Liwa Plastic Industries Complex Cumulative Impact ...orpic.om/UploadsAll/CIA.pdfLiwa Plastic Industries Complex Cumulative Impact Assessment Report ... Liwa Plastic Industries Complex

REPORT

Liwa Plastic Industries Complex

Cumulative Impact Assessment

Report

Cumulative Impact Assessment Report

Client: Oman Oil Refineries and Petroleum Industries Co.

Reference: IEMCIA002D02

Revision: 02/Final

Date: 29 April 2016

C o n f i d e n t i a l

29 April 2016 LPIC CIA REPORT IEMCIA002D02 ii


29 April 2016 LPIC CIA REPORT IEMCIA002D02 i

HASKONINGDHV UK LTD.

Office 2-D1 2nd Floor

next to Zakher Mall

Coral Building

Al Khuwair Muscat

Oman

Industry & Buildings

VAT registration number: 792428892

+968 2448 4373

+968 2448 3365

royalhaskoningdhv.com

T

F

W

Document title: Liwa Plastic Industries Complex Cumulative Impact Assessment Report

Document short title: LPIC CIA Report

Reference: IEMCIA002D02

Revision: 02/Final

Date: 29 April 2016

Project name: ORPIC LPIC

Project number: PB4245

Author(s): Peter Thornton

Drafted by:

P Thornton, J Drabble, T McNaughton,

D Banner Perry, L Jolley, J Parsons, N

Fry, A Irving & P Williamson

Checked by: Charles Haine

Date / initials: 29/04/2016

Approved by: Charles Haine/Orpic

Date / initials: 29/04/2016

Classification

Confidential

Disclaimer

No part of these specifications/printed matter may be reproduced and/or published by print, photocopy, microfilm or by

any other means, without the prior written permission of HaskoningDHV UK Ltd.; nor may they be used, without such

permission, for any purposes other than that for which they were produced. HaskoningDHV UK Ltd. accepts no

responsibility or liability for these specifications/printed matter to any party other than the persons by whom it was

commissioned and as concluded under that Appointment. The quality management system of HaskoningDHV UK Ltd.

has been certified in accordance with ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001.


29 April 2016 LPIC CIA REPORT IEMCIA002D02 ii

Table of Contents

1 Introduction and Approach 1

1.1 The LPIC Project 1

1.2 LPIC Project Components 2

1.3 Cumulative Impact Assessment 3

1.4 The CIA Methodology 4

2 Scoping Phase I 13

2.1 Introduction 13

2.2 Valued Environmental and Social Components 13

2.3 Spatial Boundaries of the CIA 15

2.4 The Temporal Extent of the CIA 20

3 Scoping Phase II 21

3.1 Introduction 21

3.2 Longlist of Other Projects 21

3.3 Screening of Longlisted Projects 26

4 Baseline Status 30

4.1 Introduction 30

4.2 Baseline Environment for the VECs 30

4.3 Sensitivity and Value of the VECs 66

5 Cumulative Impacts 68

5.1 Introduction 68

5.2 Cumulative Impact Magnitude 68

5.3 Identification of Insufficiencies and Assumptions 95

5.4 Summary of Impact Magnitude on VECs 97

6 Significance of the Cumulative Impacts 103

6.1 Introduction 103

6.2 Significance of the Cumulative Impacts 103

6.3 Thresholds of Significance 109

7 Management of Potentially Significant Cumulative Impacts 114

7.1 Introduction 114

7.2 Recommended Measures 114

7.3 Residual Cumulative Impacts 119


29 April 2016 LPIC CIA REPORT IEMCIA002D02 iii

8 Conclusions and Recommendations 120

8.1 Significant Cumulative Impacts 120

8.2 Recommendations for Further Work / Monitoring 120

9 References 121

Table of Tables

Table 1 Guide for Classification of Sensitivity

Table 2 Guide for Classification of Magnitude

Table 3 Probability Scale

Table 4 Matrix for Assessing Impact Significance

Table 5 Generic Description of Significance Ratings

Table 6 List of Receptors Impacted or Potentially Impacted by the LPIC Project

Table 7 ZOI for the Identified Receptors

Table 8 Other Projects Distance and Overlaps

Table 9 Other Projects and Screening of VECs / Receptors for Consideration in the

Cumulative Impact Assessment

Table 10 Screening of Other Projects for Consideration in the Cumulative Impact

Assessment based on Potential Impacts (Table 8) and ZOIs

Table 11 Summary of Baseline Environment as Identified in the Orpic LPIC EIAs and

Supplementary SIA

Table 12 Groundwater quality sampled in 1994 and 1995 (Source: WS Atkins, 1999)

Table 13 National Parks, Nature Reserves and Specially Important Areas of Oman

(MECA, 2014)

Table 14 Data on Supplementary Income in Oman (Orpic Household Survey, Feb 2016)

Table 15 Oman Sewage Treatment Plants Properties (Baawain and Al-Omairi, 2013)

Table 16 2015 Existing Port Traffic

Table 17 Monitoring Data from Campaign 1 of the HMR Baseline Air Quality Survey



Table 20 Monitoring Data Obtained from the SEU Environmental Monitoring Stations in

the Vicinity of SIPA (in µg/m³)

Table 21 Summary of Baseline Noise Measurements in the Sohar Region

Table 22 Receptor Group Sensitivity and Value

Table 23 2017 Cumulative Development Construction Traffic in “movements”

Table 24 2017 Cumulative Development and ORPIC Construction Traffic

Table 25 Magnitude of Impact Thresholds


29 April 2016 LPIC CIA REPORT IEMCIA002D02 iv

Table 26 Available Data on Other Projects

Table 27 Magnitude, Duration and Probability of Cumulative Impacts

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Overview of LPIC Project (pipeline RoW in red)

Figure 2 ZOI in Sohar Area and Other Projects

Figure 3 ZOI across LPIC Project

Figure 4 Ephemeral Streambed (Wadis)

Figure 5 Population Growth Rate for Oman (2006 – 2014) (Source: World Development Indicators, 2016)

Figure 6 Oman Desalination Production (1976 -2011)(MWR, 2014)

Figure 7 Electric Power Consumption (kWh per capita) (World Development Indicators, 2016)

Figure 8 Daily Traffic Profile on the Batinah Highway (Source: Figure 3 of “Environmental Impact Assessment of traffic in Sohar, Oman”, published in the International Journal of Science & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 7, dated July 2015)

Figure 9 Wind Rose of 2015 Meteorological Data from the Sohar Recording Station

Figure 10 Oman Annual CO2 Emissions between 1981 – 2010 (Source, World Bank 2016)

Figure 11 Monthly average wind speed over the year for Oman

Appendices

Appendix A Summary Impact Tables for Relevant (Scoped In) Other Projects


29 April 2016 LPIC CIA REPORT IEMCIA002D02 v

Glossary

Abbreviation Description

BVS Block Valve Station

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CIA Cumulative Impact Assessment

CPP Central Processing Plant

dB Decibels

DGEA Directorate General of Environmental Affairs

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

FCS Fahud Compressor Station

FZS Freezone Sohar

GGP Government Gas Plant

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GW Gigawatt

HDPE High-Density Polyethylene

HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle

IEEM Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

IFC International Finance Corporation

IPP Independent Power Project

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

IWP Independent Water Project

KPI Key Performance Indicators

Leq Time Averaged Equivalent

LIWA Liwa Plastics Industries Complex

LLDPE Linear Low-Density Polyethylene

MECA Ministry of Environment and Climate Affairs

mg/l Milligrams per litre

MHC Ministry of Heritage and Culture

MISC Majis Industrial Services Company

MoE Ministry of Education

MRMEWR Ministry of Regional Municipalities, Environment & Water Resources

MTBE Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether

MW Megawatt

NBSAP Omani National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

NGL Natural Gas Liquids

NGLE Natural Gas Liquid Extraction

NO Nitrogen oxide

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide


29 April 2016 LPIC CIA REPORT IEMCIA002D02 vi

Abbreviation Description

NOx Nitrogen oxides, a mix in air of various oxides of nitrogen, mainly NO2 and NO

O3 Ozone

OETC Oman Electricity Transmission Company

OGC Oman Gas Company

OPWP Oman Power and Water Procurement

Orpic Oman Oil Refineries and Petroleum Industries Company

OSC Oman Sugar Company

PDO Petroleum Development Oman

PGHYD Pygas Hydrotreater Unit

PM10 Particulate matter of mean aerodynamic diameter less than 10 micrometres

PP Petrochemical Plant

ppm parts per million (a pollutant concentration by volume)

RD Royal Decree

ROP Royal Oman Police

ROW Right of Way

RTC Road Traffic Collision

SCU Steam Cracker Unit

SEU Sohar Environmental Unit

SFCC Sohar Food Cluster Company

SIA Social Impact Assessment

SIPA Sohar Industrial Port Area

SO2 Sulphur dioxide

STP Sewage Treatment Plant

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

UAE United Arab Emirates

UeR Umm er Radhuma

ug/m3 Microgram per metre cubed

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

VEC Valued Environmental and Social Components

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

ZOI Zone of Influence


29 April 2016 LPIC CIA REPORT IEMCIA002D02 1

1 Introduction and Approach

1.1 The LPIC Project

Oman Oil Refineries and Petroleum Industries Company (Orpic) is one of Oman’s 1.1.1

largest industrial companies and a rapidly growing business in the Middle East’s oil

industry. Orpic currently operates oil refineries (the Mina Al Fahal, Muscat and Sohar),

an aromatics plant and a polypropylene plant at its complex located within the Port of

Sohar, Oman. The Liwa Plastics Industries Complex (LPIC; the “Project”) is a new

project being developed by Orpic and is currently subject to the provision of

environmental and social information to meet international standards. This is part of the

requirement to satisfy lenders to the Project as part of the loan agreement.

The LPIC Project comprises a new steam cracker unit, which will process light ends 1.1.2

produced in Orpic’s Sohar Refinery and its Aromatics plant at Sohar, as well as

optimize Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) extracted from currently available natural gas

supplies. The NGL will be extracted from a plant at Fahud in the south and be

transported via a pipeline within an existing right-of-way (RoW) to a petrochemical plant

at Sohar. The key locations are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Overview of LPIC Project (pipeline RoW in red)



1.2 LPIC Project Components

The NGLE Plant at Fahud, near the existing Fahud Compressor Station (FCS), is the 1.2.1

most upstream component of the LPIC Project and will recover ethane and heavier

components from rich natural gas by a cryogenic process. Rich natural gas, which is

the feed gas, will be sourced from both Government Gas Plant (GGP) in Yibal and

Central Processing Plant (CPP) in Saih Rawl.

Box 1 - Key components of the LPIC Project

The LPIC Project comprises the following new key plant and facilities:

A NGL extraction plant in Fahud (NGLE Plant);

300km NGL pipeline between Fahud and Sohar Port Industrial Area

(SIPA);

A Petrochemical Plant (PP) consisting of the following components:

o An 863,000 tonnes per annum Steam Cracker Unit (SCU);

o High-Density Polyethylene Plant;

o Linear Low-Density Polyethylene Plant;

o Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether Plant;

o Polypropylene Plant; and

o Pygas Hydrotreater Unit (PGHYD).

NGL (C2+) extracted from the proposed NGLE Plant shall be transported to the PP via 1.2.2

a natural gas (NG) in liquid phase Pipeline of approximately 300 kilometres (km)

length. This proposed NG Pipeline will be situated within the 50 metre (m) wide natural

gas pipeline ROW from Fahud to Sohar, which is maintained and operated by the

Oman Gas Company (OGC).

The PP facilitity in the SIPA will include a nominal 863,000 metric tonnes per annum 1.2.3

capacity ethylene cracking plant, high density polyethylene (HDPE) plant, linear low

density polyethylene plant (LLDPE), new polypropylene plant, methyl tertiary butyl ether

(MTBE) plant, Butene-1 plant and associated utility and offsite facilities. The PP will be

integrated with the existing Sohar Refinery, Aromatics Plant and Polypropylene Plant.

NGLs (C2+) extracted at the NGLE Plant forms one of the feedstock for the PP. Other

feedstocks are mixed LPG produced in the Sohar Refinery and aromatics plant, dry gas

produced in the Residue Fluid Catalytic Cracking (RFCC) unit and new delayed coking

unit that is included in Orpic’s nearly completed Sohar Refinery Improvement Project

(SRIP), and condensate (light naphtha) imported by marine tanker from Oman LNG.

Some of the materials produced in the PP, including hydrogen, MTBE, pyrolysis fuel oil

and hydro-treated pyrolysis gasoline will be returned to the Sohar Refinery, Aromatics

Plant and existing Polypropylene Plant.



1.3 Cumulative Impact Assessment

While the impacts of an individual project may be judged to be acceptable, there is also 1.3.1

a need to consider the potential for a project’s impacts to interact with those associated

with other developments - so called ‘cumulative’ impacts. This is acknowleged by

national authorities such as the Ministry for Environment and Climate Affairs (MECA)

and lenders that use international standards.

1.3.2 MECA produced ‘Guidelines for Obtaining Environmental Permits’ around 15 years ago,

which provides a framework of the Ministry’s approach to environmental permitting to

assist investors and project owners. Appendix B of these Guidelines, titled ‘Guidelines

on Environmental Impact Assessment’, states that to evaluate the full ,nature of impacts

cumulative environmental impacts should be considered. There is then a further

explanation of this requirement, stating that the proponent must assess any cumulative

impacts in combination with any existing or planned projects or activities. Furthermore,

it is advised that:

“it is important to recognize that many critical impacts of the project may occur some

distance from the project site itself, and the interests of all affected parties should be

addressed. The assessment of cumulative impacts should consider sustainable use of

renewable resources and include impacts from the approved future projects”.

1.3.3 In addition to the national recommendation, there is clear international requirement and

guidance on CIA. For example, the International Finance Corpotration (IFC), through

their Policy on Environmental and Social Sustainability (2012 latest version) has a set of

eight Environmental and Social Performance Standards that define comprehensive

guidelines and responsibilities of project proponents receiving loans. In addition there is

a set of industry sector guidelines that offer specific advice on technical aspects that

need to be considered in project development. These are complemented by a General

Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) Guideline covering general aspects of all

projects.

1.3.4 Developing a CIA is considered an essential framework for risk management in projects

and good international practice requires, that as a minimum, developers assess

cumulative impacts as part of the ESIA process. The process of CIA seeks to

determine whether the proposed facility will contribute to cumulative impacts on Valued

Environmental and Social Components.

1.3.5 Within the context of CIA, The Equator Principles (version III, June 2013) environmental

and social risk management framework for projects also refer to the need to highlight

special issues such as cumulative, transnational risks or disproportionate impacts on

disadvantaged groups.

The purpose of this report is to present the CIA for the LPIC Project in relation to 1.3.6

relevant other projects in the region and Project study area.



1.4 The CIA Methodology

The approach to CIA for the LPIC Project adhered to, and is compliant with, another 1.4.1

relevant guidance document: ‘The Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management –

Guidance for the Private Sector in Emerging Markets’ (IFC, 2013).

The IFC’s CIA guidance presents a six step process for assessing the potential for 1.4.2

cumulative impacts upon the relevant Valued Environmental and Social Components

(VECs) as follows:

1. Scoping Phase I – identifying VECs, spatial and temporal boundaries;

2. Scoping Phase II – other activities and environmental drivers;

3. Establish information on the baseline status of VECs;

4. Assess cumulative impacts on VECs;

5. Assess significance of predicted cumulative impacts; and

6. Management of cumulative impacts – design and implementation.

This document presents the findings of the six steps for the assessment of the 1.4.3

cumulative impacts of the LPIC Project; the approach taken in following this

methodology is summarised below.

Step 1 - Scoping Phase I

It is noted that the guidance uses the concept of VESCs in relation to CIA and these are 1.4.4

the environmental and social attributes (or receptor groups) that are considered to be

important in assessing risk and impact of a project. The VECs listed in the IFC

guidance are:

Physical features, habitats, wildlfide populations (e.g. biodiversity);

Ecosystem services;

Natural processes (e.g. water and nutrient cycles, microclimate);

Social conditions (e.g. health, socio-economics, and human rights); and

Cultural aspects (e.g. traditional spiritual ceremonies or sacred sites).

The tasks carried out at this stage are to identify: 1.4.5

The VECs to be included in the CIA;

Tthe spatial boundaries of the CIA; and

The temporal extent of the CIA.



The VECs considered in this CIA have been collated from the original Environmental 1.4.6

Impact Assessment (EIA) and accompanying work on Social Impact Assessment (SIA)

for the LPIC Project. For each of the VECs (and receptors), a determination of the

‘study area’ or Zone of Influence (ZOI) was undertaken in order to identify the spatial

boundary within which other projects and potential impacts will be considered.

The lifetime of the project and project components were also defined, along with the 1.4.7

commencement date for specific sources of impact (such as construction or operation).

In addition, a review of each of the receptors and impacts was undertaken to ascertain

whether impacts would occur immediately, or to determine whether there would be a

delay until impacts could aggregate or increase to a scale of significance.

Step 2 - Scoping Phase II

Cumulative impacts comprise: 1.4.8

Site-specific (or within-development) cumulative impacts which arise from each

of the LPIC components (i.e. the NGLE Plant, the NG Pipeline, and the PP within

the SIPA estate) individually. Different aspects of each project component may

themselves have additive, synergistic or interactive impacts on common receptors

(and these impacts could be minor, or insignificant, in their own right but

significant when combined). Examples might include the combined effects of

noise, traffic, visual impact, and influx of workers on local communities.

Assessment of such site-specific cumulative impacts form part of the impact

assessment for each LPIC component and are documented within the relevant

EIA and SIA chapters.

Project-wide cumulative impacts which arise from the combined effects (e.g.

additive, synergistic or interactive) of the whole LPIC Project, that is, the

cumulative impacts of any part of the LPIC Project with all other component(s)

and associated development(s). Associated developments include any works that

may be required to facilitate construction (such as new haul roads and temporary

worker accommodation).

Wider cumulative impacts between any component(s) of the LPIC Project and

any other ‘non-LPIC’ development(s).

The tasks carried out during this stage were to: 1.4.9

Identify a longlist of other developments (and plans) to include in the CIA;

Screen listed developments and plans for relevancy and scale;

Obtain available detailed information on scoped-in developments and plans; and

Screen impacts / VECs for each development and plan and create a list of

projects to be considered for each relevant LPIC project impact / VEC.



Discussions with relevant authorities and team members (detailed in Section 4), which 1.4.10

helped to identify a longlist of “other projects” based on the spatial extent and VECs

developed in Step 1 and the following criteria:

Built and operational projects (see below for definition);

Approved but uncompleted projects;

Projects under construction;

Projects for which an application has been made, that are under consideration by

the consenting authorities and for which refined information and robust

assessment outcomes are available; and

Projects which are reasonably foreseeable, i.e. projects for which an application

has not yet been submitted, but which are likely to progress before completion of

the development and for which sufficient information and robust assessment

outcomes are available at the date of any appropriate assessment in order to

assess the likelihood of cumulative impacts.

The longlist of projects were then screened to ascertain the relevancy and scale of the 1.4.11

various developments and plans and ascertain – using a matrix of the key receptors –

whether there is a potential for them to result in cumulative impact with the LPIC

Project. Any develoments not expected to result in any effects on the VECs and

receptors were scoped out.

Where developments (and plans) were scoped into the CIA, further information has 1.4.12

been sought regarding each project, in particular any EIA/SIA or related documentation.

A second screening was then been undertaken identifying the sufficiency of the

information available for each project.

Subsequently, we have then screened the impacts and VECs that could be affected by 1.4.13

the other projects using our matrix of VECs/receptors and effects developed in Step 1.

This has enabled us to determine which impacts and relevant projects are considered in

detail against each of the relevant VECs/receptors. Where insufficient information was

available, an assumption has been made (and documented), confirming whether an

appropriate quantitative or qualitative estimate was available and whether the project

has been included or ruled out of the CIA process. The tables in Appendix A present

the summary of the impacts identified and extracted from the relevant ‘other’ projects, or

the assumptions that were made.



Step 3 – Establish Baseline Information for VECs

The tasks carried out at this stage included: 1.4.14

Identification and description of the baseline in relation to all VECs (including

relevant individual receptors) from existing documents;

Identification of the sensitivity and value of the VECs; and

Listing of any baseline information missing (e.g. site-specific, contextual, spatial,

condition).

The VECs baseline environment were established based on the extraction of data 1.4.15

within the LPIC Project’s EIAs and SIA. Information from the other developments has

also been used to enhance or provide more context for the relevant VECs (in terms of

presence and absence) and the condition of those VECs where available. Where

information on quantities or condition of the VECs is unknown, this has been identified

and any assumptions made have been provided.

In determining and describing the baseline, we have identified: 1.4.16

Spatial location and extent of the VECs both at the site specific (e.g. settlement)

scale and regional (e.g. population and demographic) scale;

Description of the VECs and their character;

Context of the VECs in terms of rarity, function, and population at the local,

regional and national level;

Sensitivity, i.e. vulnerability, resilience (adaptability and tolerance) and

recoverability; and

Value/importance.

The VEC/receptor sensitivities have been characterised using the qualitative guide for 1.4.17

representative ‘levels’ of sensitivity presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Guide for Classification of Sensitivity

Sensitivity Guide definition for “sensitivity” of feature/receptor

Very High Has no capacity to accommodate physical or chemical changes or influences.

High Has a very low capacity to accommodate physical or chemical changes or influences.

Medium Has a low capacity to accommodate physical or chemical changes or influences.

Low Has a moderate capacity to accommodate physical or chemical changes or influences.

Very Low Generally tolerant of and can accommodate physical or chemical changes

or influences.



The value of the VECs has been determined based on a geographical hierarchy where 1.4.18

relevant:

International;

National (Oman);

Governorate (North Batinah, Al Buraimi, and Al Dhahira);

Wilaya (Liwa, Sohar, Fahud); and

Within zone of influence (which might be the development site or a larger area).

Step 4 – Assess Cumulative Impacts on VECs

The tasks carried out at this stage of CIA are to: 1.4.19

Identify the magnitude of effect for all VECs (including relevant individual

receptors) from existing documents;

Identify impacts where insufficient information/quantification is available; and

Determine the probability and duration of effect for all impacts on VECs.

Where the projects have been identified and listed as having a potential to impact on a 1.4.20

VEC (see Step 2), the magnitude of the effects (from sources of impact) has been

collated, quantified and described. The cumulative magnitudes were defined using the

following four factors:

Extent – The area over which an effect occurs;

Duration – The time for which the effect occurs;

Frequency – How often the effect occurs; and

Severity – The degree of change relative to the baseline level.

The magnitude of the impact has been linked to either quantified thresholds or 1.4.21

qualitative descriptions depending on the nature of the impact and the receptor. Table

2 represents the guide for the qualitative scale of magnitude that has been used where

quantified information or magnitudes are uncertain or unknown.

Table 2 Guide for Classification of Magnitude

Magnitude Guide definition

Very High

Loss of VEC and/or integrity of the VEC; severe damage to key characteristics, features or elements (Negative). Permanent / irreplaceable change, which is certain to occur.

Large scale improvement of resource or attribute quality; extensive restoration or enhancement (Beneficial).



Magnitude Guide definition

High

Loss of VEC, but not affecting integrity of the resource; partial loss of or damage to key characteristics, features or elements (Negative). Permanent / irreplaceable change, which is likely to occur.

Improvement to, or addition of, key characteristics, features or elements of the VEC; improvement of attribute quality (Beneficial).

Medium

Minor loss of, or alteration to, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements; measurable change in attributes, quality or vulnerability (Negative). Long-term though reversible change, which is likely to occur.

Minor improvement to, or addition of, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements of the VEC; minor improvement to attribute quality (Beneficial).

Low

Very minor loss of, or alteration to, one (maybe more) key characteristics, features or elements; noticeable change in attributes, quality or vulnerability (Negative). Short- to medium-term though reversible change, which could possibly occur.

Very minor improvement to, or addition of, one (maybe more) key characteristic, feature or element; very minor improvement to attribute quality (Beneficial).

Very Low

Temporary or intermittent very minor loss of, or alteration to, one (maybe more) characteristic, feature or element; possible change in attributes, quality or vulnerability (Negative). Short-term, intermittent and reversible change, which is unlikely to occur.

Possible very minor improvement to, or addition of, one (maybe more) characteristic, feature or element; possible improvement to attribute quality (Beneficial).

Where information on the geographical scale or magnitude of effects from other 1.4.22

developments (or from the LPIC Project documents) is insufficient (or not available to

the CIA team), this has been highlighted. If a realistic assumption can be made to

enable the assessment to be completed, this has been supported with relevant

justification. Where impact magnitude cannot be determined, this has been identified.

Re-assessment of the magnitude of impacts will need to be undertaken if additional

mitigation measures are identified. The identification of magnitude has been

undertaken on the basis that the mitigation measures identified in the EIAs and SIAs for

the LPIC project and other projects will be successfully implemented.

The durations considered in this assessment are defined as: 1.4.23

Short-term: two years or less;

Medium-term: two to seven years;

Long-term: seven to 25 years; and

Very long-term: more than 25 years.



The probability that the receptor will be present at the same time the impact occurs 1.4.24

should also be acknowledged, and Table 3 presents a definition of this and the

terminology that is used in this assessment.

Table 3 Probability Scale

Terminology Likelihood of occurrence

Virtually certain >99% probability

Very likely >90% probability

Likely >66% probability

About as likely as not 33% to 66% probability

Unlikely <33% probability

Very unlikely <10% probability

Exceptionally unlikely <1% probability

Step 5 – Assess Significance of Predicted Cumulative Impacts on VECs

The tasks carried out at this stage are to: 1.4.25

Identify the significance of the impact for all VECs (including relevant individual

receptors); and

Discuss the thresholds relating to ‘significant’ or ‘insignificant’ impacts.

When the magnitude of the effect for each VEC is known (Step 4), the sensitivity of the 1.4.26

receptor (identified in Step 3) was considered and along with a determination of the

probability of the effect occuring, the significance of the impact assessed.

To enable a transparent and repeatable assessment, we have used the generic criteria 1.4.27

for levels of magnitude, sensitivity, and value (identified in the earlier steps) to

determine the significance of the impact using a matrix (see Table 4). However, given

the role of professional judgement in the assessment process, there may be some

variation between subject areas in the significance rating process and the matrix in

Table 4. In addition, the relevance of these criteria to a quantifiable threshold or level of

acceptability of change has been clarified where necessary.



Table 4 Matrix for Assessing Impact Significance

Receptor Sensitivity

Magnitude of Effect

Very High High Medium Low Very Low

Very High Major Major Moderate Minor Minor

High Major Moderate Minor Minor Negligible

Medium Moderate Minor Minor Negligible Negligible

Low Minor Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible

Very Low Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

The definition of the significance ratings for the impacts presented in Table 4 are 1.4.28

provided in Table 5. These provide both the definition of impacts determined through

the matrix approach above or that using professional judgement.

Table 5 Generic Description of Significance Ratings

Significance Description

Major

Very large or large change in environmental or socio-economic conditions. Effects, both negative and beneficial, which are likely to be important considerations at a national to regional level because they contribute to achieving national / regional objectives, or, which are likely to result in exceedance of statutory objectives and/or breaches of legislation.

Moderate Intermediate change in environmental or socio-economic conditions. Effects that are likely to be important considerations at a regional and local level.

Minor Small change in environmental or socio-economic conditions. These effects may be raised as local issues but are unlikely to be of importance in the decision making process.

Negligible No discernible change in environmental or socio-economic conditions. An effect that is likely to have a negligible or neutral influence, irrespective of other effects.

Where impact significance could not be determined, this has been noted. The 1.4.29

assessment of significance has also taken into account the significance determination in

the LPIC Project documents (EIAs and SIAs), and has been undertaken on the basis

that the mitigation measures identified in the EIAs and SIA for the LPIC Project will be

successfully implemented, and similar mitigation measures would be expected to be

implemented for the other projects.



Step 6 – Management of Cumulative Impacts – Design and Implementation

As with the process of EIA, the CIA approach to managing cumulative impacts revolves 1.4.30

around the development of mitigation measures (either changes in design or

construction/operational methods, or external measures (e.g. local outside the site

boundary, regionally) such as offsets, creation, or compensation).

Where significant cumulative impacts or potentially significant impacts remain, 1.4.31

additional mitigation measures may need to be developed. The principles of mitigation

should follow the hierarchy of mitigation which comprises the following in order:

Prevention: changes to projects design (or potential location/orientation) to avoid

negative effects on a VEC.

Reduction: where prevention is not possible, negative effects should be reduced

through sensitive treatments/design.

Compensation: where prevention or reduction measures are not available, it may

be appropriate in some circumstances to provide compensatory measures. Such

circumstances are generally limited to the compensatory provision of new or

enhanced habitats/social assets to replace losses of particular significance. It

should be noted that compensatory measures do not eliminate the original

negative effect, they merely seek to offset it with a comparable positive one.

Remediation: where negative effects are unavoidable, management measures

can be introduced to limit their influence.

Where impacts of Moderate or Major significance (or the potential for significant 1.4.32

impacts) have been highlighted, recommendations have been made as to whether

further detailed monitoring or additional mitigation measures should be considered.



2 Scoping Phase I

2.1 Introduction

The tasks carried out at this stage were to ‘identify’ the: 2.1.1

VECs to include in the CIA;

Spatial boundaries of the CIA; and

Temporal extent of the CIA.

2.2 Valued Environmental and Social Components

The VECs/receptors (see Table 6) that could potentially impacted upon by the Project 2.2.1

were extracted from the EIAs and SIA for the three main Project components (i.e. NGLE

plant at Fahud, the PP at Sohar and the connecting NG pipeline.

Table 6 List of Receptors Impacted or Potentially Impacted by the LPIC Project

VEC Impact Source Receptor – secondary / indirect

receptor

Natural resources

Consumption during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Natural capital (wood, metal ores, rocks and geological deposits, aggregates, oil / diesel / petrol / natural gas, foodstuffs, freshwater and groundwater) – resident population / land use / local economy

Temporary obstruction / accidental discharge / deposition during construction / decommissioning, or permanently during operation.

Land use – land owners / resident population

Physical environment

Temporary or permanent disturbance during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Topography / landscape - resident population / employees / biodiversity (flora and fauna)

Intentional, incidental or accidental deposition of waste (solids or liquids) during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Soil - resident population / employees / biodiversity (flora and fauna) Removal and loss of soil resource during

construction.


Groundwater - resident population / employees / land use / local economy Obstruction to groundwater flows from permanent

underground structures.


