
occurrence of impacts. The focus was on the dredging process to enable a responsive approach to
management. As part of the predictive monitoring approach, mitigation measures based on
tolerance values were developed for sensitive habitats and then used to develop management
responses.
7.7 Concluding Remarks
7.7.1 Hydrodynamic Characteristics
There is an asymmetry of ebb-dominance with ebb currents being stronger than flood currents.
Maximum ebb and flood velocities are 0.8 ms-1 and 0.5 ms-1 respectively. This situation tends to
favor a net export of materials (including sediments) out of the system. Typically, flood tide last for
6.58 hours while ebb tide extends for 6.04 hours within the harbor.
Temperature variations are diurnal with maximum values occurring at about midday and during the
afternoon within the harbor. These variations are slightly sensitive to the semi diurnal variations
caused by the tides.
Meteorological forcing due to wind stress or fluctuations in air pressure play a minor role in the
harbor-ocean exchange processes. This indicates that water movements in Kilindini harbor are
exclusively caused by the tides.
Harmonic and spectral analysis methods are useful tools for characterization of estuarine flows.
Both methods describe fairly well the hydrodynamic characteristics of Kilindini harbor.
7.7.2 Numerical Modeling
Three-Dimensional hydrodynamic models coupled with advection-diffusion term can be used to
simulate the hydrodynamics of Kilindini harbor including the transport of suspended sediments.
The model applied in this study was used to predict the effects of the proposed dredging scheme on
tidal flows, waves and sediment transport using four scenarios examined during both the NE and SE
monsoon seasons. The results of the hydrodynamic model were then used to assess, amongst other
things, the sedimentation and turbidity as a result of dredging activities and consequently potential
impact on sensitive habitats in the harbor and nearby areas.
Modelling results indicates that sea levels will not be impacted by the dredging and that the tidal
water levels will be reduced very slightly by about 20 mm in the harbor. The results also indicate that
there will be no change in the current speeds in the harbor or the dredged channel after the
dredging. However, there will be a small decrease in current speeds through the entrance of the
Harbor associated with the increase in the cross sectional area. There shall be a slight decrease of
current in the Turning Basin because of the deepening.
Results of the model further indicated that changes to wave heights (increase or decrease) were
negligible (less than 10% change) implying that the proposed dredging works is not likely to alter
alongshore erosion and sediment transport processes.
7.7.3 Offshore Dumping
The width of the Kenya’s continental shelf is relatively narrow extending about 5 – 10km wide with
depths dropping to below 200 m in under 4km of the shoreline. The seabed at Mombasa, including
the ocean floor near the entrance of Kilindini harbor, is characterized by a slope that gradually
becomes steeper. From the proposed offshore dumping site, the seafloor slope reaches 200 m of
depth over a distance of 500 m. A depth of over 2000 m is already reached at 10 km from Mombasa.
Disposal of the dredged material will be carried out in this area (Figure 8.10), where the sediments
will move into deep waters, and prevent a significant increase in the sediment load in the plume.
Considering the available alternatives and their possible environmental impacts, offshore disposal of
the dredged material is considered to be the most favorable option.
Fig. 7.10: Location of dredge dumping site and boundary of Mombasa Marine Park
7.7.4 Tides
Regarding the impact of the capital dredging works on tidal currents within Kilindini Harbor, the
following conclusions were drawn:
 The spring tide current directions are little altered, although there are corresponding small
changes to the current speed;
 Although more water is drawn into the channel during flood tide and flushed out during ebb
tide as a result of the deepening and widening, this does not necessarily imply faster currents
in the channel, given the additional cross section of the channel.
7.8 Anticipated Oceanographic Impacts and Mitigation Measures
7.8.1 Impacts of Dredging

All dredged material has significant physical impact at the point of disposal. This includes local
covering of the seabed and local increase in suspended solids. Physical impacts may result from
subsequent transport, particularly of the finer fractions, by wave and tidal action and residual current
movements. Biological consequences of these physical impacts include smothering of benthic
organisms in the dumping area. The significance of the physical and biological impacts largely
depends on the physical conditions and natural values locally met.
Numerical modeling results from the applied dispersal models suggest that any sediment plumes
resulting from dredging operations will either be dispersed northwards during the South East
Monsoon (SEM) season and southwards during the North East Monsoon (NEM) season. The
model further predicts the magnitude and extent of turbidity. The sediment plume dispersion is
higher during the SEM as compared to the NEM period (Figure and Figure). The maximum values
of TSS concentrations were 50 mg/l during SEM as compared to 20 mg/L during the NEM.
It is important to note that continuous monitoring stations shall be set to monitor turbidity levels at
selected locations (especially at the Mombasa Marine Park and nearby sensitive habitats such as coral
reefs) during the dredging period in order to adopt the necessary mitigation measures and further
validate the model results.
7.8.2 Impacts of Changes in Bathymetry
Currents: Impacts of changes to bathymetry and the increase of the cross-sectional area of the
entrance to Kilindini harbor associated with dredging and widening were modelled. Modelling
results indicates that sea levels will not be impacted by the dredging and that the tidal water levels
will remain almost exactly the same in the harbor. The results also indicate that there will be no
change in the current speeds in the harbor or the dredged channel after the dredging. However,
there will be a small decrease in current speeds through the entrance of the Harbor associated with
the increase in the cross sectional area.
Tides: Potential impacts to tides and shoreline wave action from changes in the bathymetry of
Kilindini harbor through dredging and widening of the shipping channel were also modeled. Results
showed that changes to wave heights (increase or decrease) were negligible (less than 10% change)
as shown in Figure 7.11.
Figure 7.11: Results of wave penetration simulation showing that change of wave heights (increase/decrease) due to
dredging is negligible (less than 10%).
It is predicted that spring tide low water levels in Kilindini harbor would be lowered by up to 20 mm
as a result of the effect of the channel deepening and widening on tidal propagation, resulting in the
increased exposure of intertidal areas at low water on spring tides. Figure 7.12 shows an
instantaneous snap short of depth-averaged current velocity vectors generated by numerical
simulations during spring tide conditions.
Figure 7.12: Numerical simulation results of created current velocities vector field in Kilindini
harbor including the offshore dumping site and the adjacent Tudor creek.
8.0 CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT
Introduction
Major sources of adverse effects on water and sediments quality during the proposed rehabilitation
of berths 1-14 include impacts resulting from rehabilitation of the berths and impacts from
construction of new support infrastructure. This part of the ESIA report gives indications of water,
sediment and quality as well as baseline noise levels and aims at identifying the potential impact of
the proposed rehabilitation on the chemical environment. Proposals are made of how these impacts
can be mitigated and EMP matrix provided for monitoring purposes. The purpose of the assessment
is to characterise the existing environmental conditions of the project area in order to provide data
that will act as reference for the EMP and baseline against which future measurements will be
compared to predict the impact of future port expansion operations.
8.1 Methodology for Environmental Characterization
Environmental characterization was undertaken through literature survey of different studies

conducted in the project area, and any identified filled through field survey conducted in June 2016.
Water quality survey included three elements:
(a) measurement of general features such as temperature, salinity, pH;
(b) turbidity, as measured by determination of suspended solids; and
(c) eutrophication-related factors measured by dissolved oxygen, biological oxygen demand,
nitrogen, phosphorus and chlorine.
Sediments quality survey encompassed:-
a) general feature such as grain size, organic matter,
b) quality related issues i.e. contamination of bottom sediments by toxic or harmful
substances such as Pb, Cr, Cd, Co, As, PAH and oils & grease.
The existing condition was analysed in comparison with permissible levels of pollutants where
available.
8.2 Samples collection and analysis
The study area was divided into 3 different clusters as follows, based on the arrangement of the
existing berths in order to obtain representative samples:
 Cluster 1: Berths 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5;
 Cluster 2: berths 7, 8, 9 and 10 and
 Cluster 3 had berths 11, 12, 13 and 14.
8.2.1 Water Quality Assessment
Water sampling was carried out in the first and the last bertth of each cluster (i.e. cluster 1 was
represented by berth 1 and berth 5; cluster 2 had berth 7 and 10 while cluster 3 had berth 11 and 14)
[Figure 8.1].
Figure 8.1: Map showing water (B1, B5, B7, B10, B11, B14) and sediments (SED B5, SED B10, SED B13) sampling
points
Water samples were collected from the surface, mid water column and bottom water column using a
Niskin bottle (Plate 8A).
Sediment samples were collected from the middle berth of each cluster (i.e. berths 5, 10 and 13)
while a control site was chosen at the opposite side of the port development. Sediment samples were
obtained by using 50 cm sediment corer and the sample divided into top and bottom portions.
Water temperature, pH, conductivity and salinity were taken in situ with a handheld multi-parameter
meter (YSI Professional Plus) while samples for the analysis of the other parameters were stored
appropriately for analysis at the NEMA accredited laboratory (Polucon Laboratories). In the
laboratory, water samples were analysed for microbial contamination, Dissolved oxygen (DO),
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Total Suspended Solids
(TSS), suspended organic matter, chlorophyll-a, ammonia, nitrate/nitrite and phosphate and grease
and oil in water by using standard methods for water and waste water analysis (Table 9.1).
Plate 8A Samples collection using Niskin bottle
Sediment samples were collected from a mid-location in each cluster (SEDB5, SEDB10, SEDB13)
by coring using UWITEC gravity corer (equipped with 60 cm length and 6 cm diameter Polyvinyl
chloride [PVC] tubes). Sediment samples were split into half (top 30cm and bottom 30 cm),
homogenized and subsamples of 500g each of top and bottom sediments collected.
Table 9-1 Water quality analysis methods
Parameter Analysis Method
Water quality
Temperature, salinity and pH Hand held YSI Professional Plus meter
Nitrates APHA Method 4500-NO3 B
Phosphates APHA 4500-P F (Automater Ascorbic Acid
Reduction Method)
Ammonia APHA Method 4500-NH3G B
TSS USGS- 3765-85 (Solids, residue suspended
evaporation 105° C)
Total coliforms ISO 4832 (Horizontal method for the enumeration
of coliforms- Colony count technique)
E.coli ISO 16649-2
Faecal coliforms APHA 9222D (Faecal Coliform Membrane Filter
Procedure)
BOD AOAC 973.44 (Incubation Method)
DO AOAC 973.45 (Titrimetric method)
8.2.2 Sediment Quality Analysis
Sediment samples were analysed for grain size, sediment organic matter, Total PAH, heavy metals
(Cd, Pb, Cr, Co and As). Sediment grain distribution was carried out using dry sieving and
referenced to Wentworth (1922) grain size classification.
Table 8-2 Sediment quality analysis methods
Sediment quality
Oil and grease APHA 5520E (Extraction Method for
Sludge Samples)
PAH APHA 6440B (Liquid-Liquid Extraction
Chromatographic Method)
Metals (Pb, Cr, Cd, Co, As) AOAC 990.08 (Metals in Solid Wastes by
ICP)
Currently, no sediment guidelines exist for heavy metals and PAH in Kenya. However, several
sediment quality criteria have been developed around the world and were applied in this study. A
comparison of the results of this study was made against two levels of risk that have been
established for metals and PAH contamination in sediments, Effects Range Low (ERL)/ Lowest
Effect Level (LEL) and the Effects Range Low (ERL)/ Severe Effect Level (SEL)(MacDonald et al,
2000) [Table 8-7]. These guidelines have been applied as useful tools for predicting chemical toxicity
in screening or assessments of sediment quality. These approaches generally set two threshold levels,
one below which effects rarely occur e.g. ERL/LEL], and one above which effects are likely to
occur [e.g. ERL/SEL]. Sediment is considered contaminated if either criterion is exceeded. If both
criteria are exceeded, the sediment is considered to be severely impacted. If only the Lowest Effect
Level criterion is exceeded, the impact is considered moderate.
8.2.3 Air Quality Survey
Air quality assessment was carried at for Cluster 1, 2 and 3 at berths 5, 10 and 12 respectively. Two
main elements were assessed:
(a) soot and dust, measured by particulate matter (PM), and
(b) concentration of sulfur oxides (SOx) nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and
carbon dioxide (CO2).
A direct reading air quality analyzer was used for monitoring gaseous pollutants whereas a particle
counter was used to measure airborne particulates.
8.2.4 Noise Level Survey
Noise level was determined for clusters 1,2 and 3 at berths No 5, 10 and 12 using a Sound Level
Meter model number TES-1358C. Equivalent noise level (Leq), maximum sound pressure level (Lmax)
and minimum sound pressure level (Lmin) parameters were recorded to quantify ambient noise levels
during at the time of measurement.
The obtained noise and air quality baseline levels were compared with area-specific noise guidelines
by World Bank and NEMA (air quality and noise pollution guidelines).
8.3 Results and Discussion
8.3.1 Water Quality

