6.3 Existing Biological Environment This Section Presents the Findings from Terrestrial and Marine Biology Study at the Project

Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

F6.49 Existing PM peak hour junction performance

6.3 Existing Biological Environment

This section presents the findings from terrestrial and marine biology study at the Project site within the study area.

6.3.1 Terrestrial Biology

The terrestrial biology study covers the flora and fauna components as explained in the next sections.

6.3.1.1 Coastal Flora

The coastal flora surveys will involve identifying the plant species and mangrove current condition. The plant species identified are then listed. Pilot surveys have been done to familiarize with the sites and routes. Pictures of plants and sites are taken for reference.

6.3.1.1.1 Methodology

The survey on coastal flora of South Penang was undertaken from 2 nd to 5 th February 2016. General surveys of the coastal vegetation had covered from the Batu Maung area in the east of Penang along the south Penang coastline up to Sungai Pulau Betung in the Balik Pulau area (F6.50). A total of eight (8) sampling stations were marked along the south Penang coastline plus three (3) more at Pulau Rimau and Pulau Kendi (T6.28).

6-74 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

F6.50 Coastal flora survey locations

Station Location Coordinates T6.28 ST1 Batu Maung 5° 17.739' N,100° 17.685' E Coordinates of the coastal flora survey ST2 Teluk Tempoyak 5° 15.929' N, 100° 16.867' E locations ST3 Permatang Damar Laut 5° 16.424' N, 100° 15.966' E ST4 Permatang Tepi Laut 5° 16.835' N, 100° 15.379' E ST5 Sungai Batu 5° 16.740' N, 100° 14.490' E ST6 Gertak Sanggul 5° 16.924' N, 100° 11.834' E ST7 End survey Gertak Sanggul 5° 16.886' N, 100° 11.391' E ST8 Sungai Pulau Betung 5° 18.392' N, 100° 11.700' E ST9 Pulau Kendi 5° 14.195' N, 100° 10.880' E ST10 Pulau Rimau 5° 14.767' N, 100° 16.402' E ST11 Pulau Rimau 5° 14.963' N, 100° 16.317' E

For this study, three plots of 100 m x 20 m (10 subplots of 20 m x 10 m) and one plot of 30 m x 20 m (three subplots of 20 m x 10 m) are established. All trees with diameter at breast height (DBH) of 5 cm and above are measured and identified. Samples of leaves, flowers and fruits of various plants species identified on -site are collected and pressed. All trees with diameter at breast height (DBH) of 5 cm and above are recorded. The species abundance parameters i.e. frequency, density, basal area, importance value index and diversity indices are calculated following Brower et al. (1997), whereas the biomass is estimated using regression equation as suggested by Clough & Scott (1989). Species of conservation interest or rare are highlighted based on the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria for mangrove species (Polidoro et al. , 2012).

6-75 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

All plants were recorded and classified into three (3) categories based on Japar (1994). “Exclusives” are plants that can live only in the mangrove area, inundated by the tides and are very important to the mangrove or coastal ecosystem. The non -exclusive species are plants that do not play such an important role compared to the exclusive species in the mangrove area and these plants are also not necessarily found only in the mangrove habitat. Most coastal plant species are in this category. “Associates” are plants which can occur anywhere and these plants are not limited to mangrove forests only (Japar 1994). In addition, plants habits were also noted during the surveys.

6.3.1.1.2 Results

In general, a total 121 plant species from 61 families was recorded from the surveys (T6.29). Almost 75% of the total plants are from non -exclusive category, which is not unexpected since the survey area is of sandy coastal habitat. Some 22 exclusive species of mangrove plants were found mostly at the riverine and lagoon areas of the survey sites. All recorded plant species are commonly found in many other coastal and riverine mangrove areas. No species of conservation interest or rare based on the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria for mangrove species (Polidoro et al. , 2010) were found in the study area.

The sampling sites can be divided into three types of habitat, which are sandy coastal area, riverine and rocky island. Sandy coastal habitat where the coastal plants were found includes areas from Permatang Damar Laut to Permatang Tepi Laut and Gertak Sanggul. Riverine plants, mainly of the mangrove species, were mostly found at Teluk Tempoyak and Sungai Pulau Betung and a few mangrove species at Sungai Batu, Sungai Gemuruh and Sungai Teluk Kumbar. The two small islands, Pulau Kendi and Pulau Rimau have rocky coasts, especially Pulau Kendi. Pulau Rimau is still accessible via its sandy pockets area. Pulau Kendi is unique for its abundance of huge trees of the well known herbal plant Eurycoma longifolia , or locally known as the Tongkat Ali tree. The rocky shores of Pulau Kendi most probably deters the locals from harvesting the Tongkat Ali .

Richness -wise, Pulau Rimau has the highest plant species richness with 57 species, followed by Sungai Batu coastline up to Gertak Sanggul with 41 species, Teluk Tempoyak with 39 species and Sungai Pulau Betung with 33 species. Sungai Gemuruh and Sungai Gertak Sanggul have the least number of species with three and seven species respectively. Examples of the flora found are shown in F6.51.

6.3.1.2 Mangrove

The health and status of the mangroves found at and within the Project site was determined using line -transect sampling and through ground observations (where line -transect is inappropriate to be applied). A total of six transects (T1 to T6) were involved. Transects T1 and T2 were located at Teluk Tempoyak Kecil, T3 and T4 at Teluk Tempoyak Besar while T5 and T6 at Sungai Bayan Lepas. Mangrove ground observations were carried out at four locations i.e. O1 at Bayan Lepas Main Drain, O2 at Sungai Batu, O3 at Teluk Kumbar and O4 at Gertak Sanggul. The survey was conducted on 4 March 2016, 31 May 2016 and 1 June 2016. The location and description of the assessment areas are provided in T6.30 and F6.52.

6-76 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.29 List of coastal flora species recorded at the Project area Exclusive/ Permatang Sungai Sungai Sungai Plant Batu Sungai Teluk Permatang Pulau Pulau Sungai Species Local Name Non Exclusive/ Damar Pulau Gertak Teluk Type Maung Batu Tempoyak Tepi Laut Rimau Kendi Gemuruh Associate Laut Betung Sanggul Kumbar Asystasia gangetica (L.) T. Anderson ssp. Rumput Israeil Herb Non -exclusive / / / / Acanthaceae micrantha (Nees) Ensermu. Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl. Jeruju Putih Herb Exclusive / / Anacardium occidentale L. Gajus Tree Non -exclusive / Anacardiaceae Buchanania arborescens (Blume) Blume Otak Udang Tumpul Tree Non -exclusive / Apocynaceae Cerbera manghas L. Pong -pong Tree Non -exclusive / Araliaceae Schefflera elliptica (Blume) Harms Jari Lima Epiphy Non -exclusive / / Asclepiadaceae Hoya coronaria Blume Akar Setebal Climber Non -exclusive / Aspleniaceae Aspelnium nidus L. Paku Sarang Burung Fern Associate / Chromolaena odorata (L.) R.M. King & H. Kapal Terbang Shrub Non -exclusive / / / / Rob. Asteraceae Pluchea indica (L.) Less Beluntas Herb Non -exclusive / / Wollastonia biflora (L.) DC Serunai laut Herb Non -exclusive / / / / / / / Avicennia alba Blume. Api -api Putih Tree Exclusive / / / / / Avicenniaceae Avicennia officinalis L. Api -api Ludat Tree Exclusive / / / / / Avicennia marina (Forssk.) Vierh Api -api Jambu Tree Exclusive / / / / / / Aizoaceae Sesuvium portulacastrum (L.) L. Gelang Pasir Herb Exclusive / / / / Dolichandrone spathacea (L. f.) K. Schum Tui Tree Exclusive / Bignoniaceae Oroxylum indicum (L.) Benth. ex Kurz Kacang Pedang Tree Non -exclusive / Blechnaceae Stenochlaena palustris (Burm. f.) Bedd Pucuk Miding Fern Non -exclusive / Boraginaceae Cordia subcordata Lam. Sea Trumpet Tree Non -exclusive / / / / Calophyllaceae Calophyllum inophyllum L. Bintangor laut Tree Non -exclusive / Casuarina equisertfolia J.R. Forst. & G. Casuarinaceae Rhu Tree Non -exclusive / / Forst. Combretaceae Terminalia catappa L. Ketapang Tree Non -exclusive / / / / / / / / / / Ipomoea cairica (L.) Sweet Railway Creeper Climber Non -exclusive / Convolvulaceae Ipomoea pes -caprae (L.) R.Br. ssp. Seri Pagi Herb Non -exclusive / / / / brasiliensis Cycadaceae Cycas rumphii Miq Paku Sikas Tree Non -exclusive / Davalliaceae Davallia denticulata (Burm.f.) Mett. Paku Tertutup Fern Associate / Tetracera indica (Christm. & Panz.) Merr. Mempelas Licin Climber Non -exclusive / Dilleniaceae Tetracera scandens (L.) Merr Mempelas Kesat Climber Non -exclusive / Cyperus compactus Retz. Sedge Herb Non -exclusive / / Cyperaceae Cyperus stoloniferus Retz. Sedge Herb Non -exclusive / Fimbristylis cymosa R.Br. Sedge Herb Non -exclusive / Ebenaceae Diospyros ferrea (Willd.) Bakh Buey Tree Non -exclusive / Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus macrocerus (Turcz.) Merr Mendong Tree Non -exclusive / Excoecaria agallocha L. Buta -buta Tree Exclusive / / / Euphorbiaceae Jatropha gossypifolia L. Jarak Shrub Non -exclusive / Macaranga tanarius (L.) Müll.Arg. Mahang Tree Non -exclusive / Erythroxyllaceae Erythroxylum cuneatum (Miq.) Kurz. Cinta mula Tree Non -exclusive / / / Acacia auriculiformis A. Cunn. ex Benth Akasia Kuning Tree Non -exclusive / / / / / Fabaceae Albizia lebbeck (L.) Benth Batai Laut Tree Non -exclusive / Exclusive = 22 species; Non -exclusive = 90 species; Associate = 9 species

6-77 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.29 List of coastal flora species recorded at the Project area (cont’d) Exclusive/ Permatang Sungai Sungai Sungai Plant Batu Sungai Teluk Permatang Pulau Pulau Sungai Species Local Name Non Exclusive/ Damar Pulau Gertak Teluk Type Maung Batu Tempoyak Tepi Laut Rimau Kendi Gemuruh Associate Laut Betung Sanggul Kumbar Albizia saman Pokok Hujan Tree Non -exclusive / / Caesalpinia crista L. Kuku Tupai Climber Non -exclusive / / Caesalpinia bonduc (L.) Roxb Kuku Tupai Besar Climber Non -exclusive / Callerya atropurpurea (Wall.) Schot Tulang Daeng Tree Non -exclusive / Canavalia rosea (Sw.) DC Kacang Laut Climber Non -exclusive / / Dendrolobium umbellatum (L.) Benth Petai Laut S/tree Non -exclusive / Fabaceae Derris trifoliata Lour Ketui Climber Exclusive / / / Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit. Petai Belalang Tree Non -exclusive / / / / / / Mimosa pigra L. Semalu Besar Shrub Non -exclusive / Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre var. Pinnata Mempari Tree Non -exclusive / / / / / / Pterocarpus indicus Willd Angsana Tree Non -exclusive / Peltophorum pterocarpum (DC.) K. Heyne Jemerlang Tree Non -exclusive / / / Tamarindus indica Asam Jawa Tree Non -exclusive / / / / Flagellariaceae Falgellaria indica L. Rotan Dini Climber Exclusive / Goodeniaceae Scaevola taccada (Gaertn.) Roxb Pelampong Shrub Non -exclusive / / / / Lectythidaceae Barringtonia asiatica (L.) Kurz Putat Laut Tree Non -exclusive / Loganiaceae Fagraea fragrans Roxb Tembusu Tree Non -exclusive / Lythraceae Lawsonia inermis L. Inai S/tree Non -exclusive / Hibiscus tiliaceus L. Baru -baru Tree Non -exclusive / / / / / / / / / Malvaceae Thespesia populnea (L.) Sol. ex Corrêa Bebaru Tree Non -exclusive / / / / / / / Moringaceae Moringa oleifera Lam Merunggai Tree Non -exclusive / Melastoma malabathricum L. Senduduk Shrub Non -exclusive / Melastomataceae Memecylon edule Roxb. var . ovatum Delek Air Tree Non -exclusive / / Memecylon caeruleum Jack Delek S/tree Non -exclusive / Chukrasia tabularis A. Juss Surian Batu Tree Non -exclusive / Meliaceae Xylocarpus granatum J. König Nyireh Bunga Tree Exclusive / / / / / Xylocarpus moluccensis (Lam.) M. Roem. Nyireh Batu Tree Exclusive / / / Ficus superba (Miq.) Miq Ara Laut Tree Non -exclusive / / / / / Moraceae Ficus microcarpa L. f. Ara Beringin Tree Non -exclusive / / / / / / Myrsinaceae Aegiceras corniculatum (L.) Blanco Kuku Lang S/tree Exclusive / Olacaceae Ximenia americana L. Bidara Laut S/tree Non -exclusive / Oleandraceae Nephrolepis auriculata (L.) Trimen Giant Swordfern / / Orchidaceae Cymbidium finlaysonianum Lindl. Okid Epiphy Associate / / Ochnaceae Campylospermum serratum (Gaertn.) Mata Ketam Tree Non -exclusive / Caryota mitis Lour. Fish -tail Palma Non -exclusive / / Cocos nucifera L. Kelapa Palma Non -exclusive / Palmae Licuala spinosa Wurmb Palas Palma Non -exclusive / Nypa fruticans Wurmb. Nipah Palma Exclusive / / / / Oncosperma tigillarium (Jack) Ridl. Nibong Palma Non -exclusive / / Pandanaceae Pandanus odoratissimus L.f Pandan Laut Pandan Non -exclusive / / Passiflora foetida L Ulat Bulu Climber Non -exclusive / / Passifloraceae Passiflora laurifolia L Markisa Climber Non -exclusive / Exclusive = 22 species; Non -exclusive = 90 species; Associate = 9 species

6-78 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.29 List of coastal flora species recorded at the Project area (cont’d) Exclusive/ Permatang Sungai Sungai Sungai Plant Batu Sungai Teluk Permatang Pulau Pulau Sungai Species Local Name Non Exclusive/ Damar Pulau Gertak Teluk Type Maung Batu Tempoyak Tepi Laut Rimau Kendi Gemuruh Associate Laut Betung Sanggul Kumbar Chloris barbata Sw Herb Associate / Imperata cylindrical (L.) P.Beauv Lalang Herb Associate / Ischaemum muticum L. Centipede Grass Herb Associate / / / / / Poaceae Panicum maximum Jacq. Guinea Grass Herb Associate / / / Pennisetum polystachion (L.) Schult Panic Grass Herb Associate / Saccharum officinarum Tebu Herb Associate / Urochloa mutica (Forssk.) T. Q. Nguyen Buffalo Grass Herb Associate / Drynaria sparsisora (Desv.) T. Moore Paku Sakat Tupai Fern Associate / / / Polypodiaceae Pyrrosia piloselloides (L.) M.G. Price Paku Duit -duit Fern Non -exclusive / Phyllanthaceae Breynia vitis -idaea (Burm.f.) C.E.C. Fisch Hujan Panas Shrub Non -exclusive / Pteridaceae Acrostichum aureum L. Piai Raya Fern Exclusive / / / / / Guettarda speciosa L. Selar Malam Tree Non -exclusive / Morinda citrifolia L. Mengkudu Besar Tree Non -exclusive / Uncaria acida (W. Hunt.) Roxb. Akar Kait Climber Non -exclusive / Rubiaceae Prismatomeris tetrandra (Roxb.) Haji Samat S/tree Non -exclusive / Morinda elliptica (Hook.f.) Ridl. Mengkudu Kecil Tree Non -exclusive / / Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea C.F. Gaertn Chengam S/tree Exclusive / Bruguiera cylindrica (L.) Blume Berus -berus Tree Exclusive / / / / / Bruguiera gymnorhiza (L.) Lam. Tumu Merah Tree Exclusive / / Bruguiera parviflora (Roxb.) Wight & Arn Lengadai Tree Exclusive / / Rhizophoraceae Ceriops tagal (Pers.) C.B. Rob Tengar Tree Exclusive / Rhizophora apiculata Blume Bakau Minyak Tree Exclusive / / / / / / Rhizophora mucronata Lam Bakau Kurap Tree Exclusive / / / / Rhamnaceae Colubrina asiatica L. ex Brongn. Peria Laut Shrub Non -exclusive / / / / / Glycosmis mauritiana (Lam.) Tanaka Lelimau Tree Non -exclusive / Rutaceae Micromelum minutum (G. Forst.) Wight & Arn Cemamak Tree Non -exclusive / Lepisanthes rubiginosa (Roxb.) Leenh Mertajam Tree Non -exclusive / Sapindaceae Mischocarpus sundaicus Blume S/tree Non -exclusive / Palaquium obovatum (Griff.) Engl. Taban Putih Tree Non -exclusive / / Sapotaceae Pouteria obovata (R.Br.) Baehni Nenasi Tree Non -exclusive / / / / Simaroubaceae Eurycoma longifolia Jack Tongkat Ali Tree Non -exclusive / Sonneratiaceae Sonneratia alba J.J.Sm. Perepat Tree Exclusive / / / / Heritiera littoralis Dryand Dungun Tree Non -exclusive / Sterculiaceae Sterculia foetida L. Kelumpang Tree Non -exclusive / Tiliaceae Microcos tomentosa Sm. Kenidai Tree Non -exclusive / / Turneraceae Turnera ulmifolia L. Yellow Alder Shrub Non -exclusive / Ulmaceae Trema orientalis (L.) Blume. Tampang Besi Tree Non -exclusive / Clerodendrum inerme (L.) Gaertn Lampin Budak Shrub Non -exclusive / / / / Lantana camara L. Tahi Ayam Shrub Non -exclusive / Verbenaceae Premna serratifolia L Bebuas S/tree Non -exclusive / / / Stachytarpheta indica (L.) Vahl Selasih Dendi Herb Non -exclusive / Vitex pinnata L. Levan Tree Non -exclusive / Vitaceae Cayratia trifolia (L.) Domin Lakum Climber Non -exclusive / / / / / Total 19 41 39 15 21 33 57 26 7 3 29 Exclusive = 22 species; Non -exclusive = 90 species; Associate = 9 species

6-79 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Cordia subcordata Colubrina asiatica Ipomoea cairica

Eurycoma longifolia Guettarda spesiosa Bruguiera gymnorrhiza F6.51 Floras found during the survey

T6.30 Description of mangrove assessment at the study area Coordinates Description Station Quadrate Transect Transect Line (m) Line (hours) Time Time Start End Date Location

Transect Line 5°16'51.3"N 5°16'56.7"N T1 0800 20 2 Teluk Tempoyak Kecil 100°15'21.6"E 100°15'27.3"E 5°16'51.3"N 5°16'56.2"N T2 4/3/16 0930 30 3 Teluk Tempoyak Kecil 100°15'22.2"E 100°15'28.1"E 5°15'56.8"N 5°15'56.4"N T3 1000 50 5 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 100°16'54.4"E 100°16'52.5"E 5°16'00.3"N 5°15'59.8"N T4 31/5/16 0900 60 6 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 100°16'54.9"E 100°16'53.3"E 5°16'14.5"N 5°16'14.8"N Sungai Bayan Lepas T5 4/3/16 1100 250 25 100°16'59.0"E 100°16'59.5"E (Permatang Tepi Laut) 5°16'15.7"N 5°16'15.4"N Sungai Bayan Lepas T6 1/6/16 0900 250 25 100°17'00.4"E 100°16'59.6"E (Kampung Binjai) Observation 5°16'55.7"N 5°16'54.6"N O1 1200 - Bayan Lepas Main Drain 100°11'53.7"E 100°11'53.8"E Observation 5°17'15.4"N 5°17'14.1"N O2 1300 - Sungai Batu 100°13'31.3"E 100°13'26.1"E 1/6/16 5°16'44.6"N 5°16'44.9"N O3 1100 - Teluk Kumbar 100°14'25.7"E 100°14'25.9"E

5°16'42.8"N 5°16'45.3"N O4 1000 - Gertak Sanggul 100°15'46.5"E 100°15'47.8"E

6-80 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

F6.52 Location of transect/observation locations for mangrove assessment

6.3.1.2.1 Methodology

For line -transect sampling, at each transect line, a pole starting at the edge of a mangrove forest marked the first point. It is important to ensure that the transect line is long enough to cover the habitat, particularly the succession line. The transect tape was laid until it reached the other end of the mangrove forest in a straight line, and the end point was also marked by a pole (F6.53A). Quadrates (10.0 m x 10.0 m) were marked off against the transect line (F6.53B). Both surveys (line -transect sampling and ground observations) recorded major characteristics such as sediment type, number of trees, mangrove speciation, girth sizes and height (F6.53C and F6.53D).