Surface water (freshwater (wadis) / marine) - biodiversity (flora and fauna) / land use / local economy Obstruction to surface watercourses from project

structures.




receptor

Biodiversity


Terrestrial habitats, terrestrial flora and fauna Temporary or permanent alteration to physical

environment during construction / operation / decommissioning (indirect impact from above).


Marine habitats, marine flora and fauna Temporary or permanent alteration to physical

environment during construction / operation / decommissioning (indirect impact from above).

Socio-economic

Temporary or permanent impact on properties used by private owners and/or for communal purposes (i.e. grazing land, etc.) during construction / operation.

Local Communities and their assets / properties

Temporary or permanent employment opportunities during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Employment – resident population

Temporary or permanent business generation / local expenditure during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Local economy (e.g. local goods / services / local businesses) - resident population

Temporary or permanent increase in road traffic during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Road traffic (congestion) - resident population / local economy Temporary or permanent increase in road traffic

accident risk during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Temporary or permanent obstruction to access (road / rail) routes during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Access routes – transport / movement - resident population / local economy

Temporary or permanent increase in demand for freshwater supplies during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Water supply - resident population / local economy

Temporary or permanent increase in sewerage loading during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Sewerage infrastructure - resident population

Temporary or permanent increase in demand for waste collection and disposal during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Waste collection and disposal - resident population

Temporary or permanent increase in demand for electricity supplies during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Electricity supply - resident population / local economy

Temporary or permanent increase in demand for healthcare during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Healthcare facilities - resident population

Temporary or permanent increase in participation in local recreation facilities during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Recreational facilities - resident population / local economy




receptor

Community and health

Temporary or permanent increase in gaseous pollutant emissions to air during construction / operation / decommissioning. Air quality – health and nuisance -

resident population / employees Temporary or permanent increase in dust (PM10) during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Temporary or constant greenhouse gas emissions during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Lower atmosphere – climate (global population)

Temporary or permanent increase in noise emissions (plant, machinery, vehicles) during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Noise – health and nuisance – resident population / employees

Temporary or permanent obstruction to residential access during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Access routes – resident population / employees

Temporary influx of a peak of 17,000 workers across the three LPIC Project sites into the area during construction (estimated to be accommodated in circa 10-15 construction camps scattered over the project area).

Societal Cohesion – relationship between local communities and workers, strain on local infrastructure and support services (water, healthcare etc.)

Temporary or permanent increase in road traffic congestion during construction / operation / decommissioning. Road traffic – resident population /

employees Temporary or permanent increase in road traffic accident risk during construction / operation / decommissioning.


Indirect (see above) - resident population / employees

Cultural heritage

Temporary or permanent disturbance during construction / operation / decommissioning or restricted access to cultural heritage sites.

Archaeological sites or sites of cultural and / or religious significance

Cultural conflict (as a result of workers’ influx) during construction.

Resident population / employees

2.3 Spatial Boundaries of the CIA

For each of the VECs/receptors, a determination of the study area/ZOI was undertaken; 2.3.1

see Table 7. This was produced by carrying out a “Source-Pathway-Receptor”

screening to ascertain whether impacts are direct or indirect, and the likely spatial

extent over which they may interact in order to provide a geographical constraint to

selection of ‘other’ projects.

The ZOI differ topic by topic, and can be highly variable for receptors depending on their 2.3.2

spatial location. Consequently, given the significant range of the proposed receptors

and the large spatial extent, a conservative judgement was taken. Specific ZOIs are

rarely stated in guidance; therefore justification has been provided over the selection of

the ZOIs, where appropriate.



Table 7 ZOI for the Identified Receptors

VEC Receptor / group ZOI definition

Natural resources

Natural capital National / large scale projects.

Land use 1km boundary around the LPIC project sites1.


Topography / landscape 1km boundary around the LPIC project sites1.

Soils 1km boundary around the LPIC project sites2.

Groundwater 10km boundary around the LPIC project sites 3.

Surface water 10km boundary around the LPIC project sites3.

Biodiversity Terrestrial ecology 1km boundary around the LPIC project sites

4.

Marine ecology 2km boundary around the discharge location5.

Socio-economic

Local residents

20km boundary around the LPIC Petrochemical Plant and Natural Gas Liquid Extraction plant sites

6.

15km boundary around the LPIC pipeline7.

Local businesses / economy

Regional / large scale projects. Local infrastructure (sewerage, waste, electricity, healthcare, recreation)

Transport networks 20km boundary around the LPIC project sites

8.

Road traffic

Freshwater supply Regional / large scale projects.


Local settlements – air quality

5km boundary around the LPIC Petrochemical Plant and Natural Gas Liquid Extraction plant sites

9.

1km boundary around the pipeline route10

.

500m boundary either side of the key transport routes

11.

Local settlements – noise

500m boundary around the LPIC project sites12

.

200m boundary either side of the key transport routes

13.

Local settlements - access 20km boundary around the LPIC project sites

8.

Local settlements - traffic

Local settlements – visual amenity

1km boundary around the LPIC project sites1.

Cultural heritage

Archaeological sites 1km boundary around the LPIC project sites14

.

Cultural 20km boundary around the LPIC Petrochemical Plant and Natural Gas Liquid Extraction plant sites and labour camp sites

6.

Notes: 1 A 1km ZOI has been used for land use and topography / landscape as it is the distance over which noise and

deposition of gaseous emissions are likely to have reduced to levels that would not be discernible above background

levels. These aspects would result in indirect impact on land use and topography / landscape, whereas the direct

(disturbance) impacts would only be attributed to the footprint of a project (including working area). 2 A 1km ZOI has been used for soils as it is the distance over which deposition of gaseous emissions are likely to

have reduced to levels that would not be discernible above background levels and would not impact on soil

characteristics to any measurable degree. Direct impacts on soils from physical disturbance or deposition of solid and

liquid wastes would only be attributed to the footprint of a project (including working area).



3 Cumulative groundwater and surface water impacts should be considered at the waterbody scale. However, there is

insufficient information to define groundwater body boundaries in detail and the hydrology of the project area is

complex, with numerous catchments that are also difficult to define. A 10km ZOI has been adopted because at

greater distances, any impacts from the project are unlikely to be discernible, due to the effects of dilution, dispersion

and natural degradation. 4 A 1km ZOI has been used for terrestrial ecology as it is the distance over which deposition of gaseous emissions are

likely to have reduced to levels that would not be discernible above background levels and would not impact on flora

and habitats to any measurable degree, in addition it is a distance over which noise levels would be unlikely to be

discernible to fauna. Direct impacts on terrestrial ecology from physical disturbance would only be attributed to the

footprint of a project (including working area). 5 A 2km ZOI has been used for marine ecology as it is the distance over which discharges to the marine environment

would be expected to be diluted such that pollutant levels are likely to have reduced to background levels and would

not impact on marine flora and fauna to any measurable degree. In addition, this zone extent is identified in

MD159/2005 “Discharge Liquid Effluent in Marine Environment”. Direct impacts on marine ecology from physical

disturbance would only be attributed to the footprint of a project (including working area). 6 A 20km ZOI has been used for impacts on local residents / communities related to socio-economic effects. No

specific ZOIs are stated in guidance and therefore this determination is based on the professional judgement with

respect to the key distance that socio-economic impacts (such as employment) may be evident. Such impacts could

be influenced by transport routes and proximity to population centres, and hence the location of populations in the

area have influenced this selection. 7 A 15km ZOI has been used for impacts on local residents / communities in relation to the pipeline related to the

distance over which risks to health and safety (H&S) from oil and gas (O&G) pipelines from the 30km distance

between Block Valve Stations (BVS). However, in relation to non-H&S impacts the pipelines are an inactive feature in

relation to the socio-economics of the areas it transects, with most impacts arising during construction. 8 A 20km ZOI has been used for impacts on transport and traffic (and access for local residents and communities)

given the scale of the project and likely nature of transport routes for materials and personnel. 9 A 5km ZOI has been used for impacts on air quality from emissions from industrial plant due to processes and

emissions from tall stacks that can influence ground level pollutant concentrations within 5km of the release or a

combination of sources. 10

A 1km ZOI has been used for effects on air quality from the pipeline constriction, which will be localised and relate

to construction dust and plant exhaust emissions. Future fugitive releases from BVS locations or leaks may also give

rise to elevated VOC levels and odour up to 1km. 11

A 500m ZOI has been used for effects on air quality from road traffic. Traffic exhaust emissions may have direct

effects within 200m, although indirect effects including deposition on ecological receptors may have impacts up to

500m 12

A 500m ZOI has been used for impacts in relation to noise around the LPIC Project sites during construction and

operation has been selected as noise sources from industrial activities can be very high and contain low frequency

component which can propagate further. 13

Noise will attenuate 40dB per 100m distance under normal conditions and therefore a distance of 200m either side

of the main roads for transport were selected for the ZOI to provide a conservative and robust assessment. 14

A 1km ZOI has been used for impacts on archaeological sites to consider both the direct impact (disturbance)

impacts within site areas, but also the appreciation of an archaeological site’s setting which could be affected by

increased noise or visual disturbance from construction or operational activities.

It is noted that many receptors would only be affected directly within the Project’s 2.3.3

footprint. Those receptors may form part of a much greater ‘receptor group’, for

example, archaeological assets can be individual but are also linked across a region/

nation/culture. Consequently, consideration was given to the wider receptor groups.

The 20km ZOI for the PP at Sohar and the 15km ZOI for the NG Pipeline near Sohar 2.3.4

are shown on Figure 2. These ZOIs are shown across the whole project aspects on

Figure 3.



Figure 2 ZOI in Sohar Area and Other Projects



Figure 3 ZOI across LPIC Project



2.4 The Temporal Extent of the CIA

The timescale for the construction phase of the Project sites and associated elements 2.4.1

include:

Construction camp set-up and site mobilisations: (the exact duration is currently

unknown though anticipated to be in place throughout the PP (Sohar) construction

phase; therefore, the duration is predicted up to 2.5 - 3 years).

Petrochemical Plant, Sohar: 30 months.

NGLE Plant, Fahud: 30 months.

NG Pipeline: 20 months.

The design operational life period for the LPIC Project is 25 years, with predicted full 2.4.2

operation commencing at the end of 2018 and activity continuing until 2034.



3 Scoping Phase II

3.1 Introduction

The tasks carried out and presented in this phase were: 3.1.1

Identification of longlist of other developments (and plans) relevant to the CIA;

Screening of listed developments and plans for relevancy and scale;

Obtaining available detailed information on scoped-in developments and plans;

and

Screening impacts / VECs for each development and plan and create list of

projects to be considered for each relevant LPIC Project impact / VEC.

3.2 Longlist of Other Projects

As well as our local knowledge of projects, the following meetings were held to obtain 3.2.1

information on any other projects recently consented, currently in the process of

consent, being prepared for consent or in development. Prior to the meetings

information requests regarding projects and project information were also sent on 23rd

December 2015 to MECA. The following meetings and information gained were as

follows:

Meeting on the 12th January 2016 with Khalid Al Balushi (MECA / Sohar

Environment Unit (SEU)), Naeem Al Musharfi (MECA), and Marwa Al Mahroqi

(MECA). They identified current progress on several projects. No new projects

were identified. No project EIAs were provided.

Meeting on 13th January 2016 with Khalid Al Balushi (Sohar Free Zone).

Meeting on 1st March 2016 with Saleh Al Farsy (MECA / Support and Liaison

Team at SEU regarding on-going and recent development projects in the Sohar

Industrial Area. New projects were identified and incorporated into this

assessment. T wo project EIAs were provided – Sohar Aluminium Smelter Project

EIA and Tri-Star Antimony Plant EIA.

The associated developments that have been identified are (see Figure 2 and Figure 3 3.2.2

for locations):

Temporary workers’ accommodation [the location and number of these is not

known at this stage] but the earlier EIA and SIA estimated that a peak of 17,000

workers across the three LPIC project components will be accommodated in 10-

15 construction camps located in the project area. The EPC Contractor for the

Cracker Unit at Sohar has confirmed that they will utilise existing labour camps

and existing accomodation for the constructrion workforce and not build new

ones.



Sohar Port Liquid Jetty upgrade works. This project has been shelved and

has therefore been scoped out of this cumulative assessment.

N2 Supply: the supplier is unknown but could be extra-national and can be

transported to the site via the port. As this source is an extra-national source this

has been scoped out of this cumulative assessment.

Seawater Extraction Facility (Sohar), Industrial Seawater Desalination Plant, and

Effluent Treatment Plant (including treatment unit, piping) by Majis. Seawater

Intake 1 is operational; Seawater Intake 2 is under construction. In addition,

proposals include the development of a 7 train 40MLD (million litres a day)

desalination plant for industrial water demand, and construction of a water

recyling and re-use (CETRP I)) plant (12,000m3/day) and plans for a second

water treatment plant (CETRP II). A EIA Executive Summary is available for part

of the works and plant proposed.

Electricity supply (new substation) – OETC. Given that the substation is a very

small unit within the larger SIPA and disturbance would be temporary and

negligible, this project has been scoped out of the CIA.

The list of other projects that have been identified or provided by MECA and SEU for 3.2.3

consideration are as follows (see Figure 2 and Figure 3 for locations):

Sohar Refinery Improvement Project (SRIP) – under construction and

operational by the end of 2016. The Lenders Environmental Report is available.

SRIP is a response to the need to upgrade refining capability and will significantly

improve environmental performance on the back of the recent progress made

Orpic’s Environmental Improvement Programme (EIP). The Environmental

Permits for SRIP were issued in July 2013, and in terms of siting the project, land

agreements were finalised in August 2013 for a plot adjacent to the Sohar

Refinery. The project is scheduled for commissioning in 2016. SRIP adds five

new units, improving Sohar Refinery’s ability to process heavier Omani crude oil

with a Crude Distillation Unite CDU, a Vacuum Distillation Unit VDU, a Delayed

Coker Unit DCU, a Hydrocracker Unit HCU, and a Bitumen Blowing Unit. The

project will create 300 permanent jobs, as well as around 2,400 Omani contract

roles, and create in the region of 900 indirect jobs by the multiplier effect on the

local economy.

OMPET Petrochemical Plant (Sohar) and OMPIA Purified Isophthalic Acid

(PIA Sohar) Plant – in development. The project is to commence construction in

September 2016 and commcercial operaiton to commence from August 2017.

The details of operation and impacts are not detailed, though the EIA Executive

Summary is available.

Pet Coke Facility (OMPET) – under construction and scheduled to be

operational by the end of 2016 (though most likely to be 2017). It is integrated

with SRIP ans was covered in an addendum to the SRIP EIA. Petroleum Coke

(a.k.a pet coke) is a co-product of SRIP generated during oil refining with Orpic

establishing the pet coke storage facility. The total plot area is 10 ha with 7.3 ha



planed for the pet coke storage and 2.7 ha for waste storage (hazardous and

non-hazardous wastes).

Seawater Intake and Return System (Majis) – this project is under construction,

however, given its distance from the LPIC Project elements, its scale and

temporary nature of most disturbing activities, it has been scoped out of this

cumulative assessment.

Independent Water Project (IWP Sohar) –consortium of VALORIZA AGUA,

OBIC, and SOGEX Oman. This project entails the construction and operation of

a seawater reverse osmosis desalination facility with a capacity of 250,000 m3 per

day potable water output. It is located in Plot 21 along with the Sohar IPP. EIA is

completed.

Independent Power Project (IPP Sohar) OPWP - the power station project is

intended to increase capacity by a range of 1,550-1,700 MW and reach full

operation in 2019. It is located in Plot 21 along with the Sohar IPP. EIA is

completed.

Sugar Refinery (Sohar) OSC / Food Processing Cluster (Sohar) SFCC –

construction soon to commence on flour mill, grain silo complex, and agro bulk

handling terminal. The project is currently on hold due to objections from existing

operations and companies at the proposed site.

Bio-energy Plant – a proposal for imported vegetation to be used in an electricity

generation facility is being developed. It is likely that such a plant will not be

constructed until at least 2020 as it may also require additional port facilities. The

location of the plant is expected to be within the SIPA. The EIA has yet to be

prepared.

Sohar Aluminium Smelter, Sohar Aluminium Company – the EIA for this

project was completed in 2011. The EIA was undertaken to identify and quantify

the environmental impacts associated with increasing maximum production from

375,000 t/yr to 410,000 t/yr of aluminium as a result of technological

improvements. The improvement works are ongoing and should be completed in

2017.

Tri-star Antimony Roasting Facility – approved resource project but

construction has yet to commence; it is predicted to commence in 2016/2017.

The EIA is available.

Laydown Areas. The specific location, programme, status, details and impacts

remain unknown as these will be finalised by a contractor, however, they are likely

to entail areas for storage of materials and equipment during the construction of

the LPIC Project.

Warehousing. The specific location, programme, status, details and impacts

remain unknown as these will be finalised by an appointed EPC contractor,

however, it is likely to entail areas for storage of materials and equipment during

the construction of the LPIC Project.



Sohar Waste Management Facility (including Incineration Facility), Oman

Environmental Services Holding Company, “be’ah” – early stages of

construction. The project entails hazardous and non-hazardous landfill, with

reclamation areas, and a thermal treatment plant in a 30ha area. The EIA

Executive Summary is available.

Establishment of Liwa City – provision of alternative housing for residents and

communities on the western side of SIPA and the Free Zone. This is a

Government funded and supported project, established by Royal Decree (RD

52/2013). This will entail the construction of 3,000 houses will be constructed, as

well as three schools and a hospital. People will keep their land which will be

rented out and thus provide them with earning opportunities. The City is

scheduled to be constructed in 2020. The details and impacts of this project

remain unknown and an EIA is not available.

Coastal highway – an area near to the Port has been constructed, to be

operational in 2021. The details and impacts of this project remain unknown and

an EIA is not available.

Batinah Expressway –under construction. The details and impacts of this

project remain unknown and an EIA is not available.

National Railway Network – under construction and to be completed and

operational in 2018. The details and impacts of this project remain unknown and

an EIA is not available.

Railway Service Centre – linked to the National Railway Network project is the

proposed railway service centre which is believed to be located between the

Coastal Highway and the Sohar Free Zone. The details and impacts of this

project remain unknown and an EIA is not available.

The distances of the associated developments and other projects in relation to the three 3.2.4

LPIC Project components are presented in Table 8. Current locations of some are not

known and a conservative estimate has been undertaken.

Table 8 Other Projects Distance and Overlaps

Other Projects Distance

Comments PP (Sohar) Pipeline NGLE

Associated Developments

Temporary Workers

Accommodation

c. 1km -

10km

c. 1km -

10km >280km

Estimated to be between

ten-fifteen camps; the

exact locations and

number of camps to be

decided and confirmed by

the EPC Contractors



Other Projects Distance

Comments PP (Sohar) Pipeline NGLE

Seawater Extraction Facility

(Sohar), Industrial Seawater

Desalination Plant, and Effluent

Treatment Plant

2.5km 2.7km >280km Location estimated within

the SIPA.

External Projects

Sohar Refinery Improvement

Project 0.1km 1.4km >280km Specific location

OMPET Petrochemical Plant

OMPIA PIA (Purified Isophthalic

Acid) Plant

0.1km 4.5km >280km Specific location

Pet Coke Facility (OMPET) c. 1km c. 3.5km >280km Location estimated within

the SIPA.

Seawater Intake and Return

System (Majis) 1.4km 2.6km >280km Specific location

Independent Water Project

(IWP Sohar) – Veolia 1.3km 3km >280km

Location estimated within

the SIPA.

Independent Power Project

(IPP Sohar) OPWP c. 1.6m c. 5.8km >280km

Sugar Refinery (Sohar) OSC /

Food Processing Cluster

(Sohar) SFCC

c. 1.4km c. 5.6km >280km

Bio-energy Plant c. 1.1km c. 2.9km >280km Location estimated within

the SIPA.

Sohar Aluminium Smelter

(SAC) 8km 2.6km >280km Specific location

Antimony Plant (Tri-star) 6km 3.5km >280km Specific location

Laydown Areas >4.5km >1.8km >280km Specific location

estimated – assumed to

be in the Free Zone Warehousing >4.5km >1.8km >280km

Sohar Waste Management

Facility (and Incinerator) c. 6.5km c. 7.0km >280km Location estimated

Establishment of Liwa City c. 7.5km c. 9.0km >280km Specific location

Coastal highway 0.3km 0.0km >280km Extracted off large scale

maps so conservative

distances measured;

likely to be further way.

Batinah Expressway 9.5km 0.0km >280km

National Railway Network 11.0km 0.0km >280km

Railway Service Centre 1.05km 0.4km >280km Specific location



3.3 Screening of Longlisted Projects

The longlisted projects were screened to ascertain the relevancy and scale of the 3.3.1

various developments and plans with an indication (using a matrix of the key receptors)

whether there is a potential for them to result in impacts of a similar nature to the LPIC

Project. Table 9 presents the relevant impacts that was considered in the screening.

Subsequently, the ZOIs were then compared to the potential impacts and other projects

to identify those that spatially overlap, thus resulting in additive or synergistic cumulative

impacts. The results are presented in Table 10.

All of the projects and associated developments were identified as having the potential 3.3.2

for cumulative impacts to some VECs. All but one of the projects and associated

developments (the temporary workers accommodation for the LPIC Project) were

identified as having the potential to result in cumulative impacts during construction and

operational phases.

Given the lack of information on many projects, particularly with regard to 3.3.3

decommissioning phases, no specific decomissioning screening has been undertake.

In order to consider decommissioning, where projects are likely to be decommissioned,

a review will be undertaken of the construction phase impacts along with operational

impacts of ongoing projects to ascertain whether further cumulative impacts could arise.

It is noted that no other projects were identified within the study area for the NGLE 3.3.4

(Fahud) plant, nor for the majority of the NG Pipeline (except when it is close to the

Sohar study area (see Figure 2).

In Table 10, whilst it indicates that there is a potential for cumulative impacts on the 3.3.5

marine environment, given that the LPIC Project discharges and treatment are required

to reach expected guidance levels, then no negative impact on the marine environment

from LPIC discharges will arise. Consequently, all potential cumulative impacts on the

marine environment have been screened out and are not considered further in this

assessment.



Table 9 Other Projects and Screening of VECs / Receptors for Consideration in the Cumulative Impact Assessment

Project

Distance Natural

resource Physical

environment Biodiversity Socio-economic Community and health

Cultural heritage

Comments PP

(Sohar) Pipeline NGLE

Natu

ral

cap

ital

Dem

an

d f

or

lan

d /

Lan

d u

se

To

po

gra

ph

y /

lan

dscap

e

So

ils

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Su

rfac

e-w

ate

r

Terr

estr

ial e

co

log

y

Mari

ne e

co

log

y

Lo

cal re

sid

en

ts /

co

mm

un

itie

s

Lo

cal b

usin

esse

s /

eco

no

my

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Tra

nsp

ort

netw

ork

Ro

ad

tra

ffic

Fre

sh

wate

r su

pp

ly

Air

qu

ality

-

co

mm

un

ity

No

ise -

co

mm

un

ity

Acce

ss -

co

mm

un

ity

Tra

ffic

- c

om

mu

nit

y

Vis

ua

l am

en

ity

Arc

ha

eo

log

y

Cu

ltu

ral

Temporary Workers Accommodation c. 1km - 10km >280km C C C N N C C C C ? C NC C ? C ? ? C Significant uncertainty.

Seawater Extraction Facility including Effluent Treatment Plant

1.5km 2.7km >280km C N O ? ? N CO C C C CO NC NC C CO N ? C Location within the SIPA.

Sohar Refinery Improvement Project 0.1km 1.4km >280km CO N O ? ? ? CO CO CO CO N CO CO CO N ? CO Similar scale to LPIC PP.

OMPET Petrochemical Plant / OMPIA PIA (Purified Isophthalic Acid) Plant

0.1km 4.5km >280km CO N O ? ? ? CO CO CO CO N CO CO CO N ? CO Location within the SIPA.

Pet Coke Facility (OMPET) c. 1km c. 3.5km >280km C N O ? ? N C C C CO NC NC C CO N ? C Location within the SIPA.

Seawater Intake and Return System (Majis)

1.4km 2.6km >280km C N O ? ? N CO C C C C NC NC C C N C Location within the SIPA.

Independent Water Project (IWP Sohar) – Veolia

1.3km 3km >280km C N O ? ? CO N O? C C C Co O NC C Co N ? C Location within the SIPA.

Independent Power Project (IPP Sohar) OPWP

c. 1.6km c. 5.8km >280km CO N O ? ? ? O? CO CO CO CO N CO CO CO N ? CO Location within the SIPA.

Sugar Refinery (Sohar) OSC / Food Processing Cluster (Sohar) SFCC

c. 1.4km c. 5.6km >280km CO N O ? ? ? CO CO CO CO N CO CO CO N ? CO Location within the SIPA.

Bio-energy Plant c. 1.1km c. 2.9km >280km CO N O ? ? ? CO CO CO CO N CO CO CO N ? CO Location within the SIPA.

Sohar Aluminium Smelter (SAC) 8km 2.6km >280km CO N O ? ? ? CO CO CO CO N CO CO CO N ? CO Similar scale to LPIC PP.

Antimony Plant (Tri-star) 6km 3.5km >280km CO N O ? ? ? CO CO CO CO N CO CO CO N ? CO Location within the Freezone.

Laydown Areas >4.5km >1.8km >280km C ? O ? ? ? C C C C C NC C C ? C ? ? C Uncertainty over location and potential impacts. Warehousing >4.5km >1.8km >280km C ? O ? ? ? CO CO C C CO N CO CO ? CO ? ? C

Sohar Waste Management Facility (including Incineration Facility)

c. 6.5km c. 7.0km >280km C ? ? ? ? ? ? CO C C C CO N CO CO ? CO ? ? CO Similar scale to LPIC PP.

Establishment of Liwa City c. 7.5km c. 9.0km >280km C ? O ? ? ? ? C O CO C C C NC C C ? C N ? C Location estimated.

Coastal Highway 0.3km 0.0km >280km C ? ? ? ? ? ? CO CO C O O NC CO CO ? O ? ? CO Uncertainty over the long-term impacts and benefits, as well as programming of construction.

Batinah Expressway 9.5km 0.0km >280km C ? ? ? ? ? ? CO CO C O O NC CO CO ? O ? ? CO

National Railway Network 11.0km 0.0km >280km C ? ? ? ? ? ? CO CO C O O NC C CO ? O ? ? CO

Railway Service Centre 1.05km 0.4km >280km C ? ? ? ? ? ? CO CO C O O NC C CO ? O ? ? CO

Key

C Construction phase only

O Operation phase only

N Negligible / Managed risk

? Uncertain / unknown

Large scale negative

Small scale negative

Positive



Table 10 Screening of Other Projects for Consideration in the Cumulative Impact Assessment based on Potential Impacts (Table 8) and ZOIs

Project

Distance Natural

resource Physical

environment Biodiversity Socio-economic Community and health

Cultural heritage

Comments PP

(Sohar) Pipeline NGLE

Natu

ral

cap

ital

Dem

an

d F

or

lan

d /

Lan

d u

se

To

po

gra

ph

y /

lan

dscap

e

So

ils

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Su

rfac

e-w

ate

r

Terr

estr

ial e

co

log

y

Mari

ne e

co

log

y

Lo

cal re

sid

en

ts /

co

mm

un

itie

s

Lo

cal b

usin

esse

s /

eco

no

my

Infr

astr

uctu

re

Tra

nsp

ort

netw

ork

Ro

ad

tra

ffic

Fre

sh

wate

r su

pp

ly

Air

qu

ality

-

co

mm

un

ity

No

ise -

co

mm

un

ity

Acce

ss -

co

mm

un

ity

Tra

ffic

- c

om

mu

nit

y

Vis

ua

l am

en

ity

Arc

ha

eo

log

y

Cu

ltu

ral

Temporary Workers’ Accommodation c. 1km - 10km >280km C C C C C C Significant uncertainty.

Seawater Extraction Facility including Effluent Treatment Plant

1.5km 2.7km >280km C O ? ? CO C C C CO CO C Limited quantitative impact.

Sohar Refinery Improvement Project 0.1km 1.4km >280km CO O ? ? C? CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Similar scale and nature to LPIC. OMPET Petrochemical Plant / OMPIA

PIA (Purified Isophthalic Acid) Plant 0.1km 4.5km >280km CO O ? ? C? CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO

Pet Coke Facility (OMPET) c. 1km c. 3.5km >280km CO O ? ? C? CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Limited quantitative impact.

Seawater Intake and Return System (Majis)

1.4km 2.6km >280km O CO Limited quantitative impact.

Independent Water Project (IWP Sohar) OPWP

1.3km 3km >280km C O ? ? CO O C C C CO CO C Limited quantitative impact.

Independent Power Project (IPP Sohar) OPWP

c. 1.6km c. 5.8km >280km CO O ? ? C? O CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Limited quantitative impact.

Sugar Refinery (Sohar) OSC / Food Processing Cluster (Sohar) SFCC

c. 1.4km c. 5.6km >280km CO O ? ? C? CO CO CO CO CO CO Limited quantitative impact.

Bio-energy Plant c. 1.1km c. 2.9km >280km CO O ? ? C? CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Similar scale and nature to LPIC.

Sohar Aluminium Smelter (SAC) 8km 2.6km >280km CO O ? ? C? CO CO CO CO CO CO Smaller scale than LPIC.

Antimony Plant (Tri-star) 6km 3.5km >280km CO O ? ? C? CO CO CO CO CO CO Similar scale and nature to LPIC.

Laydown Areas >4.5km >1.8km >280km C ? O ? ? C? C C C ? C ? C ? C Uncertainty over location and scale and potential impact areas. Warehousing >4.5km >1.8km >280km C ? O ? ? C? CO CO C ? CO O ? CO ? C

Sohar Waste Management Facility (including Incineration Facility)

c. 6.5km c. 7.0km >280km C ? ? ? ? C? CO C C ? CO ? CO ? CO Uncertainty over scale and potential impacts.

Establishment of Liwa City c. 7.5km c. 9.0km >280km C ? ? ? C? C C C ? C ? C ? C

Coastal Highway 0.3km 0.0km >280km C ? ? ? ? ? ? CO CO C O C O O CO ? C O ? CO Uncertainty over the long-term impacts and benefits, as well as programming of construction.