Temperature, salinity, conductivity and pH was generally similar in all the sampling sites and along
the water column with ranges of 26.9-27.5 °C, 28-34 PSU, 50.9-51.8 ms/s and 7.93-8.07 respectively
(Table 8-3). Physicochemical parameters were within the normal levels expect for berth 5 which had
relatively lower salinity which could have resulted from surface runoff during sampling period.
Table 8-3. Temperature pH, Conductivity and Salinity at the project site and the control.
CLUSTERS BERTHS Sample Temperature pH Conductivity Salinity
(°C) (ms/cm) (PSU)
Cluster 1 Berth 1 Surface 27.4 7.99 50.9 34
Berth 1 Mid 27.2 7.99 51.6 33
Berth 1 Bottom 27.0 7.98 51.8 34
Berth 5 Surface 27.5 8.07 51.6 28
Berth 5 Mid 27.1 8.00 51.6 29
Berth 5 Bottom 27.0 7.96 51.3 28
Berth 7 Mid 27.0 7.93 51.6 31
Berth 7 Bottom 27.1 7.96 51.4 31
Berth 10 Surface 27.4 7.99 51.7 34
Berth 10 Mid 27.2 7.99 51.4 33
Berth 10 Bottom 27.4 8.05 51.5 32
Berth 11 Mid 27.4 7.99 51.1 33
Berth 11 Bottom 27.3 7.96 51.6 33
Berth 14 Surface 27.3 8.01 51.5 34
Berth 14 Mid 27.2 7.98 51.5 33
Berth 14 Bottom 27.2 7.99 51.6 32
Control Control Surface 27.3 8.02 51.3 33
Control Mid 26.9 8.00 51.7 33
Control Bottom 27.1 8.02 51.6 32
Figure 8.2. TSS concentrations (mg/L) in water column (surface, mid and bottom) in the proposed project area
and the control.
TSS concentrations were higher at the surface (range: 66.2-117.9 mg/L) and reduced towards the
bottom (range: 97.3-59.1 mg/L) [Figure 8.2]. This could have been caused by high plankton biomass
in the surface.
Figure 8.3. Organic matter concentrations (mg/L) in water column (surface, mid and bottom) in the proposed
project area and the control
The organic matter concentrations in the water columns ranged from 2.44 to5.11 mg/L and showed
a decrease with depth in cluster 1 and control (Figure 8.3). This shows that plankton was a major
component of TSS. Cluster 2 had higher Organic Matter (OM) concentration in the bottom
compared to surface suggesting that this area experiences occasional resuspension of bottom
sediment.
Figure 8.4 Chl-a Concentrations (mg/L) in water column (surface, mid and bottom) in the proposed project area
and the control
Chl-a concentration ranged between 0.02-0.08 mg/L and had a well-defined trend (reduction with
depth) [Figure 8.4]. This reduction could be attributed to reduction of plankton biomass with depth
resulting from their preference for photic zone.
Figure 8.5 DO Concentrations (mg/L) in water column (surface, mid and bottom) in the proposed project area
and the control
DO concentration ranged between 5.0-5.6 mg/L and similarly showed a well-defined trend
(reduction with depth) [Figure 8.5]. This reduction could be attributed to reduction of plankton
biomass with depth and the associated reduction in photosynthetic inputs of DO. Additionally, DO
utilization by heterotrophic biota and OM remineralization may have also resulted to lower
concentration of DO in the bottom waters. DO utilization increase with depth is further confirmed
BOD (range 2.96-7.2 mg/L) that showed a clear increase with depth.
Figure 8.6 BOD Concentrations (mg/L) in water column (surface, mid and bottom) in the proposed project area
and the control
Figure 8.7. Nitrates and Ammonia concentrations (mg/L) in water column (surface, mid and bottom) in the
proposed project area and the control
The concentrations of nitrates ranged from 0.001-0.029 mg/L while the concentrations of Ammonia
ranged from 0.001-0.023 mg/L (Figure 9.7).Nitrates and ammonium levels were within the normal
range except for berth 5 which had relatively higher levels resulting from surface runoff and the
control site that had extremely higher levels of nitrates which maybe of the river source or from
extensive nitrification process in the neighbouring mangroves.
Figure 8.8. Phosphates concentrations (mg/L) in water column (surface, mid and bottom) in the proposed
project area and the control.
The ranges in the proposed project area were similar with those in the control showing that the
project site and the control were both receiving nutrients from the same source. The surface water
had generally higher phosphates concentrations with a range of 0.006-0.087 mg/L (Figure 8.8).
Table 8-4: Microbial contamination in the surface water samples in the proposed project area and the control.
Parameter Sampling Stations
Berth 1 Berth 5 Berth 7 Berth 10 Berth 11 Berth 14 Control
Total coliform 118 2330 228 167 167 46 34

count (cfu/ml)
Escheria coli 81 8 2 2 2 Not
Not
(cfu/ ml) detected
detected
Faecal coliform Not 600 46 6 8 10 Not
(cfu/10 ml) detected detected
Microbial counts were detected in all the three clusters including the control. Only total coliform
were reported in berth 1 while total coliforms, faecal coliform bacteria and Escheria coli were reported
in all the other berths including the control (Table 8-4). The presence of these indicator species
shows that the study sites were receiving contaminated wastewater.
8.3.2 Sediment Quality
Top sediments had a generally higher organic matter (407.5-179.3mg/Kg) compared to the bottom
sediment (392.6-127.5mg/Kg) [Figure 8.9]. Cluster 1 and control had higher organic matter
compared to the other project areas.
Figure 8.9 Sediment organic matter (mg/ Kg dw) surface and bottom sediment in the proposed project area and
the control
There was a variation in the amounts of total suspended sediments (TSS) in and around the
proposed project site. The TSS varied from 70 mg/l (lowest) to 104.9 mg/l (highest) as shown in
Figure 8.10 below; -
Figure 8.10: Showing the variation in total suspended sediment (TSS) in selected berths in the project site.
From the grain size analysis (see Figure below) of grab sediment samples, the sediments in and
around Berth 1-14 can be classified as fine to coarse grained sand.
Figure 8.11: Grain size analysis for sediments collected at the Kilindini Channel (Berth 1-14)
Table 8-5. Sediments grain size classification for Clusters 1, 2, 3 and control site.
Clusters Section % Sand % Silt Classification

loamy sand
1 Top 75.70 24.30
sand
Bottom 97.22 2.78
loamy sand
2 Top 81.73 18.27
loamy sand
Bottom 81.00 19.00
loamy sand
3 Top 79.18 20.82
loamy sand
Bottom 71.66 28.34
Control loamy sand
Top 77.96 22.04
sand
Bottom 95.99 4.01
All the surface sediments had fine grain size (loamy sand) while the bottom sediment s were either
loamy sand or sand (Table 8-5). The fine surface sediment is capable of adsorbing any contaminants
released during the rehabilitation and they also have the ability to be easily re-suspended to cause a
turbidity plume.
Table 8-6. Heavy metals (mg/Kg dw), PAH (mg/kg dw) and oil and grease content (% wt ww) in surface and
bottom sediments from the proposed project area and the control.
Control Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
Parameter Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Surface Bottom
Pb <0.04 51.00 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 28.00 30.50
Cr <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 65.00 42338.00 <0.02
Cd <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Co <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 342.5 <0.02
As <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Total PAH <0.05 2.14 0.78 0.37 1.04 2.29 37.80 4.22
Oil and grease NIL NIL 6.42 NIL 17.00 20.10 4.81 11.66
Table 8-7: Comparison of heavy metals (mg/Kg dw) to the result of related studies
SAMPLE Cd Pb Cr Co Hg As Reference
This study <0.01 <0.04- <0.02- <0.02- <0.001 <0.01
51.00 42338.00 342.50
Laptev, 0.03- 16-22 - - - - Nolting in press
Russia
1.06
Pattani Bay, 0.01- 79-97 - - - - Evaarts et al., 1994
Thailand
0.04
Coastal 1.1-8.5 0.13- - - - - Evaarts and Nieuwenhuize,
Zone, Kenya
0.56 (1995)
Gazi Bay/ 0.027 1.576 - - - Okuku et al., 2010
Chale BDL 9.576 - - - Okuku et al., 2010
LEL 0.6 31.0 26.0 0.15 6.0 Persuad et al. (1992)
SEL 9.0 110.0 110.0 1.3 33.0 Persuad et al. (1992)
Heavy metals were reported in trace levels except for Cr in berth 10 bottom (65 mg/kg) and berths
12 top (42338 mg/L), Co in cluster 3 surface sediment (342.5 mg/kg) and Pb in control bottom (51
mg/L) [Table 8-6] and Cluster 3 surface and bottom sediments. The results obtained from the study
shows that heavy metals concentrations are relatively higher compared to areas with limited
anthropogenic activities (Gazi and Chale) but relatively lower compared to other harbours in the
world (Table 8-7).
All the proposed project sites had Cd, Pb Hg and As in concentrations lower than LEL and are
therefore considered non-contaminated by these metals (i.e. are present at levels that may not cause
harm to aquatic environment) [Table 8.6]. All the project sites had Cr in concentrations lower than
LEL and are therefore considered non-contaminated by Cr apart from Cluster 3 that had
concentrations higher than SEL and can be considered as extremely contamination (i.e. can cause
significantly affect marine biota) [Table 8.6].
Oil and grease were reported in all the clusters in low levels which are indicative of slight oil
contamination. The total PAH ranged between <0.05- 37.8 mg/L (Table 8.5) which were below the
sediment quality guidelines (ERL 4000 and ERM 35000 mg/Kg) [Table 8.6]. Generally, sediments in
the proposed port area had PAH below the threshold levels where effects rarely occur (LEL) thus
no PAH contamination is anticipated in the proposed project area.
Plate 8B: Dust generation during offloading of bulk cargo is Plate 8C: equipment for measuring baseline aerosol
one of the sources of air pollution quality indicators
8.3.3 Results of Air Quality and Noise Level Assessment

Concentration of Priority Air Pollutants in the project area compared to Ambient Air Quality
Tolerance Limits as contained in 1st Schedule of EMCA (Air Quality Regulations) and WHO
guidelines are as presented in Table 8-8 below:
Table 8-8: Concentration of Priority Air Pollutants

PM 2.5 PM10 CO CO2 NOx SO2 CxHy
Station (mg/m3 (mg/m3 (µg/m3
(µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3)
) ) )
Cluster 1 1 2 0.0 432 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cluster 2 198 396 0.0 443 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cluster 3 14 7 0.0 401 0.0 0.0 0.0
EMCA standards
(legal notice 34 1st 75 150 150 125
Schedule)- 24hours
WHO guidelines
50 500 200
(1 hr average)
Priority air pollutant levels were within the permissible levels except for PM10 for berth 10 that was
above the recommended limit allowed by national law and the World Health Organization
standards.
Table 8-9 Noise levels in the project area comapred to permissible levels of Kenya Noise regulations
Area monitored Leq Lmax Lmin L5 L50 L95
Berth 5 77.5 92.7 71.8 80.8 76.8 74.8
Berth 10 64.3 82.8 48.8 67.6 58.6 52.4
Berth 12 65.6 84.7 54.7 69.6 63.2 58.4
EMCA Noise standards 60
World Bank 70
The results of noise levels compared with exposure limits as contained in 1st Schedule of EMCA
(Noise Regulations) and WHO guidelines are as presented in Table 8-9 above. The noise average Leq
value for berths 5, 10 and 12 were above the stipulated EMCA level of 60dBA for commercial area
but only berth 5 exceeded the World Bank guideline of 70 dBA. It is important to note that the
Kenyan Government has set a noise standard limit at 90 dBA for 8 hours as the Occupational
Exposure Level (OEL), which workers can continually be exposed to without developing
occupational hearing loss in industries (occupational deafness). The recorded baseline noise value is
likely to increase during construction phase of the project and should only be used for monitoring
(EMP) while mitigation measures should be put in place to check the noise levels.
8.4 Potential Chemical Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The assessment of the impacts of the proposed port rehabilitation on chemical environment
proceeded through a process that considered four key elements: prediction of the magnitude of
impacts on the environment; evaluation of significance of the impacts taking into account the
sensitivity of the environment; development of mitigation measures to prevent reduce, or manage
the impacts, and development of Environmental Management Plan (EMP) defining roles and
responsibilities for the implementation agencies to assess the residual significant impacts after the
application of mitigation measures. The identified impacts and mitigation measure include:
8.4.1 Water pollution resulting from dredging activities in front of the existing berths
Dredging works would be undertaken in front of the existing berths to increase the depth in order
to accommodate larger ships. The main environmental effects associated with dredging are the
deterioration of water quality due to increase in suspended sediments and the associated turbidity
and mobilization of toxic or harmful substances.
Suspended matter concentration is expected to increase during the dredging process from sediments
excavation at the bed, loss of material during transport to the surface, overflow from the dredger
whilst loading and loss of material from the dredger and/or pipelines during transport. Turbidity has
an impact of reducing sunlight penetration thus affecting photosynthesis.
Dredging may also re-suspend sediments which may result in the release of toxic substances into the
water column. However, this is only expected for Cluster 3 which was found to be contaminated
with Chromium (Cr). The other project sites had low levels of toxic substances that may not have an
impact on the ecosystem.
Extent: Local
Duration: Medium-term (through re-suspension of sediments)
Magnitude: Moderate
Significance with mitigation measures: Low
Proposed mitigation measures
The adverse impacts of dredging on water quality could be minimized through
1. Selection of appropriate dredging equipment
2. Careful transportation to, and disposal of dredged material to the deposition area (
(preferably on landfills). Effective barriers must be provided if the land fill is close to the sea.
3. Disposal of sediments from cluster 3 should strictly be done in landfills due to the observed
contamination with Cr. The contaminated dredge spoil must be placed in an impermeable
confined disposal facility- impermeable liners) to prevent the return of the sediments to the
ocean especially during rainy periods.
4. Use of silt curtains (silt screens) in the dredging area to ensure that suspended sediments at
burrow sites are contained. The silt curtains should properly be deployment at burrow pit,
ensuring that lower end of ‘skirt’ is resting upon the seafloor, and that top of the ‘skirt’ is
always above the surface of the water.
5. Sediment barriers or sediment curtains must have characteristics that provide maximum
efficiency in any possible local conditions (waves, currents, wind speed, depth, etc.)
6. Reduction of the time over which the dredging operation is to be carried out in order to
minimum the duration for re-suspension of sediments.
7. Confining dredging and sediment transport operations to calmer sea states to reduce
resuspension of sediments.
8. Carryout continuous monitoring of environmental parameters to: i) measure the changes in
turbidity; ii) compare such changes to those predicted; and; iii) identify whether, when or
where remedial actions are required.
8.4.2 Water and sediment pollution resulting from the storage and handling of chemical products
during construction activities
The storage and handling of chemical products such as fuel, lubricants, anticorrosion products,
cement and paint could result in localized pollution which may enter the ocean during rainy seasons
with subsequent impacts on water, sediment and biota quality. The possible impacts may arise from:
1) spills during the storage of chemical products; 2) spills during the transport of chemical products;
3) spills during the maintenance/repair of vehicles and machinery and 4) spills during the application
of paint and anti-corrosion products.
Extent: Local
Duration: Mid-term (the contamination maybe sporadically or of short-duration, but the construction
works will continue for entire project period)
Magnitude: Moderate
Significance with mitigation: Low
1. Have in place an effective preventive maintenance programme for equipment and vehicles in
order to avoid breakdowns and the subsequent spillage of oil and fuel.
2. Use of qualified and experienced staff for maintenance and operation exercise is a pre-
cautionary approach of dealing with accidents and spills.
3. Maintenance of equipment and vehicles to be carried out in designated areas and on
impermeable surface with adequate drainage and reception facilities for any oil spills.
4. In cases of hydrocarbon spills, the spill must be controlled and absorbed by absorbent
material. The absorbent material should then be placed in the open air to allow the
hydrocarbons to evaporate.
5. Storage areas for fuel and other chemicals must be located at least 50 m from the sea. Such
storage areas must be provided with impermeable containment basins that retain and permit
the collection of possible spills. The areas should have appropriate signs in English and
Kiswahili showing the contents.
6. Employees working with chemical products must receive appropriate instructions and
personal protection equipment (such as gloves, masks, uniforms).
7. Used oil must be stored in sealed drums, and must not be mixed with other substances such
as petrol and solvents. Such used oil should promptly be delivered to the recycling firms.
8. Oil spill control measures should be adopted as per the National Oil Spill Response
Contingency plan. Prompt reporting systems would be key to prevention of oil dispersal.
9. Marine environmental monitoring as per environmental monitoring programme should be
carried out at the recommended points and periods and compared with baseline levels
during entire rehabilitation period.
8.4.3 Water pollution resulting from domestic and non-hazardous construction waste produced
during construction activities
During the construction stage significant amount of construction and domestic wastes will be
produced including packaging waste, empty drums, scrap metal, old tyres, building rubble etc. If not
managed correctly, this kind of waste may contaminate the adjacent water through surface runoff.
Additionally, there will be a significant increase in the number or workers during the construction
phase that may produce additional waste if adequate sanitation facilities are not provided.
Extent: Local
Duration: Mid-term (the contamination maybe sporadic or of short-duration, but the construction
works will continue for the entire project period)
Magnitude: Low
1. All employees involved in the work must be subject on-site training with regards to waste
management procedures
2. The working areas must be kept clean and waste disposed appropriately in designated bins.
3. Concrete and cement waste should be re-used whenever possible to reduce the amount of
waste.
4. Periodical clean-up of floating wastes (marine debris) should be carried out to ensure port
water quality.
5. Rubble must be reduced to small pieces, placed in appropriate waste disposal areas and
covered with topsoil.
6. Scrap metal must be removed from the area and promptly delivered to the recycling firms
for reuse.
7. Waste containers with lids must be placed in strategic locations in working areas. They must
be in sufficient number and have sufficient capacity for the estimated amount of waste to be
produced. Biodegradable and non-biodegradable wastes must be placed in separate waste
bins which are labelled accordingly.
8. Discharge of waste into sea shall remain prohibited and adequate wastewater management
facilities including biodigesters should be provided.
9. NEMA regulations on effluents standards discharged from waterfront industries and
provision of sanitary treatment facilities are indispensable for reducing pollutants from
hinterlands and in ensuring port environment protection.
10. Careful port design should be carried out, focusing on the possibility of reducing water
stagnation within the yards and other open areas, thus reducing water quality issues related
to localized eutrophication.
11. Marine environmental monitoring as per environmental monitoring programme should be
carried out at the recommended periods and compared with baseline levels during entire
rehabilitation period.
8.4.4. Water pollution resulting from deposition of dust during the civil works
Increase in water turbidity due to deposition of dust may impact negatively on water quality and
primary productivity. However, the occurrence of such impacts has low probability and does not
present any major environmental hazard.
Extent: Local
Duration: Medium term (although the emission of dust and their permanence in the bay may occur in
short-term, the construction activities will occur for the entire period)
Magnitude: Low
Significance: Low
Significance with mitigation measures: low
The proposed mitigation measures aimed at reducing dust and preventing its spread through space
are as follows:
 Wetting the dusty areas by sprinkling water using water bowsers twice a day to prevent
generation of fugitive dust.
 Covering the disposal sites for the construction materials (like sand, cement and stone) with zinc
sheets or other opaque material.
 Cover the places where the concrete will be prepared with zinc sheets or other opaque material.
 Marine environmental monitoring as per environmental monitoring programme should be
carried out at the recommended periods and compared with baseline levels during entire
rehabilitation period.
8.4.5 Potential Impact on air quality resulting from port operations
Sources of air pollution at the project site include emissions from ships as they enter the port area
and while docked at the berths, as well as emissions from container handling equipment and haulage
trucks. Motor vehicles and trucks also generate pollutants in the project area, both from exhaust
emissions and dust from unpaved roads. These sources may result in SO2, NOx, CO, VOC and
particulate emissions and may have a negative impact on ambient air quality with possibilities of
exceeding ambient standards. Significant air quality degradation also occurs during offloading of
bulk cargo due to poor containment.
Extent of Impact: Local
Duration: Long-term
Magnitude: Low
Proposed Mitigation measures

