E2658 V14 MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF WATER RESEOURCES DIRECTORATE OF RIVER, LAKE AND RESERVOIR ; JAKARTA URGENT FLOOD MITIGATION PROJECT (JUFMP) JAKARTA EMERGENCY DREDGING INITIATIVE (JEDI) TA FOR ENVIRONMENTAL &SOCIAL IMPACT.ASSESSMENT (EIA/SIA) GRANT NO TF#092649 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA} River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI} Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Submitted by /A. PT:PPA Consultants JANUARY 2011 In joint venture with liiiJ PT. Arkonin Engineering Manggala Pratama PEMERINTAH PROVINS(DAERAH KHUSUS IBUKOTAJAKARTA BADAN PENGELOLA LINGKUNGAN HIDUP DAERAH PROVINSI DAERAH KHUSUS IBUKOTA JAKARTA Jl. Casabla.nca Kav. 1 Kuningan Telp; (021) 5256174,5209645, 5209651, 5209653 Fax. (021) 5209643, 5265309, e.fllail: bid_inf_bplhd@jakarta.go.id, webmin_bplhd@yahoo.com . WebsHe.: http:flbplhd.jakarta.go.id, Jakarta . Kode Pos 12950 11 Januari 2011 ·Nomor o~/.lmcloo.l /-I· 774 ./'>1 · Kepada, Sifat Penting Yth •. Direktur Sungai Danau dan Waduk Lampiran berkas dokumen .Direktorat Jenderal Sumberdaya Air Peri hal Rekomendasi Andal, RKL-RPL Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum RI Pengenlkan Segmen Selaku Ketua PMU JUFMP/JEOIP Lower Angke dan Tanjungan Drain di Jakarta · Sehubungan dengan Surat Komisi Penilai Amdal Provinsi DKI Jakarta Nomor 17/Andal, RI)I ..s.uwtTA. llllii:ROEHCV DREDGING ..ll'lATN'E CJEDI) preparation activity that may generate impacts is prae survey acitivity. b. Socialization 1) Public announcement Socialization through mass media _____ ..._,. . . ___. ,._. __ .,___ _ _...,._, .. .....,...111.......,._, ____ (, _ _ _ _ _ had implemented through ------- __ __________ ........... _ _ _ doAI_,, No ''" . : '. :c;;;;,:; /i.) ··1 . •. . .· .· ~; 100 mm, and dry month if monthly average rain fall < 60 mm, while monthly average rain fall between 60 mm - 100 mm are cathegorized as moist month. Based on the teary, study areas belong to climate class A, where monthly rain fall more than 100 mm, this means that all study areas belong to wet month, with Q value between 0%-4%. Rain fall data recorded by Cengkareng station presented at Table 3.1. Table 3.1. Monthly rain fall (mm) period of year 1997- 2006 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 1997 342 203 262 159 146 17 68 5 0 192 137 220 1751 1998 157 193 316 140 222 89 88 155 55 78 110 182 1785 1999 391 172 141 296 187 97 138 8 43 131 64 206 1874 2000 468 244 172 202 64 117 118 369 204 48 87 191 2284 2001 502 486 110 103 90 53 0 5 51 25 191 340 1956 2002 325 200 157 71 155 38 11 55 1 160 84 175 1423 2003 248 400 119 114 198 140 88 23 31 26 133 363 1883 2004 426 98 103 135 63 96 32 304 5 64 25 177 1528 2005 294 258 286 205 5 1 28 0 0 3 147 160 1387 2006 352 315 185 160 245 18 0 215 82 206 199 213 2190 Average 351 257 185 159 138 66,6 57,1 114 47,2 93,3 118 223 1807 Source Meteoroloy1 and Geophysics Station Cengkareng (Jakarta) penod of 1997-2006 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 1 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 400 350 300 e .§. 250 .,. c • :1: 200 "' • , 150 " u 100 so 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr Mei Juni Juli Agus Sept Okt Nop Des Bulan Figure 3.1. Graphic of average rain fall period of 1999-2008 b. Air temperatures The annual average of air temperature based on data from Cengkareng (Jakarta) Station Meteorology and Geophysics period of 1997 - 2006 in Cengkareng area and surroundings is 31 ,9°C with average monthly temperature is the highest fell in June and September that is 32,7°C and average monthly temperature is the lowest 30,3°C fell on January. Based on rain fall data and monthly air temperaturemay be defined local climate type according to Koppen, included to Type A climate that is Tropical rain climate. In detai air temperature data from Meteorology and Geophysics of Cengkaren periode of 1997- 2006 presented on Table 3.2. Table 3.2. Monthly Air temperature (°C) period of 1997-2006 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Ags Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual 1997 3D.6 31.6 32,4 33,0 32,5 33,3 33,0 33,5 33,1 33,6 32,2 31,8 32,6 1998 30,1 30,3 31,2 32,2 32,2 32,9 32,2 32,5 31,4 32,2 32,2 31,2 31,7 1999 30,0 31,7 32,0 31,8 32,7 32,0 31,3 32,5 32,4 32,5 32,4 31,6 31,9 2000 30,7 31,7 32,0 31,8 32,7 32,0 31,3 32,3 32,4 32,5 32,4 31,6 32,0 2001 29,7 30.0 32,6 32,7 33,4 33,4 33,6 33,5 33,3 33,2 32,8 30,3 32,5 2002 31,0 31,4 31,9 33,0 32,6 32,4 32,7 32,4 33,7 32,4 32,7 30,6 32,2 2003 30,7 29,5 32,1 32,4 31,9 32,9 32,3 32,7 32,6 32,3 32,3 30,4 31,8 2004 29,6 31,2 31,4 33,1 32,8 32,2 32,2 31,7 32,9 33,4 32,7 32,9 32,0 2005 30,4 30,3 31,7 31,7 32,8 33,0 - - - - - - 31.7 2006 30,4 31,2 32,7 32,7 - 32,7 32,6 32,0 32,2 31,5 32,1 31,5 31,9 Average 30,3 30,9 31,9 32,4 32,6 32,7 32,4 32,6 32,7 32,6 32,4 31,2 32,0 Source . Statton Meteorology and Geophystcs, Cengkareng, penod of 1997 2006 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3-2 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDl) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 33 32,5 32 31,5 v .2. ::l .s= 31 ::l "' 30,5 30 29,5 29 Jan Feb Mar Apr Mei Juni Juli Agus Sept Okt Nap Des Figure 3.2. Graphics average of monthly temperature 1999-2008 c. Sun glare Glare of sun is a state where sun lights reaches earth surface during the. day and expressed in units of percent. Glare of the sun recorded in Cengkareng station of Meteorology and Geophysics show that the sun glare of Cengkareng area quite evently from month to month (no difference). The sun glare of the smallest occuring on January (28%) and the highest on August (73%), while average sun glare is 52%. Data of sun glare at Cengkareng Meteorology and Geophysics station in period of 1997- 2006 presented on Table 3.3. Table 3.3. Data on sun glare(%) period of 1997-2006 from Cengkareng Meteorology and Geophysics Station Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Average 1997 42 47 60 52 52 72 82 89 82 66 35 55 61 1998 23 32 47 54 87 68 62 77 48 52 47 36 50 1999 42 43 55 42 61 50 57 78 69 52 48 40 53 2000 11 54 45 54 71 55 66 64 5.1 46 26 42 49 2001 18 32 64 52 69 68 85 94 76 73 54 31 60 2002 42 52 41 61 56 65 72 71 72 50 37 39 55 2003 36 61 52 17 36 - 69 75 72 48 51 - 52 2004 16 38 41 66 5 45 65 54 81 - - - 35 2005 25 16 41 21 61 - - - - - - - - 2006 26 24 47 52 - 45 65 54 81 78 60 26 51 Average 28 40 49 50 54 59 69 73 70 58 45 39 52 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3-3 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain d. Wind direction and speed Studies on direction and velocity of wind is meant to find out the pattern of dominance as well as its velocity direction. It is related to to its effection the spread of gas and particulate pollutants to be generated by the activity of dredging the canal. Wind conditions monitored during the period 1997-2006 by the Meteorology and Geophysics Station Cengkareng pointed out that in December until March winds tend to blow from the west, in April and May te winds tends to blow from the East while in October and. ended on November, the winds tends to blow from the North, wind speed ranged from one to four knot::;. Wind direction and in stuudy area presented on Table 3.4. Table 3.4. Wind direction and monthly average wind speed (knots) Cengkareng Meteorology and Geophysics Station period of 1997-2006 Source: Station of Meteorolgy and Geophysics Cengkareng, period of 1997-2006. Note : VA = Variiatifve s = South N = North sw = South west NE = North East w = West E = Eastr NW = North west SE = South east e. Air moisture According to climate data for the last 10 years, air moisture relatively highest in Cengkareng region and surounding (included Tanerang) is 82% which occured in January and the lowest is 72% in October. Climate data in full, complete presented on Table 3.5. Table 3.5. Data of moisture in Cengkareng region and surrounding (1997- 2006) No. Month Moisture, average (%) 1 January 82 2 February 80 3 March 78 4 April 79 5 May 76 6 June 75 7 July 73 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3-4 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 8 9 10 11 November 77 December Meteorology Geofisika), Cengkareng, period 1997-2006. 3.1.2. Hydrology a. Lower Angke Drain Lower Angke drain is down stream of Kali Angke (after being cut off by Cengkareng drain) intended function for drainage canal to accommodate rain off from old city region, in rai[ly season in co incide with highest sea tide floodis occure due to hinder of water flows (wet cross of canal can not accommodate water). Lower Angke drain to empty to West Banjir Canal (local name Banjir kana! Barat) design capacity of this drainage canal rain intencity 135 mm/day, periodical cycle 25 3 years, catchment area about 55 KM 2 , flow capacity 0 25 = 135 m /s (JICA 1997). Based on hydraulic modelling this canal need for dredging to increase the depth and embarkment construction in some location to deduct over flows to the right-left sides of canal. b. Tanjungan Drain Tanjungan drain is a small river in a swam'plain land in Jakarta empty the flows to Java sea. Tanjungan drain rives the beach area into 2 pieces; the western area named Kapuk Kamal (the lowest elevation about + 50 em) and the eastern side named Kapuk Muara (the lowest elevation is about 40 em). Up stream of Tanjungan drain are fish pond at the left and right side . Near by river mouth there are many fishery boat, because the mouth river is port of fisherman. At Upper stream toll road towards air port named Sedyatmo, industrial storage building, and slums settlements with not developed yet drainage infra structures. This area has been done partially, so there is a section that is already laid out, and there is as yet, there is a wide river that leads to varying water flow does not smoothly and this pool of flood. A little bit to up stream near by toll road Sedyatmo there is water gate and water pump, because this river can not flow by gravitation, so pump is applied. Although there have been attemps to remove the water by means of pump but still happens a pool in the in the surrounding area. Environmental tmpact Assessment (EIA) 3- 5 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activnies Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 3.1.3. The Dust Quality of Air Ambient Dredging activity in canal of Lower Angke drain and Tanjungan is an activity that may generate impact to air quality, particularly at sludge drying and transportation of the dredged sediments. As a benchmark of any decline in the quality of air in the footprint of the activity, so analysis is carried out and the air quality compared to the standard of knowing the impact happened. Air components for analysis is air ambient surroundings the drain. Para meter for examination are S02, CO, N02, Oksidant (03), Hidrocarbon, PM 10 , Pb, and dust (TSP) . Air quality condition surrounding the foot print of study, it is known that the content of the parameter are tested relatively sm-all a'nd there is nothing· beyond the standard of ambient air quqlity in accordance to the decree of Governor of Jakarta No. 551/2001. Air quality condition in detail presented in the following tables. Table 3.6. Result of measurements of air quality in Lower Angke drain 1. so2 1 hr 900 JJg/Nm" 6 4 2. CO 1 hr 26.000 jJg/Nm0 486 473 3. N02 1 hr 400 jJg/Nm" 72 36 4. 03 1 hr 200 jJg/Nm" 15 18 5. TSP 24 hrs 230 jJg/Nm" 76 25 6. HC 3 hrs 160 jJg/Nm" 0,004 0,002 7. Partikel <1 0 (PM 'u) 24 hrs 150 jJg/Nmo 9 8 8. Pb 24 hrs 2 jJg/Nm" <0,001 <0,001 Legends : *) The decree of Governorof DKI Jakarta No. 551/2001 Ambient air quality standard Table 3.7. Result of measurement of air quality at Tailjungan drain Lower Angke. Time of· Quality No. Parameter Peruril Pintu Air Kamal .·llleasureinen ,-.' stanci · ·• Para~eter ·'0 ,: N\). . Units·· ··oo,wn'·: Do~no.· ... : .. · 1. •. ;~ ....... Amoniac ·'" ,' mg/L '. ·.•.· •. ·: .,L;, 2,0 0,0032 . .~ - 0,0033 .*) : ;• • .' . . . ·;,•,'.> .' '... '· ... ;, '';~:-:~\f~:h·~~ " 0,002 0,0025 2. Metil Merkaptan mg/L 0,002 < 0,001 < 0,001 < 0,001 < 0,001 3. Hidrogen Sulfida mg/L 0,02 0,0024 0,003 < 0,001 0,002 4. Metil Sulfida mg/L 0,01 < 0,001 < 0,001 < 0,001 < 0,001 5. Stirena mg/L 0,1 < 0,001 < 0,001 < 0,001 < 0,001 Legends. •) -The decree of M1n1ster of Enwonment No. Kep.50/MENLH/11/1996 Quality standard for odor. From the result of meassurementof the odor above, the condition of odor in each of the segments are still below the standard of quality that have been set. This due to the absence of specific source of odor in each canal. 3.1.5. Noise a. Lower Angke Segment The average noise level arround Lower Angke drain from the monitoring until! evening identified ranging between 50 - 70 dBA, with highest average value (70 dBA)in the morning until! day noon i.e from 09.00- 17.00 o'clock. Those values are relatively prone to, when compared to quality standard for residential (55 dBA). The high level of noise caused by the traffic conndition in the vicinity of channel with motor vehicles. So the noise measured by consultants dominated by the noise generated by the · motor vehicles was passing near the the channel. Noise measurement result are listed in the following table: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3-7 River, ReseiVoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Table 3.9. Result of measurement of noise level in Lower Angke drain b. Tanjungan Segment Highest noise level arround Tanjungan drainage detected in the afternoon for 57 - 65 dBA. Where as for night time noise levels into 51 - 58 dBA. During the day time of noise have been above the quqlity standard laid down, this is due to traffic condition on roads in Kamal Muara and toll high way lr. Sedyatmo bustling. In addition it also through industrial zone and warehousing Rawa Melati which is quite bussy assessed by consultant. While at night noise have been under the quality standard especially at 22.00 - 06.00. This is due to to traffic in deserted condition, and industry event as well as warehousing along the channel in active. Noise measurement result are listed in the table 3.10 as follows: Table 3.10. Result of noise measurement in Tanjungan drain ........ . . . .. ... ·. ·.·· . QualitY,· .· L / . · Noise,: (dBA) .· .. No. ·.. T,ime·of 111easuremenf sl:alldard, . '·. . . .. . .. 1 .(dB.·A·).·.· ·.. Up Wind ·.... . .• . . .Wind ;, · Down .. . ...·.. 1. 06.00- 09.00 55 64 58 2. 09.00- 11.00 55 65 58 3. 14.00-17.00 55 64 57 4. 17.00-22.00 55 58 55 5. 22.00-24.00 55 56 52 6. 24.00-03.00 55 52 51 7. 03.00- 06.00 55 54 53 Source. Data Pnmer, 2010 3.1.6. Surface Water Quality Measurement of water quality carried out in two points, which are considered to be representative that is up stream and down stream, of each drain, the following are the result of water quality measurement: Environmental fmpact Assessment (EIA) 3-8 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMPIJEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Table 3.11. The result of surface water analysis of Lower Angke drain No. Parameter Units 1. Total Coliform (MPN) 20000 8100 7400 Source :Data Primer, 2010 *) Quality standard according to the Decree of Governor of DKI Jakarta No. 582/1995 Group D Table 3.12. The result of surface water quality test of Tanjungan drain Quality standard No. Parameter Units *) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Quality standard No. Parameter Units *) ")Quality standard according to The decree of the Governor of OK/ Jakarta No. 582 /1995 Group D The result of laboratory analysis of samples of surface water quality shows that condition of water quality varies; there are several parameter that have exceeded the established quality standard by the Government i.e the decree of the Governor of DKI Jakarta No. 582/1995, quality standard for Group D. Here are explanations of some of the key parameter for drainage water: o Result of pH measurement shows that city drainage still have pH within quality standard range. o Result of quality measurement shows that TSS is below quality standard. TSS value affected by weathering of rocks, soil and water run off from anthropogenic waste (domestic waste) as sample taken from a drinage channel passing through densely populated settlement. This one also affect the high content of Kmn0 4 come from domestic activity and latrine activities. o While electric conductivity which exceed the standard established by the government for down stream (maximum 1000 umhos/cm). This case may be caused by in down has affected by sea water that way salt content (Na+) is high. o COD and BOD levels are high in this water demonstrate the high organics polluters materials. Those pollters materials can be caused by polluters accumulation of domestics waste disposal of settlement activities, industry, and other activities arround the footprint, included disposal from road sides vendors that tends to dispose directly to drainage channels. Result of measurement shows that level of COD and BOD excedded established quality standard. o Result of heavy metal measurement in drainage channel come still under the quality standard set. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 10 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 3.1.7. Sediment Data of FAO in 1998 show that average concentration of heavy metal (mg/kg in term of mercuri (Hg) in sediment of Jakarta bay is 0,6 while natural concentration and quality standard maximum is 0,5. Here are result of measurement for every drain. a. Lower Angke Segment Based on consultant monitoring, it is known that physical condition of sediment along the Lower .Angke drain dominated with .sand. Percentage number shows that sediment component in Lower Angke consist of 35% sand for up stream region and 34% in down strem drain. While other composition component under percentage reached by sand. For better information may be lokk at table 3.13 below: Table 3.13. Texture of Sediment in Lower Angke drain 1. Small size rock % 2,8 1,5 2. Texture a. Sand (50 J.lm- 2 mm) % 33,5 34 b. Dust (2 J.lm- 50 J.lm) % 22,4 25,6 c. Large lime (0,2 mm- 2 J.lm) % 26,6 22,8 d. Fine lime ( < 0,2 J.lm) % 14,7 16,1 Source :Data Primer, 2010 Then for organics TCLP, unorganics TCLP, and metal TCLP consultant gains findings that Lower Angke drain has low content of all those three components. Even particularly levels content of organics TCLP in Lower angke all quality standard para meter · undetected due to very low amount, besides the form in term of trace. Here are the tables which presented organics and unorgaics TCLP data monitored along the Lower Angke drain. Table 3.14. Result of unorganics TCLP analysis in Lower Angke drain . Result No. Parameter·· ·unit Standard Detection Limit 1. " . Flourides / •• mg/L 150,0 . - . C.: .. .. 0,01 . .··. . .·. Up-.•· 0,015 ·oown 0,02 2. Nitrat + Nitrit mg/L 1000,0 0,001 0,1 0,13 3. Nitrit mg/L 100,0 0,01 0,01 0,01 Source .Data Pnmer, 2010 •1 Standard according to Government Regullation of Indonesia No. 8511999. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3 - 11 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain •j Quality standard according to Goverment Regulation of Indonesia No. 851 1999 While for parameter metal TCLP just detected for some along the Lower Angke drain, i.e. Boron (B), Barium (Ba), Cuprum (Cu), Chromium (C)r, Nikel (Ni), and Zinc (Zn). Although detected as 6 metal TCLP parameter in Lower Angke drain number or concentration very few and are far below the quality standard set based on Government Regulation of Indonesia No. 85/1999. For more detail can be seen in Table 3.16 below: Table 3.16. Result of analysis metal TCLP in Lower Angke drain No. Parameter . .. . ··Unit . ·.· Quality · Detection ·Result .. .· . . . .· ;; ~· <· .·standard Limit. Op ... Dow.ri 1. Arsen (As) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd Ttd 2. Silver (Ag) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd Ttd 3. Boron (B) mg/L 500 0,4 1,5 1,8 4. Barium (Ba) mg/L 100 1 Ttd 1,2 5. Kadnium (Cd) .. mg/L 1 0,1 Ttd Ttd 6. Cuprum (Cu) mg/L 10 0,04 1,2 1,38 7. Chromium (Cr) mg/L 5 0,004 0,55 0,75 8. Mercury (Hg) mg/L 0,2 0,002 Ttd Ttd 9. Nikel (Ni) mg/L - 0,1 0,6 0,62 10. Plumbum (Pb) mg/L 5 0,1 Ttd Ttd 11. Selenium (Se) mg/L 1 0,002 Ttd Ttd 12. Zinc (Zn) mg/L 50 0,02 3,34 3,63 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) . 3 - 12 ·River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain b. Tanjungan Segment Unlike the other segments in this study, that in Tanjungan drain observed by consultant physical condition of sediments are dominated by dust. The percentage figures show that the composition of sediments in Tanjungan drain consist of dust as 34,2% for upper stream of drain, and 33,5% on down stream drain. As for the composition of other constituents of which are below the percentage reached by dust. For more detail can be seen in Table 3.17 below. Next to the parameter of organic TCLP, inorganic TCLP, and metal TCLP consultants obtain findings that Tanjungan drain also has contents against all three are pretty low. Even special content organic TCLP on Tanjungan drain whole quality standard can not be detected because of the very few in number. Here are the tables presenting data on organic TCLP monitored along the tanjungan drain. Table 3.18. Result of analysis organic TCLP in Tanjungan drain . ·Quality ·. Detection ' Result . .' : NO•· • Parameter ······ ·• ··.···•.· .... ··. .. ·.. ~nit, standard. . . Urrlit- ,·.· ' . .. .. .··u···.·.···· . . P•~ jtoqwn·· 1. Fluorides mgfl 150,0 0,01 0,02 0,02 2. Nitrat + Nitrit mgfl 1000,0 0,001 0,13 0,13 3. Nitrit mgfl 100,0 0,01 < 0,01 0,01 Source .Data Pnmer, 2010 •) Quality standard according to Government Regulation of Indonesia No 8511999 Table 3.19. Result of analysis organic TCLP in .Tanjungan drain ·.·.·. ..· quality .. Result· No. Parameter Unit • standard Up Down 1. Chlorobenzene mgfl 100 Ttd Ttd 2. Chloroform mgfl 6 Ttd Tid 3. Hepta Chlor + mgfl 0,008 Ttd Ttd Hepta Chlor Epoxite 4. Lindane mgfl 0,4 Ttd Ttd 5. Methoxy Chlor mgfl 10 Ttd Ttd Envlronmental.lmpact Assessment (EIA) 3. 13 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 6. Methyl Ethyl Keton 200 Ttd Ttd 7. Methyl Parathion Ttd Ttd 8. Nitro Benzene 9. Penta Chiaro 10. *) Quality standard according to Govennnnet Regua/tion of Indonesia No. 8511999 Then for metal TCLP parameter also just detected some parameter only along the Tanjungan drain, such as the parameter of Boron (B), Cadmium (Cd), Cuprum (Cu), Chromium (Cr), Nikel (Ni), and Zinc (Zn). Although detected as 6 metal TCLP parammeter in the Tanjungan drain, amount or its cocentration is very few and far below the quality standard set based on Government Regulation No. 85/1999. For more details can be seen in Table 3.20 below. Table 3.20. Result of analysis metal TCLP in Tanjungan drain ·. .. .·· . . . ·.. .... QUality Detec~ion .·· .. Result .. · No. .·• Pa~a~e~er.·......... · .. Un.it . standard •. Lim if .. UP . · ·· Down 1. Arsen (As) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd Ttd 2. Silver (Ag) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd Ttd 3. Boron (B) mg/L 500 0,4 1,2 1,35 4. Barium (Ba) mg/L 100 1 Ttd Ttd 5. Cadniurn (Cd) mg/L 1 0,1 0,1 0,2 6. Copper (Cu) mg/L 10 0,04 0,16 0,18 7. Chromium (Cr) mg/L 5 0,004 0,05 0,28 8. Mercury (Hg) mg/L 0,2 0,002 Ttd Ttd 9. Nikel (Ni) mg/L - 0,1 Ttd 0,62 10. Plumbum (Pb) mg/L 5 0,1 Ttd Ttd 11. Selenium (Se) mg/L 1 0,002 Ttd Ttd 12. Zinc (Zn) mg/L 50 0,02 3,42 3,84 Source .Data Pnmer. 2010 *) Quality standard according to government Regulation of Indonesia No. 8511999 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) . 3- 14 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI)" Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 3.1.8. Geology and Geomorphology Geological structure of this region is formed by materials deposition of volcanic rocks, especially the young, particularly tufa clays, conglomera! rocks and deposit of lava. The form of landscape this region is a plateu that slope towards North and East, so that flow of surface water take place for gravity. 3.2. Biological Environment 3.2.1. Flora Flora that is in the location of the activity is coastal areas or mangroe, affected by tidal activity of sea water. Other plants are shrubs. Bush that consist of gelagah (Saccarum spontaneum) and perumpung (Andropogon nardus) which was a bully for the life of the plants vegetation and other plants. Acording to Officials of the management it is planned this bush will be cleared.and yet bush is not everything, because bush is also one of the breeding place and shelter for some kinds of birds such as grouse (Dendrocygna arcuata). Other types of plants that are found are nyamplung (Calophyllum inophyllum) sea hisbiscus tiliaceus (Hibiscus tiliaceus), kiapung, Reed (lmperata cylindrica), water spinach (Ipomoea sp). Mangroove ecosystem in the area of footprint nowadays had pretty strong pressure due to the rapid construction of housing, infrastructure, and public facilities in DKI Jakarta. So it is directly or indirectly competing pressures that have lowered the role or function of the mangrove ecosystem. 3.2.2. Fauna On site activities there are several types of wild life that includes the class of mammals, birds, and reptils. Reptils like monitor lizard (Varanus salvator), snake sanca (Phyton reticulatus), snake Cobra (Naja sputatrix), snake bungarus (Bungarus fasciatus), snake kadut (Homalopsis buccata), ring snake (Dipsadomorphis dendrophilus), and leaves snake (Dryiopsis sp). Then the exist mamalia species include otters (Aonix cinnerea), but it is very rare and the Rat (Ratus spp). Species of birds hat are frequently encountered include: herons (egretta sp), mandar (Gallinula chloropus), the little pecuk (Phalacrocorax niger), kareo (Amauerornis phunicurus), bluwok (Mycteria cinerea), cangak Heron (Ardiola sp), bird prinia (prinia sp), and terucuk (Pycnonotos goiavier). From the result of an inventory of the presence animal kinds belong to protected animals that is Phyton snake (Phyton reticulatus). 3.2.3. Aquatic Biota Water is a resource for the life of animals, plants and humans. One of the biological parameter that can be used to determine the characteristic of waters is by way of analyzing the aquatic biota such as plankton, benthos and nekton in drainage drain. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3 - 15 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment LoYfer Angke and Tanjungan Drain 3.2.3.1. Structure of Phytoplankton Community a. Lower Angke segment Based on monitoring of consultants to structure a community phytoplankton in the Lower Angke drain either in the upstream or downstream, it is known that the water along the drain is more dominated by phytoplankton from division Chrysophyta, though found also phytoplankton species of Oscillatoria sp of Cyanophyta division. When viewed from the dominance of its class, it can be concluded that the water in Lower Angke to be dredged is the waters have salinity (salts content). Since phytoplankton from division Chrysophyta usually found in waters abundant life in salinity such as estuaries and the sea. Salts or salinity waters of the Lower Angke drain that is affected by low tide of sea water which is occured almost daily. So it is possible for plankton of Chrysophyta division this to still living in area that experienced the ups and downs tide. Where as Oscillatoria sp. Is phytoplankton living kosmopolit (spread over atmosphere entire water, both fresh and salty) it is possible to live in waters as the Lower Angke drain. Phytoplankton of Cyanophyta divisions generally had a high adaptibility, particularly in terms of nitrogen fixation. Where phytoplankton of this class is able to take advantage of free nitrugen in the air as a source of nutrient when nitrogen content inside the water is up. Community structure of phytoplankton in the conditions of the water in Lower angke can be seen in Table 3.21 and Table 3.22 below. Table 3.21. Structure of Phytoplankton community in upstream and downstream Lower Angke drain NO . ••• • INDIVID.UAL .. I /. ·. AMOUNT FITOPLANKTON CHRYSOPHYTA Coscinodiscus /acustris 450 Biddulphia sp. 90 Centritractus sp. 90 Navicula sp. 450 Nitzschia sp. 360 CYANOPHYTA Oscillatoria sp. 180 Amount individuai/L 1620 Amount of Texa 6 H-Max -InS 1.79 Diversity index (H') -- ~ Pi In pi 1.61 Evennes"(E) - H'/ln S 0.90 (SHANNON- WIENNER, 1949) DominancyindexjD)- ~(Pi( 0.22 Simpson and Simpson (1971) Source :Data Pnmer, 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 16 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Based on the result of the calculation, obtain a value of H' or diversity index of the sructure of phytoplankton community in waters of Lower Angke ranging between 1,46-1,79 meaning water has a low diversity of phytoplankton. Then also retrieved the value of E (eveness) or index of uniformity as 0,90 - 0,91 which indicates that Lower Angke drain have high uniformity of phytoplankton. Furthermore the dominance of phytoplankton in water is emonstrated with the index value of dominance of (D), in which the value of D ranges from 0,22 - 0,26 meaning these waters do not have a high dominance of one type of phytoplankton. b. Tanjungan Segment Phytoplankton community structure condition are haromious, similar with the Lower Angke drain, also found in Tanjungan drain where phytoplankton are found predominantly from division Chrysophyta. Things that are causing this condition is the same things is happening in Lower Angke drain. Although s'alinity parameter are not measured in this study, but there are other parameters that can be an indicator that conditions of waters in Lower Angke and Tanjungan excess the salinity of fresh water, the intended arameter is electric conductivity, where conductivity is measured in this study and found high value if compared to the fresh water in general. Phytoplankton are found in Tanjungan drain also still similar to the Lower Agke drain, where there were found only phytoplankton of division Chrysophyta and Cyanophyta were found from result of sampling. For more detail can be seen on Table 3.23 and Table 3.24 below. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3 - 17 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 90 90 2790 8 Table 3.24. Structure of Phytoplankton community in Downstream Tanjungan drain NO J .. · • ~~~J?IVIDUA~ · · .· / .. . ·• AMOUNT .·.··•· · FITOPLANKTON CHRYSOPHYTA Characiopsis sp. 270 Fragillaria sp. 450 Navicula sp. 90 Nitzschia sp. 270 Pleurosigma sp. 360 CYANOPHYTA Lyngbya sp. 90 Oscillatoria sp. 180 Amount lndividuai/L 2070 .. Amount of Texa 8 H-Max =InS 2.08 Diversity Index (H') -- ~ Pi In pi 1.96 Evennes (E) = H'/ln S 0.94 (SHANNON - WIENNER, 1949) Dominance Index (D) = ~ (Pi) 2 0.15 Simpson and Simpson (1971) SourceData Pnmer, 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) . 3- 18 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Based on the result of the calculation, obtained a value of H or diversity index of the structure of phytoplankton community in waters of Tanjungan drain ranges from 1,56- 1,96 means that these waters have a diversity of phytoplankton is low. Then also retrieved the value of E (Eveness) or index is equal to 0,75-0,94 which showed that the waters of Tanjungan drain has the uniformity of phytoplankton is high. Furthermore the dominance of phytoplankton in waters is demonstrated with index value of the dominance of D, in which value of D ranges between 0,19 - 0,29 meaning these waters do not have high dominance of one type of phytoplankton. 3.2.3.2. Structure of Zooplankton Community The presence and abudance of zooplankton in the waters is determinated by the presence of phytoplankton, because phytoplankton is the first link in the food chain in addition to the makrophyta fall prey or food for zooplankton. /therefor acting as a consumer zooplakton first level linking producers and consumers of hogher like fish. Furthermore, the presence and abudance of zooplankton would be able to determine the bio,ass of fish, particularly fish juvenil. a. Lower Angke segment The result of measurement of consultant on structure of zooplankton community in Lower Angke drain can be seen in the table below: Table 3.25. Structure of Zooplankton community in Upstream Lower Angke drain . ··NO. ·. .·•·.. . · 1f11DIVID8AL ..· . AMOUNT· ·. FITOPLANKTON ARTHROPODA Copepoda (Nauplius) 180 Crustacea (Naup/ius) 270 PROTOZOA P/euronema sp. 450 ROTATORIA Brachionus sp. 180 Amount lndividuai/L 1080 Jamount ofTexa 4 H-Max =InS 1.39 lndeks Diversitas (H') =- L Pi In pi 1.31 Evennes (E) = H'/ln S 0.94 (SHANNON- WIENNER, 1949) Dominance Index (D) - L (Pi) 2 0.29 Simpson and Simpson (1971) Source .Data Pnmer, 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3 - 19 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Based on the result of the calculation, obtained a value of H or diversity of structure of zooplankton community in waters of Lower Angke ranges between 1,09 - 1,31 means that waters in Lower Angke has a low value of zooplankton diversity. Then also retrieved the value of E (Eveness) diversity index at value of 0,94 - 0,99 which showed that waters in Lower Angke have a high diversity of zooplankton. Furthermore the dominance of this type of zooplankton in waters indicated by the value of the index the dominance of (D) in which the value of D ranges from 0,29 - 0,34 means this waters have no high dominance on one of zooplankton type. b. Tanjungan Segment Result of measurement by consultant on structure of zooplankton community can be seen in label below. NO'r· . FITOPLANKTON ..... Table 3.27. Structure of Zooplankton community in Upstream Tanjungan drain / •· ··.·; ... dNDIVIDO.·•· · .. ·· ·.·: .. .. 'JUML'AH. . "• · · ARTHROPODA I Copepoda (Naup/ius) 270 I Crustacea (Naup/ius) 180 PROTOZOA I Pleuronema sp. 360 Amount lndividu/L 810 Amount of Texa 3 H-Max -InS 1.10 Diversity Index (H') - - L Pi In pi 1.06 = Evennes (E) H' /In S 0.97 (SHANNON- WIENNER, 1949) lndeks Dominansi (D) - L (Pit I 0.36 Simpson and Simpson (1971) Source :Data Pnmer, 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 20 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JED!) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Based on the result of the calculation, obtained value of H or diversity index of structure of zooplankton community in the waters Tanjungan drain as 1,06 means that waters have low plankton diversity. Then also retrieved the value of E (Eveness) uniformity index of 0,97 or indicating that the waters of the Tanjungan drain has the high uniformity of zooplankton. Furthermore the dominance of this type of zooplankton in this waters indicated by the value of the index the dominance of (D), in which the value of D obtained to 0,36 meaning these waters do not have a high dominance of one type of zooplankton. 3.2.3.3. Structure of Benthos Community Benthos as being that live in the vicinity of the substrate (basic/sediments) waters of course can also be found in the bottom waters of the drain pass through Jakarta. In this study, all the benthos organism found came from the phylum Mollusks, i.e from class Gastropoda (snails) and class Pelecypeda (clams). For details can be seen from the following chapters. a. Lower Angke segment Based on the result of consultant monitoring on Lower Angke drain found benthos class Gastropoda such as Goniobasis sp, Lymnanea sp., and Pleurocera sp. And benthos from class Pelecipoda that is Elliptic sp. Result of measurement on benthos communities Lower Angke drain in upstream as well as downstream can be seen in table below. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3 - 21 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Table 3.29. Structure of Benthos community in Upstream Lower Angke drain Table 3.30. Structure of Benthos community in Downstream Lower Angke drain . ,,,..... liiO . • ·~ .. ··· .I •.· . :••:c' ·:· ,. ' INDIVIbl:JAL· ',"'"" --~ ' · ., ·.· . · '" '· ' / ' i ,, . ·· . ,,,, :.' I ~·.;~·· .A~@.I:tt:J;;f"',· .;: . : Mollusca Gastropoda Lymnaea sp. 4 Goniobasis sp. 4 P/eurocera sp. 3 Amount individual/em" 11 Amount of Texa 3 H-Max -logS 0.48 Diversity index (H') =- L Pi log Pi 0.47 Evennes (E) - H'/log S 0.99 (SHANNON- WIENNER, 1949) Dominance index (D)- L (Pi)" 0.34 Simpson and Simpson (1971) Source: Data Pnmer, 2010 Based on the retrieved data and consultant calculation result, it is known diversity index value from structure of benthos community in Lower angke ranges from 0,47- 0,48. This indicates that the community structure of benthos in the Lower Angke drain has a diversity is low. Then the index value of the uniformity of Eveness (E) who had reached the range of 0,82 - o,gg meaning structure of the entire community of benthos in Lower Angke drain has a high degree of uniformity. Next index value of the dominance of (D) community structure of benthos in Lower Angke ranges from 0,34- 0,50 which means a low of dominance. b. Tanjungan Segment According to data gained by consultant and result of field monitoring it is known the type of benthos in along the Tanjungan drain, entire benthos from class Gastropoda. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 22 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Some types found among others such as Pyramedilla sp. Lymnaea sp. Pomacea sp. And Physa sp. Result of measurement of benthos community in Tanjungan drain whether upstream or downstream can be seen at table below. Table 3.32. Structure of Benthos community in Downstream ofTanjungan drain .I'IO.j···· > • < ····:.;_·· INrliVlli)"UJ¥~ .···· ~ ~,-' . "'•. '·· . . ;', F ·.•.... AN!dl:Jt ·.•··· .... Mollusca Gastropoda I Lymnaea sp. 6 I Physa sp. 4 Amount individual/em" 10 Amount of Texa 2 H-Max -logS 0.30 Diversity index (H') - - L Pi log Pi 0.29 Evennes(E)- H'/log S 0.97 (SHANNON- WIENNER, 1949) Dominance index (D) = L (Pi)" 0.54 Simpson and Simpson (1971) Source. Data Pnmer, 2010 Based on retrieved data and calculation result it is known that the value of diversity indices (uniformity), the structure of benthos community in Tanjungan drain ranges from 0,30- 0,48. This indicates that the community structure of benthos in Tanjungan drain has a low level of diversity. Then the index value of uniformity Eveness (E) who had reached the range 0,97- 0,98 meaning the structure of the entire community of benthos in the Tanjungan drain has a high degree of uniformity. Next index value of the dominance of (D) commuity structure of benthos in Tanjungan drain ranges from 0,35 -0,53 which means a low level of dominance. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 23 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEOI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 3.3. Socio-Economic-Cultural Environment 3.3.1. Demographic Data on Population 1) Administration Areas of Jakarta isa low land plain which is actually a portion of its teritory was under sea level. With such a condition resulting a number of areas vulnerable to flooding. In some cases flooding in the region of Jakarta is incleded in the level of harm. The flooding that occured in 2007 and in 2008 have led to loss of life and some offices of civil service does not WO!k ~or several days. Already long ago the Government of Jakarta building canal, in order to control flooding in the area of Jakarta. Among them are Tanjungan drain and Lower Angke drain. The aim is to reduce flooding in parts of West Jakarta and parts of North Jakarta. Table 3.33. Administrative region of dredging site NtL -- ,.,,. ... _,.- .Se!Jniilhf>''·c; · ·· Kelui'al:fan.- - - ---- t;;,•. Ke'ciimatari ' ~ f:p.' "'" -- --~<·'·"·' <' :. p ; .• -Kotaitiad !".;~-- "'".-}!:..( :_,., .: ' • .a\._ '·'-·~ Kapuk Muara Penjaringan Jakarta Utara Pejagalan Penjaringan Jakarta Utara 1. Lower Angke Kapuk Cengkareng Jakarta Barat Kedaung Kaliangke Cengkareng Jakarta Barat Wijaya Kusuma Grogoi-Petamburan Jakarta Barat Kamal Muara Penjaringan Jakarta Utara 2. Tanjungan Drain Tegal A/ur Kalideres Jakarta Barat 2) Population Demographica/ condition of population in kelurahan of Jakarta generally have high population density.The same condition occured arround the site of dredging in segments Lower Angke drain and Tanjungan drain, where the highest population number found in Kelurahan Kapuk, Kecamatan Cengkareng i.e 92.230 persons followed by Kelurahan Pejagalan Kecamatan Penjaringan 56.676 persons. For more detail can be seen on Table below. Table 3.34. Demography of community around the segment of Lower Angke- Tanjungan drain .. -· .· . KeC. Gi"ogi>t- K~c."~~~gkarerig: - Keci •. -K~IiP_~~e_s· I· .-: . :.< . • ' .. . .· •- 1 No .. ., · Kec·. Penjafingan Parameter DE!rriogra_ff,._- PetBmbi.Jralj · Kapuk Kainal Wijaya Kali -Tegal ~ejagalan, .Kapuk A. Toga! .. . ~~--~a! .. . Muara Pejagalan_ M~:~ara ·_!{usuma_.- -~aii.lR': -AJ1gke" AIUr ·, .··· 1 Pre schhol 3 20 2 18 23 4 9 17 2 General/Moslem 15 27 3 11 31 13 16 26 elementary school 3Secondary school 6 13 1 6 9 7 8 4 4 General/Moslem High 2 12 . 9 5 1 1 8 school 5 University/Academy i . . . . . . - - Source: Kecamatan (Pen}anngan, Grogo/-Petamburan, Cengkareng, dan Kallderes) In figures/, 2007 Table 3.38. Dispersion of non formal school around the Lower Angke-Kamai-Tanjungan drain ~Kec. Grogol;· · · · ·.. · · · ,; • • :o-' · Kec. Perijaringan . . ~-·.··_d.:_c,,•.·. ngkareng · ... Ke_c. Ka_l_i_dere.s_ .. 1 1 • •• • ' ·•· ' • _•·· ·: • • .. '·· • • . ~cjucatignJa~'"!Y of · • · .· . · •. • , : ·.· ..._.· · · f>etam"burai\, " ·• • •.• No _ ·. . _· ,NonF_ormal.- · . _-K~puk__ ·Pe"a· ala-n ·'~a.m_~-1 · --- 'Wijaya: ~- ..K. i!~uk·:: /,··K*U ~- Toga! -_· · ·- · Mua:ra '. ' J 9 - ·· ·' Moara " · .. KOsufQci. ..-- · An_gke · .Airir 1 Course on Computer 2 1 2 2 2 Foreign language 5 3 2 3 Typing 4 Atomotive technician 5 Accounting /book keeping 6 Sewing sk'ills 7 Beautiifician 2 8 Electronics technician 2 Source: Kecamatan (Pen}aringan, Grogoi·Petamburan, Cengkareng, dan Kaflderes) In flgures/2007 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 3.3.2. Social-Economic Condition 3.3.2.1. Segment Lower Angke Survey on socio-economic conducted to people estimated will be victims of impact of dredging in Lower Angke drain for 30 respondents ( ... respondents for resettlement and ... respondents for from river bed). Survey targeted on components as mentioned below: a. Education background Almost respondent's level of education are secondary school(33,3%) imd '33,3% of elementary school/similar. Recapitulation of data on education among the people from the survey can be seen on table below. Table 3.39. Data on education of people estimated as victims of impact ·1\1() ;, . . .,:' •\(~.v;:·:; :ir~f"fl'. · •.. A:f' •. . •.'.2• ;i ........s. ;_! ~·:!f;f',,,·( t' r;::•>:"Z~''''··~< 1 None 0 0.00 2 Unfinished for elementary general/moslem school/similar 0 0.00 3 Finished of general/moslem school/similar 10 33.33 4 Finished of public/moslem /similar 10 33.33 5 Finished of public/moslem school/similar 8 26.67 6 Finished of academy (01, 02, 03) 0 0.00 7 Graduate (S1) 2 6.67 8 Post graduate (S2, S3) 0 0.00 Total 30 100.00 Source . Trm Studr AMDAL, 2010 b. Socio data of household Based on socio economic survey almost houses which occupied by 3-5 persons (66,6%) while house with more than 8 persons not aii.Aimost of them are people of origin husband-wife people of origin, for 40%, husband people of origin-wife "migrant" of 13,33% and the wife people of origin 13.3%. Almost respondent (80%) have have citizen ID, and about 13,3% do not have citizen ID. For more detail presented on table below. Table 3.40. Data on the number of inhabitant at each household on affected community No ... Answe.r .. ...· N "-..:. % 1 1-2 persons 2 6,67 2 3-5 persons 20 66,67 3 6-8 persons 8 26,67 4 > 8 persons 0 0,00 Total 30 100.00 Source. Trm Studr AMDAL, 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 27 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain c. Land status and building conditions As much as 80% of respondents have had buildings with its own ownership, while the rest still either monthly or annual lease and still have superiors hitchlike. As many of respondents only 73,33% own a home in its location that is available at this time, while the rest have homes in other provinces (26,67%). As much 80% of house occupied by current certficate with building conditions as permanent (66,67%), the rest 33,33% are semi permanent. Data on on land ownership and building conditions in study area can be seen on table below. Table 3.43. Data on ownership of affected house in dredging site No. . .· . . Answer ··. .: .', - ' ' ' .. . .· . ..·' ': .• N > .,, '%.: . 