Batinah Expressway 9.5km 0.0km >280km C ? ? ? ? ? ? CO CO C O C O ? C O ? CO

National Railway Network 11.0km 0.0km >280km C ? ? ? ? ? ? CO CO C O C O ? C O ? CO

Railway Service Centre 1.05km 0.4km >280km C ? ? ? ? ? ? CO CO CO O C O O CO ? C O ? CO

Key

C Construction phase only

O Operation phase only

? Uncertain / unknown / Managed risk

Positive impact scoped into the cumulative assessment

Scoped into the cumulative assessment

Scoped out of the cumulative assessment



In Table 10 it is noted that no projects are considered further in this cumulative impact 3.3.6

assessment with respect to the availability of freshwater. It is expected that none of the

other projects or associated developments intend to use groundwater or surface waters

for freshwater supply. All freshwater is expected to be supplied through third parties or

from desalination plants. It is anticipated that such supply would not be impacted as

additional supplies would be obtained as necessary.

It is also noted that in Table 10 no projects are considered further in this cumulative 3.3.7

impact assessment with respect to archaeological sites. There is no information on the

other projects and potential impact on archaeological sites, and only worst case

assumptions can be made which would not provide any further information with respect

to cumulative impact assessment. It is noted that the LPIC Project has been predicted

to not impact on known archaeological sites. Consequently, as stated, any impact

cumulative impact could only arise if unknown sites are disturbed during construction,

and by their very nature this cannot be determined at this stage.

Overall, the projects considered for each individual impact (as listed in Table 6) and 3.3.8

considered in this assessment are presented in Table 10 and listed in Appendix A.



4 Baseline Status

4.1 Introduction

The tasks carried out in this stage of CIA are to: 4.1.1

Identify and describe the baseline in relation to all VECs (including relevant

individual receptors) from existing documents;

Identify the sensitivity and value of the VECs; and

List any baseline information missing (site specific, contextual, spatial, condition,

etc).

4.2 Baseline Environment for the VECs

The baseline environment has been described in each of the three LPIC Project EIAs 4.2.1

and SIA. A summary of the baseline environment with respect to the three Project

areas is presented in Table 11.

The following sections describe the Regional and VEC baseline for the ZOI study area. 4.2.2

Natural Resources

No information was available for the Aluminium Smelter, Antimony Plant and Seawater 4.2.3

Extraction Plant and Liwa City EIAs regarding natural resources such as materials and

minerals. It is assumed the EIA project work addressed raw materials as being

imported or an inherent part of the project and as such, not subject to discrete impact

assessment. As such, the assessment does not factor in these projects due to lack of

available data.

Fisheries

Fishing is the dominant activity off the Batinah Coast and a large proportion of the 4.2.4

fishermen within Oman are based within this area. The 1995 Boat Census indicated

that 4,659 boats were present along the Batinah Coast. Most of the traditional fishing

activities are concentrated in the narrow coastal area delineated by the 200m depth

contour. The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Wealth does not allow trawlers within

the fishing block off shore of the Batinah Bloc because of the high numbers of locally

based traditional fishermen.

For more information on Land Use (including agricultural resources) see Section 4.2.7 4.2.5

to 4.2.12.

For more information on Soils see Section 4.2.20 to 4.2.24. 4.2.6

For more information on Freshwater (Surface) and Groundwater Resources see 4.2.7

Section 4.2.70 to 4.2.77.



Table 11 Summary of Baseline Environment as Identified in the Orpic LPIC EIAs and Supplementary SIA

Receptor Baseline

National PP (Sohar) NGLE (Fahud) NGL Pipeline (Faud to Sohar)

Materials /

natural

resources

Materials and natural resources are purchased from third party suppliers, and location of resources can vary from local, regional and national.

Topography

Gentle slope of low relief interspersed by scattered hills.

Narrow strip of cultivation and settlements along the

coast.

Flat farmland, with coastal dunes and scrub close to the

coast.

Flat plain with small drainage channels and occasional rocky

outcrops.

Several small hills in the area (275m high in the west and an arc

of hills to the north-east between 300m to 530m high).

Manmade structures are present in the area and any trees are

present due to irrigation using wastewater.

Central plain is around 300m above sea level.

The northern plains are broad expanses of gravel with drainage lines and

some major wadis.

The Northern Mountains comprise rocky mountain slopes and cliffs with

occasional wadis.

The Al Batinah region extends from the Northern Mountains to the coast,

generally scattered hills interpersed with diverse watersheds and wadis.

Landscape

and visual

Soils

Alluvium of meters or tens of meters thick over gravel

terraces incised by active wadi channels.

Soils are moderately to highly suitable for agriculture.

Soils are significantly below any USEPA guidance levels

for physical or chemical parameters, though high in

arsenic (2 to 8 mg/kg).

Post completion of the EIA, soil sampling was underatken

by HMR in March 2016. Two samples were recovered

from adjacent to the PP complex for laboratory

determination of a range of organic and inorganic

substances. The laboratory results were compared to

Dutch Target and Intervention Values. Chromium, nickel,

and vanadium exceeded the Target Values and nickel

also exceeded the Intervention Value.

Alluvial gravel and fine silt over most of the plain. Underlying

bedrock is limestone.

Soils are classified as unsuitable for agricultural purposes.

Soils are significantly below any USEPA guidance levels for

physical or chemical parameters.

Across the central plain the soil comprises powdery, unconsolidated and sandy

material across the plains, and in the shallow drainage depressions of alluvial

sand and silt with low organic content.

Northern plain comprises gravels and limestone in schist with sand and silt,

and the larger wadis contain unconsolidated coarse alluvial gravels.

Northern Mountains are rocky with only skeletal soils present in cracks and

wadi beds.

Two soil samples taken, and are below any USEPA guidance levels for

physical or chemical parameters, though high in arsenic (a high of 7mg/kg).

Sampling undertaken post-completion of the EIA, from thirteen sites located

along the route, indicates that arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,

nickel, vanadium and zinc are (variously) present at detectable concentrations

in soil. Hydrocarbons were not detected. The Dutch intervention value for

nckel was exceeded at all locations. Dutch target values were exeeded by

copper, nickel, vanadium, and zinc at two locations close to SIPA. Chromium

and nickel concentrations were notably higher at all other locations (chromium

in excess of target).

Groundwater /

Hydrogeology

Batinah coastal aquifer provides most of the agricultural

and urban water along the coast. Salinity has increased

over the years.

Groundwater depth averages 5m bgl near coast to 60m

bgl near foothills.

Nearest well indicated levels of sodium (12,810mg/l),

magnesium (1,594mg/l), and aluminium (10.9mg/l)

significantly above limits for drinking water. Iron

(41.8mg/l), chromium (0.36mg/l) and nickel (1.58mg/l) are

also above threshold. Hydrocarbon and VOCs are below

detection levels.

Sampling undertaken post-completion of the EIA indicates

much lower concentrations of arsenic, copper, chromium,

nickel, vanadium, and zinc, with concentrations of arsenic

and nickel within SIPA being marginally in excess of the

Omani bottled water standards.

The alluvium comprises semi-consolidated and consolidated and

poorly sorted gravels, sands and silts. The permeability is not

high, though there are areas of high localised permeability.

The alluvial deposits range from 3m to 30m deep, though

averaging 10m in depth and are hydraulically connected to the

underlying Fars Group conglomerates, wich comprise a regional

aquifer system (Al Massarat aquifer). Groundwater is also

present at depth within the Umm er Radhuma (UeR) limestone.

Two wells indicated high levels of Total Dissolved Solids (16,800

to 69,730mg/l), turbidity (19 to 45mg/l), magnesium (214 to

1,580mg/l), sodium (5,101 to 18,002mg/l), sulphate (1,620 to

1,700mg/l), chloride (8,068 to 34,575mg/l), fluoride (2.06 to

2.16mg/l), and faecal coliforms). The water is not suitable for

drinking but is used for irrigation. No significant levels of

hydrocarbons were detected.

Sampling from the NGLE site itself will be undertaken however the

results are not yet available.

Two groundwater samples were taken from wells along the route indicated

high levels of Total Dissolved Solids (609 to 3,327mg/l). The water at these

wells is only used for irrigation. No significant levels of hydrocarbons were

detected.

Sampling undertaken post-completion of the EIA, from twelve community wells

located along the route, indicates that copper, chromium, lead, nickel,

vanadium, and zinc are present in groundwater at detectable concentrations,

below Omani bottled water standards. Hydrocarbons were detected close to

the PDO labour camp. Further sampling is underway to confirm these results.



Receptor Baseline


Hydrology

Two major wadis, Wadi Suq and Wadi Fizh / Bani Gharbi

These comprise numerous braided channels and carry

large volumes of water during rainfall events. Discharges

are captured by the SIPA peripheral storm water drainage

system which outfalls into the sea on the north-eastern

and south-eastern sides of SIPA.

Major wadis are Umayri (3km south of NGLE plant) and Aswad,

minor wadis are Halfayn and Adam, all flowing south west.

Drainage channel 500m west of NGLE plant). Subsurface water

flow is present in all wadis with water wells in Wadis Umayri and

Adam, which supply water to the local residents for cultivation.

Al Batinah region is a region characterised by a high variability and diversity in

watershed characteristics – Wadi Hatta, Wadi Fizh, Wadi Bani Umar Al Gharbi,

Wadi Suq, Wadi Al Jizzi, Wadi Sarami, Wadi Al Hawaasina, Wadi Mabrah,

Wadi Bani Kharus, Wadi Rubkhah, Wadi Taww, Wadi Sumail, and Wadi Rusail

are the major wadis in Al Batinah region.. Irrigation at many villages within Al

Batinah Region is fed by Afalaj. AFalaj are valued within Oman as being not

only a source of water but also a source of social cohesion. Aerial imagry

indciates that wadi / floodplain crossings are numerous along the route.

Marine ecology

Rocky embankment and subtidal sand at the outfall

location.

Typical fauna on the rocky embankment includes

barnacles, rock oysters, gastropods, and rock crabs. No

sensitive species and large amount of dead bivalves

located in the outfall area.

Subtidal sand was covered in a algal mat with hypoxic

zone underneath. High numbers of polychaetes,

gastropods, and pelagic fish (i.e. sardines).

No baseline - >250km from sea No baseline - >1.5km from sea

Terrestrial

ecology

Central plain =

57,658km2.

No designations or rare or endangered plant species or

communities.

The site is dominated by salt bush thickets with some

natural / original vegetation which consists of Aerva

javanica, Dipterygium glaucum, Heliotropium bacciferum

and Acacia sp. The northern corner has number of D.

glaucum bushes. During the study all D. glaucum plants

were in bloom and number of bees was observed.

Geckos and birds (i.e. laughing dove, collared dove, little

green bee eater, house sparrow, rock dove, and yellow

vented bulbuls) present are common species with wide

distribution.

No designations or rare or endangered plant species or

communities.

The habitat present is gravelly plain with sandy runnels. There

are no trees present and scant shrubs and herbs present, and low

in diversity.

The sandy runnels are dominated by Rhazya stricta intermixed

with species such as Zygophyllum qatarense, Indigofera sp.,

Heliotropium kotschyi, Pulicaria glutinosa and Senna italic.

Acacia tortilis was present but stunted and dried. Very sparse

distribution of Tephrosia appollinea occurred in some parts of the

site. All vegetation was present in low abundance.

Fauna was present in low abundance and diversity due to the

limited flora, with record of camel, desert wheatear, Egyptian

vulture, mammals (e.g. gerbils and jirds), and gecko and lizards

(e.g. Pristurus carteri).

No rare, endangered, or threatened species (flora or fauna) were

present.

No designations or rare or endangered plant species or communities, though it

does run between the Northwestern Hajar NRR and the Wadi Hawasinah

NNR.

The following IUCN vulnerble species could be present gazelle, wolf, geckos

(Bunopus spatalurus hajarensis, Hemidactylus persicus, Phyllodactylus elisae,

and Pristurus celerrimus), lizards (Mabuya tessellata, Ablepharus pannonicus,

and Lacerta jayakari), viper (Pseudocerastes persicus).

The route passes through many wadis and plain habitats. The wadis are

represented by open woodlands, shrubby vegetation, and barren gravelly

plains. There are a wide variety of flora and fauna present along the pipeline

route.

Ambient air

quality

Oman emits

57,202,000

tonnes/year of CO2

(156,718t/day).

Dominated by movement of vehicles, operation of various

industries and construction equipment.

In 2011 NOx (3.7 to 26.8ug/m3), SO2 (4.4 to 12.3 ug/m

3),

and O3 (66 to 83ug/m3).

Recent maximum CO (303 to 885 8 hour

ug/m3), NO2 (14.81

to 17.45 24 hour

ug/m3), O3 (50 to 156

8 hour ug/m

3), SO2

(6.07 to 7.43 24 hour

ug/m3), PM10 (126 to 150

24 hour ug/m

3).

Typical desert with occasional industrial (oil wells, scrap yard)

within 10km and nearest significant settlement is 15km away.

Recent maximum CO (321 8 hour

ug/m3), NO2 (24

24 hour ug/m

3), O3

(90 8 hour

ug/m3), SO2 (7

24 hour ug/m

3), PM10 (129

24 hour ug/m

3).

Typical desert with occasional industrial areas.

Recent maximum NO2 (5.46 to 10.86 24 hour

ug/m3), O3 (111.64 to 142.29

8 hour

ug/m3), SO2 (2.59 to 10.84

24 hour ug/m

3), H2S (0.06 to 0.24

24 hour ug/m

3), and

PM10 (19 to 39 24 hour

ug/m3).



Receptor Baseline


Ambient noise

Dominated by movement of vehicles, operation of various

industries and construction equipment. Daytime noise

levels attributed to industrial activities in the area.

Recent in villages daytime (48.5 to 50.2dB Leq), evening

(49.9 to 50.6dB Leq), and nighttime (48.9 to 49.9dB Leq).

Impact from ambient noise anticipated to be low.

No settlement and limited road or industrial noise. Variations in

noise caused by vehicles and overhead planes. Traffic noise

considered insignificant in contributing to overall average noise

level.

Recent daytime (39.8 to 55.7dB Leq), evening (44.9 to 50.2dB Leq),

and nighttime (39.3 to 47.1dB Leq).

Ambient noise impact anticipated to be low and medium for

workplace for construction period.

Noise monitoring conducted for 10 minutes at each location. Operational noise

from road and sporadic gas emmisions. Recent across the pipeline route

daytime (35.9 to 64.7dB Leq), evening (32.1 to 44.9dB Leq). Imact anticipated to

be medium.

Workplace

noise

Recent in site daytime (54.9 to 67.2dB Leq), evening (53.2

to 57.4dB Leq), and nighttime (50.1 to 55.2dB Leq). Impact

from workplace noise anticipated to be medium.

Local economy

Various major industrial sites (and employers) nearby are

a proposed PIA plant, Aromatics Oman, Oman

Polypropylene, Vale, Jindal Steel, Sohar International

Urea and Chemical Industries, Orpic, Oman Methanol

Company, and Sohar Aluminum Power Plant.

The majority of workforces are employed in the oil and gas

sectors in Fahud, with tertiary employment (e.g. small retail

businesses) and farming engaging a smaller section of the

population.

Other than the industrial (oil and gas) activities in the Central Plains no other

activity occurs.

In the Northern Plains other than oil and gas, the only other economic activity

is pastoralism.

Public

infrastructure

Oman has nearly

3,500MW of

electrical capacity.

Water in the region is supplie by the Sohar Power and

Desalination Plant (Sohar-I). It has four units each with a

capacity of 37,500 m3 per day. The Sohar Desalination

Plant supplies Al Batinah North Governorate and Al

Buraimi Governorate.

Electricity is generated at the above with a generating

capacity of 585MW.

Municipal waste is collected by trucks and transferred to

the waste dumpsites. Non-hazardous industrial solid

wastes are disposed of through licensed contractors.

Hazardous solid waste is currently stored at the

generating facilities – a centralised storage facility has

been constructed at SIPA.

Domestic wastewater is transported by truck to Sewage

Treatment Plants (STPs). MISC collect industrial

wastewater at SIPA and meet the standards of

RD115/2001.

No natural sources of (drinking) water are present in the Fahud

area.

Oman has 1MW in the Adh Dhahirah region.

Municipal waste is collected weekly and trucked to the nearest

dump sites – the Fahud Sanitary Land Fill and the Fahud Waste

Centre.

Domestic wastewater is discharged to septic tanks/soakaways

and pumped from tanks to sludge tankers and transported to

STPs.

No information.

Traffic /

Transport

Muscat – Batinah highway runs along the coast. Various

internal or primary roads connect to the villages. No information. No information.

Land use and

ownership

The Al Batinah

North area was in

the past known for

its agriculture and

fishing, however in

the last twenty

years the local

economy

diversified and now

accomodates a

number of infustrial

developemnts

Land is classified as S1 and overall no significant or

moderate significant limitation for sustained agriculture.

However, the area is within the SIPA zone. In addition,

an increase in salinity of both soils and groundwater

systems does occur along the coastal strip of Al-Batinah

(adjacent Sohar) which has affected local farmers in terms

of crop selection, farm profitability and potential changes

in the way agricultural land is managed.

Based on the social field survey data, the Sohar project area is encompassed by the developed and mostly industrial land, whereas the agricultural land is scarce. This predominant developed/industrial land use thus creates more opportunities for investments in residential or commercial property as opposed to buying and cultivating the land for agricultural purposes.

Most of the area is desert, however there are areas which are key

for agriculture and tourism/camel rearing and competitions.

Occasional land grazing usage in the area by Bedhouins’ camels.

To mitigate potential impacts in this area, a detailed Grievance

Mechanism has been prepared to mitigate this risk and for Orpic

to have an established process to engage and consult with

Bedhouins and the local communities’ members.

No agricultural areas are present in the Central Plains route fo the pipeline.

Across the Northern Plains there are occasional areas of cultivation but distant

from the pipeline corridor.

Across the Northern Mountains most acivities are associated with date

plantations.

The Batinah Coastal Plain has accounts for 60% of the agricultural products in

Oman. There are various industrial areas including the SIPA.

To mitigate potential impacts in this area, a detailed Grievance Mechanism has

been prepared to mitigate this risk and for Orpic to have an established

process to engage and consult with those local communities that could be

potentially affected by the project.



Receptor Baseline


Local

community

The Al Batinah

region population is

approx. 565,000.

Ten villages within 5km (i.e. Al Ghuzayyil, Al Hadd,

Majees, Amq, Wadi Al Qasab, Ghadfan, Uqdat Al Mawani,

Al Mukhaylif, and Harmul). Harmul and Majees were

identified as key fishing settlements.

Livestock farms in the area.

There are over 450 beds/places for patients spread

among five main hospitals located in the Al Batinah

Governorate, with the majority of beds (380) being located

in the Sohar Hospital. There are also several health care

centres in the region.

A number of small villages are located within 50km with the

closest being 15km away. Several camel farms and Bedouin

populations are known to exist in the area and seasonally use the

land for camels’ communal grazing.

The majority of the population (c. 80%) in the region is Omani (in

2010), though the nearest ‘residential’ settlement is the PDO

camp.

The majority of workforces are employed in the oil and gas

sectors in Fahud, with tertiary employment (e.g. small retail

businesses) and farming engaging a smaller section of the

population.

There are eight primary and secondary schools in the Fahud area

and 83 schools in the region.

There are no public healthcare facilities in the Fahud region.

There is privat healthcare facilities within the PDO residential

camps.

Settlement is limited to very few localities in the Central Plains, any indigenous

settlement is likely to temporary and associated with nomadic Bedouin

livestock grazing.

Along the Northern Plains settlements are scattered, though only one seasonal

settlement is considered present near to the pipeline route.

Along the pipeline route through the Northern Mountains, settlements are

scattered and insignificant and tend to consist of single or small clusters of

family dwellings.

Al Batinah comprises the largest number of settlements in Oman, a number of

these are located along (bisected by) the pipeline route.

Temporary

workers:

national and

international

Usage of National

Recruitment

Agencies supplying

workforce for large

infrastructure

projects in Oman

No information in earlier EIAs but the Supplementary SIA outlined a process how Orpic will manage workforce suppliers (whether the said workers are engaged directly or indirectly (through subcontractors) on

the Project, including the social KPIs which will be monitored and the Grievance Mechanism accessible to workers.

Cultural

heritage

Camel racing is a community sport and requires grazing

land to maintain available breeding area.

Earlier presence and activities of humans are evident from

the various crumbles shelters, grave and wells within the

project site.

The foothills of Jebel Shaykh have areas of dense pre-

Islamic grave clusters from the Hafeet and Wadi Suq

periods.

Local tourism: Omani families enjoy outings to the

countryside in the foothills on Thursdays or Fridays,

continued development is impinging on this area.

No information. No information.



Land Use

Some of the most densely populated and agricutlurally significant areas of Oman lie 4.2.8

within the Bathinah region. The coastal plains of the Batinah include a series of small

villages on the Gulf of Oman and the predominant settlement of Sohar. In the study

zone, land use is characterised by the string of fishing villages followed by a belt of

cultivated areas, many now unproductive and derelist where rising salinity has impacted

on the quality of soil, and then the larger settlements running up to the Batinah Coastal

Highway. North of the proposed LPIC Project, area settlements tend to be smaller and

sparser closer to the Oman/UAE border.

Additional features include historic buildings, particularly in the vicinity of Harmul and 4.2.9

Liwa, and small rock outcrops amongst dense natural vegetation and agricultural land.

Agricultural land has been shaped by the consutrction of various falaj, drainage ditches

and other surface features associated with the date palm plantations. The area is

known for its projects, which includes fish, dates, citrus fruits and livestock.

Settlement Pattern

Existing settlements tend to follow either the line of the coast or of the Batinah Coastal 4.2.10

Highway. The highway is the major road link connecting regional villages of the Batinah

region to the Capital Area as well as providing the main route to the UAE.

Irrigated farms and traditional Omani courtyard housing lines the eastern side of the 4.2.11

Coastal Highway. The low-rise frontage buildings evnetually give way to strip

commerical development. Villages in the study area include:

Al Hadd;

Harmul;

Al Ghuzayyil;

Ghadfan;

Falaj Al Quabal;

Magan village;

Majis village; and

Kuwayriyah village.

These villages spread out in a linear pattern along the Batinah Coastal Highway that 4.2.12

runs parallel to the shore approximately 4km inland.



Agriculture

Agriculture in the region is confined to a narrow strip either side of the Batinah highway. 4.2.13

Generally the agricultural zone does not extend to the coastline due to saline water

intrusion. Main crops include vegetables, fruit and field crops with a significant number

of date palms and citrus fruits. Typically cultivated vegetables include tomatoes and

peppers. Less frequenty, villages cultivate okra, aubergine, bottle gourd and karala.

Alfalfa, buffel grass, Rhodes grass and cow pea are the typical field crops.

Physical Environment

Topography

The proposed LPIC Project is located on the typical low-lying alluvial plain of the 4.2.14

Batinah coast, extending from the foot of the Al Hajar Al Gharbi mountain range. Small

wadi courses cross the typical sabkha (low lying saline flats) and gravel plains from the

mountains to the flat shoreline of the sandy beach. The coastal plain is chiefly

composed of gravel plains to the west and sabkha / coastal dunes to the east.

Within the coastal strip, sand dunes rise to a typical height of about 3m at the high 4.2.15

water mark and extend approximately 500m inland. The sabkha plain extends inland

from the dunes approximatley 1.5km to the farmland adjacent to the Batinah Coastal

Highway, which is about 4km inland.

West of the Coastal Highway, the land is relatively flat and featureless, with a barren 4.2.16

rock and desert sand / gravel plain rising gently inland. The ground rises from the coast

to about 16m above sea level at the Batinah Coastal Highway/Sohar Industrial Estate

junction and continues to rise to the 100m contour at the base of the Al Hajar foothills.

Jabal Nakhl is the highest peak in this region with its altitude reaching 2,138m above

sea level.

Landscape

The Sohar Port EIA (WS Atkins, 1999) evaluated the landscape context of the area. 4.2.17

The contrasting landscapes that characterises the diverse landscape of the Sultanate of

Oman represents a valuable natural heritage. The Sohar area is regarded as

historically and culturally imporant with considerable tourism potential.

Agricultural plantations and traditional housing provide an attractive roadside edge, 4.2.18

although these are interspersed with less attractive small shop outlets and other

buildings.

Sohar Freezone is changing the landscape of the area to that of industrial character 4.2.19

adjacent to the coast and further inland. Flares are visible at night.



No further information regarding the landscape character of the region is available. 4.2.20

Further information regarding land use and cultural heritage is available in Section

4.2.7 to 4.2.12 and Section 4.2.138 to 4.2.142 , respectively.

Soils

The Sultanate of Oman, largely desert, is situated in the southeast margin of the 4.2.21

Arabian Peninsula. Oman is composed of three major natural regions:

The Oman Mountains in the north (represented by cretacesous ophiolites and

hawasina formations);

The Huaf area west of Masira Island (represented mainly by Precambrian –

Paleozoic and late tertiary formations); and

The Dhofar Mountains (represented by early tertiary formations).

The northern mountains form an arc extension for 700km from Mussandam Peninsula 4.2.22

in the north to the east coast at Ras al Hadd. The mountains define a subduction zone

where the mid-oceanic rocks and deep oceans sediments of the ancient Tethys Ocean

were thrust upwards and over the continental shelf and slope rocks of the Arabian

platform.

South and north of the northern Oman Mountains, the plains (Batinah plain) are typically 4.2.23

covered with coarse grey gravel. This alluvium is generally very poorly sorted with

sizes ranging from boulders to silt. In general, the soil is carbonaceous and includes a

high content of calcium.

The Batinah coast around Sohar is regarded as having moderate to high suitable soils 4.2.24

for agriculture purposes. Around Sohar the soils tend to be deeper with a higher

percenrage of organic matter. The land is classified as S1 meaning that it is “Land

having no significant limitations or having limitations which inaggregate are moderately

significant for sustained irrigated agriculture”.

Within the sand and gravel plans the top soil is either absent or extremely thin and low 4.2.25

in organic matter. In the mountain area and Wadi Jizzi, top soil is absent and the land is

classified as “not suitable” or “land which has qualities that appear to preclude

sustained agricultural use”.



Groundwater and Surface Water Quality

The Sultanate of Oman, largely desert, is situated in the southeast margin of the 4.2.26

Arabian Peninsula. Oman is composed of three major natural regions:

The Oman Mountains in the north (represented by cretaceous ophiolites and

Hawasina formations);

The Huaf area west of Masira Island (represented mainly by Precambrian –

Paleozoic and late Tertiary formations); and

The Dhofar Mountains (represented by early Tertiary formations).

The northern mountains form an arc extension for 700km from Mussandam Peninsula 4.2.27

in the north to the east coast at Ras al Hadd. The mountains define an ocduction zone

where the mid-oceanic rocks and deep oceans ediments of the ancient Tethys Ocean

were thrust upwards and over the continental shelf and slope rocks of the Arabian

platform.

South and north of the northern Oman Mountains, the plains (Batinah plain) are typically 4.2.28

covered with coarse grey gravel. This alluvium is generally very poorly sorted with

sizes ranging from boulders to silt. In general, the soil is carbonaceous and includes a

high content of calcium.

The Batinah coast around Sohar is regarded as having moderate to high suitable soils 4.2.29

for agriculture purposes. Around Sohar the soils tend to be deeper with a higher

percenrage of organic matter. The land is classified as S1 meaning that it is “Land

having no significant limitations or having limitations which inaggregate are moderately

significant for sustained irrigated agriculture”.

Within the sand and gravel plans the top soil is either absent or extremely thin and low 4.2.30

in organic matter. In the mountain area and Wadi Jizzi, top soil is absent and the land

is classified as “not suitable” or “land which has qualities that appear to preclude

sustained agricultural use”.

Groundwater Quality

The upper catchment of the coastal aquifer contains areas of freshwater of generally 4.2.31

good quality. However, over-abstraction of this aquifer has caused ingress of seawater

with consequent deterioration in water quality closer to the coast. The MRMEWR (now

MECA) has monitored the extent of this seawater intrusion for more than 15 years and

has shown steady migration inland. The MRMEWR and the Ministry of Agriculture and

Fisheries Health (MAFW) have commissioned numerous studies on the issue of salinity

within the Batinah region; WS Atkins (1999) states "the evidence for ongoing saline

intrusion as a result of over-exploitation is undisputed".



The Wadi Suq is known to be experiencing poor groundwater quality around the Oman 4.2.32

Mining Company concession (WS Atkins, 1999). This is primarily due to the disposal of

11 million tonnes of sulphide-rich tailings and 5Mm3 of seawater (used for

washing/treatment) which were disposed into the unlined Lasail Tailings Dam between

1982 and 1994. This had led to the development of a saline groundwater plume making

the groundwater unfit for drinking and irrigation purposes. The potential for metal

migration in the aquifer is also a direct threat. In 1996, metal migration was found to be

minimal but the saline plume had migrated approximately 12km downstream and only

16km from the coast.

WS Atkins (1999) assessed the groundwater quality in the Wadi Fizh, Wadi Bani Umar 4.2.33

al Gharbi and Wadi Suq catchments. The sample population consisted of 130 wells

and a summary of the study results is displayed in Table 12.

Table 12 Groundwater quality sampled in 1994 and 1995 (Source: WS Atkins,

1999)

Properties Oman DWSa

Average

mg/l

Maximum

mg/l

Minimum

mg/l

Basic physico-chemical parameters

Electrical Conductivity (mS/cm) 7.32 13.2 3.06

Hardness 500 2,415 4,702 832

Metals and metalloids

Calcium 200 199 421 44

Iron 1 0.12 b

Manganese 0.05 0.17 b

Magnesium 150 466 929 172

Potassium 11 41 345

Sodium 400 625 1,140 255

Ions and nutrients

Chloride 600 2,334 4,947 682

Nitrate 50 22 50 9

Sulphate 400 396 1,007 142

Notes: a Oman Drinking Water Standard (OS8/2006) maximum permissible levels;

b below

detectable limits.

The results indicated that groundwater quality was generally poor in comparison to 4.2.34

Omani Drinking Water Standards. The water hardness of the groundwater was high in

the entire region, and saline in several wells.



WS Atkins (1999) undertook a monitoring program during their EIA for the Sohar Port. 4.2.35

The programme (October 1998) monitored ten wells and boreholes, including

MRMEWR monitoring sites and wells on nearby private farms. Metal concentrations

were low but Omani Drinking Water Standards were exceeded for coliforms.

Another groundwater quality monitoring programme was initiated by the MRMEWR in 4.2.36

1999. The monitoring regime was established after a brief scoping survey in order to

identify potential pollutant sources (such as underground fuel storage tanks or landfills).

Samples were collected quarterly over a period of ten months (July 1999 to April 2000).

Results stated that three sources were generally of high quality with respect to Omani

Drinking Water Standards.

Groundwater quality was analysed again in 2010, from a well located in the Al Hadd 4.2.37

village (HMR, 2010). Some parameters exceeded the Omani drinking standards,

including TDS (11,240mg/l), sodium (14,265mg/l), chlorides (5,886mg/l) and sulphates

(1,600mg/l).