 Use of specialized ship loaders/ off-loaders, wagon tippler, covered conveyors and rapid loading
system through silos could greatly reduce air pollution.
 Prohibit use of heavy diesel oil as fuel and promotion of the use of ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel
could reduce pollutants emissions.
 Dust suppression measures (such as use of covers, screens, enclosures, sprinkling water and
other similar methods) should be put in place at loading/unloading points, wagon tippler
complex, transfer points, stockyard, rapid loading system and in internal roads.
 Truck speed regulation and prohibition of trucks movement outside the designated routes.
 Periodic cleaning of cargo spills, equipment and transport vehicles to remove accumulated dirt
 Environmental awareness and training should be carried out to all personnel involved in port
operations
 Regulation and proper detection of emissions from ships are effective means to reduce emission
of pollutants.
 Monitoring of air quality is recommended to ensure adherence to acceptable levels of emissions.
8.4.6 Impact on air quality resulting from Construction works
Most civil construction activities generate dust and emit particulates into the atmosphere during
vehicle dust entrainment, demolition, excavation, ground levelling, etc. Presence of potentially dusty
construction materials in the project site is also a potential source of air pollutants especially dust.
In most cases the dust is relatively coarse, but may also include fine respirable particles (PM10). The
coarse particulates generally settle relatively close to the emission source while finer particulates may
be transported further from the point of release by wind. The resulting impact is however expected
to be low, limited to the project site and will occur during the construction and at time of strong
winds.
In addition, exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment typically include
particulates (including PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulphur dioxide
(SO2).
Extent: on-Site
Duration short-term:
Magnitude: low
Significance without mitigation: Medium
Proposed Mitigation Measures:

 Dusty construction materials carried in vehicles should be properly covered.
 Loading and unloading of bulk construction materials should be in areas protected from the
wind and carried out in calmer conditions.
 Access to construction site should be limited to construction vehicles only.
 Vehicle speed restrictions should be adhered to in the construction site.
 High moisture content on exposed surface and roads should be maintained by spraying with
water.
 Maintenance programme for construction vehicles should be adhered to ensure optimum
performance and reduced emissions.
8.4.7 Impact on air quality resulting from dredging in front of existing berths
During dredging, exhaust emissions from dredger exhaust which includes: particulates (including
PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2) are expected to be the
main air pollutants. However, ambient concentrations of SO2, NOx, CO and particulates resulting
from dredger exhaust emissions are expected to be low and to comply with ambient standards on
and off the site. The resulting impact is expected to be very low, limited to the project area and will
occur only during the dredging activities.
Extent: on-Site
Duration mid-term:
Magnitude: low
Significance without mitigation: Insignificant
Significance with mitigation: not significant
Proposed Mitigation measures

 Prohibition of the use of heavy diesel oil as fuel and promotion of the use of ultra-low sulphur
diesel fuel could reduce pollutants emissions.
 Regulation and proper detection of emissions from dredgers is effective means to reduce
emission of pollutants.
 Monitoring of air quality is recommended to ensure acceptable levels of emissions.
8.4.8 Noise resulting from Construction works
Potential sources of noise and vibration during the construction and operation of the proposed
renovation include: construction noise from activities on site from additional traffic generated
during the construction phase; noise and vibration from construction equipment such as concrete
mixers and poker vibrators as well as noise and vibration related to piling activities.
Extent: local to on-site
Duration: Short to mid-term:
Magnitude: depends on the exceedance level
Significance: Medium
Proposed Mitigation measures:
The project is to be undertaken in a low populated area (in industrial area). Overall, it is expected
that the rehabilitation works are likely to result in minor and temporary noise effects. However, the
following mitigation measures should be put in place:-
 Minimize the generation of noise through the use of machinery, equipment, motors, etc., with
characteristics of sound generation that complies to the recommended standards
 Adherence to a good and regular maintenance:
 Procurement of machinery/ construction equipment should consider specifications that
conform to low source noise levels.
 Personnel exposed to noise levels beyond threshold limits should be provided with protective
gear like earplugs, muffs, etc.
8.4.9 Impact on noise levels resulting from dredging

Minor dredging would be undertaken in front of the existing berths to increase the depth in order to
accommodate larger ships. The dredger is expected to produce some noise during the dredging
operations.
Extent: local to on-site
Duration: mid-term:
Magnitude: depends on the exceedance level
Significance without mitigation: Low
Proposed mitigation measures:

 Proper maintenance of equipment and adherence to operational procedures:
 Training of personnel to adhere to operational procedures that reduce the occurrence and
magnitude of individual noisy events.
 Environmental noise monitoring: This should be carried out regularly at specific positions to
detect deviations from predicted noise levels and enable corrective measures to be taken where
warranted.
 Noise attenuation should be practiced for noisy equipment by employing suitable techniques
such as acoustic controls, insulation and vibration dampers
8.4.10 Noise resulting from improved port operations