1 Self or familly owned 24 80,00 2 Homeof office 0 0,00 3 Monthly lease 4 13,33 4 Annual lease 0 0,00 5 Shared only 2 6,67 6 Others 0 0,00 Total 30 100.00 Source. Team AMDAL Study, 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment (EJA) 3- 28 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Table 3.44. Data on ownership of house in other region . ,, Table 3.46. Data on house condition affected of impact in dredging site ··lllo t•J· ..c<.~;·'l• ·;Y' .: '; Jij!t'll~h .•... ;·: . > .I . .:, N'; < i\';,'%t.·.·. 1 Permanent 20 66,67 2 Semi-permanent 10 33,33 3 Temporer/Non-permanent 0 0,00 Jumlah 30 100.00 Sumber. Ttm Studt AMDAL, 2010 d. Economy conditions Most of the respondents on site of activitiies have livelihood as merchants (33,33% while the rest as private employees (20,00%) labourers (20,00%), and the driver of a public transportation vehicle (16,7%). All respondents in the location of activities does not have a side job. Based on that livelihhod mentioned above 60,00% of them monthly earning range from Rp 500.000,-- Rp 1.500.000,- and 40% of them earned between Rp 1.500.000,- up to Rp 3.000.000,-. Data on economic conditions of the community in study area can be seen on table below. Table 3.47. Data on the type of community work in the site affected by dredging No Jumlah N % 1 Government official/Police/Army force 0 0,00 2 Private employee 6 20,00 3 Farmer/Grazier 0 0,00 4 Fisherman 0 0,00 5 Private firm 0 0,00 6 Labourer 6 20,00 7 Merchant 10 33,33 Environmental fmpact Assessment (EIA) 3-29 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Table 3.48. Data on sides job of the community at the dredging location affected by impact . i:til9;y:) .· -:;; . ?"!:\'' : ~ ••!¥i' .,;,•. ·.·:· '1'11 .-.:,_,_,:~:::· lilf'· · ' :~?(i{{ciJ•~~ 1 Goverment official/Police/Army force 0 -0,00 2 Private employee 0 0,00 3 Farmer/Grazier 0 0,00 4 Fisherman 0 0,00 5 Private firm 0 0,00 6 Labourer 0 0,00 7 Merchants 0 0,00 8 Driver 0 0,00 9 Non'e 30 100,00 10 Others 0 0,00 Total 30 100.00 Source Team of AMDAL stuudy, 2010 Table 3.49. Data on average monthly earning of community in Dredging site which are affected by impact No ':_ _--~ ,._ ,.!awab~n __'_2 .__ _ -·•· · :;: >::. N- ... ·. '%' --. .. 1 < Rp. 500.00 0 0,00 2 Rp. 500.001- Rp.1.000.000 18 60,00 3 Rp. 1.000.001 - Rp. 1.500.000 12 40,00 4 Rp. 1.500.001 - Rp. 2.000.000 0 0,00 5 Rp. 2.000.001 - Rp. 2.500.000 0 0,00 6 > Rp. 2.500.000 0 0,00 7 Ucertain 0 0,00 Jumlah 30 100.00 Source: Team of AMDAL study, 2010 e. Use of water Based on result of socio-economic survey 86,67% of community in site activities supplied by PDAM, (Local Government company for Water supply) while the rest supplied through bottled (20 Ltr capacity) water. Data on water supply in the site activities are presented on table below. Table 3.50. Data on water supply for community in dredging site which are affected by dredging impact No ·. Jawaban -.· .. N .. .% • 1 Boottled (galon) water 26 86.67 2 Water vendors ( by hand carried lorry) 4 13.33 3 Rain water collections (locally term PAH) 0 0.00 Jumlah 30 100.00 Source : T1m Stud1 AMDAL, 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 30 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 3.3.2.2. Segment Tanjungan Socio-economic survey conducted on the community estimmated affected by by dredging activity of Tanjungan drain about 30 respondent ( ... respondents of resettlement, ... respondent live in river/drain bed). Socio-economic survey conducted on components as follows: a. Background of education Education of almost respondent graduated from senior high school (public or moslem) as large 46,67%, yunior high school at 33,33%, university graduate 10,00%, elementary school 6,67%, and academy graduate named as D1, D2, D3) 3,33%. Almost respondent live at activities site have lived there for more than 10 years and still live there (73,33%). Data on education of the community affected by the impact presented on table below. Table 3.51. Data on education of community affected by dredging activities . N . ,No. .·• E ,;,; . i.. ·. ;': . ··:. .. . .•: . ..··• •·Jawabaii. •·. . . •. ·.··•· . ,· ., 0 /> .... ..•.... ;:~: ...·.. .•. · 0,00 · ·.·.· 1 None, do not attend school 2 Unfinished of public/moslem elementary 0 0,00 school/similar 3 Graduate of of public/moslem elementary 2 6,67 school/similar . 4 Graduate public/moslem secondary school 10 33,33 5 Graduate of public/moslem Senior high school 14 46,67 6 Graduate of academy (D1, D2, D3) 1 3,33 7 University graduate (S1) 3 10,00 8 Post graduate (S2, S3) 0 0,00 Total 30 100.00 Source . Trm Studr AMDAL, 2010 b. Social Data of familly household Based on the result of socio-economic survey almost of houses occupied by 3-5 persons (60%) while none of those houses occupied by more than 8 persons. Almost of the people are people of origin that husband-wife (83,33) husband are "migrant" 6,67%, ang wife are "migrant" 10,00. From the number of respondents 83,33% owned citizen ID card (local named Kartu Tanda Penduduk, short in KTP), with existing address, 16,67 respondent owned KTP which is not different with the existing live but still in province of Jakarta. Data of social familly/househld in this study area presented on the table below. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3 - 31 River: ReseNoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Table 3.52. Data on tabulation of number of occupant in each family which affected by impact ~~ Table 3.53. Data on tabulation characteristics of occupant of family in the community affected by impact >No ··. ", .:. :,'\;; :.,, ~ J '· • ~,,,, '---umtalf? . .:; l<<'*3"i:Jt.•·' .·2"'< -- -- - '"'""«-: ''' .: ' .· ;:·· .·.· ;, '~1 .~,;· 1 People of origin 25 83,33 2 Husband are "migrant" 2 6,67 3 Husband are origin 0 0,00 4 Wife is "migrant" 3 10,00 5 Wifw is origin i 0 0,00 Total 30 100.00 Source : T1m Stud1 AMDAL, 2010 Table 3. 54. Data on tabulation ownership of citizen ID card (KTP) community affected by impact No .. ·. .. ,6.mount · •• ,>N ; .. . % 1 Have no KTP 0 0,00 2 Owned KTP with existing address 25 83,33 3 Owned KTP with different addres-sexisting 5 16,67 place of stay, still in the same city. 4 Owned KTP with different address-existing 0 0,00 place of stay different city 5 Owned temporary KTP (original KTP is non 0 0,00 Jakarta) Jumlah 30 100.00 Source. Tim Stud/ AMDAL, 2010 c. Land satatus and building conditions As much 80% respondent owned buidings with status self-owned while the rest with leasing whether monthly or annual. As much 66,67% of repondent owned just the house which they lived, while the other (33,33%) owned other house in other province. As much 75,00% of buillding they are certified as permanent building. Data on status of ownership of land and building in the study area can be seen on table below. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 32 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Table 3.55. Data on ownership of house in dredging site affected by impact Table 3.57. Data on status of house ownership in dredging site which affected by impact Np . ' __ Amount .··. - .: N'' '~-; t•%. < • .· .·· 1 ••• • ' --' 1 Certificate 24 75,00 2 Girik 0 0,00 3 Government land 0 0,00 4 Public land 0 0,00 5 Others 8 25,00 Amount 30 100.00 Source: Trm Studr AMDAL, 2010 Table 3.58. Data on building conditions in dredging site which affected by impact No . ·, .. .. Jumlah ' : ···: ·.·.· N.. . "7o . 1 Permanent 30 100,00 2 Semi-permanent 0 0,00 3 Temporary/Non-permanen 0 0,00 Amount 30 100.00 Source Trm Studr AMDAL, 2010 d. Economic conditions Almost of the respondent are private employee (40,00%), while the rest merchant (26,67%), Government official/Police/Army force (13,33%), Labourer (13,33%), and Environmentai Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 33 River, ReseJVoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain fisherman (6,67%). Based on data of livelihood 53,33% have monthly earning ranges from Rp 500,000,- Rp 3,000,000,- then 13,33% respondent retrieved have monthly earning ranges from Rp 3.000.000,- untill Rp 5.000.000,-Data on econmic conditions of community in in area of study can be seen on table below. Table 3.59. Data on type of livelihood in the community in dredging site which affected by impact :.N.ii? .. . ........·.~$.·>:,·•·<.• . ·;j ..)~Jlf .• :.~.v.~·· . ......... ·"~'•:•'i.,r<,·1f1:' ·~r, ·~. ~·· . ·"""'~• 1 Government official/Police/Army force 4 13,33 2 Private employee 12 40,00 3 Farmer/grazier 0 0,00 4 Fisherman 2 6,67 5 Private 0 0,00 6 Labourer 4 13,33 7 Merchant 8 26,67 8 Driver of vehicle 0 0,00 9 Oth·,.>::o,ll.nnsW!'!.r·'·:r; ··. ·. • • ·. . .· N ... ·· %"·. .... · 1 < Rp. 500.00.. 0 0,00 2 Rp. 500.001 - Rp.1.000.000 10 33,33 3 Rp. 1.000.001 - Rp. 1.500.000 16 53,33 4 Rp. 1.500.001 - Rp. 2.000.000 4 13,33 5 Rp. 2.000.001 - Rp. 2.500.000 0 0,00 6 > Rp. 2.500.000 0 0,00 7 Uncertain 0 0,00 Total 30 100.00 Source. T1m Stud1 AMDAL, 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 34 River. Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain e. Water supply Based on result of survey it is found that in the location of survey as such 86,7% of community supplied by PDAM a local government owned of water supply company, for daily use, such for drink and cleansing, the rest supplied by bottled water supply (13,33%). Data on water supply to the community in study area can be seen on table below. Table 3.62. Data on water supply for the community in dredging site which affected by impact No Answer N % 1 Bottled water (in 20 ltr capacity) 26 86,67 2 Hand carried lorry 4 13,33 3 Rain water collection 0 0,00 Total 30 100.00 Source: T1m Stud1 AMDAL, 2010 3.3.3. Result LARAP study a. Lower Angke segment Based on LARAP study activities to 65 famillies, it is found that their education are heterogen. Almost of them graduated from public/moslem elementary school But it also found that graduated from academy (1 ,5%). The result of study on this field presented on the table below. l!llidak sekolah I tidak tamat SD • Tamat SD I Mil sederajat o Tamat SMP I MTs I sederajat o Tam at SMA I MA I sederajat • Tamat akademi (D1, D2, D3) li1 Sadana (81) Notes: 1. Tidak sekolah/tidak tamat: Do not school/not graduated/similarly. 2. Tamat SD?MI/sederajad: Graduated from publix/moslem elementary school/similarly. 3. Tamat SMP/Ntsfsederajad: graduated from public/moslem secondary school/similarly 4. Tamat SMAIMA/sederajad:graduated from public/moslem high school/similarly Figure 3.3. Level of education of respondent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 35 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Survey to building of non settlement relieved that 81,8% are owner, while as head of Hamlet/Neighbourhood association 9,1% and 9,1% are manager of the building. Data on this findings presented on the figure below. El Pemilik Bangunan • Pengelola Bangunan o Pengurus DKM o Pengurus RT I RW • Penjaga I Penunggu Bangunan 1!1 Lainnya Notes: 1. Pemilik bangunan: buliding owner 2. Pengelola bangunan: building manager 3. Pengurus OKM: management member of mosque 4. Head of hamlet/neighbourhood association 5. Penunggu bangunan: Building watch dog 6. Lainnya: other. Figure 3.4. Job type of respondent The livelihood of respondent mainly in mayority are labourer that is 26 persons (40,0%, while on the second row is merchants 17 persons (26,2%), and the third is private employee for 10 persons (15,4%). Data on job or livelihood are presented on the figures below. mPNS • TNII Polisi . o Pegawai s;;.a::Jta. o Petani I petemak I nelayan • Wiraswasta I Pedagang 1!1 Buruh • Pengemudi o lbu rumah tangga • Lainnya Figure 3.5. Job type of respondent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 36 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain The earning mayority of community member ranges from adalah > Rp 1.100.000 up to Rp 2.200.000 per month found for 28 persons, (43, 1%) respondent with earning of Rp. 550.000up to Rp 1.100.000 found for 23 persons (35,4%) although there were found earning on> Rp. 3.300.000 for 3 persons (4,6%) lnforation on the topics as the result of LARAP survey presented on the figure below. 35% - --·------ "' < Rp 550.000 per bulan • Rp 550.000 s.d. Rp 1.100.000 per bulan o > Rp 1.100.000 s.d. Rp 2.200.000 per bulan o> Rp 2.200.000 s.d. Rp 3.300.000 per bulan • > Rp 3.300.000 per bulan Figure 3.6. Earning of family of respondent b. Tanjungan segment Based on LARAP study activities the amount of people which possible to be resettled about 20 Household. LARAP study conducted to community possibly affected by the impact for 15 persons, which very heterogen education background. Based on reteieved interview mayority are graduated from senior high school (13,3%). Event there are graduated from university (6,7%) only. Detail iformation on this issue result of LARAP survey presented on figure below. 13% I"' 1idak sekolah I tidak tamat SO • Tamat SO I Mil sederajat o :~mat SMP I MTs I s.;derajat I I0 Tamat s~~~~!\! ~:.~erajat • Smjana (S1) Figure 3.7. Educational level of respondent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 37 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Respondent of non residence building generally (42,9%) are building owner, and watch dog of building (42,9%), while the others 14,3%. Detail information on building ownership retrieved from LARAP survey presented on figure below. i 1!1 Pemilik Bangunan • P~~j~ga/Penunggu Bangunan o Lainnya ] Figure 3.8. Ownership Levels of respondent's building Meanwhile the job of mother or wife of the head of familly are private employee (33,3%) farmer (6,7%) private sector, and housewife as much 26,7%. Detail information on main job retrieved from LARAP survey can be seen on figure below. [~ P~g~;aiswasta • Petani/Petemak/Nelayan[] Wir~swasta D lbu rumaht~n-~ Figure 3.9. Job type of respondent Mayority of earning of familly member ranges from > Rp 1.100.000 up to Rp 2.200.000 for 8 persons (53,3%), event there are have earning ranges Rp 2.200.000,- - Rp 3.000.000,- as much 5 persons (33,3%), while for> Rp3.300.000,- as much of 2 persons (13,3%). Detail information on this issue retrieved from LARAP survey presented on figure below. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 38 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 13% 54% Ill> Rp 1.100.000 s.d. Rp 2.200.000 per bulan • > Rp 2.200.000 s.d. Rp 3.300.000 per bulan o > Rp 3.300.000 per bulan Figure 3.1 0. Earning of family member of respondent 3.3.4. Refuse Refuse volume carried by river flows or drain in Jakarta is really surprisingly. For the last 5 years at least 77.385 m3 of refuse collected from automatic filtering machine in 14 rivers or drains in Jakarta (source; www.kompas.com dated August 25 2009). Some river flows carried a fantastic volume of refuse, among other Kali Cideng about 3.098 m3/month (source: PT Asiana Technologies Lestari Dohar). Data released in http://www.dml.or.id/dml5/content/view/124/2/ showed that about 40% citizen of Jakarta, or 4 million dispose domestic waste direcly to rivers, which come to Jakarta Bay. According to Gempur Adnan Deputy Ministry of environment for The control of Environment pollution, 60 - 70% total volume of pollution which come into rivers in Jakarta causwd by domestic waste, household refuse, while the rest 30% generated by other source, mainly industrial sector.. In Jakarta ther are 13 rivers with average total debiet 112, 7m 3/second flows to Jakarta bay. Refuse volume which enter to livers in Jakarta was mentioned in htlp://metro.vivanews/read/7651-sehari sampah equal to 192 trucks a day enter to rivers, the amount reached the number of 768 m3/day or equal to 192 trucks of Fuso. Head of data collection and processing (locally named PULAHTA) the government Jakarta Ms Nurjanah said, refuse piling in in rivers of Jakarta is really very harm. Those refuse come fromJakarta which every day come such as 6,000 tons or 27 000 m3·1f out into percentage the amount of refuse of refuse in river in Jakarta is about 2,8% of total refuse production in Jakarta. According to the result of field survey conducted by Elimination of sea and Jakarta bay refuse Pilot Project 2006 specific weight of refuse of refuse in 11 rivers in Jakarta ranges from 0,22 kg/liter up to 0,42 kg/liter. From that survey retrieved data that refuse comosition in mouth river dominated by plastic refuse ranges from 50,3 up to 66,3%.0ther component of refuse arae wooden/leaves/branches with percentage ranges between 32,69% up to 46,84%. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 39 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain a. Lower Angkesegment From the position point of view. Lower Angke drain stretches from bridge of Road way of Daan Mogot (triple junction Daan Mogot- P Tubagus Angke) then paralel with Jl P Tubagus Angke up the point Jl Pangeran Tubagus Angke turn to the east , then the drain still directed to the North at once being boundary of between Kelurahan Kapuk and Kelurahan Pejagalan and then ending at the joint Lower angke drain and West Banjir Canal in Kelurahan Kapuk Muara. This drain pass some areas with many activities with which hilVe potent to contribute refuse into the river among other settlement area, industrial area, shaping area, an.d merchant at road sides. From visual observation on the existing refuse in Lower angke drain they vary and generally and floating refuse is more dominant. Visually it is possible to identify that refuse composition dominated by plastic refuse such as food wrap and plastic bag and also pieces of styrofoam. On this type refuse the following table on percentage weight (Kg) and volume retrieved consultant sampling in the drain can be seen on tale as follow: Table 3.63. Result of sample of refuse collected from Lower Angke drain ... ·· .· · ·· •·· ·•· ••·· •· ·•·· ··· · . · '· ·...·•..·.· · ·. ·••· •·· Weight . ·.~:v6ij.Jn,.'efd: ~'Wiiifih( · ybrjJ)Tje .• ~6./, :•,.,.·.. ·······L§o~~Q~E~I . . ·.··/r·. ····I·~P:er~~1s~r~=~::0!:. ~i~·:~~~~·~t~:~~rit' Organik 1.1 Food remnants 2,34 2,17 2,21 2,32 1.2 Plants 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.3 Animal body 2,34 2,17 2,21 2,32 1.4 Fish body 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.5 Leaves, branches 4,67 4,34 6,64 4,64 1.6 Wrap leaves 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.7 Paper 2,34 2,17 0,00 0,00 1.8 Carton 9,35 6,51 8,85 11,60 1.9 News paper 9,35 8,68 8,85 6,96 1.10 Bulk wood 2,34 2,17 2,21 2,32 1 '11 Linnen 2,34 3,25 4,42 4,64 1' 12 Cement zak 4,67 4,34 4,42 4,64 Unorganic 2.1 Plastic pail 0,00 0,00 2,21 2,32 2.2 Mplastic toys 2,34 2,17 2,21 4,64 2.3 Plastic glass 2,34 4,34 4,42 4,64 2.4 Soft drink plastic bottle 5,61 14,10 2,21 2,32 2.5 Rubber foot wear 0,00 0,00 2,21- 4,64 2.6 Instant noodle wrap 9,35 8,68 4,42 4,64 2.7 Plastic bag 18,69 16,27 11,06 9,28 2.8 Imitation leather 0,00 0,00 0,88 1,16 2.9 Cut of iron 0,00 0,00 0,88 0,23 2.10 Glasses 2,34 1,08 0,88 1 '16 2.11 Baterai 0,93 0,22 0,00 0,00 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 40 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Table 3.64. Tabulation of characteristic test of refuse in Lower Angke drain :Data Primer, 2010 b. Tanjungan segment Based on it's position Tanjungan drain flows from Taman Kencana Housing, then turn to the North precicely in front of of Tegal alur Public Health Centre then then directly to the North pass Industrial estate dan ware house of Rawa Mellati, turn to the North-East and ending before Tanjungan Pump house and Cengkareng drain. This drain pass by some areas with many activities which potential to contribute generation of refuse to the drain ainong others settlement area, industrial-ware estate, and merchants group road sides at drain bank. From visual observation on refuse of the Tanjungan drain it varies and generally dominated with sinked refuse . Visually also dominated with domestics refuse such as plant leaves, branches and tree bulk. About the type of refuse here are the percentage of weight and volume from sampling of consultant presented on table bellow. Table 3.65. Result of refuse characteristic sampling in Tanjungan drain " .. ·. . \Night .Percent Weight· Perc.ent NO. COMPONENT . Percent · Vdl4me · .. F'ercent .VolumE! . .. ·. Upstniam ·. Downstream · Organic 1.1 Food remnant 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.2 Plant bulk 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.3 Dead Animal body 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.4 Dead Fish body 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1.5 Plant leaves, branches 54,05 46,15 31;25 30,00 Environmental rmpact Assessment (EIA) 3- 41 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 628,57 Sorce: Data Primer, 2010 Table 3.67. Tabulation of refuse characteristics in Tanjungan drain .~· ;;:;,,.~E!'~~riP~.&D~'r *~····, .:,·;,:~ ··':£;~~q~;§t~~;irii~~;~!it: r~~~?R~~hi:§lt~~~t~~~ '>ir· · Bspecific weight of organics refuse 545 kg/m3 1000 kg/m3 Specifics of unorganics refuse 500 kg/m3 500 kg/m3 Sorce :Data Primer, 2010 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3 '42 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 3.3.5. Traffics a. Lower Angke segment This drain starts from !ripple junction between Jl Daan Mogot and Tubagus Angke, then to the North and located between jl Tubagus Angke to the east and JJ Pesing Poglar, JJ Kapuk Poglar, JJ Kapuk Eretan, Jl Kapuk Raya, and JJ Kapuk Muara to the west. But Jl Tubagus Angke turns to the East precisely before Taman Permata lndah II Housing. Te next there are jl Kapuk Muara to the west of drain. Road conditions arround the this drain such as Jr Daan Mogot and JJ Tubagus Angke are main bussy traffics road in West Jakarta. Both roads are wide roads at 8 - 12 meter for each lane, and divided into 2 lanes with road divider. Road of Tubagus Angke as the main traffic road surrounded with shoping areas, frequently occured traffics disturbance. Road to the east of drain also densely populated with shoping buildings and road sides merchants, so that road becomes less than before. Traffics condition inthis area is very crowded, particulary in the morning and evening whether small vehicle of large one so frequntly happened traffics jam for long stretch and long time. b. Tanjungan segment This location are actives economic area in West Jakarta where is a mix ofbetween merchadize, small and medium scale industry, ware house, settlement/residential and road sides merchants. Location of this drain have access of densely traffics main road, that is Jalan Raya Kamal Muara with 6- 7 meter wide, two ways traffics without pedestrian road. Traffics conditions in this area is very crowded particularly in the morning and evening with small and large vehicles so it is frequenty occured traffic jams for long stretch and long time. Table 3.68. Traffics conditions of roads route dredging line of Lower Angke drain 2 Jembatan 3- JJ. Tubagus Angke 17" 8 Traffic lights Jl KH. Moch. Mansyur 3 Jl. Tubagus Angke- Jl. Pejagalan - - Drain Maintenance project 4 Jl. Pejagalan- JJ. Gedong Panjang - - Smooth flows 5 Jl. Gedong Panjang- Simp. Pakin 5" 4 Traffic lights of Pakin tripple junction 6 Jt Pakin - Jl. Lodan Raya 60" 12 Traffic lights Jl. Pakin 7 Jl. Lodan Raya- Jl. R.E. Martadinata - - Smooth flows 8 Jl. R.E. Martadinata- Eastern part of - - Under pass of toll road Ancol Barat Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3-43 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Table 3.69. Traffic conditions of roads line/track of dredging transportation Tanjungan drain WestAncol Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 3- 44 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain CHAPTER 4 I SCOPE OF STUDY CHAPTER4 SCOPE OF STUDY 4.1. Scoping 4.1.1. Process of Scoping Scoping is an initial process for to decide scope of issue and to identify hypothetical significant impact related to the plan of action and it's impact. Scoping conducted through three stsges those are: identification of potential impact, evaluation of potential impact, and classification and priority scale of hipothetical significant impact. 4.1.1.1. Identification of Impact In this stage scoping activity intended for to identify all of environment impact (primair, secundair, and so on) which is potentially will emerge without considering whether small or large impact, significant nor not significant impact. That way in this stage there no measures to evaluate whether the potential impact as large and significant impact. Identification to potential impact is obtained from a series of cosultation and discussion with proponent, responsible entity, interested community, and result of field observation. Additionally, identification to potential impact also with the use identification methods those are: • Library study, and/or • Simple interaction matrix, and/or • Flow diagram 1. Component of action plan to be studied Based on plan description on sub chapter 2.2 so component of activity that will be studied are three phases of activities as follows: a. Preparation phase: 1) Technical study 2) Socialization 3) Coordination 4) Relocation Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 4- 1 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain b. Dredging phase: 1) Vehicle and equipment mobilization 2) Work force mobilization 3) Traffic regulation 4) Dredging 5) Temporary refuse collection site 6) Segregation of dredged result 7) Sludge transportation to dispossal site c. Post dredging phase: 1) Land clearing 2) Demobilization of work force 3) Demobilization of vehicles and equipments 4) Recovery and improvement of infrastructures 5) Maintenance Based on justification result of technical nor economical study, so scope of study in this EIA study, just overwhelm Lower and Tanjungan drain. 2. Environmental components which affected by impact: o Flooding o Dust of ambient air o Odor o Noise o Physical -chemical of river water o Refuse o Sediment o Fauna o Biologi Air o Perception and community unrest o Work opportunity o Business opportunity o Public Health o Traffic and road damage Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) 4-2 Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Table 4.1. Matrix of identification on potential impact Legends: + = Have impact rt"' Technical study I Figure 4.1. Flow diagram of identification of significant impact at preparation phase of dredging in Lower Angke-Tanjungan drain Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 4-3 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Wokforce lncre'ase of job mobilization employment and ~ businesss Increase of noise ~ Mobilization of heavy equipments ) ,-----. and vehicles Degradation of ~ dust quality of _t-- f---.t ambient air Decrease of f- Public Health 1- .. L..-. Traffic nuisance ~ Traffic arrangment ~ / and road damage Dredging Degradation of phase 1- ,-----. phys-chem of river water ~ f-. Perception change and community unrest H Dredging / Increase of odor ~ f-- f---.t Dredged sludge Aquatic biota I-- transporttion to Disposal site 1--- !----+ nuisance Reduce flooding ------+ Sediment quality r------+ change Seggregation of j ~ Degradation of .... dredging result \. refuse quality ~ Decrease of Public Health ~ Increase of job employment and business nnnnrlttnihl Decrease Temporary ~ storage of Increase of odor 4 Environmental aesthetics Dredging result Increase of noise Embakment Degradation of f--. dust quality in Ambient air Clean water use Degradation of 4 phys-chem river water Figure 4.2. Flow diagram of identification of significant impact at dredging phase of Lower Angke- Tanjungan drain Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 4-4 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEOI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain rl Land cleansing mbersihan 1 Demobilization Increase of f----. of heavy equipment . noise I- -- Post dredging Change of phase · Increase of f---. community perceptiofl job 1- employment n .. . Demobilization - ~ t-- of work force Increase of L_. business I- opportunity I Reduction of Maintenance flood Figure 4.3. Flow diagram of identification of significant impact at post dredging phase of Lower Angke- Tanjungan drain Based on that flow chart so the identified of potential impact are as follow: 1. Preparation phase: • Perception changes and community unrest 2. Dredging phase: • Degradation of dust quality in ambient air • Increase of odor • Increase of noise • Degradation of physical-chemical quality of river water • Degradation of refuse quality • Nuisance of aquatic biota • Increase job employment • Increase of business opportunity • Perception changes and community unrest • Decrease of Public Health • Traffic nuisance and road damage • Change of sediment quality • Change of environmental aesthetic 3. Post dredging phase: • Reduce flood • Increase of noise • Change of community peception • Increase of job employment • Increase of business opportunity Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEOJ) 4-5 Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 4.1.1.2. Evaluation on potential impact Seeping at this phase aimed to eliminate potential impact which justified as not relevant or not important, so retrieved list of significant impact as need and important for indepth discussion on EIA study. This list of potential significant impact was prepared in consideration as important thing by community arround the activity site, responsible entity, and EIA study team. In this phase list of significant impact is not put in systematical yet. Method for this phase is discussion among the expert team member. Identification of significant and large impact conducted by proponEint (together with EIA reparation team ) in justification on result of consultation and discussion with responsible entity and also intersested community. Criteria for selection of potential impact consist of four questions i.e: 1. Whether burden to a certain environment component is high? This matter obsereved from analysis to secondary data and pre survey. 2. Whether the environment component play roles on daily five of the community (social- economic value) and again otheenvironment components (ecological value). This is retreved from result of pre survey. 3. Is there any high fearful of the environment component? This matter will be seen from the result of community consultation. 4. Is there any regulation or policy that break by the impact? This matter will be seen from regulation which provide limitation or give environment quality standard. Each potential impact is filtered with four questions as mentioned above, if one among those questions is answered with "yes" or "unknown" so that environment component will be studied in environmeenal impact analysis. After discussed among the expert teams retrieved some potentials impact are eliminated. Here are evaluation of potential impact become hipothetic significant impact: 1. Preparation phase • Perception change and community unrest This matters act as initial reaction of community, following socialization of plan of dredging in Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain. This reaction may may be positive impact or negative impact. That is why in socialization activity requires clear- precise information, transparent, and easy to be understood by participant of meeting. It is expected post socialization Chief and Kelurahan Chamber and NGO member may passed the information provided at the meeting to general resident about the purpose and aim of dredging. Additionally community perception may changes about unrest due to relocation/resettlemnt from river sides/bank of Lower Angke- Tanjungan drain. This reaction may become positve impact or neggative impact. Based on that way of thinking EIA team conclude that perception and community unrest in Lower Angke - Tanjungan drain at pre construction phase make into hipothetical significant impact. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 4-6 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 2. Dredging phase • Quality degradation of ambient air dust Consist of dust parameter generated from mobilization of heavy equipment material, dredging activity, transportation of dredged material, and embarkment. This impact becomes hipothetical significant impactbecause may may become cause of public health nuisance, conveniency, and will cause negative perception to the community (unrest). • Increase of odor Generate from dredging, storage of dredging result, temporary storage of sludge, transportation of sludge to disposal site. This impact will be become hipothetical significant impact because may caused public health nuisance, convenient nuisance, and caused negative perception to the community (unrest). • Increase of noise Generated from mobilization of heavy equipment material, dredging activity, transportation of sludge to the disposal site, and embarkment activity. Eventhough the heavy equipment just little in amount, and occured not in a long time if did not handled in good manner it will cause negative perception to the community. Based on that matters, this impact become hipothetical significant impact. • Degradation of physical-chemical quality of river water Based on dredging activity which this is intended to smooth water flows in the drainage drain and move the sediment to the disposal site so dredging activity will degradate TSS value in that watery. The use of clean water by dreging worke also caused degradation of physical-chemical quality of river water. Based on that matters, this impact will be treated as hipothetical significant impact. • Degradation of Refuse quality Dredging activity also generates dredging result in the form of refuse. The amount of refuse in the dredging result is quite mauch. Whether foaling nor semi floatin and trapped in the sediment. So if the refuse from the sediment is not managed after moved out from the river, it will caused impact commuity health, odor, and disturb aesthetic. Based on that matters, the existance of refuse may become hipothetical significant impact. • Aquatic biota Starting from dredging activity, that this activity will caused disturbance to aquatic biota. Activity of disposal site also afffects to the balance of other ecosystem. The existance of aquatic biota, mainly in the drain will not affect to other ecosyatem. This impact do not become hipothetical significant impact. • Perception change and community unrest Perception changes and community unrest are accumulation of all significant impacts. Management to all activities during the dredging phase, if do not Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 4-7 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEOI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain implemented in good manner, it will caused generate residual impact that wil sustain into post dredging phase. The management to all acitvities and generated impact that are not handled properly it will turn to be community unrest. Community unrest became very important as the next stage could be public outrage and the disruption of the project activities. In certain parts of the drain will be dredged many settlement resident who are on the banks of the riber. Therefore perception and community unrest are included in the hipothetical significant impact. • Job employment At dredging phase, positive impact that araises is at labour component. Base on the result of pre survey the public expects this activity can accomodate local work force. According to the activity plan, dredging activity will use the tools that require special skills, which may not be owned by local workforce. Besides that, base on descBeside that ription of the amount of laboue that is absorbed is relatively small. Nevertheless, the system of cooperation with the community about sorting (local term is KSO, means Kerja Sarna Operasi) will generate employment opportunities for the surrounding coommuities. On the basis of this mind the impact of employment opportunities ancluding hipothetical significant impact. The impact on the business opportunity may become positive impact when the people get a try like providing food, drink and other essentials for the worker. Based on such matters, the impact can be made an hipothetic significant impact. • Public Health Activity of dredging the drain would cause odor due to sediment being lifted and give rise nuisance to the community. Beside on that nuisance to public Health can be caused by the waste management of waste result of dredging that are less well. This resulted in disruptiom to public health and comfort of life in that affected areas. With such conditions, the impact on public health can be resolved if the component of the mpact of odor and refuse have been able to resolve. Based on that matters, public health component is not considered to be hipothetical significant impact. • Sediment quality change Dredging activities will generate the most result in the form of sediment and others in the form of refuse. At the lime of dredging process, process of transfer of the sediment from the drain to temporary storage, and transportation vehicle potentially will pollute the air in the form of odor, nuisance of aesthetics if spilt over happen in the dreging site and transportation. Moreover the result of dredging activities also potentially will polute water quality in the disposal site when contain B3. This impact will become hipothetical significant impact because Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 4-8 River, ReseiVoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain posible to arise environmental health nuisance and will caused negative perception of the commuity. • Traffic nuisance and road damage Arise from heavy equipment mobilization, dredging activities and transportation of dredged material and refuse transportation which possible to cause traffic nuisance. Mobilization of heavy equipment will be conducted not at the busy hours. Activities of material and refuse transortation are predicted as caused nuisance to existing traffic conditions. Based on that matters tis impact is grouped as hipothetical significant impact. 3. Post dredging phase • Reduction of flood The impact occured in the run off water at the stage of post dredging activities at once which can· ensure a smooth flow of surface water, so the capacity of drainage' drain become more broadly so as to reduce the risk of flooding . In the post dredging phase maintenace/maintenace dredging activities will maintain the accomodation capacity of the water body so as to reduce flooding. As such the impact can be hipothetical significant impact. • Increase of noise Sourced from the mobilization activities of heavy equipment and vehicles. Relatively few vehicles were mobilized and didn't last long. As such it does not the hipothetical signiificant impact. • Community perception change Is the accumulation of all the important impact that arises from planning phase and drdging phase. The management of all the action on phase pphase dredging and post dredging should be handled well. The success of the management of the impact on pcommunity perception of the component will ensure the smooth runnning events. The management of all activities and impact incurred are not handled properly will turn out to be community unrest. Community unrest became very impotant because the next stage could be community ourage. Therfore community perception is included in hipothetical significant impact. • Employment opportunities A the phase of post dredging takes place labour reduction are significant enough. Most of the estimated workforce will experience a termination of employment. Based on the description of activities the amount of labour that is absorbed is relatively small. On the. basis of this in mind the impact of employment not concluded in the hipothetical significant impact. • Business opportunity Impact of business opportunity can be positive impact if the commuity got opportunity for business such to cater like eating, drinking needs for the worker. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 4-9 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain With the completion of the dredging activities and transport then the chance of catering it on the wane. Based on the descriptions of the activities the amount of workforce to be absorbed is small. Based on that matters this impact, therfore can not included in hipothetical significant impact. For better informations on evaluation of potential significant impact to be come significant impact are as follows. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) 4- 10 Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Table 4.2. Evaluation on hypothetical significant impact Mobilization of vehicle and equioment Yes Mobilization of workforce arrangement Dredging Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 4- 11 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain of dredged sludge to dispoasal Recovery and Improvement of Yes infrastructures Legends: 1. = Whether the loads of particular environment comonent is high? This matter will be seen from the secondary data analysis and result of pre dredging survey. 2. = Whether the environment component hold the role in daily live (social-economy value) and to other environment component (ecolcigical value) • This matter will be seen at the pre dredging survey 3. = Whether there any people concern is high about the environment component? It is seen from the result of community consultation 4. = Whether any regulation or policy breaked by the impact? It is seen from regulations which decide the environment quality standard. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 4- 12 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Based on the explanation above, then it can be concluded that the impact significant impact hipothetic are: a. Prpepartion phase: • Perception change and community unrest b. Dredging phase: • Decrese in ambient air quality • Increase in odor • Decrease in refuse quality • Change in sediment quality • Traffic nuisance and road damage • Increase in noise • Increase in employment opportunity • Increase in business opportuity • Perception change and commuity unrest • Decrease in physic-chemic quality of river water • Change in the environment aesthetics c. Post dredging phase: • Reduce of floods • Community perception 4.1.1.3. Classification and Priority of Significant Impact Scoping carried out at this phase aims to classify/organizing significant impact has been deducted from the previous phase with the objective to be obtained further classification and priority of significant impact hipothetic which will be examined further in EIA document. In doing the classification and prioritization consider it as follows: • Policy or regulations that are the basis for directiive of the further EIA study, such as quality standard and the others. • The scientific study concept to be conducted. The significant impact hipithetic formulated through 2 stages. First, all large and significant impacts are grouped into several groups according to the sight of one another. Second, the significant impact clusters are sorted based on their interest. Significant impact priority method is hipothetic the size of the occurence opportunity forecast and forecast of the size of consequence that may be happen.Then chance of occurence published a gradient of value which represents the gradient magnitude ·of the consequencies, in the table belows: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) 4- 13 Segment lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Table 4.3. The possibility and magnitude of result lncidential Small (1) (2) Almost certainly (5) Most probably (4) Unlikely (2) Rarely (1) Here are a classification of hipothetic significant impact based on evaluation of potential significant impact: a. Preparation phase: • Perception change and commuity unrest =PKM b. Dredging phase: • Decrease of dust quqlity of ambient air =PKU • Increase in odor = PKB • Decrease of refuse quality =SP • Sediment quality cgange =SE • Traffic nuisance and road damage =GT • Perception change and community unrest = PKM • Decrease in phys-chem quality of river water = PKAS • Increase in noise = PK • Increase of employment and business opportunity = KKB • Environmental aesthetic change = EL c. Post dredging phase: • Reduce floods = PPB • Community perception change =PM After obtained some hipothetic significant impact of activity phases, then the impact will be sortted by their impotance, so that it can be seen as follows: 1. Preparation phase: because there is one impact only that is perception change and community unrest so this impact become hipothetic significant impact priority in this phase. 