Environmental Assessment
Volume C-1
Slurry Pipeline
Alternatives Considered
Ambatovy Project
3
January 2006
Table 1-1
Alternative Slurry Pipeline Route Comparison
Route
Route Description
Engineering/Constructability
(a)
Social Issues
(a)
Environmental Issues
(a)
Approximate Cost
(a)
Conclusions
A
railway baseline route
difficult due to interference with
railway operations and rail bed
soils (*)
major disruption in villages
along railway line (*)
low impact due to use of existing
corridor (****)
due to technical problems, is
most expensive option (*)
problematic from engineering, social and cost
perspectives; positive from biological perspective (7*)
B-1
direct north route in
Mantadia National Park
difficult terrain, but feasible (**)
impact very low (****)
avoids Torotorofotsy but passing
through National Park rules this route
out (X)
cost is lowest (****)
feasible but ruled out due to National Park issues (X)
B-2
= B-1, first leg
Torotorofotsy
difficult terrain, but feasible (**)
impact very low (****)
less forest impact than B-1 but
passing through National Park rules
this out (X)
cost is lowest (****)
feasible but ruled out due to National Park issues (X)
C-1
north route bypass
Mantadia National Park
difficult terrain, but feasible (**)
impact very low (****)
passing adjacent to National Park,
within high quality habitat in planned
corridor (*)
cost is on low end (***)
feasible but unlikely due to park corridor issues (10*)
C-2
= C-1, first leg
Torotorofotsy
difficult terrain, but feasible (**)
impact very low (****)
passing adjacent to National Park,
within high quality habitat in planned
corridor not an option (*)
cost is on low end (***)
feasible but unlikely due to park corridor issues (10*)
D-1
north route bypass buffer
difficult terrain, but feasible (**)
impact very low (****)
passing close to National Park, within
high quality habitat in planned
corridor not an option (*)
cost moderately low (***)
feasible but unlikely due to park corridor issues (10*)
D-2
= D-1, first leg
Torotorofotsy
difficult terrain, but feasible (**)
impact very low (****)
passing close to National Park, within
high quality habitat in planned
corridor not an option (*)
cost moderately low (***)
feasible but unlikely due to park corridor issues (10*)
E-1
south route, rail corridor
moderate interference with
railway operations and rail bed
soils (**)
disruptions at Andasibe,
Sandranady, Faunovana,
Ambatovola (**)
avoids new impact to most important
forest corridor (***)
costs moderately high (**)
high costs, engineering issues and social disruptions
make this option somewhat unfavourable (9*)
E-2
= E-1, bypass railway
(“private” route)
difficult terrain, but feasible (***)
impact very low (****)
moderate impacts in Torotorofotsy
and new corridor south of national
park (**)
costs moderately low (***)
moderate environmental effects, low social effects;
completely avoids rail corridor (12*)
E-3
hybrid e-1 and e-2. follows
rail line for 5-10 km to
Fanovana
5-10 km of interference with
railway operations and rail bed
soils (***)
disruptions at Andasibe,
Sandranady (***)
avoids new impact to most important
forest corridor (***)
costs moderately high (**)
limits rail route impact to short corridor, reducing
environmental impact in critical 5 to 10 km (11*)
F
south route bypass
Torotorofotsy (uses RN 2)
good for most of route (****)
many residents along road;
impact predicted to be high (*)
avoids both Torotorofotsy and new
impact to most important forest
corridor (****)
cost is close to most expensive
option (*)
high cost but otherwise reasonable, with low
environmental and social impacts (10*)
(a)
Ranking system: X: option ruled out; *: worst relative option in category, **: below average option, ***: above average, ****: best option available.