The potential sources of noise and vibration during after commissioning include:
 operational noise from the refurbished port generated by container handling equipment, mobile
plant and from vessels berthed at the marine facility;
 operational noise impacts due to changes in traffic flows on surrounding roads resulting from
trucks accessing or leaving the refurbished port area.
Extent: local to site
Duration: long-term
Magnitude: Medium
Significance without mitigation: Low
 Minimize the generation of noise through the use of machinery, equipment, motors, etc., with
characteristics of sound generation obeying the standards recommended nationally and
internationally, and with a good and regular maintenance:
 Procurement of machinery/ construction equipment should consider specifications that
conform to low source noise levels.
 Personnel exposed to noise levels beyond threshold limits should be provided with protective
gear like earplugs, muffs, etc.
 Ambient noise levels should be maintained below threshold levels and monitored at regular
intervals for conformity to NEMA noise regulations.
9 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Introduction
The Constitution of Kenya 2010 recognizes the sovereignty of the people and that people possess
the power to guide development within their areas either directly or indirectly through their leaders.
The public should therefore be involved in the evaluation process because the constitution demands
it to be so.
The main objectives of the stakeholder engagement process are to:
 Inform the stakeholders about the proposed project and provide opportunities for
influencing/amending the plans;
 Collect stakeholders’ views on the proposed project including potential positive/negative
impacts the stakeholders may associate with the project
 Get an idea of Stakeholders’ preferred approaches to implementation of the project;
 Get local knowledge on any sensitive areas within the project area of influence (physical,
environmental, cultural or proposed facilities); and
 Get expert advice on land use/ area zoning, water availability and supply, power and road
infrastructure
9.1 Stakeholder Identification
Stakeholder identification was undertaken through consultative meetings with the proponent, KPA.
Field visits were conducted in selected areas within the boundaries of the proposed plan to flag out
persons or institutions that may have interest in the plan.
The following groups of stakeholders were identified and consulted:
 Stakeholders with environmental interests – Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute
(KMFRI), Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), Kenya Forest Service (KFS), NEMA, Kenya Maritime
Authority (KMA)
 Lead Agencies – County Government of Mombasa, Kengen, Kenya Pipeline Company, Kenya
Power, Kenya Bureau of Statistics, State Department of Fisheries, Kenya Revenue Authority,
Kenya Plant Health Inspection Services
 Port users such as logistics companies (Container Freight Stations, Shipping Companies),
concessionaires such as Grain Bulk Handlers Limited, Mbaraki Bulk Terminals Limited,
Bamburi Cement Limited, Tata Chemicals (Magadi), and
 The local communities particularly the fishers who use the fishing grounds and landing sites
close to the project area as well as people who use the area for recreational purposes such as
those that frequent Kwa Skembo beach.
9.2 Stakeholder Meetings
Two (2 no) Stakeholder Meetings (SHM) were held during the course of the study. The 1st SHM
was held on 31st May 2016. This was a key informant SHM held at the scoping stage to brief the
stakeholders on the project details and have their concerns on board to be addressed during the
study. The 2nd SHM was held at the end of the study on 7th September 2106 to present the key
findings. The views gathered from the stakeholders were taken into account in preparing the ESIA
report and feedback given to them on the findings of the study.
Plate 9A: Delegates at Stakeholder Meeting No I Plate 9B: Mr Martin Mutuku of KPA addressing delegates at SHMI
Plate 9C: Delegates at SHM II Plate 9D:Mr Denis Muganga of KPA addresses delegates at SHMII
9.3 Issues Raised at Stakeholder Meetings
Key highlights of issues raised and responses given at the Stakeholder meetings are as summarized in
Table 9-1 below:
Table 9-1: Issues raised by stakeholders
Issue of Concern Response/Action
Are there any intentions to dredge surrounding 1. Minor dredging works will be done to deepen the berths where
areas?The high turbidity/sedimentation/siltation required. Mitigation measures will be undertaken to take careof
affecting machinery in the adjacent area is being dredging impacts
attributed to the several ongoing works
(Grain Bulk Handlers Ltd)
Timeline for the assessment is short. This may 2. The study will use indicator signals to spatially reconfirm data
not comprehensively cover phytoplankton studies available from previous studies hence this can be accomplished
Will modelling be done to determine propagation within the specified timeframes. There are existing phytoplankton
of sediments? (Kengen) studies and biological baseline surveys for port areas
With several ongoing projects around the same Cumulative study would be necessary though it is not in the
area, are there measures in place to get the overall Terms of Reference for the current ESIA.
/cumulative impacts of all these projects?
(KeNHA)
A formerly dry area near the Kenya Navy effluent Mangroves thrive when conditions suitable for them prevail.
discharge point currently has a lot of mangroves. Such conditions may arise from factors within the project area or
Could this be a compounded result of the several beyond. Studies need to be taken around Kenya Navy area to
projects in the port area? (Kenya Navy) ascertain the cause of emergence of mangroves.
Has the project factored the safety of cargo ships Navigation may have challenges during the transit period.
and artisanal fishing boats during the construction Modifications in routes will be communicated and standard
phase? operating procedures developed. Hydrographic surveys will be
done to update existing charts.
Has maritime security been considered during the In terms of movement of people, KPA has put structures in
project implementation phase considering issues place to control access to the premises. These require positive
of terrorism identification of persons before access is granted
(State Department of Fisheries) -Scheduling is done way in advance before the arrival of ships
hence ensuring smooth flow of traffic.
In previous a dredging project material was done Specific areas for dumping of dredged materials and sourcing of
away from Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) but filling material will be recommended in the report. It is the upon
due to the effects of currents the marine parks the contractor to comply and KPA to enforce
were affected
Samples will be subjected to independent laboratories for water
The rapid ecological assessment should look into and sediment analysis to identify invasive species and appropriate
the composition of the dredged material and recommendations on sources and dumping sites will be made
factor in possible effects of dumping dredged
materials containing benthic biodiversity as this
may have significant impact if introduced in
ecologically sensitive areas
(Kenya Wildlife Service)
More Stakeholders should have been invited to NEMA was invited though they did not send a representative to
the meeting.. For instance Surveys of Kenya the meeting. KPA will consider inviting South Coast Residents
South Coast residents association, NEMA county Association for the next meeting
and regional offices Specific areas for dumping dredged materials and sourcing the
filling material will be recommended in the report. A study
Assessment should clearly state the dumping site justifying the proposed source was done during the just
and sources of sand completed MODP
KPA should come up with an oil spill specific KPA already has an Oil Spill Response Plan which will be applied
plan for sites they intend to do the project(KMA) during project implementation
How is asbestos from the port being handled and There is a separate project specifically dealing with replacement
disposed. The current project should not use and disposal of the asbestos. The proposed berth repairs project
asbestos.(CDA) would not use asbestos
The ESIA process should include a learning Invitations would be sent to learning institutions to send
component/civic education by inviting students representatives at the next meeting
to such meetings (KeNHA)
It is not clear on how the additional stress on the The Kenya National Highway Authority (KNHA) has been
roads due to the current expansion of the port working with KPA and has factored expansion of the port in its
will be mitigated. plans to address projected impacts of the project. KPA is also
working closely with other stakeholders such as the County
(Kengen) Government of Mombasa who are working on a Master Plan to
address congestion within Mombasa city.
Some impacts stated are likely to create conflicts A vetting desk will be established and hosted by the Authority.
as they touch on fisheries. There will be need for Prior to commencement of the project a detailed environmental
a vetting desk to address conflicts between real management and monitoring plan will be prepared on how the
fishers and impostors. contractor will implement the recommendations of the ESIA,
including conflict resolution. (KPA)
State Department of Fisheries should avail a legitimate list of
(State Department of Fisheries) fishermen during the compensation process to avoid conflicts
and imposters.
Considering the possibility of oil spill, is there a Kenya is well prepared to deal with oil spills considering the
contingency plan in place. equipment available at KPA Pollution Control Centre and oil
spill drills undertaken by the Oil Spill Mutual Aid Group
(CORDIO) (OSMAG). The country has prepared and implemented a
National Oil Spill Response Contingency Plan.
Has the Assessment considered the long term According to projections the rise is in the range of 1meter by
effects of climate change in terms of sea level rise 2100 hence the flooding potentials have no impact on the
on the port (CORDIO) dredging activities
Fishing within the port area is done mainly by the Kilindini is a port channel hence port activities take precedence.
small scale fishermen. Is KPA doing anything to The Authority is cognizant of the fishermen’s need of livelihood.
address the associated security concerns as some The challenge is in the nature of fishermen as they tend to pursue
fishermen have been found within the naval base? fish even in restricted or unsafe zones. Sensitizations are however
(Kenya Navy) on going on these concerns.
10. Was an assessment of species on the sea grass Yes. the ESIA study was very detailed and a mapping was
conducted considering marine life forage in these conducted indicating locations of sea grass areas close to the
areas? (Bamburi Cement) project area of influence
What will be the frequency of future dredging as Frequency of dredging was not in the TORs of the consultant.
this is critical in determining the financial However considering the Bathymetry and characteristics of the
implications and for long term planning. upper part of the creek, currents are stronger going outside of the
(Trade Mark East Africa) creek hence flush materials outside the system contributing to
self-maintenance of the channel.
Are there intentions to widen the channel? Traffic within the channel is being modeled by marine pilots. In
Currently there are some relatively narrow terms of operations, the ships come in one at a time and the
sections that have made it difficult for two ships current width of the channel is appropriate for the largest vessel.
to maneuver at the same time
15. Baseline outlined the potential pollution by Marine debris is a complex issue. There is no baseline survey for
heavy metals and other substances. Marine debris marine debris for the Kenya waters though there are 14 general
pollution form land based activities and ships mitigation measures to deal with marine debris proposed in the
should be included. (CDA) ESIA
These issues are clarified in greater detail in Annexes 3 and 4 of this ESIA Study Report.
10 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
Introduction
This ESMP has been designed as part of the environmental review process to ensure that during
project implementation, mitigation measures proposed in this ESIA Study report are implemented
to protect the environment from adverse impacts that may occur. EMCA 1999 defines
Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) as “all details of project activities, impacts, mitigation
measures, time schedule, costs, responsibilities and commitments proposed to minimize environmental and social
impacts of activities, including monitoring and environmental audits during implementation, operation and
decommissioning phases of a project”.
A summary of key impacts and mitigation measures identified during this ESIA study are as follows:
Table 10-1: Summary of key impacts and mitigation measures
Project Potential Impact Significance Mitigation
Phase
Construction Dredging and Dumping of High  Careful choice of dredging period
dredged material may cause (North East Monsoon);
turbidity and sedimentation  Use of silt curtains to contain
of receiving waters propagation of sediments
Dust from construction Medium  Construction materials carried in
activities such as particulate vehicles should be properly covered,
emission into the  Enforce speed restrictions within
atmosphere during the construction site.
transportation of  Sprinkle water on exposed surface
construction material, and roads to maintain high moisture
demolition, excavation and content
dusty construction material
 Erect temporary barriers where
at the project
practicable to trap dust
 Temporary High  Compensate fishers who would not
Displacement of be able to use their traditional
fishermen from fishing grounds
traditional fishing  Empower the local fishermen to
grounds during dredging move to deep waters by offering
 Temporary decline in training on deep-sea fishing
fish catches as a result methods equipment
of temporary  Support provision of basic
displacement of fish infrastructure in the alternative fish
from the dredge and landing sites
disposal sites
Destruction of habitats due Medium Reduce the amount of suspended
to removal from the seabed sediment through use appropriate
or exposure of submarine dredger type, timing of dredging period
sediments and use of silt curtains
Noise from on-site Medium  Use only equipment complying with
construction activities such recommended standards
as piling, and from vehicles  Adherence to a good and regular
hauling construction maintenance
material  Provide exposed personnel with
protective gear like earplugs, muffs,
etc.
Occupational safety and Medium  Undertake job safety analysis prior
health – Potential for to commencement of construction
accidental injuries to works
workers in the course of  Deploy a Safety Officer to the site
undertaking construction on full-time basis to enforce KPA
works safety rules
 Avail a fully equipped first aid box
manned by trained first aid
personnel at all times during
construction works
 Employee training and safety
awareness
 Accident reporting and investigation
Interaction with migrant High  Support HIV / Aids sensitization
workers may result into programs
spread of communicable  Avail and equip a Voluntary
diseases such as HIV/Aids Counselling and Testing (VCT)
Centre during the construction
period.
Operation Accidental oil spills and High  Apply IMO, KMA’s and KPA’s
discharge of ship waste port and shipping regulations.
from vessels  Activate National Oil Spill
Response Contingency Plan in the
event of spill.
Potential rise in discharge of Medium  Enforce KPA policy that prohibits
ballast water in the harbour discharge of ballast water
 Compliance with IMO regulations
on management of ship waste
Increased possibility of ship Medium Demarcate passageways for small
collisions or small vessels fishing vessels separate from those used
colliding with ships, due to by ships
increased volumes of
maritime traffic.
Air pollution as a result of Medium  Promote use of ultra-low sulphur
emissions from ships, as diesel fuel could reduce pollutants
well as emissions from emissions.
container handling  Provide shore-based power
equipment and haulage connection for use by ships when
trucks.
docked at the berths
Marine debris such plastic Low  Compliance with IMO regulations
water bottles and packaging on management of ship waste
waste from docking ships  Periodical shoreline clean up
and seafront activities
Water pollution from Installation of biodigesters for
sewage and other domestic treatment of effluent
effluent
Water pollution from land Installation of interceptors / Oil-water
based oil spill and effluent separators
from maintenance
10.1 Purpose of ESMP
The purpose of the ESMP is to ensure that measures are taken to protect the environment by
mitigating adverse impacts that occur during execution of the works. The ESMP outlines monitoring
and mitigation measures that would be undertaken to restore and maintain environmental and social
parameters at acceptable levels. The ESMP would focus on the following:
10.2 Water Quality Management
10.2.1 Sources of Impacts

Key potential sources of water pollution were identified as:
 Dredging during the construction phase may cause turbidity and sedimentation;
 Sand filling / reclamation works in front of the berths;
 Offshore dumping of dredged material;
 Land based oil spill and effluent from maintenance - leakage of oils, lubricants and chemicals
from storage yards and maintenance areas during operations;
 Surface water run-off from paved yards and port may increase siltation load;Sewage and
other domestic effluent from the proposed terminal and waterfront activities
Mitigation Measures have been proposed for anticipated impacts during construction, operation and
decommissioning of the proposed project. These are the measures that are to be implemented to
minimize negative impacts of project activities on the environment as predicted in the ESIA study.
10.2.2 Indication of Impacts
 Increased sediment load in the receiving water
 Increased turbidity in the receiving water;
 Decline in fish populations;
 Concerns from fishermen and conservation agencies
 Traces of oil and increased biological load in water samples.
10.2.3 Monitoring Objectives
 To assess the variation in water turbidity and chemical properties due to project activities
which could alter the physical or chemical characteristics of the Mombasa port area, offshore
dumping area and offshore sand borrow pit;
 To assess the effectiveness of environmental management programs designed to minimize
surface water contamination.
10.2.4 Monitoring Methods
Water quality monitoring shall be done at the prescribed monitoring points at port areas and at the
dumping site using a water quality meter. Turbidity of the sea water shall be monitored with an
approved meter every day at 50 cm, 3m and 6m below the surface at the 10 monitoring points.
Chemical characteristics of the water shall be monitored every 10 days. Monitoring shall commence
at least 2 weeks before commencement of the reclamation works, so that the prevailing baseline
conditions prior to commencement of the project can be documented.
Visual observation will also be undertaken in construction areas as a means of gauging the
perspective degree of turbidity but this has to be authenticated by a turbidity meter. To complement
ongoing water quality monitoring initiatives samples shall periodically be extracted and taken to a
NEMA approved laboratory for analysis. Parameters to be monitored include:
 Total Suspended Solids, TSS;

 pH;
 Chemical Oxygen Demand, COD;
 Dissolved Oxygen, DO;
 Turbidity
10.2.5 Monitoring Locations
It is proposed that water quality monitoring be carried at not less than 5 monitoring points near the
dredging / reclamation area, at least 3 points near the sand borrow pits and at 3 points near
dumping site. The exact locations of the monitoring points would be specified by the Engineer.
10.2.6 Monitoring Frequency
Both turbidity and chemical properties (TSS, PH, COD, DO) shall be monitored daily for 30 days
for prior to commencement of works for purposes of establishment of the baseline conditions.
During dredging and reclamation works turbidity would be monitored daily while chemical
properties would be monitored every 2 weeks. Post dredging period these parameters would be
monitored every 3months for a period of 2 years. If at any time measurements indicate the turbidity
levels or chemical parameters are exceeded the contractor shall take reasonable measures to
counteract the conditions. Such measures might include provision of silt curtains and / or coffer
dams. Under such circumstances the works shall be suspended until acceptable levels are restored.
10.3 Air Quality Monitoring
10.3.1 Sources of Impact

Sources of impact on air quality would be:
 mobilization of equipment,
 particulate and dust escape during material haulage,
 site clearance and earthworks during the construction phase.
 dust generation as a result of trucks ferrying containers along port roads
 emission from exhaust of haulage trucks and other construction equipment.
10.3.2 Indicators of Impact
 Visual intrusion as a result of dust and particulate emission
 Reported cases of respiratory irritation complaints raised by local residents.
 To measure concentrations of dust and gaseous emissions at selected locations surrounding
the project area so that the results can be assessed in relation to Environmental Management
and Coordination (Air Quality Regulations), 2008 and related standards.
 To ensure that adopted air pollution controls and management are effective.
Air quality sampling and analysis will be done by the contractor in liaison with a laboratory approved
by NEMA. Air monitoring parameters will include 24-hour readings of the following parameters:
 Hydrogen Sulphide, H2S;
 NO2;
 CO;
 SO2;
 SPM (Suspended Particulate Matter)
Other parameters may be monitored subject to specific complaints received from residents.
Air quality monitoring will be conducted once before commencement of the works and every 3
months thereafter.
Air quality monitoring shall be conducted at active construction areas and near sensitive receptors as
would be determined in consultation with the Engineer
10.4 Noise Level Monitoring
Construction / rehabilitation works shall be carried out in port areas, designated as an industrial
zone. The Environmental Management and Coordination (Noise And Excessive Vibration Pollution) (Control)
Regulations, 2009 (Legal Notice No.61) provides that for areas other than residential, institution and
educational areas and health facilities maximum noise levels permitted should not exceed 75 dBA
during the day and 65 dbA during the night. These regulations also provide that any person carrying
out construction, demolition, mining or quarrying work shall ensure that the vibration levels do not
exceed 0.5 centimetres per second beyond any source property boundary or 30 metres from any
moving source. The contractor in liaison with KPA shall conduct noise level monitoring during
construction to ensure the said limits are adhered to.
 On-site construction activities such as demolition, casting of concrete, grinding, piling,
 Vehicles hauling construction material;
 Port traffic at the operations phase
10.4.2 Methodology for Noise Level Measurement
The noise measurements would be carried as follows:
 Inspection of the measurement area and the implicated activities.
 Identification of perimeter points.
 Verification/Calibration of the sound level meter before measurements.
 Recording of the meteorological conditions during the measurement such as temperature,
wind speed and relative humidity;
All the measurements would be taken in diurnal schedule.
10.4.3 Instruments to be used
The following instruments would be used during the measurement:
 Sound Level Meter;
 Vibration Meter.
10.4.4 Parameters to be monitored
The measurements results would be expressed as follows:
 Lmax, Maximum sound pressure level obtained during the measurement period;
 Lmin, Minimum sound pressure level obtained during the period of measurements;
 Leq, Value of A - weighted sound pressure level of a continuous steady sound that has the
same mean square sound pressure as a sound under consideration whose level varies with
time;
 Noise levels at the following distances from source – L5, L50, L95;
 Vibration velocity – maximum value during 10 minutes hourly;
 Record of noise and vibration source.
10.4.5 Locations for Noise Level Measurement
Noise level measurement shall be conducted at the same locations as for air quality monitoring as
determined by the Engineer
Noise level monitoring will be conducted every 3 months during the construction period.
10.5 Monitoring of Marine Ecosystem

 Land reclamation;
 Dredging and dumping of dredged material;
 Sand harvesting
 Construction of berths and other waterside structures;
 Operational of the terminal - operational impacts such as oil spills from terminal operations,
ship waste, potential spill from oil tankers as a result of marine accidents.
10.5.2 Significant Impacts on Environment
 Destruction of habitats due to removal from the seabed of submarine sediments due to
dredging.
 Sedimentation and turbidity changes will contribute to changes in the physico-chemical
characteristics of watercourses with secondary impact on aquatic flora and fauna. Such an
impact would also be expected on corals.
 Large oil spills if experienced at the operations phase wouldresult into death of marine flora
and fauna, with impacts extending beyond project area.
10.5.3 Indicators of Impact
 Biodiversity index and abundance index – Relative change in quantity and / or coverage of
key biodiversity parameters such as sea grass and corals as the project progresses in
comparison to abundance at commencement of project (baseline conditions)
 Fish deaths
 Visible changes in turbidity.
 Reported complaints from fishers, community and conservation groups.
 To determine the effectiveness of water quality management put in place by proponent;
 To determine the progress of recovery of aquatic biota following the surface water quality
management.
Marine ecosystem surveys will be carried out by extraction of samples at the designated monitoring
points followed by laboratory quantification and identification of the organisms recovered from
water samples. These shall be compared with results obtained during baseline studies.
Marine ecosystem monitoring shall be undertaken at locations close to sensitive habitats as would be
determined in consultation with the Engineer.
Monitoring during the construction stage shall be monthly initially for 3 months, quarterly thereafter
for one year and biannually afterwards in case monitoring indicates continued compliance.
10.6 Monitoring of Livelihood Restoration
10.6.1 Sources of Impacts on Livelihood