2. Dredging phase there are 10 (ten) impact and determination of priority are as follows: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 4- 14 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDJ) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Table 4.4. Hypothetic significant impact priority in dredging phase Evaluation Total Priority Hipothetic significant impact 1 2 3 4 5 Value scale Decease of dust quality of ambient air Possibility X 6 7 Magnitude of impact X Increase of odor Possibility X 20 1 Magnitude of impact X Decrease of refuse quality Possibility X 9 4 Magnitude of impact X Traffic nuisance and road damage Possibility X 12 2 Magnitude of impact X Peception change and commuity unrest Possibilty X 6 10 Magnitude of impact X Sediment quality change Possibility X 10 3 Magnitude of impact X Decrease of physic-chemical quality of river water Possibility X 8 6 Magnitude of impact X Increase in noise Possibility X 6 9 Magnitude of impact X Environmental aesthetics change Possibility X 6 8 Magnitude of impact X Increase of employmment and business opportunity Possibility X 9 5 Magnitude of impact X Table 4.5. The possibility and magnitude of the result of dredging phase activities ALMOST CERTAINLY 5 8 4 PKAS 6 MEDIUM 9 3 PKU, PK, 12 (3) SP, KKB,EL PKM 2 4 6 8 10 1 2 3 4 5 Consquency Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 4" 15 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDJ) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 3. Post dredging phase there are 2 (two) and determination of the priority are as follows: Table 4.6. Priority of hypothetical significant impact in post dredging phase 20 1 12 2 Magnitude t ALMOST CERTAINLY 5 10 4 8 12 - ~ - ...J Ol ..: 3 2 6 4 9 6 8 10 Ol 0 ~ 0.. 1 2 3 4 5 Consequences Seeping process for the preparation of EIA activities dredging Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain in detail can be seen the picture below: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 4- 16 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Activity plan • Preparation HYPOTHETICAL • Dredging POTENTIAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT • Post dredging Preparation phase PreMration phase • Perception change and • Perception change and community unrest community unrast >I v predging phase Dredging (;!hase • Decrease of dust quality of • Decrease of dust quality Identification Evaluation Clasification of potential ambient a'lf of Potential in ambient air and Priority • Increase in od?r • Increase of odor impact impact • Ncrease of n01se • Traffic nuisance and road • Decrease of phys-chem quality damage of river water • Decrease of refuse Nuisance in aquatic biota r quantity • Traffic nuisance and road • Sediment quality change damage • Perception change and • Decrease of refuse quantity community unrest • Sedimment quality change • Penurunan Kualitas • Increase of employment Fiskim Air Sungai • Increase of business • Increase in noise • Perception change and • Increase in employment community unrest and business • Decrease of public health • Environmental aesthetic I Environmental aesthetica change change Post dredging (;!hase Post dredging phase • Reduce floods • Reduce floods • Community perception • Increase in noise • Community perception • Increase of employment Increase of business opportunity Figure 4.4. Flow diagram of scoping Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 4- 17 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 4.1.2. Result of Seeping Process The result of seeping process include hipothetic significant impact, scope of study area, and deadline of study. 4.1.2.1. Hypothetic Significant Impact After going through seeping stage by using method of interaction matrix, and flow chart, hipothetic significant impact which raise as a result o{ activities are as follows: 1. Reduce floods 2. Decrease of dust 3. Increase of odor 4. Increase in noise 5. Trafffic nuisance and road damage 6. Perception change and community unrest 7. Decrease of refuse quantity 8. Sediment quality change 9. Decrease of phys-chem quality of river water 10. Increase of employment and business opportunity 11. Environmental aesthetic change. 4.2. The Scope of Study Area and Deadline of Study Determination of boundaries of the area's environmental impact analysis study on dredging activities Lower Angke-Tanjungan drain emphasized on consideration of the area affected by the project activities of the project at any phases of activities. Boundary of study area is resultant of the project activity boundary, ecological boundary, social and adminirtation limits having regards to to the technical limitation of resources, which include time, money engineering and reserch methods. The basic determination of area of studies in detail can be express as follows: 1. The boundary of project The limits of project activities cover the whole area of the intended activities of dredging the Lower Angke-Tanjungan drain and matrial transpotation routes, namely: a. Lower Angke Length ± 5. 000 meter Wide 13 meter Project limit From Pantai lndah Selatan bridge - Fly Over Daan Mogot tol road. b. Tanjungan Drain Length ± 2.070 meter Wide 6 meter Project limits Kamal Muara Drain- PT. Modem Group Compound. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) 4- 18 Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 2. Ecological boundary Ecological limits is the ecological impact of the spread of the space left and rights of dredging activities the drain Lower Angke-Tanjungan drain and routes travelled by truck carrier of material result of dredging with estimation of 100 m radius. Estimmated distribution of the impact of an activity plan based on the waste transport medium (water and air), in which the natural processes occuring in space is expected to undergo fundamental changes. Built sub-ecosystem arround the footprint of activity is an activity of transportation, housing/settlement, shop-house/office-house, public facilities, shaping centre and government buildings. 3. Social boundary Social boundaries is spce arround the footprint of the plan which is the venue of the actiivities of various social interactions that contain specific norm and value that have been established (including system al)d social structure), in accordance with the social dynamics of a community group, which is expected to undergo fundamental changes due to the actiivity plan dedging of Lower Angke-Tanjungan drain. Considering the environmental impact of uneven spread of social boundary are set, by limiting the number of of neighbourhood association (average of 200 meter) along the drain or road of routes of dredged sludge transportation. This social boundary was determinated with considering result of identificaion to the community which located in the project boundaries, and eclogical and and other community beyond the project boundaries but potentially may affected by impact from dredging activity of Lower Angke-Tanjungan drain through accomodation of workforce, public facility construction and soocial facilities. 4. Administrative boundary Administrative boundary intended as a spce where communities can ideally do social activities of the econoic and social culture in accordance with the legislation in force. The space limit is a limit to the space. which coincide with with kelurahan boundary passed by the dredging activity on Lower angke- Tanjungan drain namely: Table 4.8. Administrative region of Lower Angke-Tannjungan drain ·.· .·.· .· . .· .... ··.· ·,. I .· . . Kelurahart ' ·. /·". llu~'!l.istrict/ I> . No; •Segment ~·, .c'_ .. '- ' . ...... ·.. Kecamatan. ,. City ; .. Kapuk Muara Penjaringan Jakarta Utara Pejagalan Penjaringan Jakarta Utara 1. Lower Angke Kapuk Cengkareng Jakarta Barat Kedaung Kaliangke Cengkareng Jakarta Barat Wijaya Kusuma Grogoi-Petamburan Jakarta Barat Kamal Muara Penjaringan Jakarta Utara 2. Tanjungan Drain Tegal Alur Kalideres Jakarta Barat Source : Konsultan 2009 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 4- 19 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT MAP 4.1. BOUNDARY OF STUDY AREA [dJ - - - llllbuu --- -=• .......... .._......_.. •=a• ~ =" ~-- II' ,..,..d"'lnn.. ~:ai~SUd I -- ·= ---- KEMENTERIAN PEKERJAAN UMUM DIREKTORAT JENDERAL SUMBERDAYAAIR DIREKTORAT SUNGAI, DANAU, DAN WAD UK ~ a - :e...o... Jl. Patimura No. 20 P.O. BOX 6723JJKSRB Phone 7203951,7261292, Fax7261292 Kebayoran Baru.Jakart111 Selman Environmen1all mpact Assessment (EIA) 4-20 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain CHAPTER FORECAST OF 5 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CHAPTERS FORECAST OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 5.1. Impact Forecasting Criteria In doing a large and significant impact forecast it first need to be indicated hipothetical significant impact that arise with reference to: Scoping of EIA in EIA Term of Reference. Environmental issue which raise from result of review. To the hipothetical large and significant impact indicated above, it arises in a variety of method to forecast the impact, as expressed in Chapter 4, carried out a significant impact analysis to know the character of impact, magnitude of impact, and the level of impact importance, which for the next may be use to evluate significant impact. Forecast criteria of large and significant impact stipulated as follows: a} The nature of the impact The nature of impact differentiated into positive impact, namely the types of impact tha are profitable when reviewed in term of the environmment, as well as the negative impact, that the types of adverse impact if reviewed in term of the environment, such as environment pollution, environmental damage, or the potential decrease of natural resources. b) Magnitude of impact The quantity impact can be grouped in two categories, large and small, that are based on the magnitude of the change of environmental quality, change which raise as the impact of gredging Lower Angke-Tanjungan drain activities, or the magnitude of change before and after activities whether in quantitative or qualitative In addition, the large impact of formulation is categorised if conformity with one of several criteria the following: i. Environmental support capacity has been in critical conditions meaning it can not serve to human life and/or other being as expected. ii. Capacity water resources, air and land has been at the maximum ability to accept additional loads from the out side. iii. Capacity of social resources of the community has been on the ability to accept the additional burden from the outside. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 1 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain For the purpose of quantitative analysis, then giving a numerical scale was earned as follows: i. Magnitude of impact is categorized as large, when the environmment condition change happens because of the activity reach more than 50% of its original conditions (scale 5). ii. Magnitude of impact is categorized as small, whe the environment conditions change happens because of the activity reach less than 50% of its original· environment conditions (scale 1). c) The level of impact importance Criteria of the level of impact importance refers to the decision of the Heads of of Bapedal No. 56/1994 on Guidelines Concerning to the size of impact is significant, where the impact arising from the activities can be categorized significant or unsignificant as can be seen in the following table taking into account the 6 factors importance cjeterminnant of impact such as: i. The amount of population affected by the impact ii. Wide spread of impact iii. Duration of impact and intensity of impact iv. The number of other environmental components affected v. Cumulative nature of the impact vi. Reversible or ireversible of the impact. Finally the next step is done deep study of the impact evaluation of holistically to significant impact is going to use method of Leopold-Lohani Than matrix. Table 5.1. The criteria of impact significantly level No. Criteria of Impact Importance Level Score 1 Significant 5 2 Not significant 1 Table 5.2. The criteria of siginficant impact determination ·. Criteria· ofsignificant impact . Determination Factor of No. Not significant Significant Important Impact (score 1) (score 5) 1. Population (Pd) Beneficiary people more lhan Affected peple more Pd =P1/P2 affected people than beneficiary people P1 =Affected people of impact P2 =Beneficiary people 2. Wide spread of impact (L) no area undergoing There are area undergo L =L1/L2 fundamental changes fundamental change L1 =Wide spread of impact L2 =Wide of activity area 3. Duration of impact proceeds (W) The length of impact less than Duration of impact more w =W1NV2 1 stage of activity, light, than 1 stage activity, W1 =Duration of impact proceeds beneficiary people more than medium up to heavy , Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5-2 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain is number of environmrntal component affected by environmental primary impact more than component affected by = SR/PR affected by secondary impact primary impact less SR than affected by 5. , can be Sinergistic, cummulative asimilated by environment and can not disimilatie 6. Reversible ofireversible Can 5.2. Forecast significant impact 5.2.1. Preparation phase 5.2.1.1. Lower Angke drain 1) Perception change and community unrest Socialization activities whether EIA or survey activity and dredging of Lower Angke have raised positive perception and negative perception of the community tat live in the study area. This matter seen from result of community response at the time of socialization of EIA, as well as the field survey result show that most of the public/ respondents in the study showed that perception of negative and positive. Socialization actvity Community perception from socialization activity relatively positive among other: • Drainage drain and waduk post dredging are expeced to be maintained/controled. • When no doubt dredging will be implemented. • Based on previous dredging it is expected that environmental condition recovered at post dredging phase. • Need advance information regarding to technical aspect of dredging. • Placement of dredged material carried out properly. • Prior to dredging implementation contractor expected to coordinate with local community leader. • Necessary HOT line information in dredging location spot, to accommodate community report, information and recomendation. • It is expected that local community are involved in the project implementation and generally in favour/support to the project Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5-3 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI} Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Survey; related to community interest, and in line with information trasparentcy era, so activity plan of dredging in Lower Angke-Tanjungan will be community issue and commuity attention arround the project. Additionally preliminary survey as physical activity which is directly seen by by the community. At the time community interest subject to the memorable will give rise to material losses/immaterial, so at first the community reacted negatively. Based on the result of survey, all respondents have known about dredging plan of Lower Angke. Factors that support the arise of negative community perception is the very large fear on resettlement to the people who occupy along the river banks. Additionally the expectation on drain dredging will provide employment joint cooperation for refuse segregation. Based on the result of survey, all rspondent support this project. . Additionally, based on the result of survey 30 respondents from the community possible affected by the project, 100% do not the dredging plan. At level of 100% agree for dredging plan. Respondents expected that dredging activity will reduce 100% of flodds, while the rest expected on employment. (11, 11 ). Based on LARAP study conducted for 65 Household, educational background is heterogen. Based on interview mayority is graduated from yunior high school (public and moslem) 354,4%. Nevertheless there are graduated from academy (1 ,5%). For more detail level of education resulted from LARAP study presented at figure below. oolidak sekolah I tidak tam at SD • Tam at SD I Mil sederajat o Tamat SMP I MTs I sederajat o Tamat SMA I MA I sederajat • Tamat akademi (D1, D2, D3) • Saljana (S 1) Legend: 1. Tidak sekolah/tidak tamat SO: Do not attend school/unfinish for elementary school. 2. Tamat SD?MI/sederajad: Graduated from elementary school/similar. 3. Tamat SMP/MTs/sederajad:Graduated from yunior high school 4. Tamat SMAIMA/sederajad: graduated from senior high school/similar. 5. Tamat akademy: graduated from academy 6. Sarjana (S1): university graduate Figure 5.1. Level of education, respondent of people arround the Lower Anngke Respondent of non setlement building almost are building owner (81 ,8%), while as t staff RT/RW (neighbourhood/Hamlet) are (9,1%), and 9,1% are management staff of the building (9,1%). For detail information of this ownershil can be seen at the figure below. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5-4 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 1!1 Pemilik Bangunan • Pengelola Bangunan o Pengurus DKM D Pengurus RT I RW • Penjaga I Penunggu Bangunan ill Lainnya Figure 5.2. Level of ownership of building in the community arround the Lower Angke drain Almost job of the community are labourer that are 46 (40,0%), at the second is private 17 persons (26,2%) and at the third is private employee 17 persons (15,4%), The min job resulted from LARAP survey presented at the figure below. iiiPNS • TN II Polisi o Pegawai swasta ~ o Petani I petemak I nelayan • Wiraswasta I Pedagang • Buruh • Pengemudi o lbu rumah tangga • Lainnya Figure 5.3. Type of job respondent arround the Lower Angke drain Mayority earning of the familly ranges from Rp 1.100.000,- - Rp 2.200.000,-/month, for 28 person (43,1%), from Rp 550.000,-- Rp 1.100.000,- for 23 persons (35,4%), nevertheless also for morethan Rp 3.300.000,- for 3 persons (4,6%). Detail information on earning presented at figure below. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 5 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 35% Ill< Rp 550.000 per bulan • ·Rp 550.000 s.d. Rp 1. ioo.ooo per bula~· - o > Rp 1.100.000 s.d. Rp 2.200.000 per bulan o > Rp 2.200.000 s.d. Rp 3.300.000 per bulan • > Rp 3.300.000 per bulan ~- -- Figure 5.4. Earning of the community, respondent of community arround the Lower Angke drain The community perception that negative will raise secondary impact cause social unrest particularly people arround the drain. Community concern of affected community to be aware of another through informal approach aim negative impact arise could be minimize, so it doesn't contnue to dredging phase or post dredging phase. Based on that explanation above then the impact of dredging action plan and plan of relocation and community perception and coomunity unrest! can be classified as mayor/large impact sale 5. The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors as follows: 1. Humans are affected communities living along the the stream of the drain dredging activities (especially the possibility of the community was relocated about 140 Household). The number of affected communities are smaller when compared to the communities that will receive benefit. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as the impact is not important. 2. The area of impact distribution relatively broad (across the drain to the river mouth) and underwent of fundamental change. Based on this analysis it can be categrized as critical/important impact. 3. Impact last long, as long as preparation phase, dredging up to post dredging as related to community placement are relocated. While the the intesity of impact is medium, affected population are affected. Based on this analysis of the impact occurs can be categorized as critical/important impact. 4. Environmental component affected by secondary impact more than one (community unrest, community security and order). Based on this analysis it can be categorized as critical/important impact. 5. Impacts are cumulative and synergistic, so it will difficult assimilated by the environment, especially if management of the impact is not well done and things that it was feared by citizens come into reality. Based on that analysis it can be categorized as critical/important impact. Environmental Impact Assessment (ElA) 5- 6 River, Rese!Voir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke·and Tanjungan Drain 6. Impact of perception and community unrest is reversible, if management of the impact is well done so community expectation come into reality and community fear will disappeared. Based on that analysys it can be categorized as not critical impact. Based on explanation mentioned above, so perception and community unrest will be categorized as critical impact (scale 5). 5.2.1.2. Tanjungan drain 1) Perception change and community unrest Socialization whether EIA nor survey activities and dredging of Tanjungan drain have raised positive and negative perception of community who lived in the study area. This matter can be seen from community respons at the time of EIA socialization and also from field srvey that showed almost respondent in study area have negative and positive perception. Socialization activities Community perception from socialization activities relatively positive, among others: • Drain and waduk post dredging expectfully to be maintained and controlled. • When the no doubt time dredging will be implemented. • Based on previous dredging experience, it is expected contractor recovers environmmental condition as before at post dredging. • Need more clear information on technical aspect of dredging. • Dredged material placement need care and order. • Prior to dredging implementation contractor have to coordinate with local informal leaders. • Need information of Hot line in spots of dredging site to accommodate commuity reports and recomendations. • The community expected to be involved in dredging implementation and generally support the dredging project. Survey; related to commuity interest and in line with information transparentcy so dredging planning activity of Tanjungan drain will become community talk and community attention arround the the drain. Aditionaly preliminary survey activities is physical activity which possible direcly monitored by the community. At the moment community interest indisturbable which raised impression of will raise community loss, so it will raise negative reaction.Based on survey, revealed that all respondent have known about plan of dredging in Tanjungan drain. Factors that encourage the emergence of negative perceptions of community is backed by the presence of a very large cocern of the community to plan the relocation of the community who occupy this location of the activity surrounding the drain. In addition there is a hope that with the existence of dredging the Tanjungan drain will open employment opportunities with the holding of events at the time of refuse sorting in joint cooperation. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) 5-7 Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Beside that, based on the result of the survey was carried out as much as 30 respondents from the community that could potentially impact, 100% of the respondents not knowing the plan of activity of dredging. As much as 100% of the respondent agree to holding of dredging activities. Respondents expect with the an activity of dredging would be able to reduce the floods (100%). Based oon the activities of the LARAP (Land Aquisition and Resettlement Plan) study have been implemented the number of people who could potentially be the relocation of as many as 20 head of Household (KK). LARAP studies conducted a survey of the affected people were a possibly with the number of respondents as many as 15 people. Of the total number of respondent surveyed 15 people, level of education of respondent are very heterogeneous. On the basis of the result of the interview is over, however the mayority of senior high school (13,3%). But there is also from university degree (6,7%). Description of levels of education survey can be seen in figure belews. 13% lillidak sekolah I tidak tamat SD • Tamat SD I Mil sederajat o Tamat SMP I MTs I sederajat o Tamat SMA I MA I sederajat • Sarjana (S1) Figure 5.5. Level of education of respondent, community surrounding the Tanjungan drain Respondent of non residential buildings were interviewed in general (42,9%) are the owner of the building and guard/watchman (42,9%), as well as other (14,3%). Description of the home ownership result of LARAP survey can be seen in the figures below. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5-8 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 14% 11!1 Pemilik.Bangunan • Penjaga/Penunggu Bangunan D Lainnya Legends: • Pemilik bangunan: Building owner Penjaga/penunggu:Guard/watchman • Lainnya: Others. Figure 5.6. Levels of buillding ownership respondent, community arround the Tanjungan drain In the meantime the work of mother or wife of the head of the family is the private employee (33,3%), farmer (6,7%), and the self employed (33,3%), while the housewife i.e. as much (26,7%). An overview of the main result of the LARAP can be seen at figure below. 33% 1!1 Pegawai swasta • Petani/Petemak/Nelayan o Wiraswasta o lbu rumah tangg~ Legends: 1. Pegawai swasta: private employee 2. Petani/peternaklnelayan: farmer/grazier/fisherman 3. Wiraswasta: self employed 4. lbu rumah tangga: housewife Gambar 5.7. Jenis Pekerjaan Responden Masyarakat Sekitar Saluran Tanjungan Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5-9 River, Reservoir and Lake DreQging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain The mayority of the members of the family income range Rp 1.100.000,- up to Rp 2.200.000,-/month numbering 8 persons (53,3%) but some are income range Rp 2.200.000,- up to Rp 3.300.000,-/month as many 5 persons (33,3%) while who have income of moretha Rp 3.300.000,-/month as many 2 persons (13,3%). An overview of income of family members result of LARAP survey can be seen in the figure below. 13% 54% --------------------~~--~~~~~~~~-----, Iii> Rp 1.100.000 s.d. Rp 2.200.000 per bulan • > Rp 2.200.000 s.d. Rp 3.300.000 per bulan o > Rp 3.300.000 per bulan Figure 5.8. Income of member respondent of survey, commuity arround the Tanjungan drain The community perception that the negative will raise secondary impact in term of social unrest, especially people arround the drain, concerns of affected community to be aware of another through informal approach aimed negative impact araise from can be minimalized, so do not continue to dredging phase or and post dredging phase. Based on explanation above, then the impact of dredging activities and plan of relocation and community perception and community unrest can be classified as mayor impact, scale 5. The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors as follows: 1. Human affected is the community living along the stream of the drain dredging activities on hitchhiking (especially the possibility of the community was relocated about 20 household). The number of affected commuities are smaller when compared to to the communities that will receive the benefit. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as the impact is not important. 2. The wide of distrbution of impact relatively is wide, (in along the stream area of drain untill the river mouth), and experience in fundamental change. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as the impact is critical impact. 3. Impact occured for long time, as long as the preparation phase, dredging implemmetation, until post dredging phase because related to placement of community to be relocated. While impact intensity is medium, populatioh affected Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 10 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain is affected. Based on this analysis, it can be categorized the impact as the impact is critical/significant impact. 4. Environmental components affected by secundary impact more than one, (community unrest, community security and order). Based on thais analysis it can be categorized as critical/significant impact. 5. Impact are cumulative and synergistic, so it will difficult assimilated by the environment especially if management of the impact is not well done and things that it was feared of citizen become into reality. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as critical/significant impact. 6. Impact on community perception and community unrest is reversible if management of the impact conducted in good manner, so the expectation will come into reality, and concern of citizen will be lost. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as the impact is not significant. Based on explanation mention above, so impact of perception and community unrest icluded in significant impact, scale 5. 5.2.2. Dredging phase 5.2.2.1. Lower Angke drain 1) Increase of odor Dredging activity and dripping activity and refuse segregation predicted would lead to the increase of odor at the dredging site. This oodor generation sourced from sedimment and also from refuse from Lower Angke drain, Impact of this odor will increase if compared to the environmental hue, (without project}, which according to theresult of measurement relatively below the quality standard compared to the decision of the aministry of environment No. 50/1996 on standard of odor quality. This odor increase predicted will be morethan 50%, because generation of odor sourced from sediment, refuse, and leachete of sediment dripping. Eventhough increase of odor occured, it is planned to reduce or minimalize odor generation. Based on the explantion above, impact of dredging plan related to increase of odor at the dredging phase can be categorized as large/significant impact, scale 5. The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors as follows: 1. Human ffected is the community whic kive along the the stream of the drain that passed through by dredging activity. The amount of affected community less than if compared to commuity that will receive affected. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not important impact. 2. The area of impact distribution relatively broad, (alcross the drain) and underwent fundamental change. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as significant impact. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5 - 11 River. Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 3. The impact did not last long, as long as dredging activity take place. While intensity of the impact of being affected populations affected. Based on this analysis of the impact that occurs can be categorized as the impact is not significant. 4. Environmental component affected by secondary impact morethan one (public health, commuity security and order). Based on this analysis it can be categorized as significant impact. 5. Impact are cumulative and synergistic, so it will be difficult assimilated by the · environment, especially if management for the impact is not well done and things that was feared of citizen become reality. Based on this analysis it can be categorized the impact as critical/significant impact. 6. The impact of increased odor it will be reversible, if management of the impact made by both the expectation of community will come to reality, and concern of citizen will be lost. Based on this analysis it can be categorized that the impact concluded as not significant impact. Based on that explanation mention above, so impact of increase of odor icluded as negtive impact and significant impact scale 5. 2) Sediment quality Sediment quality at dredging phase will generate impact to some activities namely: a. activity of dredging of drain b. activity of refuse segregation from dredged material c. actiivity of dripping the dredged material d. activity of tramsportation of dredged material/sediment to AN COL. a) Activity of dredging the drain Activity of dredging the Lower angke drain predicted will be affected by quality and quantity of the sediment. The volume of dredging the Lower Angke and Tanjungan drainwas planned will generate dredged materual of about 248.000 m3 . It is estimated that 98% of that volume (about 243.000 m3) in the form of sediment and he remaining is refuse. Based on the result of TCLP examination at environmental hue sediment quality is below th quality standard and not dangerous. Sediment which just lifted from the drain will in septic connditions due to decomposition process. If this sediment is not managed properly it will caused environmrntal pollution, generate odor, and pile of mass in a large amount, and nof disposed in final sediment disposal site -ANCOL. b) Segregation of dredged material Activity of sediment segregation from dredged material of Lower Angke was predicted will affect the sediment. Those activity will generate sediment result of sorting from dredged material. If not mmanaged in proper way this sediment will Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5 - 12 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain caused environmental pollution, and underwent decomposition process which caused bad odor. Location of segregation between sediment and dredged material need to be concentrated so as to accomodate the need of land to transfer dredged sediment to sediment dripping site. From the drain as long as about 4,050 KM, predicted to generate sediment s much as 243.000 m3 during the dredging process. Considering the activities arround the dredging activity at this moment belongs to high density (residential, commerce etc.) and required convenientcy and high privacy so this matter need more attention. c) Dripping the sediment Dripping activity of the dredged material of Lower Angke was predicted will be affected by water quality as part of the dredged sedimment. If not handled with care, so the water in it (leachate) will split over to the environment arround it. d) Transportation of sediment to final sediment disposal site (ANCOL! Dripped sediment will be disposed to final sediment disposal site (ANCOL). It is predicted that volume of sediment to be transported to ANCOL from the result of dredging of Lower Angke as much of about 243.000 m3 during rhe dredging phase. In the implementation of transportation sediment to ANCOL required coordiantion and clear cooperation between dredging implementator with dripping implementator and also transportation implementator. Based on the description mentioned above, so the impact of dredging activities to ediment quality it can be included as large impact, sale 5. The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors as follows: 1. The human affected is the community which lived along the stream of the drain of dredging activity. The amount of community affected by the impact is less compared with the community receiving impact Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not important/significant impact. 2. The wide of distribution area of impact relatively wide (across the the drain flows area)and underwent fundamental change. Based on this analysis it can be categorizes as significant/important impact. 3. Impact last for short, not long during the dredging phase and dripping period. While impact intesity medium, affected population affected, Based on this analysis it can be categorized the impact as important/significant impact. 4. Environmental component affected by secondary impact is more than one (quality of drain water, odor, and public health). Based on this analysis it can be categorized as important/significant impact. Environmental Impact Assessment {EIA) 5- 13 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 5. Impact have the nature in cumulatie and syhergistic so difficult assimilated by environment, Based on this analysys it can be included as important/significant impact. 6. Impact to the sediment quality is reversible. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not important/significant impact. Based on that explanation as mentioned above, so impact of sediment quality categorized as negative impact and impotantlsignificant, scale 5. 3) Decrease of refuse quantity The existance of refuse in dredging phase emerge on some activities those are: a. activity of workforce recruitment/mobilization b. activity of dredging the drain c. activity of segregation of refuse from dredged material d. activity of the use of segregated refuse e. activity of refuse transportation to Final Disposal Site {locally named TPA). a) Recruitment/mobilization of workforce S Activities of operational workforce of dredging in Lower Angke was predicted affect the refuse. Workforce activities will generate domestics waste in the form of food and beverage remainder, used container. If not managed properply those refuse will cause environmental contamination, odor, flies breeding places, rat and other insect then will generate disease. This domestics refuse from dredging workforce if not managed properly will be discarded openly included to the drain. b) Activity of dredging the drain Activity of dredging the Lower Angke drain was predicted will affect to garbage. Volume of dredging of Lower angke planned as about 248.000 m3 . It is estimated that about 2% dredged volume (4.960 m3) in term of refuse, whether organic or unorganic. If not managed propperly this garbage will generate environmental pollution, odor, mosquito harbour, flies, rat and other insect that might caused disease. Organic refuse from the drain also generates leachate that might polluted to water body/drain. c) Segregation of dredged material Activity on segregation of dredged material of Lower Angkke was predicted will affected to refuse. Those activity will generate refuse, result of segregation of dredged material. If not msnsged properly, this refuse will caused environmental pollution and underwent decomposition process which generate odor. Location for segregation of refuse from dredged material need more attention so accomodate the need of space for refuse transfer garbage truck. From drain of about 4.960 m3 during the dredging process. Based on envronmental hue that predicted refuse composition in that drain (Lower Angkedrain) is 64,21% unorganic refuse and 35,79% organic refuse. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5 - 14 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEOJ) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Considering tat activities arround the dredging site of current event is prety solid (residential, commercial, etc) and need convenientcy, and high privacy, so that matters require attention d) Utilization of segregated refuse After sorting of refuse from dreged material which operated in join cooperation with local community emerge possibility the community utilize the refuse had been sorted for economical-value. Utilization of refuse generally intended to unorganik refuse because it possible dirctly sold to used goods collector. Activity of refuse utilization require attention because there is possibility abandonment of refuse that have economical value. e) Transportation of refuse to final disposal site Refuse, rubbish that have been sorted from dredged material will be disposed to final processing site. It is estimated volume of refuse to be disposed to final procesing site from Lower Angke drain as much 4.950 m3 for dredging period. Estimation for the amount of truck for transportation is two trips/day/truck. In the process of transportation it will occured loading from refuse segregation site into truck, and unloading from truck to to disposal site. Based on explanation as mentioned above, so the impact of of dredging activities to refuse generation may be included as large impact, scale 5. The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors as follows: 1. Human affected is the community who lived along the drain flows passed by dredging project. The amount of people affected less than compared the amount people that will received the impact. Based this analysis it is categorized as not important impact. 2. The wide of impact dispersion relatively wide (across the drain flows area) and ubdewent fundamental change. Based on this analysiis it is can be categorized as important/significant impact. 3. The impact last for long as long as dredging activitiesa and transportation of refuse material to final processing site of Bantargebang. While intensity of impact is medium affected population affected ..Based on the this analysis so the impact can be categorized as important/significant impact. 4. Environmental component affected by secondary impact morethan one (environmental sanitation, environmental aesthetic, and public health). Based on this analysis it is can be categorized as important/significant impact. 5. The impact is cummulative and synergistic, so it is difficult to assimilate by the environment. Based on this analysis it is can be categorized as significant important impact. 6. The impact to refuse is reversible. Based on this analysis it is can be categorized as not significant/important impact. Environmental impact Assessment (EIA) 5 - 15 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Based on that matters so the impact of refuse included as positive and significant impact, scale 5. 4) Decrease of physical-chemical quality of drain water The source of decrease of physical-chemical quality of drain water is dreging activities. Based on the result of measutement of water quality in Chapter 3, in general water quality of Lower angke drain have been polluted with organik matters. Impact of the water quality that is increase turbidity, cfue to lifting of sludge by dredging equipment such as excavator. This impact occured momently, that is t~e suspend of particle caused turbid settling down to the bottom due to gravitation, Considering the gravitatio, flow capacity/time unit, and water speed, it is predicted that dredging activity will caused to the increase of turbidity. Distribution of impact on the increase of turbidity due to the lifting of solids particle on average is 1 - 2 meter, with recovery time 5 - 10 minutes. Considering the speed of water is slow, will not drive the particle to downstream, no community utilize the water in Lower Angke drain for daily work, no endemic aquatic biota and have economical value. Based on that matters as mentioned above, so concluded that the resulted impact is small, scale 1. The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors those are as follows: 1. The human affected is community who lived in along the drain flows passed by the dredging activity. The amount of people affected is less compared to the community tah will receive the impact. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not important/significant impact. 2. The wide of impact distribution area is elatively narrow, and not underwent fundamental change. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant/important impact. 3. Impact last for speed, as long as the dredging actvity. While intencity of impact is medium, affected population affected. Based on this analysis so the occured impact can be categorized as not important/significant impact. 4. The affected Environmental component have no drivative impact, Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant/impotant impact. 5. The nature of the Impact is not cumulative and synergistic. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant/important impact. 6. The impact to the decrease of physical-chemical quality of drain water is reversible if the management of impact conducted in good manner. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant/important impact. Based on that explanation so the impact of the decrease of physical-chemical quality of drain water is concluded as not significant/important impact, scale 1. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 16 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 5) The decrease of dust quality of ambient air The activity of heavy equipment mobilization-demobilization and transportation of the result of dredging will occure for about 33 months. This activity is predicted will affected to the decrease of exhaust gas polution of vehicle and dust as the impact of the traffic of dredged material transportation vehicle, and increase of VCR as the impact of traffic jammed. Transportation activity of vehicle of refuse transportataion as long as dredging period directly will caused increase of exhaust gas from the vehicle which operated whether on the route of activity or along the routes. Additionally spilled over sludge will deteriod road condition with dust due to wind flows and will decrease air quality. This impact mext will disturb conveniency of the community who live arround the footprint of activity, even may caused the health of project worker, and raised negative perception from the local community. For the prediction of exhaust gas resulted from transportaton which related to dredging activity, conducted calculation with equations as folows: Q (CO) =. (fNI X N1 + fNIII X Nlll)co X L NOx : Q (NOx) = (fNI X N1 + fNIII X NIII)Nox X L S02 : Q (S02) = 2 X a X p XV Particulate: Q (particulate)= b x p x V Where: Q(CO), Q(Nox), Q(So,], Q(particulate) =load gas CO, NOx, S0 2 and particulate due to transportation, glhr = koefisien load gas NOx and CO vehicle group I and Ill, glkm.N CO: fN, = 2,4 glkm.N fNIII = 2,0 g/km.N NOx: fN1 = 0.5 glkm.N fNIII = 4,2 glkm.N N 1, N 111 = Amount of vehicle group I and Ill which pass by, N L = Length of distance, km a = Content of S in fuels, % • Content of sulfur= 0, 44% • Level of particulate = 0, 035% b = Level of particulate in fuels, % p = Specific weight offuels, g/liter V = Volume of used fuel, liter If assumed if : Spesification of gasoline BJ = 0.67 kg/L, BM = 212 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA} River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) 5 - 17 Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Table 5.3. Calculation of exhaust gas and dust due to transportation Excavator 2 76,5 5,3064 2,11 Fo identification of exhaust gas distribution in ambient air appliied equation of Gau~?sian for ground level line source as follows : . CJ 2Qj/L f 2 2)] = ( )" 2 lexp(z /2cr z 2n ucr z where: Cj (x, z) = Coefisient of gas at the distance of x meter and height z meter from · source of impact, g!m3 Qj = Speed of gas emition , gldetik L = Length of impact source, m U =Average wind speed, m/second az = Coefisien of dispertion Gaussian on vertical direction, m (figure 3.39 Environmental Impact Analysis Handbook, Rau & Wooten, 1978) One among others source of the decrease of air quality is the movement of heavy equioment. The magnitude of increase of dust and gas content due to operation of heavy equioment depend on on amount and type equipment in use. The next on: The height of mixture is 15 meter, and the distance of dispersion of impact due to addition og exhaust gas and dust from from activity location is 500 meter. The wide of of working area iis 106m2 and average wind speed is 1,03 m/second. Table 5.4. Dispersion of exhaaust gas and dust due the operation of heavy equipment '·, . Forecast of . Emisioh ·rate/ · Consen· RLA the-increaSe. Emision i~te( INide•o(IYorking· !ration at• · . cQncen~ of co.nc~n- ·, BM ·area dredging traiion ··. I !ration Parameter Qe Q Cambien Co c ~gram/ ~gram/m 3 ~gram/m 3 ~granllm 3 ~gram/m 3 Kg/hr ~gram/sec . • second/m 2 Dust 0,088 24427,08 1,69 54,71 96 150,71 230 Source Has!/ perhllungan Considering the magnitude of impact which emerge on dredging implementation at some parameter of air quality such as dust, an increase of 150,71 from original condition so the impact can be categorized as large, scale 5. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 18 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain The interest of impact was determined by 6 important factors as follows: 1. Affected human are communities living along the drain flow at dredging activities had gone through. The number of affected communities are smaller when compared to the communities that will receive the effect. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as the impact is not important/significant. 2. The total area of impact spread relatively broads (along the drain and dumping site area) and underwent fundamental change. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as critical impact. .. 3 Impact last long, as long as dredging activities and last post dredging. While intensity of impact is medium, affected population affected. Based on this analysis ut can be categorized as critical/significant impact. 4. Environmental component affected by secondary impact morethan one (unrest, public health). Based on this analysiss it can be categorized as critical/significant impact. 5. Impact are cummulative and synergistic, then will difficult to be assimilated by environment, especially when management of impact is not well done. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as critical impact. 6. Impact on air quality will reversible, if dredging activities and post dredging activities completed. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not important impact. Based on that matters above, the impact of air quality in this categories include the negative impact and importance. (Scale 5). 6) Increase of noise Dredging activities and embankment were predicted will afect to increase noise along the dredging location of Lower Angke. Basically noise level in this study area is quite high due to located at road site, dredging activities and embankment repair. Noise from point source such as heavy equipment caused by engine performance. Based on desk study of Dwi P Sasongko (Kebisingan Lingkungan, 2000), then levels of noise generated by heavy equipment are as follows: Table 5.5. Levels of noise dredging equipment (distance 50 feet) No Name ofequipmqet Noise level (dB( A) -'- 1 Service Crane 85 2 Exacavator 70 .. Source . Dw1 P Sasongko (Keb1smgan Lmgkungan, 2000) Based on· the hue of environment noise leve in theresidential arround sediment dredging location has been more than the quality standard. The mobilization of device transport of dredged material, and embankment restoration it is predicted will increase the the noise level in neighbourhood residents. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5 - 19 River, ReseJVoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Heavy equipment which used in each drain can be seen on chapter 2. By using the formula of point source then the noise: Lp =Lw-20Log r -11 Where: Lp =Noise level at the distance (r) from the source of noise (dBA). Lw = Noise level in source of noise (dBA). r = Distance from the source of noise to measures location (m). When known that noise from excavator is 70 dBA, then the safe distance, noise do not disturb human, is: 55 = 70 -20 Log r-11 Log r = (70 -55 -11)/20 Log r = 0,2 r = 3 meter At the distance of 3 M noise from excavator will not affect People, because the nearest distance between Lower angke drain is 20 M. That way, activities which generates noise impact is transport of dredged material. Noise impact may generate physical - psychologial disturbance where physical disturbance is hearing loss, ·coversation disturbance, as well as sleep disoreder/ disturbance, while psychlogial disorders are annoyance, anxiety, fear. Based on those reasons mentioned above it can be categorized that magnitude of impact is small (scale 1). Affected human are communities living along the drain flow at dredging activities had gone through. The number of affected communities are smaller when compared to the communities that will receive the effect. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as the impact is not important/significant. The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors as follows: 1. Affected human are communities living along the drain flow at dredging activities had gone through. The riumber of affected communities are smaller when compared to the communities that will receive the effect. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as the impact is not important/significant. 2. The total area of impact spread relatively broads (along the drain and dumping site area) and underwent fundamental change. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as critical impact. 3. Impact last long, as long as dredging· activities and last post dredging. While intensity of impact is medium, affected population affected. Based on this analysis ut can be categorized as critical/significant impact. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 20 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 4. Environmental component affected by secondary impact morethan one (unrest, public health). Based on this analysiss it can be categorized as critical/ significant impact. 5. Impact are cummulative and synergistic, then will difficult to be assimilated by environment, especially when management of impact is not well done. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as critical impact. 6. Impact to the noise is reversible, when management of impact conducted welldone Based on that analysis it can be categorized as not important impact. Based on that maters mentioned above, so impact of noise increase included asn negative and important impact (scale 5). 7) Traffic and road damage • Traffic Activities of dredged material transportation (sludge and refuse) of the drain predicted will affect to the smooth of traffic arround the dredging location, along the transportation routes and access road to disposal area. Activity of transportation vehicle will increase traffic volume arround the dredging activities along the transportation route and access road to disposal site. Transport activity of dredged material will use land transport, that way will caused increase of traffic whether on dredging location or routes of transpot. The road that will pass are starting from dredging location of each segment through each route plan towards disposal site, in addition as previous description that for dredging result will be transported with dump truck of 5 units (loads capacity 25 ton) which will divided into 3 (three) locations of dredging. To anticipate possibility of paralel work with other package it is estimated that it will add more loads to traffic volume, not merely to arround the dredging location, along the route of transport (especially Jalan RE Martadinata which is the melting routes of all other package) howver also on access road to disposal site although at the distance of 1,4 KM from Jalan RE Martadinata, meaning if some/all packages (19 packages) all have started so potential of vehicle que occured, evenmore that que will creeped until the arterial road, moreover if problems occured in access road to Confined Disposal Field (CDF). Nevertheless, as descibed on hue look that the existing traffic condition along the route of transportation (especially at night) are less likely to match solid field as shown from survey result (table 3.68) in some junctions have indicator whether long of vehicle que or short delay time at < 12 meter with delay time < 60 seconds. Nevertheless que potential and traffic jammed likely happened if some packages of work implemented in the similar time. • Damage/quality decrease of road body Transport vehicle activity result of dredging will lead to increased traffic volume and ultimately increasing the total damage/decrease of road body around the location of Environmental impact Assessment (EIA) 5 - 21 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain activity, along the route of transport and access road to disposal site. For material result of dredging will utilize dump truck of maximum capacity 20 ton with amount about 5 unit (axle loads 25 ton) that is expected to add the burden of traffic flow in the vicinity of the location of the dredging, along the route to transport access road to disposal site, which at the end potentially damage/decrease quality of road body. However the influence of the damage/loss of road quality in the case of road project will pi mary occur at the location of Jalan RE Martadinata which is the location of the meeting of the entire road route project plan/other package of JED I 1 phase 1 and 2 a, wich led to the disposal area when some packages/all packages have started work at the same time, frequency and vehicle loads occure continous/repetitive as long as the project progresses. From the field observation, Jalan RE Martadinata have hardness of rigid pavement and one among other cause of damage/decrease of quality of the road especially type of hardness rigid is the present of "fatique" which caused by some factors among other load repetition which caused the present of early/premature damage. By observing determining important impact then: 1. The amount of affected human relative! larger than compared to the human of receiving benefit, so the impact can be categorized as important/significant impact. 2. The wide of impact dispersion relatively wide compared to the study area, so it can be categorized as important/significant impact. 3. Impact last as long as dredging phase (33 months) so this impact categorized as important/significant impact. 4. Environmental components affected morethan one components (perception, traffic jam air quality, noise and road damage) so this impact can be categorized as important/significant impact. 5. Increase of traffic load is cumulative with surrounding activity, so this impact can be categorized as important/significant impact. 6. This increase of traffic loads is reversible, so this impact can be categorized as not important/significant impact. From some criteria as mentioned above, it can be concluded that impact can be categorized as negative and important/significant impct (Scale 5). 8) Increase of employment and business opportunity Workforce at dredging activity which are involved in this project about 51 persons. This workforce expected from the local community, with level of education varies, from yunior high scool up to university degree according to type of job. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 22 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEOI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Based on environmental hue data it is recorded that the amount of productive age in 2008 about 26.284 person if calculated work opportunity index will result to : KsK = (STK/Number of productive people (persons) x 100% Legends : KsK =Work opportunity(%) STK = Absortion of workforce (person) Then KsK of dredging activity =(51 person/26284 person) x 100% = 0.0019% Based on the result of calculation mentioned above then the increase of employment opportunity from dredging activity as much 0,0019% (less than 50%). Nevertheless the existence of additional manpower will be able to increase the economic activities of sosiety as well as increasing employmennt opportunities and the chance of business either direct or indirectly. In addition, refuse segregation activities in join cooperation between contractor and the community will give raise to employment opportunity to the surrounding communities. By looking at the amount of manpower that can be utilized to conduct dredging, either directly or indirectly, as well as the conditions of employment and chnace for business in thearea of study that seeks are relatively limited then the positive impact that arise can be considered minor (scale 1). The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors sue as follows: 1. Affected human are communities living along the drain flow at dredging activities had gone through. The number of affected communities are smaller when compared to the communities that will receive the effect. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as the impact is not important/significant. 2. The wide of impact dispersion area relatively narrow (arround dredging location) and not underwent fundamental change. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not important impact. 3. Impact did not last long, as long as dredging activities and post dredging activities. While intensity of impact is medium, affected population effected. Based on that analysis it can be categorized as significant/important impact. 4. Environmental component which affected by secondary impact more than one (increase of community income). Based on this analysis it can be categorized as significant impact. 5. Impact is cumulative and synergistic so it is difficult to be assimilated by environment, especially when management of impact is not conducted well done. Based on this analysiis it can be categorized as significant /important impact. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA} 5- 23 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 6. Impact on employmenr opportunity and business is reversible, when management of impact conducted well done. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant/important impact. Based on that matters mentioned above, so the impact of employment opportunity and business opprtunity included in the category of positive and significant/ important impact, (Scale 5). 9) Change of environmental aesthetic The change of environmenta; aesthetic made fromdredging activities. The environmental aesthetic will be reduced due to build up of refuse arround the dredging activities undertaken forwards disposal site before carting side. Beside that, environmental aesthetic change will also affects to city park which located along the route of dedging activities. Based on ennvironmental hue the amount of city park along the dredging location about 25% of or about 1.3 KM. Environmental aesthetic change made from dredging actiivities is negative imppact. Based on this conditions then negative impact arised can be categorized as minor impact (Scalle 1). The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors sue as follows : 1. Affected human are communities living along the drain flow at dredging activities had gone through. The number of affected communities are smaller when compared to the communities that will receive the effect. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as the impact is not important/significant impact. 2. The wide of impact dispersion area relatively narrow (arround dredging location) and not underwent fundamental change. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not important impact. 3. Impact did not last long, as long as dredging activities take place. While intensity of impact is medium, affected population effected. Based on this analysis it can be the impact arised can be categorized as not significant/important impact. 4. Affected environmental component have no derivative impact. Based on this analysis then can be categorized as not significant/important impact. 5. The impact is cumulative and synergistic, so will be difficult to be assimiltaed, especially when impact management is not well done. Based on this analyysis it can be categorized as significant/important impact. 6. The impact to environmental aesthetic will be reversible, when impact management is well done. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant/important impact. Based on that matters mentioned above then impact of environmental aesthetic incleded of category not significant/important impact, (Scale 1). Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 24 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDJ) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 10) Perception change and community unrest Dredging activities and dredged material dripping (also refuse segregation) will raise positive and negative perception from the community which live in study area. This community perception raise from the possiblity of disturbance of public health due to dredging actiivity, which among others caused by: 1. Transport of heavy equioment and vehicle for refuse transportation 2. The emerge of odor in dredging location as the impact. of dredged material placement. The negative community perception will raise secondary impact, that is social unrest, especially people at drain flow area, the fear of affected commuinity. The fear of commuity which affected must be considered inter alia through informal approach to aimed that all emerged negative impacts could be minimized then do not continue to dredging phase and post dredging phase. Beside that, advance impact of preparation phase made from relocation/resettlement plan will contnue to this phase if not managed in good manner, Based on the description mentioned above the impact of dredging activity plan on perception and commuity unrest at dredging phase can be categorized as large impact, Scale 5. The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors as follows: 1. Affected human are community who live along the drain flows passed by dredging activities. The number of affected communities are smaller when compared to the communities that will receive the effect. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as minor/small impact. 2. The wide of impact dispersion area relatively wide (along the drain flow area) and underwent fundamental change. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as significant/important impact. 3. Impact last for long time, as long as the dredging activity and post dredging activites occured, While the intensity of impact is medium, affected population are effected. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as significant/important impact. 4. Environmental component affected by secondary data more than one (community unrest, secuurity and community order). Based on this analysis it can be categorized as significant/important impact. 5. Impacts are cumulative and synergist then it is difficult to be assimilated by the ebvironment, especially if manaement of impact is not well done, and things that were community feared come into reality. Based on this analysis, it can be categorized as significant important impact. 6. Impact to community perception and community unrest is reversible, when management of impact implemented well done, so community expectation into reality and community concern will disappear. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not important impact. Environmental impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 25 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Based on that matters mentioned above, then impact community perception and community unrest included of category as significant impact (Scale 5). 5.2.2.2. Tanjungan drain 1) Increase of odor Dredging activities and dripping avtivities of dredged material (and refuse segregation) will cause odor in the dredging location increase. Odor generation derived from sediment, §IS ~ell as the garbage that comes from the Tanjungan drain. Impact on this odor will increase if compared with the initial hue of the environment (witout project), which is currently based on the result of measurement of parameter of odoe measured relative under the under quality standard when compared with SK MenKLH No. 50 in 1996 about the the quqlity standard of odor. This increase in odor forecasted will morethan 50% since odor derived from sedimment, refuse as well ac leacet of dripping of sediment. However management action will be performed in minimizing odor generation. Based on that description mentioned abve, then the impact of dredging activitty plan on odor increase can be categorized as large, significant impact. (Scale 5). The interest of odor determined by 6 important fctors as follows: 1. Affected human are community who live along the drain flows passed by dredging activities. The number of affected communities are smaller when compared to the communities that will receive the effect. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as minor/small impact. 2. The wide of impact dispersion area relatively wide (along the drain flow area) and underwent fundamental change. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as significant/important impact. 3. Impact last for long time, as long as the dredging activity and post dredging activites occured, While the intensity of impact is medium, affected population are effected. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant/ important impact. 4. Environmental component affected by secondary impact more than one (public health, coomunity security and community order). Based on this analysis then it can be categorized as significant/important impact. 5. Impact is cumulative and synergist then it will be difficult for assimilation, especially when impact management is not well done and things community feared come into reality. Based on this analysis then it can categorized as significant impact. 6. Impact to the increase of odor is reversible, if management of impact well done then the community expectation come into reality and community feared will disappear. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant impact. Environmental fmpact Assessment (EIA} 5- 26 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Based on this matters mentioned above then impact of odor increase included as negative and significant impact (Scale 5). 2) lmprvement of sediment quality a. dredging activity of drain b. activity of segeregation of refuse from dredged material c. activity of dripping of dredged material d. activity of transportation of dredged material/sediment to ACOL. a) Drain"dredging activities Activity of dredging the Tanjungan drain is predicted to be affected by the quality and quantity of sediment. Volume of dredging to Tanjungan drain is planned generate dredged material as about 11.500 m3 . Approximately 98% of the volume of dreging (about 11.270 m3) of sediment and the rest is garbage. TCLP test results based on the initiial quality of the hue of the environment was still under the sediment quality standard and not dangerous. The sediment just lifted from the water of the drain will realtively septic due to decompostion process. If the sediment iis not managed properly, will cause damage to the environment , raises stink as well as heap of the volume that is large enough and not eye-catching. The quality of sediment were also influential to the reception area at the time at the time of disposal in final sediment dispoasl site ·AN COL. b) Segregation of dredged material Segregation activities of sediment from dredged material of Tanjungan drain is predicted will affected to ediment. That activity will generate sediment the result of segregation dredged material. If it did not managed properly the sediment will caused environmental damage, and underwnt decomposition process whic generates stink .. The location of segregation of sedimen by dredged materials need to be concentrated as to accommodaate the need of land space to move sediment yield to to dripping location means. Of drain of 650 m, is estimated to be generated as much about 11.270 m3 of sediment during the dredging activities. Bearing in mind the actiivities arround the the location of the current actiivities is quite dense (residential, commercial, service etc) and require the convenience and privacy are high enough, then it needs to get noticed. c) Sediment draining Draining/dripping of sludge resulting of dredging the Tanjungan drain is expected to be affected by the of water quality contained in the sediment are dredged. If not handled properly, then the water contained in the sediment/silt will be cattered to the surrounding envvironment. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5 "27 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain d) Transportation of sediment to final sediment disposal location (ANCOLI Sediment that had been drained will be disposed to the final dispoasal site (ANCOL). It is predicted that the volume to be transported to ANCOL resulted from dredging in Tanjungan drain is about 11.270 m3 during dredging period. The implementation of sediment transporttion to to ANCOL require coodination and cooperation which is clear, detail between dredging implementator and draining implementator and transportation implementator. Based on explanation mentioned above, the impact of dredging activity to sediment quality can be categotorized as large impact (scale 5). · The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors as follows: 1. Affected human are community who live along the drain flows passed by dredging activities. The number of affected communities are smaller when compared to the communities that will receive the effect. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as minor/small impact. 2. The wide of impact dispersion area relatively wide (along the drain flow area) and underwent fundamental change. Based on this analysis it can be· categorized as significant/important impact. 3. Impact lasts shortly, as long as the dredging activities and draining period. While impact intensity is medium, affected population effected. Based on this analysis then the impact which occured can be categorized as significant impact. 4. Affected environmental components byy secondary impact more than one (water quality of the drain, stink, and public health). Based on this analysis can be categorized as significant impact. · 5. The impact is cumulative and synergistic, then will be diffult to be assimlated by the environment. Base on this analysis it can be categorized as significant impact. 6. The impact to this sediment quality is reversible. Based om this analysis then it can be caategorized not significant impact. Based on this matters mentioned above, then the impact of sediment quality can be categorized as negative and significant impact. (Scale 5). 3) Decrease of garbage quantity The existance of refuse in dredging phse appears on several activities namely: a. Activies of recruitment/mobilization of manpower b. Activities of drain dredging c. Activities of garbage segregation by dredged material d. Activities on the utilization of segregated refuse. e. Activitiy of garbage transportation to Final Processing Place .. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 28 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain a) Recruitment/mobilization of manpower. The activiy of dredging operational man power of Tanjungan drain is predicted will give impact to refuse/garbage.Activity of the man power will generate domestic waste in term of left over food and beverage, and used food and beverage container. If it didn't managed properly this refuse will cause environmental damage, stink, harbour of mosquito, flies, rats and other insect, that will cause health problem. The domestic refuse of the man power.if not properly managed it can possible dumped haphazardly and go back to the drain. b) Activities of drain dredging Activity of dredging Tanjungan drain is expexted to have an impact of the garbage. Volume of drain planned dredging the Tanjungan drain about 11.500 m3 .Approximately 2% of the volume of dredging (230 m3) of refuse, both organic and unorganic waste. If it did ot managed properly this waste will caused environmental dammage, stink, mosquitos harbour, flies, rats, and oter pest that may raised health problems. Organic waste from the drain also generates leachate which possible pollute the drain/water body. c) Segregation of dredged material Activities of garbage segregation by dredged material of Tanjungan drain predicted will have impact to garbage. Those mentioned activity will generate garbage result of segregation oof dredged material. If it does not managed properly this garbage will environmental damage, and underwent decomposition which raise stink. Location of garbage segregation with dredged material need attention so that can accomodate td as much as 50he land space to move garbage result of dredging to garbage transportaion means (garbage truck) Of all the waste generated much as 650 m is estimated to be 230 m3 during the process of dredging activities. According to initial estmates of hue is well known that the composition of the waste in the Tanjungan drain are garbage and 38,46 inorganic 61,54% organic. Bearing in mind the activities arround the location of the current activity is quite dense (residential, commercial, services, etc) and required the convenience and privacy are high enough, then needs to get noticed. d) Utilization of segregated waste After the segregation of refuse by dredged material that cooperated with local community, then there is possibility the community utilize the segregated refuse for economic value. Utilization of waste in general intended for inorganic waste because it can be directly sold to waste collector/used googs collector. Waste utilization activities needs to get noticed, ·because of possible occurence of neglect against the waste of no economic value. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 29 Ri'ver, ReseNoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain e) Transportation of waste to Final Processing Site (Locally named TPA/ Waste that had been segregated from the dredged material to be dumped in Final Processing Site {TPA). Estmated volume of waste that must be taken to the TPA from the result of dredging the Tanjungan drain as much as 21.640 m3 over the period dredging. It is estimated that the truck needed for transport of waste from Tanjungan drain to TPA is one truck with two trips each day. In the process of transporting waste, will occure waste removal process from waste segregation site into garbage transport truck (loading) and the removal process of garbage from dump truxk to the disposal site (unloading). Based on those explanation mentioned above, the the impact of dredging to generation of waste can be categorized as large impact. (Scale). The interest of impact determined by 6 umportant factors, those are as follows: 1. Affected human are community who live along the drain flows passed by dredging activities: The number of affected communities are smaller when compared to the communities that will receive the effect. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as minor/small impact. 2. The wide of impact dispersion area relatively wide (along the drain flow area) and underwent fundamental change. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as significant/important impact. 3. Impact last long, as long as the dredging activties and transportation of waste material to TPA Bantargebang. While intensity of impact is medium, affected population effected. Based on this analysis it can be categorzed as significant impact. 4. Environmental component which are affected by secondary impact more than one (environmental sanitation,environmental aesthetic, public health). Based on this analysis the it can be categorized as significant impact. 5. Impact is cumulative and synergistic, so it will be difficult to be assimilated by the environment. Based on this analysiis it can be categorized as significant impact. 6. Impact to the waste is reversible. Based on this analyysiiis it can be categorized as minor impct. Based on that matters as mentioned above, then the impact of waste included in the category of positive and significant impact. (Scale 5). 4) Increase of physical-chemical quality of drain water. The source of impact on the decrease of physical-chemical quality of draun water is dredging activity. Base on the result of measurement as mentioned on chapter 3, generally water quality of Tanjungan drain is polluted by organic substance. The impact of water quality change is increase of turbidity raised from sludge lifting by dredging means such as excavator. This impact occurs momently, that is at the settling of particles source of turbidity to the bottom impact of gravitation process. To Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA} 5- 30 River, ReseNoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain take into ccount gravitation factor, flows capacity, flow speed, then estimated that dredging actiivity will affect to the increase of turbidity. Dispersion of impact on increase of turbidity on average 1 - 2 meter and recovery time is 5 - 10 inutes. Bearing in mind that the flow is low, will not push those solid particles to down stream, there is no community utilize the drain water, for daily use , the absence of endemic aquatic biota, and have economical value. Based on that matters mentioned above, then it can be concluded that the generated impact is minor. (Scale 1). The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors, as follows: 1. Affected human are community who live along the drain flows passed by dredging activities. The number of affected communities are smaller when compared to the communities that will receive the effect. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as minor/small impact. 2. The wide of impact dispersion area relatively narrow and not underwent fundamental change. Based on this analysiis, then it be categorized as minor impact. 3. lnpact occured fasly, as long as dredging activities take place. While intensity of impact is medium, affected population effected. Based on this analysis then the generated impact categorized as minor impact. 4. Environmental component affected is no derivated impact. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as minor impact. 5. The impact is not cumulative and synergistic. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as minor impact. 6. Impact to the decrease of physical-chelical quality of drain water is reversible. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as minor impact. Based on that matters mentioned above, then it can be concluded that the impact is concluded as minor impact. (Scale 1). 5) Decrease of dust quality of ambient air Activities of mobilization to heavy equipment and transportation of dredged material will take plase for about 3 months, give impact to increase of exhaust gas pollution and dust that come from traffic of vehicle of material transportaionand increase of VCR due to traffic jam. Transportation activity of waste disposal vehicle during the dredging implementation directly will cause increase of exhaust gas, that come from fuel burning from a number of vehicle operated by whether from foot print of activity and as well as along the route to be passed by. Beside that matter, spilled over sludge that has dried on the road that will be wind borned, will raise impact air quality. This impact more advance will disturb community convenience that stay arround the foot print of activity even may cause disturb the health of project worker and then raise negative community perception. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5 - 31 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain For the purpose of prediction of exhaust gas and dust generated from transportation activity related to dredging activity, it is calculated using equations as follows: Q (CO) = (fNr X Nr + fNrrr X Nrrr)co X L NOx : Q (NOx) = (fNr X Nr + fNrrr X Nrrr)Nox X L S02 = : Q (S02) 2 X a X p X V Particulate: Q (particulate) = b x p x V Where as: Q(CO), Q(Nox), Q(So2), Q(particu/ate) =load gas CO, NOx, S02 and particulate due to transportation , g!hr fN,, f Nlll = coefisien load gas NOx and CO vehicle of category I dan Ill, glkm.N CO: fN, = 2,4 glkm.N fNIII = 2,0 g/km.N NO: fNI .= 0.5 glkm.N fNIII = 4,2 g/km.N N1, N111 = Number of vehicle category I and Ill which pass by, N L = Length of distance, km a = Content of S in the fuel, % • Sulfur content = 0,44% • Particulat content = 0, 035% b = Content of particulate in the fuel, % p = Specific weight, glliter V = Volume offue/ which is used, liter If assumed that: Spesification of fuel: BJ = 0.67 kg/L, BM = 212 Table 5.6. Calculation of exhaus gas and dust due to transportation File I' . .··...,.. '. ·· .. .· . ... y_'' ' ' ' ·,' ·. ' ' .. . Heavy .equipinent ' Amount lld'IY consu,mptiori · .Emision of- exhaus ' gas· . (kg/day - . ) .. kg/day .• GO ' .. NOx so,. oust. . ' Excavator 2 90 76,5 11,56 2,89 5,3064 2,11 Source: Result of calculatiOn To recognize dispersion of exhaus gas in ambient air it is used Gaussian equation for ground /eve/line source as follows : . 20i/L r 2 2)] Cj= ( )112 lexp(z /2crz 2n Ucrz Environmental rmpact Assessment (EIA) 5- 32 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Where as: Cj (x,z) =lcoefcient of gas, at the distance of x meter and height z meter from source of impact, g!m 3 Qj = Speed of gas emisiion, glsec. L = Length of impact source, m U =Average of wind speed, mlsec. az = Coefcient of Gaussian dispersion at vertical direction, m (figure 3.39 Environmental Impact Analysis Handbook, Rau & Wooten, 1978) One among the sources of air pollution {decrease of air quality) is operation of heavy equipment. The magnitude of increased levels of dust and exhaust gas due to the operation of heavy equipment that relies on support from dredging the type and number of !equipment are used. The next with: Have the mixing height fifteen meters, and proximity to the spread of the impact caused by an exhaust gas and dust from the location of the activity is 500 meters. The area of work of 106.000 m2 and average wind speed is 1,03 mlsec. Dust 0,088 24427,08 1,69 54,71 96 150,71 230 Source: Calculation results Taking into account the size of impact that arise at the time of dredging implementation in some air quality parammeters such as dust, an increase from the original condiition become 150,71, then the impact can be categorized as significant impact. Scale 5. The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors such as follows: 1. The human affected is community living along the drain flow at the dredging activities had gone through. The number of affected commuities are smaller when compared to the commuities that will receive the effects. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant impact. 2. Total area of impact dispersion· relatively broad (along the drain and the dumping site) and underwent fundamenta changes. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as critical impact. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 33 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 3. Effect last long, as long as the activity of dreging and post dredging activities. While the intensity of impact is medium, affected populations effected. Based on the analysis of the impact that occur can be categorized as critical impact. 4. Environmental components affected by secondary impact more than one (community unrest, public health). Based on this analysis it can be categorized as critical impact. 5. Effects are cumulative and synergistic, so it will be difficult assimilated by the environment, especially if management of the impact is not well done. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as critical impact. 6. Impact on air quality will be turned, if post dredging activities and post dredging activities completed. Based on tis analysis it can be caegorized as is not important impact. Based on that matters mentioned above, then this air quality impact included as negative and significant impact. (Scale 5). 6) Increase in noise Dredging actiivities and repair activities on the embankment has been predicted will have impact on increase in noise, along the dredging location of Tanjungan drain. Basically the noise level in the current study is already pretty high, because road side. Dredging activities and activities improvement embankment has been. Noise from non moving source such as heavy equipment due to angine performance. Based on literatur study from Dwi P Sasongko (Environmental noise, 2000) so level of noise gennerated by the heavy equipment is as table below: Table 5.8. Noise level of dredging equipment (distace 50 feet) No Name of equipment .. Noise level (dB( A) 1 Service Crane 85 2 Excavator 70 .. Source : Dwt P Sasongko (Kebtsmgan Lmgkungan, 2000) Base on the hue of the environment, noise levels in the settlement around the location of dredging has been at the top of quality standard. With the existence of equipment mobilization and sludge will add vehicles ·across the road, so that the forecasted increases the noise level in the neighbourhood residents along the road travered the vehicle. Heavy equioment used in each drainage drain shown in Chapter II. By using the the formula noise point sources, then: Lp = Lw-20Log r -11 Where as: Lp =Noise levels at the distance of (r) from the source of noise (dBA). Lw = Noise level at the source of noise (dBA). r =Distance between source of noise to the site of measurement (m). Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 34 River. Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain If it is known that noise from the excavator is 70 dBA, then the safe distance so that it does not interfere with human the noise are: 55 = 70 -20 Log r-11 Log r = (70 -55 -11 )/20 Log r = 0,2 r = 3 meters At the distance of 3 meters of noise from the excavator shall not affect the population, so the dredging activities will-safe for the community because the nearest distance between Tanjungan drain is 25 meters. Thus, the activities that give rise to noise impact is the transportation of the material results of dredging. Effects of noise can cause physical or psychological disoredrs, physical disoreders which is hearing loss, interuption of conversation, as well as sleep disorders, wbile psychological disoreders is annoyance, anxiety and fear. Based on the above reasons, thus the magnitude of impact may be categorized as minor impact. (scale 1). The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors such as follows: 1. The human affected is community living along the drain flow at the dredging activities had gone through. The number of affected commuities are smaller when compared to the commuities that will receive the effects. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant impact 2. Total area of impact dispersion relatively broad (along the drain and the dumping site) and underwent fundamental changes. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as critical impact. 3. Effect last long, as long as the activity of dreging and post dredging activities. While the intensity of impact is medium, affected populations effected. Based on the analysis of the impact that occur can be categorized as critical impact. 4. Environmental components affected by secondary impact more than one (community unrest, public health). Based on this analysis it can be categorized as critical impact. 5. Effects are cumulative and synergistic, so it will be difficult assimilated by the environment, especially if management of the impact is not well done. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as critical impact. 6. Impact on noise will be reversible, if management of the impact well done. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as minor impact. Based on the above mentiuned matters, the impact of increaseed noise can be categorizes as negative and significant impact. (Scale 5). Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 35 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 7) Traffic and road damage • Traffic Drain dredging material transport activities (sludge and waste) forecasted will have impact on the smooth running of traffic arround the site of dredging, along the route of transportation activities, and access road to disposal site. Vehicle carrying dredging material activities will give effect to increase of traffic vlume in surrounding activities along the the transportation routes and access road to disposal area. Dredged result" transportation activities will use land transportaiion road, so it will increase traffic volume whether on dredging location or in route/corridor that passed by. The road that will be used is starting from dredging location of each segment through each route/corridor plan towards the disposal site; besides that as had been desribed in advance for dredged result material will use dump truck with a number of 5 (25 ton capacity) that will be divided into 3 locations of dredging. For the anticipation of possibility of working with the paralel package will add to the burden is expected to keep the flow of traffic not only rround the dredging site, along the transportation route (especially Jalan RE Martadinata which is a way of meting all routes of other package) but also meaning if some/all packages (totaly 19) has been started so potential que of vehicle at this site will occure even que of vehicle may be propogate up to the arterial road additionally if occured a problem in the access road to CDF. But nevertheless as in hue early look that the existing traffic connditions along the route of transportion plan (especially at night) are less likely to much solid field survey result (table 3.69) in some junctions have indicators whether length of queues and time delay are still low, those are each < 18 meter and delay time < 45 seconds respectfully. Nevertheless, potential queue and traffic jam may be occured if in some package/locations work implemented at the same time. • Damage/decline of road body quality Activity of vehicle transportation of dreging result material,will lead to increased traffic volumes/traffic and ultimately increasing the the potential for damage/decrease of body road quality arround the dredging location, along the route of transportation, and access road to disposal site For materials result of dredginng would use the dump truck with a capciity of 20 cubic meter with a total number of 5 units (axle loads: 25 tons) that is expected to add the burden of traffic in the vicinity of the location of dredging, along the route of transport until! access road to disposal, which at the end potentially damage damage/decline of road quality. However, the effect of road damage in the case of this project will primary occure in the location of thre potentially Jl. RE Martadinata which is the location of the meeting of the entire road route plan/package other JEDI1 phase 1 & 2a which led to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 36 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain disposal area when some packages/all packages have started work at the same time the frequency and vehicle loads continous/repetitive as long as the project progress. From field review Jl. RE Martadinata had a stiff (rigid pavement and one among others the the cause of damage/decline of road quality particularly on the type of road and rigid pavement is the present of "fatigue" due to several factors among others the effect of poad repetition that caused early/premmature damage. Having regard to determining factors of significant impact, then: 1. The number of affected human relatively larger than the human intended to receive benefits, then the impact be categorized as significant impact. 2. The total area of impact dispersion is relatively wide if compared to the study area, then it can be categorized as significant impact. 3. The impact last lomg, as long as dredging phase (33 months), then the impact can be categorized as significant impact. 4. Environmental components affected more than one component (perception, traffic jam, air quality, noise, and road damage) them the impact can be categorized as significant impact. 5. The increase in traffic is cumulative with surrounding activities then it can be categorized as significant impact. 6. This traffic increase is reversible, !then it can be categorized as minor imact. From some criteria mentioned above it can be concluded that impact is as negative and significant impact. (Scale 5). 8) Increased of employment and business opportunity The iabour involved in the dredging activities this project amounted to 28 persons. The workforce is expected to come from the area arround the project, with a wide array of educational level secondary school level up to higher education according to the type of work. Based on data from the hue of environment was noted that the number of productive age in 2009 arounf 12.754 people if calculated number generated job opportunities around: KsK = (STK/amount of productive people (persons) x 100% Legend: KsK = Jub opportunity(%) STK = Absorption of workforce(persons) Then KsK dredging activities = (28 person/12 754 persom) x 100% =0.002% Based on the result of the calculation, then employment oportunity from dredging activities is as much as 0.002 (<50%). But with addition ofworkforce will be able to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 37 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain increase the economic activities of society as well as increasing employment opprortunities and the chance of business either directly or imdirectly. Besides that join cooperation of segregation of refuse between operator ontractor and local community will give impact te raise of business opportunity for the surrounding people. By looking at the amount of manpower that can be utilized to conduct dredging, either directly or indirecly, as well as the conditions of employment and opportunities in the area of study that seeks are relatively limited, the positive impact that arise can be considered as minor impact. (Scale 1). The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors as follows: 1. The human affected is community living along the drain flow at the dredging activities had gone through. The number of affected commuities are smaller when comparee to the commuities that will receive the effects. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant impact. 2. Total area of impact dispersion relatively narrow (arround he dredging location) andnot underwent fundamental changes. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as minor impact. 3. Impact last not for long, as long as dredging activities in progress and post dredging activities. While impact intensity is medium, affeced population are efected. Based on !tis anlaysis then the raised impact can be categgorized as sinificant impact. 4. Environmental component affected by secondry impact more than one (increase of community income). Based on this analysis then it can be categorized as significant impact. 5. The impact is cumulative and synergistic, then it will be difficlt for asimilation by the environmment, especially if impact management is not well done. Based on this analysis then it can be categorized as significant impact. 6. Impact to employment and business opportunity is reversible, if impact management conducted properly. Based on this analysis then it can be categorized as minor impact. Based on that matters mentioned above so impact on increase of employment and business opportunity cocluded as positive and significant impact. (Scale 5) Berd. 9) Change of environmental aesthetic Change of the environmental aesthetic come from dredging activities. The environmmental aesthetic will be reduced due to the build up of waste around the dredging activities undertaken towards disposal before carting site. Beside that, the changes of environmental aesthetic also will take effect due to disruption of city park located along the line of dredging activities. Based on the intial number of hue Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 38 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain environmental citypark location along the dredging actiivities are only about 25% or over 1,3 KM. The changes of environmental aesthetic impact of of dredging activities is negative impact. Based on that conditions then the raised negative impact can be categorized as minor impact. (Scale 1 ). The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors those are as folows : 1. The human affected is community living along the drain flow at the dredging activities had gone through. The number of affected commuities are smaller when compared to_ th~ commuities that will receive the effects. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant impact. 2. Total area of impact dispersion relatively narrow (arround he dredging location) and not underwent fundamental changes. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as minor impact. 3. Impact l~st not for long, as long as dredging activities in progress. While impact intensity is medium, affeced population are efected. Based on !tis anlaysis then the raised impact can be categgorized as minor impact. 4. Affected environmental component have no derivative impact. Based on this analysis then it can categorized as minor impact. 5. Impact is not cumulative and synergistic, then it will be difficult assimilated by environment, especially if management of impact is not well done. Based on this analysis then it can be categorized as minor impact. 6. Impact on aesthetical changes is reversiblle, if management of impact conducted properly. Based on this analysis then it can be categorized as minor impact. Based on that matters mentioned above, so impact on environmental aesthetic changes included as category not significant, scale 1. 10) The changs of perception and community unrest Dredging activity and draining/dripping of dredged material (also refuse segregation) will emerge positive and negative perception of the community that exist in the study area. This commuity perception come from the posibility of the raise of health disorder due to dredging activitity that among other caused by: 1. Transportation activity of heavy equipment and refuse transport vehicle. 2. The emerge of stink in dredging location effect of dredged material placement. Negative community perception will raise secondary impact, in term of social unrest, especially people around the drain flows, concern of the commuity effected by impact should take into account, among others through informal approach aimed that negative impact could be minimized, then did not contnue to dreging phase or post dredging phase. Additionally advance impact in preparatio phase effect relocation plan will conntinue to this phase if did not managed properly. Based on description Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 39 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDl) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain mentioned above then he impact of dredgingactiivity plan on perception and community unrest in dredging phase en be categorized as large impact (Scale 5). Interest of impact determined by 6 important factors as follows: 1. The human affected is community living along the drain flow at the dredging activities had gone through. The number of affected commuities are smaller when compared to the commuities that will receive the effects. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant impact. 2. · Total area of impact dispersion relatively wide (along the drain flows area) and underwent fundamental changes. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as significant impact. 3. Impact last for long, as long as dredging activities in progress and post dredging occured. While impact intensity is medium, affeced population are efected. Based on !tis anlaysis then the raised impact can be categgorized as significant impact. · 4. Environmental component affected by derivative impact more than one (community unrest, security and community order). Based on this analysis then it 'can categorized as significant impact. 5. Impact is cumulative and synergistic, then it will be difficult assimilated by environment, especially if management of impact is not well done and things feared by community come into reality. Based on this analysis then it can be categorized as significant impact. 6. Impact on community perception and community unrest is reversible, if impact management well done then community expectation come into reality and community fears disappear. Based on this analysis then it can categorized as not significant impact. Based on that matters mentioned above then impact on community perception and community unrest categorized as significant impact scale 5. 5.2.3. Post dredging phase 5.2.3.1. Sa luran Lower Angke 1) Reduce floqds On the current state before excavated slope average basic drain 0,002373 and the flow of discharge period of 25 years (02sl can also be interpreted as the largest debit in period of 25 years (the occurence can be tomorrow, a week away, two more hours or a few more years, don't get me wrong understanding that the occurence will the next the 25- year). Most of, the 15 KM occured in floods channels cliffs. After having dug around 1,00 m slope increases to 0,000467 face water flooding whuch was originally the overflow can be lowered, so that all channels are hardly anyone boils over, except for the very low cliffs channel need lobe inorder for water flood Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA} 5-40 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain embankment not pooled into the left-right channels. But if comes to 50 yr period reset debit, 100 yr, even 1000 yr, this channel will be flow overed, because it's capacity was not planned as that large. Dredging the Lower Sunter channel, can increase capacity and accelerate the flow of rain water from the suroundung area coome to the cannel. a. Rain "Yater that fell along the channel fast flowing into the channel, and flow from upstream debit can be accommodated by the channel without causing overflow. b. The surounding pool flood area droped rapidly, flood water can fit the channel doesn't overflow to the right or left of channel. Based on that matters mentioned above then impact on reduce of floods to dredging activities can be categorized as significant impact. Scale 5. The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors those are as follows: 1. The human affected is community living along the drain flow at the dredging activities had gone through. The number of affected commuities are smaller when compared to the commuities that will receive the effects. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant impact. 2. Total area of impact dispersion relatively wide (along the drain flows area) and underwent fundamental changes. Based on this analysiss then can be categorized as significant impact. 3. Impact last for long, as long as dredging activities in progress and post dredging occured. While impact intensity is medium, affeced population are efected. Based on ttis anlaysis then the raised impact can be categorized as significant impact. ! 4. Environmental component affected by derivative impact more than one (floods alleviation). Based on this analysis then it can categorized as significant impact. 5. Impact is cumulative and synergistic, then it will be difficult assimilated by environment, especially if management of impact is not well done and things feared by community come into reality. Based on this analysis then it can be categorized as significant impact. 6. Impact to the potential flood reduction is reversible, if impact management conductrd properly. Based on this analysis then can be categorized as minor impact. Based on that matters mentioned above then impact on flood reduction is icluded in categoty of significant impact. Scale 5. 2) Community percepption Dredging activity and placement of dredging result will raise positive and negative perception of community currently exsist in the study area. This community perception come from: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5 - 41 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMPIJEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 1. Management of man power post dredging conducted not in proper manner. 2. Initial purpose of dredging activity is not achieved properly. Community perception arising from the management of labour is less well so that it will result in the loss of employment opportunities. By the time the community was involved in the dredging activities, sorting waste, so that the join cooperation mecessary initations of the contracting Party so that the public can still earn an income while dredging activity has ended. · Beside that, the public perception will be negtive if the original purpose of the dredging activities as flood relief efforts is not achieved with optimal. Based on explanation mentioned above so the impact of post dredging plan to the community can be categotized as significant impact. (Scale 5). The inters! of impact determined by 6 impotant factors as follows : 1. The human affected is community living along the drain flow at the dredging activities had gone through. The number of affected commuities are smaller when compared to the commuities that will receive the effects. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant impact. 2. Total area of impact dispersion relatively wide (along the drain flows area) and underwent fundamental changes. Based on this analysiss then can be categorized as significant impact. 3. Impact last for long, as long as post dredging activities in progress. While impact intensity is medium, affected population are effected. Based on !tis anlaysis then it can be categorized as significant impact. 4. Environmental component affected by secondary impact more than one (unrest, security and community order). Based on this analysis then it can categorized as significant impact. 5. Impact is cumulative and synergistic, then it will be difficult assimilated by environment, especially if management of impact is not well done and things feared by community come into reality. Based on this analysis then it can be categorized as significant impact. 6. Impact on community perception is reversible, if impact management conducted properly then community expectation come into reality and things community feared will disappear. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant impact. Based on that matters mentioned above, then this impact on community perception included as significant impact. Scale 5. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 42 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 5.2.3.2. Tanjungan drain 1) Reduce flooding In existing condition, prior to excavation average slope at the basic drain is -0,20 and with flow capacity rate cyclus perod 25 years (Q 25 ) it is meaning the largest flow rate during 25 years (it is possible for tomorrow, next week, two hours more, or some years more, do not misunderstood that it will occure in the next 25 years). Most of 15 Km occured in flood drain cliffs. After having dug around i,OO m slope increase into 0,000467 surface of flood water formerly overflow can be lowered, so that all drain hardly anyone boils over, except for the very low cliffs drain need to be made in order for water flood embankment not pooled into the left-right drain. But when come into flow rate of 50 yr, 100 yr even 1000 yr period, this drain will be flow overed, because it's capacity was not planned as that llarge. HECRAS Existing Tanjungan Drain Q 12Cms 13_Exi6ting Tanjungan T J26P Plan: Plan 0 3 Tanjungan Drain -------- 300 500 Main Channel Distance Figure 5.9. Existing longitudinal profile of Tanjungan drain Environmental Impact Assessment (ElA) 5-43 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JED1) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 3 Tanjungan Drain TJ.26P '"' 66m TJ.30-TJ.33• Bm TJ.27 • 22m TJ.34-TJ.37•10m TJ.28-TJ.29=10m TJ.38-TJ.39= 5m Figure 5.10. Planned longitudinal profile ofTanjungan drain Dredging the Tanjungan drain, can increase capacity and accelerate the flow of rain water from surounding area into the drain: a. Rain water that fall along the drain area fast flowing into the drain, and flow from upstream debit can be accomodated by the drain without causing overflow. b. Flood pool in the surounding area dropped rapidly, flood water fit the drain doesn;t overflow to the left and right drain. Based on that matters mentioned above then the impact reduced floods to dredging activities can be categorized as significant/large impact. (Scale 5). The interest of impact determined by 6 important factors as follows: 1. The human affected is community living along the drain flow at the dredging activities had gone through. The number of affected commuities are smaller when compared to the commuities that will receive the effects. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant impact. 2. Total area of impact dispersion relatively wide (along the drain flows area) and underwent fundamental changes. Based on this analysiss then can be categorized as significant impact. 3. Impact last for long, as long as dredging activities and post dredging activities in progress. While impact intensity is medium, affected population are effected. Based on this anlaysis then it can be categorized as significant impact. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5-44 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 4. Environmental component affected by secondary impact .more than one (flood alleviation). Based on this analysis then it can categorized as significant impact. 5. Impact is cumulative and synergistic, then it will be difficult assimilated by environment, especially if management of impact is not well done and things feared by community come into reality. Based on this analysis then it can be categorized as significant impact. 6. Impact to tis reduced floods is reversible, if impact management conducted properly, well done. Based on this analysis the it can be categorized as minor -impact. Based on that matters mentioned above then the impact reduce floods included as positive and significant impact. (Scale 5). 2) Community perception changes Dredging activities and dredging result placement will raise positve and negative community perception in the study area. This community perception come from: 1. Management of man power in post dredging is conducted improperly. 2. The purpose of initial dredging activities is not achieved perfectly. The perception of the community arising from the management of labour is less well so that it will result in the loss of employment opportunities. By the time the community was involved in the dredging activities actiivity sorting refuse, so that the join cooperation necessary initiations of the Contracting parties so that the commuity can still earn an income while dredging activity has ended. Beside that, the community perception will be negative if the original purpose of the dredging actitivities as flood relief efforts is not achieved with optimal. Based on that matters mentioned above then the impact of post dredging plan to the community perception can be categorized as large impact. The interest of impact determined by 6 important actors as follows: 1. The human affected is community living along the drain flow at the dredging activities had gone through. The number of affected commuities are smaller when compared to the commuities that will receive the effects. Based on this analysis it can be categorized as not significant impact. 2. Total area of impact dispersion relatively wide (along the drain flows area) and underwent fundamental changes. Based on this analysiss then can be categorized as significant impact. 3. Impact last for long, as long as post dredging activities in progress. While impact intensity is medium, affected population are effected. Based on this anlaysis then it can be categorized as significant impact. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5-45 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 4. Environmental component affected by secondary impact more than one (unrest community security and order). Based on this analysis then it can categorized as significant impact. 5. Impact is cumulative and synergistic, then it will be difficult assimilated by environment, especially if management of impact is not well done and things feared by community come into reality. Based on this analysis then it can be categorized as significant impact. 6. Impact on perception is reversible, if impact management well done community exJ:Jections come into reality an_d e ll2 Wt PR Not cumulative Reversi quality Pd < 100%(TP) a> 100% Sedang, populasi terpengaruh DL > 100% (TP) (TP) (P) (TP) (P) I d Physical-chemical QUalitv NeQative Small Pt< P2 U; < U? W1PR Not cumulative Reversi (TP) versi (TP) versi (TP) versi (TP) umulative Reversi (TP) (TP) (TP) (TP) )erception Positive/Negative P, < P2 W, PR Not cumulative Reversi community unrest t Pd < 1OO%(TP) Sedang, populasi terpengaruh DL > 100% (TP) (TP) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 47 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5-48 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 5.3. Alternative that assessed in the Environmental Impact Assessment Alternative that assessed in EIA document the route of dredged material transportation from the dredging site to dumping site location. There are some route alternatives for choice related to transportation of dredged material Table 5.10. Route oftdredged material transportation > ).,:. . " . •No /:1; .;:'·> : Xici: •.• •,.-~·· .t;···~·· , •·: .· ·'R'u!~g .. ..- :..·_',:,'c_ _ ~ .:; ,,~, .. A Lower Angke 1 Jl. Tubagus Angke (1) Jl Pasar pagi 2 Jl Lempuk JIAsemka 3 Jl Lindung Jl Jembatan Batu 4 Jl Teluk Gong Jl Mangga Dua 5 Jl Kampung Gusti Jl Gunung Sahari 6 Jl Tubagus Angke (2) Jl RE Martadinata 7 Jl Perniagaan Jl Raya Ancol Baru 8 Tanjungan 1 Canal through the sea Jl Pantai lndah Barat 2 Kamal drain JI.Kapuk raya 3 Jl Teluk Gong raya 4 Jl Jemabatan II/III 5 Jl Pluit Selatan Raya 6 Jl Gedang Panjang 7 Jl Pakin 8 Jl Merapi 9 Jl Lodan Raya 10 Jl RE Martadinata 11 Jl Raya Ancol Baru Source: PT.PPC ,2010 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 5- 49 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMPIJEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain CHAPTER EVALUATION OF 6 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT \ CHAPTERS EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 6.1. Discussion about significant impact In this sub chapter, the impact of the significant forecasted as Chapter 5 based on the nature, importance, the impact will be evaluated and examined holistically. Result of the evaluation of the impact of these used as reference in determining the efforts to control negative impact and efforts of handling the positive impact in Environmental Management Plan (locally named RPL short for Rencana Pengelolaan Lingkungan) and Environmental Monitoring Plan (locally named RPL short for Rencana Pemantauan Lingkungan) of the dredging activity Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain. Impact on the environmmental component will happen either primary, as well as its preliminary impact due to dredging activities of Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain presented in Figure 6.1 to 6.3 which is flow chart of significant impact to the environment. Whereas Table 6.1 presents significant impact priority that will be managed in RKL and RPL. Tabel 6.1. Review of forecast result of significant impact Impact Management Monitoring No Forecast of impact evaluation plan plan I Preparation phase 1 Perception and community unrest Significant Managed Monitored II Dredging phase 1 Increase of stink Significant Managed Monitored 2 Change of sediment quality Significant Managed Monitored 3 Decrease of refuse quantity Significant Managed Monitored 4 Decrease of phys-chem quality of river water Minor, not Not managed Not Significant monitored 5 Decrease of dust quality of Ambient air Significant Managed Monitored 6 Increase of noise Significant Managed Monitored 7 Increase of employment and business Significant Managed Monitored opportunity 8 Traffic nuisance Significant Managed Monitored 9 Change of environmental aesthetic Minor, not Not managed Not Significant monitored 10 Perception and community unrest Significant Managed Monitored Ill Post dredging phase 1 Reduce floods Significant Managed Monitored 2 Change of community perception Significant Managed Monitored Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 6- 1 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain ~ . I study Tec hn1ca ~I Coodination - I Preparation phase t-- .. ~I Socialization J- Change of perception and community unrest L.[ Relocation J- Figure 6.1. Flow chart of significant impact of Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain, preparation phase Environmental Impact Assessment (EiA) River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) 6- 2 Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Increase of Mobilisation of employment & :-f' man power business Increase of noise f-. Mobilisation of Heavy equipment ) ,-----. and & Vehicles ' Decrease of dust ~ f=: quality of ambient f-- air ~ - Decrease of public health r- f-. Traffic arrangement f L: Traffic nuisance & road damage I-t Dredging phase I- Change of f-+ perception & community unrest H Dredging ''- Increase of stink ~ - r----1 ~ Transport of dredged sludge to dispoasl site f-- H Nuisance to aquatic biota I Reduced floods r [---. [---. Change of sediment quality f-. Segregation of dredged result j l:: Decrease of refuse quantity 1----t Decrease of public health ' 1----t Increase of employment opportunity &business Temporary f-. Storage of dredged result Increase of stink Increase of noise Decrease of dust Embankment f+ quality ambient air Decrease of phy- 4 Usage of clean ~ chem quality of water river water Figure 6.2. Flow chart of significant impact, dredging of Lower Angke & Tanjungan drain, dredging phase Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 6- 3 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain II Land cleansing I Demobilization Increase of 1- -- of heavy noise 1--- equipment& Change of Post dredging Increase of community phase ,----.. employment 1--- oerceotion -l - Oemobilisation of man power ~ opportunity Increase of ~ business - oooortunitv -..{ Maintenance I Reduce floods 1- Figure 6.3. Flow chart of significant impact, dredging of Lower Angke & Tanjungan drain, post dredging phase In evaluating the impact of big and important that arise due to dredging activities of Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain research done using methods of holistically Matrix Leopold that have been modifies (Lohani Than). To study on a holistic, conducted studies on the impacts that raise according the stages/phases of its activities. 6.1.1. Preparation Phase/Stage 1. Change of perception and community unrest At the phase of pre dredging, significant/important impact that is expected to arise is the community perception of the drainage drain dredging plans, either in the form of a negative and a positive perception of the community around the site activities a. Negative perception, source from socializing activities and the relocation plan will give the high incidence of community unrest will clarity their residence after holding of dredging. Given the number of Head of famillies (locally named KK short of Kepala Keluarga) would be resettlement relatively large (160 KK) then this becomes a significant impact. b. Positive perception, be positive expectation of the community who reside around the dredging activities location to be working and business at the time of dredging ctivities should be maintained and developed. This is necessary so the drain dredging of Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain is not distracted and running smoothly. To that end the hope that the existence of population employment opportunity and the chance Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 6-4 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEOI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain to do business opportunity as much as possible can be utilized by the resident in the vicinity of the location of activity, as well as various other noteworthy positive expectation and anticipated. 6.1.2. Dredging phase/stage 1. Increase of stink Dredging phase activities of Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain which give significant impact" is on stibk is the activities of dredging, sediment management, sorting of dredged material, and garbage/refuse transportation to Final Processing Site (locally named TPA. Short for Tempat Pemrosesan Akhir). This dredging activity caused stink due to content of sediment in the dredged material if not managed properly his sediment will damage the environment and undergoing the process of decay which cause bad odor. The increase of stink, bad odor will cause derivative impact in term of the decrease of public health that the end will cause negative impact to the community perception. It can be concluded that the impact on increase of stink, bad odor that emerge from dredging activities as negative significant impact. 2. The change of sediment quality Dredging phase activities of Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain which giive significant impact to sediment quality is the dredging activites of Lower Angke and Tanjungan with dredging material volume of about 259.500 ms. Dredging activities have the potential to produce heavy metal contained and accumulate in the sediments of the river. Heavy metal and dangerous material that contained in the sediment if not managed properly may pollute soil, ground water and sea water at the place or disposal site of the sediment. The effect of heavy metal accumulation will decrease physical-chemical quality of river water. That matters at the end will affected to the community health and negative communty perception. It may be concluded that the impact of sediment that come from dredging activities as negative significant impact. 3. Decrease of refuse quantity Dredging phase activities of Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain whic give significant impact to refuse/garbage connditions is the activities of dredging, segregation of dredged material, refuse utilization, and refuse transportation to TPA. That activity wil minimize the amount of refuse that are found in the river/drain. This decrease of refuse quantity will give further impact to increase of environmental cleansing and sanitation, community perception, and the vicinity community health. It can be concluded that the impact on refuse raised by the dredging activities as positive significant impact. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA} 6- 5 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 4. The decrease dust quality of ambient air At phase of dredging, decrease air quality is mainly due to the dredging activity itself, and ebankment improvement. Beside that dry poured out mud on the road and damage road cleanliness, will be wind borned that will give impact to air quality. This impact in further give community inconveniency that reside around the foot print of activities, even will disturb the health of worker and raise negative perception to the community. The further impact of increase of exhaust gas and dust is the decrease of public health, specially communiity who live around the location of dredged material - ransportation routes. It can be concluded that the impact on decrease of dust quality in amient air that raised by dredging activity as negative significant impact. 5. Increase of noise Noise in the environment of activities at that phase of dredging the drain and embankment improvement activity has been caused by the activities of the operation of heavy equipment and then the tares vehicle project. This noise can be felt by the community within radius of 25 meters (population at risk). Despite the broad not yet so wide, the impact will be significant enough within the radius. Noise due to dredging activities and repair activities may give rise to effects of embankment has been also continue in the form of disturbance of public health and in the end would cause a negative community perception of the activities of dredging the drainage drain. What's more this impact will last long enough, that all the activities of the dredging took place. It can be cocluded that the impact of increased noise arising due to dredging actiivity is a significant negative impact. 6. Ncrease of employment and business opportunity Basically the amount of labour needed for for labour activity of dredging (eg. Labour) is estimated not too much (69 people). However, the actiivities of the dredging will result in an impact in the form of increase business opportunity and income community arround . The chance of employment may be in the form of join cooperation in segreating/sorting of refuse/garbage prior to be transported to TPA and disposal site. This increase of employment opportunity will caused the rise of community perception around the project towards positive perception. Then it can concluded that the impact employment and business opportunity as significant positive impact. 7. Traffic nuisance and road damage Traffic nuisance sourced from mobility of sludge transportation vehicle to disposal site that needed for for the implemantation of dreging activities. Sludge transportation to disposal site is esimated contnuously, however the peak activities will last for 33 months that is at time of dredging activities. Beside that traffic nuisance and road damage will caused by by embankment repair activity that is due the operation of heavy equipment, and the tares of project vehicle.This impact will caused derivative impact in term of the decrease of air quality that at the end raise negative community perception. Then it can be concluded that traffic nuisance and road damage at the dredging phase as significant negative impact. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 6- 6 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEOI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 8. The change of percetion and community unrest At the dredging phase, significant impact to perception and community unrest the effect of dredging of Lower Angke and Tnjungan drain whether negative perception or positive perception around the activities location as cumulative impacts from all impacts aat the dredging phase.Management of perception and community unrest with proper and good manner will give large impact to the smooth and fluent of dredging activities. Based on that matters then the impact om perception and commuty unrest at the dredging phase as significant impact. 6.1.3. Post dredging phase 1. Reduce floods Water level height that occured in tidal river, highly depend on the high-down tide level. While effect of dredging on the bottom of river/drain will not change the height tide level, but with excavation of bottom of rivr/drain will accelerate water flow to the sea at the low/down tide (because sediment hind had been removed) or duration of flodds will be reduced. Additionally excavation of river will add the volume of water detended in the river (as long storage) at the high tide and effect of the increase of volume of water detened in the river so can reduce the pool flood in the left - right of the drain. Then it can conclued that the impact on reduce floods at the post dredging as significant positive impact. 2. The change of community perception Significant impact is expected to arise is community perception of post construction Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain both in the form of negative and positive perception of the community around the site of activities. Positive perception will happen if result achieved at post dredging activities comply with initial purpose that is to recover drain/city drainage capaciity in Jakarta as originally floods drain is achievable. Additionally positive perception arise if construction contractor conducte with proper manner man power demobilization and terminate the join cooperation of refuse segregation. Negative perception will happen,· if in other side that is ecpected benefits from the dredging of Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain is not achieved and management man power nad join cooperation conducted less well done. In detail evaluation of significant impact dredging of Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain with modified matrix of Leopold can be seen at table 6.2 as follows. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 6- 7 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Table 6.2. Evaluation of significant impact dredging of Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain with modified Leopold matrix ~ Legends B = Magnitude of impact Magnitude of impact Level of impact significancy:: P = Level of impact significancy 1 =Small 1 = Not significant 5 =Large 5 = Significant, imorant Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 6-8 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 6.2. Selection of the best alternative Based on studies that have been made in Chapter 5.3 mentioned above, transportation activities will use land road by using dump truck from Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain to Eastern part of West ANCOL or other location that already have environmental document so that this alternative becoming an alternative that will be selected in the activity of the transport of dredged material. 