Identification of trees (up to genus or species level) was undertaken mainly using form and root type, bark mottling patterns, leaf characteristics and bole and bough shape. The mangroves were identified based on several reference books, such as by Primavera et al. (2004) and Rusila Noor et al. (1999).

A B C D

F6.53 Mangrove assessment. A: Employed 50 m line transect, B: Marked 10.0 m x 10.0 m quadrate against the transect line, C -D: Girth size measurement

6-81 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

6.3.1.2.2 Results

11 species of mangroves belonging to four families were recorded. The most dominant group at the study area was family Rhizophoraceae, represented by six species, followed by families Acanthaceae and Sonneratiaceae with two species each and family Rubiaceae with one species (F6.54 and T6.31). Rhizophoraceae has a widespread distribution worldwide, since its members are able to adapt to extreme environments. This is related to the ability of their propagules to survive prolonged submersion in seawater (Tomlinson, 1986). The Diameter Breast Height (DBH) and heights of mangrove trees ranged from 4 to 250 cm and 4.5 to 35 m, respectively. As for mangrove saplings, the DBH ranged from 2 to 25 cm with heights from 0.5 to 4 m (T6.32).

A B C

D E F

G H I

J K L

F6.54 Mangroves found at the study area. A: Api – Api Putih ( Avicennia alba ), B: Api -api Ludat ( Avicennia officinalis ), C: Bakau Berus ( Bruguiera cylindrica ), D: Tumu Merah ( Bruguiera gymnorrhiza ), E: Tengar ( Ceriops tagal ), F: Perepat ( Sonneratia alba ), G: Bakau Minyak ( Rhizophora apiculata ), H: Bakau Kurap ( Rhizophora mucronata ), I: Chengam ( Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea ), J: Bebaru (Hibiscus tiliaceus ), K: Nipah ( Nypa fruticans ), L: Jeruju Hitam ( Acanthus illicifolius )

6-82 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.31 Mangrove species found at the study area Family Scientific Name Local Name Life Form Abundance True Mangrove Bruguiera cylindrica Bakau Berus Tree Common Bruguiera gymnorrhiza Tumu Merah Tree Common Bruguiera parviflora Lenggadai Tree Rare Rhizophoraceae Ceriops tagal Tengar Tree Common Rhizophora apiculata Bakau Minyak Tree Common Rhizophora mucronata Bakau Kurap Tree Rare Avicennia alba Api -api Putih Tree Common Acanthaceae Avicennia officinalis Api -api Ludat Tree Common Sonneratia alba Perepat Tree Rare Sonneratiaceae Sonneratia caseolaris Berembang Tree Rare Rubiaceae Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea Chengam Tree Rare Mangrove Associate Malvaceae Hibiscus tiliaceus Bebaru Shrub Commonh Arecaceae Nypa fruticans Nipah Tree Rare Acanthaceae Acanthus illicifolius Jeruju Hitam Shrub Rare

T6.32 Mangrove transects at the study area Transect/ Number DBH Height Location Species Type Observation of Trees (cm) (m) Line -Transect Sampling Teluk Tempoyak Kechil (T1) T1Q1 Trees 8 10 -12 4.5 -5 Start: 05°16.261' N, Rhizophora 100°17.007' E apiculata End: 05°16.257' N, T1Q2 Saplings 5 5-14 2.5 -4 100°16.994' E Avicennia alba Trees 4 59 -89 7-11 T2Q1 Rhizophora Trees 1 60 6.5 apiculata Teluk Tempoyak Saplings 1 30 3.5 Kechil (T2) Rhizophora Trees 1 41 5.5 Start: 05°16.242' N, T2Q2 apiculata

100°16.983' E Sonneratia sp . Trees 1 69 14.5 End: 05°16.247' N, Avicennia 100°16.992' E Trees 1 29 5 officinalis T2Q3 Rhizophora Trees 2 70 -90 8-9.5 apiculata Avicennia Trees 1 18 4.5 officinalis Saplings 1 11 2.5 Teluk Tempoyak Trees 12 12 -64 5-10.5 Bruguiera Besar (T3) T3Q1 End (05°15.996' N, cylindrica Saplings 50 2.3 -11 1.4 -4 100°16.889' E) Trees 3 16 -170 5-12 Ceriops tagal Start (05°16.005' N, - - 100°16.915' E) Saplings 21 5 11 2.5 4 Avicennia Trees 1 85 8 T3Q2 officinalis Saplings 1 5 2

6-83 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.32 Mangrove transects at the study area (cont’d) Transect/ Number DBH Height Location Species Type Observation of Trees (cm) (m) Line -Transect Sampling Bruguiera Trees 6 16 -64 7-15 cylindrica Saplings 41 5-11 3-2.5 Bruguiera Trees 1 43 10 gymnorrhiza Saplings 6 5-6 2-3 T3Q2 Trees 2 14 -22 5.5 Ceriops tagal Saplings 7 5-9 2.3 -2.5 Rhizophora Saplings 1 11 4 apiculata Avicennia alba Trees 2 230 -250 15 -16 Bruguiera Trees 5 13 -18 5.5 -8 Teluk Tempoyak cylindrica Saplings 26 5-25 1.8 -4 Besar (T3) T3Q3 Ceriops tagal Trees 1 14 5.5 End (05°15.996' N, 100°16.889' E) Rhizophora Trees 3 15 -18 6.5 Start (05°16.005' N, apiculata Saplings 2 6-7 3 100°16.915' E) Bruguiera Trees 3 13 -24 5.5 -12 cylindrica Bruguiera Trees 1 31 8 gymnorrhiza Saplings 1 7 2 T3Q4 Rhizophora Trees 1 21 5.5 apiculata Rhizophora Trees 2 30 -200 5.5 -35 mucronata Saplings 2 9-15 3-4 Bruguiera Trees 4 32 -70 9.5 -12 T3Q5 cylindrica Ceriops tagal Trees 9 11 -78 4.5 -20 Avicennia Trees 2 101 -170 18 -20 officinalis Saplings 2 5-18 2.2 -4 Bruguiera Trees 5 10 -60 5-12 cylindrica Saplings 36 3-10 1.8 -4 T4Q1 Trees 5 12 -22 5-7 Ceriops tagal Saplings 32 4-12 1.4 -4 Bruguiera - Saplings 26 4 5 2 Teluk Tempoyak gymnorrhiza Besar (T4) Avicennia Trees 1 70 8 Start (05°15.947' N, officinalis 100°16.907' E) Trees 1 30 12 End (05°15.940' N, Bruguiera

100°16.875' E) T4Q2 cylindrica Saplings 36 3-10 0.5 -4 Bruguiera Trees 1 41 10 gymnorrhiza Saplings 19 2-8 0.5 -4 Ceriops tagal Saplings 12 4-10 2-4 Avicennia Trees 1 280 20 officinalis Saplings 3 6 4 T4Q3 Bruguiera Trees 19 6-60 5-10 cylindrica Saplings 15 4-8 2-4

6-84 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.32 Mangrove transects at the study area (cont’d) Transect/ Number DBH Height Location Species Type Observation of Trees (cm) (m) Line -Transect Sampling Bruguiera Trees 1 4 5 gymnorrhiza Saplings 4 2-8 0.5 -3 T4Q3 Rhizophora Trees 2 15 -46 6-10 apiculata Ceriops tagal Saplings 2 8 4 Avicennia Trees 3 40 -50 7-8 officinalis Bruguiera Trees 3 10 -40 7-8 cylindrica T4Q4 Bruguiera Trees 1 12 5 gymnorrhiza Rhizophora Trees 7 20 -70 7-12 apiculata Teluk Tempoyak Bruguiera Besar (T4) Trees 14 6-50 5-12 Start (05°15.947' N, cylindrica 100°16.907' E) Bruguiera Trees 6 6-50 5-8 End (05°15.940' N, parviflora 100°16.875' E) Ceriops tagal Trees 3 12 -16 5-7 T4Q5 Rhizophora Trees 9 6-60 5-12 apiculata Bruguiera Saplings 1 12 4 gymnorrhiza Rhizophora Saplings 1 10 4 apiculata Bruguiera Trees 33 6-70 5-10 cylindrica Saplings 5 4-5 2 Bruguiera T4Q6 Trees 1 12 8 parviflora Rhizophora Trees 19 8-40 6-10 apiculata T5Q1 Avicennia alba Trees 6 15 -46 4.5 -10 T5Q2 T5Q3 No mangrove recorded T5Q4 Trees 1 35 8 T5Q5 Avicennia alba Sungai Bayan Saplings 1 7 2 - Lepas Permatang Avicennia alba Trees 2 58 -67 14 -15 Tepi Laut (T5) T5Q6 Start (05°16.855' N, Sonneratia Trees 1 70 8 100°15.370' E) caseolaris End (05°16.936' N, Avicennia alba Trees 4 30 -70 7-15 100°15.469' E) T5Q7 Sonneratia sp. Trees 2 45 -48 10 T5Q8 No mangrove recorded Avicennia alba Trees 2 60 -70 15 Avicennia T5Q9 Trees 1 40 7 officinalis Avicennia sp. Trees 1 50 8

6-85 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.32 Mangrove transects at the study area (cont’d) Transect/ Number DBH Height Location Species Type Observation of Trees (cm) (m) Line -Transect Sampling Rhizophora Trees 1 30 7 T5Q9 apiculata Sonneratia sp. Trees 1 70 8 Avicennia Trees 1 50 8 officinalis T5Q10 Rhizophora Trees 1 25 10 apiculata T5Q11 T5Q12 No mangrove recorded

Sungai Bayan T5Q13 Lepas -Permatang T5Q14 Avicennia alba Trees 1 70 12 Tepi Laut (T5) T5Q15 Start (05°16.855' N, 100°15.370' E) T5Q16 End (05°16.936' N, T5Q17 100°15.469' E) No mangrove recorded T5Q18 T5Q19 T5Q20 T5Q21 Avicennia alba Trees 3 30 -60 10 -14 T5Q22 Avicennia alba Trees 3 70 -120 12 -15 T5Q23 No mangrove recorded T5Q24 Avicennia alba Trees 2 40 -60 15 T5Q25 Sonneratia alba Trees 1 70 15 Avicennia alba Trees 2 60 -70 15 Rhizophora Trees 1 25 6 T6Q1 apiculata Trees 2 25 -35 6-7 Sonneratia alba Saplings 1 8 2 T6Q2 No mangrove recorded T6Q3 Trees 3 25 -40 6-7 Avicennia alba Sungai Bayan Trees 5 30 -60 6-10 Lepas -Kampung T6Q4 Avicennia Trees 1 20 7 Binjai (T6) officinalis - - Start: 05°16.856' N, Trees 2 40 70 7 10 100°15.360' E Sonneratia alba Trees 3 30 -50 6-10 End: 05°16.945'N, T6Q5 100°15.455' E No mangrove recorded T6Q6 Rhizophora T6Q7 Trees 1 30 10 mucronata T6Q8 No mangrove recorded Avicennia alba Trees 1 40 10 Avicennia Trees 4 20 -70 7-10 T6Q9 officinalis Rhizophora Trees 1 30 10 apiculata

6-86 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.32 Mangrove transects at the study area (cont’d) Transect/ Number DBH Height Location Species Type Observation of Trees (cm) (m) Line -Transect Sampling Trees 2 12 -140 4.5 -20 Avicennia alba T6Q10 Saplings 25 5 2 Rhizophora sp. Saplings 3 4 1 Avicennia Trees 5 20 -55 5-10 officinalis Saplings 3 15 2 Bruguiera Trees 3 10 -35 5-10 T6Q11 cylindrica Saplings 3 3 1 Trees 3 35 -55 10 Sonneratia alba Saplings 4 4-10 2-4 Avicennia Trees 8 30 -75 8-10 officinalis Bruguiera Trees 1 40 10 T6Q12 gymnorrhiza Rhizophora Trees 3 10 -20 7-10 apiculata Sonneratia alba Trees 5 50 -70 10 T6Q13 No mangrove recorded Avicennia alba Trees 2 120 -130 12 Avicennia Trees 7 40 -50 10 officinalis

Sungai Bayan T6Q14 Rhizophora Trees 4 10 -15 6-7 Lepas -Kampung apiculata - Binjai (T6) Saplings 5 3 4 2 Start: 05°16.856' N, Sonneratia alba Trees 5 55 -70 10 -12

100°15.360' E T6Q15 No mangrove recorded End: 05°16.945'N, 100°15.455' E Avicennia alba Trees 18 10 -110 5-12 Avicennia Trees 6 45 -90 8-12 officinalis Rhizophora Trees 6 45 -90 10 -12 T6Q16 apiculata Saplings 24 3-4 0.5 -1 Sonneratia alba Trees 1 60 12 Bruguiera Saplings 1 8 3 cylindrica T6Q17 No mangrove recorded Trees 4 50 -170 10 -12 Avicennia alba Saplings 25 3-4 0.5 -1 Avicennia Trees 8 20 -60 7-10 T6Q18 officinalis Bruguiera Trees 1 45 12 gymnorrhiza Avicennia sp. Saplings 20 2-3 0.5 T6Q19 No mangrove recorded Avicennia Trees 8 30 -70 7-12 officinalis Saplings 2 10 3-4 T6Q20 Bruguiera Trees 2 20 -40 5-10 cylindrica Saplings 2 10 -15 3-4

6-87 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.32 Mangrove transects at the study area (cont’d) Transect/ Number DBH Height Location Species Type Observation of Trees (cm) (m) Line -Transect Sampling T6Q20 Sonneratia alba Trees 1 70 12 Avicennia alba Trees 6 35 -70 8-12 Avicennia Trees 7 20 -70 6-12 officinalis Bruguiera Trees 5 15 6 cylindrica

Sungai Bayan Lepas T6Q21 Rhizophora - - Trees 4 15 50 7 10 -Kampung Binjai apiculata (T6) Rhizophora Trees 1 40 10 Start: 05°16.856' N, mucronata 100°15.360' E Sonneratia alba Trees 3 50 -90 10 -12 End: 05°16.945'N, 100°15.455' E Avicennia sp. Saplings 20 2-3 0.5 T6Q22 T6Q23 No mangrove recorded T6Q24 Avicennia alba Trees 5 50 -100 10 -12 T6Q25 Avicennia Trees 5 40 -60 8-10 officinalis Ground Observation Bayan Lepas Main Drain (O1) Trees 32 12 -15 5-6 Start: 05°16.714' N, O1 Sonneratia sp. 100°15.775' E End: 05° 16.755’N, Saplings 9 8-12 2-4 100° 15.797'E Sungai Batu (O2) - Start: 05° 16.743’ N, Trees 2 50 60 5 Scyphiphora 100° 14.428' E O2 hydrophyllacea End: 05° 16.749’N, Saplings 1 50 4 100° 14.432' E Teluk Kumbar (O3) - - Start: 05° 17.256’ N, Avicennia sp. Trees 7 32 150 8 12 100° 13.522’ E O3 End: 05° 17.235’ N, Rhizophora sp. Trees 3 22 -25 6-7 100° 13.435'E Gertak Sanggul (O4)

Start: 05°16.928' N, Trees 1 40 5 100°11.895' E Q4 Avicennia sp. End: 05° 16.910’ N, Saplings 2 6-8 3 100° 11.897' E

6-88 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

At Teluk Tempoyak Kecil, the major species recorded was Bakau Minyak ( Rhizophora apiculata ). Rhizophora apiculata has been known as a salt -resistant species that commonly prefers deep soft mud, but it is also capable of growing in sandy soil and coral ramparts. Moreover, this species is also easily propagated by propagules (Qifeng et al ., 2009; Selvam, 2007). There were also saplings of Bakau Minyak ( Rhizophora apiculata ) recorded at these areas, indicating a capability for natural regeneration. Other mangrove species found included Api -api Putih ( Avicennia alba ), Api -api Ludat ( Avicennia officinalis ) and Sonneratia sp.. Rhizophora strands were easily distinguished by their distinctive stilt roots and bark patterns, while pencil -like pneumatophores and thick cone -shaped pneumatophores characterized Avicennia and Sonneratia respectively (Primavera et al ., 2004).