 Improvement in livelihood as a result of employment opportunities generated by the project;
 Turbidity and sedimentation as a result of dredging activities may force fish to move to clearer
waters hence resulting into reduced fish catches in traditional fishing grounds
 Restriction of access to fishing grounds during the construction period;
 Negative ecological impacts on the important fishery ecosystems in the area such as mangroves,
coral reefs and seagrass likely to affect fish availability and reproduction
10.6.2 Indicators of Impacts
 Evidence of turbidity and / or sedimentation as observed from environmental monitoring;
 Complaints received from fisher communities with regard to loss of catches;
 Evidence of restriction of fishing vessels from accessing traditional fishing grounds on account
of security or safety
To ensure that the mitigation programme proposed in the ESMP and implemented through the
Livelihood Restoration Plan restores livelihood of Project Affected Persons (PAPs) to equal or
better levels than the pre-project livelihood standards.
Monitoring shall be carried out through periodic administration of questionnaires to PAPs, Focus
Group Discussions and conducting individual interviews, as well as localized public
meetings/consultations (barazas) attended by PAPs and other stakeholders. The following
parameters would be monitored:
 Number of members of local communities employed in the project;
 Modern fishing equipment supplied;
 Daily catches as a result of provision and use of modern equipment at offshore fishing grounds;
 Credit disbursed (if proposed) towards assisting local communities restore livelihood
 Training and technical support provided – for use of equipment or for management of credit
disbursed
Livelihood restoration monitoring would be done every month during the first one year and every 3
months thereafter. In the event that the monitoring process indicates decline in livelihood
conditions of the community then a morefrequent timetable would be prepared in consultation with
the Engineer
10.7 Monitoring of HIV / Aids Prevalence

Interaction between local people and migrant workers with disposable incomes staying away from
their families.
10.7.2 Indicators of Impacts
Increase in reported cases of new HIV /Aids infections
 To mitigate the impacts anticipated from influx of construction workers into the site and
surrounding residential areas;
 To increase HIV / Aids awareness among construction workersand neighbouring communities
thereby promoting behavior change in order to minimise cases of new HIV / Aids infections
A reputable NGO with experience in administration of HIV/Aids programmes would be engaged
to drive the HIV monitoring programme. Among the parameters to be monitored are:
 Level of awareness campaign – campaign materials distributed, meetings / training session sheld
and topics discussed;
 Evidence of acceptance of HIV status for those who are HIV positive, and reduction of
stigmatization;
 Reduction in numbers of new infections
 Provision and equipping of Voluntary Counselling and Testing centre
 Condom Access
Monitoring of HIV prevalence would be done and reported on monthly basis.
10.8 Responsibility and Timeframe of ESMP
A summary of responsibilities, timeframe and main items that need to be monitored to ensure
successful implementation of the ESMP is as outlined in Table 11.2 below:
Table 10-2 Responsibility and Timeframe of ESMP

No. Component / Phase Responsibility Monitoring Items
Issue
1. Water Quality Construction Contractor Turbidity, Chemical Composition
Operation KPA Oil Pollution, Ballast water
2. Air Quality Construction Contractor Dust, Particulates
Operation KPA Ship emissions, Fugitive dust
3. Fauna Construction Contractor Abundance, Habitat accessibility.
Operation KPA Recolonisation/Habitation, Resilience
4. Critical Ecosystems Construction Contractor Abundance, Presence/Absence,
(Coral, Mangroves, Operation KPA Regeneration, Size.
Nesting Grounds)
5. Noise & Vibration Construction Contractor Construction noise - Levels,
Frequency, Times of exposure
Operation KPA Noise from ships, haulage trucks,
container handling equipment
6. Effluent Operation KPA Effluent Quality, Biodigester
efficiency
7. Fisheries Constraints Construction KPA / State Restriction of access, Compensation,
Department of Provision of equipment
Fisheries (SDF)
Operation KPA / SDF Livelihood Restoration.
8. HIV/AIDS & STI Construction KPA / Awareness, Prevalence, Cases,
Prevalence Contractor Condom Access
9. Oil Spill Construction Contractor Spill from construction equipment,
maintenance activities
Operation KPA  Spill from marine accidents - ship
collisions, ships running aground,
ships colliding with berthing
structures
 Review sufficiency of oil pollution
control equipment
 Preparedness of oil spill response
staff
10 Occupational safety Construction Contractor /  Accident reports / statistics and
and health KPA investigation records
 Provision and use of PPE
 Availability of first aid facilities /
trained first aid personnel
 Safety training and awareness
11 Fires Operation KPA  Availability of firefighting
equipment
 Training of fire brigade
 Fire drills / emergency response
simulations
12. Water Traffic Construction Contractor Accidents, separation of fishing
vessels from dredgers / operations
traffic
Operation KPA Congestion, Accidents.
10.9 Estimated Costs for Environmental Monitoring

During the of the proposed berth rehabilitation works the contractor shall conduct environmental
and social monitoring of ambient environmental qualities such as water quality, air quality,
noise/vibration levels and biodiversity, which are likely to be degraded by the construction activities,
as well as progress of implementation of efforts put in place to enhance restoration of livelihoods
of Project Affected People.
The costs of environmental monitoring as well as costs for compensation and implementation of
mitigation measures shall be properly factored into the capital budget for the construction works.
The contractor shall submit a detailed Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan (EMMP)
to satisfy the requirements for approval by KPA before submission to NEMA.
Table 10-3: Estimated Costs for Environmental Monitoring
Item Timing Unit Total No of Units @ Amount

Water quality
Every day for 2 weeks prior to commencement 3 x 5stations x14days 4,000/- 840,000/-
Turbidity of the Works at 50cm, 3m, 6m below surface Sample =210 samples
at 5 stations
Every week during the construction period of 2 years x52weeks x 5 20,000/- 10,400,000/-
SS, pH, COD, DO, SPM Sample
24 months at 5 sampling points stations = 520 samples
Air quality
SOx, NOx, VOx and Once before construction (1); monthly during 35x5=175 Ksh. 9,625,000/-
Particulate Matter (PM10),construction (24) and during major Activity 55,000/-
CO, H2S earthworks (allow 10additional activities)
To be done at 5 stations monthly during 34x5=170 30000/- 5,100,000/-
Noise and Vibration construction and during the periods of the Activity
high noise/vibration level (allow 10 activities)
Biological Impact Monitoring
Terrestrial flora and fauna Twice a year across project area of influence Activity 2x2 years = 4 225,000/- 900,000/-
Marine vegetation and Monthly for the initial 3 months (3 Activities) 10x5=50 250,000/- 12,500,000/-
Sample
fauna and quarterly thereafter (7) taken at 5 stations
During operation – Biodigester to 2 4,500,000/- 9,000,000/-
Installation of Biodigester
accommodate a population of approximately No.
for treatment of effluent
200 people
Provision for compliance with IMO regulations
Compliance with 10,000.000/-
regulations on
PROVISIONAL SUM
management of ballast
water and ship waste
Compliance with 5,000,000/-
regulations on disposal of PROVISIONAL SUM
ship waste
Provide an amount for 30,000,000/-
compensation of fisher
communities for
PROVISIONAL SUM
disturbance during the
construction period and
recovery period of 1 year
Provision of Personal During construction: - PPE such as safety 5,000,000/-
Protective equipment shoes, dust masks, hearing protection, head
LOT
(PPE) protection to be supplied by contractor for use
by construction staff
During Construction: - Water bowser to be 2 trips per day for 2 10,000.00 730,000/-
Dust suppression measures provided by contractor for use in construction Trips years = 730 trips
areas for suppression of airborne dust
During construction: - provisional sum for 30,000,000/-
HIV/Aids awareness and combating spread of HIV/Aids among PROVISI
management program fishermen and local communities interacting ONAL
with migrant workers
129,095,000/-
TOTAL
10.10 Feedback Action
During construction the consultant will submit the results of the monitoring to NEMA two times in
a year. To ensure the successful implementation of mitigation measures, a feedback system would
need to be adopted which allows for discussion of the monitoring results with key stakeholders
(conservation, maritime) and if necessary, improvement of the mitigation measures.
By involving the stakeholders the project establishes transparency and also builds good public
relations between the proponent and stakeholders.
The system also allows for improvement/adjustment of mitigation measures that are deemed
inadequate, after which corrective action will be taken and outcome made public again.
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR ESIA STUDY
These Terms of Reference have been prepared based on the Scoping studies and concerns raised by
stakeholders during the first Stakeholder Meeting (SHM I) held at the Royal Court Hotel on 31st
May 2016.
A1: Executive Summary
The experts will be required to give an executive summary of the methodology and main findings of
the study. This will be a brief non-technical description of the main findings and recommendations.
This section should contain:
 Project description and environmental setting of the site

 major impacts and their significance;
 proposed mitigation measures;
 the environmental management plan; and
 any other critical matters that bear on the decision.
 the results of public consultation;
 key recommendations and conclusions.
A2: Background of the Project
A clear statement of the need for and objectives of the project will be given. Reference will need to
be made to the demands and issues that the proposed project is intended to address, the result that
will be achieved, and the benefits that are anticipated. This section will include a description of the
location of the project together with supportive maps.
A2: Legal and policy framework
There will be a brief description of the legal, regulatory and policy framework that applies to the
proposal. Applicable World Bank safeguard policies as well as relevant international instruments would need
to be cited and reviewed to ensure that the study results are compliant with environmental and social
standards prescribed by international lending institutions.
A3: Description of the proposed project and its alternatives
A description of the project and the alternatives indicating the elements and main activities that will
take place during project construction, operation and decommissioning will be presented. This
section of the report will draw attention to the major differences between the alternatives, including
the no-action alternative. Among the items to be included here are:
 Project Layout;
 Technology, procedures and processes to be used in the implementation of the project;
 Materials to be used in the construction and implementation of the project,
 The products, by products and waste expected to be generated by the project.
A4: Description of the affected environment
A concise description of the biophysical and socio-economic conditions of the affected environment
will be presented. Baseline information will include current and any changes anticipated before the
project begins. Current land use and other proposed development activities within the project area
will also be taken into account. Baseline conditions will provide the necessary background and
baseline against which to understand impact predictions. Key aspects of the affected environment
that need to be included for this purpose include:
 spatial and temporal boundaries;

 biophysical, land use and socio-economic conditions;
 major trends and anticipated future conditions;
 environmentally sensitive areas and valued resources that may need special protection.
A5: Methodology
A description will be made of how environmental and social data were gathered, the predictive
methods used and the criteria used to judge significance. This should include detailed sampling
methodology as well as approaches used in stakeholder identification and consultation
A6: Environmental impacts and their evaluation
This should include an evaluation of the potential positive and adverse impacts for both the
proposal and its alternatives and for each component of the environment identified as important in
the scoping process. Impact characteristics are described as predictions of magnitude, severity,
occurrence, duration, etc. The significance of residual impacts that cannot be mitigated should be
highlighted so that decisions made to take cognizance of this fact.
Information contained in this section should include:

 potential impacts of project activities on air and water quality during construction and
operation phases;
 prediction of each major impact, its characteristics and likely consequences;
 consideration of their compliance with environmental standards and policy objectives;
 evaluation of significance of the residual impacts (stating the standards or criteria used); and
 limitations associated with impact prediction and evaluation, as indicated by the assumptions
made, gaps in knowledge and uncertainties encountered.
Both direct and indirect impacts, including potential cumulative effects, will be highlighted.
A7: Proposed mitigation measures
For each potential negative impact identified, mitigation measures for environmental protection will
need to be proposed. These will include recommended measures for avoiding, minimising and
remedying the identified impacts.
A8: Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan

The environmental management and monitoring plan would need to be developed for pre-
construction, construction and the operational phases of the project. The key parameters of the
monitoring plan will be obtained from the identified impacts of the project and the suggested
mitigation measures. The EMP will then include provision of an action plan for the prevention and
management of foreseeable threats to sensitive ecosystems, prevention of accidents and
environmental hazards, and measures to contain the hazards and ensure safety in the working
environment during both construction and operation phases of the project.
A9: Public participation and consultation
A concise and complete statement of the nature, scope and results of public consultation will be
presented including the following:
 identification of the interested and affected public;

 the method(s) used to inform and involve stakeholders;
 analysis of the views and concerns expressed;
 how these have been taken into account; and
 outstanding issues and matters that need to be resolved.
A10: Conclusion and recommendations

Overall recommendations and conclusions will need to be presented based on information gathered
from detailed studies and impact evaluation.
ANNEX 2: SCREENING REPORT
KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for Rehabilitation of Berths No. 1-14
SCREENING REPORT
PART A: Description of the environmental setting
The project site is located within the Port of Mombasa in an area already designated and operating as a port area. The
existing berths were constructed between 60 and 80 years ago and are in critical condition as a result of operational
wear and corrosion attack from sea water.
PART B: Identification of key Environmental and Social Impacts
State whether the proposed project would impact on the following:
Description Yes No Comments