6.3. Discussion as the basic of management 6.3.1. Preparation phase 1. The change of perception and community unrest At the preparation phase, expected significant impact are perception and community unrest to activity plan, whether negative community perception or positive community perception around the activity location. Negative perception sourced from activity on relocation of community around the river bank. While positive perception in term of positive expectation from the community that Jive around the activity location must be maintained and developed. This matters are needed aimed that dredging actiivity have no disturbance, run smoothly. For that purpose, community expectation for the employment and business opportunity as maximum as possible to be utilized by the people around the activity location, and some other positive hopes to be noticed and anticipation. So does the hope some communities by dredging activities undertaken will reduce flooding, in order to be concern. Characteristic of impact is positive significant impact or negative and will last for as long as that activity plan underwent untul post dredging phase. Community group that will be affected at kelurahan wide and suroundings or wider than study plan area. Directive for environmental management <- One month prior to implementation of dredging, construction contractor will conduct socialization more detail on the activity plan to the will be affected community. '- Conducted Focus Group Discussion (FGD intensively to community group who will be affected by the relocation. <- To accomodate community respons and recomendation that raised during the socialization of activity plan. <- Coordinate with relevant agencies to follow up respons, suggestion from the community and coordinate with land space owner whic the land space wiould be utilized as access road of vehicle. <- lnstalation of announcement board in both side of drain about dredging activity plan for each one kilometer. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 6- 9 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEOI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain .4. Provide integrated information centre about dredging activity JEDI which possible acces for 24 hours by the community. ,i. Provide complains facility service (hot line service for 24 hr) to accomodate sugestion and complaints from the suroundings community. -~ Conduct LA RAP study prior to resettllement/relocation action. ~ Resettlement/relocation of affected community have to comply with Resettlement Framework Policy (attached) that have been determined by World Bank and the Local Government of DKI Jakarta. Directive for Environmental monitoring ~ Information from Hot line service. ·L Observation. ·i- Conduct interview with purpose random sampling. 6.3.2. Dredging Phase 1. Increase of stink/bad odor Increase of stink/bad odor will likely be sourced from dredging, dripping, and segregation of dredged material. The impact this if not properly managed will be giving effect in the form of public health nuisance. derivative and ultimately negative perceptions of community. The cumulative impact of this would be annoying, whether good health and comfort of citizen of the surounding, continous in nature, so needed a mechanism to reduce the impact on the source. Directive of environmental management <. Sediment dredging conducted at day time only .. L Location for sludge dripping and segregation of refuse placed in an area that far enough from human settlement and other community activities. L Sludge driped untill relatively dry using container that placed on top of deck nad on the drain body. ·L After the container fully filled, soon made the closure of the top with a tarp to avoid spreading of stink and dust . L Buid up of sludge result of dredging should not be higher than two meters. Directive of environmental monitoring Measurement in-situ air quality with ""multiple impinge!'' with method colorimetric, with spetrofotometer equipment. 2. The change of sediment quality Activity of dredging phase of Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain which give significant impact to sediment quality is physical excavation activity. This dredging activity have the potential to produce heavy metals contained and accumulate in the sdiments of the river. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 6 - 10 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain The impact is going to happen with high enough intensity and last long its range of dispersion is limited on the site activities and the place of sedimment final hoarding, the amount of human and environmental components affected a lot, and are cumulative. Directive of environmental management ·i- If there are no 8 3 (meaning no toxic and dangerous material) can instantly transported to eastern part· of West AN COL or another location hat has an environmental documemt using dump trucks that use seal and closed .. -.<. If there is 83 : o At that segment not performed dredging. o If done dredging is unable to transport to the eastern part of West AN COL or another location that has environmental document, however : • Have to be managed by third party who has owned lisence from KLH Rl. • When sediment will be utilized, must first obtain permission from KLH Rl for expliting. i- Melakukan pemantauan 83 pada setiap 1 Km (komposit) dengan uji TCLP logam berat, sebelum dan sesudah dilakukan kegiatan pengerukan. Directive of environmental monitoring -;J.. Conduct monitoring of 83 for each one kilo meter (composite) with TCLP test of heavy metal, prior and post dredging. 3. Decrease of refuse quantity Dredging phase activities Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain impacting critical of garbage/refuse is the physical excavation separation of dredged material, utilization of refuse and refuse transport to TPA. The impact is going to happen with high enough intensity, its range is limited around the location of the activity (a radius of 50 m), environmental components affected quite a lotHygiene, environmental sanitation, community perception public health of suroundings, worker of refuse segregation and air quality) last as long as dredging activity and reversible if such activity undertaken. Directive of environmental mmanagement -4- Prevent the enter of refuse from community around the Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain activity to the drain, by means of construction of signs "prohibited to dispose refuse into the drain" and law enforcement related to hygiene. ~ Conduct control and appointment of environmental sanitation woorker at Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain continously every day as long as maintenance activity in progress along with special monitoring in charge. ·~ Clean the surface of the water of junk that floafs before carrying out dredgin actiivities. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 6 - 11 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI} Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain <- Do sorting of garbage embedded in mud in collaboration with the community about the system of join operation (KSO). ~ Trash that has been sorted placed in water tight containers. ~ Waste of dredging result transported to determined location (TPA Bantar Gebang). ·~ Pengangkutan Sampah hasil keruk dilakukan dengan menggunakan dump truck sesuai standar Dinas Kebersihan DKI Jakarta. Directive of environmental management Quantitative measurements of sample carried out by weighting of refuse sample in each sample point and volume measurements carried out in volumetric technique. While characteristic measurements and refuse composition in each location sampling point put 12 categoris based on refuse composition. 4. Decrease of dust quality of ambient air A decrease in the quality of ambient air dust quality is likely to be sourced from dripping and dredging activities, and segregation of dredging result. The impact of this if not properly managed will be giving effect in the form of a public nuisance derivative and ultimately negative public perception. The cumulative impact of this would be annoying, health and comfort of the inhabitant of the surounding which continous in nature, so needed a mechanism to reduce the impact on the source. Directive of environmental managementArahan Pengelolaan Lingkungan ·'- Installation of traffic sign/marks the location of the dripping og mud and refuse segregation. <- The sludge of dredged result which has dry immediately transported with water tight barge (provided with seal) to Eastern part of West ANCOL or another location which has owned environmental document. <- Garbage sorting result carried by vehicles carrying trash according to Dinas Kesehatan DKI Jakarta standard to final disposal TPA Bantar Gebang. <- Imobilizing dredging activity when the time of worship. <- Provide a janitor·at the site of dredging to clean up the garbage and sludge which split over on the road surounding the dredging location. <- Require to all dredging worker to use rnask. <- Pause the dredging activities, when strong wind occured (>5 knots) and when there are complaints about dust from the surroundings community. Directive of environmental moniitoring Measurement in-situ of air quality using "multiple impinger" with colorimetric method with spectrofotometer equipment. . Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 6 - 12 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Acf1vities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 5. Increase of noise With the operation of heavy equipments for dredging and sludge transport to the disposal site wifl give rise to significant impacts of noise around the activities need to treat get noticed. This impact will further can interfere to the convenience of residents living in the footprint of activity, even may give rise to negative perception from the community. The present of cumulative impact will disturb whether health or comfort of road user and surounding people which the nature is continous, so needed a mechanism to reduce impact on the source. This impact is cumulative and the affected community group is community around the drainage drain (wider than the project area. Directive of environmental management ·L. Imobilized dredging activity when on the time of worship. ·L. Utilize vehicle and equipment of fit for use. ·4- Limitatioh on working hours for embankment improvement from 08.00- 17.00 4.. Jmobilzed activities when if there are many complaints from the community about noise. Direction of environmental monitoring Monitoring is done by using sound level meter in situ method at the footprint of activity. 6. Increase of employment and business opportunity The implementation of dredging predicted will to take place for 33 months and absorbing labour dredging, it is positive significant impact needs to be further developed, especially at a time when the workforce selection priorotizing local workforce.When this is not done giving effect in the form of negative perception derived from community (social jealousy) around the site of activity. In addition with the present of dredging activity on its own derivate of giving effect to the onset of new livelihood for communities around the indirectly involved by dredging activities, as well as increase the number of people working in the formal sector in the vicinity of footprint activities. Characteristic impact is positive significant impact and last as long s dredging work activities. Affected community group is covers kelurahan area and surouding or wider than study plan area. Directive of environmental management plan is providing opportunity to the surounding community for work and business at the footprint of actiivities. Directive of environmental management J.. Giving priority to man power of surouning community in dredging activity. L. Gives information about the needs of labour to the community around through the kelurahan office. L. Develope a join coopperation (KSO) with surounding community on the segregation of refuse actiivity. Environmental Impact Assessment (EJA) 6- 13 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEOI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Give minmum wage according Provincial Minimum Wage (locally named UMP, .,J,. short of Upah Minimum Provinsi) , level of education, and skills of the worker. ,Jc Require Construction Contractor to include worker in K3 (Occupational health and safety), insurence programme. Directive of environmental monitoring ·iL Conducting a survey with interview technique that absorbed amount of manpower due to the dredging activities. · .,J,. Conducting a survey ·an· business opportunity that arise from the dredging activities. 7. Traffic nuisance and road damage Placement of materials and equipment for dredging (such heavy equipments) and shelter for dredged materials (sludge and refuse) is not in the infrastructure and facilities of · the city. Coordination with relevant agencies dealing with urban infrastructure and facilities for during dredging activities take place. Activities at the phase of dredging the river which give significant impact to traffic is result of dredging material transport activities from the site of dredging, route of transport especially Jl. RE Martadinata and access road to disposal area.These activities have an impact on increasing the volume of vehicular traffic around the site, along the route of transportation activities and road access to disposal area that could potentially cause a queue of vehicles on the road haulage disposal area and propagate acess to Jl RE Martadinata. Traffic disruption/nuisance caused by such things as follows: o Placement of material and equipment of dredging (heavy equipment) and temporary storage of dredged material (sludge and refuse/garbage) not in infrastructure and facility of city; o Transportation route through the road corresponding to to the class path capacity and in accordance with the load and the vehicle carrying capacity of the dredged; o Coordination with related agencies dealing with facilities and infrastructure prior and during dredging activity in progress. These activiities have an impact on the growing burden of vehicular traffic in the vicinity of the transport routes through Jl RE Martadinata towards disposal site. Due to the activities of the project vehiclles continously/repetitives load vehicle eventually may give rise to the damage/loss of quality of the road body. This will eventually affect more towards a decrease in air quality, increased noise, negative perception of community, security and community disorder. This impact is cumulative affected community group is community around drainage drain (more extensive than the project area); Environmentqllmpact Assessment (EIA) 6- 14 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Directive of environmental management • Construction of traffic sign and mark of dredging project . • Keep clean lyres the vehicle-carrying material and equipment and vehicles carrying dredging materials (sludge and garbage) in order not to dirty the streets around the pproject, along the transoortation route • Transport of equipment and dredged material (sludge and garbage) conducted on do not at the peak hours in the morning, noon that is on 22.00- 05.0 • Placing a traffic officer on ·site of dredging activitie, transportation routes, and access road to disposal area. • Provide water tank car operating throughout the processs of transporting the dredged material is taking place, or provide a janitor who team up with citizen about to monitor and clean up the garbage and mud/sludge which he on the roads around the location of the activity, along the route and road access to disposal area. • The entire transport trucks of dredged result should provided with seal of plastic or the like so that there is no material scattered on the road due to leaky etc, so as to result in slipperly of road that could eventually interfere with traffic. Directive of environmental monitoring o Calculate vehicle speed (km/hr), vehicle that passed on Jl RE Martadinata. o Calculate travelled time (hours) through JJ RE Martadinata. 8. Change of community perception and unrest At dredging phase, predicted significant impact that arise is perception and community unrest to activity plan, whether in term of negative perception or positive perception of community around the activity location. Negative perception sourced from activity of resettlement of community around the drain bankwhich is the ultimate step of preparation phase. Beside of that, negative perception sourced from dredging activity it self. While positive perception in term of positive hope from the community who live around the activity location. Have to be maintained and developed. This matter is needed aimed that activity have no nuisance, run smoothly. For that purpose, communtty expectation for employment opportunity and business opportunity in optimum possibility may be utilized by community around the activity location, and other positive expectation require to be maintanined and noticed. So does the expectation of other parts of the community that the implementation of dredging will reduce floods will come into reality should be noticed. Characteristic of impact is an important positive or negative impact and will be ongoing as long as the plan of activities that took place later to pot dredging phase. Grpups of people who will be affected include in the kelurahan area and the surounding area or larger than the area of study. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 6 - 15 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Directive of environmental management -~ Accommodate suggestion and feedback from the community about who delivered at the time of dredging took place. •*- Coordinate with related agency dealing with suggestion and feedback from the community. i- Installation announcement board at both side of drain about dredging activity in each kilometer. L Provide integraied informtion centre about dredging activity JEDI which _, accessible for 24 hours by the community .. ' 4- Provide complain service facility (hot line service 24 hrs) to accommodate suggestion and complain from the community surrounding the project. Directive of environmmental monitoring '~ Information from i Hot line service '~ Observation ·L Conduct/interview with purposive random sampling method. 6.3.3. Post dredging phase 1. Reduce flood Gased on the result of forecast so it can be seen that prior to dredging of Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain in general still have ability to accommodate run-off water from the surounding catchment area. By the dredging at those drains so floods potential or over flow water will disappear. The presence of cumulative impact would be annoying the health of people in its surounding which is continuous, so it is needed to reduce the impact at the source. The increase of run off water at suraounding of drainage drain at dredging phase it is predicted tha will occured because the dredging is not maximal. This impact is cumulative affected community group is community around the drainage (more extensive than project area). Directive of environmental management. L Do drain maintenance pprogramme each year to keep the drain capacity of Lower Angke and Tanjungan . .i- Conduct training capacity building on environmental management and monitoring which related to JEDI to the staff of related agencies and community (among others DPU DKI Jakarta Ditjen Cipta Karya, kelurahan, dewan kelurahn, and community leader). Directive of environmental monitoring i- Do measurement of flow capacity that flows in Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 6 - 16 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 2. Change of community perception Impact on the community perception is negative and positive. Positive community perception sourced from land clearance for the better around the drainage drain. While the negative perception of community is predicted on the demobilization activities even though the workforce is estimated to amount of labour which worked relaively little. Based on the description of the aforesaid impact on community perception both positive and negative connotation belong to small imppact. Directive of environmental management i. Restoring the conditions and infrastructure in its original condition, in case of daamage to houses, fences, bridges, utilities (PLN, PGN, amd PAM) in the form of repair or replacement tailored to conditions in perfect according to the existing regulations. i. Provide an appeal to the people around to keep the conditions of the times/the drain from shallowing process de to the garbage or sludge. Appeal done either orally, in writing, coordinate with related government agencies as well as in the form of Kelurahan Board (locally named Dewan Kelurahan) where it is easy to look at the site location of dredging. i. Do drain maintenance programme periodically to maintain drain capacity of Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain. Basic Environmental Monitoring Plan (RPL) As well as environmmental management, environmental monitoring of the directive is the guideline for the implementation of the monitoring of the environment that are more detailed. The objective of RPL community perception component is the guidelines for the various parties involved in carrying out environmmental monitoring of the activities of the community on Lower Angke and Tanjungan drainnamely: ~ The means to test technology used in the prevention and control negative impact in environmental management. L To know of any changes to the undesirable environment, so that impact implementation more effective L One of the means to collect the relevant evidence in regard to cases of environmental pollution. Directive of environmental monitoring L Information from Hot line service L Observation L Conduct/interview with purposive random sampling method. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 6- 17 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain 6.4. Recomendation of environmental feasibility Based on description of activity plan and considering hue of initial environmental condition and with consideration study on forecast of significant impact and evaluation of significant impact effect of the mentioned activity then it can be concluded matters as follows: 6.4.1. Physical-chemical component 'J,. Sediment qu_ality is predicted will increase especially in dumping site however proponent already have directive of environmental management to mitigate the raised impact "'- Generation of stink caused by dredging activities and forecasted dripping will have impact in the vicinity of the location of the footprint of activity, but will be maintained with technological approach. L Generation of refuse/garbage by dredging actiivities and segregation of refuse are predicted will will have impact in around footprint of activities and dumping site, however it will be managed wiith technological approach. 6.4.2. Social-econmic and cultural component Resident are within the footprint of the project has just announced plans for dredging the drain Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain annd in general the respondeent expressed consent to the activity plan. L The community requested that the construction manager more oppotunities to work and strive for surrounding communities L The management during the post construction of more environmentaly sound on community development and CSR. Thus, the activity of dredging the Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain including as an activity that is worthy of the environment to be implemented subject to implement the environmental management and moitoring of the environment in accordance with the documentation of the Environmental Management Plan (RKL) and Environmmental Monitoring Plan (RPL). Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 6 - 18 River, Reservoir and Lake Dredging Activities Phase 2 (JUFMP/JEDI) Segment Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain BIBLIOGRAPHY DAFTAR PUSTAKA Air and Waste Management Association. 2000. Air Pollution Engineering Manual. 2"d Ed. Anonim. 2006. Basin Water Resources Management Planning (BWRMP) Project Biro Pusat Statistik. 2008. Kecamatan Penjaringan dalam angka. BPS Kotamadya Jakarta Utara. Drainage Management for Jakarta: Priority Assistance, WJEMP DKI 3-8, Louis Berger Inc. and PT. lndah Karya (Persero), April 2004 t<:eputusan Kepala Bapedal No. 54 tahun 1994 tentang Pedoman Mengenai Ukuran Dampak Penting Laboratorium PT. Karsa Buana Lestari. 2008. Panduan dan Manajemen Mutu Laboratorium Lingkungan. KBL Press. Jakarta. Lee, C.C. dan Shun Dar Lin. 1999. Handbook of Environmental Engineering Calculations Peraturan Menteri Lingkungan Hidup Republik Indonesia Nomor 8 Tahun 2006 tentang Pedoman Penyusunan Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 27 Tahun 1999 tentang Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan. Peta Gunther W Holtrof, Tahun 2005 Outline Plan for Major Drainage and Small Lakes Management in Jabodetabek-Bopunjur Area, WJEMP Pusat 3-10, Sukudinas Kesehatan Masyarakat Jakarta Utara. 2007. Laporan Tahunan. Jakarta Sukudinas Kesehatan Masyarakat Jakarta Utara. 2008. Profi/ Kesehatan Masyarakat Jakarta Utara. p11 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS RECCOMENDED TERM OF ATTACHMENT REFERENCE OF 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT JAYA RAYA PEMERINTAH PROVINSI DAERAH KHUSUS'IB'UKOTA JAKARTA KOMISI PENILAI AMDAL PROVINSI DKI JAKARTA SEKRETARIAT : BADAN PENGELOLA LINGKUNGAN HIDUP DAERAH (BPLHD) PROV/NSI DK/ JAKARTA GEDUNG NY/ AGENG SERANG Lt. X JL. HR. RASUNA SAID Kav. C. 22, Kunlngan, Jakarta Seta/an Telp/Fax. ~22849~ Nomor : 1&..//<::A-/-1· 77'1· t.r/ Sifat Pentlng Kepada, Lamplran: 1 berkas dokumen Yth. Dlrektur Sungai, Waduk dan Perihal Pengesahan KA ANDAL Danau Dirjen. Sumber Daya Air Pengerukan Saluran Drainase Dep. Pekerjaan Umum Selaku Lower Angke-Tanjungan Drain- Ketua PMU JUFMP/JEDIP Kama! Drain Dalam Rangka OJ Provinsi DKI Jakarta JUFMP/JEDIP di Jakarta Sehubungan dengan surat Direktur Sungai, Waduk dan Danau selaku Ketua PMU Jakartra Urgent Flood Mitigation Project/Jakarta Emergency Dredging Initiative Project (JUFMP/JEDIP) · (Sdr. Ir. Widagdo, Dipi.HE) nomor: UM 02.06-Ad/44 tertanggal 25 Januarl 2010 tentang Penyampaian Draft Kerangka Acuan (KA) Studi ANDAL Keglatan Pengerukan Sungai dan Waduk Fase 2 dl Provlnsl DKI Jakarta, dengan ini kaml beritahukan hal-hal sebagai berikut: 1. Sesuai Berita Acara Sidang Tim Teknis dan Tim Komisi dengan nomor: 20/KA ANDAI./TK/III/2009 pada hari Jumat, tanggal 26 Maret 2010 tentang penllalan Kerangka Acuan Anallsis Dampak Lingkungan (KA- ANDAL) Kegiatan Pengerukan Saluran Drainase Lower Angke-Tanjungan Drain-Kama! Drain dan memperhatikan perbaikan yang disampaikan tanggal 13 April 2010, maka Komisl Penilai AMDAL Daerah ·Prov. DKI Jakarta dapat menyetujui dan mensahkan KA-ANDAL tersebut sebagai Kerangka Acuan (KA) Studl Ana !isis Da'mpak. Lingkungan (ANDAL) Keglatan Pengerukan Saluran Drainase Lower Angke-Tanjungan Drain- Kama! Drain Dalam Rangka JUFMP/JEDIP di Provinsi DKI Jakarta; 2. Deskripsi Pengerukan Saluran Drainase Lower Angke-Tanjungan Drain- Kama! Drain Dalam Rangka JUFMP/JEDIP di Provinsi DKI Jakarta, adalah sebagal berikut: _ Saluran drainase Lower Angke A1 -' Lebar sungal 13m Panjang sungal 5.000 m Kedalaman 0,7 m Volume kerukan 521.000 m3 Kedataman kerukan · 4m .- . . B. Saluran drainase Tanjungan Lebar sungai 6m Panjang sungai 2.070 m - Kedalaman 0,4 m - Volume kerukan 96.000 m3 - Kedalaman kerukan 3,5 m C. Saluran drainase Kamal - Lebar sungai 8m - Panjang sungai 4.690 m - Kedalaman saluran 0,7 m Volume kerukan 100.000 m3 Kedalaman kerukan 2,7 m 3. Deskripsi Dumping Site hasil kegiatan Pengerukan Lower Angke- Tanjungan Drain-Kama! Drain Dalam Rangka JUFMP/JEDIP di Provinsi DKI Jakarta, adalah sebagai berikut: - Ancol Timur: Luas ± 120 Ha dan Kapasitas ± 12.000.000 m3 4. Isu Ungkungan yang diperkirakan akan timbul pada rencana kegiatan ini antara lain: Persepsi dan keresahan masyarakat - Kebauan Lalu lintas dan kerusakan jalan Keblslngan Kualitas sedimen Sampah Kualitas air permukaan Kualitas debu udara ambien Kesempatan kerja dan berusaha Biota air Mengurangi banjir 5. Selanjutnya Pemrakarsa Kegiatan diharapkan: 5.1. Agar menyusun Studi ANDAL dengan berpedoman pada KA yang telah disetujui, dan menyampaikannya kepada Komisi Penilai AMDAL Daerah Provinsi DKI Jakarta cq. Kepala BPLHD Provinsi DKI Jakarta untuk dinilai lebih lanjut, sesuai jadwal yang disepakati/termuat dalam KA ANDAL; 5.2. Agar setiap perubahan ren.cana kegiatan yang dapat menyebabkan perubahan materi dan lingkup studi ANDAL, hendaknya senantiasa dilaporkan/disampaikan kepada Komisi · Penilal AMDAL Daerah Provinsl DKI Jakarta cq •. Kepala BPLHD Provinsi DKI Jakarta guna kepentingan kaji uiang dan pemutakhiran bagian-bagian/materi KA ANDAL. ' . 6. Dalam konteks butir 5.2. diatas telah disepakati pula, bahwa ihwal tersebut akan diakomodasi dalam addendum KA ANDAL dan merupakan bagian yang tidak terpisahkan darl KA ANDAL. Atas perhatian dan kerjasama yang balk diucapkan terima kasih. a.n. GUBERNUR PROVINSI DAERAH KHUSUS IBUKOTA JAKARTA KEPALA BPLHD PROVINSI DKI Jakarta selaku KETUA KOMISI PENILAI AMDAL DAERAH PROVINS~ DKI Ja;a~ Tembusa.n: rr~~'·"' NIP 470046170 1. Gubemur. Prov. DKI Jakarta 2. Sekda. Prov. DKI Jakarta 3. Ass. Pemba.ngu.nan dan Lingku.ngan Hldup Sekda Prov. DKI Jakarta 4. Walikota Admlnlstrasl Jakarta Utara s. Walikota Admlnlstrasl Jakarta Barat 6. Kepala Bapeda Prov. DKI Jakarta 7. Ka. Dlnas Pekerjaan Umum Prov. DKI Jakarta B. Ka. Dlnas Pertamanan dan Pemakaman Prov. DKI Jakarta 9. Ka •. Dinas Keberslhan Prov. DKI Jakarta 10. Ka. Dinas Perhubungan Prov. DKI Jakarta 11. Ka. Biro Sarana dan Prasarana Kota Provinsi DKI Jakarta 12. Ka. KLH Kota Admlnistrasl Jakarta Utara 13. Ka. KLH Kota Admlnistrasl Jakarta Barat 14. Sekretaris Komlsl Penllal AMDAL Daerah Prov. DKI Jakarta 15. Ditjen. Sumber Daya Air Dep. Pekerjaan Umum 16. Dltjen. Opta Karya Dep. Pekerjaan Umum ATTACHMENT Official Minutes of meeting: 2 Socialization .. BERITA ACARA PELAKSANAAN SOSIAUSASI AMDAL KEGIATAN PENGERUKAN SUNGAI DAN WADUK Dl DKI JAKARTA FASE 2 DALAM RANGKA JAKARTA URGENT FLOOD MITIGATION PROJECT I JAKARTA EMERGENCY DREDGING INITIATIVE PROJECT (JUFMP I JEDIP) Pada hari ini ,Selasa tanggal delapan Desember dua ribu sembilan (08-12-2009) bert::mpat di Auditorium Gedung Nyi Ageng Serang Lantai ,telah diadakan rapat Sosialisasi Amdal Kegiatan Pengerukan Sungai dan Waduk di DKI Jakarta Fase 2 Dalam RangkaJakarta Urgent Flood Mitigation Project I Jakarta Emergency Dredging Initiative Project(JUFMP I JEDIP). Pelaksanaan sosialisasi AMDAL dilakukan Sesuai SK Gub KDKI JKT No. 76 tahun 2001 dan dihadiri oleh instansi Pemda DKI (KLH Jakarta Utara,Barat,Timur,dan Pusat,Dinas Kebersihan,Dinas PU,Biro Tata Ruang & Lingkungan Hidup,dii).Pemrakarsa kegiatan (PMU,Ditjen SDA Dep.PU),Konsultan AMDAL (PT.PPA Consultants & PT.ARKONIN Engginering Manggala Pratama),Camat,Lurah beserta Dewan Kelurahan di wilayah study (Absensi Terlampir). Adapun Masukan,saran dan tanggapan pesert<> rapat antara lain,adalah: 1. Sebelum pelaksanaan pengerukan, kontraktor harus berkoordinasi dengan tokoh- tokoh masyarakat; 2. Kondisi khusus di setiap lokasi proyek (sepanjang sungai) misalnya terdapa< pemukiman penduduk, pedagang, dll agar di perhatikan supaya tidak terganggu kegiatan proyek; 3. Sedimen hasil pengerukan akan di keringgan dahulu kemudian baru di angkut sehingga tidak tercecer; 4. Penempatan material keruk agar di perhatikan; 5. Perlu informasi Hot Line di spot-spot lokasi proyek untuk menampung laporan masukan saran masyarakat; 6. Masyarakatagar di libatkan dalam pelaksanaan proyek dan secara umum sangat mendukung rencana proyek; 7. Pemeliharaan I perawaton sungai dan waduk setelah pengerukan sangat penting diperhatikan; 8. Skedul proyek di perjelas. Daftar absensi peserta rapat dan notulen hasil rapat sosialisasi AMDAL kegiatan Pengerukan Sungai Dan Waduk di DKI Jakarta Fase 2 Dalam Rangka Jakarta Urgent Flood Mitigation Project I Jakarta Emergency Dredging Initiative Project (JUFMP I JEDIP) terlampir. Demikian Be rita Acara Rapat Sosialisasi AMDAL ini dibuat sesuai dengan hasil pertemuan. Jakarta,OB-12 ·2009. Pemrakasa Kegiatan BPLHD Provinsi DKI Jakarta Drs.H.Soewarno Ka.Subbid.AMDAL Perwakilan Masyarakat, Drs. Sukarlan Drs. H. Moh. Rante Sumule Forma pel Jakarta Barat Dekel Kelurahan Sukapura jVIurtani. SH Dekel Kelurahan Cakung Barat '~J RachmatH De kef Kelu'rahan Petojo Selatan ,. NOTULEN RAPAT PUBLIC CONSULTATION AMDALJEDI -JUFMP DI RUANG AUDITORIUM GEDUNG NYI AGENG SERANG, JL. HR RASUNA SAID KAV. NO. 22 C,JAKARTA SELATAN, TANGGAL 8 DESEMBER 2009. 10.00, Pembukaan Oleh Pcmbawa Acara (lbu Profianita). I. Pimpinan rapal : Kepala Badan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah DKI Jakarta. Ibu Ir.Peni Susanti, Dip!. Est. 2. Peserta rap at: Daftar hadir disiapkan sebagai lampiran laporan notulen . J. Sam bulan oleh Kepala BPLHD Provinsi DKI Jakarta (lbu lr.Peni Susanti, Dip!. Est) : I. Para Lurah agar memanfaatkan kesempatan sosialisasi pengerukan sungai, kana! dan waduk fase II ini sebaik baiknya. 2. lbu Peni mengikuti pertermuan Konggres Asia - Pasific di Manila. World Bank menyatakan bahwa tahun lalu Jakarta dilanda banjir, 3eluruh dunia tahu. Di Manila dibahas tentang Integrated Management Jakarta Bay. Hanya Jakarta yang paling jelek konndisi sungainya. Karena itu WB memberi hibah agar kualitas sungai baik, dan kedua mengupayakan bagaimana agar suapaya tidak sampai banjir/ mengurangi bahaya banjir. Bapak lbu suapaya membantu, dunia internasional membantu. Jakarta ini milik kita semua. Gubemur punya komitmen tinggi tentang hal ini. Secara internasional dihargai. Kalau tidak dihargai, tidak mungkin mendapat bantuan dari Bank Dunia. Harapan Kepala BPLHD seluruh Carnal, Lurah dan Dekel Yflng hadir saling membantu dapat menjadi kader polisi lingkungan. Tidak mungkin hanya dibebankan kepada staf BPLHD saja yang hanya berjumlah 12 orang; kalau ada yang melanggar catat dan laporkan kepada yang berwenang Dinas kebersihan atau PU sesuai dengan masalahnya.. . Gubernur punya komitmen tinggi tentang hal ini.Waktu Gubernur bersama Mcnko Kesra menelusuri sungai, menyaksikan bahwa banyak masyarakat yang menempati bantaran sungai dan ikut mencemari sungai. 3. 13apak lbu sekalian harus dapat mensosialisasikan informasi kegiatan pengerukan yang disajikan pada kesempatan ini. Hadirin adalah kader kebersihan dan pcngawas dalam memclihara kebcrsihan kola Jakarta terutama terkait dengan p~ngcrukan sungai di wi!ayahq.ya masing-masing. 4. Penyajian film. Tema film yang ditayangkan berisi informasi mengenai banjir di Jakarta. Film yang dibuat oleh Bank Dunia ini berdurasi ± 20 menit. lsi film menampilkan kondisi dan situasi ketika banjir terjadi di beberapa daerah di ibukota serta penyebab terjadinya hal tersebut. Selain itu, dalam film tersebut juga memuat tanggapan para pejabaUpakar dan masyarakat mengenai ban]ir. Gubernur memberi pemyataan tentang faktor banjir dengan Jatar belakarig sungai yang penuh sampah. Pakar/pejabat menyajikan analisis tentang kejadian banjir, dan sedimentasi di sungai serta penanganannya. Tahun 2002 banjir menggenangi Jakarta dengan kerugian trilyunan rupiah. Dampak yang ditimbulkan ar.tara lain penyakit diare dan DBD. Disar:nping itu, disajikan juga aliran sungai di Jakarta yang berjumlah 13 sungai. Penyajian pengendalian banjir dengan polder/waduk yang dilengkapi dengan pompa. Pelaksanaan Sosialisasi. : Pengantar singkat di pandu oleh moderator (Drs. Rid wan Panjaitan, Msi). Sosialisasi AMDAL JEDI. lni diatur dalam undang undang, PP, Permen LH, dan SK Gubernur tentang AMDAL. Masukan dari masyarakat sangat diperlukan untuk langkah berikutnya. Telah hadir dari PU dan Konsultan AII,IDAL untuk menyampaikan materinya. Dari hadrin diharapkan dapat disampaikan hal hal penting untuk disampaikan dalam sosialisasi ini. 5. Penjelasan Proyek oleh Bpk lr.Fuadi. dari PU. Dari film tampak kondisi Jakarta. Pemerintah kita berusaha mengurangi dampak banjir, bukan saja oleh air, tetapi juga kesadaran rnasyarakat kita yang mempengaruhi banjir. Pemerintah RI mendapat hibah untuk menangani masalah banjir itu dari WB untuk mengeruk sungai dan waduk melalui program JEDI . Dep. PU bekerja sama dengan Pemerintah DKI Jakarta juga sedang menangani Banjir Kana! Timur dan Barat. Dep PU dan DKI akan mengeruk kali dan waduk yang dibagi dalam. 2 tahap .. Pertama PPC untuk studi dan untuk pengerukan tahap l di 5 lokasi. Tahap II pengerukan sungai dan waduk 16 lokasi. Studi ini harus diikuti dengan AMDAL. Pengerukan ada 16 sungai/waduk, pertama 5 lokasi kemudian yang lain. Sebelum pengcrukan dilakukan, dilakukan studi AMDAL dan dari pertemuan sosialisasi ini diharapkan mendapat masukan dari Bapak/lbu. Untuk itu perlu sosialisasi, sesuai dcngan reraturan yang berlaku. Dalam sosialisasi ini diharapkan masukan dari pcscrta apakah proyek berdampak positiratau negatif. Kcrukan eli buang kcm::ma lranspurtasi, lewat m~na~ ini yang perlu mcndapat masukan/umpan balik dari flapak/lhu scblian. sehingga proyek ini dapat hcnnan"wt dan meminimalkerlu penmscna Inasy;trakat untuk mcnwnitor. Siapa yang bcrtanggung j;11vah: l'lJ J>usat atau I'll DKI .!abrta 6 Moderator. Bapak lbu akan diundang membahas TOR dan sekarang ini masukan diperhatikan. Bapak lbu agar melakukan sosialisasi secara berlanjut di setiap lokasi kegiatan proyek. Nanti akan diadakan survei. Masukan agar ada perawatan. Perlu ada kelancaran a! iran air. Selesai jam 12. Jakarta, 8 Desember 2009. Notulis: I. Koderi Hadiwardoyo .................................................. . 2. Bambang Rahrdjono ··········-········································· ' ' 7 ATTACHMENT Minutes of Socialization 3 agenda Jakarta Urgent Flood Mltlgat!on Project (JUFMP)- Jakarta Emergency Dredging Initiative (JED!) Technical Assistance for Environmental & Social Impact Assessment (EIA/SIA) ATTENOANCE LIST Sosialisasi AMDAL Pengeruk3n Sungai dan Waduk di Propinsi DKI Jakarta Fase 2 Selasa, 08 Dcsember 2009 ""~I""' I.· ~~ I'~£_, I I0\31.:2.80 JCf rvl %~. I Jakarta Urgent Flood Mitigation Project (JUfMP) ·JaKarta Emergency Dreagrng lnurawe (J!:ur 1 Technical Assistance lor Environmental & Social Impact Assessment (EIAISIA) ATTENDANCE LIST Sosialisasi AMDAL Pengerukan Sungai dan Waduk dl Proplnsi OK/ Jakarta Fase 2 Selasa, 08 Des ember 2009 No. I Nama Jabatan Email I l~l~n~ Handphone Tal)lla T,Brjgan .;J.f 1/VJ~ !J, I~ 'f11dA-'1. 7c:!)!,,/uF 111 a!i/117 /3f?1 j{r}/ Cld1'}--'Jf•.!,_ ..._..__ {1./) 23 IE iJ I -.(' u h C.r') c) 0, lrt .s.. ,....._., ~ ~ .Jv;~JC,At. dlI 9 1 7:r- -.y.;zy ~ w ,. "llL ~ , [Lt; i:~· ,.WI=-.~ ' t? EJ II !JBe Cr4- s. ~ JT 0 ' lett /rkti~r dk/ht'Min ./! j"<.:/8/ "V J I hi.. Tf»nfl"f oe:u g ~fe! ;Rei' PU-r_.l) f ~ 1 1 J U vf~1(_;Ju )_,_ : ;a)_ f/u..q "'- 1 J' z ( . 0'1-!: lA:> '-1:: .\.~ 'Jrj% JuV._ rl f 6 't{J '(() ~ ,_ f<\~~ 'ct ' .tJ>;;; 3f'N ~;-~ n ~"" A~ '4; ~- -f'r/f th' h "'J)o.. \r.. L. .....f-6 "~ '-"}~ so / G?,-u_ 1-- 0 po1 ctq~ of).« "J3.44eeQ;; c::J('. ;~ \. ~~A ~n·y~h.> w )<. . Lvt'A.i.t CtJ(.v . . ~C7 ~ - l->) AlZl}I ~·/lo&o~ (:.(_,?(pt>. _g~ }11. MIF1Cc 'f,v. tfd!; PU<'Z-( kkJ 'hoJ..f. f t< v~ v. . rvuv· ?-o (/!A ;})d.d. 'Jia...-( • 0 1'11· f.V! % N~#· -r'\J /()7;7"::'..(2'(_ ~ Ofll.r! 9. "?.f 20'0 ~~~· 11- AJ-~t's 1-Gm'Je>../J. k.d.~- "' \l ,-, t!Jc91. '?? 3 '>'-! (] 1- ~ 't .. 0 ~ \ Dr ~'I\ A) 'iJf. {u o 1 I )~,0."" ~ c '"') ...~ V. e \_"' '('a.~_..., ~"' ~"' \,/ oMI1~8 (;a"\1- /f~ :j'. UJ,(li 1 <:a 5) \'Q.t·~ leW . _ - ~~~ ~~);~P4 K*· ~:~~v._:::_~:=~:____ _ _..i_-J-_____-+-~~~ sv I T01Hl(,o ~ ID:it.{ tlut;_~_ _j)dJ-§L__}ju~ __ _ -~ f/w}----. J/ 1 ~ltiv10Y-.I ~-·Ch·&il . ~·- l!_~~L '-( I I >4ff 52.\ R ,(?6-C~ M I ~(fLu)~, I ~- --L -- J - .I ~ Is-; I/I.Uft!? ~_._ I~~~ _ ___ __ _ _ _j_o8f.0t>J .iQf..J-~~ 5J.\~ Pvt:Yfov~i- 1%ru_ r~~ 1~d-~~(~ 1 w1-, ~<; 1OG('.I I _JO\-U\-1" I ~&~ /}tfz.v M I Sic %V'PrJPrP _· _I .\10 ~~ oo8 · I ~ ~-s: l2J:lj) L \ N N i7171 Ik /o;.l'Qfto. . a- 53lll~_)r ~~ ~. ~~r9 8JJ-y£599/ ~ Go I'\. czu.~'l,\A..(l.Vrc-.. ft(\ ~At1~'1L·>JJWAfA1?i@A~~hl ~ t~ _latJt>/4'2-G~rr·l ~- Jakarta Urgent Flood Mitigation Project (JUFMP) ·Jakarta Emergency Oreagtng lnmauve (J!:u• 1 Technical Assistance for Environmental & Social impact Assessment (EJAJSIA) ATTENDANCE LIST Sosialisas/ AMDAL Penge;ukan Sunga/ dan Waduk dl Prop/nsf DKI Jakarta Fase 2 Seta sa, 08 Oesember 2009 No. Nama Jabatan Email Handphone Tanda Tanaan GJ- ;2 "Jf;q_ru!) >-] :l UJ (J i"- {i (/j of?;;zf9o{}';/ OJo { ~ .__._; :w ~(J 6 (!~ () Tir->u lrO L. ~~. 6otJ "'z ':.:' ~I r-)( E?IM/Yo.i t. S\(,\ 'T ? Vv\U I '/2 ~,;,- Nl \) l (.,. ' co}!._, ' : AQl7. 5 k C*' . ,._.-.,2 //- ·7 '- t:.~?-os '--t: c <¥ "" \l«-1 · )p.-\:'""~ur ~\ :~ i Vt-, . ~ I ~~ 1)-t.k"+ a:>&.,~~ cSl G. :~,-:2..n 4-' iq.J )/(({!~ I~ ~6z_c,o G<; / ___,dtt_ 5" I --tusk~ ~~ r:L.?i oM [t:Lc 7o IllY ~o lu~h~ u.~ I? fD""l 7\P I1:1 JO "--\ k ~ --c._ '\A Ipf 4 cr ~ r ( I 1'P.Ir-- · & JS. ~- J .4::,-w,_----f I\~ · C.;~r WI. /_ ._, ---- ---~ '1'-(&&7_21 17&'/ _.., 1,-11 ~- fi4c4: JJ Jv~ l ·~-~-~·~'4 c-2r.W0~.n-"~ t:5( ill P1.~. /{)RA-J~ !i.t)_ \ p~ 1Dt11~" (l:l_c_g_~~7 I/I/ 'lfa?t?YYvv~ I IX)·~ ...-,.... ~~/ ~6&'--NTv-T ~12-a--.., I ~<..· \)Q.~L I ~ W\.CV'\ Du tt. ; rut o ~ 1...4 b2. 17-~ IJ~I ·~- f!J-v0y ~AA/1~ 6Ji/;-, '!J & t) 8Y::Z..lt 21 fl I f(g;; Us~~l ~ L U/\f7\), ~-Pz~4J I cJ?! 9<-rr-:ttq (6 7 ~~i Y!e&W \;. if· r @W/N" . - -- IJbj ~~!J Qege.c(2 . · ;v ~ ' eJ Gmh~ t2fl\7}1to:f" [£). ( ' efH. Cf;!~ I Q .)If> I m /1/tf'v( IU) 0]4 rz !.-1- 5 ' I w c.clZ-Q;uQ \1d· _12i~<-;A1 f-h !ofs-~~-zf~oo2! ~) Jt& . ~~J r. ~- r~- ~ rw . ~~ ~eaZ.. IDB '-7-vr <-tff a }!tt:lr/" [T([fvcA-a~(~-~~~Ji~ J~ ·-~~tl \LQ_c 7'a_ ~" ra--to k I~ [Ll ~ ~ ~ .5 IJ?Wf . \j I \) J -------- Jakarta Urgent Flood Mitigation Project (JUFMP) ·Jakarta Emergency Dredging Initiative (JEDI) .•• , Technical Assistance for Environmental & Social impact Assessment (EIAISIA) ATTENDANCE LIST Sosia/isasi AMDAL Pengerukan Sungai dan ~Vaduk di Proplnsi DKI Jakarta Fase 2 Selasa, 08 Oesember 2009 : No. i Nama Jabatan Email / It'J ~-1 f\lv? \ Handphone Tanda Ta bd J)fd>Aq T tc1~cuc ~ ~-c.~ G:p~ .TMR OfJ.I ~~ar:4 ~) i'0; x;. ~£oh ,,_- k ~ f?-l') 7~ {_ ~ tt2. '1M' >-fr. ~- fci6 C<; • oS.F58-( 46S:»~ / A ., -'- l). [=.e.<,.,.J.t;,: · • ~-~.IR.If · 6- ~ .897b {,Pt,- o6 /"""ft}-;;..:•/ 21- f"-,~ f.'1~ ~11.. 61n• .J. v--C;;:L......rQ.~~£1~-t.. ·:w...e-p"-"'· c.!:! ---,..-- f- // 121. 11-nof!.Aev;Z, 2 !Yk cr/d,.,/),02-< -~ dJtdtJ)Jn;6.2. /f4? Q/ f-1-,..c&,"' [/1Jc.t17-.._. ~ M4({) "- .~. ".f< ~ .n..P- "'. t.r. ~ !9-: b. 1/Jv ~ 16.. . ~-" b ~tt:r 1~ , fl,_.; /. 0-?."' 1 ro(J/P! ~ -;r ws v;o 11 Grn 1 lL t1 . PerlsO~"<;.l i v.. 1 koTet- df'T!' ~ ' 3!3047o \ { It;, r,;,&!JY ~ .~)X- X~ ,( u - me '&tof:fl3-:u;. '-../,1,.. -"' - W/{-L. ~. /!4.'-J~ · 1 ~)_ 1,-( /.?.~fto'l ~- ofJ/6§'/)rJJ..lJ 'J/_7_'111. 1 .53 Ad· ;t1(/0!J-$fl{ Lur-..o_ ~ , !::{_(. f~ 1it(r'lt.1 txvt.._ (/IJf'}tfloL 7, ( ( f 'tJ / 1// :,4 h!R\AilJ V\J· 01) ·"LL I?~ c. " \0Sil "1 )'1. '7) ~I ftv-- )\ ~dv -~r- l- G' r f'Jl v . \'2{) . o-Jli 1-1 .-c 1A u6l. " t"' ..J?, ~b '/ Lh0.9.-, f, ~ ? MU. 'PJJ.f.DI/. ,., f_ lj 6DZW£G-')) 0 I."':J '5 . D...7 .fl. ~~. -&~ ~--'-:,. ~ ~ Vd:r~ ~iJI&J72 ~ ( ~--f/ 1-'6 Nua f?J'.-e( ·-1/V A:'l;ll.· /LeA· ./>!c./.· /C8 · />?c:~A · t'JYJ;9'cP63rJ ~_:u: v , ?-5, /Y/L[~\AI\J)H 1 )r( Qlr-[ ·&I ]fl(. (v1t'c:ui\JC 01t\!.4-( ()[lt2 MN ~2., 7. ./? ' JaKarta Urgent ,..load Mnrgatlon f--roJeCt (JUrrvlt") • JaKouut Emttryt:ucy Ou:uy,ng fnn.c~uv-e {Jcur 1 Technical Assistance for Environmental & Social Impact Assessment (EIA!SIA) ATTENDANCE LIST Sosiatisasi AMDAL Pengerukan Sunga/ dan Waduk dl Prop/nsf DKI Jakarta Fase 2 Selasa, 08 Desember 2009 _3:2. 33 3'f 17trG!!Yl fS.IV I L~..~m9.. I --t' - I W2 ro1!.M~ v ~ '351'~::'-'j ~lW'IAVJ.:(v't.--, _ l.l). !Cet.e.~Wu-.. I 5kf I bSllbU•t.."~ I \\t' y;, '~ ~i.f.' ~ '!J7 3'2 ?9 4-0 A-a_..v t /'(IV' ~ A, ~.JZ?\N1. r . 0 g1·z.. " ~~o~ ~ etJtCa.")Gcf 77'- ~: ~-~i=dlco GuJ ,. . lS""~c"::.....:-.1..11.1-l-...:....c::: 3:~ \J ·.·~ -~ tyuly;,'-&-<.t'' UD ~.~(L{ · r ~ s.~ Pfl.tvu , D1 , Wf\SfS ()UNttWAN ~i:J. · P((>P ~~---------r~-~~~--~~ -\bJ {;ruL ._.; ... '~!" ATTACHMENT Pictures of Socialization 4 agenda and Public notice in newspaper atan isasi Amdal JUFMP/lEDI Fase 2 Tempat: Kantor BPlHD Provinsi DKI Jakarta Tanggal: 8 Desember 2009 ,. Jakarta Urgent Flood Mitigation Project (JUFMP)/ Jakarta Emergency Dredging Initiatives (JEDI) Environmental & Social Impact Assessment (EIA/SIA) Suasana pendaftaran peserta di depan pintu masuk Sambil menunggu acara dimulai, peserta disuguhi ruang pertemuan. tayangan video mengenai banjir Jakarta. Video buatan Bank Dunia itu menekankan pentingnya upaya penanggulangan banjir. Kepala BPLHD Provinsi DKI Jakarta, lr. Penny Susanti, Para peserta yang terdiri alas Carnal, Lurah, dan Dipl. EST, tampak sedang memberikan sambutan pacta perwakilan Dewan Kelurahan dari lokasi-lokasi sasaran sesi Pembukaan. JEDI, serta perwakilan beberapa lembaga terkait lainnya. Moderator acara, Drs. Ridwan Pandjaitan, M.Si. (kiri) dari Para peserta nampak sedang menyimak penjelasan dari BPLHD Provinsi DKI Jakarta tampak sedang para narasumber. memperkenalkan para narasumber. l Paparan dari PMU JUFMP/JEDI, lr. Fuadi (PMU lr. Purwono, Co-Team Leader Konsultan EIA/SIA JUFMP/JEDI). JUFMP/JEDI, tampak sedang memaparkan rencana StudiAmdal yang akan dilakukan oleh timnya. Team Leader Konsultan EIA/SIA JUFMP/JEDI, John Beberapa di antara anggota tim Konsultan EIA/SIA Dickie, B. E., M. Env. Sc. (kiri depan), tampak mengikuti JUFMP/JEDI yang sedang menjalankan fungsi notulensi jalannya acara. dan dokumentasi. Halaman awal dari tayangan lr. Purwono mengenai Halaman akhir dari bahan tayang lr. Purwono yang SosialisasiAmdal JUFMP/JEDI. menunjukkan bahwa dari acara ini diharapkan ada masukan, saran, dan tanggapan dari para peserta. 