Generally, the groundwater has high salinity and is particularly hard with average 4.2.38

regional concentrations exceeding the drinking water standards. The increasing

groundwater salinity is attributed to the continuous abstraction of the groundwater and

the proximity of the wells to the coast. It should be noted, however, that the primary use

of the groundwater in this area is agriculture. Residential areas are now supplied with

treated desalinated water for drinking water purposes.

Surface Water Quality

There are no available studies with respect to surface water quality, potentially due to 4.2.39

the lack of any permanent surface water flow. Surface water flow is generated from

rainfall events. Development in the upper catchment is minimal and hence it is

assumed that any surface water would not carry any significant pollutant load (Brown

and Root, 2000).

Arid environments are typically subjected to short, intense periods of rainfall act to 4.2.40

disturb sediment and transport it along the drainage channels. Volumes of sediment

transported are dependent on the period between rainfall events. During intense rainfall

events, the Sohar region suffers from impacts associated with significant loads of

sediment transportation and deposition.

Groundwater and Surface Water Flow

Groundwater

The Batinah Plain forms a major aquifer and is termed a coastal aquifer system. The 4.2.41

availability of groundwater resources played a vital role in the settlement and

development of the Northern Batinah Region. This coastal aquifer system provides

most of the water used for extensive agriculture along the coast.



The MRMEWR identified in 1994-1995 1,068 operational wells (of which 869 were for 4.2.42

agriculture) in the Wadi Fizh/Bani Umar catchments and 639 wells (of which 493 were

for agriculture) in the Wadi Suq catchment.

Groundwater level in the alluvial aquifer increases inland in the coastal zone. Water 4.2.43

level is likely to be less than 5m at the location of the Sohar port. In the foothills of the

mountains, Aflaj systems indicate that groundwater levels are also close to the surface.

However, the prevailing groundwater depth at the smelter site is between 30m to 40m

below ground level (Fugro Oman and HMR, 2005).

Presently the system of water supply is provided by the abstraction of groundwater 4.2.44

through the use of hand-dug wells and pumps. It has been recognised that the

groundwater resources on the Batinah coast are being overexploited (WS Atkins, 1999).

With economic growth, the current rate of abstraction and the proximity of the wells to

the coast have led to increased salinity in the area. The agricultural plots closer to the

sea experiencing high salinity are either abandoned or exhibiting declining yields.

The Sohar Port monitoring programme (WS Atkins, 2002) mentions that it is considered 4.2.45

very likely that saline seepage and hydraulic loading, from extensive areas of land

reclamation/forming (using dredge spoil as fill), and from large settlement ponds

employed during port construction, have increased the rate of saline intrusion and

landward movement of the salt water interface near the Port area. This has resultedin a

further, rapid deterioration in groundwater quality in the agricultural area. Enhanced

saline intrusion due to dredging may also become a significant factor and is likely to

continue unabated over time unless remedial works are constructed.

There are no aflaj in the study area although Falaj Al Quabal is situated to the south of 4.2.46

the area. Even if there are no abandoned aflaj in the Sohar Industrial Area, it is

highlighted that the area around Sohar does contain numerous inoperative aflaj.

Although no evidence of aflaj was found within Sohar Industrial Area, the possibility of

their occurrence should not be discounted.

Surface Water Flow

The proposed LPIC Project falls within the North Batinah Coastal Plain, which drains 4.2.47

the Northern Al Hajar Mountains. Each catchment in the region can be subdivided into

upper and lower portions with distinctive hydrological and groundwater characteristics.

The upper catchment are characterised by mountains and steep, narrow incised valleys

into which modern wadi channels are cut. The Coastal Plain forms the lower portion of

the catchment and consists of alluvial gravel. The area has four principal wadi

channels, generally running eastwards to the coast:

Wadi Fizh to the north of Harmul and the mangroves:

Wadi Bani Umar al Gharbi at Harmul;

Wadi Suq south of proposed aluminium smelter and Magan village;

Wadi al Jizzi.



The Wadi Banu Umar Al Gharbi Wadi is the major wadi in the region. Within the 4.2.48

headwater areas, wadis are generally confined to a single, relatively immobile channel,

but upon reaching the Batinah Plains disperse into numerous channels before

discharging into culverts on the main highway and crossing the coastal plain. Channels

within the coastal plain are unstable as flood events change their course. They are also

shallow and incised most commonly in sands and gravels. The main drainage paths

crossing the highway are also altered by severe flood events.

Flood flows in the area are predominantly generated by intense storms extending over 4.2.49

the mountainous headwaters of the catchments. Most of the hard rock areas consists

of steeply sloping bare rock surfaces with little soil or weathered material. As a

consequence, the run-off response and percentage run-off during heavy rainfall are

both high. Flows are initially concentrated in the main wadi valleys, where they

recharge the wadi gravels, but on reaching the mountain front and foothill areas a large

volume of the surface run-off infiltrates to recharge the alluvial gravels of the piedmont.

The wadi flows generally exceed the infiltration rate of the gravels, so that the relative

volumes of run-off infiltrating to recharge groundwater aquifers and surface run-off

reaching the coast are largely dependent on the duration of storm rainfall and

associated run-off.

Short periods of intense rainfall, typical of arid environments, have created significant 4.2.50

damage to regional infrastructure (in particular February 1988 and 1991) (Brown and

Root, 2000). Flood alleviation and protection measures such as culverts, channels, rip-

rap would be required on the land side of any coastal development.

Biodiversity

Terrestrial Ecology

The Sultanate of Oman is formed from stony desert plains, sandy and mountainous 4.2.51

areas as well as littoral and coastal plain, although the latter covers only 3% of Oman

surface area.

Sand dunes and gravel deserts (Seih) cover a great proportion of the land surface of 4.2.52

Oman (74%). These areas are generally hyper arid with less than 100mm of rainfall per

year. They have mosaic of little vegetation mostly confined to depressions, wadis

(ephemeral streambed) (see Figure 4), runnels and rocky pavements. These areas are

treeless with very few species. The principal vegetation in the rocky and gravel desert

include Acacia-Prosopis – Ziziphus woodland with shrubs including Lyciumshawii and

Ochradenusarabicus. Common annual vegetation include Tetraena simplex, Plantago

ovata, Aizooncanariense and Asphod elusfistulosus. The sand dunes typically have

two main plant communities: 1) Calligonium critinum sub sp. Arabic umand

Cyperusaucheri, and 2) Heliotropium, Panicum, Euphorbia and Indigofera (MECA,

2014).



Figure 4 Ephemeral Streambed (Wadis)

The mountain habitats in Oman cover 15% of the land surface of Oman Hajar 4.2.53

mountains in northern Oman, including Musandam Peninsula are dry with bare rock

outcrop and varied shallow soils dominating on sloping terrain and with very gravelly

soils occurring in the valleys and alluvial fans. Many scattered oases abound with

mostly falaj irrigation systems, tap local springs or wadis underflow where date palms,

limes, banana, alfalfa and vegetables grow. Remnants of forests, dense woodland and

related plant formations are restricted to the mountainous regions of Oman. Two types

of mountains predominate in the country: dry in the larger part and semitropical in the

Dhofar Region. Mountain vegetation exhibits a distinct latitudinal zonation. The alluvial

wadi fans and foothills of the mountains are dominated by open, drought- deciduous

woodlands and shrub-lands, often intermixed with xeromorphic grasslands, Panicum

turgidum community dominated by Acaciaehrenbergiana, A. tortilis, Prosopis cinerea

and Ziziphus spina-christi (MECA, 2014).

In the central range of the western Hajar mountains, from 2,100m to the summit at 4.2.54

3,000m, isolated populations of Juniperusseravshanica form open woodland, often

dominant with Olea europaea subsp.cuspidata. Juniper trees are generally in a poor

state and regeneration is minimal. At lower elevation, the trees are in very poor

condition and regeneration is virtually absent. The juniper woodlands of Oman are

unique to the Arabian Peninsula and they may be a result of plant migrations from SE

Iran across the Arabian Gulf. Northern Oman Mountains passing through the eastern



UAE are definitely a center of endemism. Three nationally endemic species namely

Asaccus montanus, Asccusplatyrhynchus and Pristurus gallagheri and five regionally

endemics such as Asaccuscaudivolvulus, Asaccus gallagheri, Pristurus celerrimus,

Lacerta jayakari and Lacertacyanura. The Dhofar mountains until Yemen also contain a

number of endemic species: Hemidactylus lemurinus, Meslaina ayunensis and Coluber

thomasi. Moisture rich mountains occur in Dhofar Region along north of Salalah and

Rakhyout coast. Woody vegetation predominates on steep slopes and gullies while

grass and bushes under heavy grazing cover most of the plains. Soils are generally

shallow in the grazed areas which mean that soil erosion is rampant in the rangelands.

Wooded slopes are protected from erosion by trees and bushes and they generally

have deep soils. Rain-fed cultivation of beans and sorghum is done by some Jibali in

very tiny plots during the monsoon (MECA, 2014).

Agricultural lands in Oman cover 8% and are highly dependent on fertile lands which 4.2.55

are likely located along the coastal plain, at Batina and Salalah and wadi banks of the

mountainous area. Among Oman’s top plantation crops raised by irrigation system

would include the following: figs, guava, jujube, papaya, lemon, mango and dates.

Locally produced crops such as pomegranate, banana, lettuce are locally consumed but

many other crops are imported to supply the local markets. Other fruits, vegetables,

grain crops and fodder are produced in Oman. Native plants are also produced into

handicrafts, medicines and household items (MECA, 2014).

4.2.56 Protected areas by laws (PAs), now cover 3.78% of Oman territory (see Table 13).

Table 13 National Parks, Nature Reserves and Specially Important Areas of

Oman (MECA, 2014)

No. Area Management Type Area in km2 Date

1 Al Sareen Especially Important Area 670 1976

2 Ras Al Shajer Especially Important Area 93 1985

3 Khawr Salalah Especially Important Area 0.0006 1986

4 Al Wusta Wildlife Wildlife Sanctuary 2,824.3 1994

5 Al Dimaniyat Islands Nature Reserve 203 1996

6 Turtle Reserve Coastal Reserve 120 1996

7 Jabal Samhan Nature Reserve 4,500 1997

8 Khwar Mughsayl Reserve 0.0006 1997

9 Khwar Baleed Reserve 1 1997

10 Khwar Sawli Reserve 1 1997

11 Khwar Dahareez Reserve 0.0006 1997

12 Khawr Taqah Reserve 1.07 1997

13 Khawr Rawri Reserve 8.2 1997

14 Khawr Awqad Reserve 0.00016 1997



No. Area Management Type Area in km2 Date

15 Khawr Qurum Al Sagheer Reserve 0.00035 1997

16 Khawr Qurum Al Kabeer Reserve 0.00014 1997

17 Al Saleel Natural Park National Park 220 1997

18 Al Khawair Especially Important Area 4.2 2006

19 Jabal Al Akhdar Scenic Reserve 122 2011

20 Al Qurm Nature Reserve Ramsar Site 0.0009 2013

21 Al Wusta Wetland Wetland Reserve 3,400 2014

22 Jabal Qahwan Nature Reserve 289.5 2014

Total 12,457.27

The terrestrial habitats of Oman contain more than 1,295 plant species, of which 1,200 4.2.57

are documented, including 78 endemic species. The main fauna features are

represented by 93 mammal species, including the Arabian leopard (Panthera pardus

nimr), Arabian gazelle (Gazella arabica), Arabian wolf (Canis lupus arabs) an IUCN

vulnerble species, atriped hyena (Hyaena hyaena), sand gazelle (Goitered gazelle),

Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx), Nubian ibex (Capra nubiana), Arabian tahr (Arabitragus

jayakari). The avifauna (birds) encompasses 518 species, including eight species of

birds which are classified as endangered, suh as the Northern bald ibis (Geronticus

eremita) and slender-billed curlew (Numenius tenuirostris). There at least 103 species

of reptiles, including IUCN vulnerble species such as geckos (Bunopus spatalurus

hajarensis, Hemidactylus persicus, Phyllodactylus elisae, and Pristurus celerrimus),

lizards (Mabuya tessellata, Ablepharus pannonicus, and Lacerta jayakari) and viper

(Pseudocerastes persicus).

The main threatening factors to biodiversity in Oman are habitat destruction 4.2.58

(desertification, changes of soil characteristics), overharvesting (overgrazing),

urbanisation, chemical pollution (nitrate, pesticides, heavy metal), invasive species,

water shortage, and climate change.

Marine Ecology

4.2.59 The Sultanate of Oman has a coastline of 1,700km, of which approximately 1,200km is

tropical sandy beach which are strongly influenced by local geology with the northern

coast fed by wadis (dry river beds) draining ophiolite outcrops (McLachlan et al.1998).

Rocky embankments are also a common feature of the coastline. The overall coastline

appears to constitute a single zoogeographic region in regards to macrofaunal ecology

(e.g. Polychaete; Olichaete; Crustacean, such as ghost crabs and Mollusc), but with

some regional differentiation between north and south due to varying physical

conditions (McLachlan et al.,1998).



The beaches of Oman are scenic and have great tourism potential. They are widely 4.2.60

used by artisanal fishermen and to a limited extent for recreation. Along the north

Batinah coastline near Sohar, the beaches are eroding. Other management problems

relating to beaches include protection of turtle breeding areas (Salm et al,. 1993),

increasing development close to the shore and reduction in sediment supply.

Furthermore, these shores are highly susceptible to chronic oil pollution (Coles & Al-

Riyami 1996) and there is potential for acute impacts from the considerable oil shipping

traffic.

Mangrove vegetation is spread sporadically in the coastal areas of the country. In spite 4.2.61

of significant mangrove destruction, there still exist good stands in Northern Batinah,

Muscat, Eastern Sharqiyah, Mahawt Island and Salalah.

Socio-economic

Land Use (Local Communities and Assets / Properties), Employment,

Economy, Infrastructure (Domestic Sewerage, Waste, Electricity, Healthcare,

Recreation) and Societal Cohesion

The Sultanate’s population is largely concentrated in a few regions of the country 4.2.62

(Muscat Governorate and Batinah Region), which have high population densities. The

overall population of of Oman is 4.2M with a population growth rate of 8.1% (World

Development Indicators, 2016) (see Figure 5). Of the population, 21% are of the age

between 0-1; 76% between 15% - 64%, with 3% aged 65 or older (World Development

Indicators, 2016).

Figure 5 Population Growth Rate for Oman (2006 – 2014) (Source: World

Development Indicators, 2016)



Based on the latest National Census data (Oman, National Census 2010 data), the 4.2.63

illiteracy level in Oman is close to 14%, while 79% of the population finished a school

and approximately 8% of the population hold a Bachelor degree and above.

Based on the National Centre of Statistics and Information Data (NCSI, 2015), the 4.2.64

unemployment rate in Oman is 11.75%. However, the national statistics shows that in

large cities and coastal Governorates unemployment could be even higher. For

example, the combined unemployment level in both North and South Batinah regions

reached 33.2%. A recent detailed household survey engaging 350 people in the areas

of Sohar, Shinas, Liwa and Saham wilayats in the Al Batinah North Governate was

undertaken by Orpic, for the LPIC Project. It concluded that 93% of the respondents

were employed. This relatively healthy employment among the respondents of the

Orpic social survey is backed by the very high number of people with University

Degrees also surveyed, who are expected to be in demand on the labour market. Of

those respondents who defined themselves as employed, most had jobs in the public

sector and often work as teachers, policemen, nurses, or work in the private sector (e.g.

oil and gas) or have a business of their own (e.g. small retail businesses, fisherman).

The Orpic Household Survey also concluded that households tend to own more than 4.2.65

one residential property (i.e. a house and adjacent plot), and only 36% of respondents

confirmed that their family owns an agricultural plot. In some instances, the

respondents indicated that their families own a residential property and an agricultural

plot.

Based on the survey, the average household income from all sources (and obtained 4.2.66

from all working age family members) totals to approximately 1,575 Omani Riyal (OR)

per month, which is not far from the official National Household Income data published

by the NCSI in 2013 and very close to the official data, if adjusted for inflation (average

2.5% for the last two years). 58% of the respondents’ households supplement their

income with other economic activities, in addition to their main occupational income

(see Table 14).

Table 14 Data on Supplementary Income in Oman (Orpic Household Survey, Feb

2016)

Source of supplementary Income

Percentage of surveyed households supplementing their

income through this activity

Average Monthly Income received from

this supplementary activity, in OR

Agricultural or farming activities where a person is not a full-time farmer

24% 225

Renting a property 22.7% 545

Receiving benefits from the Government

11.3% 80



The health care system in Oman is primarily in the public sector, which runs about 90% 4.2.67

of the hospitals and 98% of hospital beds. Most doctors (78%) and nurses (92.5%)

work in the public sector. The Ministry of Health runs about 85% of the hospitals and

86% of hospital beds, with about 70% of doctors and 85% of nurses.

While in the past, communicable diseases (diseases spread from one person to another 4.2.68

or from an animal to a person) caused substantial morbidity and mortality in Oman (e.g.

malaria, dengue fever), now the cardiovascular diseases and injuries are the main

causes of morbidity, and the cardiovascular diseases and neoplasm (e.g. cancer) are

the main causes of mortality. Heat-related deaths in the elderly (>65 years of age) are

projected to increase to about 34 deaths per 100,000 by 2080 compared to the

estimated baseline of just over three deaths per 100,000 annually between 1961 and

1990 (RHSO, 2006; UN, 2015).

The diseases related to lifestyle (non-communicable diseases, e.g., cardiovascular 4.2.69

diseases, cancer, diabetes) and the changing age structure of the population have

begun to reveal morbidity patterns similar to those of developed countries (RHSO,

2006; UN, 2015).

There are two main types of water resources in the Sultanate of Oman: conventional 4.2.70

water resources (natural) including surface and ground water; and non-conventional

water resources including desalination water and treated wastewater. Overall,

groundwater is main resource contributing to approximately 83% of Oman’s water

resource requirements, followed by desalination (10%), surface water (5%) and treated

water (2%) (MWR, 2014; http://www.omanws.org.om/en/).

The natural water resources comprise two main resources: “renewable” and “non-4.2.71

renewable”. The renewable resources are replenished from rainfall and stored in under

groundwater aquifers. The quality of groundwater from aflaj (irrigation systems) and

wells located in the upper reaches of catchments throughout Northern Oman is

generally suitable for domestic and agricultural purposes. Groundwater becomes

brackish and saline toward the coast, and there is similar deterioration of water quality

in the interior particularly in the lower reaches of the wadis. In the Najd (Southern

Oman), groundwater occurs within four distinct limestone formations and the water

quality within them varies from potable to brackish. Total replenished of the renewable

resources is estimated to be about 1.3Mm3/yr. Recovery level is currently about 70%;

the balance is lost through seepage across submarine or national boundaries.

The non-renewable resources comprise underground fossil water located at carbonate 4.2.72

formations within the interior basin. The storage is very large, although their renewable

yields are low and largely restricted to the groundwater throughflow

(http://www.omanws.org.om/en/).



Since 1985, the Sultanate of Oman has constructed 45 recharge dams for the better 4.2.73

management of the natural water resources, 89 storage dams, 14 protection (flood

defence) dams and a mega storage dam at W. Dayqahwith which has a capacity of

(100Mm3). The total amount of water retained by dams for water resources in Oman

between 1990-2013 was 1,358Mm3. Oman has significantly increased desalination

production over the past 35 years (MWR, 2014) (see Figure 6); and will become the

first country in the region to tap into fog-harvesting technology to make alternative

stored water available for irrigation and drinking water for animals.

Figure 6 Oman Desalination Production (1976 -2011)(MWR, 2014)

More than 350 wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are distributed across different 4.2.74

areas of the Oman Sultanate of Oman. These WWTPs belong to the government,

private sectors, and individual owners. Oman Wastewater Services Company operates

ten WWTPs in the governorate of Muscat (Ansab, Al-Khudh, Shati Al-Qurm, Al Amerat,

Busher, Manumma, Muabaylah, Darsayt, Aynat, and Japrooh). The amount of

produced treated wastewater is anticipated to increase during the period from 2011 to

2016 (Baawain and Al-Omairi, 2013).



In Oman, wastewaters collected from domestic and commercial localities are 4.2.75

transferred to either WWTPs or lagoons via sewer systems (very few) or through

tankers from septic containers (majority). For example, there are collection and

treatment systems for about 25% of the Muscat municipal population (Al-Sulaimani

2003). Wastewater effluents of existing WWTPs have been used for landscape

irrigation and recharging groundwater to resist salt water intrusion in coastal areas (see

Table 15). Most of the sludge produced is sent to landfills (Baawain and Al-Omairi,

2013).

Table 15 Oman Sewage Treatment Plants Properties (Baawain and Al-Omairi,

2013)

STP Type of treatment Capacity

(m3/day)

TE

(m3/day)

End reuse

Rusayl Secondary 300 285 LSa

Ansab Secondary 25,000 21,000 LS

Darsayt Secondary 21,000 18,000 LS

Sohar Secondary 8,000 6,600 LS

Salalah Secondary 22,000 20,000 RWb

SLL lagoon Secondary 3,800 1,480 WOc

Notes: a Landscaping;

b Recharging wells;

c Wadi overflow.

El-Gohary et al. (1998) determined the characteristics of the raw wastewater, the quality 4.2.76

of the treated effluent, and the efficiency of the various treatment units in Egypt. The

results showed that the concentration of the raw wastewater was considered moderate

and the effectiveness of the treatment facility was good.

However, a study obtained from Ministry of Health in Oman indicated that there were 4.2.77

728 deaths caused by water contamination (Al-Wahaibi 2004 ). Furthermore, it was

approximated that about 14M OR was spent on illness associated to water pollution.

Electrical power in Oman is supplied both by public and private sectors. In 2012 the 4.2.78

total electric power consumption in Oman reached 3,064 kWh per capita (see Figure

7); with the country now having more than 31 power stations with a total installed

capacity over 1,662 megawatts (World Development Indicators, 2016).

The government-owned General Telecommunications Organization (GTO) was 4.2.79

established in 1980 and was responsible for setting up the modern telephone system

throughout the country. Thirty years ago there were only 500 lines in and around the

capital and international telephone calls could be made only through radio channels.

Oman has an overall telephone capacity of 420,000 lines, both fixed and mobile, and

given the widespread use of the telephone, it is estimated that Oman will need about

500,000 telephone lines by the year 2020, which will require substantial investment and

works (World Development Indicators, 2000).



Figure 7 Electric Power Consumption (kWh per capita) (World Development

Indicators, 2016)

Road Traffic

4.2.80 Due to the large-scale programme of road construction carried out by the Ministry of

Communications for Oman, over the past 30 years, there have been approximately

6,000km (3,720 miles) of paved roads and 24,000km (14,880 miles) of unpaved roads

in Oman. In 1970, there were only 10km (6 miles) of paved roads and about 1,700km

(1,054 miles) of unpaved road in the entire country. The number of licensed

automobiles on the roads has increased from 261,627 in 1992 to 404,375 in 2000.

Existing traffic flows on the Batinah Highway, in the vicinity of the port, is not available. 4.2.81

Reference has therefore been made to an article titled “Environmental Impact

Assessment of traffic in Sohar, Oman”, published in the International Journal of Science

& Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 7, dated July 2015.

As part of this assessment, traffic counts were conducted on the Batinah Highway in the 4.2.82

vicinity of Sohar University, which is approximately 30km to the southeast of the Sohar

Port Interchange junction. The survey lasted for one month, commencing on 1 April

2014.

The traffic survey concluded that around 48,882 vehicles travel on the Batinah Highway 4.2.83

per day, of which included 6,863 HGVs (14%). Figure 8, which has been extracted

from the research paper, provides a traffic profile throughout the day. The traffic profile

identifies the peak traffic volumes occurred in the morning at approximately 7am and in

the afternoon at approximately 14:30 hours.

There is no predicted traffic flow information available for the future operation of the 4.2.84

Batinah Expressway or the resulting reduction in traffic that the expressway will have on

existing Batinah Highway. Although it is evident that traffic flows on the existing Batinah

Highway will reduce after the opening of the Batinah Expressway, it is not possible to

quantify the change in traffic flows at this stage.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/knowledge/Kilometre.html

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/knowledge/Oman.html



Figure 8 Daily Traffic Profile on the Batinah Highway (Source: Figure 3 of

“Environmental Impact Assessment of traffic in Sohar, Oman”, published

in the International Journal of Science & Engineering Research, Volume

6, Issue 7, dated July 2015)

At this stage however it is expected that the free flow of traffic and the operation of the 4.2.85

existing Batinah Highway will significantly improve further to the opening of the Batinah

Expressway.

Sohar Port Traffic Flows

Royal HaskoningHDV was appointed by SIPC in 2015 to carry out a traffic study of 4.2.86

Sohar Port to assess the traffic impact within the port and at the access gates for a

number of future scenarios. The study assessed the following scenarios:

2015 present situation; and

2017 construction peak;

The traffic flows for each scenario were produced by SIPC, based on interview surveys 4.2.87

that were carried out with the existing and future tenants operating at Sohar Port,

including ORPIC.



Through experience working at the port, SIPC identified that the busiest period in terms 4.2.88

of traffic movements occurs at the port in the morning between 6:30am and 8:30am.

Traffic flows were therefore derided for two hours in the morning, between 6:30am and

7:30am and between 7:30am and 8:30am.

For the 2017 construction scenario, the peak hour for construction traffic to enter the 4.2.89

port is predicted to occur between 6:30am and 7:30am, and for heavy trucks the peak

hour is predicted to occur between 7:30am and 8:30am. For the operational plots

during the construction period the peak hour is predicted to occur between 7:30am and

8:30am, as existing.

In comparison with the traffic flow information available for the Batinah Highway, it is 4.2.90

therefore understood that the morning peak time on the Batinah Highway coincides with

the peak morning time at the port.

The traffic flows for the 2015 existing situation were produced by SIPC, based on 4.2.91

interview surveys that were carried out with the existing tenants operating at Sohar Port,

including ORPIC.

Table 16 provides a summary of the 2015 total existing traffic arriving and departing the 4.2.92

port, during a weekday and morning hours between 6:30am and 7:30am and between

7:30am and 8:30am.

Table 16 2015 Existing Port Traffic

Time Period

Arrivals Departures

Sedan Car

Bus HGV Sedan

Car Bus HGV

Day 2574 172 1794 2574 172 1794

0630 – 0730 1107 62 76 369 21 25

0730 - 0830 1351 48 81 450 16 27

During a site visit carried out at the port in December 2015 between 6:30am and 4.2.93

7:30am on a weekday, it was observed that the existing internal port road network

operated well within capacity, with no congestion or undue queuing experienced.

In addition it was observed that vehicles experienced no undue delay or congestion at 4.2.94

the gates when entering the port.

Road Traffic Accidents

Road Traffic Collision (RTC) data from the Royal Oman Police (ROP) between 1995 to 4.2.95

2009 indicated that mortality as a result of road collisions had increased from 479 in

1995 to 953 deaths in 2009, an increase of around 50% (Al Maniri et al., 2013). A

significant proportion of that increase was in individuals aged 26-50 years, males,

Omani nationals, and drivers. Mortality increased to 1,139 in 2012 and 913 in 2013.



Pedestrian mortality had been seen to decline as a percentage of total mortality, but 4.2.96

had still increased by nearly 20% over that time period.

Speeding has increased as the main reason for accidents and mortality, risinig from 4.2.97

39% to over 50% from 1995 to 2009.

Access Routes

4.2.98 The Sultanate of Oman currently does not have a rail network system and the country's

main airport, Muscat Seeb International, has an annual capacity of 1.3M passengers

(World Development Indicators, 2000). Oman now has six civil airports: at Seeb,

Salalah, Sur, Masirah, Khasab, and Diba in Musandam.

The country's main port is Mina Sultan Qaboos, which was completed in 1974 with a 4.2.99

capacity to handle 2.2M tonnes annually. The second-largest port is Mina Raysut which

serves Salalah and the Governorate of Dhofar. The third major port is in Solar which

deals with logistics, petrochemicals and metals, although the port will soon be joined by

Oman's first ever terminal to be dedicated to the specific handling of agricultural bulk.

4.2.100 The main route currently used to access Sohar Port is via the Batinah Highway.

Batinah Highway is a two-lane dual carriageway along its full length, commencing from

Muscat in the south, passing Sohar and terminating at the border with UAE at the north.

The road is subject to a speed limit of 120kph for cars and 100kph for HGVs. HGVs

should also drive in the nearside lane.

4.2.101 In order to improve the operation and free flow of traffic on the Batinah Highway,

highway works have been carried out since 2013 between Sohar Port Roundabout

junction and Barka Roundabout junction.

4.2.102 A total of eleven over bridges have been constructed on the Batinah Highway between

Sohar and Muscat, one north-east/south-west Connectivity Over Bridge and ten U-Turn

Over Bridges. A north-east/south-west Connectivity Over Bridge allows vehicles to

cross the Batinah Highway to access the local areas on each side of the highway and a

U-Turn Over Bridge allows vehicles travelling along the Batinah Highway in one

direction to change direction of travel.

4.2.103 These over bridges have improved connectivity for vehicles accessing local areas on

both sides of the Batinah Highway and also reduces the distance vehicles currently

travel along the Batinah Highway before carrying out a U-turn at one of the existing

roundabout junctions.

4.2.104 In addition to the over bridges, highway improvement works have also been carried out

at existing roundabout junctions. Previously all roundabout junctions on the Batinah

Highway were at-grade, i.e. roundabout junctions at the same level as the Batinah

Highway, requiring all vehicles travelling on the Batinah Highway to pass through

junctions, which causes delay. The majority of roundabout junctions along the Batinah

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/knowledge/Diba.html

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/knowledge/Mina.html



Highway have been upgraded to grade separated junctions, i.e. the junction is raised

above the level of the road resulting in no delay to through traffic travelling on the

Batinah Highway.

4.2.105 During a site visit in December 2015, it was noted that the majority of roundabout

junctions had been upgraded to grade separated junctions along the Batinah Highway.

There are however existing junctions in the Sohar area that remain at-grade, including

Sohar Port Roundabout junction and Soar Roundabout junctions. During peak times it

was observed that queuing occurred at these junctions, causing delay.

4.2.106 Finally, a number of highway improvement works have also been carried out to

formalise right off/right on junctions. As part of these works, on and off slip lanes have

been built. These highway works have improved ingress and egress to/from the

Batinah Highway.

4.2.107 In summary, the highway improvement works have improved the flow of traffic on the

Batinah Highway, particularly with the provision of grade separated roundabout

junctions, which removes delay to traffic travelling on the Batinah Highway. Delays

however do still occur in the Sohar area where junctions remain at-grade.