1 Environmentally Sensitive Areas or Threatened
Species
Are there any environmentally sensitive areas or threatened
species that could be adversely affected by the project such
as:
 Natural or riverine forests √ There are no ecologically
sensitive areas in the
 Surface water courses or natural springs √
immediate vicinity of project
 Wetlands (lakes, swamps, seasonally flooded areas) √ area but project activities
such as dredging and land
 Coral reefs √
reclamation may impact on
 Seagrass beds √ ecological resources in the
 Area of high biodiversity √ neighbourhood of project
area
 Habitats of endangered/threatened species √
2 Contamination and Pollution Hazards Waterfront industrial
Is there any possibility that the project will be at risks of activities may negatively
contamination and pollution hazards from latrines, dump √ impact on project if not well
sites, Industrial discharge, water discharge, etc.? managed
3 Geology and Soils Cases of porosity have been
Are there areas of possible soil instability (soil erosion, √ reported near G-section.
degradation, salinity, landslide prone or subsidence-prone)? Need to confirm proximity
of target yards to such areas
4 Land
Will the project increase pressure on land resources or √
result in decreased holdings by small land owners?
Will the project result in involuntary land acquisition?
5 Water
Would implementation of the project affect quantity or
quality of any of the following:
 Fresh water √ Dredging and reclamation
activities may result into
 Surface water √
turbidity and sedimentation
 Ground water √
 Marine water? √
6 Energy Source Additional cargo handling
Will the project : equipment would require
Increase the local demand for conventional energy sources? √ more electrical energy from
the local grid
Create demand for other energy sources? √
Decrease the local supply of conventional energy sources? √
7 Migratory Species √ Some migratory fish, rays
Do migratory fish, birds or mammals use the project area? and sharks have previously
If so will project affect the habitat and numbers of such been captured in port areas.
species? The design should allow
movements in and out.
Mangrove islands have
pockets of migratory birds
which will need to be
identified and mangrove
habitats conserved for
continued survival
8 Degradation of Resources Construction activities
Would the project involve considerable use of natural √ would consume large
resources, land or energy, significant excavations, quantities of sand and
demolition, movement of earth or clearance of significant ballast
vegetation?
9 Loss of Shelter and /or Livelihood Project likely to interfere
Will the sub-project activity displace any existing dwellings, √ with fishing activities due to
adversely affect the livelihoods of local communities or turbidity and access
limit their access to natural resources? restriction at the
construction phase
10 Migrant Population √ There is likely to be
Are there currently any mobile groups in the target migration of construction
population? workers into the project
Will the project result in inward migration of people from area looking for
outside the area for employment or other purposes? employment
11 Conflict / Dispute √
Would sub-project result in conflict or disputes among
communities?
12 Health and Safety √ Accidental injuries likely
Would project result in human health or safety risks during from use of hand tools
construction or later? during the construction
phase
13 Noise and Vibration √ Construction activities such
Will the operating noise level exceed the allowable decibel as demolitions, grinding,
level for that zone? welding would produce
noise above allowable levels
14 Beneficial Plants, Animals and Insects √ Mangroves that are used by
Do non-domesticated plants, animals or insects exist in the local communities exist
project area which are used or sold by local people? close to the project area.
Will the project affect these species by reducing their Impact on mangroves would
habitat or number in any way? need to be investigated.
Some fish and rays are
captured by fishermen from
waters in port areas. The
works may temporarily
disrupt fishing activities but
these will recover after a
while
15 Disease Vectors √ There is potential of
Are there known disease problems in the project area exciting buried and /or
transmitted through vector species? spore forming species back
Will the project increase habitat for vector species? to life. Some forms may be
invasive
16 Cultural / Historical Significance √ There may be prayer sites
Would the project adversely affect historically-important or for fisher communities. This
culturally-important sites nearby? would be verified during the
Will the project affect religious and/or cultural attitudes of study
area residents?
Are there special beliefs, superstitions or taboos that will
affect acceptance of the project?
17 Distribution Systems
Will the project enhance inequities in the distribution of
agricultural and/or manufactured products? √
Will the project increase or decrease demand for certain
commodities within or outside the project area?
Will the project enhance inequities in the distribution of
benefits?
18 Waste Dredging and piling
Will the sub-project generate solid or liquid wastes that √ activities would expose
could adversely affect local soils, vegetation, rivers and submerged sediments that
streams or groundwater? may be contaminated
19 Tourism and Recreation Some tourists arrive via the
Is there at present a significant degree of tourism in the Port of Mombasa. There
area? √ are recreational sites are
Will the project adversely affect existing or potential tourist adjacent to the project area.
or recreation attractions? No adverse impact expected
on existing or potential
tourist or recreation
attractions adversely
PART B: CONCLUSION
Summary Safeguard Requirements

All the above answers If all the above answers are “No”, there is no need for further action. This
are “No” means either no significant environmental and social impacts were identified,
or sufficient environmental and social review has already been conducted and
safeguards incorporated into the project.
There is at least one If there is at least one “Yes”, then one of the following actions would be
“Yes” recommended:
CATEGORY RECOMMENDATION
A. Environmental Project Report if impacts are clearly
foreseeable, are site specific; few if any of them are
irreversible; and in most cases mitigation measures are readily
designed.
B. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) Study Most impacts predicted above fall into this
if the project implementation may result into significant direct category hence an ESIA study is
or indirect adverse environmental impacts that are sensitive, mandatory.
diverse or unprecedented. These impacts may affect an area
broader than the sites or facilities subject to physical works.
C. Other Recommendation
ANNEX 3: MINUTES OF STAKEHOLDER MEETING NO. 1
MINUTES OF THE 1ST STAKEHOLDERS MEETING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND

SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (ESIA) FOR REHABILITATION OF BERTHS 1-14
DATE: TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2016 VENUE: ROYAL COURT HOTEL, MOMBASA
1.0 Purpose of Meeting
This first stakeholder’s consultation meeting was held in compliance with the requirements of the
Environment Management and Coordination Act, 1999 that requires stakeholder consultation in the ESIA
process. In addition it provided an opportunity for public participation in the management, protection and
conservation of the environment as stipulated in the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
2.0 Agenda
i. To share details of the proposed project with the stakeholders;
ii. Highlight issues to be investigated in the ESIA study;
iii. Obtain inputs from stakeholders for consideration during the detailed ESIA study;
iv. AOB.
3.0 Introduction of Participants
The meeting began at 10:30 am with a word of prayer from one of the participants. Mr. Martin Mutuku
(Head of Corporate Development, KPA) then led participants through a round of self-introductions.
Participants included representatives from the county government, research institutions, national government
agencies and the private sector among others which clearly displayed the diversity expected in such a forum
(see appendix 2.0).
4.0 Welcome Note by Mr Martin Mutuku
Mr Mutuku highlighted the significant role of the Port of Mombasa not only to the nation but also to the
East and Central Africa region. He listed the neighboring countries depending on the port and recalled that
the 2007 post-election violence in Kenya had negative impacts beyond Kenyan borders as the transport
system remained paralyzed resulting into massive pile-up of cargo at the port.
He pointed out that the port has been doing fairly well over the years and was ranked number 116 in the
world in 2014 in terms of cargo handling. The cargo dwell time (time between off-loading the ship and dispatch from
the port) has been the biggest challenge in the port management. He explained that the port’s capacity is driven
by the yard capacity and the dwell time with later being the main contributor to additional costs incurred in
importing goods through the port.
He further explained that a study on the status of the berths 1 to 14 commissioned over 2 years ago shows
that the status of some berths are deplorable and in need of urgent repairs. To this effect he highlighted the
significance of the proposed project which focuses on straightening, strengthening and deepening the berths,
with berth 11 to 14 to be prioritized for repairs and serve as container terminals too instead of being limited
to conventional cargo.
He acknowledged the potential impacts of such a project and the need to undertake an Environmental and
Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) as required by the Environment Management and Coordination Act, 1999.
5.0 Project Presentation by Eng. Kennedy Nyagah (KPA)
This focused on the details of the proposed project in terms of current status of Berths 1-14 and the scope of
repairs required. Mr Nyagah explained that the project’s proposed activities would help in meeting objectives
of sustainable development through its three objectives namely:-
 Increase productivity and reduce cost;

 Rehabilitation for structural integrity and strengthening, deepening and straightening of berths.
Spatially, the whole project will cover berth 1 to 14 though these have been categorized into three main
sections as follows berth 1 to 5 (straightening and rehabilitation); berth 7 to 10 (deepening and straightening)
and berth 11 to 14 (rehabilitation and reinforcement). Participants were also informed that inputs of the
meeting were crucial as they would help in shaping the assessment and that the output will inform the other
phases of the project.
5.0 ESIA Presentation by Mr Hezekiah Adala and Mr Patrick Gwada (Heztech)
Mr Adala began by explaining the diversity of the consultancy team comprising of experts in major areas such
as ecology, socioeconomics, oceanography, occupational health and safety, fisheries as well as environmental
chemistry.
This was followed by an explanation of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) process
and the methodology / approach proposed for the current task.
Assessments will be conducted in six (6) thematic areas namely: socioeconomic assessment; ecological
assessment; oceanographic assessment; fisheries assessment, chemical assessment (water and sediment
quality) as well as occupational safety and health. Samples will be analyzed at a NEMA approved laboratory.
It was also pointed out that the project would impact on the 14th and 13th Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) on life below water and climate change respectively. Further, the project will impact on the 8th, 9th
and 16th Aichi targets on pollution reduction, invasive species prevention and the Nagoya protocol
respectively.
6.0 Key issues raised by participants
Issue of Concern/Institution Section of presentations Response/Action
1 Are there any intentions to dredge surrounding areas as the Scope of the project 1. Minor dredging works will be done to deepen the berths where
high turbidity/sedimentation/siltation affecting machinery in required. Mitigation measures will be undertaken during the works
the adjacent area is being attributed to the several ongoing such as correct choice of dredge equipment and scheduling of
works at the port dredging period to limit turbidity and sedimentation

2 Ecological survey seems very ambitious and considering the Ecological survey 2. Survey program is not ambitious. The team has undertaken
timelines for the assessment this may not be comprehensively similar studies around the same area with similar strategies and
done ; phytoplankton studies take 2 to 3 years timelines, and all reports were completed in time. The study will use
3. Methodology is good but in Kenya no modelling has been indicator signals to spatially reconfirm data available from previous
done before, will this be considered? studies hence this can be accomplished within the specified
4. Project will lead to reclamation of the sea. Has the project timeframes. There are existing phytoplankton studies and biological
considered what is happening behind the creek and baseline surveys for port areas
developments around Kibarani - during high tides water is 3. Modelling was done during ESIA study for Access Channel
pushed further inland affecting fresh water areas with potential Dredging. Simulation will be done for reconfirmation. KMFRI as a
introduction of invasive species and destroying fish landing local lead agency has undertaken a lot of research in the marine
sites environment. The consultants have access to these documents and
5. Due to absence of model there is no information to illustrate will refer to them
the various measures to be taken for example in the event of an 4. KMFRI has positioned a tide gauge in Liwatoni that monitors
oil spill. ESIA studies should not be designed for compliance sea level at the port on daily basis. If construction works were
only but should expand the knowledge base in various research having significant impacts on sea level the readings / trends would
areas and consultants should request for more time if need be have shown
to achieve this considering the resources that go into such 5. The National Oil Spill Response Contingency Plan was
projects. developed based on the understanding of ecologically sensitive
areas and high risk areas within the port and its environs. Due to
(Kengen, 2,3,4,5) time and budget constraints there is no provision for elaborate
modelling in the current project.
6. With several ongoing projects around the same area, are ESIA process 6. Such a study would be necessary though it is not in the Terms of
there measures in place to get the overall /cumulative impacts Reference for the current ESIA.
of all these projects as individual projects may have minimal
impacts but collectively the impact could be significant
(KeNHA)
7. A formerly dry area near the Kenya Navy effluent discharge Ecology 7. Mangroves thrive when conditions suitable for them prevail.
point currently has a lot of mangroves. Could this be a Such conditions may arise from factors within the project area or
compounded result of the several projects in the port area? beyond. Studies need to be taken around the project area to
(Kenya Navy) ascertain the cause of emergence of mangroves.
8. Has the project factored the safety of cargo ships and Security and Access (8-9) Navigation may have challenges during the transit period.
artisanal fishing boats during the construction phase? Modifications in routes will be communicated and standard
operating procedures developed. Hydrographic surveys will be
9. Has maritime security been considered during the project done to update existing charts. (Navy)
implementation phase considering issues of terrorism -In terms of movement of people, KPA has put structures in place
(SDF 8,9) to control access to the premises. These require positive
identification of persons before access is granted (KPA)
-Scheduling is done way in advance before the arrival of ships
hence ensuring smooth flow of traffic (KPA)
-The project will adopt construction sequence management to
minimise interference with normal operations.
-Kenyan pilots are familiar with the channel and responsible for
steering the ships to dock within Kenyan waters hence they will
have no problem adjusting to any route changes communicated in
time.
-Kenya navy will intensify patrols when the task kicks off to ensure
maritime security (Kenya Navy)
-KPA has control tower hence can monitor vessels coming in and
going out of the port (KPA)
-Before the channel, there is a buffer zone manned by KPA and the
Navy. KPA has to be notified 14 days before the arrival of any
vessel (KPA)
-KPA is in the process of acquiring a new vessel –boat, to assist in
monitoring/enhancing maritime security (KPA)
10. ESIA should model path of sediments in different scenarios Pollution/dumping/ (10/13). Specific areas for dumping of dredged materials and
before recommending a dumping site. In previous project the dredging sourcing of filling material will be recommended in the report. It is
dumping of dredging material was done away from MPA’s but the upon the contractor to comply and KPA to enforce
due to the effects of currents the marine parks were affected (Consultant)
11.The rapid ecological assessment should look into the

composition of the dredged material and factor in possible (11/12/13). Samples will be subjected to independent laboratories
effects of dumping dredged materials containing benthic for water and sediment analysis to identify invasive species and
biodiversity as this may have significant impact if introduced in appropriate recommendations on sources and dumping sites will be
ecologically sensitive areas made
12. Chemical assessment should also consider the composition (Consultant)
of the substrate as this may affect ecologically sensitive areas
13. The source of the filling material should be carefully (10/11/12/13) A good study vis a vis implementation are different
selected as scooping sand can destabilize sea floor and affect issues. Contractors tend to do contrary to the reports to cut on cost
areas far off the scooping point. The composition of the especially if they are not under strict supervision. The findings of
material also needs to be assessed to ensure it can be safely the study need to be translated into an operational plan.
introduced in the new sites (Consultant)
(KWS 10,11,12,13)
14. More Stakeholders should have been invited to the meeting. Stakeholder involvement; 14. NEMA was invited though not represented at meeting. KPA
For instance Surveys of Kenya has a fully-fledged department compensation, will consider inviting South Coast Residents Association for the
of hydrography; South Coast residents association considering Pollution/dumping/dredging next meeting
some berths cuts across their area, NEMA county and regional
offices
15. KPA should submit the following to KMA: (15.c/d 17/18). There are currently no actual specifications about
a)design plans for the berths with the dimensions , b)vessel the project; it’s too early to know the dredging vessel and personnel
traffic including an inward and outward procedure considering and as details are availed by the project implementers these will be
the project will be undertaken in a busy channel communicated and site specific assessments will be done
c)particulars of vessels doing dredging and the personnel (KPA/consultant)
d)Data for water quality assessment
16.A good valuation of impacts of the project should be done 17. Specific areas for dumping dredged materials and sourcing the
and appropriate compensation determined filling material will be recommended in the report. The study will
justify the proposed source as a survey will be done and will entail
17. Assessment should clearly state the dumping site and among others the distance from the shore, developments inwards,
sources of sand population of marine ecosystems around the place
18. KPA should come up with an oil spill specific plan for sites 18. KPA already has an Oil Spill Response Plan which will be
they intend to do the project applied during project implementation
(KMA 14/15/16/17/18) A monthly report on environmental management plan by KPA has

shown increase in fish due to increased aeration following dredging
19. How is asbestos from the port are being handled and 19. There is a separate project specifically dealing with replacement
disposed. The current project should not use asbestos. and disposal of the asbestos. The proposed berth repairs project
(CDA) would not use asbestos
20. Several problems have risen when dumping is not done at Stakeholders 20. Involving stakeholders in monitoring process is a challenge with
designated locations. Stakeholders including institutions with involvement/monitoring regards to who will meet their cost if the project hasn’t budgeted
mandates in different areas should be involved correctly on for the costs incurred by these stakeholders. Stakeholders directly
issues of site selection and monitoring. involved in environmental issues can be considered for monitoring
subject to availability of funds
-Vessels to be used for dredging will have specifications with a
capability of vessel log in to enable tracking of the movements
made by the vessel.
22. The ESIA process should include a learning Invitations would be sent to learning institutions to send
component/civic education by inviting students to such representatives at the next meeting
meetings (KeNHA)
AOB
There being no other business, the participants were thanked for their attendance. It was pointed
out that all the objectives of the meeting had been met as participants were now aware of the
project, what the study will involve, and participants have raised their concerns for consideration
during the ESIA study. The meeting ended at 1.30 pm.
SHM I ATTENDANCE REGISTER
ANNEX 4: MINUTES OF STAKEHOLDER MEETING NO. II
MINUTES OF THE FINAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETING ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND

SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE REHABILITATION OF BERTHS 1-14 AT THE
PORT OF MOMBASA
DATE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7TH, 2016 VENUE: ROYAL COURT HOTEL
1.1 Purpose of Meeting
Integrating environmental and social considerations in development initiatives is one of the prerequisites for
achieving sustainable development. This involves several actors with diverse interests underpinning the need
for a formal stakeholders’ engagement process to ensure key concerns are addressed.
The Environment Management and Coordination Act, 1999 provides for stakeholder consultation during
environmental and Social impact assessment (ESIA). This final stakeholder’s consultation meeting was held in
compliance with the requirements of the Acts but also provided an opportunity for public participation in the
management, protection and conservation of the environment as stipulated in the Constitution of Kenya
2010.
1.2 Agenda
i. To share details of the proposed project with the stakeholders;
ii. To provide a comprehensive feedback on key findings based on issues investigated in the
ESIA study;
iii. Obtain inputs from stakeholders for consideration during preparation of the final report of
the ESIA study;
iv. AOB.
1.3 Introduction of Participants and climate setting
The meeting began at 10:15 am with a word of prayer from one of the participants. This was
followed by introductions which brought out the diversity in expertise of the participants as well as
their multi-sectoral backgrounds.
1.4 Project Brief by Eng. Kennedy Nyagah (KPA)

Eng Kennedy Nyagah of Kenya Ports Authority gave a brief history of the port pointing out that it had
expanded over the years from the time it was established in 1978. Making reference of the detailed
presentation made in the previous stakeholders’ meeting held in May 2016, he reiterated the scope of the
current project which will cover berths 1 to 14. He then informed the participants of the two main objectives
of the project which are:
i) to increase the port’s productivity and reduce cost and

ii) to rehabilitate existing structures where feasible.
He pointed out that the original design of the berths was appropriate for the 1st to 3rd generation of ships
ranging between 100 and 200m wide and that it did not consider long term expansion potentials as it cannot
handle the current vessels which are much wider. Further, the condition survey images revealed the
dilapidated status of the berthing structures and the need for yard improvement in other areas. These
challenges have necessitated the re-design of the port to take care of the current and future shipping needs.
The proposed activities will be in the form of straightening, deepening and strengthening of the berths to
enable them accommodate bigger vessels and to withstand the high salinity of the marine environment. He
justified the proposed moves as having a projected potential to double the handling capacity of the port.
He then gave an outlook of the phases of the project and progress made so far as shown below:-
1. Financial and economic appraisal;-to be finalized based on the ongoing ESIA study report
2. ESIA study-The first meeting was held in May and the current meeting serves as the second and final
stakeholders consultation meeting before the report is sent to NEMA;
3. Ground investigation: -set to start in a month’s time and upon finalization of the ESIA study
4. Detailed design-90 % complete
5. Procurement-To be done upon finalization of the pending phases.
1.4.1 Remarks by Mr. Denis Muganga - (KPA)
The basic intervention in the project is to expand the ports capacity. He pointed out that the ports handling
capacity has grown steadily over the years at 9.4 % per annum to 1.76 million TEUs currently, and targeting
1.8 million TEUs per annum by 2018. Some of the projects that have been undertaken to realize these
achievements include construction of the first terminal and the more recent completion of the second
terminal west of Kipevu with a capacity of 550 000 TEUs. He acknowledged the support the authority has
received from Trademark East Africa to undertake the project and informed participants of the authority’s
green port policy which is its commitment to preserve and take care of the environment. He emphasized that
the concern for the integrity of the environment amidst development was the driving force behind ensuring
that as part of the port operations, each project has EIA conducted to ensure the project is in line with the
preservation of the environment and life.
1.4.2 Remarks by Port Environment Officer (KPA)

The officer began his remarks by thanking the consultant’s team for undertaking the ESIA study and the
stakeholders for availing themselves for the feedback meeting. He then urged the participants to work
consistently in ensuring the environment in its totality is properly protected. He remarked that failure to take
care of the marine environment would negatively impact on the ocean. He pointed out that the authority
considers every project to be as important as the environment hence they ensure Environmental Impact
Assessments are conducted for all proposed projects and that the developed management plans are
implemented fully.
1.5 ESIA Presentation
1.5.1 Overview of findings - Mr. Hezekiah Adala

The aim of the study was to evaluate the environmental and social issues related to the rehabilitation,
straightening, strengthening and deepening of berths 1 to 14. The impacts considered were both on the
marine environment and terrestrial environment and these reverberate beyond the project area. He proceeded
to give a summary of the ESIA process which includes screening; scoping; conducting baseline studies;
policy, institutional and regulatory considerations and identification of potential impacts and mitigation
measures. The methodology used to conduct the assessment include literature review, field studies (both for
ecological and social baseline), stakeholders’ consultations, chemical survey, fisheries survey and
oceanographic assessment as the main components. He emphasized on the essence of stakeholders
consultation stating it is a requirement of the constitution of Kenya and the EMCA Act which ensures
disclosure of the proposed project’s details to stakeholders and that their views are captured. Having given
the overall flow of activities, he moved on to present the overall key findings of the socioeconomic,
oceanographic, fisheries and chemical assessments.
1.5.2 Key ecological issues - Mr. Patrick Gwada
Mr Gwada began by an explanation of the approach used in sampling stating that the Berths were treated in
clusters (1 to 5; 7 to 10 and 11 to 14) and that the ecological sampling focused on key issues identified. He
listed other important infrastructural areas in close proximity to the project area such as the Mtongwe Ferry,
Likoni Ferry, oil jetty, Kibarani dumping site and the Makupa Causeway. He brought the attention of the
stakeholders to the initial gazettement of the mangroves which was in 1895 pointing out the significant
degradation of the ecosystem that has been experienced over the years with the major event being an oil spill
in 1988. Massive death of mangroves could have been a major factor in the conversion of Kibarani area into a
dumping site.
Mombasa marine protected area covers 210 Km2 and it is nearly the size of Mombasa County with its
boundaries very close to the project area hence a very significant area that was considered in the study.
Mapping had been done of priority coral zones which act as coral gardens and key in conservation and
tourism. Other mapped areas include the marine turtle conservation areas, beaches, Fort Jesus, forests, key
mariculture areas and creeks. Stone fish, a rare species in Kenya, had been found around the old port hence
such areas need conservation.
There are on ongoing co-management efforts in fisheries to support communities through implementation of
guidelines on establishment and operation of co-management areas developed by CORDIO East Africa.
International best practices like the Environmental, health and safety guidelines for ports and harbours
developed by the International Finance Corporation can be adopted in the project. Regarding dredging
activities, the turbidity is minimal and may not go beyond the access channel and impact on coral gardens and
MPA. Dredging and dumping dredged materials should be conducted during the North East Monsoon
season when the plume direction is away from the MPA and coral gardens hence very minimal potential
impacts if any. The proponent should develop and implement an operational plan that strictly meets the
international standards.
1.5.3 Questions and Answers
A plenary session was then ushered in to allow stakeholders to raise questions and provide any
additional input.
1.6 Issues raised on the presentations
Issue of Concern/Institution Section of Response/Action
presentations
1. The ESIA study has been done Project The Kenya National Highway Authority (KNHA) has been working with KPA and has
comprehensively. The current traffic presentation factored expansion of the port in its plans to address projected impacts of the project.
jams being experienced in Mombasa can Some areas being worked on include the roundabout to Mariakani; dual carriage from
be traced back to the port however, Digo Road to Jomvu; replacement of the Changamwe roundabout with a two-level
from the presentation, it is not clear on interchange road to cater for tracks from Kipevu to Nairobi and from Nairobi to Kipevu;
how the additional stress on the roads access road to the Moi international airport; construction of the Dongo Kundu by-pass;
due to the current expansion of the port Mwache dual interchange (KeNHA)
will be mitigated. (KENGEN)
KPA is working closely with other stakeholders such as the county government which is
looking at issues of congestion within Mombasa city. The authority is considering having
a track marshaling yard to hold the tracks and allow them to move to the port based on
appointment. In addition the standard gauge railway is expected to be completed by mid
2017 and will ease the movement of tracks in and out of the port. Further, the revised
master plan (2015-2035) for Mombasa has factored construction of SGR and movement
of trucks. (KPA)
2. The ESIA study is quite good. ESIA Study The study report has made reference of conflicts and the need to actively engage
However some impacts stated are likely stakeholders including the local communities in the entire process. The action plan will
to create conflicts as they touch on have a redress mechanism and will require further engagement with stakeholders on how
fisheries and will involve dealing with to go about this. Though the impacts could be small in terms of fisheries, the overall
humans especially where compensations impact from a livelihoods perspective is quite significant hence early engagement is key
will be done. There is need for a vetting for all those likely to be affected to feel they are part of the process. (Consultant)
desk to address conflicts between real
fishers and impostors. (SDF) A vetting desk will be established and hosted by the Authority. Prior to commencement
of the project a detailed environmental management and monitoring plan will be prepared
on how the contractor will implement the recommendations of the ESIA, including
conflict resolution. (KPA)
State Department of Fisheries should avail a legitimate list of fishermen during the
compensation process to avoid conflicts and imposters. A group compensation is more
likely as opposed to individual settlements (KPA)
3. With regards to dredging, it is not ESIA Study Dumping will be done at the same location as during dredging of the Access channel.
coming out clearly where the dumping Dredging activities be conducted during the NE monsoon period to reduce any risks of
will be done. In the past dumping was the materials drifting to sensitive areas along the coastline. The location will be the
done in areas where the materials finally approved zone for ocean dumping. The materials dredged from the 3rd cluster are
drifted to the marine park. (SDF) expected to have significant impacts due to the chromium levels hence land based
disposal will be proposed. Proper containment will be factored to ensure surrounding
soils are not contaminated.(KPA)
Businessmen sometimes do not to comply with stipulated dumping locations hence
monitoring should be done to ensure all vessels involved in the exercise comply with the
dumping specifications. (Kenya Navy)
The kind of equipment and vessels used for the dredging activity is equipped with GPS
technology that has a log mechanism , a trip is logged from excavation to dumping site
hence the authority can track the entire movement of the vessel . These specifications will
be articulated during procurement of vessels. In a previous capital dredging project, the
vessels were tracked and one could clearly see the route used by the vessel. The
information is shared with NEMA daily hence action can be taken on errant persons.
(KPA)
4. Considering the possibility of oil spill, Kenya is well prepared to deal with oil spills considering the equipment available at KPA
is there a contingency plan in Pollution Control Centre and oil spill drills undertaken by the Oil Spill Mutual Aid Group
place.(CORDIO EA) (OSMAG). The country has prepared and implemented a National Oil Spill Response
Contingency Plan.
The pollution control centre in KPA is among the best equipped centres in the continent
coming second after South Africa. The contingency measures by KPA and other
stakeholders are among the best in the region. In addition the Kenya Maritime Authority
has a regional maritime rescue coordination centre (RMRCC) monitoring the ports.(KPA)
5. Has the Assessment considered the According to projections the rise is in the range of 1meter by 2100 hence the flooding
long term effects of climate change in potentials have no impact on the dredging activities.(Consultant)
terms of sea level rise on the
port.(CORDIO EA)
6. Fishing within the port area is done Project Kilindini is a port channel hence port activities take precedence. The Authority is
mainly by the small scale fishermen. Is presentation cognizant of the fishermen’s need of livelihood. The challenge is in the nature of
KPA doing anything to address the fishermen as they tend to pursue fish even in restricted or unsafe zones. Sensitizations are
associated security concerns as some however on going on these concerns. (KPA)
fishermen have been found within the
naval base? (Kenya Navy). The maritime security committee has developed standard operating procedures for
fishermen operating along the creek and can know when they come in or leave and where
ships are. The fishermen are being sensitized that they can only be allowed to have
innocent passage in restricted areas. They are also not allowed to come near a
ferry.(SDF)
7.Aare there measures in place by KPA Project Different approaches are being used to address congestion issues for instance it is
to address delays and congestions in the presentation anticipated that the ability to handle larger vessels will lead to reduction in the number of
marine environment considering the vessels as more cargo can fit in one vessel. On the other hand the port has a commitment
projected increase in capacity to handle to reduce the ship turn-around time to 48 hours or 2 days. This currently stands at 2.4-2.5
larger vessels (KMA) days hence moving towards the target and the faster clearance is expected to ease
congestion. A productivity improvement plan has also been done on how to manage all
vessels from how they come in, to waiting and allocation to different berths. This will
further help in clearing the channel as the activities will be managed within the port
facility. (KPA)
The control tower at the port, established in 2010, enables the controller to see the entire
360 degrees over a 20 km radius distance from KPA hence help in managing traffic
entering and leaving the port. (KPA)
8. Vessels will require seaworthiness Project Pilots are aware of the certification requirements for their vessels and will take care of the
certificates hence KPA should contact presentation process at the right time.(KPA)
KMA to ensure vessels are inspected
and that they comply with the set
standards. (KMA)
10. Was an assessment of species on the ESIA study Yes.. the ESIA study was very detailed and a mapping was conducted indicating locations
sea grass conducted considering marine of sea grass areas close to the project area of influence
life forage in these areas? Mitigation
measures should consider these species
(Bamburi cement).
11. What will be the frequency of future ESIA study Frequency of dredging was not in the TORs of the consultant. However considering the
dredging as this is critical in determining Bathymetry and characteristics of the upper part of the creek, currents are stronger going
the financial implications and for long outside of the creek hence flush materials outside the system contributing to self-
term planning. Are there allowable maintenance of the channel. Consequently the frequency of dredging is likely to be lower.
limits of dredging or is it just adequate However the maintenance dredging will depend on land use of the upper part of the
to have control points? (Trade Mark channel. KPA should engage other stakeholders to ensure good planning and land use
East Africa) practices in the upper Mwache creek. Degradation, erosion and siltation should be
minimized. (Consultant)
12. The lowest and highest projected sea ESIA study Noted. (Consultant)
levels for the Port area need to be
known as these are key in long term
planning (Trade Mark East Africa)
13. Are there intentions to widen the Project Traffic within the channel is being modeled by marine pilots. The simulation is still work
channel? Currently there are some presentation in progress to check on the effect of bigger vessels. In 2012 the channel was widened to
relatively narrow sections such as near 300meters. The next phase of dredging will involve checking the challenges and conflicts
Likoni ferry that have made it difficult in navigating through the channel. If the existing right of way is considered insufficient
for two ships to maneuver at the same further expansion can be undertaken. In terms of operations, the ships come in one at a
time hence this can only be a bigger time and the current width of the channel is appropriate for the largest vessel. (KPA).
challenge with introduction of larger
ships. (Kenya Navy)
14. Is it possible that the dredging Project Dredging is preceded by checking current levels of sediment through the entire channel
activities will lead to transportation and presentation using echo-sounding. The data is then used to ascertain if other areas are affected of not.
settlement of sediments to the naval It is only upon certification that the sediment levels meet requirements for dredging that
base side of the creek? If so, can the actual exercise will be completed.(KPA)
dredging be done concurrently on both
sides of the creek to ensure that depths Recommended dredging uses trailing suction dredger where the dredged materials are
in both areas are not affected?(Kenya sucked and deposited in the vessel to ensure no sediment traverse the channel.
Navy) (Consultant)
15. Baseline outlined the potential ESIA Study Marine debris is a complex issue. There is no baseline survey for the Kenya waters though
pollution by heavy metals and other there are 14 mitigation measures to deal with marine debris proposed in the ESIA
substances. Marine debris pollution
form land based activities and ships
should be included. (CDA)
1.7 AOB
There was no AOB.
1.8 Closing remarks and vote of thanks
1.8.1 General remarks by head of consultants team, Eng. Adala

