DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17729924
title: Table E- 0 - 6 in Saidabad Water Treatment Plant Project, Phase III

description: Table E-0-6: Option Analysis in Consideration of Environmental and Social Aspects
Sl.No.ItemsOption 1Option 2Option 3Option 4Option 5Remarks1Current status of route1. Agriculture on the routeYesYesYesYesYes22. Fisheries on the routeNoNoNoNoNo33. Homestead on the routeYesYesYesYesYes44. River CrossingYesYesYesYesYes55. Road CrossingYesYesYesYesYes66. Route conditionBetterBetterNot goodNot goodNot goodSoil Quality improvement would be required for option 3, 4 & 577. Availability of Existing corridor for useNoYesNoNoYesOption 2&5 has existing DND canal to partly convey the Meghna River water (by gravity flow)8Technical1. Route length (km)47.8443.8948.449.2344.4592. Pipeline Construction would be-EasierEasierDifficultDifficultDifficultPile foundations may be required to secure pipeline stability for option 3, 4 & 5103. Accessibility (Access to the route for construction work)EasierEasierDifficultDifficultDifficult114. Soil Condition of the RouteGoodGoodBadBadBadlow land within a swampy area which needs to be treated for soil quality improvement and flood protection for option 3, 4 & 5126. Any hill cutting issue in the routeNoNoNoNoNo13A.141. Does the route require Land Acquisition?YesYesYesYesYes152. Has the Land Owner become landless due to Pipeline land acquisitionNoNoNoNoNo163. Does Compensation include actual and “Top-up”?YesYesYesYesYes17B.18Social1. Land CostHighHighLessLessLessOptions 3 to 5 use an alternate route to convey raw water from Demra circle to the box culvert at the downstream end of the DND canal. This strip of land from Demra-Amulia road to the connecting box culvert belongs to DWASA (no land acquisition required)192. Land Income LossYesYesYesYesYes203. Does the project affect? (Please Tick) Indigenous people/Indigenous Ethnic Minorities/Tribal groups/Others vulnerable groups/individuals/ Poorest and Landless community/ Disaster Prone areas (Char, Embankment, Coastal)NoNoNoNoNo21If yes provide number of indigenous people/ ethnic community/Poorest and Landless covered……………N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A226. Does the project affect cultural property? (Please Tick) Graveyard/Mosque/Temple/Pagoda/ Church/Archeological/Paleontological/His toric/OthersNoNoNoNoNo23Environmental1. Loss of productive landYesYesYesYesYes242. Loss of Agri. YieldsInsignific antInsignifica ntInsignifica ntInsignifica ntInsignifica nt253. Increase of Agri. YieldsNoNoNoNoNo264. Effect on national food productionNoNoNoNoNo275. Cumulative and long-term effectNoNoNoNoNo286. Fish-yielding CapacityNoNoNoNoNo297. Loss of ForestNoNoNoNoNo308. Loss of indigenous speciesNoNoNoNoNo319. Loss of BiodiversityNoNoNoNoNo32FinancialProject CostLessHigherHigherHigherHigherPile foundations may be required to secure pipeline stability for Options 3-5, which will increase the capital cost. Also, these alternate routes will have a larger number of bends; hence maintenance requirement would also be high. Also, a service road needs to be constructed for maintenance purpose. All of these issues may add up to both operational and capital cost. As a result, options 3, 4 and 5 were not considered to be viable option.
description: Published as part of Macdonald, Mott, 2025, null, European Investment Bank (EIB), DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17261043