4.2.108 There are currently two gates at Sohar Port, both providing entry and exit into and out of

the port. Both gates are located on the western boundary of the port; one gate located

at the northern end of the port and a second gate located approximately 1km further

south.

4.2.109 The northern access point is the main gate used for traffic accessing Oman

International Container Terminal and the southern gate is the main gate accessing the

industrial plots within the port located south of the Container Terminal, including the

ORPIC sites.

4.2.110 The main route currently to the port is from the Batinah Highway. Vehicles entering and

exiting the northern gate mostly access the gate via the Sohar Port Interchange

junction. Vehicles entering the southern gate from the Batinah Highway can access the

gate via the Sohar Port Interchange junction and the Sohar Port Roundabout junction.

Due to the one-way nature of the external roads leading from the Sohar Port

Roundabout junction however all vehicles exiting the port must gain assess back to the

Batinah Highway via the Sohar Port Interchange junction.

4.2.111 Traffic traveling from the UAE, to the north, are most likely to enter the port from the

Batinah Highway via the Sohar Port Interchange junction. Traffic travelling from Sohar

and Muscat, to the south, wishing to enter the Container Terminal and industrial plots at

the northern end of the port are also likely to access the port from the Sohar Port

Interchange junction. Traffic travelling to the industrial plots to the south of the

Container Terminal, including ORPIC, are most likely to enter the port from the Sohar

Port Roundabout junction.



4.2.112 In addition to the Batinah Highway, the Batinah Expressway is currently being built and

is programmed to be completed in 2017/18. Upon completion, the Batinah Expressway

will serve as a new eight-lane super-highway stretching over 265km, running parallel

and to the west of the existing Batinah Highway. The expressway will link Muscat from

the south to Sohar Port and Sohar industrial area and to the UAE border to the north.

4.2.113 The Ministry of Transport and Communications in Oman has stated that the main aim of

the Batinah Expressway is to provide a root solution to the problem of congestion

currently seen at the existing Batinah Highway.

Community and Health

Air Quality

Oman experiences two distinct seasons; winter occurs from November to April and 4.2.114

summer from May to October. During winter, a relatively gentle, north-easterly wind is

experienced; in summer, the southern portion of the country experiences the Khareef

between June and September, which is a unique weather pattern of monsoon rain and

winds.

A wind rose of hourly sequential meteorological data recorded at the Sohar station in 4.2.115

2015 is detailed in Figure 9. As shown in Figure 9, the predominant wind direction in

the area is from the north-east, with southerly winds also experienced.

Figure 9 Wind Rose of 2015 Meteorological Data from the Sohar Recording

Station

Sohar 2015

0

0

3

1.5

6

3.1

10

5.1

16

8.2

(knots)

(m/s)

Wind speed

0° 10°20°

30°

40°

50°

60°

70°

80°

90°

100°

110°

120°

130°

140°

150°

160°170°180°190°

200°

210°

220°

230°

240°

250°

260°

270°

280°

290°

300°

310°

320°

330°

340°350°

100

200

300

400

500

600



The general environment in Oman is dusty and sandy, therefore natural pollutant 4.2.116

sources include windblown dust across the arid landscape. Due to its coastal location,

Sohar may also experience natural sources of particulates from wind-blown sea salt

aerosol.

In the Sultanate of Oman, rapid economic development, improved living standards, and 4.2.117

increased urban population density have led to increased anthropogenic air pollution

from both stationary and mobile sources.

The major anthropogenic sources of air pollution are from energy production, 4.2.118

transportation and industry (i.e. cement plants, chemical and petrochemical plants).

This is particularly evident in areas along the coastline where the combination of high

population, industrial concentration and unfavourable natural conditions for pollution

dispersion aggravate air pollution problems. Ambient air quality within the Sohar region

has been influenced by the construction and operation of industrial facilties within the

SIPA and increases in transportation.

A baseline survey was undertaken by HMR between 24 February – 12th March 2016. 4.2.119

Diffusion tubes were deployed for SO2, NO2, H2S, O3 and VOCs at 13 locations situated

in the vicinity of the Project facilities. The diffusion tubes were exposed for two weeks

over three separate campaigns. Due to adverse weather in the first campaign

preventing the collection and redeployment of diffusion tubes, the first exposure period

was extended to three weeks. The results from each campaign from the survey are

provided in Table 17, Table 18, and Table 19.

Table 17 Monitoring Data from Campaign 1 of the HMR Baseline Air Quality

Survey

Location Location SO2

(µg/m3)

H2S

(µg/m3)

O3

(µg/m3)

NO2

(µg/m3)

BTEX

(µg/m3)

Fahud

DT-1 Fahud Camp 5.10 <0.003 94.44 5.49 -

Pipeline

DT-2 Near Al Biyad <1.23 0.07 61.32 <0.46 3.81

DT-3 Abu Khabi 2.99 0.05 81.75 4.08 6.25

DT-4 Near Ath Thayliyah Quarry site 3.57 0.14 89.41 6.86 32.33

DT-5 Qasid - 3.67 - 1.18 -

DT-6 Al Hail 1.52 0.23 100.74 10.29 4.73

DT-7 Shaban - - - - -

DT-8 Al Jal - - - - -

DT-9 Saqah 3.30 0.18 80.43 23.20 19




(µg/m3)

H2S

(µg/m3)

O3

(µg/m3)

NO2

(µg/m3)

BTEX

(µg/m3)

Sohar

DT-10 Near Crowne plaza 3.82 0.14 72.13 21.23 17.03

DT-11 Near Sohar Industrial Estate 4.12 0.27 80.30 29.69 22.34

DT-12 Al Khuwairiyah 3.31 0.23 60.16 26.81 13.38

USEPA NAAQS 2001 - 157

2 100

3 -

WHO AAQS4 20 - 100 100 -

OAAQS 125 40 120 112 -


Survey


(µg/m3)

H2S

(µg/m3)

O3

(µg/m3)

NO2

(µg/m3)

BTEX

(µg/m3)

Fahud

DT-1 Fahud Camp 2.49 0.15 130.96 6.32 1.11

Pipeline

DT-2 Near Al Biyad <0.66 0.08 104.37 4.49 12.63

DT-3 Abu Khabi <0.62 0.26 100.45 4.16 ND

DT-4 Near Ath Thayliyah Quarry site 0.63 0.46 99.57 5.51 1.59

DT-5 Qasid <0.69 0.39 87.69 4.24 1.17

DT-6 Al Hail <0.66 0.74 94.13 9.49 1.00

DT-7 Shaban 1.65 0.38 102.13 7.87 1.16

DT-8 Al Jal 1.16 0.34 95.14 5.69 0.92

DT-9 Saqah 2.29 0.99 91.14 25.96 1.67

Sohar

DT-10 Near Crowne plaza 3.33 0.40 105.42 25.62 7.53

DT-11 Near Sohar Industrial Estate 4.11 0.54 97.35 32.55 21.25

DT-12 Al Khuwairiyah 4.31 1.11 78.03 30.68 9.56

DT-13 Near Orpic CAAQMS 5.65 0.72 85.31 49.59 44.78

USEPA NAAQS 200 - 157 100 -

WHO AAQS 20 - 100 100 -

OAAQS 125 40 120 112 -

1 USEPA NAAQ Standards, SO2 1 hour Average

2 USEPA NAAQ Standards, 8 hour average

3 USEPA NAAQ Standards, Annual arithmetic mean

4 The Averaging Periods are 24 hours for PM10 and SO2, 8 hours for O3, and 1 hour for NO2.




Survey


(µg/m3)

H2S

(µg/m3)

O3

(µg/m3)

NO2

(µg/m3)

BTEX

(µg/m3)

Fahud

DT-1 Fahud Camp DT-1 DT-1 DT-1 DT-1 DT-1

Pipeline

DT-2 Near Al Biyad DT-2 DT-2 DT-2 DT-2 DT-2

DT-3 Abu Khabi DT-3 DT-3 DT-3 DT-3 DT-3

DT-4 Near Ath Thayliyah Quarry DT-4 DT-4 DT-4 DT-4 DT-4

DT-5 Qasid DT-5 DT-5 DT-5 DT-5 DT-5

DT-6 Al Hail DT-6 DT-6 DT-6 DT-6 DT-6

DT-7 Shaban DT-7 DT-7 DT-7 DT-7 DT-7

DT-8 Al Jal DT-8 DT-8 DT-8 DT-8 DT-8

DT-9 Saqah DT-9 DT-9 DT-9 DT-9 DT-9

Sohar

DT-10 Near Crowne plaza DT-10 DT-10 DT-10 DT-10 DT-10

DT-11 Near Sohar Industrial Estate DT-11 DT-11 DT-11 DT-11 DT-11

DT-12 Al Khuwairiyah DT-12 DT-12 DT-12 DT-12 DT-12

DT-13 Near Orpic CAAQMS DT-13 DT-13 DT-13 DT-13 DT-13

USEPA NAAQS 200 - 157 100 -

WHO AAQS 20 - 100 100 -

OAAQS 125 40 120 112 -

Monitored SO2, NO2 and H2S concentrations from the baseline survey were below 4.2.120

relevant local and international air quality standards at all locations considered. There

were some exceedances of the World Health Organisation 8-hour air quality Objective

for O3, but results from the two week exposure periods in the survey are not directly

comparable with air quality standards for short-term averaging periods.

In addition, SEU undertakes air quality monitoring through a network of continous 4.2.121

analysers in the Sohar region. Annual mean data for a range of pollutants from 2014,

the latest available year of data, are provided in Table 20.

The annual SEU monitored results are not directly comparable with air quality standards 4.2.122

for short-term averaging times. The monitored results are therefore indicative baseline

concentrations. However, monitored results were below the annual and short-term

Omani and US EPA air quality standards.



Table 20 Monitoring Data Obtained from the SEU Environmental Monitoring

Stations in the Vicinity of SIPA (in µg/m³)

Site SO2 NO2 O3 Benzene Toluene

AOL 12.2 33.8 62.5 5.1 8.0

SPIC 12.4 29.8 64.0 2.3 5.6

ORPIC 18.6 36.6 68.7 6.9 12.2

MOBILE 18.3 28.5 86.5 N/A N/A

FATEH 11.1 33.4 67.5 N/A N/A

MOAMENA 10.9 32.3 50.1 N/A N/A

HMR undertook monitoring surveys using Continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring 4.2.123

Stations (CAAQMS) at Fahud and Sohar, and passive diffusion tubes were deployed at

selected locations along the pipeline route. At some locations, short-term airborne PM10

concentrations were measured using a direct-reading instrument.

PM10 levels were reported to be elevated when compared to the reference standards. 4.2.124

This is to be expected in arid climates which will experience contributions from

windborne particulates. Other than for PM10 concentrations, the measured values were

reported to be below the respective standards.

Green House Gas Emissions

The largest sources of GHG emissions in Oman are from energy production and 4.2.125

consumption, industry and transport. Annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions data are

available from the World Bank database. CO2 emissions in 2010 from the Sultanate of

Oman were 56,292,000 tonnes per annum, and have risen by over 400% from 1981, as

shown in Figure 10.

GHG emissions from the Sohar region are not available, but a large proportion of the 4.2.126

GHGs are anticiapted to be from industrial facilities within the SIPA.

Noise

In the Sultanate of Oman, there are several broad categories of noise pollution: they 4.2.127

include vehicle transportation, industry, outdoor sports and recreation, and the "people

noise" including domestic appliances, pets, and Azan (Muslim call to prayer).

Although there are particular situations where aircraft noise or industrial and 4.2.128

construction noise is dominant, in key urban cities of Oman, it has been found that the

most prevalent source of noise pollution is road traffic (Al-harthy and Tamura, 1999;

MECA, 2014).



Figure 10 Oman Annual CO2 Emissions between 1981 – 2010 (Source, World

Bank 2016)

Oman has many industrial facilities for different manufacturing and commercial 4.2.129

industries, which are located in various parts of the country. These industrial facilities

contribute to the ambient noise environment through plant operational noise and also

traffic generation which extends the noise impact to locations further away from the

specific facility itself. Movements of HGVs are responsible for the greatest noise impact

to the environment, and the increase of HGVs as a result of industrial activity can

produce a significant increase in noise levels.

Propagation of noise in Oman can vary with the seasons, which is predominantly due to 4.2.130

the wind speeds and direction as a result of the temporal climate change. During

certain periods in winter (called ‘Shamal’ locally), the wind can be very strong and

blowing in the northerly direction lasting for a period of up to five days. During the

summer months there is a reversal in direction, but of greater wind speeds.

Average hourly wind speeds were obtained from the Meteorology Department at 4.2.131

Muscat International Airport for the period of September 2003 to December 2007.

Figure 11 shows the distribution of wind over an annual period.

This is highly relevant as Oman has regions that are flat, where residential premises 4.2.132

exist and noise from industrial areas can be carried greater distances over land by

strong winds.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

An

nu

al

CO

2 E

mis

sio

ns (

kt)

Year

Oman CO2 Emissions (kt)



Figure 11 Monthly average wind speed over the year for Oman

According to studies completed around Oman, baseline noise levels can be significantly 4.2.133

increased during certain times of the year as noise can be carried across great

distances and wind itself can increase ambient noise due to its effects, e.g. noise cause

by wind blowing around buildings, moving trees etc.

Traffic noise is a prominent issue in Oman as traffic density can increase rapidly during 4.2.134

the rush hour periods (7:00am to 10:00am and 2:00pm to 5:00pm) and on Thursday

afternoons when the majority of people travel away from the cities to their homes for the

weekend.

Oman has many industrial areas that are a consistent source of noise. However, every 4.2.135

effort is made to locate these premises in areas which are a considerable distance from

noise sensitive receptors in order to avoid unwanted impacts.

Construction activities and operation phase activities are encouraged to be timed so 4.2.136

that noise is not generated during periods of time when people will be resting or

sleeping, especially during the evening and night-time). Noise levels from industrial

facilities are required to be no greater than 70dBA at the boundary of the industrial site.

Oman is generally hot with temeratures peaking in the months of May to August in the 4.2.137

order of around 40 – 50 degrees centigrade. During these periods ambient noise levels

in residential areas can be dominated by noise from air conditioning units as well as

traffic and general ‘social’ noise.



Noise in Oman is governed by two standards that individually relate to ambient noise 4.2.138

and work place noise. These are known, respectively, as Ministerial Decision 79/94

and Ministerial Decision 80/94.

A baseline survey has been conducted by HMR Engineering Consultants for the project 4.2.139

area which has been divided into three sections: Sohar, Pipeline alignment from Sohar

to Fahud and Fahud. Nineteen locations were subject to noise monitoring: 5 locations

in Sohar, 13 locations along the proposed pipeline alignment, and 1 location at Fahud.

Although measurements have been completed for all 19 locations, to date only the

results for the 5 locations in Sohar have been released. Noise measurements were

carried out during daytime, evening time and night-time in compliance with

requirements in MD79/94.

Traffic flows in Oman can be characterized by two time periods of the day which are 4.2.140

rush hour and non-rush hour. The rush hour periods are 7:00am to 10:00am and from

2:00pm to 5:00pm. In 4 out of the 5 locations measured in Sohar, noise levels were

measured during rush hour and non-rush hour for comparison.

Table 21 presents an overview of the measured noise levels released to date in 4.2.141

comparison with criteria outlined in MD 79/94 as well as those provided in the

International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines

related to noise.

Table 21 Summary of Baseline Noise Measurements in the Sohar Region

Location Time Period LAeq LA90 MD 79/94

Limit

IFC Guideline

Limit

NM15

Day 47.7 43.1 45 55

Evening 40.4 34.8 40 55

Night 49.4 41.3 35 45

NM16

Day rush hour 51.4 44.6 45 55

Day non-rush hour 50.9 41.6 45 55

Evening 50.3 45.4 40 55

Night 47 36.9 35 45

NM17

Day rush hour 50.6 43.3 45 55


Evening 43.1 35.9 40 55

Night 36.6 35.4 35 45

NM18

Day rush hour 51.4 47.5 50 55


Evening 44.4 42.7 45 55

Night 51.6 42.1 40 45



Location Time Period LAeq LA90 MD 79/94

Limit

IFC Guideline

Limit

NM19

Day rush hour 52.2 48.9 50 55


Evening 52.6 44.5 45 55

Night 52.7 42 40 45

When comparing the measurements made during rush hour and non-rush hour it is 4.2.142

observed that the difference in measured noise levels is relatively small with the

maximum difference being 3.7dB at NM 18. At NM 19 it is observed that noise levels

measured during non-rush hour were 3.1dB greater than those measured during rush

hour.

Cultural Heritage

Archaeological Sites or Sites of Cultural or Religious Significance

Since the emergence of towns in Sultanate of Oman, such as those of the 4.2.143

archaeological sites in Bat, Hili and others, around five thousand years ago, Omans

main oasis settlements are concentrated in the piedmont of the Hajjar Mountain Range.

Cities along the coast of the Gulf of Oman, and in the Salalah plain have been engaged

in sea-trade, and have their archaeological predecessors in pre-Islamic sites such as

Sumhuram, or Islamic sites such as Sohar, Qalhat, Sur, Al-Balid. The settlement

pattern at the higher altitudes is characterised by smaller spring-irrigated oasis

settlements as well as the temporary and semi-permanent settlements of transhumant

pastoralists, while the vast gravel and sand deserts have only been thinly populated and

exploited by pastoral nomadic tribes (Daher, 2007). The earliest Stone Age settlement

discovered in Oman is in the Wattaya district and dates back more than 10,000 years.

Since the renaissance under His Majesty Sultan Qaboos bin Said the country`s rapid 4.2.144

modern development has not been confined to the capital area. Oman’s rural areas

and interior settlements took their share in the process of modernisation, in terms of

infrastructure, education, capital inflow and migration of people to the cities. Agriculture

no longer plays an important role in the rural economy, and is now carried out mostly by

elder family members or hired laborers from the Indian Subcontinent. Hundreds of

traditional settlement quarters have been abandoned for new ones with modern

facilities, which now stand in mute testimony to their past and if preserved, managed

and interpreted have the potential to add to the cultural and archaeological

attractions/tourism of the destination Oman (Daher, 2007).

Even in its modernity, Oman is distinctly Arab and the Omani culture has its roots firmly 4.2.145

in the Islamic religion. Oman developed its own particular form of Islam, called

Ibadhism, after its founder, Abdullah bin Ibadh who lived during the 7th century. Not all

Omanis are Ibadhis however; there are also Sunni and Shi'a Muslims. Omanis are not



only tolerant of the beliefs of different Muslim sects, they are also tolerant towards

believers of other faiths, who are allowed to practice their religion in churches and

temples. The legacy that has been passed from generation to generation, including the

art, the culture, the folklore and the craftsmanship is vast.

For its size, Oman boasts an unprecedented number of UNESCO-classified World 4.2.146

Heritage Sites including Bat—with contains tombs dating back 3,000 years, the Fort of

Bahla, and the Frankincense Route which starts in Dhofar and includes Al-Blaid, site of

the ancient city of Zafar, Khawr Rawri, Shisr and Wadi Dukah. Oman's heritage,

features a great sea-faring tradition with many museums and galleries around the

secluded and historic harbours of Muscat, Muttrah and Sur highlighting the importance

of the sea to the people of Oman (Daher, 2007).

Oman’s tourist attractions include the world heritage and ancient archaeological sites, 4.2.147

forts and castles, mosques, souq’s and dhow’s, which all provide an intriguing insight

into the rich history and culture of Oman. Whist deserts, beaches, islands, mountains,

caves, wadis, springs and aflaj’s provide Oman with a unique landscape. Adventure

activities such as surfing, diving, fishing rock climbing, camel and horse racing, and

outings to the foothills provide recreational activities for the local people of Oman and

tourists, alongside the traditional and cosmopolitan shopping, lavish hotels and

restaurants.

Cultural Conflict

Cultural conflicts can arise during the development of projects because of influx of 4.2.148

workers. Since the 1970s, migrant workers have constituted a significant percentage of

the total population in the states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) (comprised of

Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates). These

migrant workers comprise up to 70% of the total population in some GCC states and

represent up to 90% of the foreign workforce. The GCC countries rely on two main

types of migrant workers: low-to mid-skilled workers in construction and low-tech

industries and services, and mid- to high-skilled workers in high value added services

(Roper, 2014).

Influx of migrants has been a common phenomenon across Oman whenever any 4.2.149

industrial or infrastructure project development takes place. The influx of workers can

involve significant cross-border movement of people motivated to enhance their quality

of life, for example through greater employment opportunities and more favourable

trade and business opportunities. The 2015 census of Oman’s total population stood at

4,187,516 persons, of whom 1,849,412 (44.2%) were foreign nationals with a majority

coming from the Asian subcontinent (Indians, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis). The

foreign workers are mainly employed in the private sector (82%). The flow of foreign

workers to Oman has been rising over the 2000s up until today. Recently, Oman has

enforced quotas and the hiring of Omani nationals in every business has become

mandatory (De Bel-Air, 2015).



The socio-economic data collected in January 2016 (first questionnaire) by HMR 4.2.150

indicates that population influx within the project area mostly consisted of expatriates,

however, a large number of Omanis from other villages seem to migrate into the area.

The reason for seasonal inward migration is generally to look for a job and work. The

potential impacts of influx population on local culture as a result of industrial activities is

a key concern for the local community. Locals express concerns regarding impacts of

influx non-Omani population including changes in culture, values, traditions and

behaviour, cultural diversity, local cultures and traditions dying out, mixing of

nationalities, and change in languages. Further concerns of the population around the

influx of workers during construction and operation activities indicate a spike in car

accidents, increased cost of living, and traffic congestion (HMR, 2016).

4.3 Sensitivity and Value of the VECs

There is a wide range of individual and site specific receptors all with varying degrees of 4.3.1

sensitivity and each valued differently at different social and geographical scales.

Sensitivity is also dependent on the nature of the changes/influences upon the receptor.

Consequently, the highest sensitivity likely for each receptor group and the highest

likely value for each receptor group has been identified. These conservative sensitivity

and value scores have been used in the consideration of the significance of the

cumulative impacts. Where the sensitivity or receptor value has been considered or

determined to be lower in scale on the spatial basis during this assessment, the change

in value has been described and justified where relevant or necessary. Table 22

presents the receptor group sensitivities and values.

Table 22 Receptor Group Sensitivity and Value

Receptor Group Sensitivity Value

Materials / natural resources Low – given that resources can be

obtained from extra-national sources Medium

Topography

PP(S) – Low

Pipeline – Low to High

NGLE (F) - Low

PP(S) –Low

Pipeline – Low to Medium

NGLE (F) – Low

Landscape and visual

PP(S) – Very Low

Pipeline – Very Low to High

NGLE (F) – Very Low

PP(S) –Low

Pipeline – Very Low to Medium

NGLE (F) – Low

Soils Medium Low

Groundwater / Hydrogeology

PP(S) – High

Pipeline –High

NGLE (F) – High

PP(S) –Medium

Pipeline –Low to Medium

NGLE (F) – Medium

Hydrology

PP(S) – Low

Pipeline –Low

NGLE (F) – High

PP(S) –Very Low

Pipeline –Very Low to Medium

NGLE (F) – Very Low

Marine ecology Medium Medium



Receptor Group Sensitivity Value

Terrestrial ecology Low Low

Ambient air quality Medium High

Ambient noise Medium High

Workplace noise Medium Medium

Local economy Low High

Public infrastructure Low Medium

Traffic / Transport Low Medium

Land use and ownership High Medium

Local community Very High High

Supply of construction

workforce and third party /

suppliers management

Very High High

Cultural heritage Very High High

Note: PP(S) refers to the Petrochemical Plant (Sohar) Study Area.

Pipeline refers to the Natural Gas Pipeline route Study Area.

NGLE(F) refers to the Natural Gas Liquid Extraction (Fahud) Study Area.



5 Cumulative Impacts

5.1 Introduction

The tasks carried out in this stage are to: 5.1.1

Identify the magnitude of effect for all VECs (including relevant individual

receptors) from existing documents;

Identify impacts where insufficient information / quantification is available; and

Determine the probability and duration of effect for all impacts on VECs.

5.2 Cumulative Impact Magnitude

The cumulative impacts are considered under each VEC topic area below. The 5.2.1

assessment also considers the probability / likelihood and duration of the impacts.

Natural Resources

The cumulative impacts at have been assessed for the natural resources’ VECs 5.2.2

identified in Table 6 are:

Consumption of natural resources during construction/operation; and

Temporary obstruction, accidental discharge, deposition to or on land, and land

uses during construction/decommissioning, or permanently during operation.

The consumption of natural resources such as wood, metal ores, rocks and geological 5.2.3

deposits, aggregates, oil / diesel / petrol / natural gas, foodstuffs (including fish),

freshwater and groundwater are essential requirements for the construction and

operation of infrastructure and any form of production. Natural resources occur across

the globe and where resources are scarce within the relevant project area (and

country), such resources that are required are therefore obtained from other sources

around the world.

The LPIC Project is not expected to extract quantities of groundwater and hence would 5.2.4

not act cumulatively with other projects. In terms of foodstuffs, the acquisition of local

foodstuffs is a positive and negative impact (positive for farmers in selling their grown

crops and negative in terms of increasing demand for foodstuffs) that essentially

neutralises the effect.

At a more local level, some resources are scarce (e.g. some foodstuffs and 5.2.5

groundwater).

There is no uncertainty over the availability of global supply for the natural resources 5.2.6

required and assessed, therefore the magnitude is unlikely to increase if further

information becomes available on the quantified amount of resources used during



construction or operation of all projects. These are discussed in the following sub

sections.

Construction Phase

The significance of the impacts associated with other projects during the construction 5.2.7

phase are predicted to range from negligible to minor.

Several of the projects are located in the industrial port area where it is expected that 5.2.8

any works undertaken in this area will have to utilise the same sources of natural

resources. It is also assumed that construction best practice principles will be adopted

across all the projects to minimise potential impacts. Several of the projects are also

linear infrastructure projects which will only interact with the LPIC Project locally, i.e.

where construction workforces may not be based, or only be based temporariliy.

Cumulative impacts to natural resources could occur as a result of sourcing of wood, 5.2.9

metal, cement, rock, aggregates, fuel, water and foodstuff. However, where impacts on

natural resources occur they are likley to be localised and of short duration and can be

remediated to mitigate impacts.

Given the nature of the works, any impacts are considered to be localised, temporary, 5.2.10

of short duration, reversible and can be mitigated through external sourcing of natural

resources, therefore any cumulative impact is likely to be of Very Low magnitude.

Operation Phase

The significance of the impacts associated with other projects during the operational 5.2.11

phase are predicted to range from negligible to minor, however the majority are

predicted to be negligible. Minor impacts were predicted to be associated with

freshwater requirements from the OMPET Petrochemical Plant and OMPIA PIA Plant.

However, industrial water produced by the plants will be recycled thereby reducing the 5.2.12

freshwater demand, therefore there would be no cumulative impacts.

Impacts associated with natural resource requirements for maintenance and activites 5.2.13

during the operational phase are considered to be localised, temporary, of short

duration and reversible, therefore any cumulative impact is likely to be of Very Low

magnitude.

Land Use

When considering the LPIC Project and other planned/ongoing developments in the 5.2.14

area (see Section 3.3 and Table A07 in Appendix A), cumulative impacts on land use

(i.e activities, assets and properties) could occur. The Project area associated with

NGLE Plant has not been considered in this assessment as there are no other major

projects identified in Fahud.



The LPIC Project is scheduled to be constructed within the SIPA on developed land that 5.2.15

is designated for industrial land use. Cumulatively, the extent of the potential land

affected is expected to remain localised and very small, in some cases reversible

(following completion of construction). With regard to the pipeline development, the

section running through the coastal plain is likely to overlap with the development of

Liwa City and other transport infrastructure planned along the coast between Sahlat and

Sohar. The pipeline footprint is anticipated to cross the Coastal Highway corridor, the

Expressway corridor and the National Railway corridor. There is no information on

those projects, however it is assumed that the proposed linear developments are

already integrated in the regional masterplan and meet the governement objectives in

terms of land use. The potential impact of each project on land use is likely to remain

localised (i.e corridor footprint of the linear development) and Moderate in significance

in the worst case.

In-combination with LPIC project, these developments will increase pressure on existing 5.2.16

land use. The changes are anticipated to be medium-term during construction and

permanent during operation. Data collected in January 2016 for the LPIC project

indicates that the wider project area is mostly occupied by industrial activities whereas

the agricultural land is scarce. This predominant developed/industrial land use in the

region thus creates more opportunities for investments in residential or commercial

property as opposed to buying and cultivating the land for agricultural purposes. Any

negative effect is expected to be minimised by design and will be counteracted by the

community to benefit from the socio-economic aspects of the various developments.

Given this, the cumulative effects on land use are predicted to result in Low magnitude

effect during construction and in Medium magnitude effect during operation. The

magnitude can potentially change if further information becomes available.


The cumulative impacts at have been assessed for the physical environment VECs 5.2.17

identified in Table 6 (and refined) are:

Temporary or permanent disturbance on topography and landscape during the

project lifecycle, i.e. construction / operation / decommissioning.

Intentional, incidental or accidental deposition of waste (solids or liquids) to soil

and/or groundwater and/or surface water during construction / operation /

decommissioning.

Removal and loss of soil resource during construction.

Obstruction to groundwater or sub-surface wadi flows from permanent

underground structures.



Topography

The topography changes in the area of the PP and the NGLE Plant are low in range 5.2.18

and the levelling required for the project is limited. The topographical range along the

route of the NG Pipeline varies but there would limited disturbance due to the prior

disturbance from the existiing pipeline.

Other projects assessed for the purposes of cumulative impact are generally in the 5.2.19

coastal plain within the context of the lower end of the pipeline and the PP. The linear

projects further in land (such as the Expressway and the Railway) could result in a

greater magnitude of impact due to their presence on higher land and across a range of

topographic levels.

Assessment of topographical impact has been predicted for the operational phase of all 5.2.20

projects as that is the point where the effect would be at its greatest magnitude. There

is no uncertainty over whether this impact would arise, only on the localised changes,

and further quantified information would not be predicted to alter the conclusions in

relation to the magnitude of the effect.

Construction Phase


phase are predicted to range from negligible to minor. However, minor impacts were

predicted to be associated with projects where the grading, leveling, cutting and

excavation for the project is as yet unknown and therefore the worst case is assumed.

Assessment of topographical impact has been predicted for the operational phase of all 5.2.22

projects as that is the point where the effect would be at its greatest magnitude. No

evaluation of construction impacts is included.