The team leader thanked the stakeholders for the interactive session that had made the exercise a
success. In comparing the meeting to other forums, he pointed out that this had been a more
focused meeting with a lot of good will as stakeholders were not out to criticize the work that had
been done but had raised pertinent issues and proposed relevant solutions. He assured the
stakeholders that all areas of concern and weaknesses had been noted and will be addressed before
submission of the final report to NEMA. He further invited stakeholders to look out for and
comment further on the report during the 60 days period upon its publication on two widely read
dailies by NEMA.
1.8.2 Closing remarks by Eng. Nyaga, (KPA)

Mr Nyaga thanked the stakeholders for purposing to attend the meeting. He acknowledged the
sacrifice that stakeholders had made to be in such a forum considering it had been convened at a
time presumed to be one of the commonly busiest days of the week .He commended the role played
by KeNHA representative in elaborating interventions being taken to address the congestion issues
in Mombasa County which is home to the port. He further applauded the partnerships with other
institutions such as the Kenya Railways Corporation, Kenya Maritime Authority and State
Department of Fisheries and Blue Economy who are actively involved in the port’s plan. He cited
the good will form KMA and the projected increase in use of rail transport from the current 5% to
60% as examples of the benefits of such collaboration. Finally, he urged all the stakeholders to work
hand in hand with the Authority for the success of the project.
1.8.3 Closing remarks Hannah Ngugi (Trade Mark East Africa)

Madam Ngugi, a representative of the financier, emphasized on her institution’s keenness on matters
of the environment. She pointed out that the environment is a key thematic area that cuts across all
projects hence its increased prioritization in proposed initiatives. She acknowledged the significance
of stakeholder engagement and assured participants that the recommendations and concerns raised
will be considered to minimize challenges during implementation of the project. She explained that
Trade Mark ‘s focus on the Port of Mombasa as a gate way to East Africa together with other ports
such as Port of Dar Es Salaam stem from the company’s goal of promoting trade in East Africa. To
this end, she informed stakeholders that the company has implemented several projects within the
port to help it meet its objectives. On the next step, she informed participants that an external
evaluation by specific key international institutions, including banks will be conducted to ensure the
project complies with the set standards. She expressed optimism that the project will transform the
Port of Mombasa. She further informed participants that Trade Mark was also involved in financing
projects along the Northern corridor which will help address congestion and contribute towards ease
of doing business. She urged KPA to consider mitigation measures proposed in the ESIA,
emphasizing on the need for effective enforcement to ensure disposal is done at the designated place.
ANNEX 5: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

STUDY FOR REHABILITATION OF BERTHS 1-14
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE
Location ___________________________ Date:____/____/ 2016
Part I. Personal Information

1. Residence
2. Gender: Male/female
3. Age
4. Marital status
5. Education/ literacy level
6. Occupation
7. Religion
Community services
8. Health facilities used by the community
9. Educational facilities used by the community
10. Electricity and other sources of energy
11. Potable water supply and sanitation services
12. Security arrangements in the area
13. Religious places available in the area
14. Leadership arrangements in the area
Recreational activities
15. Recreational sites available to the residents in the project area
16. Level of dependence on the recreational site including frequency of visit to the site(s)
17. Alternative recreational sites (their location and distance from the project site) ease
of accessibility
Fisheries activities
18. Fishing grounds
19. Level of dependence on the fishing grounds including frequency of visit to the
landing site (number of days fishing is done in a week)
20. Number of fishers using the landing site
21. Membership to Beach Management Units
22. Number of fishing boats
23. Fish landings
24. Fishers’ residence
25. Distance of fishers residences to the landing sites
26. Type of gear(s) used
27. Type of vessel used
28. Vessel ownership
Opinion about the rehabilitation works by KPA
29. Aware of the planned rehabilitation works by KPA on berths 1-14
30. Any anticipated positive social and economic impacts from the proposed
rehabilitation works
31. Any anticipated adverse social impacts from the proposed rehabilitation works
32. Suggestions on mitigation measures
List of References
Aanderaa (1998): S/T-C/T-S/T/D and C/T/D Sensors. Data Sheet D310. Aanderaa
Instruments, Bergen, Norway.
Adala, H. O. (2007). The Proposed Container Terminal Modernization Project: Resettlement

Action Plan Final Report. Kenya Ports Authority. 91pp.
Adala, H. O. (2007). Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Proposed Container
Terminal Modernization Project for Kenya Ports Authority. Kenya Ports Authority. 271pp
Benny P. N. (2002): Variability of Western Indian Ocean Currents: Western Indian Ocean
Journal of Marine Science. Vol. 1, 81-90.
Blackett, H. L. (1994). Forest Inventory Report No. 4. Shimba Hills, Mkongani North and
Mkongani West. Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Project (KIFCON). Nairobi, Kenya
Boon J. D. and Byrne R. J. (1981): On Basin Hypsometry and the Morphodynamic Response
of Coastal Inlet Systems. Marine Geology 40, 27-48.
Defant A. (1958), Ebb and Flow. Ann Arbor Science Paperbacks, Ann Arbor, 121 pp
Dronkers J. J. (1964): Tidal Computations in Rivers and Coastal Waters. John Wiley and Son,
Inc. New York, 518 pp.
Duing W. and Schott F. (1978): Measurements in the Source Current of the Somali Current
During Monsoon Reversal. Journal of Physical Oceanography. Vol. 8, 278-289.
Evaarts, J.M. and Nieuwenhuize, J. (1995) Heavy metal in surface sediments and epibenthic
macroinvertebrates from the coastal zone and continental slopes of Kenya. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 31: 4-12.
Evaraats, J.M., Swennen, C. and Cheewasedtham, W. (1994). Heavy metals (Cu, Zn, Cd, Pb)
in surface sediments and organisms in a short food chain, from the intertidal zone of Pattani
Bay, Thailand- A preliminary study. Wallaceana 72, 17-24.
Government of Kenya (2009). State of the Coast Report: Towards Integrated Management
of Coastal and Marine Resources in Kenya. National Environment Management Authority
(NEMA), Nairobi. 88pp.
Hoorweg J., Foeken D. and Obudho R. A. (eds). (2000). Kenya Coast Handbook: Culture,
resources and development in east African Littoral. African Studies Centre, Leiden, The
Netherlands.
Japan Port Consultants, BAC Engineering & Architecture Ltd, and Heztech Engineering
Services (2010). Compensation Action Plan for Proposed Dredging of the Access Channel at
the Port of Mombasa. Kenya Ports Authority – Republic of Kenya, 85pp.
Kitheka J. U., Ongwenyi G. S., and Mavuti K. M. (2003): Fluxes and Exchanges of
Suspended Sediments in Tidal Inlets Draining a Degraded Mangrove Forest in Kenya.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 56, 655-667.
Lindsay P., Balls P. W., and West J. R. (1996): Influence of Tidal Range and River Discharge
on Suspended Particulate Matter Fluxes in North Estuary, Scotland. Estuarine, Coastal and
Shelf Science 42: 63-82.
Martin J. L. and McCutcheon S. C. (1999): Hydrodynamics and Transport for Water Quality
Modeling. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, London, New York, Washington D. C. 781 pp.
MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG, Berger TA (2000). Development and evaluation of

consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch Environ
Contam Toxicol 39:20-31.
Mazda, Y., Kanazawa N. and Wolanski E. (1995): Tidal Asymmetry in Mangrove Creeks,
Hydrobiologia 295: 51-58.
Nolting, R.F, Van Dalen, M and Helder, M. (in Press). Distribution of trace and major
elements in sediments and pore water of the Lena Delta and Laptev Sea. Mar. Chem.
Odido M. (1994): Tidal Dynamics of Tudor Creek, Kenya. MSc. Thesis, University of
Gothenburg, 35 pp
Okuku, E.O, Mubiana V.K, Hagos, K.G, Kokwenda, P and Blust, R. (2010). Bioavailability
of Sediment-Bound Heavy Metals Using BCR Sequential Extraction on the East African
Coast. Western Indian Ocean J. Mar. Sci: 9: 31 - 42,
Pawlowisz R., Beardsley B. and Lentz S. (2002): Classical Tidal Harmonic Analysis Including
Error Estimates in MATLAB using T_TIDE. Computers and Geosciences, Vol. 28, pp 921-937.
Pugh D. (1987): Tides, surges and Mean Sea-Level. A handbook for Engineers and
Scientists. John Wiley and Sons, New York
Pugh D. (1979): Sea Level at Aldabra Atoll, Mombasa amd Mahe, Western Equatorial Indian
Ocean, Related to Tides, Meteorology and Ocean Circulation. Journal of Deep Sea Research,
Vol. 26 A, pp 237-258.
Republic of Kenya (2010). 2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census. Volume I A – Population
Distribution by Administrative Units. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Government
Printers, Nairobi.
Republic of Kenya (2000). Population and Housing Census 1999. Central Bureau of
Statistics, Government Printers, Nairobi.
Republic of Kenya (2012). Marine waters fishery frame survey 2012 report. Ministry of Fisheries
Development, Department of Fisheries, 79pp.
Schureman P. (1940): Manual of Harmonic Analysis and Prediction of Tides (Reprinted
With Corrections, 1976), U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Special Publication No. 98, 377 pp.
Shetye S. R. and Gouveia A. D. (1992): On The Role of Geometry of Cross-Section in

Generating Flood-Dominance in Shallow Estuaries. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 35, 113-
126.
Wolanski E., Jones M., and Bunt J. S. (1980): Hydrodynamics of a Tidal Creek Mangrove
Swamp Systems. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 13: 431-450.

Esia - 1416 Rehabilitation of Berths Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Esia - 1416 Rehabilitation of Berths Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Esia - 1416 Rehabilitation of Berths Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Certification by Firm of Experts:

Signature_________________________ Date _____________

Address____P.O. BOX 42269 – 80100 MOMBASA_______________

For and on behalf of: HEZTECH ENGINEERING SERVICES

Certificate of Registration No________5194______

Certification by the Proponent

Signature and Stamp ___________________________ Date ______________________

For and on behalf of KENYA PORTS AUTHORITY

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

List of References ..................................................................................................................................... 199

Fig 2.1: Map of the Port of Mombasa and its approaches……………………....…………....…….22

Table 1-1: Main Characteristics of Deep Water Berths……………………………………………23

Mr Patrick MSc Ecological Marine Management Ecologist

Dr. Eric PhD (Biogeochemistry and Ecotoxicology) Environmental Chemist

The location of Berths 1-14 is as in the outline map below.

Details of the proposed works include:

The reclamation plan and section drawings are as illustrated below:

Key positive impacts identified during the study include:

Negative socio-economic impacts anticipated include:

Sector/activity Project Impacts/Issues identified Proposed mitigation measures

1.1 Project Location

Figure 1.1: Map showing the Port of Mombasa and approaches

2.3 Analysis of Alternatives

The repair options that were considered include:

2.4 Proposed Repair Works

2.4.1 Berths 1-5

The main dimensions of the new container terminal are as follows:

Fig 1.9: Possible layout of berths 11-14

Table 2-2: Volumes of dredging and reclamation works

Section drawings for berths 1-14 are as illustrated below:

Table 1-3: Geographical positions of sand mining sites

UTM System (WGS84, Zone 37S) Geographic Coordinates (WGS84)

Fig. 1.12: Georeferenced location of sand mining sites

2.6 Demolition Works

2.7 Infrastructure Works

2.9 Project Timelines

1 ESIA report submitted to NEMA September 2017

2.10 Project costs and potential financing arrangements

Descriptions Amount USD)

2.1 Preliminary Tasks

Preliminary tasks that were undertaken during the study were:

The Scoping process involved:

2.2 Project Description

2.3 Baseline Studies

Table 2-1: Summary of Methodology and Approach for ESIA Study

In particular, the following sensitive/critical habitats potentially impactable were assessed:

b) Terrestrial Habitats / Species:

2.3.2 Characterization of the Physical Environment

2.3.3 Characterization of the Chemical Environment:

A. Water Quality – Physico- Chemical Analysis:

C. Sediments Quality Survey/Sampling:

D. Air Quality and Noise Level Survey

The following stakeholders were consulted and their concerns addressed:

2.6 Identification of Potential Impacts

2.10 Socioeconomic Survey

Legislative provisions applicable to the proposed project are:

Relevant Provisions include mandates given to NEMA such as:

Signature_____________ Date _

AddressP.O. BOX 42269 – 80100 MOMBASA___________

Certificate of Registration No__5194

Signature and Stamp _____ Date