Mangroves at Teluk Tempoyak Besar formed a slightly dense forest and the distribution pattern was found to be fairly uniform. Species such as Bakau Berus ( Bruguiera cylindrica ), Tumu Merah ( Bruguiera gymnorrhiza ) and Tengar ( Ceriops tagal ) were recorded from the seaward to the landward zones, where the most abundant was Bakau Berus ( Bruguiera cylindrica ).

Bruguiera cylindrica is a type of facultative mangrove that has no morphological structures to secrete salt, however, it can adapt to salinity conditions through physiological processes (Anukriti et al ., 2009; Hanagata et al ., 1999). Both Bruguiera and Ceriops could be recognized through the knee roots. However, Bruguiera possesses flowers in a cup -shaped calyx, while Ceriops flowers are in a ball -shaped calyx (Primavera et al ., 2004).

Other species such as Api -api Ludat ( Avicennia officinalis ) were only recorded at the seaward zone, while Api -api Putih ( Avicennia alba ), Lenggadai ( Bruguiera parviflora ), Bakau Minyak (Rhizophora apiculata ) and Bakau Kurap (Rhizophora mucronata ) were mostly found towards the inland. Many previous studies had reported that species zonation patterns in mangroves were influenced by the geomorphological processes, differential dispersal of propagules by tidal action, differential predation of propagules, physiological specialization and interspecific competition (Mckee, 1993; Smith, F6.55 Mangrove saplings at Teluk 1987; Ball, 1980; Rabinowitz, 1978; Thom, 1967). Tempoyak Besar Mangrove saplings were also found, where the most dominant species was Bakau Berus (Bruguiera cylindrica ) (F6.55).

Additionally, species of mangrove associates i.e. Bebaru ( Hibiscus tiliaceus ) were recorded in Teluk Tempoyak Besar. The mangrove associated species (or “non exclusive” species) are mainly distributed in a terrestrial or aquatic habitat, but also occur in the mangrove ecosystem (Liangmu et al ., 2010). Previous studies have reported that mangrove associates behave differently from true mangroves. Moreover, they do not show higher salt tolerance and mostly grew best in freshwater environment (Youssef, 2007).

At Permatang Tepi Laut, the mangroves recorded were less dense with the most dominant species being Api -api Putih ( Avicennia alba ). Avicennia alba is a true halophyte and salt excreting species; hence, can tolerate high salinity levels (Chowdury, 2015; Harekrishna et al ., 2014). A study by Nur Arina et al . (2010) reported that this species was highly tolerant on excess sedimentation in their natural habitat. Other mangrove species such as Api -api Ludat (Avicennia officinalis ), Bakau Minyak ( Rhizophora apiculata ), Perepat ( Sonneratia alba ) and Berembang ( Sonneratia caseolaris ) were also recorded. Saplings of Api -api Putih ( Avicennia

6-89 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

alba ) were also found during the current study. Additionally, two species of mangrove associates were recorded at this area, namely Nipah ( Nypa fruticans ) and Jeruju Hitam (Acanthus illicifolius ).

A uniform distribution of mangroves were recorded in Kampung Binjai. Major species such as Api -api Putih ( Avicennia alba ), Api -api Ludat ( Avicennia officinalis ), Bakau Minyak (Rhizophora apiculata ) and Perepat ( Sonneratia alba ) were scattered along the river banks of Sungai Bayan Lepas. Inland species recorded include Bakau Berus ( Bruguiera cylindrica ), Tumu Merah ( Bruguiera gymnorrhiza ) and Bakau Kurap ( Rhizophora mucronata ), though with low density. Saplings of Sonneratia alba, Avicennia alba, Avicennia officinalis, Bruguiera cylindrica and Rhizophora apiculata also occupied this area. As with Permatang Tepi Sungai, mangrove associates such as Nipah ( Nypa fruticans ) and Jeruju Hitam ( Acanthus illicifolius ) were also recorded at this area.

Patches of mangroves were also recorded at Bayan Lepas Main Drain, Sungai Batu, Teluk Kumbar and Gertak Sanggul. The mangroves at these sites consisted of three (3) major genera i.e. Avicennia , Rhizophora and Sonneratia and single species i.e. Chengam (Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea ). The occurrence of Avicennia , Rhizophora and Sonneratia in the other areas of Penang have also been reported in previous studies (Asyraf et al ., 2015; Wan Nur Fasihah Zarifah and Asyraf, 2012; Siti Nurfazilah et al ., 2010). S. hydrophyllacea is an uncommon species of mangroves in the Southeast Asian countries (Solomon Raju and Rajesh, 2014). This species generally inhabits the muddy, sandy and rocky substrates at the inland area. Previous studies have reported that S. hydrophyllacea is intolerant of lengthy periods of freshwater inundation and commonly occupies areas with frequent tidal inundation (Wim et al ., 2006).

6.3.1.3 Fauna

The study of fauna within the Project area was only focused on avifauna i.e. birds. Other types of terrestrial fauna were considered insignificant for this Project.

Davison and Chew (1995) recorded a total of 639 bird species in Peninsular Malaysia. Wells (1999) reported approximately 380 species of birds that depend on the forest or forest fringe in Peninsular Malaysia, and these form over 60% of the recorded birds. Migratory species are only recorded during the migratory season which is from mid October until May. Therefore, any visit falling within this period will see more migratory species than local species. Some migratory species compete for similar resources with the local species and might temporarily displace them from the area, resulting in a decline of their population (Sekercioglu, 2012). Species tolerant to habitat change, the survivor groups, are less likely to decline (Harris and Pimm, 2004). The totally dependent species have a low tolerance for habitat change. The factors responsible for this low tolerance include relative inability of these species to colonize required habitat or to adapt to new habitat, as well as changes in dietary guilds (Lim and Sodhi, 2004).

Nowadays, urbanization is known as one of the serious events that occur worldwide involving significant changes to the natural environment and affecting the ecological components of forests (Fontana et al. , 2011). It also has the greatest local effect on wildlife because of its persistence on the landscape and its dissimilarity to natural land cover (Marzluff and Ewing, 2001).

The protection of wildlife in Peninsular Malaysia is governed by the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 which provides for the protection and conservation of wildlife and for matters connected therewith. Under this Wildlife Act, there are two categories of birds. Schedule 1 consists of protected wildlife (16 bird species) and other protected wildlife (240 bird species), Schedule II

6-90 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

consists of totally protected wildlife (more than 700 bird species). Wildlife means any species of wild animal or wild bird, whether totally protected or protected, vertebrate or invertebrate, live or dead, mature or immature and whether or not may be tamed or bred in captivity.

6.3.1.3.1 Methodology

The objective of the survey was to obtain an inventory of the avifauna of the study area, by using visual and audio identification methods besides photography. Surveys were done from 2 to 6 February 2016 at Teluk Kumbar, Batu Maung, Permatang Damar Laut, Permatang Tepi Laut, Pulau Rimau, Pulau Kendi, Gertak Sanggul, Kampung Nelayan, Sungai Betung and Balik Pulau.

At each study site, three persons were involved in observations along the river, islands namely Pulau Rimau and Pulau Kendi, and roadside. Bird observations were made early in the morning at 0800 until 1100 hours and between 1700 to 1800 hours. Each bird observed was photographed whenever possible using Nikon D3X mounted with Nikkor 600 mm f/4 lens and Nikon D500 mounted with Nikkor 200 -500 mm f/4 lens + 2x TC.

6.3.1.3.2 Results

T6.33 tabulates the list of avifauna found within the study area and its status based on IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 2007 in which all of the avifauna recorded are categorized under the status Least Concerned (LC). F6.56 shows some of the avifauna observed at the study area.

T6.33 List of avifauna found at the study area Location English Name of Species Species Name Sighting Status Black -naped Oriole Oriolus chinensis LC Brahminy Kite Haliastur Indus LC Blue -throated Bee -eater Merops viridis LC Common Myna Acridotheres tristis LC Common Tailorbird Orthotomus sutorius LC Eurasian Tree Sparrow Passer montanus LC House Crow Corvus splendens LC Little Egret Egretta garzetta LC Teluk Kumbar Little Heron Butorides striata LC and Batu Maung Pacific Swallow Hirundo tahitica LC Peaceful Dove Geopelia placida LC Philippine Glossy Starling Aplonis panayensis LC Pied Triller Lalage nigra LC Red -eyed Bulbul Pycnonotus brunneus LC Stork -billed Kingfisher Pelargopsis capensis LC White -breasted Waterhen Amaurornis phoenicurus LC White -throated Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis LC Yellow -vented Bulbul Pycnonotus goiavier LC

6-91 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.33 List of avifauna found at the study area Location English Name of Species Species Name Sighting Status Black -naped Oriole Oriolus chinensis LC Brown -throated Sunbird Anthreptes malacensis LC Asian Koel Eudynamys scolopaceus LC Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos LC

Kampung House Crow Corvus splendens LC Nelayan and Little Heron Butorides striata LC

Pulau Betung Philippine Glossy Starling Aplonis panayensis LC Malaysian Pied Fantail Rhipidura javanica LC Stork -billed Kingfisher Pelargopsis capensis LC White -bellied Sea Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster LC White -throated Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis LC Black -naped Oriole Oriolus chinensis LC Brown -throated Sunbird Anthreptes malacensis LC Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos LC Gertak Sanggul Eurasian Tree Sparrow Passer montanus LC House Crow Corvus splendens LC Little Heron Butorides striata LC Yellow -vented Bulbul Pycnonotus goiavier LC Black -naped Oriole Oriolus chinensis LC Blue -tailed Bee -eater Merops philippinus LC Common Iora Aegithina tiphia LC Asian Koel Eudynamys scolopaceus LC Common Myna Acridotheres tristis LC Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos LC Permatang Eurasian Tree Sparrow Passer montanus LC Damar Laut House Crow Corvus splendens LC and Permatang Tepi Laut Javan Myna Acridotheres javanicus LC Little Egret Egretta garzetta LC Little Heron Butorides striata LC Orange -bellied Flowerpecker Dicaeum trigonostigma LC Pacific Swallow Hirundo tahitica LC Purple -naped Sunbird Hypogramma hypogrammicum LC Yellow -vented Bulbul Pycnonotus goiavier LC Brahminy Kite Haliastur Indus LC Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos LC Common Tern Sterna hirundo LC Pulau Rimau Little Heron Butorides striata LC and Pulau Red -eyed Bulbul Pycnonotus brunneus LC Kendi Stork -billed Kingfisher Pelargopsis capensis LC White -bellied Sea Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster LC White -throated Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis LC

6-92 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

Black -naped Oriole Blue -throated Bee -eater White -throated Kingfisher

Yellow -vented Bulbul Philippine Glossy Starling Peaceful Dove

Brahminy Kite Pacific Swallow House Crow

Asian Koel Little Heron Eurasian Tree Sparrow

Stork -billed Kingfisher Common Sandpiper Malaysian Pied Fantail

White -breasted Waterhen Common Myna Brown -throated Sunbird F6.56 Avifauna found at the study area

6-93 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

6.3.2 Marine Biology

The environmental baseline study involved the collection of primary data for the following: a) biological productivity (phytoplankton, zooplankton and macrobenthos); b) coral reefs; c) turtles; and d) fish.

6.3.2.1 Biological Productivity

The primary data collection for biological productivity was based on a stratified sampling method, which involved allocation of sampling points at designated location within and outside the reclamation footprint based on a sampling grid of 1 km x 1 km. Details of the sampling and analytical regimes are provided below.

6.3.2.1.1 Phytoplankton and Zooplankton a) Methodology

A total of 27 sampling stations were involved i.e. 19 stations along the foreshore area, three within the reclamation area/footprint, three offshore area (outside the reclamation footprint) and one each off Pulau Kendi and Pulau Rimau (F6.57 and T6.34).

F6.57 Location of the sampling stations for Plankton assessment (P1 -P27)

6-94 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.34 Description of the sampling stations for Plankton (Phytoplankton and Zooplankton) assessment Coordinates Description Station Latitude Longitude Date Time Tide Weather Foreshore Area P1 05°16.800’N 100°17.628’E 1250 Low neap tide Sunny P2 05°16.494’N 100°17.430’E 1255 Low neap tide Sunny P3 05°15.883’N 100°17.092’E 1245 Low neap tide Sunny P4 05°15.180’N 100°16.649’E 1235 Low neap tide Sunny P5 05°15.459’N 100°16.419’E 1300 Low neap tide Sunny P6 05°15.827’N 100°16.203’E 1305 Low neap tide Sunny P7 05°16.217’N 100°16.025’E 1310 Low neap tide Sunny P8 05°16.614’N 100°15.501’E 1330 Low neap tide Sunny P9 05°16.701’N 100°14.945’E 3/3/16 1325 Low neap tide Sunny P10 05°16.403’N 100°14.895’E 1315 Low neap tide Sunny P11 05°16.784’N 100°14.355’E 1205 Low neap tide Sunny P12 05°17.139’N 100°13.775’E 1155 Low neap tide Sunny P13 05°16.773’N 100°13.274’E 1145 Low neap tide Sunny P14 05°16.813’N 100°12.738’E 1140 Low neap tide Sunny P15 05°16.698’N 100°12.171’E 1130 Low neap tide Sunny P16 05°16.795’N 100°11.590’E 1120 Low neap tide Sunny P17 05°16.365’N 100°11.248’E 1110 Low neap tide Sunny P18 05°18.890’N 100°11.144’E 1620 Low neap tide Sunny 4/3/16 P19 05°17.308’N 100°10.586’E 1700 Low neap tide Sunny Reclamation Area (Within Reclamation Footprint) P20 05°16.275’N 100°11.702’E 1105 Low neap tide Sunny P21 05°16.263’N 100°13.811’E 3/3/16 1210 Low neap tide Sunny P22 05°15.670’N 100°14.988’E 1220 Low neap tide Sunny Offshore Area (Outside Reclamation Footprint) P23 05°14.541’N 100°15.531’E 1225 Low neap tide Sunny P24 05°15.143’N 100°13.293’E 3/3/16 1045 Low neap tide Sunny P25 05°15.653’N 100°12.218’E 1055 Low neap tide Sunny Off Pulau Kendi P26 05°14.009’N 100°10.415’E 3/3/16 1000 Low neap tide Sunny Off Pulau Rimau P27 05°14.523’N 100°16.636’E 3/3/16 1240 Low neap tide Sunny

Phytoplankton

The phytoplankton assessment involved the collection of water samples at the designated sampling points. At each sampling station the following standard procedures were employed: i) water samples were collected using Niskin Water Sampler (F6.58A). ii) 1,500 mL of a mixture of surface, middle and bottom water of the water column was transferred into the labelled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottles (F6.58B). iii) 15 mL of Lugol’s iodine solution was added as preservatives (F6.58C).

6-95 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

A B C

F6.58 Phytoplankton assessment. A: Sample collected using Niskin water sampler, B: Mixture of surface, middle and bottom water of the water column transferred in the PET plastic bottle, C: Samples preserved with 15 mL Lugol’s iodine solution

At the laboratory: i) phytoplankton composition and diversity was determined by firstly concentrating, and then followed with sub -sampling and counting using an inverted microscope. ii) plankton samples were identified at family and genus/species using a high compound microscope. Phytoplankton density was calculated in terms of number of cells per millilitres (cells/mL). iii) plankton diversity was assessed based on the Shannon -Weiner Diversity Index (H’), which provides information about rarity and commonness of species in a community. A high value indicates that the community has a high level of species diversity or that many equally abundant species are present. The index was calculated based on the formula:

Where, H’ = Index of species diversity s = Number of species th pi = Proportion of the i species in the total sample of S species

Zooplankton

For the zooplankton assessment, sampling stations also coincided with the phytoplankton sampling stations. At each sampling station: i) 20 litres of a mixture of surface, middle and bottom water of the water column was collected and filtered through 140 mm plankton net (F6.59A). ii) zooplankton samples retained on the plankton net were washed into a 500 mL bottle and labelled (F6.59B). iii) 10% formaldehyde was added as preservatives (F6.59C).

6-96 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

A B C

F6.59 Zooplankton assessment. A: Water filtered through a 140 mm plankton net, B: Retained plankton samples washed into a PET plastic bottle, C: Samples preserved with 10% seawater buffered formalin solution

At the laboratory:

i) zooplankton composition and diversity were determined by firstly concentrating, and followed with sub -sampling and counting using a stereomicroscope. ii) samples were identified at family and genus/species using a high compound microscope. Zooplankton density was calculated in terms of individual per litre (ind./L). iii) species diversity was also assessed based on the Shannon -Weiner Diversity Index (H’).

b) Results

Phytoplankton

The assessment of phytoplankton at the study area recorded three different phyla i.e. Bacillariophyta, Dinoflagellata and Cyanophyta (T6.35). Bacillariophyta was the most abundant group in terms of species as well as densities at all sampling stations representing 86.1% of the total population of phytoplankton, while 13.4% was Dinoflagellata and 0.5% was Cyanophyta (F6.60). The highest density of phytoplankton was recorded at P13 (foreshore area) (204.58 cells/mL), followed by P11 (foreshore area) (201.32 cells/mL) and P12 (foreshore area) (199.68 cells/mL), while the lowest was recorded at P25 (offshore area - outside reclamation footprint) (18.11 cells/mL) (F6.61).

Phytoplankton population were dominated by Bacillariophyta (also known as diatoms) with a mean density of 88.63±62.98 (11.77 -194.70) cells/mL. Bacillariophyta are one of the most species -rich phytoplankton taxonomic groups. They have a worldwide distribution and can be found in both freshwater and marine environments (Quijano -Scheggia et al., 2008). In marine environments, it is estimated that around 1,365 to 1,783 different planktonic diatom species have been identified (Sournia et al., 1991). Domination of Bacillariophyta (diatoms) generally indicates good marine water quality. Based on the study by Casea et al. (2008), diatoms normally form more than 80% of the total phytoplankton biomass in marine tropical waters. This is due to their critical role as primary producers as well as the key players in carbon and silicon cycles (Ganjian, 2007; Carter et al ., 2005; Ganjian, et al ., 2004; Zubaidah et al., 2001; Mann, 1999). The study by Mann (1999), estimated that diatoms provided 20 to 25% of globally fixed carbon and atmospheric oxygen, thus influencing biogeochemical cycles worldwide.