Operation Phase


phase are predicted to range from slight to minor. However, minor impacts were

predicted to be associated with projects where the grading, leveling, cutting and

excavation for the project is as yet unknown and therefore the worst case is assumed.

Impacts associated with topographical changes associated with the operational phase 5.2.24

(as that is the point where the effect would be at its greatest magnitude) are considered

to be localised across the region (coastal plain) and of low magnitude due to the low

range of levelling required for the projects and the landscape setting of existing works,

therefore any cumulative impact is likely to be of Very Low magnitude.



Landscape

There are no impacts on landscape and visual amenity identified for the NGLE Plant in 5.2.25

Fahud. As there are no other major projects and plans in the vicinity of this plant, there

is no cumulative impact anticipated. There are uncertainties on the potential impacts of

the NG Pipeline on landscape and visual amenity due to lack of information for both

construction and operation. However, given the small footprint of the pipeline, it is

assumed that the effect on landscape will not be significant. The individual contribution

of the PP will also not be significant.

When considering these components of the LPIC project and other planned or ongoing 5.2.26

developments in the area (see Section 3.3 and Table A03 in Appendix A), cumulative

impacts on landscape and visual amenity could occur at the regional level where the

end of the NG Pipeline and the PP are located. It is worth noting that the SIPA and the

wider region has been identified by the government to grow into a major industrial zone

including a seaport, an industrial estate, a free zone and a planned airport and rail

project. The government also plans to develop the new city of Liwa north of the PP. As

such, the region will continue to change through the extensive urbanisation of the area

and will change the nature of the landscape setting regionally and some of the local and

more distant views. Cumulatively, the changes are unlikely to be significant during

construction and operation. Given the nature of the Industrial Zone and its designation,

the cumulative effect on landscape and visual amenity is predicted to result in Low

magnitude effect for both construction and operation. There are uncertainties with

regards to project details of the development of Liwa City, Coastal Highway,

Expressway, National Railway and Service Centre. However, the magnitude of these

projects is unlikely to increase if further information becomes available as the regional

landscape will be predominantly impacted by the development of industries at SIPA.

Soil Quality

Soils are unsuitable for agriculture in the Fahud area and soils along the route of the 5.2.27

pipeline are generally not cultivated with the exception of very occasional areas of

cultivation where there are date plantations which do not exceed the carrying capacity

of the land. Soils towards the end of the pipeline in the Sohar area are moderate to

highly suitable for agriculture, and are critical to the agricultural economy. The soils

have been assigned a worst case medium sensitivity.

As well as the impacts associated with the LPIC project, cumulative impacts are also 5.2.28

possible where other projects overlap the zone of influence of the LPIC Project. The

Fahud site occupies a small and remote parcel of land, located within a Petroleum

Development Oman (PDO) concession area and none of the other projects overlap the

LPIC ZOI, therefore, impacts on soil quality will only be as a result of the LPIC Project.

There will be no cumulative effects at the Fahud site as a result of other projects. The

majority of the pipeline route is also remote for much of its length and is not overlapped

by other projects, therefore there will be no cumulative effects along the pipeline route.

However, as the pipeline approaches the port there is overlap with other projects, as



there is a potential for the PP that could result in cumulative impacts. These are

discussed in the following sub sections.

Construction Phase


phase are predicted to range from negligible to moderate, with one project (OMPIA PIA)

predicted to have major impacts if an accident was to occur during construction.


any works undertaken in this area will have to comply with existing environmental

management protocols. It is also assumed that construction best practice principles will

be adopted across all the projects to minimise potential impacts. Several of the projects

are also linear infrastructure projects which will only interact with the LPIC Project

locally, i.e. where roads cross the pipeline or routed adjacent to the port area.

Cumulative impacts to soil could occur as a result of leaks and spillages of substances 5.2.31

or as a result of catastrophic failure of equipment / storage facilities; discharges of

waste water / materials, or as result of poor on-site practices. However, where impacts

on soil quality occur they are likley to be localised and of short duration and will be

remediated to mitigate the scale and significance of the impacts.

Given the nature of the works any impacts are considered to be localised, temporary, of 5.2.32

short duration and reversible, therefore any cumulative impact is predicted to be of Low

magnitude.

Operation Phase


phase are predicted to range from negligible to moderate, however the majority are

predicted to be negligible to minor. Minor and moderate impacts were predicted to be

associated with waste discharges to soil and as a result of accidental discharges.

However, it is assumed that appropriate infrastructure and management systems / 5.2.34

protocols would be adopted such that discharges direct to soil receptors would not

occur and, therefore there would be no cumulative impacts.

Impacts associated with accidents during operational phase are considered to be 5.2.35

localised, temporary, of short duration and reversible, therefore any cumulative impact

is likely to be of Low magnitude.

Groundwater Flow and Water Quality

The Project area is devoid of surface watercourses (except after the rains) but wadi bed 5.2.36

sediments do provide conduits for what are effectively surface water baseflows, fed by

groundwater discharge in their upper reaches. These are considered under the

groundwater VEC which includes bedrock aquifers, superficial alluvial deposits and



wadi bed sediments, all of which are utilised in different regions for water supply

purposes.

5.2.37 As shown in Table 6 (groundwater impacts), in addition to the five elements of the LPIC

Project, 16 non-LPIC projects have been screened into the groundwater assessment

based on a ZOI of 10km. These are concentrated in the three industrial areas of Sohar

(SIPA, FZS and Sohar Industrial Estate). The exact route of the three linear transport

projects is unknown but they will be constructed parallel to the coastline and will

necessarily cross the pipeline within or to the south of Sohar Industrial Estate. None

are located within the groundwater ZOIs for the Fahud NGLE facility or the pipeline

outside of the al Batinah region, so these elements of the LPIC scheme area screened

out from further assessment due to interactions with non-LPIC projects.

Of the LPIC scheme elements, it is considered (based on assumptions) that the 5.2.38

warehousing and laydown areas will individually have negligible to minor negative

impacts on groundwater quality.

The majority of non-LPIC projects are located within the SIPA, SFZ or SIA, where a 5.2.39

high level of environmental regulation and control applies. Those located outside of

these areas are the three linear transport developments which run parallel to the coast,

inland of the SIPA. It is assumed that all will require similar environmental controls to

the LPIC project and therefore, will have similarly negligible or low / minor magnitude

impacts on groundwater quality during their construction and operation phases.

It is highly unlikely that these could combine with any LPIC Project element to cause a 5.2.40

significant cumulative impact during either construction or operation. The projects

screened out from further assessment on this basis are:

LPIC Laydown Areas;

LPIC Warehousing;

Seawater Extraction Facility including Effluent Treatment Plant;

Sugar Refinery (Sohar) OSC / Food Processing Cluster (Sohar) SFCC;

Bio-energy Plant;

Sohar Aluminium Smelter (SAC);

Antimony Plant (Tri-star);

Sohar Waste Management Facility (including Incineration Facility);

Coastal Highway;

Batinah Expressway;

National Railway Network; and

Railway Service Centre.



Construction Phase

5.2.41 The LPIC construction phase is due to last from Q3 2016 until Q3 2017, the PP being

constructed first. This coincides with:

The operational phases of SRIP, OMPET/ OMPIA and IWP, which are assessed

(by HMR) to result in low significance impacts; and

The construction and operational phases of the IWP and, the operational phase of

the IPP, which have associated potential impacts of medium significance,

meaning that they would require control measures to prevent unacceptable

environmental impacts.

Construction impacts associated with the LPIC PP(S) are predicted to be of low 5.2.42

significance and are not considered further. Impacts due to the pipeline and NGLE

plant are predicted to be of medium significance, based on major (unlikely) and

Moderate (likely) magnitude effects resulting from the accidental release of polluting

substances.

Controls are in place to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water during the 5.2.43

construction phase of the LPIC Project. These include the use of appropriate storage

facilities for hazardous materials and containment of pipeline hydrotest water. Only if

major spillages or incidents occur during construction, which is considered to be very

unlikely, would there be any discernible effects on water quality due to the LPIC Project.

Should this occur, it is anticipated that water quality and groundwater level could be

affected for a short duration of days to weeks, whilst clean-up is underway.

Considering these impacts at the water body scale, in combination with the potential 5.2.44

impacts from the projects identified above, it is unlikely that the magnitude of cumulative

impacts on groundwater quality would exceed Medium (as defined in Table 2).

During construction, dewatering may be required at the Sohar PP sites to provide a dry 5.2.45

work area. This could result in temporary offsite effects on groundwater level which

may be exacerbated if dewatering is undertaken simultaneously on any of the projects

located within SIPA. Should this occur local groundwater supplies, already suffering

from reduced groundwater levels, could become unusable for the duration of the works.

However, given that a production well system is already installed within SIPA it is

unilkely that any impacts would be more severe than baseline conditions when the

wellfields are in use. As such it is considered that this would result in a temporary

cumulative impact of Low magnitude, that is unlikely to occur.



Operational Phase

The LPIC operational phase is due to commence in Q4 2017. This phase coincides 5.2.46

with the:

Operational phases of SRIP and OMPET/OMPIA, which are assessed (by HMR)

to result in low significance impacts; and

Construction phases of the SRIP, OMPET/OPMIA and the IWP and, the

operational phase of the IPP, which all have associated potential impacts of

medium significance, meaning that they would require control measures to

prevent unacceptable environmental impacts.

Impacts due to operation of the PP(S) and NGLE plant are assessed (by HMR) to be of 5.2.47

medium significance, based on Moderate (long-term) magnitude effects resulting from

the planned discharge of wastewater (sewage) and management other wastes (such as

oil, sludge, chemicals, solvents, paints, PE & PP powders, cotton).

Operational impacts associated with the LPIC pipeline have not been evaluated (by 5.2.48

HMR) as no activities will be undertaken other than intermittent and temporary

maintenance and a major incident (such as pipeline fracture) is considered to be

extremely unlikely.

5.2.49 Controls are in place to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water during the

operational phase. These include the use of appropriate storage facilities for hazardous

materials drainage systems at the PP and NGLE facilities that will be designed to

capture surface runoff and spillages. Only if major spillages or incidents occurred at

either facility or along the pipeline route, which is considered to be exceptionally

unlikely, would there be any discernible effects on groundwater quality due to the

project. Should this occur, it is anticipated that water quality and groundwater level

could be affected for a short duration of days to weeks, whilst clean-up is underway.

5.2.50 Considering these impacts at the water body scale, in combination with the potential

impacts from the projects identified above, it is unlikely that the magnitude of cumulative

impacts on groundwater quality would exceed Medium (as defined in Table 2).

Neither the PP nor NGLE involve the construction of significant underground structures 5.2.51

or significant changes to surface drainage patterns, therefore no effect on groundwater

or surface water flow will result from these elements of the scheme.

During construction, dewatering may be required at the Sohar PP sites to provide a dry 5.2.52

work area. This could result in temporary offsite effects on groundwater level which

may be exacerbated if dewatering is undertaken simultaneously on any of the identified

SIPC projects. Should this occur local groundwater supplies, already suffering from

reduced groundwater levels, could become unusable for the duration of the works.



Should the project impact on local groundwater supplies this will result in a cumulative 5.2.53

impact of temporary Low magnitude.

The shallow burial depth of the pipeline will ensure that it does not effect groundwater 5.2.54

flow at depth. Deeper burial at wadi and floodplain crossings, and backfilling with

permeable material, will ensure that or wadi baseflow/storm flow are not affected. Other

linear projects have been identified that do have the potential to effect groundwater flow

but the negligible effect predicted for the LPIC project will result in no cumulative

effect.

Surface Water Flow and Quality

Construction Phase


phase are predicted to range from no impact to negligible.

Potential changes to surface water drainage patterns for storm-induced run-off is 5.2.56

mitigated through design changes to enable storm water drainage for the project. As

such, construction impacts associated with hydrology are negligible.

Other linear projects have been identified that do have the potential to effect surface 5.2.57

flow but the negligible effect predicted for the LPIC project will result in no cumulative

effect.

Operation Phase


phase are predicted to range from no impact to negligible.

Potential changes to surface water drainage patterns for storm-induced run-off is 5.2.59

mitigated through design changes to enable storm water drainage for the project. As

such, operation impacts associated with hydrology are predicted to be localised, low

occurrence and reverisble, therefore any cumulative impact is lilkey to be negligible

magnitude.

Biodiversity

The cumulative impacts at have been assessed for the biodiversity VECs identified in 5.2.60

Table 6 are:

Temporary or permanent disturbance to terrestrial habitats and flora and fauna

during construction / operation / decommissioning.

Temporary or permanent alteration to physical environment during construction /

operation / decommissioning which results in indirect impacts on terrestrial

habitats and flora and fauna.



Temporary or permanent disturbance to marine habitats and flora and fauna


Temporary or permanent alteration to marine environment during construction /

operation / decommissioning which results in indirect impacts on marine habitats

and flora and fauna.

Terrestrial Ecology

During construction of the LPIC Project and other projects there would be ground 5.2.61

clearance and associated loss of habitat and flora, as well as disturbance to fauna that

are present in the relevant footprint of the construction areas.

Many of the other projects and the LPIC projects occur in areas that are industrial 5.2.62

areas, generally are known to contain habitats and species that are common and are

rarely considered to be remarkable areas. For this reason, low value is placed on the

terrestrial habitats in the region.

Construction Phase


phase are predicted to range from minor to moderate, predominatly due to largescale

site clearance, temporary camps, storage, levelling and noise, particularly in relation to

linear developments.


any works undertaken in this area will have to comply with existing environmental

management protocols. It is also assumed that construction best practice principles will

be adopted across all the projects to minimise potential impacts. Several of the projects

are also linear infrastructure projects which will only interact with the LPIC Project

locally, i.e. where roads cross the pipeline or routed adjacent to the port area.

Cumulative impacts to terrestrial ecology could occur as a result of habitat loss or 5.2.65

alteration to the local environment that results in indirect impacts on habitats. However,

where impacts on ecology occur they are likley to be localised and of short duration and

will be remediated or compensated to mitigate impacts.

Given the extent of the areas of disturbance and habitat loss in the context of the 5.2.66

overarching region, and given that for the LPIC project there are no known rare or

threatened habitats, flora, or fauna present and affected, the magnitude of the likely

effect is Low.



Operation Phase


phase are predicted to range from negligible to moderate, however the majority are

predicted to be negligible. Moderate impacts were predicted to be associated with

ongoing movement of operation and maintenance crew along linear developments.

The effect will occur for the duration of construction (which may be staggered for the 5.2.68

projects), and it is expected that the extent of habitat (and particularly flora and fauna)

disturbed would decrease in the operation phase, but is considered to remain at Low

magnitude due to the duration and intermittency of some likely activities (e.g.

maintenance etc).

During the operation phases some disturbance may cease or decrease significiantly, 5.2.69

furthermore, where habitat loss occurs this may be temporary and habitats and flora

can begin to recolonise in the operation phase.

The only potential uncertainty is whether other projects themselves would specifically 5.2.70

impact on rare or threatened species (flora and fauna), which is unknown at this time

due to the lack of data available. However, the contribution to the magnitude of the

effect from the LPIC Project would not change (and would be less in comparison to the

other projects), and impacts would need to be addressed at the individual project scale.

Overall however, it is expected that further site specific information from other projects 5.2.71

would not be predicted to alter the conclusions in relation to the magnitude of the effect

on terrestrial habitats and flora and fauna. The operational impact takes into account

the combined impact of permanent (or for the duration of operation) habitat loss as well

as disturbance effects on flora and fauna from monitoring / maintenance activities.

There is a risk that polluting events could impact on flora and fauna in the area of such 5.2.72

events. As these events cannot be predicted, but given the localised scale over which

these could occur, and given the low importance of the habitats particularly in the

industrial zones (where any risk of such events would be greater), no cumulative effect

is predicted, particularly as with such events a clean-up/restoration plan would be

implemented.

Marine Ecology

The proposed LPIC Project does not have any direct interaction with the marine 5.2.73

environment. No dedicated seawater intake or outfall facilities are expected to be

provided for the Project and the Project will not discharge any waste directly into the

marine environment. Since the Project has no proposed direct interaction with the

marine environment, no cumulative effect is predicted.



There is a risk that polluting events could impact indirectly on marine ecology through 5.2.74

release of flammable materials from on-site tanks or through the incorrect disposal of

hazardous waste. As these events cannot be predicted, but given the localised scale

over which these could occur, and given the low importance of the habitats particularly

in the adjacent tidal and subtidal regions (where any risk of such events would be

greater), no cumulative effect is predicted, particularly as with such events a clean-

up/restoration plan would be implemented. The appointed EPC Contractors are

expected to run their construction sites to international standards of housekeeping and

HSE practice, which includes proactive preventative measures to avoid spills, polltuion

incidents and accidents.

Socio-economic

The cumulative impacts at have been assessed for the socio-economic VECs identified 5.2.75

in Table 6 are:

Temporary or permanent impact on properties used by private owners and/or for

communal purposes (i.e. grazing land, etc) during construction / operation.

Temporary or permanent employment opportunities during construction /

operation / decommissioning.

Temporary or permanent business generation / local expenditure during

construction / operation / decommissioning.

Temporary or permanent increase in road traffic during construction / operation /

decommissioning.

Temporary or permanent increase in road traffic accident risk during construction /


Temporary or permanent obstruction to access (road / rail) routes during


Temporary or permanent increase in support infrastructure (i.e. domestic

sewerage, domestic waste collection and disposal, electricity demand) during


Temporary or permanent increase in demand for healthcare during construction /


Temporary or permanent increase in participation in local recreation facilities


Land Use (Local Communities and Assets / Properties)

See Natural Resources – Land Use section above for effect and magnitude in relation 5.2.76

to land use.



Employment

The LPIC Project is expected to have a medium-term beneficial effect on local 5.2.77

employment during construction and a long term beneficial impact during operation.

The only potentially negative effect is associated with the loss of local employment

during transition from construction to operation and this effect is of Low magnitude.

The potential negative impact associated with ingress of workers into the region is

developed in Section 5.2.106 which adresses Cultural Conflicts. There are other

projects planned or being developed at the same time as the LPIC project (see Section

3.3 and Table A12 negative in Appendix A). For most of these projects there are no

precised quantification, however it is assumed that the magnitude of the effect of these

projects individually will be similar to LPIC in the worst-case prediction (negative impact)

or more optimistic case prediction (positive impact). In combination, the LPIC Project

and other developments are likely to have a significant medium- to long-term positive

effect on the local employment. Any combined negative effect on local employment is

anticipated to be balanced by wider economic and social benefits generated by the

developments. The potential cumulative effect on local employment is predicted to

result in a beneficial effect of Medium magnitude in construction and in a beneficial

effect of Low magnitude in operation.

Economy

The LPIC Project is expected to have a medium-term beneficial effect to the local 5.2.78

economy during construction, and a long-term beneficial impact to the local economy

during operation. It is expected that the project will boost the local purchase of goods in

construction and will generate new business opportunities in operation. Based on

feedback received from local residents during the social surveys, the value of local

commodities and food is closely tied to the performance of the national economy and

the national inflation rate, although it is possible that the increased industrialisation in

the project area (in the last two decades) also could have contributed to a gradual

increase in food prices in this industrial area. As this idata is not colected at the

national level, searching for reliable information on this matter presents a challenge,

both from the official national sources and from public media and intenet. There are

other projects planned or being developed at the same time as the LPIC Project (see

Section 3.3 and Table A08 in Appendix A). There is limited information on those

projects, however, it is assumed that the development of these projects individually is

very likely to have a short-term to long term positive effect to the local economy, mainly

coming through from the creation of direct and indirect new jobs and business

opportunities for local businesses In combination, the LPIC project and other

developments are likely to have a significant medium to long-term positive effect. The

potential cumulative effect on local economy will be positive and of High magnitude

during both construction and operation.



Infrastructure (Domestic Sewerage, Waste, Electricity, Healthcare, Recreation)

When considering the LPIC project development and other planned or ongoing 5.2.79


impacts on local infrastructures could occur including the stress on water suppliers,

health facilities, religious and recreation sites, sanitation and waste facilities, power and

fuel suppliers. The individual contribution from the PP and NGLE Plant is not predicted

to be significant during construction. The individual contribution from the NGL pipeline

is predicted to be of Medium magnitude effect. For the operation phase, the individual

contribution from the PP is not predicted to be significant. There no impacts anticipated

from the NGL pipeline. The individual contribution from the NGLE Plant has not been

evaluated.

The potential cumulative effects on infrastructures from LPIC construction with 5.2.80

simultaneous construction or operation of other major industrial projects in the project

area are identified below:

Water Supply – the LPIC project will use desalinated water supplied by Sohar

Power and Desalination Plant (Sohar-I). Given other projects overlapping during

the construction phase, the water demand is likely to rise in the medium term and

the potential cumulative effect is predicted to result in Low magnitude effect.

Health infrastructure – all project developers in Oman are requested to have their

own health care facilities within their labour camps. For serious injuries, it is

assumed that workers would be transferred to the nearest public facility. There

are over 450 beds / places for patients spread among five main hospitals located

in the Al Batinah Governorate. Given the future developments planned within the

industrial zone, it is likely that this will put more stress on public health care

facilities. The potential cumulative effect is predicted to result in Medium

magnitude effect.

Religious and recreation – the increase of population in the region of Liwa and

Sohar as a result of current and future economic developments has the potential

to put stress on existing churches, temples and recreation facilities. The potential

cumulative effect is predicted to result in Medium magnitude effect.

Sanitation – it is expected to have an increase in wastewater volume as a result of

the increasing water demand coming from LPIC project and other planned or

ongoing developments in the industrial zone. This has the potential to put

pressure in the medium term on existing wastewater treatment facilities such as

the Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) and MISC. The potential cumulative effect

is predicted to result in Low magnitude effect.

Waste – it is expected to observe an increase in waste volume as a result of the

increasing construction activities of LPIC and other planned or ongoing

developments in the industrial zone. This has the potential (about as likely as not)

to put pressure in the medium term on existing waste treatment and disposal

facilities. Municipal waste is currently collected by trucks and transferred to the



waste dumpsites. Non-hazardous industrial solid wastes are disposed of through

licensed contractors. Hazardous solid waste is currently stored at the generating

facilities at SIPA. It is assumed that the influx of waste in the medium term is

likely to require the construction of new facilities or expand the existing ones. The

potential cumulative effect is predicted to result in Medium magnitude effect.

The potential cumulative effect on infrastructure is predicted to result in Low to Medium 5.2.81

magnitude effect during construction as described above.

The potential cumulative effects from LPIC operation with simultaneous construction or 5.2.82

operation of other major industrial projects in the Project area are identified below:

Power Supply – Given the future developments planned at the industrial zone, the

power demand is very likely to increase. Transformation industries are major

consumer of electricity compared to normal building and residential properties.

Oman has nearly 3,500MW of electrical capacity and it is assumed that the region

has sufficient power capacity to meet the demand of the industrial zone. Hence,

the potential cumulative effect on power supply is likely to be of Low magnitude.

Fuel Supply – the LPIC project and other projects within the SIPA is very likely to

put pressure on fuel supply. It is assumed that local suppliers will be able to

supply required quantities without disturbing the local supply-demand. Hence, the

potential cumulative effect on fuel supply is likely to be of Very Low magnitude.

Water Supply – as mentioned previously, the LPIC project will use desalinated

water supplied by Sohar Power and Desalination Plant (Sohar-I). Given the future

developments planned within the industrial zone and the new City of Liwa, the

water demand will rise significantly in the long term. This potential increase can

put pressure on water suppliers in the region. It is expected that this issue will be

addressed by the government to meet the water demand in the industrial zone.

Given this and the water scarcity in Oman, the potential cumulative effect on

water supply is likely to be of Medium magnitude.

The potential cumulative effect on infrastructures is predicted to result in Very Low to 5.2.83

Medium magnitude effect during operation as described above.

Societal Cohesion

See Cultural Heritage – Cultural Conflicts section above for effect and magnitude in 5.2.84

relation to societal cohesion.



Road Traffic

Construction Phase Traffic Flow

The cumulative construction traffic flows have been provided by SIPC, based on 5.2.85

interview surveys that were carried out with the future tenants. Table 23 provides a

summary of the 2017 construction traffic associated with cumulative development traffic

arriving and departing the port, during a weekday morning hours between 6:30am and

7:30am and between 7:30am and 8:30am. No traffic flow information was available for

a whole weekday.

Table 23 2017 Cumulative Development Construction Traffic in “movements”

Time Period

Arrivals Departures

Sedan Car

Bus HGV Sedan

Car Bus HGV

0630 – 0730 446 213 8 149 71 3

0730 – 0830 435 71 54 145 13 18

In comparison with the existing traffic flows visiting the port in 2015 during a weekday 5.2.86

morning peak hour, it can be seen that the construction traffic associate with the

cumulative development would equate to approximately an additional 50% increase.

The cumulative construction traffic flows oincluding the ORPIC project are presented in 5.2.87

Table 24. This table provides a summary of the 2017 construction traffic associated

with ORPIC development traffic arriving and departing the port, during a weekday

morning hours between 6:30am and 7:30am and between 7:30am and 8:30am. No

traffic flow information was available for a weekday.

Table 24 2017 Cumulative Development and ORPIC Construction Traffic

Time Period

Arrivals Departures

Sedan Car

Bus HGV Sedan

Car Bus HGV

0630 – 0730 505 247 9 168 82 3

0730 - 0830 490 40 64 163 13 21

In comparison with the existing traffic flows visiting the port in 2015 during a weekday 5.2.88

morning peak hour, the additional construction traffic flows associated with the

combined develoopements and the ORPIC constrution traffic would equate to

approximately an additional 100% increase. This would be considered as a Very High

magnitude increase for a short-term duration. The probability of traffic being present is

Virtually Certain.

At the time of writing, there is no information in relation to trip generation associated 5.2.89

with potential cumulative developments that may be constructed outside Sohar Port.



No account can therefore be taken of traffic impact associated with developments

located outside Sohar Port.

To mitigate for potential increase in Traffic and to mitigate for additional potential risks 5.2.90

related to HSE of international workers and local residents, the Project will prepare a

Traffic Management Plan which will be finalised with contractors and will be

disseminated to all contractors involved on the project. The Social Management Plan

(SMP) prepared for the LPIC project specifically, outlines the key performance

indicators that will be used to monitor and manage the contractors’ compliance with the

Traffic Management Plan. Following implementation of this mitigation measure, the

cumulative construction flow increase would be considered as a Medium magnitude

increase for a short-term duration.

Operational Phase Traffic Flow

The Traffic Study demonstrated that the existing internal highway link in the vicinity of 5.2.91

the ORPIC site would be over capacity during the morning peak hour, representing a

High magnitude effect, which is Very Certain and would occur over the Long-term.


Construction Phase Traffic Accident Risk

Given the significant increase in volumes of road vehicles including potentially 5.2.92

significant numbers of HGVs, there is an elevated risk of road traffic accidents (both

between vehicles and between vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists. However, many

accidents are often caused by speeding vehicles, and as such the risk from heavy (and

slower moving) construction plant would be considered negligible. Given the

uncertainties in existing and potential road traffic volumes as well as uncertainties in

where potential at risk locations arise, i.e. the many routes and changing circumstances

(i.e. highly dependent on individual drivers), a conservative Low magnitude of

increased risk is predicted in the Short-term. Given the majority of drivers are likely to

be male and between the age of 20 – 50 years of age, the probability of risk increasing

individuals is Likely.

Operation Phase Traffic Accident Risk

During the operation phase, there would be additional traffic volumes on the road 5.2.93

network arising from operational staff travelling to and from the sites, as well as

movement of HGVs. The increase in numbers is likely to be small given the total

number currently using the road, and a decrease on the previous years when

construction was being carried out. Due to the decrease in volumes, a commensurate

decrease in road traffic accident risk would be expected. Road vehicle numebrs on

particular routes may also decline due to the completion of the Batinah Expressway as

well as Liwa City which will alter the traffic generated (and routes vehicles travel).

Overall, a Neutral magnitude cumulative effect is predicted for the Long-term. Given



the majority of drivers are likely to be male and between the age of 20 – 50 years of

age, the probability of risk increasing individuals is Likely.

Access Routes

Construction Phase Access Obstruction

The construction and location of the other projects have the potential to impact on the 5.2.94

existing transport infrastructure (road and rail). However, other than potential temporary

obstruction, the only key effects that could arise is if specific projects obstruct through

design the implementation of transport development. For example, if a projects

construction or operational activities impinged on the construction or designed route for

the Coastal Highway, the Batinah Expressway, or the National Rail Network. No project

would be consented that would interrupt or intrude on these national infrastructure

projects and, consequently, no cumulative effects are expected.

Construction Phase Access Obstruction

The construction and location of the other projects have the potential to impact on the 5.2.95

existing transport infrastructure (road and rail). However, other than potential temporary

obstruction, the only key effects that could arise is if specific projects obstruct through

design the implementation of transport development. For example, if a project’s

construction or operational activities impinged on the construction or designed route for

the Coastal Highway, the Batinah Expressway, or the National Rail Network. No project

would be consented that would interrupt or intrude on these national infrastructure

projects and, consequently, no cumulative effects are expected.


The health baseline data collected by Orpic indicate that 28% of the surveyed 5.2.96

households has at least one family member with a serious chronic illness or life

threatening disease. The top three diseases prevalent in these households in the last

three years include diabetes coupled with high blood pressure, asthma and cancer.

The potential impact of the LPIC project on community health and safety is anticipated

to be of Medium magnitude. There are other projects planned or being developed at

the same time as the LPIC project (see Section 3.3 and Table A07 in Appendix A).

For most of these projects there are no precised quantification, however it is assumed

that the individual contribution of each project would be similar to LPIC Project in the

worst case prediction.



In broader terms and taking into account this and other planned or ongoing 5.2.97

developments in the area, cumulative impacts on local communities health and safety in

the project area during construction could include:

Influx of workers - spread of diseases in the medium term due to influx of migrant

workers into the project area. Cumulative impacts on cultural conflicts are

assessed as in Section 5.2.106.

Air quality – asthmas and other respiratory infections could be exacerbated

significantly in the medium term among local residents and employees caused by

the changes in the air quality (mainly during construction). Cumulative impacts on

air quality are assessed in Section 5.2.78 onwards.

Lower atmosphere – indirect impacts on global population as a result of climate

change. Cumulative impacts on air quality are assessed in Section 5.2.92

onwards.

Noise – noise and vibration within the proximity of the project footprint could be

exacerbated (noticeable change but not significant) in the medium term among

local residents and employees caused by the changes in the noise and vibration

(mainly during construction). Cumulative impacts on noise and vibration are

assessed in Section 5.2.96 onwards.