2 Suasana pada saat sesi diskusi dan tanya jawab. Pada sesi ini terlihat bahwa sejumlah peserta sudah dapat membayangkan potensi dampak lingkungan dan dampak sosial yang mungkin akan muncul, seperti lumpur yang tercecer ke jalan umum dari truk pembuang sisa kerukan maupun kemungkinan adanya relokasi warga yang saat ini tinggal di bantaran sungai. Beberapa pertanyaan dari ~eserta belum dapat dijawab secara tuntas oleh narasumber karena belum selesainya desain teknis rencana proyek ini. 3 Setelah acara selesai, tim Konsultan EIAISIA JUFMP/JEDI menggunakan kesempatan untuk melakukan pendekatan informal kepada beberapa peserta, baik itu perwakilan pemerintah kelurahan maupun perwakilan Dewan Kelurahan. Acara diakhiri dengan makan siang bersama di lokasi Panitia dari tim Konsultan EIA/SIA JUFMP/JEDI pertemuan. menyempatkan diri untuk berfoto bersama. Jakarta Urgent Flood Mitigation Project (JUFMP)/ Jakarta Emergency Dredging Initiatives (jEDI) Environmental & Social Impact Assessment (EIAISIA) 'ABTU. 7 NOVEMBER 1009 • TERBIT 22 HALAMAN NO 181 • TAHUN KE ·11 PENGUMUMANSTUDIAMDAL RENCANA KEGIATAN PENGERUKAN SUNGAI DAN·· WADUK FASE 2 Dl DKI JAKARTA DAlAM RANGKA KEGIATAN JAKARTA URGENT FLOOD MITIGATION PROJECT (JUFMP)I JAKARTA EMERGENCY DREDGING INITIATIVE (JEDI) Dalam ra~ penangQUlangan ba.njir di OKI Jakarta. Pemerintah Proviosl DKI Jakarta dan Oeparteman Pek8fjaan Umum, yang dalam hallni dlwaklll oleh Project Management Unit- (PMU) diba'NM Dtreldofat Jenderal Sumber Days AJr ben!lncana uoluk malekubn kegiatan p&ngeiVkao sungai aan waduk Fase 2 di OKI Jakarta. Kegiatan pengerutcan ini meliputi 16 sungai dan waOOJ<.. yattu: (6) Cld•ng - Thamrtn, {7) Waduk Suntet'" nmur HI., (a) Waduk Sunl.er utaf'a. (9) Waduk Sunter S.IRNl. (10) lh;n.fir K&NII BatatM'SC, (11) Krvkut- Cideng Drain, (12) K•U Sunler (uppM), (13) Grogot- ~. (14) Lower Anglca, (15} TanJungan Oraln, (1'1 Pakin- KaU Bnar Jebkeng, (11) Waduk P1uit, (11) Kamal Drain, (19) CHung Drain, (20) Muara 1<1111 Ad6m CDF, (21) Mu"ra Oanjlr Kanal rtmUrlEBC/ Marunda COF. I I I I i I Rencana keglalan lni mcliputi: (1) Pengerukan sedimen sung.ai dan waduk, (2) Proses dan pengotahan material hasll !<.erukah, (3) Transport.asi peogangklltan material has~ kerukan dari dua tMrlas songai dan empat waduk, dan (<4) J Penempa:tan ma!erial Ntsil ket'l.Jk.an dl beberapa disposal area yang diizinkan scpertj dl kawasan Ancot Baral bag 1011) 727 92G08 @I PT. Arkonin Engineering M.HlJ:g.\1.1 PrJt.';::.·--l-4\>•':•_,.·~""=~•·;;,.,~~..:?- ;:l. ''.":··~:;·:; :--:.::~·\lf ~ ~-.-·: ·;.:;~~ ~-~:~~:·. ;,E~/.\~-::;._,:';',:;~?~~~/ ··Te~~:-·: (~-~--~j) _7~~-~9~0 CI:!~Ti~f~g} ~~ax~ _(6~~ ' • < ·- ' \ • - • • KBL LAB DMSILABORATORJUM UNGKUNGAN No : JI.J;fi'P Rcvisi : () PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP : 165/LHP /IV /2010 Nama Customer : PT. PPA Consultan Alamat : JI. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Ala mat : Kali Tanjungan No.Sampel : 107.7/IV/20!0 Tfll. Peng<>mbila n Sa Ill pel 05 April2010 jenis Sam pel SAMPAH Tgl. Penerimaan Sam pel 05 April 2010 Kode & Kelerangan : AP.7 =Up Stream Kali Tanjungan Tgl. Pengujian 05 -12 April2010 Hasil Penguiian Be rat Total Organik 2 kg Kategori sampah: Volume Total Organik 3 Liter 1} Sampah melayang Berat Total Anorganik 1,7 kg 2) Sampah mengalir VolumE> Total Anorganik 3,5 Liter 3) Sampah tenggelam Vol. 'i K Bernt Volume No. Komponen (liter) 'No. omponcn lk2l lliterl l.llQ_j Or•anik I Kayu2,30 1 ! f---- IS~;U.kan:m----.------1----t------ 3,00 Kain/tekstil ---- --·--Iu-;s·-~--1~ L----· Tumbuhan utuh (mis.Et;~e"ngo.:.= gco'-'n.::d.::o:.:;k)'--t----+----+...;3;,•;;00;;- Karct/ Kulit tiruan ~~. Ji_.. ! BanJ,!kat binatanJ?, 13c~ngkai ikan 3,00 11 ialll/metal: o:x:: •,.; -·· -· _ < ~ • Daun, ranting 2 3 Aluminium 1 Daunpembungkus i Tembaga - - · - - - - · --r---------1 !-;c2,e;OO""""+'..;A:i'n"'OC":'r5 g0,a,_n,ik::___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-+---+----t-l--+iTocin':"'"'ai-'h-:::-_____.._ _ _--.J-__ ,_--I--·--- i 2,1U ! lr u~..~nH.~I_!_t (U3~---L-----I ~~tol plastik minuman kemasan -~~~~~-~-- ------ __ -----~--------- _ _ _ _; 1 1 __ . ___ Paralon · Ual~rai I · 1--· Spon . Obat-obatan . .. !________ , Emb~r l~otnl pembersih 1,1ntai ~-·____ I S~ltldcll ______ : 1 l.:..c~h,•l ·==-==----·---'------ -L---· ---==1=---·+----...j I ___ :J-'otc~!.l~em~~~~~~~-~E~~~gg~- -----;-----------1-- __ _j I Bohlcu11 ! 1 -~-·--1fu;[ikffiika____ l .· Ka_lenv._cut L;Ci<~ls_=.... -~ ~-~-+-----~----r--.--1 --·····-···- ··s~~1gkus mie/makanan 0,5 1 ! 2,10 L1m-~t1u1 {p<~mpl~rs. . ; 0.5 ! I : Plastik lembaran kresek 0,2 0,5 i ,,,.,,.. ,"'""· dlli. ____ .....__ .. --L..::....:.i==j ····---....---\ -r~:;;~\~~Ll2~~-~,-~_!"!~.~:~.~.~-i~-----·--···-·-J----z:-7··· r-· 4~s- .._L__ ·- l'J.~i~!~~l--·- -·--:=~: -~-~.~~~~j= · 1 ~~- 2··--~J ~.:utatan I. Hasil )'ilng ditnmpilkan hanya hC:"'rhubungnn dvng.111 sum1wl y~1ng diuji. 2. Lt~pordn h~sil pengujie:u1 tithtk holeh digcmdi-1kcu1 kL·L·uc~li SL•iuruhnya ta)"lp<~ p~·rsL·l~ljU.11llt•rluli~ dari laboratorium. l- )ak;orla, 19 April2010 Dts. F.U. J lara han i-..-1. Sc.0 ---·----·--=--'~ Din•klur L<1boralorium Jl.d,llllilll : d.ai 2 ];,\;."HIIfilS r·------f7.K~e~rt~e~s~k~a~n~t<~>r~(IH~\7. B~si i 1 S~,~d~I~I)I----------~--~--+------1------~~K~u~n~i-n-g-'g.s::.:e:.::":.::'•:::n.:.__ _ _ _ _ _ _-jf---+---+----I-:';IT;ce7 ------!! Kertas koran l---:z"'.z"'o;-~Pii='aC::stt:;:i.k'-',='-'-'----------1---------- -1-- --~ci ~(,lb~l --- .. -·-· .. ·------~------i'---1i ! Ember Gelns/Kaca ! ; ~ithm 1 Sampah bongkahtln j _-+-:,---_-t!-c_C:=;_.,.e<-,.ltc-e"'n""e~~"-c"' \.=-··~i;spi~-s"ti"k-n-,"in-,-m-,-.,-,'k_e_m_a-,sa-n---t_--_--l~:--- .."'_=c..----- ····- .... J· I Anu --- K£'r.nnik/ubin--- .:. .. -···· ---j-. ·-·- i l ~----+.~S~Ia",~,,V.~-------------------------+------1:-----+------t~S~a~n",,::.p ,._ - KBL LAB OMS! LABORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN No: 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP : 164/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer : PT. PPA Consultan Ala mat : JI. Prapanca Buntu No.15D,jakarta5el<>tan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengeru kan JED! ll Ala mat Kamal No. Sampel 105.6/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sam pel 05 April 2010 Ienis Sam pel SAMPAH Tgl. Penerimaan Sam pel 05 April 2010 Kode & Keterangan A1'.6.= Down Stream Kamal Tgl. l'engujian 05- 12 April 2010 Hasil Pengujian Berat Total Organik 0,4 kg Kategori sampah: Volume Total Organik 0,2 Liter 1) Sampah melc'I)'Mil, Berat Total Anorganik 2,8 kg 2) Sampah mengalir Volume Total Ano,rganik 2,8 Liter 3) Sampah tenggelnm I No. Komponon Bcrat (kg) Vol. (liter) No. I Komponen 1 Bcrat (kl!:) Volume (liter\ J i ~ !.,(.~JO,!......j...,;;O~rgr,•'!-'m!!i!i-k-----------t---t---+-:2",3;20;-J~Kc::.alz.:'u";:-:o::'"-- __ 03 0 5 _j ~---_-_'-+'i'S';e' ·------- ' ·-'---- l a"m:.:•e;ka"":'n"'a":nC::.:,-;:::-:::r::==-:=7.:;:;-+-·--+----t _ 3::''0:::007-+.Kc"'•::cic:;n,_/"'tc:;ck:.:s;;,til s00 Tumbuhan utuh (nus.Eceng_g_ondok) 3,UO Karel/ Kulit tiruon ··-·- -- -· ·-·-----'--·--j Bangkai binatanl!; ------f----+---+--=3:c•OO""-- _Logam/met~L _________ _ _ _ : i__ ____ Bangkai ik•n . Senv. ~ i Daun, ranting 0..4 0,2 Aluminium 1-1-~~"-,~-~~-~c..;;D~".::a~u:n,~r~-e'-'•::nj,,_l::.,"'u"'"n~u!-;;"!-.=-"-s'-·- ..==-------+---+---- Tembaga _ _j-- ··--·---~~'------- [ 2,00 . An Or~.anik Timah 1 ~ Z,lO ~:~~~~/ Ktortc1s keras - - i~~~~~less ---··---- · ···- --·· -~--- ... · - - ·-1------i Keitas kantor (HVS, dill Klmingan _I \ i J r ~- 1,20 I Plnstik: --~£11-lb~---·· -------------------l------r-------~--- ·· ·· Kerlds kvnm Kabel Pand --1 Gelas/Kaca ; I · ··· · - · - ·---!-·---r---~ I ~--· I ___,'--- __ .] . : Mttincm ~~~:: plastik minuman kemasan Slan2" _ ! 1 __ ...::.~unpah bongkaha1_1 _______ ·r----! _. _______ ·-~-~~1~/Ubm _----- ____i ___ Scunpmbersih l.:lllt(li ______ J_ ______ . __ )_ Sandal · IJolul pcmb,lsmi st·ran ~J:r.a r ' 1---+0:Kabel Bohlam _ I__ _ _______ j L Ph1stik mika _ _ ____Kaleng co.1t bek~~-----~~ j' ___ ! 1 I Bungkus mie/nmkanan L.un-hlin (pH111pi..•rs, . ! ·1.5 0,5 1 3 I ! ! :uo 1 ! :.t, 1"\lroc~tn. diiJ ! · : l-----1-----------------·-··-----------------------\--- ~ ; JJfl011g'm D: Pertanian dan Usaha Perkotaan ** = Parameter telah diakreditasi Catalan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari Iaboratorium. Jakarta, 16 April2010 Drs. E. U. Harahap, M.Sc.9 Direktur Laboratorium 1 · ,. ... ~.· J!Jl£<' l""JV-= _;;o"'l< " ' '. , ,• ''• ~A: :. , _ , ' ~~ _.,:.1• ·~•'-1=- ::_· o • No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 '!iKAN Komite Akredltasl Naslonal l.eborWttum Pel9fl LP412:-ION lAI>.>RATORIUM UNGKUHGAN "-it. ICLH KG: I.UM'I.'IIIII.HI1012007 Sl( Gull."""'· Ota ,..... Ho: :nt/2001 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP 156R/LHP/IV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, Jakarta Selatan Nama ProyekfKegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Kamal No.Sampel 104.3-4/IV /2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel KEBISINGAN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan K.3 = Up Wind Kamal Tgl. Pengujian : 05 Apri12010 K.4 = Down Wind Kamal Metode Pengambilan Sampel : SNI 04-3901.3-1995 Hasil Pengujian Kode Waktu Kebisingan Satuan Sampel Pengukuran (WIB) K.3 06.00- 09.00 76 dB (A) 09.00- 11.00 75 dB (A) 14.00-17.00 76 dB (A) 17.00 - 22.00 73 dB (A) 22.00 - 24.00 68 dB(A) 24.00 - 03.00 55 dB(A) 03.00 - 06.00 56 dB (A) K.4 06.00 - 09.00 70 dB(A) 09.00 - 11.00 71 dB (A) 14.00- 17.00 72 dB(A) 17.00 - 22.00 70 dB (A) 22.00- 24.00 58 dB (A) 24.00- 03.00 55 dB (A) 03.00- 06.00 55 dB (A) Catatan: 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sam pel yang diuji pada waktu terse but. 2 Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 19 April2010 - .• Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc.9- Direktur Laboratorium Halaman 2 dari 4 halaman ...•.·· ;' c ~iliK~?if'~~h~f~~i(,";\ Telp. (62-21) 737 BOZO (Htiotlhg) Fax; (6H .· "::~:-' ;.,,.-, _.•. :-:.' .-· ~i·-·' '-· -:~-- KBL LAB No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 .£KAN Komite Akreditasl Naslonal DIVISILABORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN l..lboe.lorium ~ LP472-toN PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI lABORATORIUM LINGkUNGAN IW., tQ.H No; a.2J'Mli.VII/Uilt01200T H Gut! ........ DKI ....,_ No: 2111200T LAPORAN HASIL PENGUTIAN Nom.orLHP 157R/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Kali Tanjungan No.Sampel 106.3-4/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel KEBISINGAN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan K.3 = Up Wind Kali Tanjungan Tgl. Pengujian : 05 April2010 K.4 = Down Wind Kali Tanjungan Metode Pengambilan Sampel : SNI 04-3901.3-1995 Hasil Pengujian Kode Waktu Kebisingan Satuan Sam pel Pengukuran (WIB) K.3 06.00 - 09.00 64 dB(A) 09.00-11.00 65 dB(A) 14.00- 17.00 64 dB(A) 17.00 - 22.00 58 dB (A) 22.00 - 24.00 56 dB(A) 24.00 - 03.00 52 dB (A) 03.00- 06.00 54 dB (A) K.4 06.00 - 09.00 58 dB(A) 09.00 - 11.00 58 dB (A) 14.00-17.00 57 dB(A) 17.00 - 22.00 55 dB (A) 22.00 - 24.00 52 dB (A) 24.00 - 03.00 51 dB(A) 03.00 - 06.00 53 dB (A) Catatan: 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji pada waktu tersebut. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari Iaboratorium. jakarta, 19 April2010 Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc.<;). Direktur Laboratorium ' • KBL LAB No : 31.3/FP P Revisi: 0 ~KAN Komite Akreditasi Naslonal DIVISI LABORATORIUM LINGKUNGAN ~p~ LP472-«>N PT•. KAR!t'\ BUANA LESTARI . LA80RA.TOR/UM liNGKUNGAN ~ ICl.H Ko: a.Z7111'1.VIIILH110/20Q1 flit;~."""· DKI.W:.. No: 21t/20C7 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP 158R/LHP/IV /201() Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat JI. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat KaliAngke No.Sampel 109.3-4/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 06 April2010 Jenis Sampel KEBISINGAN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 06 April2010 Kode & Keterangan K.3 = Up Wind Kali Angke Tgl. Pe~jian . : 06 April2010 K.4 = Down Wind Kali Angke Metode Pengambilan Sampel : SNI 04-3901.3-1995 Hasil Pengujian Kode Waktu Kebisingan Satuan Sampel Pengukuran (WIB) K.3 06.00- 09.00 69 dB (A) 09.00- 11.00 70 dB (A) 14.00- 17.00 70 dB(A) 17.00 - 22.00 68 dB (A) 22.00- 24.00 56 dB (A) 24.00- 03.00 55 dB (A) 03.00- 06.00 55 dB (A) K.4 06.00- 09.00 62 dB (A) 09.00- 11.00 59 dB (A) 14.00- 17.00 57 dB (A) 17.00- 22.00 57 dB (A) 22.00 - 24.00 53 dB(A) 24.00 - 03.00 50 dB (A) 03.00 - 06.00 52 dB(A) Catatan: 1. Hasil yang d!tamp!lkan hanya berhubungan dengan sam pel yang dmji pada waktu tersebut. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratoriurn. Jakarta, 14 April2010 r PT. KARS~;~_ESTA" Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc.Q Direktur Laboratorium Halaman 2 dari 4 halarnan No:313/FPP Revisi: 0 ~KAN Komite Akreditasi Naslonal ~~LP-an.tDN PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI l.ABORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN IWI..Ia.H Mo: I-Zrt11'11.VM.HI1Gil007 $1( GW ......... DKI ~ Ho: 2ltl1007 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP : 158/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat JI. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50; Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Lower Angke No.Sampel 109.5/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel 06 April2010 Jenis Sampel KEBAUAN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel 06 April2010 Kode & Keterangan 0.5 =Up Stream Tgl. Pengujian 06 - 08 April2010 LowerAngke Hasil Pengujian No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu *) Hasil Metode 1. Amoniak (NH3) mg/L 2,0 0,0032 SNI19-7119.1-2005 2. Metil Merkaptan (CH,SH) mg/L 0,002 <0,001 NIOSH Methods 2542 3. Hidrogen Sulfida (H2S) mg/L O,Q2 0,0024 APHA 4. Metil Sulfida ((CH3)2)S mg/L 0,01 < 0,001 NIOSH Methods 2542 5. Stirena (C•HsCHCH,) mg/L 0,1 < 0,001 NIOSH Methods 2542 Keterangan : ")- Kep. MENLH No. Kep.SO/MENLH/11/1996 Baku Mutu Tingkat Kebauan Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 14 April2010 r .- ~- Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc.Q Direktur Laboratorium KBL LAB No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 ~KAN Komite Aki'edftasi Naslonal DIVIS! WORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN Labomorturn PeniMJ LP·I72..fOH PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI I.ASORATORlUM LINGKUHGAN l'tK ta.H No: ~.YMILH1'16/2007 II( OW. ""'P. DKI ~No: 211/ZOCI7 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP 158/LHP/fV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama PwyekfKegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Lower Angke No.Sampel 109.6/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 06 April2010 Jenis Sampel KEBAUAN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 06 April2010 Kode & Keterangan 0.6 = Down Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 06- 08 April2010 Lower Angke Hasil Pengujian No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu *) Hasil Metode 1. Amoniak (NH,) mg/L 2,0 0,0033 SNI 19-7119.1-2005 2. Metil Merkaptan (CH,SH) mg/L 0,002 <0,001 NIOSH Methods 2542 3. Hidrogen Sulfida (H2S) mg/L 0,02 0,003 APHA 4. Metil Sulfida ((CH,)2)S mg/L O,Ql < 0,001 NIOSH Methods 2542 5. Stirena (C•HsCHCH2) mg/L 0,1 < 0,001 NIOSH Methods 2542 Keterangan : •)- Kep. MENLH No. Kep.SO/MENLH/11/19% Baku Mutu Tingkat Kebauan Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sarnpel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 14 April2010 Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc~ Direktur Laboratorium ' ' . . - .. .· · . ,:f!r;k::v :~::.rt£-. 1 ~~;ot!\ · ' ,. : ,,~{· ,:r.;o•.r~\..., _,,:••<\":i·s#•.;;.·~-~-_,.~,·-< 1 , No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 -£KAN Komite Akreditasi Naslonal l..lbomorMn ......., LP-ar.t..fDN lABORATORIUM LIHGKUNGAN Riot. IIUl No: Wflo1'I.WI\.K'Ior.too7 IK hll. """'· OKI.-.... No: 2111'2007 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUTIAN NomorLHP 157/LHP /IV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat JI. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama ProyekjKegiatan Pengerukan JEDI II Alamat Tanjungan Drain No.Sampel 106.5/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel KEBAUAN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan 0.5 =Up Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05 - 07 Apri12010 Tanjungan Drain Hasil Pengujian No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu •) Hasil Metode 1. Amoniak (NH,) mg/L 2,0 0,002 SNI19-7119.1-2005 2. Metil Merkaplan (CH,SH) mg/L 0,002 <0,001 NIOSH Methods 2542 3. Hidrogen Sulfida (H2S) mg/L 0,02 < 0,001 APHA 4. Metil Sulfida ((CH,)2)S mg/L '0,01 <0,001 NIOSH Methods 2542 5. Stirena (C.HsCHCH2) mg/L 0,1 < 0,001 NIOSH Methods 2542 Keterangan : *)- Kep. MENLH No. Kep.SO/MENLH/11/1996 Baku Mutu Tingkat Kebauan Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 19 April 2010 r~ARI Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc.Q Direktur Laboratorium .. :~ ;· >._:_,_ : ._(~,~-~L;-_dt.::~;h~,Wi~;re:~ Telp. ;-, (62,21) •._._ •• 737 8020 (~untirig). -' -·- •. ·._ • --- •• _. -. ~ax: -.-~-• <' (62'~ .:-• KBL LAB DIVISILABORATORIUM LINGKUNGAH No: 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 -.iKAN Komi1e Akreditasi Naslonar Ul:tofttotNm Peneufi LP47240N PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LABORA.TORIUM Uf:!GKUHGAN. ll.t.kl.H Nt: Wfltl't.YIIII.Htt01200T 1Kco..tl,l'rap.I)I(I~No:21111200T LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP 157/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Ala mat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Tanjungan Drain No.Sampel 106.6/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : OS April2010 Jenis Sampel KEBAUAN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April 2010 Kode & Keterangan 0.6 =Down Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05- 07 April2010 Tanjungan Drain Hasilll'engujian No. Parameter Satuan Baku Mutu *) Hasil Metode 1. Amoniak (NH3) mg/L 2,0 0,0025 SNI 19-7119.1-2005 2. Metil Merkaptan (CH,SH) mg/L 0,002 <0,001 NIOSH Methods 2542 3. Hidrogen Sulfida (H2S) mg/L 0,02 0,002 APHA 4. Metil Sulfida ((CH,)>)S mg/L 0,01 <0,001 NIOSH Methods 2542 5. Stirena (C.HsCHCH2) mg/L 0,1 < 0,001 NIOSH Methods 2542 Keterangan : *) - Kep. MENLH No. Kep.SO/MENLH/11/1996 Baku Mutu Tingkat Kebauan Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seiuruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 19 April2010 Drs. E. U. Harahap, M. Sc. R Direktur Laboratorium No:31.31FPP Revisi:O ~KAN Komite Akredltasi Naslonal l.abotalorium PtMg~UJlP472..fON l.ABORA.TORIUM LtNGKUNGAN I'IK. ICLH No: Wl'IIPI.VIIILH110o'2001 IK ~. l'n:op, Dl~~~-~· ·--=--" > • •' No : 3 1.3/FPP Revisi: 0 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP : 092/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Lower Angke No.Sampel 062.1/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sam pel : 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel SED!MEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan S.7 =Up Stream Tgl. Pengujian 05-14 April2010 Lower Angke (S1) Hasil Pengujian No. Parameter Satuan Hasil 1. Kerikil % 2,8 2. Tekstur a. Pasir (50 Jlm - 2 mm) % 33,5 b. Debu (2 Jlffi - 50 1Jm) % f2,4 c. Liat Kasar (0,2 mm- 21Jm) % 26,6 d. Liat Halus (< 0, 21Jm) % 14,7 Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 19 April2010 ~A. PT. KhHS~:E:~ TAR! Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Seq_ Direktur Laboratorium Halaman 1 dari 2 halaman .. ~i~i(~~rz~;;;h.~~w· ••.,("~t·.,:J~:J(oi!!; !~-..::J~!: ~-;o:!.!\ -~ Tetp. -(62-21) ?37 8020 (}:1~-n~ri~h: f:~:_x6~:2 )):'~'• •§:!: ,'";;-•,"\· , ' ~ '~·'21!~~·-L='--; ' · .. '· .·.. ~ ,'-' . ~ > •• "' ' ' ' ' - -. . '. ~' ·- •. ~ .... - . . . '" . ' • ,·, > ..._ KBL LAB DMSILABORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN No: 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP : 092/LHP/IV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Lower Angke No.Sampel 062.2/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sam pel : 05 April 2010 Jenis Sampel TEXTURTANAH Tgl. Penerimaan Sam pel : 05April2010 Kode & Keterangan 5.8 = Down Stream T gl. Pengujian : 05-14 April 2010 Lower Angke (52) Hasil Pengujian No. 1. Kerikil Parameter Satuan Has if l % 1,5 2. Tekstur a. Pasir (50 pm - 2 mrn) % 34 b. Debu (2 pm -50 [.Jm) % 25,6 c. Uat Kasar (0,2 mm- 2 [.Jm) % 22,8 d. Liat Halus (< 0, 2 [.Jm) % 16,1 ; Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sam pel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujiantidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. jakarta, 19 April2010 Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. SeQ.. Ou·cktw Laboratorium Halaman 2 dari 2 halaman .·.(·..· :.·,_: .. ,}~:·.~;::·~:.'\ .··J;.~}i!r~1;~,tf·\it~~~~~t~t~~~j~~~J:X~~~rc~ No: 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP 092/LHP /IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Ala mat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Saluran Tanjungan No.Sampel 059.1/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sam pel : 05 April 2010 Jenis Sampel TEXTUR TANAH Tgl. Penerirnaan Sampel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan 5.7 =Up Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05 -14 April 2010 Saluran Tanjungan (51) Hasil Pengujian No. Parameter Satuan Hasil 1. Kerikil % 11 ~· Tekstur a. Pasir (50 I'm - 2 mm) % 16,5 b. Debu (2 I'll- 50 j.Jm) % 34,2 c. Uat Kasar (0,2 mm- 2j.Jm) % 20,4 d. Liat Halus (< 0, 2j.Jm) % 17,9 l Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sam pel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujiantidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. jakarta, 19 April2010 Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc.q. Direktur Laboratorium '' Halaman 1 dari 2 halaman ·. · · ···.··•~•;.,:I~!·i·f}Jj~~f~!J~~\~~l~~~~~i~~2 KBL LAB DMSILABOAATORIUM UNGKUNGAN No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP : 092/LHP /IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Saluran Tanjungan No.Sampel 059.2/IV/2010 TgL Pengambilan Sam pel : 05 Apri12010 Jenis Sampel TEXTUR TANAH Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April 2010 Kode & Keterangan 5.8 = Down Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05-14 April2010 Saluran Tanjungan (52) Hasil Pengujian No. Parameter Satuan Hasil 1. Kerikil % 10,6 2. Tekstur a. Pasir (50 (lii1 - 2 mm) % 14,2 b. Debu (2 (lii1 - 50 J.lm) % 33,5 c. Liat Kasar (0,2 mm- 2 J.lm) % 21,8 d. Liat Halus (< 0, 2 J.lm) % 19,9 Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sam pel yang diuji. 2.. Laporan hasil pengujiantidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari Iaboratorium. Jakarta, 19 April2010 Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc.9- Direktur Laboratorium KBL LAB DMSt LABORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN No : 31.3/FPP Revisi : 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP : 092/LHP/IV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consul tan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Saluran Kamal No.Sampel 060.1/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sam pel : 05 April 2010 Jenis Sampel TEXTUR TANAH Tgl. Penerimaan Sam pel : 05 April 2010 Kode & Keterangan S.7 = Up Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05 -14 April2010 Saluran Kamal (81) Hasil Pengu jian No. Parameter . Satuan Has it 1. Kerikil % 10,5 2. Tekstur a. Pasir (50 Jlffi - 2 mm) % 34,2 i b. Debu (2 11m - 50 1Jm) % 28,4 c. Liat Kasar (0,2 mm- 2 IJm) % 16,3 d. Liat Halus (< 0, 21Jm) 0 /o 10,6 Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujiantidakboleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari Iaboratorium. jakarta, lY April2010 r~,~~ Drs. E.U. Harahap. M. Si.}!_&ti;;. ·,,!~1'0 ·~~r;.tt~;.~k. 0 A0 '0 ".: ~ ""' '~ · ~-.· .::_;.~ ,·..: ,.•·.·•.·,:.· .· .· .· .•·.• •:~,.·.· :•-:., ',·.•.·.·..... :~. '; :_,.-·:-.:'·- :. :.'.::·,--~--'--1·,-;,. >:·,- 0 • .:·-.•.. '{. g'_..,.-.·..:,_(('.a,;~:.;'ff: • · . .:,.:_ ._, ·-:·(62,21) >-·· ""'et'p'..- ___ .737 8020 (Hun· . ·Fax. (62·2 . tlng) _1;"'1,.:'' ·~~~ ~. }.o;;!.j~ _,:,·.,·4:!.·~--8!~,-=-~-~~ '' ~ --~ _ , . ., ' ' ' ~. . . No : 31.3/FPP Rcvisi: 0 ~KAN Komite Akredilasi NaSional ~,._.,LP4l'Z-ION lABORATORIUM ltNGKUHGAN ~~oo~o. IQ.H No: W1Wt.YM.Hn01200r Sf( Gulo.l"nnp. Dta ........_No: 21112001 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP 166/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JEDI II Ala mat Lower Angke No. Sampel 052.1/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan 5.1 =Up Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05-14 April2010 LowerAngke Hasil Perngujian (TCLP Anorganik) No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu DL Hasil 1. Flourides mg/L 150,0 O,Ql 0,015 . 2. Nitrate+ Nitrit mg/L 1000,0 0,001 0,1 3. Nitrit mg/L 100,0 0,01 O,Ql Keterangan : Ttd- Tak Terd1teks1 Baku mutu- PP RI 85 Thn 1999 DL = Detection Limit Catalan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 19 April 2010 r ~ :- ?:f~ KARSAk. rlflJrn~~t;,:RI JAI(ARTA Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc!i}- Direktur Laboratorium No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 -£KAN· Kom!te Akredllasi Naslonal ~.....,IJI-m-tON I..ABORATORIUM LINGKUHGAN k.t. IQ.H No: I-Z7to1'1.YWlW'IOIH07 11(0.... ........ Dia~No;21to'Z007 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP 166/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPAConsultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat LowerAngke No.Sampel 052.2/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel SED! MEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel 05 April2010 Ko!Ie & Keterangan 5.2 = Down Stream Tgl. Pengujian 05-14 April2010 Lower Angke Hasil Penguj ian (TCLP Anorganik) No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu DL Hasil 1. Flourides mg/L 150,0 O,Ql 0,02 2. Nitrate+ Nitrit mg/L 1000,0 0,001 0,13 ~- Nitrit mg/L 100,0 0,01 0,01 Keterangan : Ttd- Tak Terdttekst Baku mutu- PP Rl 85 Thn 1999 DL = Detection Limit Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa perSetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 19 April2010 Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Slf Direktur Laboratorium '' No: 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 ~KAN Komite Akreditasi Naslonal t.aor.t~Xtum Pt'flgllfll.P-312-tON lASORATORIUM liNGKUffGAN IIIK kl.H Nt: s-2feo111.YIIII.Hrllla007 IK G..e., ..,..,, Ola ........, No: 211l2007 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP 165/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Saluran Tanjungan No.Sampel 049.1/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel SED! MEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan 5.1 =Up Stream Tgl. Pengujian 05 - 14 April 2010 Saluran Tanjungan Hasil Pengujian (fCLP Anorganik) No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu DL Basil 1. Flourides mg/L 150,0 O,Dl 0,.02 2. Nitrate+ Nitrit mg/L 1000,0 0,001 0,13 3. Nitrit mg'/L 100,0 0,01 <0,01 Keterangan : Ttd - Tak Terd1teks1 Baku mutu - PP Rl 85 Thn 1999 DL =Detection Limit Catalan l. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 19 April2010 ,.. .. ~ ' Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc.9 Direktur Laboratorium KBL LAB DIVISILABORATORIUM LINGKUNGAN No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 t£KAN Komite Akredilasi Naslonal PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI l.aboralortum PftiQUfl LP472-ION l..ASOAATORIUM LINGKtiHGAN "-"<.«l.fjNo:~.\'III\.HII0o'200t I!C 0<.6. "'-'· DIU ......... No: 21tl2007 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP 165/LHP/IV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Ala mat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Saluran Tanjungan No.Sampel 049.2/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 Apri12010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan 5.2 = Down Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05-14 April2010 Saluran Tanjungan (52) Hasil Pengujian (TCLP Anorganik) No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu DL Hasil I. Flourides mg/L 150,0 0,01 O,Q2 2. Nitrate+ Nitrit mg/L 1000,0 0,001 0,15 3. Nitrit mg/L 100,0 0,01 <0,01 Keterangan : Ttd - Tak Terdt!ekst Baku mutu - PP Rl 85 Thn 1999 DL = Detection Limit Catalan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 19 April2010 Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc.~ Direktur Laboratorium : ._··-. wlsMA-KeLr-.n:·J(E!seh~t~'fi.i/k Telp. (62-21) . 737 8020 -' (H~nting): fa£ . . ,. -- .. -- .- .. ;_· -· {6~'2 -'~-,:· _,_,.., ' KBL LAB DMSILABORATORIUM LINGKUNGAN No: 31.3/FPP Revisi:O .£KAN KQmite Akrtditasi Naslonal ~.....,.LI'-372-mN PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI lABORA.TORIUM LINGKUNGAN ~ ICl.H No: .. 2TM'I.\'IIII.Ht'llt200f IlK Glob.~. DICI~ No: :t1t1200t LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP 164/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Ala mat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama ProyekfKegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Saluran Kamal No.Sampel 050.1/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 Apri12010 Jenis Sampel SED! MEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 Apri12010 Kode & Keterangan S.1 =UpStream Tgl. Pengujian : 05-14 April2010 Sal uran Kamal Hasil Pengujian (TCLP Anorganik) No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu DL Hasil 2. Flourides mg/L 150,0 0,01 <0,01 3. Nitrate + Nitrit mg/L 1000,0 0,001 0,2 4. Nitrit mg/L 100,0 0,01 <0,01 Keterangan : Ttd- Tak Terd1teks1 Baku mutu- PP RI 85 Thn 1999 DL = Detection Limit Catalan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 19 April 2010 Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc.9. Direktur Laboratorium '' No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 ~KAN Komite Akredltasi Naslonal ~ ....... LP.m.o.! lABOR.\TORIUM LINGKUHGAN KK Kl.H ,.., w,.,...\IM.HI101200J II:.::-\; ..<\''':: .,:t.,;· ;··.':·: > -~";:: ''·WJSMAKBL,Jl.KesehataniVK · · TeiP: J6~·~1 IJF, B_020 (~untlng),f~. (62-2 :.. :,·.. ·:,:)~;),~--, ''' :...-ct~:~~,l~:~·.,:,;,~"·~:-~',t'X~'~I;: :._.,_x/r.~-:0:·'.' ··:~ ~ ~~ ·t:j:~:. ,;~~ --1_~~ =~~:~,:..:~· ~ -- ' . - . '.. '." KBL LAB DMSI LABORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN No: 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorUIP : 090/LHP /IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/ Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Lower Angke No.Sampel 042.2/IV /2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April2010 JeniS Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan S.S =Down Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05-14April2010 Lower Angke (82) Hasil Pengujian (TCLP ORGANIK) No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu Hasil 1. Chlorobenzene mg/L 100 Ttd 2. Chloroform mg/L 6 Ttd 3. Hepta Chlor + Hepta Chlor Epoxite mg/L 0,008 Ttd 4. Lindane mg/L 0,4 Ttd 5. Methoxi Chlor mg/L . 10 Ttd 6. Methyl Ethyl Keton mg/L 200 Ttd 7. Methyl Paration rng/L 0,7 Ttd 8. Nitro Benzene mg/L 2 Ttd 9. Penta Chloro Phenol mg/L 100 Ttd 10. Pyridine mg/L 5 Ttd 11. Parathion mg/L 3,5 Ttd 12. PCBs mg/L 0,3 Ttd 13. Tetrachloroethilen mg/L 0,7 Ttd 14. Trihalomethanes mg/L 35 Ttd 15. 2,4,6- Trichlorophenol mg/L 2 Ttd 16. 2,4,5- TP (silvex) mg/L 1 Ttd 17. Total Cresol mg/L 200 Ttd 18. Vinyl chloride mg/L 0,2 Ttd Keterangan Ttd- Tak Terd1teks1 Baku mutu = PP RI 85 Thn 1999 Catatal' 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. ,. •. J\\h!\rti>:• 1,~,AP,~i!Z,P~O , ~ • LEST JAKl&'flr''-.....-'::1 Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc.~ Direktur Laboratorium .... 1. -~---- • _,,_', )"it'jjrr.<, u-1.-;J·~ ~r:;~Y!' • >' ,• ~• ; :- ..-~ :~._, l= ;;..:;~---==-');;~,{±- " ~- ,~- . . KBL LAB DMSt LABORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN No : 31.3/FPP Revisi:O PT; KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP : 090/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer Pf. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JEDIII Alamat Saluran Tanjungan No.Sampel 039.1/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April 2010 Kode & Keterangan S.7 = Up Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05-14 April2010 Saluran Tanjungan (81) Hasilll'engujian (TCLP Organik) No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu Hasil 1. Chlorobenzene mg/1. 100 Ttd 2. Chloroform mg/L 6 Ttd 3. Hepta Chlor + Hepta Chlor Epoxite mg/L 0,008 Ttd 4. Lindane mg/L 0,4 Ttd 5. Methoxi Chlor mg/L 10 Ttd 6. Methyl Ethyl Keton mg/L 200 Ttd 7. Methyl Paration rng/L 0,7 Ttd 8. Nitro Benzene mg/L 2 Ttd 9. Penta Chloro Phenol mg/L 100 Ttd 10. Pyridine mg/L 5 Ttd 11. Parathion rng/L 3,5 Ttd 12. PCBs mg/L 0,3 Ttd 13. Tetrachloroethilen mg/L 0,7 Ttd 14. Trihalornethanes mg/L 35 Ttd 15. 2,4,6 - Trichlorophenol mg/L 2 Ttd 16. 2,4,5- TP (silvex) mg/L 1 Ttd. 17. Total Cresol mg/L 200 Ttd 18. Vinyl chloride mg/L 0,2 Ttd Keterangan Ttd- Tak Terd1teks1 Baku mutu- PP Rl85 Thn 1999 Catalan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan h~nya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian thlak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium: Jakarta, 19 April2010 ~ -~. ~~- ~~R1~ •""'TAR I .J'AK';,;;;~~ Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. SeQ_ . Direktur Laboratorium . ' . ..;;.t'!..h',..d~r~.~ ·~r::!::n0 1 :~n:e~·. ~~1 ·~ • , • , :- • •• ., 1,£t..'le" ;~l~ ·)''-"''··~ ~ ,_,_ ~ <\.!':,!~f!;:.:.i~.-_,:.1 ' . ~ . ~. .' . . "' . KBL LAB DMSILABORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN No: 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP : 090/LHP/IV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JEDI II Alamat Saluran Tanjungan No.Sampel 039.2/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan 5.8 = Down Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05 -14 April2010 Saluran Tanjungan (52) Hasil Pengujian (TCLP Organik) No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu Hasil 1. Chlorobenzene mg/L 100 Ttd 2. Chloroform mg/L 6 Ttd 3. Hepta Chlor + Hepta Chlor Epoxite mg/L 0,008 Ttd 4. Lindane mg/L 0,4 Ttd 5. Methoxi Chlor mg/L . 10 Ttd 6. Methyl Ethyl Keton mg/L 200 Ttd 7. Methyl Paration mg/L 0,7 Ttd 8. Nitro Benzene mg/L 2 Ttd 9. Penta Chloro Phenol mg/L 100 Ttd 10. Pyridine mg/L 5 Ttd 11. Parathion mg/L 3,5 Ttd 12. PCBs mg/L 0,3 Ttd 13. Tetrachloroethilen mg/L 0,7 Ttd 14. Trihalomethanes mg/L 35 Ttd 15. 2,4,6- Trichlorophenol mg/L 2 Ttd 16. 2,4,5- TP (silvex) mg/L 1 Ttd 17. Total Cresol mg/L 200 Ttd 18. Vinyl chloride mg/L 0,2 Ttd Keterangan Ttd- Tak Terd1teks1 Baku mutu- PP RI 85 Thn 1999 Catalan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhl)ya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. r Jakarta, 19 April2010 ~·~ARI Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc.Q_ Direktur Laboratorium Halaman 2 dari 2 halaman KBL LAB DMSILABORATORIUM LINGKUNGAN No : 31.3/FPP .Revisi:O PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP : 090/LHP/IV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Saluran Kamal No.Sampel 040.1/N/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April 2010 Jenis Sampel SED!MEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan 5.7 = Up Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05- 14 April2010 Saluran Kamal (Sl) Hasill Pengujian (TCLP Organik) No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu Hasll 1. Chlorobenzene mg/L 100 Ttd 2. Chloroform mg/L 6 Ttd 3. Hepta Chlor + Hepta Chlor Epoxite mg/L 0,008 Ttd 4. Lindane mg/L 0,4 Ttd 5. Methoxi Chlor mg/L 10 Ttd 6. Methyl Ethyl Keton mg/L 200 Ttd 7. Methyl Paration mg/L 0,7 Ttd 8. Nitro Benzene mg/L 2 Ttd 9. Penta Chloro Phenol mg/L 100 Ttd 10. Pyridine mg/L 5 Ttd 11. Parathion mg/L 3,5 Ttd 12. PCBs mg/L 0,3 Ttd 13. Tetrachloroethilen mg/L 0,7 Ttd 14.. Trihalomethanes mg/L 35 Ttd 15. 2,4,6- Trichlorophenol mg/L 2 Ttd 16. 2,4,5- TP (silvex) mg/L 1 Ttd. 17. Total Cresol mg/L 200 Ttd 18. Vinyl chloride mg/L 0,2 Ttd Keterangan 1td- Tak Terdttekst Baku mutu- PP Rl85 Thn 1999 Catalan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. . Jakarta, 19 Apri12010 C~.:·~.~·.'''''' . ro.r\AK:;~~ ,. ,·.RI . . . . ( . ' •;.. Drs. E.U. Harahap. M. Scfl_ Direktur Laboratorium Halaman 1 dari 2 halaman KBL LAB llMSI LABORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN No : 31.3/FPP Rcvisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP : 090/LHP/IV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JEDI II Alamat Saluran Kamal No.Sampel 040.2/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April 2010 Kode & Keterangan S.8 =Down Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05-14 April2010 Saluran Kamal (82) Hasil Pengujian (TCLP ORGANIK) No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu Hasil 1. Chlorobenzene mg/L 100 Ttd 2. Chloroform mg/L 6 Ttd 3. Hepta Chlor + Hepta Chlor Epoxite mg/L 0,008 Ttd 4. Lindane mg/L 0,4 Ttd 5. Methoxi Chlor mg/L . 10 Ttd 6. Methyl Ethyl Keton mg/L 200 Ttd 7. Methyl Paration mg/L 0,7 Ttd 8. Nitro Benzene mg/L 2 Ttd '--·· 9. Penta Chloro Phenol mg/L 100 Ttd 10. Pyridine mg/L 5 Ttd 11. Parathion mg/L 3,5 Ttd 12. PCBs mg/L 0,3 Ttd 13. Tetrachloroethilen mg/L 0,7 Ttd 14. Trihalomethanes mg/L 35 Ttd 15. 2,4,6 - Trichlorophenol mg/L 2 Ttd 16. 2,4,5- TP (silvex) mg/L 1 Ttd 17. Total Cresol mg/L 200 Ttd 18. Vinyl chloride mg/L 0,2 Ttd Keterangan Ttd = Tak Terd1teksi Baku mu tu = PP Rl 85 Thn 1999 Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. . ) 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. _ Jakarta, 19 April2010 r<.~.:~~- ~~.(~~~~~;~·;; ."; ;: . ·:·,! . ·~RI .J KART'\ Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Scfl Direktur Laboratorium Hal aman 2 dari 2 halaman . ,'' .====. .,;!!i1£itt~t:1~0 !,';_II:~\-. ' ~ ;_ ,. • - ;"!; \ Q,>.tc;~ ..}'', ~••44!~1~·~~ . r ""-' • • - - • > KBL LAB DIVlSI LABORATORIUM LINGKUNGAN No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENCUJIAN NomorLHP 167/LHP /IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No.150, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JEDIII Alamat Cideng No.Sampel 115.7/N /2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 08 Apri12010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 08 Apri12010 Kode & Keterangan 5.7 = Up Stream Cideng Tgl. Pengujian : 08 -16 Apri12010 Hasil Penguj ian TCLP No. Parameter Satuan Baku Mutu •j Detection Limit Hasil 1. Arsen (As) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 2. Perak ( Ag) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 3. Boron (B) mg/L 500 OA 0,65 4. Barium ( Ba) mg/L 100 1 Ttd 5. Kadmium ( Cd ) mg/L 1 0,1 Ttd 6. Tembaga ( Cu ) mg/L 10 O,G4 Ttd 7. Kromium ( Cr ) mg/L 5 0,004 0,05 8. Raksa (Hg) mg/L 0,2 0,002 Ttd 9.Nikel ( Ni) mg/L - 0,1 Ttd 10.Timbal ( Pb) mg(L 5 0,1 Ttd 11. Selenium ( Se ) mg/L" 1 0,002 Ttd 12. Seng (Zn) mg(L 50 O,OZ 2,84 Keterangan *)-Baku Mutu PP RI No. 85 Tahun 1999 Ttd = Tidak Terdeteksi Catalan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji: 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 22 Apri12010 Drs. E.U. Harahap, M.Sc.,t; Direktur Laboratorium • ' •• Halaman 1 dari 2 halaman .·,, -_ . .>_ .,_- :;':.:.,;-._O:,_>>:;<.:':;':r'(1;; - . --:. ·_ -W-ISMAKBL;·.II. KeSehatail.IVK Telp.·-_{62~21) 7.37 .89~0- (~4~~ng}--F,:a>c:_:(~2~2 . ; '-- ·:- .- . ; -_,-· ·- :_- ·;- ' ·~ -. -~-'·. - ~-- .'- ___. ·-:: KBL LAB DIVISILABORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUIIAN NomorLHP 166R/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Lower Angke No.Sampel 110.8/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 06 April2010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 06 April2010 Kode & Keterangan 5.8 = Down Stream Lower Angke Tgl. Pengujian : 06-14 April2010 Hasil Pengujian TCLP No. Parameter Satuan Baku Mutu •) Detection Limit Hasil 1. Arse.n (As) mg/L 5 0,002 Tid 2. Perak (Ag) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 3. Boron(B) mg/L 500 0,4 1,8 4. Barium(Ba) mg/L 100 1 1,2 5. Kadmium ( ·cd ) mg/L 1 0,1 Ttd 6. Tembaga ( Cu ) mg/L 10 0,04 1.38 7. Kromium ( Cr ) mg/L 5 0,004 0,75 8. Raksa (Hg) mg/L 0,2 0,002 Ttd 9. Nikel ( Ni) mg/L - 0,1 0,62 10. Timbal (Pb) mg/L 5 0,1. Tid 11. Selenium ( Se ) mg/L · 1 0,002 Ttd 12. Seng ( Zn) mg/L 50 0,02 3,63 Keterangan *) -Baku Mutu PP Rl No. 85 Tahun 1999 Ttd = Tidak Terdeteksi Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis diui laboratorium. Jakarta, 20 April2010 Drs. E.U. Harahap. M.Sc. J? Direktur Laboratorium Halaman 1 dari 2 halaman - . . . ·:7:0·;h:;~~-j~~;~Ji:~1~iiiiif)t~~~~~~~;~;r~:f.~Jf:2 ~~~~::£~~~-?:. .·~ :.~~·~ J::.'·'o;jt!,':.'l;;.~~'"' ~ ~ -.,rlit•'..:J.f!J.itb1- .o!Witf" :.:L'~\ .~ ·- · . . ' . ; y • - • • ·* ~ - S'c , ._.;r_:_,7 _,__,.~ - ' '.,'. KBL LAB DMSI LABORATORIUM LINGKUNGAN No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP 165RjLHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Kali Tanjungan No.Sampel 107.7/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterarigan 5.7 =Up Stream Kali Tanjungan Tgl. Pengujian : 05- 12 April2010 Hasil Pengujian TCLP No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu *) Detection Limit Hasil 1. Arsen(As) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 2. Perak (Ag) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 3. Boron (B) mg/L 500 0.4 1,2 4. Barium ( Ba) mg/L 100 1 Ttd 5. Kadmium (Cd) rng/L 1 0,1 0,1 6. Tembaga ( Cu) mg/L 10 0,04 0,16 7. Kromium ( Cr) mg/L 5 0,004 0,05 8. Raksa (Hg) mg/L 0,2 0,002 Ttd 9. Nikel ( Ni) mg/L - 0,1 Ttd 10. Tlmbal (Pb) mg/L 5 0,1. Ttd 11. Selenium ( Se) mg/L · 1 0,002 Ttd 12. Seng (Zn) mg/L 50 . 0,02 3,42 Keterangan *) Baku Mutu PP RI No. 85 Tahun 1999 Ttd ~ Tidak Terdeteksi Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. · 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari Iaboratorium. Jakarta, 19 April2010 PT. KARSA B~STARI JAKARTA Drs. E. U. Harahap, M.Sc. Ji· Direktur Laboratorium ' • Halaman 1 dari 2 halaman :·,.:? .. •~-c. . -' ' . KBL LAB DMSI LAB ORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN ' NomorLHP 165R/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No.150, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Kali Tanjungan No.Sampel 107.8/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel · SED! MEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April 2010 Kode & Keterangan S.S = Down Stream Kali Tanjungan Tgl. Pengujian : 05-12 April2010 Hasil Pengujian TCLP No. Parameter Satuan Baku Mutu*) Detection Limit Hasil 1. Arsen(As) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 2. Perak ( Ag) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 3. Boron(B) mg/L 500 0,4 1,35 4. Barium( Ba) mg/L 100 1 Ttd 5. Kadmium ( Cd) mg/L 1 0,1 0,2 6. Tembaga ( Cu) mg/L 10 0,04 0,18 7. Kromium ( Cr ) mg/L 5 0,004 0,28 8. Raksa (Hg) mg/L 0,2 0,002 Ttd 9. Nikel ( Ni) mg/L - 0,1 Ttd 10. Timbal (Pb) mg/L 5 0,1 Ttd 11. Selenium (Se) mg/L 1 0,002 Ttd 12. Seng (Zn) mg/L 50 0,02 3,84 Keterangan *) -Baku Mutu PP RI No. 85 Tahun 1999 Ttd = Tidak Terdeteksi Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2.' Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dai:i laboratorium. Jakarta, 19 April2010 Drs. E.U. Harahap, M.Sc. J/ Direktur Labonitorium Halaman 2 dari 2 halaman - -· ~, f~:_;'::~-\ :, ::;':/~:i~~j~;:~fir~~~~';_.~i~ ~s~;-~t~-~~;;i~niV' _:·;:~_j.:~ _;\Tet#/(62~21) 7'37_802o·(f:rul'itirl'Sfif'a;(~.,-(62~2 ~-,·.,_\>, ·:-::', -~~-- ·_-i!\:':{t-~lJii~·;~:·::_:-;;,_:,f,L :~~~·:·,·:·.- -:~~-;t· -:~:;-:-; 'ii·:·?t~·;, >1::2 KBL LAB DtVISI LADORATORIUM UNGKUNGAH No : 3 1.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTAhl LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorlliP .166R/LHP/IV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat JI. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JEDI II Alamat LowerAngke No.Sampel 110.7/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 06 April 2010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 06 Apri12010 Kode & Keterangan S.7 =Up Stream Lower Angke Tgl. Pengujian : 06- 14 April 2010 Hasil Pengujian Total Logam No. Parameter Satuan Detection Limit Hasil 1.Arsen (As) mg/kg 0,003 5,07 2.Perak (Ag) mg/kg 0,003 Ttd 3.Boron (B) mg/kg 0,6 3,46 4. Barium( Ba) mg/kg 2 18,25 5. Kadmium ( Cd) mg/kg 0,2 6,05 6. Tembaga (Cu) mg/kg 0,()6 26,2 7. Kromium ( Cr) mg/kg 0,006 13,44 8. Raksa (Hg) mg/kg 0,001 Ttd 9. Nikel ( Ni) mg/kg 0,2 14,25 10. Timbal (Pb) mg/kg 0,1 3,03 . 11. Selenium ( Se ) mg/kg· 0,003 Ttd 12. Seng(Zn) mg/kg O,Q3 71,45 Keterangan : Ttd- T1dak Terdeteks1 Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 20 April2010 .r PT. KAR~; l'OSTARI Drs. E.U. Harahap, M.ScQ_ Direktur Laboratorium ' ' Halaman 1 dari 2 halaman . .- ~';: .~:,:::':_~'.,_, ' ";_:~-~i'Jii·~~}Ji:.:~h~ffit~~ · · · • Teii);'(6i,zi) 737 sozo·(~y·~\in!lic>~iljfl•(6~;z :: ,;_: -_.'0~?.:·, ·:::·. ·:·'·~_'-;.'"-; ~ :·,~·_'" :· _;.:•;';,->,":} ·)';~i;·,;:,·;;;:.c')>;;t No : 31.3/FPP KBL LAB D1V1S1 LASORATORIUM LINGKUNGAN Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN Nomorl,HP 166R/LHP/IV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat JI. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat LowerAngke No.Sampel 110.8/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 06 April2010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 06 April2010 Kode & Keterangan S.B = Down Stream Lower Angke Tgl. Pengujian : 06- 14 April2010 Hasil Pengujian Total Logam No. Parameter Satuan Detection Limit Hasil Arsen (As) 1. mg/kg 0,003 3,07 Perak (Ag) 2. mg/kg 0,003 Ttd Boron (B) 3. mg/kg 0,6 368 Barium ( Ba) 4. mg/kg 2 25,2 Kadmium ( Cd) 5. mg/kg 0,2 6,05 Tembaga ( Cu) 6. mg/kg 0,06 28,42 Kromium (Cr) 7. mg/kg 0,006 16,31 Raksa (Hg) 8. mg/kg 0,001 Ttd Nikel ( Ni) 9. mg/kg 0,2 16,5 10. Timbal (Pb) mg/kg 0,1 3,4 11. Selenium ( Se) mg/kg 0,003 Ttd 12. Seng (Zn) mg/kg 0,03 78,4 Keterangan . Ttd T!dak Terdeteks1 Catalan I. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. . Jakarta, 20 April2010 t. PT. K A R S . k LESTARI Drs. E.U. Harahap, M.Sc!;)_ Direktur Laboratorium ;- ' Halaman 1 dari 2 halaman - . . ,-. >' ·)· :·:·;,y.::_;:;-:·~~'.;~:~:'f/(,;',,-,_ · /.·:,-:;:·:·:: ·::~- ~,.,--.--;_::·.,::::· · • --w~~~L:·~I~,_~h~~~,1~~~ .}· ·.h• : -.:~~-~'/·}: :·.-~ _·:.~.-·: _.<.: ~ -.·:_·.;~-~ .-t.:.·. ~.\.-~.L.~_-;.~.:•.::X):':;':: _;:c; · ·. TelP; _-(~_2_-~1) _737 8~_20 (l:ll!~t!lig) ·-~--_·} _ _,;:t·.:' -~};: 'f_:- Fa,c·. _:(6~~~ KBL LAB DIVISILASORATORIUM LINGKUNGAN No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUTIAN NomorLHP 165R/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat JI. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JEDIII Alamat Kali Tanjungan No.Sampel 107.7/IV /2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerim!lan Sampel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan S.7 = Up Stream Kali Tanjungan Tgl. Pengujian : 05- 12 April2010 Hasil Pengujian Total Logam No. Parameter Satuan Detection Limit Hasil 1. Arsen (As) mg/kg 0,003 7,02 2. Silver ( Ag) ·. mg/kg 0,003 Ttd 3. Boron (B) mg/kg 0,6 2,54 4. Barium ( Ba) mg/kg 2 18, I 5. Kadmium ( Cd ) mg/kg 0,2 0,26 6. Copper(Cu) mg/kg 0,06 3,54 7. Chromium ( Cr ) mg/kg 0,006 1,42 8. Mercuri ( Hg ) mg/kg 0,001 Ttd 9. Nikel ( Ni) mg/kg 0,2 Ttd 10. Lead (Ph) mg/kg 0,1 .8,01 11. Selenium ( Se) mg/kg 0,003 Ttd 12. Seng (Zn) mg/kg O,Q3 78,2 Keterangan : Ttd- T1dak Terdeteks1 Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 19 Apri12010 PT. KARSA BUI.M:..li~'.f;(fi:j~~~.!t1;J$.;., "'-1_tfi~~- ' " ·'-:: ;' : l'$"' '._,, :,,)' .; ;- ~t::~!.t"~r:\~:l'·~·~::,;"'.'--~¥~~<- ::}_ · . ~ ~ ":: ~: :i --~t(. No: 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 LAPORAN HASIL PENG"UJIAN NomorLHP 165R/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JEDI II Alamat Kali Tanjungan No.Sampel 107.8/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel · SEDIMEN Tgl. Peneri.J):laan Sampel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan S.S =Down Stream Kali Tanjungan Tgl. Pengujian : 05 -12 April2010 Hasil Pengujlan Total Logam No. Parameter Satuan Detection Limit Hasil 1. Arsen(As) mg/kg 0,003 9,02 2. Silver ( Ag) mg/kg 0,003 Ttd 3. Boron( B) mg/kg 0,6 3,45 4. Barium ( Ba) mgfkg 2 19,32 5. Kadmium ( Cd ) mg/kg 0,2 0,55 . 6. Copper(Cu) mg/kg 0,06 3,6 7. Chromium ( Cr) mg/kg 0,006 4,45 8. Mercuri ( Hg ) mg/kg 0,001 Ttd 9. Nikel ( Ni) mg/kg 0,2 Ttd 10. Lead (Pb) mg/kg 0,1 8,02 11. Selenium ( Se ) mg/kg 0,003 Ttd 12. Seng (Zn) mg/kg O,D3 81,44 Keterangan : Ttd - Tidak Terdeteks1 Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 19 April 2010 STARI Drs. E.U. Harahap, M.ScQ. Direktur Laboratorium -i No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP 164R/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Cons\lltan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Kamal No.Sampel 105.7/IV /2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April 2010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan S.7 = Up Stream Kamal Tgl. Pengujian : 05 - 12 Apri12010 Hasil Penguj ian Total Logam No. Parameter Satuan Detection Limit Hasil 1. Arsen (As) mg/kg 0,003 1,06 2. Perak (Ag} mg/kg 0,003 Ttd 3. Boron (B) mg/kg 0,6 2,8 4. Barium (Ba) mg/kg 2 17,5 5. Kadmium ( Cd ) mg/kg 0,2 0,42 6. Tembaga ( Cu ) mg/kg 0,06 10,3 7. Kromium ( Cr ) mg/kg 0,006 13,63 8. Raksa (Hg) mg/kg 0,001 Ttd 9. Nikel ( Ni) mg/kg 0,2 0,9 10. Timbal (Pb) mg/kg 0,1 .6,03 11. Selenium ( Se ) mg/kg 0,003 Ttd 12. Seng ( Zn) rng/kg 0,03 84,22 Keterangan . Ttd T1dak Terdeteks1 Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jalcirta, 19 April 2010 !'T. KARSA B;JU'""--!..t; JP..KI\P,T Drs. E.U. Harahap, M.Sc9-- Direktur Laboratorium . . :;. .. ' u ;:;,nk.!J:: ~.~!:'if\:;· -·-~·:· . . ' :_(t' iff;: .• :~--·~-?~·' ~,__:]_:_,·!~-;::-. ' KBL LAB DIVIS! lAB ORATORIUM LINGKUNGAN No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP .164R/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Ala mat Kamal No.Sampel 105.8/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaa11 Sampel : 05 April 2010 Kode & Keterangan S.S = Down Stream Kamal Tgl. Pengujian : 05 -12 April2010 Hasil Pengujian Total Logam No. Parameter Satuan Detection Limit Hasil 1. Arsen (As) mg/kg 0,003 2,06 2. Perak (Ag) mg/kg 0,003 Ttd 3. Boron (B) mg/kg 0,6 2,8 4. Barium ( Ba) mg/kg 2 19,24 5. Kadmium ( Cd) mg/kg 0,2 0,6 6. Tembaga ( Cu ) mg/kg 0,06 10,41 7. Kromium ( Cr) mg/kg 0,006 14,52 8. Raksa (Hg) mg/kg 0,001 Ttd 9. Nikel ( Ni) mg/kg 0,2 0,95 10. Timbal ( Pb) mg/kg 0,1 .6,04 11. Selenium ( Se ) mg/kg 0,003 Ttd 12. Seng ( Zn) mg/kg om86,3 Keterangan : Ttd - Ttdak Terdetekst Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 19 April 2010 Drs. E.U. Harahap, M.Sc.9-- Direktur Laboratorium Halaman 2 dari 2 halaman ==== . ·.··. ·• WISMAKiiL!i'~h~i~~Tv' -;;~~:·;i;~~?f.:~-~~.i~,':~~~:~,,~,~--~ . Telp. (62·21) 737.8020 (H~o~ng) fiili; ,(62· -. ,~~ . - '~ ._ '. . . ' .. ,·-.',,. --. - -:- - - ~ . ' KBL LAB DIVISI LAB ORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN No: 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJI'AN Nomor LHP 166/LHP/IV /2010 Nama cu·stomer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat ]1. Prapanca Buntu No.1 50, jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Lower Angke No.Sampel 110.3/IV/2010 Tgl. l'engambilan Sampel : 06 April2010 · jenis Sam pel PLANKTON Tgl. Penerimaan Sam pel : 06 April2010 KoM & Keterangan P.3 =Up Stream Lower Angke Tgl. Pengujian : 06- 14 April 2010 'I PenguJian H as• NO I INDIVIDU I )UMLAH FITOPLANKTON CHRYSOPHYTA I Coscinodiscus lacustris i Biddrtlpllia SJ2. ·----------=- 450 90 t G!!lfritradus sp. 90 I Nat•icula •E· --· 450 I Nitzschia sp. 360 CYANOPHYTA ; (.}.;;cii/IIIOrirl S..E.:..__ ·-- ·- 180 ~~-lah_!!l~_"idu(_L___ --- _____ .. ___ ----· 1620 jUinldl~ Texa 6 H-Max-lnS 1,79 lndeks Diversitas (H') - - Z Pi In J:>i 1,6'1 1 .... _________ I -· - --··-·· ····-- Evennes (E)- H' /InS . 0,90 1 . (SHA~~!\!0~- WIENNER, 1949) ' .. - .' 0.,~ - - - - - - - - -------- - - - - - - - - - - '' I NO : INDIVIDU JUMLAH ZOOPLANKTON f-'A:..:R:.:T.:.:H;.::o:RO:=-PO=D.::.:A:__-,----,.---------------.---·· --~-"----------1 ~------~/:!!J!.'.!.~iat.l;:::".:::".t:P.:.:Ii.::u~s,:"J~fc:'·:J..l--::______________ ..._______ ?1~'u j I Lrlt:-f!'t:t'si 1cup~podJtt? sp.) 70 r.oi'R"'O~T""o"'z::::o A 1 I Plwroi!CIIlll sp. 450 I ROTATORIA I Brac/Jiouus ~p. ···- ---·----~--- -··-- · --· -- -------~~0- l ~rnlahlndividu(L.. .----·------------ ··- ___ ..........JQ.~ )m~~J'_exn_____ ,.. ·--·- _____ 4 M•x = h'.~... - ....... _ · - - - - - - - - . ....:. .. _______ ....... ___________ 1 11~- _!~~<~_Q_ivcrsilas(1-i') ~- L Pi In Pi _ _ _ _ __ ·-- 1,3·1 I Evennes(E)=_H'/InS ____ ------.... - ..- -... 0,94j ~~~e:~~~~~~,~~~...N.;r~M~1-- .. ____ --- ---.,.- -- ·· · - - ··· ---·_a;i91. t..5impson "!'d Simj•oon (1971) -:c:;--;----;--;--;----,------,·--..,--;:------- Cnlalatl: 1. l·in~;il yrlng dil"ampilkan hanyn berlwbungnn dengan s.mlpel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak bolch dignndakcin kccuali seluruhnya tcmpr1 p<~rsetujuan tertuli!' d,1ri laboratorium. r ]<>karla, 20 April 20HJ r Prs. E. U. Harahap, M.Sc9- 1)irekl11r J..;,borntnrium KBL LAB DIVIS! LAB ORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN No: 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP 166/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Ala mat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, Jakarta Seiatan Nama Proyek/ Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Ala mat Lower Angke No.Sampel 110.4/IV /2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 06 April 20l0 jenis Sampei PLANKTON Tgl. Penerimaan Sam pel : 06 April 2010 Kode & Keterangan P.4 =Down Stream Lower Angke Tgl. Pengujian : 06- 14 April 2010 ••• H 'I PenguJian NO I INDIVIDU I JUMLAH FITOI'LANKTON CHRYSOPHYTA ' G1sduodiscEts lacttsfris . 180 Nat,icula sp. 90 Nitzschia sp. 540 Pleurosigma sp. -----··· 360 CYANOPHYTA - ·-·--·---- ·--------·- I Oscil/atoria sp. 1- Jumlah lndtvlduf_L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _+--------- Jumldh TExd -· 270 1440 5 • I ' H-Max = In 5 1,61 Indeks Diversitas H' =-I: Pi In _________1,46 , Evennes E = H' /In 5 0,91 , (SHANNON- WIENNER, 1949) B4i·;~~~~~~~~~::~~~ ~~~7;;i~-- -----· _________________ ---------------------~-~------ _-·---~~~-! NO . INDIVIDU JUMLAH "J ZOOPLANKTON ------------ --· ______________ _j ARTHROPODA ~ r~~~-~_,=c=O=f'~<'~IIO~d~tl~(~ll-OL-IJ~,J~iU_S_S_p_.)~----------------,---------------~360. ROTATOR!/\ j Brnchiomr::: _. ____ sn. 270 -! I Mouostyla sp. jumlah lndividu/L -----=~=-== -------- -27oj 900' jumlah Texa -------- < 3 H-Max -InS 1,10 ; lndeks Diversitas (H') =- 1: Pi In Pi 1,09 ' Evennes (E) - H' I InS 0,99 I i-(SI!ANNCl~-~\_I~NNEk, lnde~' IC ' ' 1949) D<>mimmsi (D) - L: (l'i) 2 ···--·- _ ------·T-. _ .-. ·----·------ -·---- ___ ---·--· --. 0,34 _j Sim son and Sim son (1971) Catatun : 1. l-lusil yang ditcunpilkan hcmya b~rhu bu11gan ~.-k•ni;;;~~~~~-~l~.:·l )<.1-;,g-d iuji. ----- -- .. --· . --·-----·-- --··- --- 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digundakan ki..'>cuali seluruhnyH tr~npn pt•rst:'tujuctn terlulis dari l.:·!~~1~- - ------ -·- 1350 -- =~-=-~ P/eurosi.KIIIl1 sp. 45(1 CYANOPHYTA --------- I Ly11glnJ" sp. I 1- ! 0>cilla1Qrin_~P- I ----- 90 · EUGLENOPHYI ·\ ~-~ p,;;;; us 5~~------- ----:lscr jumlah lndividu/ L Jum.lah Tex a ·-- -- -- --------------- - 2jj H-Max -In 5 lndeks Diversitas (H') --I: Pi In pi "OS 6 I !--,-~vennes (E)= H~/~n s_ -----· 0,75~ > -------------,-- ------ --·--- -·------i (),2-J : ---. N;;:D"I""V;-;l-;:D;-;-U-;----------,------;j-U-lv-lL-Al--l-------, ~N;;:O_,------------;I7 ~OO!LA_l'£~:!".9.1'/_________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · ___________________ _..! i_:J~=~~~~.?~~~,:.~~~iit~~ l CmslucM (nauplius sp.} -------------- ··-.. -··----·--· ---------·---27~ ·----···--·---··-·--···-·. -··-·- '106-·i I'Ror~~~.~:,lei~.P..:...____ . . _____ . _ . . ______ __ _ ____________ -?-~9. ! _ u ____ )urn.lah .lndividu/ L ------------· 610 lumloh T0xa 3 IJ:j:M,\x ~In 5 - ----- ·------l;lO l1r1deb Divl...•rsi~a" (H'J-- L F'i In Pi - - . 1,06 e·----····c· ----·--------·-·--------------------- - - - - - - - - - --·--·-···-------·-·---·--· ·,. Evenn12s (E)= !-l' ,-'!r: ~ _j 0,~7 I ' ~;:~~-~~~~;~~:1~l~~;;~1~ ----==~~~~~~=~=~=-:l~~~~~-~-- ~:~----~~~: ~~.;~~ 91 Hnsil ynng ditampilkan hanyknrl,,, 16 April2010 r ~ pT. "ARS JAI·~Ai~fA lh:;. E. _!J. H..P;-:9:..7:1,'-:;~-:---:--:--:---...,.----·-,----;:-,::-- C,1tatan.: 1. H;.1sil yang dilampilkan hnnya bl•rhuhungclll d~;"ngl'lujuiln tcrtulis d;.lri l<.1horntorium. Jnkarlo~. 16 April 20'1 0 p·r. t~AHSA ll •. TARI JAI\t\HfA Dr•. E. U. Harai!·'P· M.Sc.'l- Nn : 31.3/FPP KBL LAB DIVISILABORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN Re,·isi: 0 iiii._ PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI . LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN Nomor LHP 164/LHP/IV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consul tan Ala mat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengeru kan JED! II A lamat Kamal No.Sampel 105.3/TV /2010 Tgl. Pengnmbilan Snm~x'l : 05 April 2010 Jenis Sampel PLANKTON Tgl. l'enerimaan Sam pel 05 April 2010 Kode & Keterangan P.3 = Up Stream I (E)- f-1' /InS . 0,70 J~J:!~NNON _: \'{~ENNER, 1949) !-Jnd~ks llomin_an~i (D)~~ (Pi)' --· i 0,34 lStmpson ~md 5tmpson (1971) 1 NO I : ZOOPLANKTON ______I_N_D_I_v_m_u_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--JU~LAH -:------l I ARTHROPODA .=;~ f-_ "':"':,·:"'~A':-~-o;,;:;~~~;o~t;c':,.:,:,"-'('~:--':"'''::..-~-~;_"_-~_·_'_·l·~~~~~~~~~~~~~----------i'----~~~------===~ Li ~~~:~~:;~;:{· ----------------_-_-_-_-+r,--- --- - ---------· 1 ;9~0_1 9 '! jumlah Individt~iL )umlah T<'x<< ·~'----------- I -------/----- 'I i ~ IT:-1-!\-1;;-, =-i;~-s ---- ------------------- --------- ---- ·---~------ - ------ ----- · ----1,39-1 I Jndek.s Diversitas (I-I')=-~ Pi In Pi __________________ 1,~4 Evenn~s E = J-1' j InS 0,89 ~_I:lAN~()~: WI_~NNER, 1949) ------------------l------ _. ---------·-·---- __ . i_ I nd(~~~_!_)~~i .'E:~~~~ {D)--~ 2.: {~E_ _____________ ---------· ·---- ______ __;____ _______ ... _ __ ....--···-- 0,32. t Simp~on nnd Simpson (1971) ,.. ____._ ------------·--------·--·_j C~ll.;:lliut : '1. l-lasil yang dit,tmpilknn lwnyu b~rhuhunBJil dengan s~1mpel yang: diuji. 2. Laporan hasiJ pengujian tidak bOieh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanp,=t peri')etujuan tertulis dc1ri laboratorium. r !}r~. 1.:. U. I rara!t.lp. :\·LS'-~ l"'i.-•• 1~••• .. I ... 1.. ~-·.1~-:: ... ~. lhl~un:Hl I rl~wi -l h~d:11n:m KB~i-~~~--Kereh~~~~--=,~-~ (~•/n~i~g} :~ax~_t6~-2 KBL LAB DIVISI LABORATORlUM UNGKUNGAN No: 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGU}IAN NomorLHP 164/LHP/IV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat JI. Prapanca Buntu No.1SD, jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II A lama! Kamal No.Sampel '105.4/IV/20Hl Tgl. P~ngambilan Sanlpt~l : OS April 2010 jenis Sam pel PLANKTON Tgl. I>e1terimaan San1pel 05 April 2010 Kode & Keterangan P.4 =Down Stream Kamal Tgl. Pengujian : OS- 12 April 2010 "IPenguJlan · H ast NO I INDIVIDU JUMLAH l'HOPLANKTON CHRYSOPHYTA Cos~iltodiscus lacustris 270 Navicuipep<>d;,(na~plius sp.) _l ·- ------····--,8~ \ Crustacea (nauplius sp.) I --- 360 PROTOZOA --------- ·---·- I Pleuronema sp. 360 ROTATOR! A \ MOIIi!SIIJ/a sp. 180 Jumlah lndividu_/ L ·tG30 1 .. ----------------n . 4 ~~·hTexa ·- --- ~~:-= -=~~~::.-=~HE 1-1-Max =InS ·- lndeks Diversitas (!-I') - -1: Pi In Pi Evennes (E)= H' jln S 0,% I . ' - ·--·-- ---- -- ------·· ------ -- . : C<1tutnn : "1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungm1 dengan smnpel yang diuji;f 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakctn kt•cuali S(•luruhnya tI\Itnrium .,•;-~' .... :J"Jl!' {> "'!"11'"' :~~:\ ·. . - .. ' ,_ '~ => - ~" f• : :~· \ - .• ' '~ ...-:.L' ..::..,.• 1= - ~ • • • KBL LAB DMSI LAB ORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN No: 31.3/FPI} Revisi:O PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP 166/LHP/IV/2010 Nama Customer Pl. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No.lSD, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Ala mat Lower Angke No.Sampel 110.1-2 /IV /2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sam pel : 06 April2010 Jenis Sampel AIR PERMUKAAN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel 06 April 2010 Kode & Keterangan AP.l =Up Stream Lower Angke Tgl. Pengujian 06- 14 April 2010 AP.2 = Down Stream Lower Angke Metode Pengambilan Sam pel SNI 06-2412-1991 Hasil Pengujian f-- ~~---~~~----~~--H~asil~ No. Parameter Satuan Baku Mutu *) AP.l L. Debit m' I detik - 2,5 - Catatan 1. Hasil yang d1tampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diujC- 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh J.igdndakan kecudli se1urultnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. J~<~; };~ ;1t'•:'~:c~'- KBL LAB DMSl LABORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP : 090/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl..Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat LowerAngke No.Sampel 042.1/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel : 05 April2010 Jenis Sam pel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sam pel : 05 April 2010 Kode & Keterangan 5.7 = Up Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05 ·14 April2010 Lower Angke (81) Hasil Pengujian (TCLP LOGAM- LQGAM) No. Parameter Satuan Baku Mutu DL Hasil 1. Arsen (As) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 2. Silver (Ag) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 3. Boron (B) mg/L 500 0,4 1,5 4. Barium (Ba) mg/L 100 1 Ttd 5. Kadmium (Cd) mg/L 1 0,1 Ttd 6. Copper (Cu) mg/L 10 0,04 1,2 ' 7. Chromium (Cr) mg/L 5 0,004 0,55 .. 8. Mercuri (Hg) mg/L 0,2 0,002 Ttd 9. Nikel (Ni) mg/L - 0,1 0,6 I Lead (Pb) 10. mg/L 5 0,1 Ttd ! 11. Selenium (Se) mg/L 1 0,002 Ttd 12. Seng(Zn) mg/L 50 0,02 3,44 Keterangan : Ttd = Tak Terd•teks1 Baku mutu = PP Rl85 Thn 1999 DL = Detection Limit Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakart,I Drs, E.U. Harahap. M. Sc.Q Direktur Laboratorium Halaman 1 dcui 2 halaman .KBL LAB No: 313/FPP Revisi :0 D1V1S1 LABORATORIUM LINGKUNGAN PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUTIAN NomorLHP : 090/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama ProyekfKegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat LowerAngke No.Sampel 042.2/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sam pel : 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sam pel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan 5.8 = Down Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05- 14 April 2010 Lower Angke (52) Hasil Pengujian (TCLP LOGAM- LOG AM) .. No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu DL Hasil 1. Arsen (As) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 2. Silver (Ag) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 3. Boron(B) mg/L 500 0,4 1,8 4. Barium (Ba) mg/L 100 1 1,2 5. Kadmium (Cd) mg/L 1 0,1 Ttd 6. Copper (Cu) mg/L 10 0,04 1,38 7. Chromium (Cr) mg/L 5 0,004 0,75 8. Mercuri (Hg) mg/L 0,2 0,002 Ttd 9. Nikel (Ni) mg/L . 0,1 0,62 10. Lead (Pb) n1g/L 5 0,1 Ttd 11. Selenium (Se) mg/L 1 0,002 Ttd 12. Seng (Zn) mg/L 50 0,02 3,63 Keterangan - Tak Terd1teks1 : Ttd- Baku mutu - - PP RIBS Thn 1999 DL =Detection Limit Catalan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan terhtlis dari 1aboratorium. JakMta, 19 Apri12010 Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. SeQ. Dil·ektur Laboratorium Halaman 2 dari 2 halaman . . . ,' ,.t')k,_•(!:~~~'ti! ,:,~1!~-~ - "' "? "'. -.,> I• : ':;,.,,•1 ..., •'~' £,..::!~~~!.'_• t= . - t ' KBL LAB DMSI LADORATORIUM UNGKUNGAN No: 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP : 090/LHP/IV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Saluran Tanjungan No.Sampel 039.1/N/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sam pel : 05 April 2010 Jenis Sam pel SED! MEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sam pel : 05April2010 Kode & Keterangan 5.7 = Up Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05- 14 Apri12010 Saluran Tanjungan (81) Hasil Pengujian (TCLP LOGAM- LOG AM) No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu DL Hasil 1. Arsen (As) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 2. Silver (Ag) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 3. Boron (B) mg/L 500 OA 1.2 4. Barium (Ba) mg/L 100 1 Ttd 5. Kadmium (Cd) mg/L 1 0,1 0,1 6. Copper (Cu) mg/L 10 0,04 0,16 7. Chromium (Cr) mg/L 5 0,004 0,05 8. 9. 10. Mercuri (Hg) Nikel (Ni) Lead (Pb) mg/L mg/L mg/L 0,2 - 5 0,002 0,1 0,1 +- Ttd Ttd Ttd 11. Selenium (Se) mg/L 1 0,002 Ttd 12. Seng (Zn) mg/L 50 O,D2 3,42 Keterangan : Ttd = Tak TerdtJekst Baku mutu = PP Rl85 Thn 1999 ' DL = Detection Limit Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sam pel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. · · Jakarta, 19 April2010 '' ~~::",· r •· ""~v';',';'."'"''·"-'""'! Drs. E.U. 1-larahap, M. Sc.r;) Direktur Laboratorium Halaman 1 dari 2 halcllllan ·:. --_.' ..__ -·- --- ,-..,;:,-_ ·;; --~... --:~.::-;<: -,·;:{r;:;~~:t:~~ . · . > , :·WISMA KBL, ~I. Kesehatan IVK Te!p. (62_;21) 737_8020 (Hunti~g) Xa>c-.162·2 No : 3l.JIFPP Revisi: 0 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP : 090/LHP/IV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Saluran Tanjungan No.Sampel 039.2/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sam pel : 05 April 2010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sam pel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan S.B = Down Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05-14 Apri12010 Saluran Tanjungan (S2) Hasll Pengujian (TCLP LOG AM- LOG AM) No. Parameter Satuan Baku Mutu DL Hasil 1. Arsen (As) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 2. Silver (Ag) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 3. Boron (B) mg/L 500 0,4 1.35 4. Barium (Ba) mg/L 100 1 Ttd 5. Kadmium (Cd) mg/L 1 0,1 0,2 6. Copper (Cu) mg/L 10 0,04 0,18 7. Chromium (Cr) mg/L 5 0,004 0,28 8. Mercuri (Hg) mg/L 0,2 0,002 Ttd 9. Nikel (Ni) mg/L - 0,1 Ttd 10. Lead (Pb) mg/L 5 0,1 Ttd 11. Selenium (Se) mg/L 1 0,002 Ttd 12. Seng (Zn) i mg/L 50 0,02 3,84 Keterangan : Ttd = Tak Terd1teks1 Baku mutu = PP Rl 85 Thn 1999 DL = Detection Limit Catalan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 19 April 2010 ' ' Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc.g Direktur Laboratorium Halaman 2 dari 2 hnlaman ·;· ·. •. ·.~\~!I·· ":·:· \.·: :,'.g··~.?,1~~ft~~~~J»xlt~i~~ri~~1~;,j No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUTIAN NomorLHP : 090/LHP fiV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama ProyekjKegiatan Pengerukan JEDI II Alamat Saluran Kamal No.Sampel 040.1/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sam pel : 05 Apri12010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan 5.7 =Up Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05- 14 April 2010 Saluran Kamal (Sl) Hasil Pengujian (TCLP LOG AM- LOG AM) No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu DL Hasil 1. Arsen (As) mg/L -- 5 0,002 Ttd 2. Silver (Ag) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 3. Boron (B) mg/L 500 0,4 1,2 4. Barium (Ba) mg/L 100 1 Ttd 5. Kadmium (Cd) mg/L 1 0,1 0,15 6. Copper (Cu) mg;L· 10 0,04 I 0,5 7. Chromium (Cr) mg/L 5 0,004 0,18 8. Mercuri (Hg) mg/L 0,2 0,002 Ttd 9. Nikel (Ni) - 0,1 Ttd mg/L I 10. Lead (Pb) mg/L 5 0,1 Ttd 11. Selenium (Se) mg/L 1 0,002 Ttd 12. Seng (Zn) mg/L 50 0,02 3,85 Keterangan : Ttd - Tak Terd1teksi Baku mutu - PP Rl85 Thn 1999 DL = Detection Limit Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. . · Jakarta, 19 April 2010 ' [~·' Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc~. Direktur Laboratorium Halaman 1 dari 2 halaman No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUIIAN NomorLHP : 090/LHP /IV /2010 Nama Customer J.Yf. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No. B-50, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Saluran Kamal No.Sampel 040.2/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sam pel : 05 April 2010 Jenis Sampel SEDIMEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April 2010 Kode & Keterangan 5.8 = Down Stream Tgl. Pengujian : 05-14 April 2010 Saluran Kamal (52) Hasil Pengujian (TCLP LOGAM- LOG AM) No. Parameter Satuan BakuMutu DL Hasil 1. Arsen (As) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd I 2. Silver (Ag) mg/L 5 0,002 Ttd 3. Boron (B) mg/L 500 0,4 1,25 4. Barium (Ba) mg/L 100 1 Ttd 5. Kadmium (Cd) mg/L 1 0,1 0,15 6. Copper (Cu) mg/L 10 0,04 0,56 ··- 7. Chromium (Cr) mg/L 5 0,004 0,22 8. Mercuri (Hg) mg/L 0,2 0,002 Ttd 9. Nikel (Ni) mg/L - 0,1 Ttd 10. Lead (Pb) mg/L 5 0,1 Ttd ' 1- I 11. Selenium (Se) mg/L 1 0,002 Ttd 12. Seng(Zn) mg/L 50 0,02 3,8 Keterangan : Ttd- Tak Terd1teks1 Baku mutu - PP Rl85 Thn 1999 DL = Detection Limit Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh d.igandakan kecuali seluruhnya ta~pa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. Jakarta, 19 April 2010 rc~· Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc. 9 Direktur Laboratorium ··~-~t;.~~~~ ~~~ ¥C~t~ -~~r::1. ~ .- ~~--, . ' ' . . . No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN NomorLHP : 156R/LHP/IV /2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Kamal No.Sampel 104.1-2/IV /2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sam pel: 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel UDARA AMBIEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sam pel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan UA.1 = Up Wind Kamal Tgl. Pengujian : 05- 07 Apri12010 UA.2 = Down Wind Kamal Metode Pengam bilan Sam pel: SN119-7119 .6-2005 Hasil Pengukur.in Lapangan Hasil No. Parameter UA.1 UA.2 1. TemE'eratur 32,1 ·c 34,6 •c 2. Kelembaban 66%RH 64%RH -- 3. Ar;h Angin Dominan Timur Timur L-'!:_ c.S:_~aca Berawan Cerah Hasil Penguiian Waktu Hasil No. Parameter Baku Mutu *) Metode Pengukuran UA.1 UA.2 ------- -- ------- -· 1. SuUur Dioksida (S02) 1jam 900 pg/Nm3 90 91 SNI19-7119.7-2005 --;:-- 2. -----·- Karbon Monoksida (CO) 1jam 26.000 pg/Nm' 110 -- '-- 293 SNI 19-4845-1998 -- 1--- 3. Nitrogen Dioksida (N02) 1jam 400 pg/Nm3 33 13 SNI19-7119.2-2005 4. Oksidan (0,) ljam 200 pg/Nm' 6 5 SNI19-7119.8-2005 5. Debu (TSP) 24jam 230pg/Nm' 166 139 SNI19-7119.3-2005 6. Hidrokarbon (HC) 3jam 160 pg/Nrn' 0,003 < 0,001 SNI 19-2879- 1992 .. --·---------- -----·-- - - - - · - - · -----·--·-·---· ------------ 7':'' ·-·--···- Partikel <10 (PMIO) 24jam 150 [lg/Nm3 9 10 SNI 19-6603-2001 8. Timah Hi tam (Pb) 24jam 2[lg/Nm' < 0,001 < 0,001 SNI 19-7119.4-2005 Keterangan *)- KEP CUB DKI Jakarta No. 551 Tahun 2001 Baku tvlulu Udara Am bien Catalan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sam pel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. ' ' Jakarta, 13 April2010 Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc. Direklur Laboratorium Halaman 1 dari 4 halaman No: 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUTIAN NomorLHP 158RfLHP/fV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JEDI II Alamat KafiAngke No.Sampel 109.1-2/fV /2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel: 06 April2010 Jenis Sampel UDARA AMBIEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 06 April2010 Kode & Keterangan UA.l =Up Stream Lower Angke Tgl. Pengujian : 06- 08 April2010 UA.2 = Down Stream Lower Angke Metode Pengambilan Sampel: SNI 19-7119.6-2005 Hasil Pengukuran Lapangan Hasi! No. Parameter UA.l UA.2 1. Temperatur 34,3 oc 34,8 oc 2. Kelembaban 54%RH 36%RH 3. Arah Angin Dominan Selatan Selatan 4. Cuaca Berawan Berawan Hasil Pengujian Waktu Hasil No. Parameter BakuMutu *) Metode Pengukuran UA.l UA.2 1. Sulfur Dioksida (SO,) 1jam 900 )lg/Nm3 6 4 SNI 19-7119.7-2005 2. Karbon Monoksida (CO) 1jam 26.000 )lg/Nm> 486 473 SNI 19-4845-1998 3. Nitrogen Dioksida (NO,) 1jam 400)lg/Nm3 72 36 SNI 19-7119.2-2005 4. Oksidan (0,) ljam 200)lg/Nm' 15 18 SNI 19-7119.8-2005 5. Debu(TSP) 24jam 230)lg/Nm' 76 25 SNI 19-7119.3-2005 6. Hidrokarbon (HC) 3jam 160 )lg/Nm> 0,004 0,002 SNI 19-2879- 1992 7. Partikel <10 (PM") 24jam 150 )lg/Nm3 9 8 SNI 19-6603-2001 8. Timah Hitam (Pb) 24jam 2 )lg/Nm3 <0,001 <0,001 . SNI 19-7119.4-2005 Keterangan *)- KEP GUB DKI Jakarta No. 551 Tahun 2001 Baku Mutu Udara Ambien Catalan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. ' • ' Jakarta, 14 April2010 Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc. Direktur Laboratorium Halaman 1 dari 4 halaman No : 31.3/FPP Revisi: 0 LAPORAN HASIL PENGUJIAN Nomori.RP 157R/I.RP/fV/2010 Nama Customer PT. PPA Consultan Alamat Jl. Prapanca Buntu No.15D, Jakarta Selatan Nama Proyek/Kegiatan Pengerukan JED! II Alamat Kali Tanjungan No.Sampel 106.1-2/IV/2010 Tgl. Pengambilan Sampel: 05 April2010 Jenis Sampel UDARA AMBIEN Tgl. Penerimaan Sampel : 05 April2010 Kode & Keterangan UA.l =Up Kali Tanjungan Tgl. Pengujian : 05- 07 April2010 UA.2 = Down Kali Tanjungan Metode Pengambilan Sampel: SNI 19-7119.6-2005 Hasil Pengukuran Lapangan Hasil No. Parameter UA.1 UA.2 1. Temperatur 33,6 oc 34,8 °C 2. Kelembaban 50%RH 44%RH 3. Arah Angin Dominan Utara Timur 4. Cuaca Cerah Cerah Hasil Penguiian Waktu Hasil No. Parameter BakuMutu •) Metode Pengukuran UA.1 UA.2 1. Sulfur Dioksida (SO.,) 1jam 900 11g/Nm3 91 92 SNI 19-7119.7-2005 2. Karbon Monoksida (CO) 1jam 26.000 !lg/Nm' 150 250 SNI 19-4845-1998 3. Nitrogen Dioksida (NOz) 1jam 400 !lg/Nm' 36 36 SNI 19-71192-2005 4. Oksidan (0,) 1jam 200 11g/Nm3 7 7 SNI 19-7119.8-2005 5. Debu (TSP) 24jam 230 l'g/Nm' 15 69 SNI 19-7119.3-2005 6. Hidrokarbon (HC) 3jam 160 !lg/Nm' 0,002 <0,001 SNI 19-2879- 1992 7. Partikel <10 (PMto) 24jam 150!lg/Nm' 6 8 SNI 19-6603-2001 8. Timah Hitam (Pb) 24jam 21'g/Nm' <0,001 <0,001 SNI 19-7119.4-2005 Keterangan *) = KEP GUB DKI Jakarta No. 551 Tahun 2001 Baku Mutu Udara Ambien Catatan 1. Hasil yang ditampilkan hanya berhubungan dengan sampel yang diuji. 2. Laporan hasil pengujian tidak boleh digandakan kecuali seluruhnya tanpa persetujuan tertulis dari laboratorium. • ' Jakarta, 13 Apri12010 Drs. E.U. Harahap, M. Sc. Direktur Laboratorium Halaman 1 dari 4 halaman KBL LAB DIVISI LABORATORIUM LINGKUNGAN PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI QUALITY CONTROL- ACCURACY Job Number : 090/LHP/IV/2010 Customer : PT. PPA Consultant Project Name . : Pengerukan JEDIII Customer Ref : 038.1/IV/2010 Reference Material No Description Unit Detection Limit Blank Expected % R€covery Result Value 1 Arsen (As) mg(l 5 NO - - - 2. Silver (Ag) mg(l 5 NO 49 44 90 3 Boron (B) mg(l 500 NO 14;8 16 107 4 Barium (Ba.) mg/1 100 NO 4,9 5 101 5 1\admium (Cd) mg(l 1 NO 20,5 20 99 6 Copper (Cu) mg/1 10 NO 19,9 20 101 7 Chromium (Cr) mg(l 5 NO 24,8 26 105 8 Mercuri (Hg) mg(l 0,2 NO - - - 9 Nikel (Ni) mg(l - NO 49 49 101 10 Lead (Pb) mg(l ·s NO 196 197 100 11 Seleniun1 (Se) mg/1 1 NO - . - 12 Seng (Zn) mg(l 50 NO 20,7 23 110 Page 1 Of 1 KBL LAB DIVIS! LABORATORIUM LINGKUNGAN PT. KARSA BUANA LESTARI QUALITY CONTROL- PRECISION Job Number : 090/LHP/IV/2010 ·Customer : PT. PPA Consultant Project Name : Pengerukan JEDIII Customer Ref : 038.1/iV/2010 Laboratory Replicate No Description Unit % RPD S.7 S. 7 Replicate 1 . Arsen (As) mg/1 ttd ttd 0 2 Silver (Ag) · mg/1 ttd ttd 0 3 Boron (B) mg/1 ttd ttd 0 4 Barium (Ba) mg/1 ttd ttd 0 5 Kadmium (Cd) mg/1 ttd ttd 0 6 Copper (Cu) mg/1 0,1 . 0,11 9 7 Chromium (Cr) mg/1 0,04 0,04 0 8 Mercuri (Hg) mg/1 ttd ttd 0 9 Nil 1 :•;tf6it · '.\''·':'!'.,' : :\ .• . .•; ·····l·.•·: ;···'>•: ~~.~~~~~t I•, .•••. :c•r:.,. ~ ···•:• r·••,;t!i·st:::\r \;r•;,;wA~e~·~.<~:; · ·•· · .· · ·•·· ,')--:i·'·-:: ._, "·:._ ,, ':.- --~---"?-.'---'i''- ~-' 1 The document should provided with Have been provided RE Excecutive summary in accordance with Permen LH No 08 tahun 2006 2 Please recheck, there are many copies are Have.been provided . not clear (photo copy_of !)lap, diagram etc) attached in clear sheet (color) 3 Copy of news paper public notification is Have been attached Attachment too small unreadable, suggested for larger and readable 4 11-30 schedule of implementation ajust into Have been changed accordingly ANDALII-30 final plan because it is seen on the schedule that it has been implemented on August 2010. 5 Attached the document of remedial Hve been attached ANSWER OF response which ave been approved/signed MINUTES by Technical Team 6 11-31 have not written yet about utility suchHave been clarified : RKL lll-16 as water, electrics and telkom, how to Restoring of structure and handle the event of damage. infrastructre condition into original condition, if occured damage on structure of houses, fences of river, bridges, public utilities ( PLN, PGN, road sign and marks, and PAM) either repair or replacements tailored to applicable provisions. 7 Chapter 1 is not available in the document Had been added ANDAL 8 On the response sheet it was wrttten out Had been improved - answered in EIA or RKL-RPL but not clearly slated in what page, so it is suggested to rechecked in which page and whether it had been accommodated according to the questions. . 9 Attached the signed minutes of meeting Had been added Minutes of meeting 10 11-18 up to 11·19 have not clarified yet Had been dariified ANDA.L 11-18 question raised by Dinas Perhubungan about the amount of trucks and the weight of material (sludge, refuse) which are capable transportedby the truck and truck capacity (truck tonnage) 11 11-31 have not clarified yet the handling of Had been clarified. : RKL lll-16 disturbed/dammaged city facilities (such Restore structure and infrastructure as sign, road marks etc) connditions into original conditions in case occured damage of house, fence of river, public utilities (PLN, PGN, road marks and PAM) either improvement of replacement tailored to applicale provisions. I 13 handling to leachete have not clarified dan 11-17 yet, and how long the drippin will be conducted, and how to handle in case 11-17 it is not clear yet terms been added RKL 111-17 s/d 111-18 Had been added RKLIII-17 s/d 111-18 2 RESPONS TO MINUTES OF ATTACHMENT I TECHNICAL COMMITTE MEETJNG THE ANSWER OF MINUTES OF MEETING, DISCUSSION OF TECHNICAL TEAM AND EIA EVALUATION TEAM PROVINCE OF DKI JAKARTA Day/date : Friday/12 November 2010 Hour : 13.10WIB-finished .. Place : Meeting Room, BLPHD Gedung Nyi Ageng Serang Floor .1 0 JI.HR Rasuna Said Kav.C.22, Kuningan, Jakarta Selatan Agenda : Discussion on EIA, RKL-RPL Segment of Lower Angke and Tanjungan Drain Speaker of meeting : lr. Dian Wiwekowati, MT (Ka. Bidang Pencegahan Dampak Lingkungan dan Pengelolaan SOP as the Secretary of EIA Evaluation Team province of DKI Jakarta. The presents : Attached 1. General information 1. Location of dredging actiivity Lower Angke drain pass through :: Kel. Kapuk Muara Kel. Pejagalan Kec. Penjaringan Jakarta Utara. Kel. Kapuk Kel. Kedaung Kaliangke Kec. Cengkareng Jakarta Barat Kel. Wijaya Kusuma Kec. Grogol Petamburan Jakarta Barat Tanjungan Drain pass through : Kei.Kamal Muara Kec. Penjaringan Kel. Tegal Alur Kec. Kalideres Jakarta Barat. 2. Dredging plan a. Wide 13m, Length 4.050 m and depth 0.7 m Volume of dredged material 248.000 m3 b. Tanjungan Drain 3 Wide 6 m, Length 650 m and depth 0.4 m Volume of dredging 11.500 m 3. Proponent of activity Agency Project Management Unit (PMU), Direktorat Sungai, Danau & Waduk, Direktorat Jenderal Sumberdaya Air, Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum Rl Responsible person lr. Widagdo Dipl, HE 1 Jabatan : Direktur Sungai, Danau dan Waduk Dirjen Sumber Daya Air Kementerian Peke~aan Umum Rl 4. Responsiblity of actiivity: Entity Project Implementation Unit (PIU), Direktorat Jenderal Cipta Karya Kementerian Peke~aan Umum Rl Responsible person : Soesmono Position : Direktur Pengembangan Penyehatan Ligkungan Pemukiman 5. Document constituent: Firms : PT. PPA Consultants dan PT. Arkonin Engineering MP Responsible persons : lr. Tonih Usmana, M.Si dan Jr. Lasmana Rochman, MM II. Feedback, Suggestion, and response from Technical Team and EIA evaluation Commission province of DKI Jakarta. ..· . . N!> ·I.·. •.• . ·. ~I!VlCE; $UG(;E~TioN;FEeoBAcK•.· . .• ANSWE~>_ ...····.·········.<.•·•.·.·.•.•·._ ·.. 0 ·.· ... ·.I:· .•• ·:·:, : •• ' : • ,. -...1 ' . '. :'"<'c.· ': . • '·• :: ...·.:_ . ·_•. ' . ' ' . .._-· Pimpinan Rapat - 1. How much the volume of dreging and how the handling of dredging so make it more detail in the document, the handling of either scatered sludge around the location and during the transportation 2. How to overcome if latter on shallowing process is happened, how long dredging period for maintenance.. 3. Need sontrol and maintenance programme from the community around the drain who dispose garbage into river/drain/waduk .. 4. Community empowerment frequently mentioned in the document, but in real condition in the field not implemented accordingly . Therefore require control activity on implementation 5. Require development of communication forum in the implementation of activity and control activity.. 6. When 83 found during the implementation of dredging it is suggested for dear handling. .· 7. Schedule of phase of activity implementation must be developed so that the community recognize the sequence of activity .. 8. Written suggestion from the Technical Teams is unseparated matters from this minutes of meeting ... 9. There is need to identify to public utility such as gas pipe, water pipe. Electrics, telcom etc. How the way to handle if damage is happened. Jr. Suryadarma 1. If it is happened reduction of dredging volume from the written document of EIA ToR and EIA document (RKL,RPL) it tis obliged to be clarified in the EIA document with table ... 2. Location of monitoring point coodinate uper and lower ellaborated so that ppresented in coordinate system. 3. For the environmmental management suggested to separate and clarifiedbetween densely populated and not densely populated community. 4. Suggested to develpope table related to different matters between ToR of EIA and Andal RKL-RPL Segmen Lower Angke dan Tanjungan Drain 2 storage temporary to impact Thus only elevant things are discussed in depth In this study is not clear the relevance between deological aspect and geomorphology event did not discussed more advant biological aspect of flora, fauna, and aquatic biota, which discussed in depth without it's relevance to to river dredging and social aspect economy, culture even did not discussed about and unrest. . 2. In chapter 5 impact of refuse are no magnitude, empty %, while in 2 discussed the n~rh~r'" 6. composit sampling manpower so Andal RKL-RPL Segmen Lower Angke dan Tanjungan Drain 3 :~~~~)t~ ~~1:f~~~t;~:i\~~~~~~t~*wb!iigm~~~~~~~l~i'i~~~ji1:fr,;~\~li~f~~·t\*~~il!f~.;~~ Bidar19 Penegakall fiuku•tllin!Jkl!i:lgait •·.· · ·· ·•·· . ·• ·.•. ·. -· . · · .. ·· ·-· .... ·.·· ..... ·>· : . ··•·.···. .•_ .. 1. RKL-RPL "dredging of Lower Angke and Tanjungan drain and Kamal may be attached in term of matrix. 2. Community empowermet not just as mentionedm but also implemented and reported Hs activity . 3. It is suggestedthat time schedule of work attached into the document fur the purpose of common controL. .·· Dinas Kebersihan· . 1. Dealing on cleaning management it is emphasized for conducted properly because high risk of cleaning . - - 2. II is considered as needed activity contract with Dinas Kebersihan in refuse transportation if conducted by Dinas Kebersihan . 3. Private party involved in transportation of refuse must have lisence from Dinas Kebesihan .. 4. How about refuse management of manpower in activity location .. Dinas Perhubungan . 1. How long for one trip and how many truck and what is material weight. . 2. Is there any city utility disturbed or damaged such as sign, road mark etc.. KLH Kota Administrasi Jakarta Utara 1. It is mentioned Jakarta Utara, if it did not required the role of our agency it is better did not put at the document. 2. Evaluation of KLH Jakarta Utara of waduk Pluit it is found 83 content but in this document is not found, may be clarified and re tested. 3. Socialization on relocation of community may be mentioned, when the implementation as socialization material to the community .. 4. It is considered need no doubt time of implementation. 5. It is found in this document Sudin but not clear which sudin whether north or west or the other. 6. It is suggested to improve the agency mentioned in this document because document will be reference for implementation. 7. Who has responsibility if accident happened in the community, to whom it is coordinated . 8. Supervisor related to agency, so supervisor required determined with letter of decree .. 9. It is suggested community involvement in supervison work . 10. Leachete have not seen, how long dripping and trnsportation location related to Adipura awards programme. 11. It is suggested to report implementation of construction phase for each 3 (three) month. to KLH city region Agar rnelaporkan implementasi tahap konstruksi 3 bulan sekali ke KLH wilayah 12. Where is sludge dripping site? Because the stink impact will affect to the surounding community .. 13. It is suggested to be informed to the community prior and the time of dredging. 14. Where is the site for sludge dripping when and how long and what is mechanism sludge dripping either raining or no rain. Kelurahan Wijaya Kusuma 1. Kali Angke has passed long time without dredging, so that caused floods to the roads and surounding house the it is to be dredged. And aI RKL-RPL Segmen Lower Angke dan Tanjungan Drain 4 ;(;!~~~~, ,· : . ;,·~~:;;.jTI'"j:J'~~;· ;·)~:·.~~~~~~:;;~~~1~t~~~~j!~~,~~w·~~*~l1~:t,;;i~~~~:i~;f~~ 2. Kali Angke should be dredged and the embanked so the soil at the side do not slide down and make the river shallow. 3. Kali Angke should be dredged and the embanked so the soil at the side do not slide down and make the river shallow. 4. It is suggested to notice impacts to traffics and road damage. 5. Penu diperhatikan kondisi jalan di Wilayah sepanjang Kali karena agak sempit dan volume kendaraan yang padat 6. Need to be noticed arrangement at traffic peak hours because potential to generate - - i ' traffic jam. 7. On the time of field survey it is recommended to involve community leader and kelurahan staffs. 8. The community willing to support implementation of supervision because based on the experience it is very often dredging is not well finish. Implementation of activity required intensive supervision either from agencies or community because very often not well finish on the implementation .. 9. Community empowerment to the surounding in the implementation , how mechanism, requirements it must be transparent. Aimed the involment of the community .. 10. Dredging on Friday must be suspended in 10.00-14.00 11. Socialization to the community suggested 1 (one) prior to implementation. 12. Project realization expected in accordance with socialization. 13. It is expected no doubt time the implementation of project. 14. It is suggested to notice issue on stink and scattered sludge at he dredging phase. 15. The community quite require this project because of frquent floods occurence. 16. There is ever been dredging but still shallow due to the dredging work was just 2 weeks, is the JEDI dredging is the same as usualy? 17. It is need socialization to the community prior to dredging implementation. 18. It is need socialization to the community prior to dredging implementation. 19. It is suggested to notice more detail to the traffic when transport to disposal area. 20. Scattered sludge of post dredging must be noticed properly. 21. It is suggested to coordinate with Sudin Kebersihan and kelurahan staff for the clean up of scattered sludge .. 22. VVhen the city utility( social facility and or public facility) get damage who will be the responsible entity? 23. In order the communty support this activity it is expected for manpower recruitment based from the local community with certain specification according to the job qualification. 24. It is suggested to add in the document, place communication between the community and the proponent of activity. PAM Palyja 1. There are some bridges of clean water pipe which across the drain, suggested during the dredging do not disturbe or damage them then will not disturb water supply to the community. Improvement 2 (Two) Weeks. Andal RKL-RPL Segmen Lower Angke dan Tanjungan Drain 5 Speaker of the Meeting, Kepala Bidang Pencegahan Dampak Lingkungan dan Pengelolaan Sumberdaya Perkotaan, As Taker of minutes, The Secretary of Commission of EIA Evaluator Kepala Sub Bidang Analisa Mengenai Daerah · Dampak Lingkungan Provinsi DKI Jakarta, Drs. Arifudin Nur lr. Dian Wiwekowati, MT NIP 196106201986101001 NIP 196105041989072001 Andal RKL-RPL Segmen Lower Angke dan Tanjungan Drain 6