6-97 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.35 Phytoplankton density (cells/mL) and diversity (H’) at the study area Station Taxa Foreshore Area P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 Phylum: Bacillariophyta Amphora 1.57 - - - - - 4.27 0.74 - Asteriolampra - 10.51 6.51 0.74 6.02 2.16 - 5.17 5.58 Bacteriastrum ------Bacillaria - - 2.17 - - - 1.07 5.17 6.97 Ballerochea - 15.02 2.17 - 9.46 - 61.94 31.04 20.21 Chaetoceros 7.84 5.26 11.93 - 5.16 25.94 5.34 5.17 69.70 Cocconeis 1.57 - - - 0.86 - - 1.48 - Coscinodiscus 14.11 10.51 27.13 0.74 - - 27.77 14.78 6.27 Ditylum ------Eucampia - 1.50 - - - - - 2.22 - Guinardia 5.49 2.25 10.85 1.47 0.86 6.49 7.48 8.13 6.27 Hemiaulus - - 1.09 - - - - - 2.79 Lauderia - 2.25 3.26 1.47 0.86 - 1.07 - 2.09 Licmophora 3.14 ------Navicula - 0.75 - - - - 1.07 - 0.70 Nitzschia 43.90 40.98 24.96 - 26.66 4.32 21.36 22.17 6.97 Odontella - - 1.09 - - - 9.61 9.61 1.39 Pleurosigma 5.49 9.01 4.34 2.94 22.36 9.73 6.41 15.52 6.97 Rhizosolenia 3.92 3.76 7.60 4.41 8.60 6.49 12.82 16.99 18.82 Stauroneis - - 8.68 - - 1.08 - - - Surirella - 0.75 3.26 - - - - 1.48 - Thalassiosira 3.92 9.01 14.11 - 6.88 3.24 7.48 14.04 8.36 Thalassionema ------Triceratium ------1.07 - - Other diatom 10.98 6.76 13.02 - 13.76 - 8.74 15.52 8.36 Subtotal (cells/mL) 101.93 118.32 142.17 11.77 101.48 59.45 177.50 169.23 171.45 Phylum: Dinoflagellata Ceratium 0.78 - - 1.47 - 1.08 2.14 1.48 0.70 Gymnodinium 1.57 - - - - 6.49 - - - Peridinium 10.98 66.09 49.91 3.68 24.94 22.70 6.41 0.74 8.36 Protoperidinium 1.57 - - 2.21 0.86 1.08 4.27 2.22 0.70 Subtotal (cells/mL) 14.90 66.09 49.91 7.36 25.80 31.35 12.82 4.44 9.76 Phylum: Cyanophyta Trichodesmium 0.78 - - - 1.72 - - - - Subtotal (cells/mL) 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Density (cells/mL) 117.61 184.41 192.08 19.13 129.00 90.80 190.32 173.67 181.21

Diversity Index (H') 2.15 2.07 2.37 2.04 2.18 2.02 2.29 2.54 2.21

6-98 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.35 Phytoplankton density (cells/mL) and diversity (H’) at the study area (cont’d)

Station Taxa Foreshore Area P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 Phylum: Bacillariophyta Amphora - - - 3.18 - 1.43 0.55 0.39 - 0.59 Asteriolampra 0.82 - 3.43 1.06 1.24 0.72 6.56 0.78 0.88 2.24 Bacteriastrum 0.82 ------Bacillaria - - 1.71 ------Ballerochea 3.27 3.78 11.14 6.36 - - - - 0.44 0.11 Chaetoceros 25.33 126.63 85.70 71.02 13.04 5.74 3.28 0.78 2.21 3.00 Cocconeis - - 1.71 - - - 1.09 - - 0.27 Coscinodiscus 0.82 15.12 7.71 21.20 1.24 2.15 19.69 1.55 20.29 10.92 Ditylum ------Eucampia ------Guinardia 3.27 2.84 9.43 7.42 1.86 4.30 8.75 1.94 - 3.75 Hemiaulus - - 0.86 - - - 0.55 - - 0.14 Lauderia - - - - 0.62 - - - - - Licmophora ------Navicula 0.82 0.95 - 2.12 0.62 - - 0.39 0.88 0.32 Nitzschia 12.26 11.34 35.14 43.46 12.42 22.23 28.44 4.27 5.29 15.06 Odontella - - 0.86 1.06 - - 0.55 - - 0.14 Pleurosigma 4.09 6.62 5.14 8.48 3.11 5.74 1.09 2.33 1.32 2.62 Rhizosolenia 6.54 14.18 7.71 8.48 2.48 0.72 12.03 1.55 0.44 3.69 Stauroneis ------0.55 - - 0.14 Surirella - - - - - 0.72 - - 0.88 0.40 Thalassiosira 8.17 3.78 4.29 2.12 1.24 4.30 1.64 0.39 132.00 34.58 Thalassionema - 2.84 - 1.06 ------Triceratium - - 0.86 ------Other diatom 4.90 6.62 9.43 8.48 - 3.59 1.64 0.39 1.76 1.85 Subtotal (cells/mL) 71.11 194.70 185.12 185.50 37.87 51.64 86.41 14.76 166.39 79.80 Phylum: Dinoflagellata Ceratium 1.63 1.89 1.71 1.06 - - - - 0.88 0.22 Gymnodinium - - 1.71 - 1.86 - 2.74 1.16 3.53 1.86 Peridinium 6.54 3.78 8.57 18.02 4.35 5.74 1.64 3.49 7.06 4.48 Protoperidinium - 0.95 1.71 - 1.24 - 2.19 - 1.76 0.99 Subtotal (cells/mL) 8.17 6.62 13.70 19.08 7.45 5.74 6.57 4.65 13.23 7.55 Phylum: Cyanophyta Trichodesmium 2.45 - 0.86 - - 0.72 0.55 - 0.88 0.54 Subtotal (cells/mL) 2.45 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.55 0.00 0.88 0.54 Density (cells/mL) 81.73 201.32 199.68 204.58 45.32 58.10 93.53 19.41 180.50 87.89 Diversity Index (H') 2.23 1.50 2.05 2.04 2.06 2.04 2.14 2.27 1.12 2.06

6-99 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.35 Phytoplankton density (cells/mL) and diversity (H’) at the study area (cont’d) Station

Reclamation Area (Within Offshore Area (Outside Off Pulau Kendi Taxa Reclamation Footprint) Reclamation Footprint) and Pulau

P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27 Phylum: Bacillariophyta Amphora 1.25 ------Asteriolampra 1.25 0.89 0.58 3.59 2.41 - 0.60 0.66 Bacteriastrum 0.63 ------Bacillaria ------Ballerochea ------2.42 - Chaetoceros 11.88 2.68 1.17 8.62 6.02 2.36 1.81 0.59 Cocconeis ------0.60 - Coscinodiscus 1.25 - 1.17 - 7.22 - 0.60 0.96 Ditylum ------0.60 - Eucampia ------Guinardia 2.50 - 3.50 1.44 3.01 3.94 1.21 2.49 Hemiaulus ------Lauderia - - 1.75 3.59 - - 1.81 1.61 Licmophora - 0.89 ------Navicula ------1.81 - Nitzschia 15.63 38.36 2.92 2.15 2.41 7.87 12.68 1.46 Odontella ------Pleurosigma 3.75 - 22.74 1.44 6.62 - - 12.84 Rhizosolenia 1.88 1.78 2.92 2.87 0.60 2.36 3.62 3.67 Stauroneis - - 0.58 - - - - 0.29 Surirella ------Thalassiosira 1.88 0.89 - 2.87 1.20 - 1.81 - Thalassionema ------0.60 - Triceratium ------Other diatom - 4.46 2.92 1.44 - 1.58 2.42 1.46 Subtotal (cells/mL) 41.90 49.95 40.25 28.01 29.49 18.11 32.59 26.01 Phylum: Dinoflagellata Ceratium 0.63 - 1.17 - 1.81 - 0.60 1.32 Gymnodinium 1.88 1.78 7.58 - 1.20 - 1.81 3.79 Peridinium 5.00 5.35 5.25 4.31 1.81 - - 4.47 Protoperidinium 0.63 0.89 1.75 1.44 - - - 1.98 Subtotal (cells/mL) 8.14 8.02 15.75 5.75 4.82 0.00 2.41 11.56 Phylum: Cyanophyta Trichodesmium 0.63 1.78 1.17 - - - 1.81 0.59 Subtotal (cells/mL) 0.63 1.78 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.81 0.59 Density (cells/mL) 50.67 59.75 57.17 33.76 34.31 18.11 36.81 38.15 Diversity Index (H') 2.13 1.40 2.11 2.22 2.15 1.44 2.36 2.23

6-100 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

F6.60 Composition of the Phytoplankton at the study area

F6.61 Phytoplankton density (cells/mL) at the study area

A total of 25 taxa of Bacillariophyta was recorded at the study area. The highest number recorded was at the foreshore area (24 taxa), 15 taxa off Pulau Kendi/Pulau Rimau, 14 taxa within the reclamation footprint and 10 taxa offshore area (outside the reclamation footprint). In terms of speciation, a significantly high abundance of Chaetoceros and Nitzschia was recorded at the study area, accounting for 21.2% and 19.4% of the total Bacillariophyta density respectively. These taxa were found at all survey area, with the mean density for Chaetoceros ranging from 3.06±1.77 (1.81 -4.31) to 24.90±36.02 (0 -126.63) cells/mL, while for Nitzschia ranged from 4.14±3.23 (2.15 -7.87) to 20.06±13.82 (0 -43.90) cells/mL. Previous studies reported that Chaetoceros and Nitzschia are commonly predominant in coastal waters off Malaysia and usually found in higher abundance than other taxa (Siti Zubaidah et al., 2003; Matias et al. , 2001; Chua, 1980; Chua and Chong, 1975). Other taxa recorded mean density ranging from 0.04±0.19 (0 -0.82) to 8.83±12.19 (0 -22.74) cells/mL.

On the whole, the highest mean density of Bacillariophytes was recorded at the foreshore area [111.88±61.30 (11.77 -194.70) cells/mL], followed by within the reclamation footprint (44.03±5.19 (40.25 -49.95) cells/mL), off Pulau Kendi/Pulau Rimau [26.24±8.98 (19.89 -32.59) cells/mL] and offshore area (outside the reclamation footprint) [25.20±6.19 (18.11 -29.49) cells/mL] (F6.62).

6-101 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Note: Area 1: Foreshore area (P1 – P19) Area 2: Reclamation area (within reclamation footprint) (P20 – P22) Area 3: Offshore area (outside reclamation footprint) (P23 – P25) Area 4: Off Pulau Kendi and Pulau Rimau (P26 and P27)

F6.62 Mean density (cells/mL) of Phylum Bacillariophyta at the study area

Dinoflagellata was represented by Ceratium , Gymnodinium , Peridinium and Protoperidinium , with mean density of 13.76±14.64 (0 -66.09) cells/mL. The most dominant taxa was Peridinium that covered 76.3% of the total density of dinoflagellates, followed by Gymnodinium (10.5%), Protoperidinium (7.7%) and Ceratium (5.5%). Peridinium was found at all survey areas, where mean density ranged from 2.00±2.82 (0 -4.00) to 13.55±17.23 (0.74 -66.09) cells/mL. According to Ismael and Maria Del Socorro (2008), Peridinium was a large genus of small -to -medium -sized dinoflagellates in the marine ecosystem. Other taxa such as Ceratium , Gymnodinium and Protoperidinium only had low mean density, ranged from 0.40±0.69 (0 -1.20) to 3.75±3.32 (1.78 -7.58) cells/mL.

Where HAB (Harmful Algal Blooms) are concerned, the study by Cembella (2003) reported that about 75 to 80% of toxic phytoplankton species were dinoflagellates. The toxic species can cause ‘red tides’ that will directly kill fish and shellfish due to toxin production, or indirectly kill because of effects caused by large numbers of cells that clog animal gills and deplete oxygen (Smayda, 1997).

For instance, blooms of Peridinium quinquecorne reported in lagoon of La Ensenada de La Paz, Gulf of California with an abundance ranged from 3,400 to 6,400 cells/mL (Ismael and Maria Del Socorro, 2008). This density is far higher than that recorded during the current study, indicating that the waters in the area do not support red tide blooms, at least at the time of sampling. However, the presence of HABs taxa during current study is obviously of concern and needs to be monitored.

On the whole, the foreshore area recorded highest mean density of dinoflagellate, with value of 16.59±16.47 (4.44 -66.09) cells/mL, followed by the area within the reclamation footprint [10.64±4.43 (8.02 -15.75) cells/mL], the offshore area (outside the reclamation footprint) (3.52±3.09 (0 -5.75) cells/mL) and the area off Pulau Kendi/Pulau Rimau [4.48±2.93 (2.41 - 6.56) cells/mL] (F6.63).

As for Cyanophyta, it was represented by Trichodesmium . The highest mean density of Trichodesmium was recorded within the reclamation footprint [1.19±0.58 (0.63 -1.78) cells/ mL], followed by off Pulau Kendi/Pulau Rimau [0.91±1.28 (0 -1.81) cells/mL] and the foreshore area [0.45±0.68 (0 -2.45) cells/mL] (F6.64). Trichodesmium is known as the predominant diazotrophs in most ocean waters (Chen et al ., 2008; Chen et al ., 2003). This species is important in the nitrogen cycle since they account for 25 to 50% of nitrogen fixation in the world’s oceans (Mahaffey et al ., 2005; Karl et al ., 2002).

6-102 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

F6.63 Mean density (cells/mL) of Phylum Dinoflagellata at the study area

F6.64 Mean density (cells/mL) of Phylum Cyanophyta at the study area

Overall, the mean phytoplankton density at the study area was 102.93±68.45 (18.11 -204.58) cells/mL. Species diversity is an important aspect of biological monitoring and a reliable parameter to determine how healthy an environment is (Ogbeibu and Edutie, 2002). The mean Shannon Weiner Diversity Index (H’) recorded at 2.05±0.32 (1.12 -2.54), where most of the stations found to be highly diverse (F6.65). The highest value recorded at P8 (2.54) and the lowest value at P18 (1.12), with both stations being located at the foreshore area.

6-103 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

F6.65 Phytoplankton diversity index (H’) at the study area

Zooplankton

Zooplankton is an ecological community that serves as important trophic linkage between the primary producers (phytoplankton) and upper trophic level organisms in an aquatic food web (Ayodele and Adeniyi, 2005; Santhanam and Srivinasan, 1994; Robertson and Duke, 1987; Grindley, 1984). Zooplankton, like phytoplankton, are sound indicators of environmental conditions because they are sensitive to changes in water quality. Their distribution in the marine environment is governed by several abiotic and biotic factors such as salinity, temperature and food availability (Uriarte and Villate, 2005; Hoff and Snell, 1987). Moreover, they also respond to a wide variety of disturbances including nutrient loading (Dodson, 1992; Pace, 1986), acidification (Keller and Yan, 1991; Brett, 1989), contaminants (Yan et al., 1996), forage fish (Carpenter and Kitchell, 1993) and sediment inputs (Cuker, 1997).

The zooplankton distribution in the study area is shown in T6.36. There was a total of six (6) phyla recorded i.e. Arthropoda (Crustacea), Chordata, Mollusca, Chaetognatha, Cnidaria and Annelida. Arthropoda, which contributed 79.0% of the total zooplankton density, was the major group in this area, followed by Chordata (7.9%) and Mollusca (6.5%) (F6.66). Other phyla contributed less than 3.0%. The highest zooplankton density was recorded at P7 (foreshore area) (45.15 ind./L), followed by P10 (foreshore area) (41.40 ind./L) and P16 (foreshore area) (35.73 ind./L), while others recorded lower than 24 ind./L (F6.67).

Zooplankton populations were dominated by Arthropoda (crustacean) with mean density of 8.58±10.64 (0.25 -39.75) ind./L. The most dominant group was Copepoda (98.4% of the total Arthropod density), followed by Decapoda (0.9%) and Diplostraca (0.7%). Previous studies have showed that copepods are distributed widely in seawater and account for 55 to 60% of the zooplankton populations in the Straits of Malacca (Rezai et al. 2011; Zannatul and Muktadir, 2009; Rezai 2002; Lee, 1999). According to Barnes et al. (1988), copepods dominate most aquatic ecosystems because of their resilience and adaptability to changing environmental conditions and ability to withstand varying environmental stresses. Copepods can hold up against harsher environmental conditions since they have the tough physical structures and versatile feeding habits (carnivorous and omnivorous) of all zooplankton (Ferdous and Muktadir, 2009).