Transport - increased safety risk related to transport and movement of trucks

during construction. Cumulative impacts on transport and road access are

assessed in Section 5.2.64 onwards.

Stress on local infrastructure is assessed in Section 5.2.58 onwards.

The potential cumulative effects on local communities is about as likely as not to remain 5.2.98

localised within the project area during construction. During operation, potential

cumulative effect on local communities should remain limited through the control of

environmental emissions by design and compliance of all projects with regulatory

emissions thresholds. The worst case potential cumulative effects on community health

and safety is predicted to result in Very High magnitude effect during construction and

High magnitude effect during operation.

Air Quality

There is potential for cumulative air quality impacts in the Sohar region as there are a 5.2.99

number of populated areas in the vicinity of the SIPA and associated access roads to

components of the project.

Construction Phase - Dust and Fine Particulate Matter

In respect of project construction activities, if there are overlapping construction periods 5.2.100

of major projects within SIPA then cumulative dust impacts may occur. Guidance

provided by the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) states that impacts may be

experienced where receptors are located within 350m of the site boundary, or 50m from



the route used by construction vehicles up to 500m from the site entrance. Beyond

these distances, impacts are not anticipated to be experienced. Excavation and

construction activities within 700m of other, similar-scale projects may therefore

contribute to cumulative impacts at receptors within the above distances of the projects.

In-combination effects with noise may also be experienced.

The developments that are likely to have a significant overlapping construction periods 5.2.101

with the Project are SRIP, OMPET, OMPIA and the Coastal Highway. The SRIP,

OMPET and OMPIA developments are large industrial facilities and are anticipated to

have similar construction related activities, including the number of vehcile movements.

There are no identified sensitive receptors within 350m of the Project, or in an area 5.2.102

where excavation and construction activities would have cumulative localised impacts

from dust and particulate matter. There is a potential for cumulative impacts from

construction-related vehicle movements at VECs in the vicinity of the access roads to

the port from construction activities at the pipeline in the vicinity of Sohar, and at the PP

facility. The magnitude is therefore considered to be Low.

Construction Phase - Emissions from On-Site Plant

Emissions associated with fuel combustion, including nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur 5.2.103

dioxides (SO2) and particulate matter (PM10) will be emitted from on-site plant during the

construction phase. There is the potential for a cumulative impact at nearby VECs

where construction periods of projects overlap. However, as baseline pollutant

concentrations are well below the relevant air quality Objectives, it is unlikely that

emissions from construction phase plant will lead to exceedences of the Objectives at

VECs. Furthermore, as the construction phase will be temporary in nature, the

magnitude of impacts is considered to be low.

Operation Phase

Process emissions resulting from the operational phase of projects have the potential 5.2.104

to give rise to cumulative effects at proximate receptors. The key pollutants are those

associated with fuel combustion and high temperature processes, including NOx, SO2

and PM10. Carbon monoxide (CO) levels can be elevated but in most circumstances do

not exceed health-based standards. VOCs and their hazardous organic species

composition are also emitted and can be subject to fugitive losses, so cumulative local

effects require consideration. The nature of industrial activities means that peak

emissions and also long-term cumulative releases may influence either short-term or

annual average health-based standards.

The EIAs undertaken for each component of the Project only considered short-term 5.2.105

health-based Objectives, and did not calculate any long-term predicted concentrations.

The short-term results reported within the EIA were well below the Omani ambient air

quality standards for all modelled pollutants at Fahud and Sohar.



Monitoring data in the vicinity of the project facilties in Fahud and Sohar show that there 5.2.106

were exceedences of the 24-hour Omani PM10 ambient air quality Objective. This is

consistent with arid areas where windblown surface dust is prevalent. Monitored

concentrations of all other pollutants were well below Omani and USEPA air quality

Objectives.

With reference to Table 10, there is potential for cumulative impacts in the operational 5.2.107

phase of the PP in Sohar with other developments within the SIPA, including the SRIP,

IPP, Sugar Refinery & Food Processing Cluster, OMPET, and OMPIA. There is

anticipated to be combustion activities at all of the identified developments, with the

potential for pollutant release.

Little emissions data were available for each development, therefore a qualitative 5.2.108

assessment of potential cumulative impacts was undertaken. This was based on the

likely size of the development, the distance to VECs and the baseline air quality

conditions.

The potential for emissions from the SRIP, OMPET and OMPIA were considered to be 5.2.109

of a similar magnitude of the PP. The IPP may have potential for greater emissions of

NOx than the PP.

The VECs likely to be affected by cumulative impacts are those to the south and west of 5.2.110

the SIPA. However, the predominant wind direction is from the north-east, therefore

these receptors are not located immediately downwind of pollutant sources. There are

proposals to move a number of these settlements to Liwa city to the north of the SIPA.

However, this is not yet confirmed and the relocation may not take place prior to the

operation of projects within the SIPA. These VECs were therefore considered in the air

quality cumulative assessment.

It is not possible to quantitatively determine the potential for cumulative air quality 5.2.111

impacts during the operational phase, due to a lack of available data. However, given

the scale of the LPIC and other projects, there is the potential for cumulative air quality

impacts to occur at VECs.

VECs are considered to be of high sensitivity, as air pollutants may affect human health. 5.2.112

The magnitude of the potential impacts is considered to be high, as there could be

permanent or irreplacable change which is likely to occur.

Nevertheless the Orpic facilities will be subject to stringent design, emissions control 5.2.113

and management criteria, to ensure its technology and operations will be in accordance

with the IPPC / IED principles of best available techniques. However, emissions from

other projects combined with those predicted for the LPIC Project could increase levels

within the local area beyond guidance / threshold levels. Such an increase (to above a

threshold level) could be considered a High manitude effect. It is noted that significant

uncertainty underlies this prediction and it is considered to be a conservative

judgement.



Green House Gases Emissions

Construction Phase

The projects considered in the cumulative assessment are all likely to produce GHGs 5.2.114

during the construction and operational phases. GHGs during the construction phase

were considered to be temporary, and at national and global scale, Very Low.

Operation Phase

The PP was predicted to produce the highest quantity of GHGs from all of the project 5.2.115

components, with an estimated 1,210,316 tonnes of CO2 per year, approximately 2% of

GHG emissions in Oman.

Operational phase GHGs were available for the Sohar Aluminium Factory, IPP Sohar, 5.2.116

SRIP, OMPET and the Tri-star developments. GHG emissions from these projects

were predicted to be approximately 2,002,397 tonnes per year. In addition, there are

likely to be further emssions from the Sugar Refinery (Sohar) / Food Processing

Cluster, Sohar Waste Management Facility and the Bio-energy plant. GHG data were

not available for these developments.

As a cumulative impact, the operation of all identified developments within the Sohar 5.2.117

region are likely to give rise to an increase in regional and national GHG emissions.

However, at the global scale such contributions are considered to be Very Low.

Noise

Construction Phase

The Sohar region is sensitive in terms of noise as it is a populated area with both 5.2.118

residential and commercial premises. The concentration of projects within this location

means that noise could pose a nuisance to the communities during the construction

phase. Of specific concern for noise impacts are the SRIP and OMPET projects

located within the industrial zone on the coast of Sohar. In addition, the Bio-energy

plant (yet undefined location but presumed to be somewhere within the industrial zone

at the coast), Batinah Coastal Highway, and railway service centre are also potentially

significant sources for localised noise impacts.

Of the above mentioned projects, the SRIP, OMPET, and (potentially) Bio-energy plant 5.2.119

are located within the same area and overlap in the zone of influence.

With reference to the cumulative impact table noise levels during the construciton phase 5.2.120

within the work place are specified to be kept below 85dBA where possible and workers

are required to be provided with adequate hearing protection to mitigate the negative

effects of high noise levels.



Noise in Oman is governed by two regulations, MD 79/94 and MD 80/94. MD 79/94 5.2.121

provides noise limits from industrial noise and traffic noise for which the criteria for the

boundary of an industrial site is no greater than 70dBA. MD 80/94 provides noise limits

for workers exposed to noise and stipulates that where noise levels are 85dB and

higher, workers must be provided with adequate hearing protection.

No information is available for the above mentioned projects but it is assumed that, 5.2.122

based on the projects in the area which have information available, the boundary noise

level will be maintained at less than 70dBA, and workers are provided with adequate

hearing protection where exposed to noise levels of 85dBA and higher. Also every

effort should be made to reduce noise levels to below 85dBA and locate noisy

equipment away from the site boundary.

Assuming the above is implemented in these projects it is anticipated that there would 5.2.123

be no cumulative impact for workers within the sites as they will already be exposed to

machines generating high noise levels such as generators and compressors and any

additonal noise from other projects will not affect other sites as boundary noise levels

should be kept to 70dBA and below. However, it has been mentioned that on-site

activities such as rock-breaking can produce noise levels significantly lounder than

85dBA and therefore the impact to work place noise is considered to be Medium

magnitude for the construction phase.

In areas where projects have overlapping zones of influence, there is a possibility that if 5.2.124

boundary noise levels are at 70dB for both projects, the combined effect of this would

be an ambient noise level of approximately 73dBA in the location where they overlap.

This is because when two noise sources are operating in the same location at the same

decibel level the resultant level is the noise level +3dB e.g. 70dB + 70dB = 73dB.

Therefore this would creative a cumulative impact of +3dB. Referring to Table 25 the

magnitude of impact for an increase of up to 2.9dB is considered negligible and for an

increase of 3.0dB – 4.9dB the impact is minor. Therefore it can be stated that in

locations where projects overlap there could be a worst-case scenario impact

magnitude of minor. However, this is considered very unlikely and in addition to this the

Sohar industrial area where the SRIP, OMPET and (potentially) Bio-energy plant are

situated does not contain any sensitive receptors nearby and therefore is not

considered a threat. Therefore the impact from construction noise is considered Low

negligible magnitude for the construction phase.

In addition to the above, projects being constructed concurrently could cause a short-5.2.125

term additional noise impact particularly if certain noisy activities such as rock-breaking

and blasting are occurring close to each other as well as in areas with increased traffic

flows. Although such activities create intermittent loud noise and are not expected to be

continuously occurring, the effect of multiple locations conducting these activities

simultaneously could cause a short-term cumulative impact when combined with the

noise impact of the increased traffic levels. This occurence is considered to be unlikely

and short-term and therefore Low negligible magnitude.



Table 25 Magnitude of Impact Thresholds

Increase in Noise Level (dB) Magnitude of Effect

0.0 No change

0.1 – 2.9 Negligible

3.0 – 4.9 Minor

5.0 – 9.9 Moderate

10.0+ Major

Operation Phase

For the coastal highway project there is no information available currently other than the 5.2.126

road currently accommodates 48,000 vehicle movements per day and is still under

construction. This is already a significant number of vehicle movements on the road per

day and as per the design advice presented in the Design Manual for Roads and

Bridges (DMRB) any road link which experiences a traffic volume increase of 25% or

decrease of 20% will experience a change in noise level of 1dBA which is regarded as

imperceptible and therefore of negligible significance.

Considering that traffic volumes are already significantly high on the coastal highway, it 5.2.127

is anticipated that the increase in traffic density is unlikely to exceed 25% during the

operation and therefore the impact is considered to be Low magnitude for the

operation.

Given the closeness of projects within the port area it is anticipated that the frequency 5.2.128

of HGV’s on the local roads will increase during the operation phase.

With reference to Figure 2 there are some overlaps between projects near the coast 5.2.129

including the IPP, Sugar Refinery & Food Processing Cluster, OMPET, and OMPIA

within the Sohar Industrial Port Area boundary. This area with the high concentration of

projects is separated from the residential area by the Peripheral Road, which will likely

experience an increase in traffic as a result of the numerous projects within the SIPA.

Traffic on the Batinah Highway is likely increase as this connects areas to the south to

the port, via the Sohar Port Road Entry. This road runs through the residential area and

noise from increased traffic flows could cause a nuisance.

An increase in road traffic as a result of the operation phase is anticipated given the 5.2.130

concentration of projects around the Sohar area. Receptors exist along the pipeline

route in the form of small settlements including towns and villages, which may be

affected by noise from increased traffic flows. Equipment associated with operation,

such as industrial machinery, will likely contribute to the ambient noise levels but be

limited to the locality of the project. HGV movements are likely to increase along the

pipeline alignment leading to Sohar, however, this area has very few noise sensitive

receptors. The increase in road traffic on the local roads leading to Sohar is unknown

but could exceed the 25% increase threshold meaning an increase of 1dB or greater.



However, where project information is given, noise from operational activities and HGV

movements will be limited to day time and no (or minimised) activities during periods

when people are resting such as evening and night time. Therefore the impact from

ambient noise is predicted to be of Low magnitude for the operation phase.

The SIPA containing the developments is approximately 540m from the residential area 5.2.131

at the closest point and, therefore, the likelihood of operational noise impact is predicted

to be of Low magnitude.

The above is based on the information available which is sparse and limited to certain 5.2.132

projects only. The above is based on the requirements for noise control in the state of

Oman being enforced adequately.

Access

See socio-economics section above for effect and magnitude on local access. 5.2.133

Road Traffic

See socio-economics section above for road traffic effect and magnitude. 5.2.134

Cultural Heritage


It is not anticipated to have cumulative impacts on known archaeological sites or sites of 5.2.135

cultural or religious within the NGLE Plant area (no other major projects at this location)

and the NGL pipeline corridor (no impacts predicted).

Direct impacts to potential in situ heritage assets and derived isolated artefacts during 5.2.136

the PP construction activities have not been assessed due to lack of information. It is

assumed that it is about as likely as not to encounter archeological remains within this

area. The foothills of Jebel Shaykh are known to have dense pre-Islamic grave clusters

from the Hafeet and Wadi Suq periods. There are other projects planned or being

developed at the same time as the PP within the SIPA and wider region (see Section

3.3 and Table A12 in Appendix A). For most of these projects, there are no

information to confirm the presence or absence of archaeological sites within the project

area. Given this, the potential cumulative disturbance (temporary or permanent) of all

these projects to archaological sites during the construction activities cannot be

determined.

Cumulatively, the risk of accidental damage to archaeological sites during construction 5.2.137

is considered to be significant, althought very unlikely. If archaeological remains and/or

material are discovered during construction, the potential impacts on cultural heritage

will be assessed further by Orpic and their EPC Contractors in line with environmental

permit requirements and managed through the Construction Environmental and Social

Management Plan (CESMP) and practical Chance Find Procedures. This usually



ensures that if unexpected and previously unknown finds are identified during the

course of construction works, there is a suitable protocol in place for them to be

reported, assessed, excavated and recorded, as appropriate. It is expected that

developers and contractors will follow best practices, hence the potential cumulative risk

of damage to archeological sites is likely to remain localised and medium term. The

cumulative effects is predicted to result in Low magnitude effect during construction.

Cultural Conflict

When considering the LPIC project development and other planned or ongoing 5.2.138


impacts related to cultural conflicts could occur. The social survey confirmed that local

communities have cautious attitude towards influx of workers, and some even

expressed significant concerns about the increase of international workers in their

neighborhoods. Potential impacts could include not only a mismatch between different

cultures and religions (as between the local communities and workers, and equally

within the construction camps between various workers’ groups) but also potential

conflicts about different attitudes to sex and/or prostitution and sexual health in general.

Orpic is aware about this issue and the contractors will be issueing social health

awareness leaflets in the constructions camps (translated to the main three languages

used by the workers in each camps). In addition, the Social Management Plan outlines

the key performance indicators on wider health issues in the camps that will be

monitored by Orpic in all camps related to the project. The individual contribution from

the LPIC Project is predicted to be of Major magnitude (likely) but of Low significance

during construction. The individual contribution from the LPIC project is predicted to be

of Medium magnitude (likely) but of Low significance during operation.

The construction stage of the LPIC project alone could require up to an estimated 5.2.139

15,000 workers (and possibly more, perhaps up to 17,000), however this total number

of workers was estimated for all three project locations, and not for the Sohar area only.

Some of the workers will be Omani, but most of them are assumed to be international

workers, thus triggering project-induced influx of people to the area of the Project. The

influx of people is naturally occurring and can involve significant cross-border

movement of people motivated to enhance their quality of life, for example through

greater employment opportunities and more favourable trade and business

opportunities. Local communities could refer to international workers as ‘outsiders’ as

they may not have any prior affiliation with local communities and in the case of arriving

from other countries, bring with them different cultures, languages, religions and

behaviours. International workers’ groups could include: labourers and their families,

entrepreneurs/traders and other associated groups. In broader terms and taking into

account this and other planned or ongoing developments in the area, the cultural

conflicts in the project area could be exacerbated (likely) among local residents due to

the influx of workers in the region, including international workers in the medium term.

However, there are already a large number of expatriate in Oman so the contribution of

LPIC in relation to other project is not expected to be significant. There is less potential



(as likely as not) for cultural conflicts during operation as the number of workers will be

limited to permanent employees and contractors in the long term. Overall, the potential

cumulative effects on cultural conflicts is predicted to result in the worse case in

Medium magnitude effect during construction and Low magnitude effect during

operation.

5.3 Identification of Insufficiencies and Assumptions

The data received on each project has been examined and is reviewed in relation to the 5.3.1

sufficiency of the baseline information and impact assessments relevant to this

cumulative assessment. Table 26 presents the data available for use in this cumulative

assessment.

Table 26 Available Data on Other Projects

Project Baseline Impact Assessment

Temporary Workers Accommodation No data No data

Seawater Extraction Facility including

Effluent Treatment Plant EIA Executive Summary EIA Executive Summary

Sohar Refinery Improvement Project EIA Executive Summary EIA Executive Summary

OMPET PET/PTA Petrochemical

Plant EIA Executive Summary EIA Executive Summary

OMPIA PIA (Purified Isophthalic Acid)

Plant EIA Executive Summary EIA Executive Summary

Pet Coke Facility (OMPET) EIA Executive Summary EIA Executive Summary

Majis Return Seawater Outfall EIA Executive Summary EIA Executive Summary

Independent Power Project (IPP

Sohar) OPWP EIA Executive Summary EIA Executive Summary

Sugar Refinery (Sohar) OSC / Food

Processing Cluster (Sohar) SFCC EIA Executive Summary EIA Executive Summary

Bio-energy Plant No data No data

Antimony Plant (Tri-star) EIA EIA

Laydown Areas No data No data

Warehousing No data No data

Sohar Waste Management Facility

(and Incinerator) No data No data

Establishment of Liwa City No data No data

Coastal highway No data No data

Batinah Expressway No data No data

National Railway Network No data No data

Railway Service Centre No data No data



The following are the key insufficiencies and assumptions made in this assessment: 5.3.2

The consumption of natural resources has been considered at an international

scale and linked to demand.

Limited specific detail is available on land uses that may be affected by other

projects, but assumption has been made that they are unlikely to be significant in

scale across the region and similarly assumption has been made that the

likelihood of the same private landowner and land use area being affected is very

low.

No information regarding whether or not dewatering will be undertaken during

construction of any identified SIPA projects is available. Should this be proposed,

to avoid reducing groundwater levels more than necessary, dewatering on SIPA

sites should not be undertaken simultaneously.

No information regarding the National Railway, Batinah Expressway, or Coastal

Highway projects is available. It is assumed that these will be designed and

constructed in accordance with local regulations that protect the water

environment. Crossing point designs should ensure that neither shallow

groundwater flow, nor surface stormwater flow, is obstructed as a result of the

pipeline / infrastructure crossings (depending on which is built first).

There is no specific detail on other projects and the habitats and flora and fauna

present in their sites and areas of disturbance (ZOI). However, the assumption

has been made that most other projects are in the industrial zones and overall are

unlikely to contain or uncommon habitats or rare or threatened species (flora and

fauna).

There is currently limited available social data from other projects. There are,

therefore, assumed to be high risks of socio-economic and cultural effects of all

projects particularly during the overlapping construction phases. Though this has

been reduced by the ongoing surveys being carried out on behalf of ORPIC.

There is limited information on baseline levels of road traffic and road

infrastructure constraints outside the SIPA. There is limited detailed traffic / trip

generation information presented or available for projects outside the SIPA and,

consequently, there is no way to quantify the potential levels of traffic increase,

congestion, or risk of road traffic accidents on external road infrastructure and

users.

There is limited spatial information available regarding many of the projects and

how they interact with or impact on transport infrastructure. We have assumed

that such impact would not be allowed to arise (in the consenting process).

There is no combined model outputs for air quality levels with all projects in

operation. Consequently, the evidence available for the assessment is

representative.

It has been assumed that no unknown archaeological sites will be impacted bythe

LPIC Project components.



5.4 Summary of Impact Magnitude on VECs

Table 27 presents a summary of the impact magnitude and duration and likelihood of 5.4.1

the cumulative impacts considered.



Table 27 Magnitude, Duration and Probability of Cumulative Impacts

VEC Receptor – secondary / indirect

receptor Impact Source Magnitude Probability Duration

Natural resources

Natural capital (wood, metal ores, rocks and geological deposits, aggregates, oil / diesel / petrol / natural gas, foodstuffs, freshwater and groundwater) – resident population / land use / local economy

Consumption during construction. Very low Very likely Short-term

Consumption during operation. Very low Likely Long-term

Land use – land owners / resident population

Temporary obstruction / accidental discharge / deposition during construction.

Low Likely Medium-term

Obstruction / accidental discharge / deposition during operation.

Medium Likely Long-term


Topography / landscape - resident population / employees / biodiversity (flora and fauna)

Temporary or permanent disturbance during construction.

Low Likely Medium-term

Temporary or permanent disturbance during operation.

Low Likely Long-term

Soil - resident population / employees / biodiversity (flora and fauna)

Intentional, incidental or accidental deposition of waste (solids or liquids) during construction.

Low Unlikely Short term

Intentional, incidental or accidental deposition of waste (solids or liquids) during operation.


Removal and loss of soil resource during construction.


Groundwater - resident population / employees / land use / local economy


Medium Very unlikely Short


Medium Exceptionally

unlikely Short

Obstruction / alteration to groundwater flows from permanent underground structures and/or dewatering.

Very Low Unlikely Short





Physical environment (continued)

Surface water (freshwater (wadis)) - biodiversity (flora and fauna) / resident population


Low Very unlikely Short term


Low Very unlikely Long term

Obstruction to surface watercourses from project structures.

No effect Exceptionally

unlikely Long term

Surface water (marine) - biodiversity (flora and fauna)


Very low Exceptionally

unlikely Short term


Very low Exceptionally

unlikely Long term

Biodiversity

Terrestrial habitats, terrestrial flora and fauna





Temporary or permanent alteration to physical environment during construction (indirect impact from above).


Temporary or permanent alteration to physical environment during operation (indirect impact from above).


Marine habitats, marine flora and fauna



unlikely Short term



unlikely Long term

Temporary or permanent alteration to physical environment during construction (indirect impact from above).


unlikely Short term

Temporary or permanent alteration to physical environment during operation (indirect impact from above).


unlikely Long term





Socio-economic

Employment – resident population

Temporary or permanent employment opportunities during construction.

Medium Likely Medium-term

Temporary or permanent employment opportunities during operation.

Low Likely Long-term

Local economy (e.g. local goods / services / local businesses) - resident population

Temporary or permanent local expenditure during construction.

High Likely Long-term

Temporary or permanent local expenditure during operation.


Road traffic (congestion) - resident population / local economy

Temporary or permanent increase in road traffic during construction.

Medium Virtually Certain

Short-term

Temporary or permanent increase in road traffic accident risk during construction.

Low Likely Short-term

Temporary or permanent increase in road traffic during operation.

High Very Certain Long-term

Temporary or permanent increase in road traffic accident risk during operation.

Neutral Likely Long-term

Access routes – transport / movement - resident population / local economy

Temporary or permanent obstruction to access (road / rail) routes during construction.

None

Temporary or permanent obstruction to access (road / rail) routes during operation.

None

Water supply - resident population / local economy

Temporary or permanent increase in demand for freshwater supplies during construction.

High Likely Short-term

Temporary or permanent increase in demand for freshwater supplies during operation.

Low Unlikely Short-term

Sewerage infrastructure - resident population

Temporary or permanent increase in sewerage loading during construction.


Temporary or permanent increase in sewerage loading during operation.






Socio-economic (continued)

Waste collection and disposal - resident population

Temporary or permanent increase in demand for waste collection and disposal during construction.


Temporary or permanent increase in demand for waste collection and disposal during operation.


Electricity supply - resident population / local economy

Temporary or permanent increase in demand for electricity supplies during construction.


Temporary or permanent increase in demand for electricity supplies during operation.


Healthcare facilities - resident population

Temporary or permanent increase in demand for healthcare during construction.


Temporary or permanent increase in demand for healthcare during operation.


Recreational facilities - resident population / local economy

Temporary or permanent increase in participation in local recreation facilities during construction.


Temporary or permanent increase in participation in local recreation facilities during operation.



Air quality – health and nuisance - resident population / employees

Temporary or permanent increase in gaseous pollutant emissions to air during construction.

Low Low Short-term

Temporary or permanent increase in gaseous pollutant emissions to air during operation.

High High Long-term

Temporary or permanent increase in dust or PM10 during construction.

Low Very Low Short-term

Temporary or permanent increase in dust or PM10 during operation.

Low High Short-term

Greenhouse gases – climate (global population)

Temporary or constant greenhouse gas emissions during construction.

Low High Long-term

Temporary or constant greenhouse gas emissions during operation.

Low Low Short-term





Community and health (continued)

Noise – health and nuisance – resident population / employees

Temporary or permanent increase in noise emissions (plant, machinery, vehicles) during construction.

Medium Unlikely Short-term

Temporary or permanent increase in noise emissions (plant, machinery, vehicles) during operation.

Low Unlikely Long-term

Access routes – resident population / employees

Temporary or permanent obstruction to residential access during construction.

None

Temporary or permanent obstruction to residential access during operation.

None

Road traffic – resident population / employees

Temporary or permanent increase in road traffic congestion during construction.

Very High Virtually Certain

Short-term

Temporary or permanent increase in road traffic congestion during operation.

Low Likely Short-term

Temporary or permanent increase in road traffic accident risk during construction.

High Very Certain Long-term

Temporary or permanent increase in road traffic accident risk during operation.

Neutral Likely Long-term

Visual amenity - resident population

Temporary visual disturbance during construction.

Low Likely Medium term

Temporary or permanent visual disturbance during operation.

Low Likely Long term

Cultural heritage

Archaeological sites Permanent disturbance during construction. Unknown Unknown Unknown

Permanent disturbance during operation. Low As likely as not Medium-term

Resident population / employees

Cultural conflict (as a result of in migration) during construction.

Medium Likely Medium-term

Cultural conflict (as a result of in migration) during operation.

Low As likely as not Long-term



6 Significance of the Cumulative Impacts

6.1 Introduction

The tasks carried out in this stage were to: 6.1.1

Identify the significance of the impact for all VECs (including relevant individual

receptors); and

Discuss the thresholds relating to ‘significant’ or ‘insignificant’ impacts.

6.2 Significance of the Cumulative Impacts

The significance of the cumulative impacts is considered below on the basis of the 6.2.1

assessment of the magnitude of the effects in Section 5, and in relation to the

sensitivity / value of the likely VECs (as tabulated in Table 13).

Natural Resources

Natural Resources

Cumulative effects on natural resources are assessed to be Very Low in magnitude 6.2.2

during construction and operation. Receptor sensitivity is Low though of High value.

Consequently, the cumulative impact is consdiered to be of Negligible significance

during construction and operation of the LPIC project.

Land Use

Cumulative effects on land use and land ownership are assessed to be of Low 6.2.3

magnitude in construction and of Medium magnitude in operation (and similar in scale

for decommissioning). Receptor sensitivity is High though of Medium value.

Consequently a Minor negative cumulative impact is predicted for both construction

and operation during the construction and operation of the LPIC project.


Topography

Cumulative effects on topography are assessed to be Very Low in magnitude for the 6.2.4

operation phase (not assessed for the construction phase). Receptor sensitivity is Low

to High (Low around the main LPIC plant areas and High along some areas of the NG

Pipeline route) though of Low to Medium value (again with higher values along parts of

the NG Pipeline). Consequently a Negligible negative cumulative impact is predicted

even in the most sensitive areas (though no impacts are predicted to arise in sensitive

areas along the NG Pipeline as it is further inland than any of the other project

locations).



Landscape

Cumulative effects on landscape and visual amenity within the PP are assessed to be 6.2.5

of Low magnitude in construction and operation. There are no valued landscapes

around the PP and wider area in the coastal plain. Receptor sensitivity is Very Low

though of Low value. Consequently a Negligible negative cumulative impact is

predicted during the construction and operation of the LPIC project.

Soils

Construction Phase

Cumulative effects on soils are assessed to be of Low magnitude during construction. 6.2.6

Receptor sensitivty is considered to be Medium (worst-case) and of Low value.

Consequently, the cumulative impact is considered to be of Negligble significance.


Cumulative effects on soils are assessed to be of Low magnitude during operation. 6.2.7

Receptor sensitivty is considered to be Medium (worst case) and of Low value.

Consequently, the cumulative impact is considered to be of Negligble significance.

Groundwater Flow and Quality

Cumulative effects on groundwater level at Sohar (due to dewatering) are assessed to 6.2.8

be Low in magnitude. Receptor sensitivity for groundwater is assessed to be High. The

resulting cumulative impact (should it occur) is therefore considered to be of Minor

negative significance during construction and operation of the LPIC Project.

6.2.9 Cumulative effects on groundwater quality are assessed to be Medium in magnitude for

both the construcion and operational phases. For the worst case, High sensitivity

receptor, this would result in an negative residual impact of Minor significance.


There are no cumulative impacts predicted in relation to surface water flow or quality, 6.2.10

see groundwater for relevant impacts.

Biodiversity

Terrestrial Ecology

Cumulative effects on terrestrial ecology (habitats and flora and fauna) are assessed to 6.2.11

be of Low magnitude in construction and operation (and similar in scale for

decommissioning). Receptor sensitivity is considered to be Low and of Low value

(given the nature of the habitats and areas of development). Consequently a

Negligible negative cumulative impact is predicted during construction and operation of

the LPIC Project.



No cumulative impact is predicted on habitats and species due to polluting events 6.2.12

given the other project sites presence and areas previously disturbed as well as the lack

of potential for impacting any uncommon habitats or rare and threatened species due to

the nature of the site areas (industrial areas).

Marine Ecology

Since the Project has no proposed direct interaction with the marine environment, no 6.2.13

cumulative effect is predicted on marine ecology (habitats and flora and fauna).

No cumulative impact is predicted on habitats and species due to polluting events 6.2.14

given the other project sites presence and areas previously disturbed as well as the lack

of potential for impacting any uncommon habitats or rare and threatened species due to

the nature of the site areas (industrial areas).

