Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1544145
2 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 1 APRIL 2026 NEWS CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 ERA acknowledged that dredg- ing will lead to the permanent re- moval of seabed habitats but con- cluded that impacts on marine ecology would not be significant. A benthic survey identified spe- cies including Cymodocea nodo- sa and Posidonia oceanica (both protected species of seagrass), and Tonna galea (a protected marine gastropod), within the area of in- fluence. The dredging is expected to result in the loss of around 1,496 square metres of sparse Posidonia oceanica. However, the authority noted that the affected seagrass occurs within an operational coastal stretch already influenced by human activity. Denser and continuous Posidonia meadows are located further north and fall outside the project footprint. Po- sidonia meadows play a vital role in recharging and oxygenating the marine environment. The site is situated along an existing quay and promenade currently used for residential, commercial, and recreational purposes, including fishing and boating, even though maritime activity will increase. Since the area is already used for docking small vessels, the authority deter- mined that no significant long- term impacts on coastal access or land use are expected. Temporary disturbance during construction was also not considered a major environmental concern. Construction works, particu- larly those related to quay rein- forcement, are expected to gen- erate noise, vibration, and dust, while heavy machinery will pro- duce emissions. ERA nonetheless waived the need for an EIA, stat- ing that such impacts are tempo- rary and can be mitigated through adherence to the Environmental Management Construction Site Regulations. No significant oper- ational impacts on air quality or noise levels are anticipated once ferry services commence. The development will generate approximately 2,945 cubic metres of construction waste, in addition to the dredged material. Sedi- ment sampling formed a key part of ERA's screening. Contamina- tion was detected at one sampling point at a depth of -3.4 metres, but this lies below the dredging level and will remain undisturbed. A small layer of contaminated ma- terial identified at another loca- tion will need to be removed and disposed of at a non-hazardous landfill. The remaining dredged material is considered suitable for disposal at sea, subject to com- pliance with waste management regulations. The site falls within the protect- ed coastal water body designated MTMTC 106. An expert hydro- morphology assessment indicated that the area already exhibits a low level of natural hydromorphology and that the development will not significantly alter the bay's physi- cal characteristics. Since no oper- ational discharges into the sea are proposed, ERA concluded that the project is unlikely to compro- mise the environmental status of the water body. The screening document does not contain specific data on the number of daily ferry trips, pro- jected passenger numbers, or any potential increase in road traffic in the surrounding residential ar- ea. ERA imposed a series of miti- gation measures, including the installation of silt curtains and wooden shutters during concrete works, halting operations dur- ing adverse weather, and limit- ing dredging to avoid disturbing deeper contaminated sediments. Identified contaminated materi- al must be disposed of at an au- thorised non-hazardous landfill, while containment measures are required to prevent run-off and spillages from reaching the ma- rine environment. The developer must also submit monitoring and contingency plans for ERA ap- proval before works begin. The authority concluded that, with these safeguards in place, the project's environmental im- pacts would remain limited and manageable, making a full Envi- ronmental Impact Assessment unnecessary. Not requiring a full Environ- mental Impact Assessment means the project proceeds with- out an in-depth study. A full EIA normally includes detailed tech- nical analysis, alternatives, cu- mulative impacts, and structured public consultation. Screening is more limited, with shorter time- lines and fewer opportunities for submissions. However, it aims to identify issues early, nipping problems in the bud while al- lowing projects to advance more quickly with reduced procedural requirements. Screening report concludes that 1,500 square metres of Posidonia seagrass will be lost Photo of existing quay taken during a site visit on 1st October 2025 Close-up orthophoto showing location of the proposal (Source: PA Geoserver 2024) Photo of sparse beds of Posidonia oceanica along with dead matte (Source: Benthic survey)