6-104 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.36 Zooplankton density (cells/mL) and diversity (H’) at the study area Station Taxa Foreshore Area P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 Phylum: Arthropoda (Crustacea) Copepods Nauplii 1.10 0.35 0.85 0.30 0.60 0.50 7.35 4.65 1.05 18.20 Copepodids 0.25 0.05 0.45 0.15 0.15 - 2.85 1.20 0.25 1.10 Calanoids Acartia 0.15 0.05 0.20 0.25 0.30 - 0.45 0.60 0.25 0.70 Calanus 0.05 0.05 - 0.10 ------Eucalanus 0.80 0.25 3.10 0.20 0.35 - 16.65 7.05 2.30 15.00 Labidocera ------Paracalanus - - 0.15 - - - 1.20 0.30 0.10 0.60 Cyclopoids - - - Oithona 0.10 - 0.15 - 0.05 - 2.25 0.30 0.10 0.50 Harpacticoid Microsetella 9.55 0.20 0.20 - 2.10 - 5.40 - - - Macrosetella ------Euterpina 0.30 - 0.25 0.05 0.35 0.05 1.95 1.35 0.20 1.20 Poecilostomatoid Corycaeus 0.20 0.95 0.75 0.50 0.60 0.10 1.05 0.15 0.50 0.40 Oncaea 0.10 0.05 - 0.05 - - - - - 0.10 Decapod Decapod larvae - - 0.10 - 0.05 0.10 0.45 - - 0.10 Diplostraca Evadne - - - - 0.05 0.10 0.15 - 0.05 - Subtotal (ind./L) 12.60 1.95 6.20 1.60 4.60 0.85 39.75 15.60 4.80 37.90 Phylum: Chordata Oikopluera 0.05 0.15 0.85 0.15 - 0.30 1.35 0.75 3.50 2.40 Subtotal (ind./L) 0.05 0.15 0.85 0.15 0.00 0.30 1.35 0.75 3.50 2.40 Phylum: Mollusca Bivalve larvae 0.25 0.05 0.15 0.25 0.05 0.10 1.05 0.15 0.60 0.10 Gastropod larvae - - - - 0.10 - 0.15 - - 0.10 Subtotal (ind./L) 0.25 0.05 0.15 0.25 0.15 0.10 1.20 0.15 0.60 0.20 Phylum: Chaetognatha Sagitta 0.05 0.05 0.25 - 0.05 0.20 1.35 0.45 0.30 0.50 Subtotal (ind./L) 0.05 0.05 0.25 0.00 0.05 0.20 1.35 0.45 0.30 0.50 Phylum: Cnidaria Unidentified salp - - - - 0.05 0.15 - - - Unidentified jelly fish - - - - 0.10 - 0.15 0.15 0.30 0.10 Subtotal (ind./L) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.30 0.15 0.30 0.10 Phylum: Annelida Polychaete larvae - - - - 0.05 - 1.20 - 0.15 0.30 Subtotal (ind./L) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.15 0.30 Density (ind./L) 12.95 2.20 7.45 2.00 4.95 1.50 45.15 17.10 9.65 41.40 Diversity Index (H') 1.10 1.82 1.98 2.10 1.96 1.91 2.12 1.72 1.95 1.48

6-105 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.36 Zooplankton density (cells/mL) and diversity (H’) at the study area (cont’d) Station Taxa Foreshore Area P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 P19 Phylum: Arthropoda (Crustacea) Copepods Nauplii 2.40 1.65 0.90 2.35 1.15 3.25 0.10 1.60 1.53 Copepodids 0.40 0.25 0.55 0.45 0.40 1.63 0.05 0.90 0.75 Calanoids Acartia 0.70 0.20 0.05 0.20 - 0.75 0.20 0.05 0.25 Calanus ------Eucalanus 8.50 2.10 9.10 0.85 1.35 15.00 0.05 2.80 4.80 Labidocera 0.60 - 0.20 0.05 - 0.38 - - 0.10 Paracalanus 0.50 - - 0.20 0.45 1.38 - 0.60 0.61 Cyclopoids Oithona 0.50 0.25 0.10 0.45 0.15 - - 0.15 0.08 Harpacticoid Microsetella 1.90 0.10 3.50 0.15 - 0.50 - 0.35 0.21 Macrosetella ------Euterpina 1.00 0.10 0.90 0.35 0.10 1.13 0.40 0.55 0.55 Poecilostomatoid Corycaeus 0.30 - 0.10 0.95 0.05 0.38 0.15 0.20 0.20 Oncaea - 0.05 - 0.10 - 0.33 - 0.05 0.10 Decapod Decapod larvae 0.40 0.05 0.40 - - - 0.05 - 0.01 Diplostraca Evadne 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.15 - - - 0.04 Subtotal (ind./L) 17.30 4.80 15.90 6.25 3.80 24.73 1.00 7.25 9.20 Phylum: Chordata Oikopluera 3.10 0.90 0.65 0.60 0.35 3.00 0.55 0.20 1.03 Subtotal (ind./L) 3.10 0.90 0.65 0.60 0.35 3.00 0.55 0.20 1.03 Phylum: Mollusca Bivalve larvae 1.40 0.25 1.05 0.70 0.20 5.00 0.25 0.40 1.46 Gastropod larvae - 0.10 - - 0.05 0.50 - - 0.14 Subtotal (ind./L) 1.40 0.35 1.05 0.70 0.25 5.50 0.25 0.40 1.60 Phylum: Chaetognatha Sagitta 0.90 0.15 0.80 0.30 0.20 1.00 0.15 0.05 0.35 Subtotal (ind./L) 0.90 0.15 0.80 0.30 0.20 1.00 0.15 0.05 0.35 Phylum: Cnidaria Unidentified salp - - - - 0.05 - - - 0.01 Unidentified jelly fish 0.10 0.05 0.20 0.45 0.05 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.31 Subtotal (ind./L) 0.10 0.05 0.20 0.45 0.10 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.33 Phylum: Annelida Polychaete larvae 0.20 0.25 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.50 0.05 0.35 0.24 Subtotal (ind./L) 0.20 0.25 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.50 0.05 0.35 0.24 Density (ind./L) 23.00 6.50 18.65 8.45 4.75 35.73 2.10 8.35 12.73 Diversity Index (H') 2.17 2.03 1.77 2.42 2.13 2.04 2.17 2.10 2.18

6-106 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.36 Zooplankton density (cells/mL) and diversity (H’) at the study area (cont’d) Station Reclamation Area (Within Offshore Area (Outside Off Pulau Kendi Taxa Reclamation Footprint) Reclamation Footprint) & Pulau Rimau P20 P21 P22 P23 P24 P25 P26 P27 Phylum: Arthropoda (Crustacea) Copepods Nauplii 0.05 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.35 - 0.30 0.20 Copepodids 0.10 0.20 - - 0.35 - 0.15 0.08 Calanoids Acartia 0.30 0.05 - 0.05 0.05 0.30 - 0.13 Calanus 0.05 ------0.05 Eucalanus 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.05 2.30 1.30 1.60 0.23 Labidocera 0.15 ------Paracalanus 0.05 - - - - - 0.10 - Cyclopoids Oithona 0.15 - - - 0.85 0.10 0.55 - Harpacticoid Microsetella 0.10 0.05 - - 0.10 - - - Macrosetella - 0.15 - - - - 0.05 - Euterpina 0.15 - - 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.45 0.03 Poecilostomatoid Corycaeus 0.50 0.15 0.15 - 0.25 0.45 0.25 0.33 Oncaea - - - - - 0.05 - 0.03 Decapod Decapod larvae 0.10 0.05 0.05 - 0.15 - 0.10 0.03 Diplostraca Evadne - 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.30 - - 0.08 Subtotal (ind./L) 1.85 1.10 0.70 0.25 4.75 2.25 3.55 1.15 Phylum: Chordata Oikopluera 0.45 - 0.40 0.45 - 1.50 0.30 0.28 Subtotal (ind./L) 0.45 0.00 0.40 0.45 0.00 1.50 0.30 0.28 Phylum: Mollusca Bivalve larvae 0.05 0.05 0.05 - 0.25 0.35 - 0.15 Gastropod larvae 0.15 - 0.05 - 0.10 3.36 - 0.03 Subtotal (ind./L) 0.20 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.35 3.71 0.00 0.18 Phylum: Chaetognatha Sagitta 0.25 - - 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.15 - Subtotal (ind./L) 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.15 0.00 Phylum: Cnidaria Unidentified salp - - - - 0.10 0.30 - - Unidentified jelly fish 0.35 - 0.25 - 0.90 0.70 0.05 0.13 Subtotal (ind./L) 0.35 0.00 0.25 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.13 Phylum: Annelida Polychaete larvae 0.10 - 0.05 - 0.25 0.65 0.05 0.03 Subtotal (ind./L) 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.25 0.65 0.05 0.03 Density (ind./L) 3.20 1.15 1.50 0.90 6.55 9.46 4.10 1.75 Diversity Index (H') 2.64 2.12 2.04 1.48 2.19 2.02 2.02 2.38

6-107 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

F6.66 Composition of the Zooplankton at the study area

F6.67 Zooplankton density (ind./L) at the study area

A total of 15 taxa from Phylum Arthropoda was recorded at the study area. The highest number of taxa (15 taxa) was recorded within the reclamation footprint, with 14 taxa recorded at the foreshore area and 13 taxa recorded each for the offshore area (outside reclamation footprint) and off Pulau Kendi/Pulau Rimau. Eucalanus (Copepoda) was the most abundant taxa, constituting 41.6% of the total Arthropod density. The mean density of Eucalanus ranged from 0.22±0.06 (0.15 -0.25) to 4.75±5.56 (0.05 -16.65) ind./L. Studies showed that Eucalanus was a common genus reported in the Malaysian waters and usually found in high abundance (Johan et al. , 2013; Nakajima et al ., 2008).

On the whole, the highest mean density of arthropods was recorded at the foreshore area [11.37±11.62 (0.85 -39.75] cells/mL), followed by the offshore area (outside the reclamation footprint) [2.42±2.25 (0.25 -4.75) cells/mL], area off Pulau Kendi/Pulau Rimau [2.35±1.70 (1.15 -3.55) cells/mL] and area within the reclamation footprint [1.22±0.58 (0.70 -1.85) cells/ mL] (F6.68).

6-108 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

F6.68 Mean density (ind./L) of Phylum Arthropoda at the study area

The second most abundant phylum was Chordata, which was represented by Oikopluera . The highest mean density of Oikopluera was recorded at the foreshore area [1.05±1.11 (0 - 3.50) ind./L], followed by area offshore area (outside the reclamation footprint) [0.65±0.77 (0 - 1.50) ind./L], off Pulau Kendi/Pulau Rimau [0.29±0.02 (0.28 -0.30) ind./L] and area within the reclamation footprint [0.28±0.25 (0 -0.45) ind./L] (F6.69). According to Lakkis (1994), Oikopleura was abundant in most parts of the marine ecosystem due to its high tolerance of polluted water. Moreover, they are able to feed on nanoplankton, picoplankton and even submicron colloids (Acuña et al., 1996; Bedo et al ., 1993; Flood et al. , 1992; Urban et al. , 1992; King et al ., 1980).

F6.69 Mean density (ind./L) of Phylum Chordata at the study area

Mollusca was the third most abundant phylum with mean density of 0.71±1.23 (0 -5.50) ind./ L. Mollusca comprises of gastropod and bivalve larvae, where bivalve larvae (74.9% of the total mollusc density) were more abundant as compared to gastropod larvae (25.1%).

6-109 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Molluscs were among the mega -sized groups in the marine ecosystem. On the whole, the highest mean density of molluscs was recorded at the offshore area (outside the reclamation footprint) [1.35±2.05 (0 -3.71) ind./L], followed by the foreshore area [0.77±1.24 (0.05 -5.50) ind./L], area within the reclamation footprint (0.12±0.08 (0.05 -0.20) ind./L) and off Pulau Kendi/Pulau Rimau [0.09±0.12 (0 -0.18) ind./L] (F6.70). Other phyla such as Chaegtognatha, Cnidaria and Annelida were only present at low mean densities. Chaegtognatha consisted of Sagitta with a mean density that ranged from 0.08±0.11 (0 -0.15) to 0.37±0.38 (0 -1.35) ind./L. Cnidaria were represented by salp and jelly fish, their mean densities ranging from 0.09±0.05 (0.05 -0.13) to 0.67±0.58 (0 -1.00) ind./L. The mean density of Annelida ranged from 0.04±0.02 (0.03 -0.05) to 0.30±0.33 (0 -0.65) ind./L. This phylum was only comprised of polychaete larvae.

Overall, the mean zooplankton density at the study area was 10.86±12.26 (0.90 -45.15) cells/ mL. The mean Shannon Weiner Diversity Index (H’) was recorded at 2.00±0.31 (1.10 -2.64) where most stations recorded high diversity pattern. The highest value was at P20 (2.64), located within the reclamation footprint, while the lowest at P1 (1.10), located at the foreshore area (F6.71).

F6.70 Mean density (ind./L) of Phylum Mollusca at the study area

F6.71 Zooplankton diversity index (H’) at the study area

6-110 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

6.3.2.1.2 Macrobenthos a) Methodology

For the macrobenthic studies, a total of 49 stations was involved i.e. 20 stations along the foreshore area, 16 within the reclamation area/footprint, six (6) offshore area (outside the reclamation footprint) and three (3) off Pulau Kendi and four (4) Pulau Rimau (T6.37 and F6.72).

T6.37 Description of the sampling stations for Macrobenthos assessment Coordinate Description Station Depth Sediment Latitude Longitude Date Time Weather (m) Type Foreshore Area S1 05°16.828’N 100°17.657’E 1110 Sunny 3.0 Muddy S2 05°16.529’N 100°17.427’E 1105 Sunny 2.0 Muddy S3 05°15.811’N 100°17.133’E 1055 Sunny 2.0 Muddy S4 05°15.309’N 100°17.180’E 1050 Sunny 10.5 Muddy 5/3/16 S5 05°15.299’N 100°16.623’E 1120 Sunny 7.0 Muddy S6 05°15.485’N 100°16.370’E 1000 Sunny 2.5 Muddy S7 05°15.796’N 100°16.202’E 0955 Sunny 2.0 Muddy S8 05°16.197’N 100°16.060’E 0945 Sunny 1.0 Muddy S9 05°16.581’N 100°15.515’E 1105 Sunny 1.5 Muddy S10 05°16.716’N 100°14.972’E 6/3/6 0955 Sunny 1.0 Muddy S11 05°16.393’N 100°14.907’E 1005 Sunny 2.5 Muddy S12 05°16.800’N 100°14.326’E 1235 Sunny 2.0 Muddy S13 05°17.049’N 100°13.772’E 1230 Sunny 1.5 Muddy sand S14 05°16.771’N 100°13.284’E 1215 Sunny 2.0 Muddy S15 05°16.813’N 100°12.735’E 1210 Sunny 2.5 Muddy 7/3/16 S16 05°16.703’N 100°12.177’E 1205 Sunny 2.0 Muddy S17 05°16.806’N 100°11.597’E 1155 Sunny 1.0 Muddy sand S18 05°16.414’N 100°11.245’E 1150 Sunny 2.0 Muddy S19 05°17.327’N 100°10.604’E 1055 Sunny 4.5 Muddy S20 05°18.890’N 100°11.144’E 4/3/16 1630 Sunny 2.5 Muddy Reclamation Area (Within Reclamation Footprint) S21 05°16.263’N 100°15.550’E 1100 Sunny 2.0 Muddy S22 05°15.665’N 100°15.554’E 6/3/16 1050 Sunny 2.0 Muddy S23 05°15.688’N 100°14.991’E 1010 Sunny 3.0 Muddy S24 05°15.668’N 100°14.378’E 1225 Sunny 3.0 Muddy 9/3/16 S25 05°15.126’N 100°14.398’E 1230 Sunny 3.5 Muddy S26 05°15.135’N 100°14.979’E 1015 Sunny 3.0 Muddy 6/3/16 S27 05°15.166’N 100°15.535’E 1045 Sunny 3.0 Muddy S28 05°16.812’N 100°13.808’E 7/3/16 1225 Sunny 2.5 Muddy S29 05°16.290’N 100°14.377’E 1220 Sunny 2.5 Muddy shell S30 05°16.285’N 100°13.816’E 9/3/16 1215 Sunny 2.5 Muddy S31 05°16.278’N 100°13.263’E 1145 Sunny 2.5 Muddy S32 05°16.305’N 100°12.740’E 8/3/16 1215 Sunny 2.5 Muddy S33 05°15.668’N 100°13.281’E 9/3/16 1150 Sunny 3.0 Muddy

6-111 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.37 Description of the sampling stations for Macrobenthos assessment (cont’d) Coordinate Description Station Depth Sediment Latitude Longitude Date Time Weather (m) Type Reclamation Area (Within Reclamation Footprint) S34 05°15.682’N 100°13.804’E 9/3/16 1210 Sunny 3.0 Muddy S35 05°16.292’N 100°12.190’E 8/3/16 1115 Sunny 3.0 Muddy S36 05°16.297’N 100°11.597’E 7/3/16 1145 Sunny 2.5 Muddy Offshore Area (Outside Reclamation Footprint) S37 05°14.525’N 100°14.992’ 6/3/16 1020 Sunny 3.5 Muddy S38 05°14.535’N 100°14.376’E 1230 Sunny 4.5 Muddy shell 9/3/16 S39 05°15.124’N 100°13.311’E 1155 Sunny 4.0 Muddy S40 05°15.695’N 100°12.758’E 8/3/16 1210 Sunny 3.0 Muddy S41 05°15.682’N 100°11.635’E 7/3/16 1140 Sunny 3.5 Muddy S42 05°15.661’N 100°12.212’E 8/3/16 1140 Sunny 4.0 Muddy Off Pulau Kendi S43 05°14.538’N 100°11.069’E 1130 Sunny 12.5 Muddy S44 05°14.008’N 100°10.428’E 7/3/16 1105 Sunny 10.0 Muddy S45 05°13.988’N 100°11.080’E 1115 Sunny 12.0 Muddy Off Pulau Rimau S46 05°15.123’N 100°16.094’E 1005 Sunny 5.5 Muddy S47 05°14.539’N 100°16.105’E 1010 Sunny 5.5 Muddy shell 5/3/16 S48 05°14.539’N 100°16.635’E 1030 Sunny 18.0 Muddy S49 05°14.618’N 100°17.992’E 1040 Sunny 10.0 Muddy

F6.72 Location of the sampling stations for Macrobenthos assessment (S1 -S49)

6-112 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

Sampling involved the collection of bottom sediment. At each sampling station, the following procedures were applied: i) Benthic organisms were sampled using a Van -Veen Grab (0.20 m x 0.16 m) (F6.73A). ii) The samples were collected in double -layered plastic bags and labelled. iii) The sediment was slowly washed through a sieve with a mesh size of 500 µm (F6.73B). iv) Specimens and coarse sediment that were retained in the sieve were collected in a plastic bag, preserved in 10% seawater buffered formalin solution and moved to the laboratory (F6.73C and F6.73D). v) At the laboratory, the sieved specimens were: vi) Sorted and identified at the family and genus/species level using a stereomicroscope and high power compound microscope. vii) Density was calculated in terms of number of individuals per meter square (ind./m 2). viii) Species diversity was also assessed based on the Shannon -Weiner Diversity Index (H’). ix) The macrobenthic biomass was determined in dry weight (g/m 2).

A B

F6.73 Zooplankton assessment. A: Samples collected using a Van Veen grab, B: Sediment slowly washed through a 500 µm sieve, C: Benthic specimens retained on the sieve collected in a plastic bag, D: Samples preserved with 10% C D seawater buffered formalin

b) Results

The benthic environment is an important part of the marine ecosystem and is dominated by large numbers of marine invertebrates. Benthic communities, particularly macrobenthos, play a critical role in the diets of many shorebird and fish species, and can profoundly influence the abundance and species composition in the ecosystem (Currie and Small, 2005; Stillman et al., 2000; Skagen and Oman, 1996). Apart from being a source of food for bottom feeding fish and crustaceans, macrobenthos also play an integral role in the recycling of nutrients, and conservation of water quality (Harris, 1999; Peterson and Heck, 1999).

Most benthic organisms consume organic sediment as deposit feeders, and in the process, regenerate essential nutrients to the water column. The burrowing activities of the benthic organisms (bioturbation) also release nutrients into the water column. The macrobenthos

6-113 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

also play an important ecological role in the mangrove ecosystem. The macrobenthos assist in the breakdown of particulate organic material by exposing them to microbes while their waste materials contain rich nutrients forming the food for other consumers (Thilagavathi et al ., 2013).