Socio-economic


See Natural Resources – Land Use Section 6.2.3 for significance in relation to land 6.2.15

use.

Employment

Cumulative effects on local employment are assessed to be of Medium magnitude in 6.2.16

construction and of Low magnitude in operation (and similar in scale for

decommissioning). Receptor sensitivity is Very High though of High value.

Consequently a Moderate positive cumulative impact is predicted in construction and a

Minor positive cumulative impact is predicted in operation.

Economy

Cumulative effects on local economy are beneficial of High magnitude in construction 6.2.17

and operation. Receptor sensitivity is Low though of High value. Consequently a Minor

positive cumulative impact is predicted.


Cumulative effects on infrastructure are assessed to be of Low to Medium magnitude in 6.2.18

construction and of Very Low to Medium magnitude in operation. Receptor sensitivity is

Low though of Medium value. Consequently a Negligible negative cumulative impact

is predicted during construction and operation of the LPIC project.

Societal Cohesion

See Cultural Heritage – Cultural Conflicts Section 6.2.38 for significance in relation to 6.2.19

societal cohesion.



Road Traffic

Construction Phase Traffic Flow

Cumulative effects on traffic and traffic congestion are assessed to be of Very High 6.2.20

magnitude in the construction phase (though lesser in scale for decommissioning).

Receptor sensitivity is considered to be Low and of Medium value. Consequently a

potential short-term Moderate negative cumulative impact is predicted.

Operation Phase Traffic Flow

Cumulative effects on traffic and traffic congestion are assessed to be of High 6.2.21

magnitude in the operation phase. Receptor sensitivity is considered to be Low and of

Medium value. Consequently a potential long-term Minor negative cumulative impact

is predicted.


Construction Phase Traffic Accident Risk

Cumulative effects on increased risk of road traffic accidents are assessed to be of Low 6.2.22

magnitude in the construction phase (though lesser in scale for decommissioning).

Receptor (local residents and workers) sensitivity is considered to be of Very High

sensitivity and High value. Consequently a potential Minor risk of increased road traffic

accidents is predicted in the short-term.


Cumulative effects on increased risk of road traffic accidents are assessed to be of 6.2.23

Neutral magnitude in the operation phase. Receptor (local residents and workers)

sensitivity is considered to be of Very High sensitivity and High value. Overall, no

increased risk of road traffic accidents is predicted in the long-term.

Access Routes

As no project would be consented that would interrupt or intrude on these national 6.2.24

infrastructure projects, no cumulative impact is expected.


Air Quality

Construction Phase - Dust and Fine Particulate Matter

It was anticipated that there would be no cumulative impacts during the construction 6.2.25

phase of the NGLE facility in Fahud or the pipeline, due to the lack of nearby sensitive

receptors and other projects within the ZOI.



Cumulative impacts associated with the construction phase are therefore considered to 6.2.26

be not significant.

Construction Phase - Emissions from On-Site Plant

Given the baseline pollutant concentrations and temporary nature of the construction 6.2.27

phase, emissions from on-site plant are anticipated to be of Minor negative

significance.

Operation Phase

Given the high uncertainty in the quantifiable information and lack of cumulative 6.2.28

modelling along with the Very High sensitivity of nearby receptors (local settlements

and communities and health), a Moderate to Major negative cumulative impact could

arise to the health of some communities.

With regard to the pipeline, there are anticipated to be minimal pollutant releases during 6.2.29

the operational phase, therefore there were anticipated to be no cumulative effects.

As there are no other significant developments identified in close proximity to the NGLE

facility in Fahud, there was considered to be no cumulative effects with any other

developments. Cumulative impacts associated with the operation phase of the NGLE

and pipeline are therefore considered to be not significant.

Green House Gas Emission

Given the very low global percentage of GHG emissions contributed by all projects, 6.2.30

given the Medium sensitivity (as the predicted threshold of risk of induced climate

change has been surpassed and given the agreements from COP21 aimed at reducing

GHG emissions) a Negligible negative cumulative impact is predicted on GHG

emissions.

Noise

Construction Phase

The value of the community and health VEC is defined as National and sensitivity rating 6.2.31

as Medium. Given that where information is available, projects within the ZOI have

adequate plans for reducing the impact of ambient noise and regulations for controlling

community noise (DM 79/94) are enforced. Therefore since the magnitude of impact is

anticipated to be Low a Negligible negative significance of impact is anticipated with

respect to ambient noise within the construction phase.

Additionally the effect of concurrent construction noise from the projects with the noise 6.2.32

impact from increased traffic flows could have the potential to cause a short-term

cumulative impact where projects within close proximity of each other simultaneously

undertake excessive noisy activities close to the project boundary. However, where

information is available, it is stated these activities are expected to be located away



from the boundary to comply with MD 79/94 and occur intermittently during regular

working hours, which minimises the potential for an impact. It is anticipated that this

cumulative impact will be an unlikely occurrence and short-term and therefore an impact

of Negligible negative significance is predicted.

With regard to work-place noise during construction, equipment planned to be used in 6.2.33

many of the projects generates significant levels of noise exceeding 85dBA for which

adequate hearing protection will be required as well as the other mitigation steps

mentioned in Section 5. Therefore a Minor to Moderate negative impact is predicted.

Operation Phase

All settlements identified in the areas at risk are to be resettled within the LIWA city are 6.2.34

slightly further north up the coast from Sohar. Because of this, residential receptors

which are the most sensitive to noise will be moved further away from the sources of

noise and therefore the significance of impact will reduce even further during the time

period around 2020 to 2021.

The cumulative impact of noise is most likely to come from increased numbers of 6.2.35

construction vehicles and HGVs on the roads. This can be intermediate and may only

affect those urban settlements that are closest to the roads. The noise as a result of

on-site generators and other industrial equipment is likely to mostly affect those in the

vicinity of the site and will only cause cumulative impact if sites are close to each other

or operations expand out of the confines of the project areas. The significance of the

cumulative noise impact is considered to be Moderate negative for the operation

phase given that noise from traffic can cause nuisance to individuals. Additional

mitigation measures include use of noise barriers on roads with heavy traffic flows that

are close to urban settlements and, where possible, HGV traffic could be re-routed to

avoid sensitive areas.

Additionally the effect of concurrent construction noise from the projects with the noise 6.2.36

impact from increased traffic flows could have the potential to cause a short-term

cumulative impact where projects within close proximity of each other simultaneously

undertake excessive noisy activities close to the project boundary. However, where

information is available it is stated these activities are expected to be located away from

the boundary to comply with MD 79/94 and occur intermittently during regular working

hours which minimizes the potential for an impact. It is anticipated that this cumulative

impact will be an unlikely occurrence and short-term, and therefore an impact of

Negligible negative significance is anticipated.

With regard to work place noise during the operation phase it is anticipated that due to 6.2.37

some of the on-site activities noise levels of 85dB and higher will be present. Adequate

hearing protection will be required for workers within the sites as well as the other

mitigation steps mentioned in Section 5. An impact of Minor to Moderate negative

significance is predicted.



Access

See socio-economics section above for impact on local access. 6.2.38

Road Traffic

See socio-economics section above for road traffic impact. 6.2.39

Road Traffic Accident

See socio-economics section above for road traffic accident risk. 6.2.40

Cultural Heritage


Cumulative effects on archeological sites are assessed to be of Low magnitude in 6.2.41

construction. Receptor sensitivity is Very High though of High value. Consequently a

Minor negative cumulative impact is predicted during the construction phase.

Cultural Conflict

Cumulative effects on cultural conflicts are assessed to be of Medium magnitude in 6.2.42

construction and of Low magnitude operation. Receptor sensitivity is Very High though

of High value. Consequently a Moderate negative cumulative impact is predicted in

construction and a Minor negative cumulative impact is predicted in operation.

6.3 Thresholds of Significance

This section discusses the relevant thresholds of significant or potentially significant 6.3.1

impacts on the relevant VEC / Receptor Group, particularl where thresholds may be

encroached or where there is uncertainty.

Natural Resources

Natural Resources

Whilst any use of natural resources could be considered a threshold of significance, 6.3.2

such a threshold is exceeded on a daily basis. The key threshold is whether the

consumption of natural resources is exceeded to the point where the region can no

longer support the requirements of the project. In the assessment of the key risks and

risk factors this test has not been exceeded.

Land Use

Cumulative impacts on land use and land ownership are assessed to be Minor negative 6.3.3

in construction and operation (and similar in scale for decommissioning). Receptor



resilience to changes is Low. Receptor may show some degree of difficulty to be able

cope with cumulative changes.


Topography

Any change of topography could be deemed an exceedence of the threshold but this 6.3.4

will be exceeded during the consutrction phase of the project. The project is located in

an area of development and within an existing development. As such, exceedence of

significance is only applicable to where the project operates outside these areas.

Hence any significance threshold is not likely to be exceeded.

Landscape

Cumulative impacts on landscape and visual amenity within the PP are assessed to be 6.3.5

Negligible negative in construction and operation. There are no valued landscapes

around the PP and wider area in the coastal plain. Receptor resilience to changes is

fairly High. Receptor is expected to be able cope with cumulative changes.

Groundwater Flow and Quality

6.3.6 The cumulative impact assessment assumes that impacts on groundwater quality could

result from environmental releases associated with a very to exceptionally unlikely

incidents such as a fire. The assumptions is that such an incident could be dealt with in

a short space of time (days to weeks) and that environmental clean-up would be

relatively effective. Should a large volume of polluting substance be irrecoverably lost

to the environment, a longer-term impact (such as an enduring plume of groundwater

pollution) could occur, resulting in a high magnitude effect and impact of moderate

significance.


The capacity of the surface water drainage network is used to determine the threshold 6.3.7

of significance of the LIPC project cumulatively with other projects which will be

constructed more or less at the same time, or when operational. This threshold and

receptor has therefore been the focus of any proposals to mitigate such impacts.

Biodiversity

Terrestrial Ecology

Any damage to uncommon or rare terrestrial habitats or species as a result of 6.3.8

construction or operational activities could be considered a threshold of significance.

Monitoring of the scheme and adoption of best practice pricniples will ensure any

significant threshold is not likely to be exceeded.



Marine Ecology

Any damage to uncommon or rare marine habitats or species as a result of construction 6.3.9

or operational activities could be considered a threshold of significance. Hence any

significance threshold is not likely to be exceeded due to the lack of interaction with the

marine environment.

Over time, future development at SIPA could contribute cumulative temperature 6.3.10

increase of marine seawater. It would be prudent for the developers and/or authorities

to consider this potential contribution realting to increased discharges into the marine

enviroment and ensure that biological quality does not deteriorate over time to impact

on uncommon or rare marine habitats or species. Longer-term monitoring on this

aspect should be considered by those third parties.

Socio-economic


See Natural Resources – Land Use Section 6.3.3 for threshold discussion in relation to 6.3.11

land use.

Employment

Cumulative impacts on local employment are assessed as positive. No threshold of 6.3.12

significance is therefore triggered.

Economy

Cumulative impacts on local economy are assessed as positive. No threshold of 6.3.13

significance is therefore triggered.


Cumulative impacts on infrastructure are assessed to be Negligible negative in 6.3.14

construction and operation. Receptor resilience to changes is Low. Receptor may

show some degree of difficulty to be able cope with cumulative changes.

Societal Cohesion

See Cultural Heritage – Cultural Conflicts Section 6.3.25 for thredhold discussion in 6.3.15

relation to societal cohesion.

Road Traffic

The capacity of the internal highway within the Port has been used to ascertain the 6.3.16

threshold of significance of the LPIC project cumulatively with other projects which will

be constructed more or less at the same time, or when operational. This threshold and

receptor has therefore been the focus of any proposals to mitigate such impacts.




Whilst any mortality as a result of a road traffic collision could be considered a threshold 6.3.17

of significance, such a threshold is exceeded on a daily basis. The key threshold is

whether an increased risk is so high. In the assessment of the key risks and risk factors

this ‘qualittative’ test has not been exceeded.

Access Routes

The LPIC projects themselves do not intrude on access infrastructure except at very 6.3.18

localised site specific scales which are managed. Hence any significance threshold is

not likely to be exceeded.


Air Quality

The relevant thresholds of significance with regard to air quality (the air quality 6.3.19

Objectives) were considered in the determination of the significance of impacts detailed

in Section 6.2.

Green House Gas Emissions

The threshold of significance on the atmosphere from GHGs emitted from the 6.3.20

developments considered in the CIA are Low, based on the low contirbution compared

to national and international GHGs emitted per year.

Noise

The threshold of significance from the ambient noise from construction and 6.3.21

developments considered in the CIA are Low, based on the low contribution compared

to the current baseline situation. The threshold of significance form the workplace noise

is also considered to be low as adequate mitigation in the form of ear protection for

workers and low noise design for plant equipment is provided.

Access

See socio-economics section above for impact on local access. 6.3.22

Road Traffic

See socio-economics section above for road traffic impact. 6.3.23

Road Traffic Accident

See socio-economics section above for road traffic accident risk. 6.3.24



Cultural Heritage


Cumulative impacts on archeological sites are assessed to be Minor negative in 6.3.25

construction. Receptor resilience to damage or loss is Low. Receptor is expected to

not be able to cope with cumulative risks of damage or loss.

Cultural Conflict

Cumulative impacts on cultural conflicts are assessed to be Moderate negative in 6.3.26

construction and Minor negative in operation. Receptor resilience to changes is Very

Low. Receptor is expected to show significant degree of difficulty to be able cope with

cumulative changes.



7 Management of Potentially Significant Cumulative Impacts

7.1 Introduction

Where significant cumulative impacts or potentially significant impacts have been 7.1.1

idnetified, additional monitoring and/or mitigation measures have been developed.

‘Significant’ impacts are those predicted to be of Moderate or Major Negative

significance in Section 6.

As with the process of EIA, the CIA approach to managing cumulative impacts revolves 7.1.2

around the development of mitigation measures (either changes in design or

construction/operational methods, or external site measures such as offsets, creation,

or compensation). However, in the context and uncertainty of CIA of multiple projects

that are already consented, many of the additional measures identified relate to

monitoring (development and measurement of baselines) to support any justification for

subsequent mitigation.

The principles of mitigation are developed based on the following hierarchy of 7.1.3

mitigation:

Prevention: make changes to projects design (or potential location / orientation)

to avoid negative effects on a VEC.

Reduction: where prevention is not possible, negative effects should be reduced

through sensitive treatments/design.

Compensation: where prevention or reduction measures are not available, it may

be appropriate in some circumstances to provide compensatory measures. Such

circumstances are generally limited to the compensatory provision of new or

enhanced habitats / social assets to replace losses of particular significance. It

should be noted that compensatory measures do not eliminate the original

negative effect, they merely seek to offset it with a comparable positive one.

Remediation: where negative effects are unavoidable, management measures

can be introduced to limit their influence.

The principles of mitigation are developed based on the following hierarchy of 7.1.4

mitigation:

7.2 Recommended Measures

The following additional recommendations are made in order to prevent, reduce, or 7.2.1

offset the potential significance of significant negative cumulative impacts where that

impact is certain. Where uncertainty arises monitoring is the approproate approach to

determining whether the impact is occurring and measures would need to be

undertaken to ameliorate the scale of the impact to acceptable levels.



Socio-economic

Land Use (Local Communities and Assets / Properties), Employment,

Economy, Infrastructure (Domestic Sewerage, Waste, Electricity, Healthcare,

Recreation), and Societal Cohesion

Construction Phase

Social Traffic related - Implementation of Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE) 7.2.2

management system to prevent accidents in the area, Consultation and engagement

with key local stakeholders, including: local authorities (Walis), local communities and

businesses, as well as coordination with traffic authorities, Training and regular

refresher courses of LPIC direct employees and employees of contractors on safe

driving, Reduce construction activities and the associated driving in the run to and

during the Eid Al Fitr and Eid Al Adha holidays seasons, also monitor all required traffic

during the school holidays

Social, Health/Emissions related: 7.2.3

Implementation of CEMP procedures and schedule, as well as Environmental

Monitoring Plan (Air Emissions, Dust) to see how air quality data is changing;

Early notification to local authorities and Walis on critical or exceptionally busy

construction periods and air-polluting/dust- and noise-generating activities; and

Dust suppression by water spraying in dry seasons, particularly in the areas close

to sensitive residential and community receptors.

Social, Community / Cultural Risks and Cohesion- related as well as sexual awareness: 7.2.4

Orpic’s Community Relations and CSR Policy, detailing contributions to local

employment, training of young local specialists and any other CSR initiatives.

Orpic to distribute a sexual awareness leaflets translated into the main languages

used by international workers in every camp, monitoring of general health

parametres as part of HSE process;

Grievance mechanism;

Monitoring to ensure awareness of grievance submittal process, monitoring

grievance trends;

Orpic’s Workers Camps Management Plan available to general public on the

Orpic’s website;

Contractors’ compliance with national HSE legislation and Orpic HSE Policies and

evaluation of contractors’ HSE performance;

Internal (by Orpic) and external (by Lenders) audits of the HSE Management

system implementation by Contractors;



Orpic’s Health and Safety Management Policy which covers no tolerance to drugs

and alcohol, AIDS prevention leaflets, etc;

Labour Camp Management Plan;

Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) implementation with regards to keeping a

regular dialogue with local communities; and

Security Management Plan (applicable to all construction camps).

Social – Local Economy related: 7.2.5

Orpic’s Employment Strategy – which is transparent and supported by clear

recruitment process for Omani and non-Omani citizens with variable skill sets;

Demand and supply side analysis of skills available among local communities;

Targeted training for local residents with skills suitable for the Project;

Monitoring of local income levels in the area, as per the Social Management Plan

as well as commodities prices levels - to assess whether the Orpic’s existing CSR

Policy will need to be adjusted to reflect any potential changes;

Prior to construction, create and populate a database of all suitable local service

providers to encourage more opportunities for local businesses; and

Maintain and regularly update a separate web page on the Orpic website

dedicated to local tenders for the provision of goods and services. Such webpage

should be widely publicised by Orpic.

Social – Local Infrastructure related: Orpic will work closely with all public services 7.2.6

providers in the area to obtain short intelligence on how local infrastructure is coping,

and based on these reports assess whether any changes need to be introduced into the

Construction Camps Management, and communicated to the Contractors who are

managing the camps.

Air Quality

Operation Phase

At the PP, low NOx combustion systems will be used. In addition, high combustion 7.2.7

temperatures and high air to fuel ratios will be used where possible to minimise CO and

unburnt hydrocarbon emissions from the PP. The flare will be designed to prevent cold

venting, and combust over 99% of hydrocarbons. NOx emissions will be reduced by

steam assistance and optimising the fuel-air ratio. Waste gases containing high levels

of pollutants will be converted to CO2 and sulphates.

There is consideration to relocate receptors in close proximity to the SIPA to Liwa City 7.2.8

to the north of the Sohar region. Residents that are moved may experience reduced

pollutant concentrations at this location. The prevailing meterological conditions would

disperse pollutants away from Liwa City, however detailed dispersion modelling would



be required to quantify the reduction in pollutant concentrations. In addition, it is likely

that a number of the developments considered in the CIA will be in operation before the

relocation of receptors. At this stage, it is uncertain if the movement of human

settlements is going to proceed, therefore the effecitveness of this mitigation cannot be

quantified.

Road Traffic

Port Access – Construction Phase

7.2.9 Based on the volume of traffic predicted to visit the port during the 2017 construction

phase, the Traffic Study demonstrated that the existing internal highway link in the

vicinity of the ORPIC site would be over capacity, resulting in delays within the port.

The existing ORPIC site access junction was also assessed and the results

demonstrated that significant queuing would occur with vehicles waiting to turn left into

the site during the morning peak hours.

7.2.10 In terms of the external highway layout, the Traffic Study also demonstrated that there

would not be sufficient capacity at the existing gates to cater for the full demand of

traffic entering the port during the 2017 construction period, even if all lanes were in

operation.

7.2.11 The Traffic Study demonstrated that a third gate, accommodating six lanes, would be

required to allow traffic to enter the port during the construction period. The main

reason for more lanes during the construction period is due to the significant number of

buses and heavy vehicles entering the port during morning peak period.

7.2.12 With the addition of a third gate, traffic entering the port would be redistributed, which

would result in a balancing of traffic flows on the internal highway network within the

port. The redistribution of traffic would enable the existing junctions within the port to

operate with adequate reserve capacity with no undue queueing.

7.2.13 In conclusion in addition to a third gate, providing six lanes, would be required to

improve the internal operation of the port road network, a third gate would also be

required to manage the volume of traffic entering the port during morning peak hour

periods.

External Highway – Construction Phase

7.2.14 There is insufficient information available to assess the impact that construction traffic

would have on the operation of the existing Batinah Highway. Based on site

observation in 2015, it is considered that access to the port from the Batinah Highway

via the Sohar Interchange junction would be acceptable without causing undue delay to

existing traffic.



7.2.15 In order to assess the traffic impact at Sohar Port Roundabout junction, which is an at-

grade roundabout junction, during the construction period it is recommended that a

traffic survey is commissioned during the morning peak period.

7.2.16 An operational assessment of the existing junction would identify if any improvements

would be required to mitigate the traffic impact associated with the addition of the

construction traffic.

Port Access – Operation Phase

7.2.17 The Traffic Study demonstrated that the existing internal highway link in the vicinity of

the ORPIC site would be over capacity during the morning peak hour. This further

demonstrated the need for a third gate to access the port, which would redistribute

traffic across the internal port highway network.

External Highway – Operation Phase

7.2.18 Although there is no information to quantify the benefit that the Batinah Expressway,

which is programmed to open in 2017/18, will have on the operation of the existing

highway network, it is evident that the operation of the Batinah Highway should increase

significantly.

7.2.19 At this stage it is therefore not envisaged that any further highway works would be

necessary to mitigate the traffic impact associated with the operation phase of the

ORPIC site.

7.2.20 This conclusion may however need to be revised if it is determined that there is

cumulative development located outside of Sohar Port that has not been taken account

of in this high level review. At the time of writing this report no information is available in

relation to potential cumulative development that may be located outside Sohar Port.

Noise

7.2.21 During the construction phase, boundary noise levels at each of the project sites should

be maintained no greater than 70dBA, which can be achieved by locating particularly

noisy works (85dBA and over) in locations as far away as possible from the boundary

and where screening from other parts of the facility will help to reduce noise

propagation. An example of this would be to locate compressors behind walls and

facing away from open areas where people would congregate. Noise works and dense

vehicle movements should be restricted to day-time working hours. Equipment on site

should be well maintained, modern and operated in a way that reduces the impact of

noise from the site such as minimised revving of engines. Workers within the sites

should be provided with adequate hearing protection where noise exposure could be

85dBA and higher as stipulated in MD 80/94.



7.3 Residual Cumulative Impacts

Where significant negative impacts were identified and mitigation measures 7.3.1

recommended, the subsequent reduction in the magnitude and significance of the

impact is discussed below.

Air Quality

Operation Phase

Despite the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce pollutant emissions from 7.3.2

the PP, due to the scale of the developments considered in the CIA, there is still

potential for moderate to major impacts at the closest VECs. See Social Management

Plan for key mitigation strategies and performance indicators that Orpic will use to

manage and monitor air emissions to prevent major negative impacts on local

communities. The residual significance is therefore Moderate to Major Adverse.

Road Traffic

Construction Phase

7.3.3 The inclusion of the third access gate would significantly reduce potential congestion

within and into the Port, such that a Very Low magnitude cumulative effect would

occur, and as such a potential Short-term Negligible cumulative impact would occur.

Operation Phase

7.3.4 The inclusion of the third access gate would significantly reduce potential congestion

within and into the Port in the operation phase, whilst the Batinah Expressway is

predicted to further reduce congestion. Consequently, a Very Low magnitude

cumulative effect would occur, and as such a potential Long-term Negligible

cumulative impact would occur.

Hazardous Waste

7.3.5 No details currently exist regarding the cumulative volume of waste to be gathered as

part of the Be’ah Project and third party projects that will contribute to that. The EPC

contactors on the LPIC Project will be able to estimate the generation of hazardous

waste volumes in a more detailed manner during the detailed design stage and then in

construction itself. The new Be’ah waste facility will also need to take into account

future development and trends in waste generations so that its storage area and the

permitting of wastes can be considered and dealt with correctly in the medium to long-

term.



8 Conclusions and Recommendations

8.1 Significant Cumulative Impacts

This assessment identified that whilst many negligible and minor negative cumulative 8.1.1

impacts could occur, only a small number of potentially significant cumulative impacts

have been identified on the basis of the conservative assessment. The potentially

significant cumulative impacts are:

Road traffic congestion cumulative impact was predicted to be moderate, however

it could potentially be higher depending on the traffic volumes and how the other

projects influence traffic around the area;

Air quality and impact on health of local communities health particularly during

operation; and

Noise and impact on local communities, particularly during construction but also

potentially during operation. The cumulative impact of noise is most likely to come

from increased flows of construction vehicles and heavy goods vehicles on the

roads, particularly during construction. Residential receptors that are the most

sensitive to noise will be moved further away from the sources of noise and

therefore the significance of impact will reduce even further during the time period

around 2020 to 2021.

On review of the potential effects during decommissioning of the LPIC Project, it is 8.1.2

anticipated that the impacts would not be as severe as those during construction, but

would be greater than those during operation. However, the decommissioning phase

impacts would for the significant part be reversible and would end on completion of the

LPIC Project decommissioning phase.

8.2 Recommendations for Further Work / Monitoring

It is recommended that air quality modelling of the PP location and other projects at 8.2.1

least within 5km is undertaken to understand the potentially significant nature of the

cumulative impact on air quality and impacts on local residents and settlements,

including at Liwa City. This should be undertaken prior to the relocation of VECs to

Liwa City to determine pollutant concentrations and ensure that future residents will not

be exposed to elevated pollutant concentrations. It is also recommended that a period

of monitoring is undertaken to establish baseline conditions at Liwa City.

Given the lack of transport and traffic information and given the wide-scale risks to both 8.2.2

traffic infrastructure, congestion, and road traffic accident risk outside of the SIPA it is

proposed that baseline traffic counts are undertaken within an appropriate transport

study area and assessment made of potential conflicts and levels using traffic modelling

in order to identify risk areas and propose other associated development (road

infrastructure work) to reduce potential impacts and risks.



9 References

Al-Maniri AAN, Al-Reesi H, Al-Zakwani I, Nasrullah M. (2013). Road Traffic Fatalities in Oman

from 1995 to 2009: Evidence from Police Reports. International Journal of Preventive Medicine.

2013; 4(6):656-663.

Al-harthy, I. and Tamura, A. (1999). Sound environment evaluation and categorization of

audible sounds -The first survey of the human response to the sound environment in Muscat

city (Oman). J. Acoust. Soc. Jpn. (E) 20, 5 (1999).

Al-Futaisi, A., Rajmohan, N., Al-Touqi, S. (2007). Integrated concept for groundwater evaluation

and protection — Barka catchment (Oman) as case study. 8th Gulf Conference.

Al-Wahaibi, S. (2004). A presentation on the environmental factors and their influence on

humans health. Director of Environmental Health and Malaria Eradication, Ministry of Health

Baawain, M. and Al-Omairi, A (2013). Characterization of domestic wastewater treatment in

Oman from three different regions and current implications of treated effluents. Environmental

Monitoring and Assessment (Impact Factor: 1.68). DOI:10.1007/s10661-013-3572-x.

De Bel-Air, F (2015). Demography, Migration, and the Labour Market in Oman. Explanatory

Note No. 9/2015, Gulf Labour Market and Migration (GLMM) programme of the Migration Policy

Center (MPC) and the Gulf Research Center (GRC). Available at URL:

http://gulfmigration.eu/media/pubs/exno/GLMM_EN_2015_09.pdf (Accessed on 16/03/2016)

Coles, S.L. and Al-Riyami, K.A.(1996). Beach tar concentrations on the Muscat coastline, Gulf

of Oman, Indian Ocean, 1993-1995. Mar. Poll. Bull. 32: 609-614.

Daher, R.F ( 2007). Tourism in the Middle East: Continuity, Change and Transformation.

El-Gohary, F. A., Nasr, F. A., and El-Hawaary, S. (1998). Performance assessment of a

wastewater treatment plant producing effluent for irrigation in Egypt. The Environmentalist, 18

,87 - 93.

HMR (2016). Socio-Economic Monitoring Plan- DRAFT of Liwa Plastic Industries Complex.

HMR Consultants. 16 March 2016.

International Finance Corporation (2013). Good Practice Handbook on Cumulative Impact

Assessment and Management: Guidance for the Private Sector in Emerging Markets.

Ministry of Environment and Climate Affairs (MECA, 2014). 5th National Report to the

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2014.

Ministry and Water Resources (2014). Oman’s Strategy for Securing Water. The 11th Gulf

Water Conference.



McLachlan, A., Fisher, M., Al-Habsi, H.N,.Al-Shukairi, S.S., and Al-Habsi, A.M. (1998). Ecology

of sandy beaches in Oman. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 4: 181-190.

National Centre of Statistics and Information Data (NCSI, 2015). Available at:

https://www.ncsi.gov.om/Pages/NCSI.aspx

Orpic (2016). Liwa Plastic Industries’ Complex Additional Environmental & Social Information for

Lenders Supplementary Social Impact Assessment Report. By Royal HaskoningDHV.

Roper, S. D., and Barria, L. A. (2014). Understanding Variations in Gulf Migration and Labor

Practices. Middle East Law and Governance: 6:1: pp32-52 (April 2014). Available at URL:

www.stevendroper.com/MELG_06_01_01_Roper%20and%20Barria.pdf (Accessed on

16/03/2016)

Regional Health Systems Observatory (2006). Health Systems Profile- Oman. Available at:

http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s17304e/s17304e.pdf

Salm, R.V., Jensen, R.A.C. and Papastavrou, V.A.(1993). Marine fauna of Oman. Cetaceans,

turtles, seabirds, & shallow water corals. IUCN, Gland.

Salalah Sanitary drainage Services Co. (2007). Areporton Wastewater treatment and handling.

Published by the Salalah Sanitory drainage, Sultanate of Oman: Services.

United Nations (2015). Climate and Health Country Profile – 2015 Oman.

World Development Indicators. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/

Yaghi, B. (2007). Heavy metal levels in tap water in Batina Region, Oman. International Journal

of Environment and Pollution, 31 (1/2).



Appendices

Appendix A Summary Impact Tables for Relevant (Scoped-In) Third Party Projects

Documents

Liwa Plastic Industries Complex Cumulative Impact ...orpic.om/UploadsAll/CIA.pdfLiwa Plastic Industries Complex Cumulative Impact Assessment Report ... Liwa Plastic Industries Complex