Their density and diversity would thus be a clear reflection of the primary and secondary productivity in the Project site. Several factors are known to influence the distributions of macrobenthos which include sediment types, temperature, productivity, salinity, oxygen and depth (Snelgrove, 2001).

A total of four (4) phyla of macrobenthos was recorded at the study area, namely Annelida, Mollusca, Arthropoda (Crustacea) and Echinodermata (T6.38 to T6.40). The most dominant phylum was the Annelida, accounted for 38.2% of the total density in the study area, followed by Mollusca (32.8%), Arthropoda (Crustacea) (25.4%) and Echinodermata (3.6%) (F6.74). In terms of station, the highest density of macrobenthos recorded is at S29 (460 ind./m 2), located within the reclamation footprint. Some of the stations showed low benthic populations. For instance, S22, S30 and S32 only represented by bivalve and recorded at 20 ind./m 2 (F6.75).

F6.74 Composition of the Macrobenthos at the study area

F6.75 Macrobenthos density (ind./m 2) at the study area

6-114 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.38 Macrobenthos density (ind./m 2) and diversity (H’) at the study area (S1 -S20) Station Taxa Foreshore Area S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20 Phylum: Annelida Class: Polychaeta Fam. Ampharetidae Auchenoplax crinita - - 20 ------Fam. Amphinomidae Chloeia violacea ------Fam. Capitellidae Heteromastus similis ------10 ------Mediomastus warrenae ------10 ------Notomastus aberans ------30 ------Mediomastus capensis ------Notomastus latericeus ------Fam. Eunicidae Eunice indica - 10 - - - - - 10 ------20 - - - Eunice sp. ------10 - - 10 - - - Fam. Glyceridae Glycera alba 10 80 ------50 - - - 40 10 - - Glycera tesselata - - 10 ------10 ------Glycera prashadi ------10 - - - 20 - - - Fam. Hesionidae Leocrates indicus ------Fam. Lumbrineridae Lumbrineris latreilli - 10 ------10 ------20 - - - Lumbrineris albidentata ------10 - - - - 10 - - - Fam. Maldanidae Axiothella sp. ------10 ------Euclymene sp. ------10 - - - Fam. Nephtyidae Aglaophamus orientalis - 40 ------Aglaophamus dibranchus - - 10 - - 20 - 10 - 20 ------40 - - - Micronephtys sphaerocirrata ------10 - - 50 ------Fam. Nereididae Ceratocephale fauveli - 30 ------10 - - - 50 - - - Ceratonereis sp. ------30 ------Gymnonereis fauveli ------10 30 - - - Fam. Onuphidae Onuphis eremita ------20 Fam. Orbiniidae Scoloplos (Leodamas) gracilis - - 30 ------Scoloplos (Leodamas) rubra - 10 ------Haploscoloplos elongatus ------Fam. Paraonidae Aricidea (Acmira) simplex - 20 ------10 - - - Paradoneis armata - 20 ------Aricidea (Acmira) sp. ------10 - - -

6-115 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.38 Macrobenthos density (ind./m 2) and diversity (H’) at the study area (S1 -S20) (cont’d) Station Taxa Foreshore Area S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20 Phylum: Annelida (cont’d) Fam. Phyllodocidae Phyllodoce sp. ------10 - - - 10 - - - 10 - - - Fam. Polynoidae Iphione muncata ------30 - - - 20 - - - Fam. Spionidae Prionospio multibranchiata ------20 ------Prionospio cornuta - 20 ------30 - - - Prionospio ehlersi ------10 ------Prionospio malayensis - - - - 20 ------10 - - 10 20 - - - Subtotal (ind./m 2) 10 240 70 0 20 20 0 60 10 50 0 40 220 10 0 20 350 10 0 20 Phylum: Mollusca Class: Gastropoda Natica sp. 20 - - - - 10 ------Nucula sp. - - - 120 ------Phos sp. - - - 0 ------Class: Bivalvia Anadara granosa 80 ------Trachycardium sp. 30 ------Unidentified bivalve spats - 50 - - 10 50 70 20 - - 10 20 30 30 20 20 - - 20 - Subtotal (ind./m 2) 130 50 0 120 10 60 70 20 0 0 10 20 30 30 20 20 0 0 20 0 Phylum: Arthropoda (Crustacea) Alpheidea ------Amphipoda Gammaridea - - - - - 10 20 - 30 - - - 60 10 ------Hyperiidea - 10 ------Anomura - - - - - 20 ------10 - Brachyura Porcellanidae ------Caridea - 30 - - 10 ------10 - - - 10 0 10 10 Cumacea - - 30 ------10 ------Isopoda - - - - 10 ------10 - 20 - - 20 - - Penaeidea - 10 ------Stomatopoda ------10 - - - - - Tanaidacea ------10 ------Thalassinoidea - - - - 10 - 10 - - - - - 30 ------Subtotal (ind./m 2) 0 50 30 0 30 30 40 0 30 0 10 0 110 10 30 0 10 20 20 10 Phylum: Echinodermata Class Ophiuroidea Ophionereis reticulata - 60 ------10 ------Ophiothrix sp. - 20 ------10 Class Holothuroidea - 10 ------Subtotal (ind./m 2) 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Density (ind./m 2) 140 430 100 120 60 110 110 80 50 50 20 60 360 50 50 40 360 30 40 40 Diversity Index (H') 1.12 2.53 1.51 0.00 1.56 1.41 1.03 1.49 0.95 1.33 0.69 1.56 2.43 0.95 1.06 1.04 2.68 0.64 1.04 1.04

6-116 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.39 Macrobenthos density (ind./m 2) and diversity (H’) at the study area (S21 -S42) Station Taxa Foreshore Area S21 S22 S23 S24 S25 S26 S27 S28 S29 S30 S31 S32 S33 S34 S35 S36 S37 S38 S39 S40 S41 S42 Phylum: Annelida Class: Polychaeta Fam. Ampharetidae Auchenoplax crinita ------Fam. Amphinomidae Chloeia violacea ------Fam. Capitellidae Heteromastus similis ------Mediomastus warrenae ------Notomastus aberans ------10 10 - - - - Mediomastus capensis ------10 ------Notomastus latericeus ------10 - 10 - - - - Fam. Eunicidae Eunice indica ------10 - - - - Eunice sp. ------Fam. Glyceridae Glycera alba - - - - 10 - - - 20 - - - - 10 - 10 ------Glycera tesselata ------Glycera prashadi ------Fam. Hesionidae Leocrates indicus ------10 ------Fam. Lumbrineridae Lumbrineris latreilli ------30 ------10 - - - - Lumbrineris albidentata ------10 - - - - 10 ------Fam. Maldanidae Axiothella sp. ------10 ------Euclymene sp. ------Fam. Nephtyidae Aglaophamus orientalis ------10 - - - - - 10 Aglaophamus dibranchus ------20 40 - - - 30 - - 10 ------Micronephtys sphaerocirrata ------10 ------Fam. Nereididae Ceratocephale fauveli ------10 ------10 - - - - Ceratonereis sp. ------10 - - - Gymnonereis fauveli ------10 10 ------10 - - - - - Fam. Onuphidae Onuphis eremita ------Fam. Orbiniidae Scoloplos (Leodamas) gracilis ------Scoloplos (Leodamas) rubra ------Haploscoloplos elongatus ------Fam. Paraonidae Aricidea (Acmira) simplex ------10 ------0 ------Paradoneis armata ------10 - 20 - - - - 20 ------Aricidea (Acmira) sp. ------

6-117 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.39 Macrobenthos density (ind./m 2) and diversity (H’) at the study area (S21 -S42) (cont’d) Station Taxa Reclamation Area (Within Reclamation Footprint) Offshore Area (Outside Reclamation Footprint) S21 S22 S23 S24 S25 S26 S27 S28 S29 S30 S31 S32 S33 S34 S35 S36 S37 S38 S39 S40 S41 S42 Phylum: Annelida (cont’d) Fam. Phyllodocidae Phyllodoce sp. ------10 ------10 - - - Fam. Polynoidae Iphione muncata ------10 - - - - Fam. Spionidae Prionospio multibranchiata ------10 ------Prionospio cornuta ------0 ------Prionospio ehlersi ------20 ------Prionospio malayensis ------Subtotal (ind./m 2) 0 0 0 0 10 0 40 50 180 0 0 0 30 40 0 40 20 60 20 0 0 10 Phylum: Mollusca Class: Gastropoda Natica sp. ------10 - - - - Nucula sp. ------10 10 - Phos sp. ------10 ------Class: Bivalvia Anadara granosa ------Trachycardium sp. ------Unidentified bivalve spats 120 20 20 70 80 50 30 - - 20 20 20 30 50 20 - 10 30 80 50 70 110 Subtotal (ind./m 2) 120 20 20 70 80 50 40 0 0 20 20 20 30 50 20 0 10 40 80 60 80 10 Phylum: Arthropoda (Crustacea) Alpheidea ------10 - - - - Amphipoda Gammaridea ------30 30 110 ------40 - - - 10 Hyperiidea ------Anomura - - 10 - - 10 - - - - 20 ------10 Brachyura Porcellanidae ------10 ------Caridea - - - - 20 - - - 30 - - - 20 - - - - 20 - - - 10 Cumacea ------20 ------10 - 10 - - - Isopoda - - - 30 20 - - 10 10 - 10 - 30 ------30 20 - Penaeidea ------10 ------10 10 - - - Stomatopoda ------10 ------Tanaidacea ------0 ------Thalassinoidea ------20 ------Subtotal (ind./m 2) 0 0 10 30 40 10 30 40 210 0 40 0 50 0 0 0 10 80 20 30 20 30 Phylum: Echinodermata Class Ophiuroidea Ophionereis reticulata ------50 ------Ophiothrix sp. ------20 ------Class Holothuroidea ------10 ------Subtotal (ind./m 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Density (ind./m 2) 120 20 30 100 130 60 110 90 460 20 60 20 110 90 30 40 30 80 140 10 30 130 Diversity Index (H') 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.61 1.07 0.45 1.80 1.68 2.64 0.00 1.33 0.00 1.37 1.15 0.64 1.39 1.39 2.32 1.10 0.94 0.80 0.95

6-118 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.40 Macrobenthos density (ind./m 2) and diversity (H’) at the study area (S43 -S49) Station Taxa Off Pulau Kendi Off Pulau Rimau S43 S44 S45 S46 S47 S48 S49 Phylum: Annelida Class: Polychaeta Fam. Ampharetidae Auchenoplax crinita ------Fam. Amphinomidae Chloeia violacea - - - - - 10 - Fam. Capitellidae Heteromastus similis ------Mediomastus warrenae ------Notomastus aberans ------Mediomastus capensis ------Notomastus latericeus ------Fam. Eunicidae Eunice indica ------Eunice sp. ------Fam. Glyceridae Glycera alba 20 ------Glycera tesselata ------Glycera prashadi ------Fam. Hesionidae Leocrates indicus ------Fam. Lumbrineridae Lumbrineris latreilli - - - - 30 - - Lumbrineris albidentata ------Fam. Maldanidae Axiothella sp. ------Euclymene sp. ------Fam. Nephtyidae Aglaophamus orientalis - - - - 20 - - Aglaophamus dibranchus 30 - - - 40 - - Micronephtys sphaerocirrata 10 ------Fam. Nereididae Ceratocephale fauveli - - - - 30 - - Ceratonereis sp. ------Gymnonereis fauveli - - - - 20 - - Fam. Onuphidae Onuphis eremita ------Fam. Orbiniidae Scoloplos (Leodamas) gracilis 10 ------Scoloplos (Leodamas) rubra ------Haploscoloplos elongatus - - - - 20 - - Fam. Paraonidae Aricidea (Acmira) simplex ------Paradoneis armata - - - - 20 - - Aricidea (Acmira) sp. - 10 - - 10 - -

6-119 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.40 Macrobenthos density (ind./m 2) and diversity (H’) at the study area (S43 -S49) (cont’d) Station Taxa Off Pulau Kendi Off Pulau Rimau S43 S44 S45 S46 S47 S48 S49 Phylum: Annelida (cont’d) Fam. Phyllodocidae Phyllodoce sp. ------Fam. Polynoidae Iphione muncata - 10 - - 20 - - Fam. Spionidae Prionospio multibranchiata ------Prionospio cornuta ------Prionospio ehlersi - - - - 10 - - Prionospio malayensis - - - - 30 - - Subtotal (ind./m 2) 70 20 0 0 250 10 0 Phylum: Mollusca Class: Gastropoda Natica sp. ------Nucula sp. ------Phos sp. ------Class: Bivalvia Anadara granosa ------Trachycardium sp. ------Unidentified bivalve spats 0 30 20 70 20 - 30 Subtotal (ind./m 2) 0 30 20 70 20 0 30 Phylum: Arthropoda (Crustacea) Alpheidea ------Amphipoda Gammaridea - - 30 - 180 - - Hyperiidea ------Anomura 10 ------Brachyura Porcellanidae ------Caridea - 10 - - - - - Cumacea - - - - - 10 10 Isopoda ------Penaeidea ------Stomatopoda ------Tanaidacea ------Thalassinoidea ------Subtotal (ind./m 2) 10 10 30 0 180 10 10 Phylum: Echinodermata Class Ophiuroidea Ophionereis reticulata ------Ophiothrix sp. ------Class Holothuroidea ------Subtotal (ind./m 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Density (ind./m 2) 80 60 50 70 450 20 40 Diversity Index (H') 1.49 1.24 0.67 0.00 2.12 0.69 0.56

6-120 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

The most abundant phylum was Annelida, which was represented by 16 families and 36 species. The mean density recorded was at 42±76 (0 -350) ind./m 2. The most dominant family was the Nephtyidae, which comprised about 21.5% of the total polychaete density, followed by Glyceridae (15.5%), Nereididae (13.5%) and Spionidae (10.5%), while the others comprised less than 10%. In term of species, Aglaophamus dibranchus and Glycera alba were found to be the most abundant species, constituting 13.5% and 13.0% of the total density of annelids respectively. The mean density recorded at 6±12 (0 -40) ind./m 2 for A. dibranchus , while 6±15 (0 -80) ind./m 2 for G. alba.

A predominance of polychaete worms is a normal phenomenon for coastal benthic organisms in Malaysian waters (Sasekumar et al, 1984). According to Day (1981), these annelids can be found at all depths of the marine ecosystem. In addition, they are known to have a high tolerance to organic pollution and natural perturbation (Ahsen et al ., 2006; Bryan and Gibbs, 1987; Rygg, 1985). Polychaete worms usually act as the representative group in the assessment of the health of aquatic ecosystem. Most polychaetes have short life cycle and high reproduction rates, which enable them to show quick response on any changes in the environment such as the input of pollutants or organic material. Polychaete larvae may be capable of long distance transport, while the adults are relatively inert (Dean, 2008).

On the whole, the highest mean density of annelids was recorded at the foreshore area [58±97 (0 -350) ind./m 2], followed by off Pulau Kendi/Pulau Rimau [50±92 (0 -250) ind./m 2], area within the reclamation footprint (24±46 (0 -180) ind./m 2) and area offshore area (outside the reclamation footprint) [18±22 (0 -60) ind./m 2] (F6.76). A previous study by Sabine (2001) reported high density and diversity of polychaetes commonly observed in the mudflat sites.

Note: Area 1: Foreshore area (S1 – S20) Area 2: Reclamation area (within reclamation footprint) (S21 – S36) Area 3: Offshore area (outside reclamation footprint) (S37 – S42) Area 4: Off Pulau Kendi and Pulau Rimau (S43 – S45 and S46 – S49)

F6.76 Mean density (ind./m 2) of Phylum Annelida at the study area

Phylum Mollusca was represented by three (3) taxa under Class Gastropoda and three (3) taxa under Class Bivalvia. Gastropods and bivalves are known as the main group of molluscs found in the Malaysian waters (Wong and Arshad, 2011). However, their feeding habits are different, where gastropods are primarily algae scrapers or predators on sessile animals, while a bivalve are filter or detritus feeders. The mean density was recorded at 35±35 (0 -130) ind./m 2.

6-121 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

The high density was mostly contributed by unidentified bivalve spats that cover 82.6% of the total Mollusca count. The mean density of bivalve spats was 29±30 (0 -120) ind./m 2. Bivalve spat is the stage where they begin to lose the larval organs such as velum, foot or eyespot, and form the adult structures. A new shell is also laid down by the mantle during this time (FAO, 1990).

On the whole, the highest mean density of molluscs was recorded offshore area (outside of the reclamation footprint) [63±35 (10 -110) ind./m 2], followed by within the reclamation footprint [35±33 (0 -120) ind./m 2], foreshore area [33±38 (0 -130) ind./m 2] and off Pulau Kendi/ Pulau Rimau [24±24 (0 -70) ind./m 2] (F6.77). This finding coincided with the zooplankton assessment, where the highest mean density of molluscs larvae was recorded at the offshore area (outside of the reclamation footprint) [1.35±2.05 (0 -3.71) ind./L], while the lowest was recorded off Pulau Kendi/Pulau Rimau [0.09±0.12 (0 -0.18) ind./L].

F6.77 Mean density (ind./m 2) of Phylum Mollusca at the study area

Arthropoda (Crustacea) was the third most abundant phylum, with mean density of 27±41 (0 - 210) ind./m 2. This phylum consisted of several orders, of which Amphipoda was the most abundant, accounting for 42.9% of the total crustacean count. Amphipods act as an important link between producers and higher consumers such as fish in the food webs. Amphipods also have proven difficult to identify due to their small size and morphology. However, they are usually used as bioindicator of pollution since they are sensitive to environmental conditions (Zaabar et al ., 2015). On the whole, the highest mean density of arthropods recorded was off Pulau Kendi/Pulau Rimau [36±64 (0 -180) ind./m 2], followed by the offshore area (outside the reclamation footprint) [32±25 (10 -80) ind./m 2], area within the reclamation footprint [29±52 (0 -210) ind./m 2] and foreshore area (22±26 (0 -110) ind./m 2) (F6.78).

The high density in Pulau Kendi/Pulau Rimau could be related to the lower pollution loads off the island. Foreshore areas receiving daily inputs from land -based pollutant flows is probably the main reason for the low density of arthropods recorded during the current study. In addition, a previous study by Thomas (1993) reported amphipods to be dominant macrobenthic crustaceans inhabiting available substratum (microhabitat) in coral reef ecosystems (Thomas, 1993). This coincides with the findings of the current study which recorded amphipod as the most abundant group in Pulau Kendi/Pulau Rimau.

6-122 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

F6.78 Mean density (ind./m 2) of Phylum Anthropoda at the study area

The least abundant phylum was Echinodermata, which consisted of two groups. Class Ophiuroidea was found to be more dominant, covering 89.5% of the total density of Echinoderms, while the remaining 10.5% was constituted by Class Holothuroidea. Echinodermata was only recorded at the foreshore area and the area within the reclamation footprint with mean density of 6±20 (0 -90) ind./m 2 and 5±18 (0 -70) ind./m 2 respectively.

Overall, the mean macrobenthos density at the study area was 107±112 (20 -460) ind./m 2. The mean Shannon Weiner Diversity Index (H’) recorded at 1.12±0.69 (0 -2.68), where most of the stations showed a moderate diversity pattern (F6.79). The highest value was recorded at S17 (foreshore area) (2.68), followed by S29 (within reclamation footprint) (2.64), S2 (foreshore area) (2.53) and S13 (foreshore area) (2.43).

F6.79 Macrobenthos diversity index (H’) at the study area

6-123 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

6.3.2.1.3 Coral Reefs

Coral reef assessment was carried out at Pulau Kendi and Pulau Rimau. The survey was conducted from 12 to 15 April 2016. A total of eight dive sites were involved, with four sites each at Pulau Kendi and Pulau Rimau. The diving duration at each site ranged from 45 to 60 minutes. The weather during the dive survey was sunny. Sea conditions were characterized by moderate currents and high turbidity. Hence, poor visibility conditions prevailed. The location and description of each dive site are provided in T6.41 and F6.80. a) Methodology

Two different methods were carried out for the coral assessment, which are: i) at Pulau Kendi - Line Intercept Transect (LIT) method with minor modification was employed. Cells were arranged in parallel rows, stretching from the coastline to the outermost seaward limit of the coral boundary. ii) at Pulau Rimau - The survey method had to be modified because the LIT method was not applicable. This was due to vertical distribution of coral reefs on slopes, rocks and boulders of the island. Dive survey had to be undertaken along the perimeter of the island.

T6.41 Description of the dive sites for coral reef assessment Coordinates Description Visibility Depth Line (m) (m) Transect (m) Start End Date Time Weather

Pulau Kendi (LIT Method) 05°14.175’N 05°14.197’N C1 0910 30 10.7 0.6 100°10.874’E 100°10.085’E

05°14.130’N 05°14.127’N Sunny C2 1048 20 4.5 1.8 100°10.899’E 100°10.911’E 12/4/16 05°13.847’N 05°13.842’N

C3 1200 20 3.7 1.8 100°10.776’E 100°10.787’E 05°13.730’N 05°13.723’N C4 1330 60 3.0 3.0 100°10.772’E 100°10.805’E Pulau Rimau (Perimeter Transect) 05°14.618’N 05°14.746’N C5 0900 400 4.0 2.7 100°16.549’E 100°16.419’E 15/4/16

05°14.755’N 05°14.916’N Sunny C6 1300 900 4.1 2.7 100°16.378’E 100°16.951’E 05°14.928’N 05°15.035’N 1,00

C7 13/4/16 0900 4.0 0.3 100°16.126’E 100°16.597’E 0 05°15.025’N 05°14.671’N C8 14/4/16 0900 700 2.6 0.6 100°16.608’E 100°16.590’E

6-124 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

F6.80 Locations of the dive sites at the study area

The general procedure employed at each site was as follows: i) Line Intercept Transect (LIT) - The positions of each line were established and respective positions were plotted by GPS. Once these positions were established, a team of divers laid transect lines (C1 to C4) from the coastline to the coral edge (further offshore), approximately 20 to 60 m long (depending on the coral area) using a measuring tape (F6.81). Then, the divers left the survey area for 10 minutes to allow normal fish activity to resume. The divers then returned and recorded species of coral/ fish/other organisms on the polyester data sheet along the transect line and 5 m wide x 5 m high corridor. ii) Perimeter Transect - The position of each point was plotted using GPS. A team of divers dived vertically along the four (C5 to C8) perimeter transects covering a distance of 400 to 1,000 m for each transect along the coastline. Along the perimeter transect, divers recorded species of coral/fish/other organisms on the polyester data sheet. iii) The coral species were identified up to genera/species level where possible in the field or after the dive were completed using field guidebooks. Among the references that provided background material for the identification of species, but not limited to, were Kelley (2009), Veron (2000), Janes and Lee (2007), Fabricius and Alderslade (2001), Allen and Steen (1999), van Ofwegen et al. (2000), Tullock (1997), Delbeek and Sprung (1994), Chou (1988), van Ofwegen (1987), Millis (1985) and Searle (1980). iv) The data collected includes approximate locations, speciation (including reef fish and invertebrates), distribution, percentage coverage and health of coral reef. v) Photographs and short videos were also taken.

6-125 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

F6.81 Coral reef survey undertaken at the study area

b) Results

Coral Species Identification

Coral reefs are among the most diverse and valuable ecosystems on earth. They provide economic and environmental services worth about $375 billion each year to millions of people as shoreline protection, areas of natural beauty, recreation and tourism, sources of food, pharmaceuticals as well as revenues (Wilson et al., 2005; Costanza et al. , 1997). In addition, they form nurseries and breeding grounds for an estimated 25% of all marine animals as well as home to one -third of all fish species found worldwide (Reef Check Malaysia, 2008).

Within the study site, coral reefs are found in the vicinity of Pulau Rimau and Pulau Kendi, and surveyed as part of this investigation. The coral reef surveys at Pulau Kendi (C1 to C4) and Pulau Rimau (C5 to C8) were undertaken in April 2016, the outcomes of which appear below. i) Pulau Kendi

Pulau Kendi is an island with natural rock formations. The hills on the island are very steep and densely forested (F6.83). There is only one stretch of sandy beach (C3), though it is very small. Based on the diving survey, the bottom sediment type was generally of muddy sand (F6.82).

6-126 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

C2 C1 C1

C3 C4

F6.82 Overview of the dive sites at Pulau Kendi

Pulau Kendi had a higher number of hard corals, possibly due to the better water quality, being offshore of Pulau Rimau. 13 genera of hard corals (8 families) were recorded (T6.42); with some genera such as Star Coral ( Favites sp.), Sun Coral ( Turbinaria sp.), Anemone Coral ( Goniopora sp.) as well as Boulder Coral ( Porites sp.) in higher abundance as compared to other genera (F6.83). Five genera of gorgonians from four families were recorded in Pulau Kendi, with the Sea Fan (Echinogorgia sp.) being the most widespread taxa recorded (F6.84). Only two genera of soft corals were recorded in Pulau Kendi i.e. Leather coral ( Sinularia sp.) and Magnificent Sea Anemone ( Heteractis magnifica ).

T6.42 Coral species recorded at Pulau Kendi Station Type Family Species Common Name C1 C2 C3 C4 Ellisellidae Subergorgia sp. Sea Fan + + Gorgoniidae Guaiagorgia sp. Sea Fan + + Gorgonians Melithaeidae Melithaea sp. Sea Fan + Echinogorgia sp. Sea Fan + + + Plexauridae Menella sp. Sea Fan + + Alycyoniidae Sinularia sp. Leather Coral + Soft Coral Heteractis Magnificent Sea Stichodactylidae + magnifica Anemone Note: ‘+’ – present

6-127 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.42 Coral species recorded at Pulau Kendi (cont’d) Station Type Family Species Common Name C1 C2 C3 C4 Agariciidae Pachyseris speciosa Elephant Skin Coral + Antipathidae Cirrhipathes sp. Wire Coral + + + Caryophylliidae Caryophyllia sp. Cup Coral + + + Tubastrea sp. Sun Coral + + + Dendrophyllidae Turbinaria sp. Table Coral + + + + Diploastrea heliopora Moon Coral + + + Hard Favia sp. Moon Coral + + + Coral Faviidae Favites sp. Star Coral + + + + Monstastrea sp. Pineapple Coral + + + Merulinidae Goniastrea sp. Lesser Star Coral + Mussidae Symphyllia sp. Brain Coral + Goniopora sp. Anemone Coral + + + + Poritidae Porites sp. Boulder Coral + + + + Note: ‘+’ – present

A B C

D E F

Note: The pictures were taken from an average focus distance G H of 10 cm F6.83 Scleractinian coral found at Pulau Kendi. A: Table Coral ( Turbinaria sp. ), B: Lesser Star Coral (Goniastrea sp.), C: Anemone Coral ( Goniopora sp .), D: Moon Coral ( Favia sp .), E: Boulder Coral (Porites sp .), F: Star Coral ( Favites sp .), G: Sun Coral ( Tubastrea sp .), H: Pineapple Coral (Montastrea sp .)

6-128 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

A B C

Note: The pictures were taken from an average focus distance D E of 10 cm F6.84 Gorgonians recorded at Pulau Kendi. A: Sea Fan ( Guaiagorgia sp.), B: Sea Fan ( Echinogorgia sp.), C: Sea Fan ( Subergorgia sp.), D: Sea Fan ( Melithaea sp.), E: Magnificent Sea Anemone ( Heteractis magnifica )

In terms of dive sites, the highest count of hard corals was recorded at C3, with all 13 taxa recorded. C2 was recorded with nine taxa, while both C1 and C4 were recorded with eight genera. The gorgonians, on the other hand, were mostly recorded at C1 and C2, while C3 was only recorded with one genus i.e. Sea Fan ( Echinogorgia sp.). There were no gorgonians recorded at C4 during the survey. The soft corals were also found only at C2.

Coral cover ranged from 0 to 60 m, with the highest coral cover being recorded at C4. It should be noted that the corals in most of the stations were scattered along the transect line. The least coral cover was recorded at C3, where the reef extended up to 10 m only. Strong wave action was observed at C1, thus limiting the dominance of the area to gorgonians. On the other hand, other stations recorded dominance of scleractinian corals, especially at C4 and C2.

According to Chou et al . (1994), the range of the coral health status can be divided into four (4) categories based on percentage of live coral cover as below: a) Excellent: > 75% b) Good: 50 – 75% c) Fair: 25 – 50 % d) Poor: > 25%

During the survey, the live coral cover in Pulau Kendi was <30% of the total coral area, indicating “fair” coral health. Corals are highly depended on light and clear water to gain energy. The health status of the corals in Pulau Kendi was most likely influenced by the high siltation that blocked direct sunlight. Chronic siltation on corals can directly affect them through reduction of photosynthesis and growth (Telesnicki and Goldberg, 1995). During the current survey, high levels of siltation were observed at all stations (F6.85A). Studies showed that decreases in the clarity of the water column caused by high sedimentation are one of the most important factors limiting reef development (Rogers, 1990). In addition, Dodge et al. (1974) had reported that coral growth is closely associated to the resuspension of bottom sediments. Coral growth rates decreased from 1 to 0.6 cm/year when resuspension increased from 0.005 to 0.011 kg/m 2/day.

6-129 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

Note: The pictures were taken from an average focus distance of 10 cm F6.85 A B Siltation and bleaching on coral reefs in Pulau Kendi

In addition, coral bleaching was also observed during the survey (F6.86B). Bleaching is an indication of stress response of corals to various disturbances such as sedimentation and inorganic nutrients (Buchheim, 1998). Bleaching occurs when corals lose 60 to 90% of their zooxanthellae (Glynn, 1996). Corals depend on photosynthetic zooxanthellae for nutrients and if zooxanthellae loss is prolonged, the coral host eventually dies (Buchheim, 1998). However, the level of bleaching recorded during the survey was found to be low as compared to the total reef area. ii) Pulau Rimau

Pulau Rimau is located at the south -eastern part of Penang Island, and its location is adjacent to the main island. The terrestrial feature of the island is forested hill. Great rock formations were found surrounding the island. Sandy beaches were only observed at the northern and southern bays of the island (F6.86). Based on the diving survey, the bottom sediment at the northern and eastern parts of the island were generally of mud and silt, while the southern and western were found to be sand and broken shells.

C6 C7

C8 C7 Bottom substrate: Silt/Mud C8 C6 Bottom substrate: Silt/Mud

Bottom substrate: Sand/Broken shells

Bottom substrate: C5 C5 Sand/Broken shells

F6.86 Overview of the dive sites at Pulau Rimau

6-130 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

The corals on this island are fewer than the Pulau Kendi, possibly due to its location. The survey on the shallow reefs recorded a total of seven taxa of hard corals, five (5) taxa of gorgonians and single taxa of soft coral (T6.43).

T6.43 Coral species recorded at Pulau Rimau Station Type Family Species Common Name C5 C6 C7 C8 Ellisellidae Subergorgia sp. Sea Fan + + + Gorgoniidae Guaiagorgia sp. Sea Fan + + + Gorgonians Melithaeidae Melithaea sp. Sea Fan + + + Echinogorgia sp. Sea Fan + + + + Plexauridae Plexaura sp. Sea Fan + Soft Coral Stichodactylidae Stichodactyla sp. Giant Carpet Anemone + + Caryophylliidae Caryophyllia sp. Cup Coral + + + Faviidae Favia sp. Moon Coral + + + + Faviidae Favites sp. Star Coral + + + + Hard Coral Faviidae Monstastrea sp. Pineapple Coral + + + Merulinidae Goniastrea sp. Lesser Star Coral + + + Poritidae Goniopora sp. Anemone Coral + + + + Poritidae Porites sp. Boulder Coral + + + + Note: ‘+’ – present

From seven taxa of hard corals, most widespread were the Boulder Coral (Porites sp.) and Anemone Coral (Goniopora sp.) (F6.87). As for the gorgonians, the recorded taxa include Echinogorgia sp., Guaiagorgia sp., Subergorgia sp., Melithaea sp. and Plexaura sp., and were found all around the island (F6.88A, B and C). As for soft corals, only Giant Carpet Anemone ( Stichodactyla sp.) from family Stichodactylidae were recorded (F6.88D).

The highest number of hard corals was recorded at C6 and C7, both with seven genera, followed by C5 with six genera, and the least was at C8 with only five genera. In comparison, the number of hard corals at this island was lower as compared to Pulau Kendi. On the other hand, the gorgonians were recorded abundantly at C5, C6 and C7, except at C8 where only two genera recorded as compared to four genera recorded in aforementioned locations. The Giant Carpet Anemone ( Stichodactyla sp.) was only recorded at C7 and C8.

Coral cover at C6 ranged from 0.5 to 5.0 m from low watermark and going vertically down. The corals, especially the scleractinians and gorgonians, were extremely scattered and most were found growing between and on the boulders themselves. In terms of gorgonians, each boulder, with average area of 1m 2, was found to support about 1 to 2 gorgonians.

The most number of genera was recorded at C7, even though they were mostly found within range of 0.5 to 2.5 m from low watermark. Due to the area being protected from strong wave action, a higher number of scleractinian corals was observed.

The coral cover at C8 was also found within the range of 0.5 to 5.0 m from low watermark going vertically down. The area was susceptible to strong wave action, thus limiting the presence of scleractinian corals. However, gorgonians were found scattered abundantly on top and between boulders at a density of 5 to 6 gorgonians/m 2.

6-131 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

A B C

D E F

Note: The pictures were taken from an average focus distance of 10 cm F6.87 Scleractinian coral found at Pulau Rimau. A: Star Coral ( Favites sp.), B: Pineapple Coral ( Montastrea sp.), C: Moon Coral ( Favia sp.), D: G Lesser Star Coral ( Goniastrea sp.), E: Anemone Coral ( Goniopora sp.), F: Boulder Coral ( Porites sp.), G: Cup Coral ( Caryophyllia sp.)

A B Note: The pictures were taken from an average focus distance of 10 cm F6.88 Gorgonians and soft coral recorded at Pulau Kendi. A: Sea Fan ( Guaiagorgia sp.), B: Sea Fan ( Echinogorgia sp.), C: Sea Fan ( Melithaea sp.), D: Giant Carpet Anemone ( Stichodactyla C D sp.)

C5 was also dominated by the gorgonians due to strong wave action. Coral cover ranged from 0.5 to 5.0 m from low watermark, with most of gorgonians found scattered on top and between boulders, at an average density of 5 gorgonians/m 2. However, the bottom sediment after 3 m was found to be made of sand and broken shells.

6-132 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

The coral cover in Pulau Rimau was significantly lower i.e. <5% as compared to its counterpart in Pulau Kendi. The coral cover in the area was reported as “poor” according to Chou et al . (1994). The location of the island adjacent to the island of Penang Island may have a direct effect on its coral distribution. The main disturbance on the coral reefs comes in form of siltation and sedimentation, which is caused by coastal development and shipping activities, overfishing, tourism activities and also increases in sea water temperature (climate change) (Rogers, 1990; Birkeland, 1997; Talbot and Wilkinson, 2001; Burke et al ., 2011). High levels of siltation were observed at all stations - much higher as compared to Pulau Kendi (F6.89A). Any decrement on the water column clarity would have a significant impact on the growth rates of the coral (Rogers, 1990). In addition, bleaching events were observed in Pulau Rimau. However, the bleaching events were minor in comparison to the total reef area (F6.89B).

Note: The pictures were taken from an average focus distance of 10 cm F6.89 Bleaching and siltation on coral A B reefs in Pulau Rimau

6.3.1.2.4 Associated Marine Fauna

Coral reefs support a diverse range of fauna, both vertebrates as well as invertebrates. This is because apart from playing a major role in protecting shorelines from storms and waves, they also act as refuges and feeding/nursery grounds. The diversity of marine life is directly proportional to the complexity of the coral ecosystem i.e. the more complex and diverse the reefs, the more species the ecosystem supports (Luckhurst and Luckhurst, 1978). In addition, Bell et al. (1985) reported a positive correlation between coral cover and coral fish diversity in some fish communities. The discussion on the associated marine fauna is divided into both islands i.e. Pulau Kendi and Pulau Rimau.

Reef Fish i) Pulau Kendi

During the survey in Pulau Kendi, a total of 62 fish species belonging to 22 families were recorded. The highest number of fish species were observed at station C1 with 46 species, followed by station C3 (32 species) and station C2 (24 species). Details of the fish species recorded were provided in T6.44. Most of the species recorded were common reef fishes such as Damselfish and Rabbitfish that are important in reef ecosystem (F6.90). Their foraging help maintain the balance between coral and macroalgal (Burkepile and Hay, 2008).

Other than reef fishes, high -value commercial fish species such as groupers and snappers were spotted in the Pulau Kendi reef. This is probably the main reason why these islands are among the famous angling hotspots in Penang. As a productive ecosystem, reef areas provide food and shelter as well as nursery grounds for these fishes. Protection of these reef areas would enable it to sustain human activities such as angling and fishing.

6-133 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.44 Fish species recorded at Pulau Kendi Station Family Species Common Name C1 C2 C3 C4 Acanthurus sp. Surgeonfish + + + Acanthuridae Ctenochaetus strigosus Gold -Ring Bristletooth + Apogon doederleini Doederlein's Cardinalfish + + Apogonidae Apogon sp. Cardinalfish + + + + Ostorhinchus sp. Stripe Cardinalfish + Caesio cuning Redbelly Yellowtail Fusilier + Caesio sp. Fusilier + Caesionidae Caesio xanthonota Yellowback Fusilier + + Pterocaesio marri Mars Fusilier + Elagatis bipinnulata Rainbow Runner + Scomberoides sp. Queenfish + Carangidae Selaroides leptolepis Yellowstripe Scad + Chaetodon octofasciatus Redtail Butterflyfish + Chaetodon collare Redtail Butterflyfish + + + + Chelmon rostratus Copperband Butterflyfish + + + + Chaetodontidae Heniochus acuminatus Longfin Bannerfish + + + + Heniochus chrysostomus Threeband Pennantfish + Heniochus varius Horned Bannerfish + Amblyeleotris steinitzi Steinitz’s Prawngoby + + + Gobiidae Istigobius decoratus Decorated Goby + + Diagramma pictum Painted Sweetlips + + Haemulidae Plectorhinchus gibbosus Harry Hotlips + Plectorhinchus sp. Sweetlips + + + Hemiramphidae Hemiramphus sp. Half Beak + Halichoeres Weedy Surge Wrasse + margaritaceus Hemigymnus fasciatus Five Banded Wrasse + Labridae Thalassoma hardwicke Sixbar Wrasse + Thalassoma lunare Moon Wrasse + + Thalassoma sp. Sunset Wrasse + + + Lutjanus bohar Twospot Red Snapper + Lutjanidae Lutjanus quinquelineatus Five Line Snapper + Lutjanus vitta Brownstripe Snapper + + Monacanthidae Monacanthus chinensis Filefish Mullidae Mulloidichthys sp. Goatfish + Scolopsis bilineatus Twoline Monocle Bream + Scolopsis ciliatus White Streak Monocle Bream + + Scolopsis frenata Bridled Monocle Bream + Nemipteridae Monogrammed Monocle Scolopsis monogramma + Bream White Cheeked Monocle Scolopsis vosmeri + + + + Bream Pempheridae Pempheris sp. Sweeper + Note: ‘+’ – present

6-134 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.44 Fish species recorded at Pulau Kendi (cont’d) Station Family Species Common Name C1 C2 C3 C4 Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus annularis Bluering Angelfish + + + + Abudefduf bengalensis Bengal Sergeant + + + + Amphiprion perideraion Skunk Clownfish + Amphiprion sp. Clownfish + Chaetodon sp. Butterflyfish + Pomacentridae Chromis sp. Chromis + + + + Neopomacentrus azysron Yellowtail Demoiselle + + + + Neopomacentrus cyanomos Regal Demoiselle + + + + Neopomacentrus sp. Damsel Fish + Scaridae Chlorurus sordidus Daisy Parrotfish + + Scombridae Rastrelliger sp. Mackerel + Cephalopholis boenack Chocolate Hind + + + Cephalopholis erythrurus Cloudy Grouper + Cephalopholis formosa Blueline Grouper + + + + Cephalopholis fuscoguttatus Brown Marbled Grouper + + Serranidae Diploprion bifasciatum Barred Soapfish + + + + Epinephelus bleekeri Duskytail Grouper + Epinephelus coioides Orange -Spotted Grouper + Epinephelus fasciatomaculosus Rock Grouper + Siganus canaliculatus White -Spotted Spinefoot + Siganidae Siganus javus Streaked Spinefoot + + + Sphyraenidae Sphyraena sp. Barracuda + Note: ‘+’ – present

Note: The pictures were taken A B from an average focus distance of 10 cm F6.90 Fish observed at Pulau Kendi. A: White Cheeked Monocle Bream ( Scolopsis vosmerii ), B: Bengal Sergeant ( Abudefduf bengalensis ), C: White -spotted Spinefoot ( Siganus canaliculatus ), D: Eight -banded C D Butterflyfish ( Chaetodon octofasciatus )

6-135 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

ii) Pulau Rimau

Reef fish found at Pulau Rimau was represented by 25 species that belonged to 13 families (T6.45). In terms of station, the highest number of species was observed in C5 with 19 species, whereas the lowest was in C6 and C8, of which both recorded 13 species. The fish were found to be small in size, possibly indicating the area as forage and shelter area. The taxa are lower as compared to Pulau Kendi, which could be probably attributed to low visibility due to high -suspended sediment levels. The fish community here was dominated by reef fishes i.e. Damselfish, Wrasse and Cardinalfish, although commercial fish species such as Groupers were also present (F6.91). The island was also a favoured spot for angling enthusiasts, though most of them preferred Pulau Kendi due to its relatively undisturbed condition.

T6.45 Fish species recorded at Pulau Rimau Station Family Species Common Name C5 C6 C7 C8 Acanthuridae Acanthurus sp. Surgeonfish + + Apogonidae Apogon sp. Cardinalfish + + + + Chelmon rostratus Copperband Butterflyfish + + Chaetodontidae Heniochus acuminatus Longfin Bannerfish + + Amblyeleotris steinitzi Steinitz’s Prawngoby + Gobiidae Istigobius decoratus Decorated Goby + + + + Thalassoma lunare Moon Wrasse + + + Labridae Thalassoma sp. Sunset Wrasse + + Lutjanidae Lutjanus vitta Brownstripe Snapper + Monacanthidae Monacanthus chinensis Filefish + + Scolopsis bilineatus Twoline Monocle Bream + Nemipteridae White Cheeked Monocle Scolopsis vosmeri + Bream Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus annularis Bluering Angelfish + + + + Abudefduf bengalensis Bengal Sergeant + + + + Amphiprion sp. Clownfish + Chaetodon sp. Butterflyfish + + Pomacentridae Chromis sp. Chromis + + + + Neopomacentrus azysron Yellowtail Demoiselle + + + + Neopomacentrus cyanomos Regal Demoiselle + + + + Scaridae Chlorurus sordidus Daisy Parrotfish + + Cephalopholis boenack Chocolate Hind + Serranidae Cephalopholis formosa Blueline Grouper + + Diploprion bifasciatum Barred Soapfish + Siganus canaliculatus White -Spotted Spinefoot + Siganidae Siganus javus Streaked Spinefoot + + + + Note: ‘+’ – present

6-136 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

A B C

F6.91 Fish observed at Pulau Rimau. A: Yellowtail Demoiselle ( Neopomacentrusazysron ), B: Decorated Goby ( Istigobius ecorates ), C: Twospot Red Snapper ( Lutjanus bohar )

Invertebrates i) Pulau Kendi

In consonance with its relatively disturbed state, there were limited varieties of invertebrates in Pulau Kendi reefs. Most of these are reef -based organisms that rely on other related organisms for forage. A total of 30 taxa of invertebrates was recorded from the current survey, comprising 14 Mollusca, eight Porifera, three taxa from each Arthropoda and Echinodermata as well as a single taxa from Tunicata and Annelida, respectively (F6.92). Details of the invertebrate species recorded are provided in T6.46.

A B C

D E F

G H

F6.92 Invertebrate found at Pulau Kendi. A: Wing Oyster (Pteria sp.), B: Zig Zag Oyster ( Lopha sp.), C: Long Spines Urchin ( Diadema setosum ), D: Pen Shell ( Pinna sp.), E: Green Mussel ( Perna viridis ), F: Sponge ( Dysidea sp.), G: Crab ( Charybdis sp.), H: Sea Cucumber ( Holothuria sp.)

6-137 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.46 Invertebrate and associated coral species recorded at Pulau Kendi Station Taxa Genera/Species Common Name C1 C2 C3 C4 Annelida Sabellastarte sp. Tube Worm + + Balanus sp. Barnacle + + + + Arthropoda (Crustacea) Charybdis sp. Swimming Crab + + Clibanarius sp. Hermit Crab + Chordata (Tunicata) Didennum sp. Colonial Tunicates + Diadema setosum Sea urchin + + + + Echinodermata Echinothrix spp. Sea Urchin + + + Holothuria sp. Sea Cucumber + + + + Aequipecten sp. Scallop + Anadara sp. Cockle + Atrina sp. Pen Shell + + Chlamys sp. Scallop + + Crassostrea sp. Oyster + + + + Lopha cristagalli Coxcomb Oyster + + + Mollusca (Bivalvia) Lopha sp. Zig Zag Oyster + + + + Perna viridis Green Mussel + + + + Pinna sp. Pen Shell + + + + Pteria sp. Wing Oyster + + + + Tridacna sp. Clam + + + Saccostrea sp. Rock Oyster + + Phenacovolva sp. Sea Snail + Mollusca (Gastropoda) Cypraea sp. Cowry Snail + Callyspongia sp. Purple Sponge + + + Dysidea sp. Sponge + + Haliclona sp. Branching Sponge + + Leucosolenia sp. Tubular Sponge + Porifera Neopetrosia sp. Blue Jorunna Sponge + Axinella aruensis Brown sponge + + + Plakortis sp. Sponge + Cinachyrella sp. Golf Ball Sponge + + Note: ‘+’ – present

Among the stations in Pulau Kendi, C2 was recorded with highest taxa i.e. 22 taxa. This is followed by C1 with 19 taxa and C3 with 16 taxa. Invertebrates were also found to be higher in Pulau Kendi as compared to Pulau Rimau. One of the possible reasons is the undisturbed condition of Pulau Kendi relative to Pulau Rimau, which is situated nearer to the main island of Penang. The corals in Pulau Kendi, which are more abundant and healthier than in Pulau Rimau, probably also play an important role in providing habitats for these invertebrates.

Some of the most abundant taxa that could be found at the study area include barnacles (Balanus sp.), Sea urchin ( Diadema setosum ), Oyster ( Crassostrea sp.), Zig Zag Oyster (Lopha sp.), Pen Shell ( Pinna sp.) and Wing Oyster ( Pteria sp.). The most abundant Invertebrates were Pteriids. A study by Alagarswami and Victor (1976) showed that pteriids can tolerate a wide range of salinities, though most of them have a preference for full salinity

6-138 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

seawater (35 ppt). In addition, Pteriids also are often found associated with other organisms such as sponges, hydroids, polychaetes, lamellibranches, amphipods, decapods, and echinoderms that contribute to their diverse distribution (Cheah, 2007). ii) Pulau Rimau

Pulau Rimau was recorded with 18 taxa that belonged to four families (T6.47 and F6.93). Among the four families, Mollusca were recorded with the most number of taxa i.e. 9 taxa, followed by Porifera with six taxa. On the other hand, Arthropoda (Crustacea) was recorded with two taxa, while the least number recorded was Echinodermata with only a single taxon. Notwithstanding, the highest taxa were recorded in C7 with 13 taxa, while the lowest was recorded in C8 with eight taxa.

The survey undertaken in Pulau Rimau also recorded dominance of Pteriids as compared to other invertebrate taxa. Pen Shell ( Pinna sp.) and Wing Oyster ( Pteria sp.) and Oyster (Crassostrea sp.) were mostly found in all stations. In addition, the survey recorded fewer numbers of invertebrates as compared to those in Pulau Kendi. The main reason was probably the low visibility that was caused by high levels of sediment, particularly the area adjacent to the main island of Penang.

T6.47 Invertebrate and associated coral species recorded at Pulau Rimau Station Taxa Genera/Species Common Name C1 C2 C3 C4 Arthropoda Balanus sp. Barnacle + + + + (Crustacea) Charybdis sp. Swimming Crab + + Echinodermata Diadema setosum Sea urchin + + + + Anadara sp. Cockle + Atrina sp. Pen Shell + + Crassostrea sp. Oyster + + + Lopha cristagalli Coxcomb Oyster + Mollusca Lopha sp. Zig Zag Oyster + + + (Bivalvia) Perna viridis Green Mussel + + Pinna sp. Pen Shell + + + Pteria sp. Wing Oyster + + + Sarcostrea sp. Rock Oyster + + + Callyspongia sp. Purple Sponge + + Dysidea sp. Sponge + + Haliclona sp. Branching Sponge + Porifera Leucosolenia sp. Tubular Sponge + + Axinella aruensis Brown sponge + + Plakortis sp. Sponge + + Note: ‘+’ – present

6-139 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

A B

F6.93 Invertebrate found at Pulau Rimau. A: Purple Sponge ( Callyspongia sp.) B: Green Mussel ( Perna viridis ) C: Wing Oyster ( Pteria sp.), C D D: Crab ( Charybdis sp.)

Turtles

The major areas for turtle landings are located within the Penang National Park, particularly at Pantai Kerachut, Teluk Ketapang, Teluk Kampi and Muka Head beaches. Other areas at the northern part of the island that recorded turtle landings have included Teluk Aling, Teluk Duyung, Teluk Bahang, Moonlight Beach, Batu Ferringhi and Tanjong Bungah. As for the southern part of the island, several beaches in Teluk Kumbar, Gertak Sanggul, Pantai Medan, Teluk Tempoyak and Pantai Belanda are known as areas for turtle landing (F6.94) (DHI Environment, 2014). In addition, a Turtle Conservation Centre is established to protect marine turtles in Pantai Kerachut. a) Methodology

Turtle assessment at south of Penang Island is solely based on secondary data and desktop study. Recorded turtle landings and sightings were obtained from reports, newspapers and journals.

b) Results

Four species of marine turtles, i.e. the Leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas ), Hawksbill Turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) and Olive Ridley ( Lepidochelys olivacea ) nest along the coast of Malaysia. Two species of turtles have been recorded in Penang waters, namely Green Turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) and Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea ) (DHI Environment, 2014; Sarahaizad et al ., 2012). The Green Turtle is listed as Endangered while the Olive Ridley Turtle is listed as Vulnerable in the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List.

A study by Sarahaizad et al . (2012) undertaken at 13 beaches within Penang island i.e. Pantai Kerachut, Teluk Kampi, Batu Ferringhi, Tanjong Bungah, Pantai Medan, Pantai Belanda, Teluk Kumbar, Gertak Sanggul, Moonlight Beach, Teluk Duyung, Teluk Aling, Teluk Bahang and Teluk Ketapang indicated the total number of landings recorded for these areas as in T6.51. The most abundant species was Green Turtle ( Chelonia mydas ), where the major areas for their landings were Pantai Kerachut and Teluk Kampi. Tracks and nests of this species also have been recorded in Batu Ferringhi, Tanjong Bungah, Pantai Medan, Pantai Belanda, Teluk Kumbar, Gertak Sanggul, Moonlight Beach, Teluk Duyung, Teluk

6-140 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Aling, Teluk Bahang and Teluk Ketapang. As for Olive Ridley Turtle ( Lepidochelys olivacea ), their tracks and nests have been found in Teluk Kumbar, Tanjong Bungah, Pantai Medan, Teluk Duyung and Gertak Sanggul (Sarahaizad et al ., 2012). DHI Environment (2014) carried out a survey on marine turtles from 2001 until 2014 at the southern beaches of Penang island i.e. Gertak Sanggul, Pantai Belanda, Teluk Kumbar, Pantai Medan and Teluk Tempoyak. The study reported the highest number of turtle landings at Teluk Kumbar (5 landings), while other areas only recorded one landing each. The most common species was Olive Ridley Turtle ( Lepidochelys olivacea ). However, there was also one landing of Green Turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) recorded at Pantai Belanda in 2006. Sarahaizad et al . (2012) also reported the landings of Olive Ridley Turtle ( Lepidochelys olivacea ) at the southern part of Penang Island.

No. Location 1 Teluk Kampi 2 Pantai Kerachut 3 Teluk Ketapang 4 Teluk Duyung 5 Teluk Aling 6 Teluk Bahang 7 Batu Ferringhi 8 Tanjung Bungah 9 Tanjung Tokong 10 Gertak Sanggul 11 Pantai Pasir Belanda 12 Teluk Kumbar 13 Pantai Medan 14 Teluk Tempoyak

F6.94 Turtle landing areas in Penang Island

6-141 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

A more recent study of turtle landings in Penang is presented in T6.48. Landings fluctuated from 2010 to 2015, with the highest in 2013 (63 landings) while the lowest was in 2014 (35 landings) (DOF, 2016). In 2015, only one landing of the Olive Ridley was recorded within the impact zone i.e. in Teluk Kumbar. No landings were recorded in 2016 (January to August) at areas within the impact zone.

Turtle Species T6.48 Year Green Turtle Olive Ridley Number of turtle landings recorded (Chelonia mydas ) (Lepidochelys olivacea ) in Penang, 2000 -2015 2000 1 - - 2001 1 66 - 2002 1 39 1 2003 1 47 - 2004 1 62 1 2005 1 42 1 2006 1 71 - 2007 1 62 1 2008 1 44 3 2009 1 73 2 2010 2 51 - 2011 2 60 - 2012 2 50 - 2013 2 63 2 Note: ‘ -’ = no data available 1 2014 2 35 - Source: Sarahaizad et al., (2012), 2Department of Fisheries (2016) - 2 2015 60 1 Unpublished

Fish

A total of six sampling stations was involved (T6.49 and F6.95). The sampling was conducted from 3 to 9 March 2016. The data that was gathered covered speciation, size/ weight and catch per unit effort of fish.

T6.49 Description of the sampling stations for fish assessment Coordinates Description Station Latitude Longitude Date Time Tide Location Flood Between Pulau Rimau and F1 05°15.219’N 100°16.671’E 5/3/16 1125 tide Penang Island Flood Within proposed reclamation F2 05°15.936’N 100°15.920’E 6/3/16 1052 tide Island A Flood Within proposed reclamation F3 05°16.478’N 100°13.519’E 7/3/16 1300 tide Island A Flood Within proposed reclamation F4 05°16.183’N 100°13.737’E 9/3/16 1140 tide Island B Flood Within proposed reclamation F5 05°16.264’N 100°11.912E 8/3/16 1120 tide Island C Flood F6 05°14.611’N 100°16.488’E 3/3/16 0910 Off Pulau Kendi tide

6-142 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

F6.95 Location of the sampling stations for fish assessment

a) Methodology

At each sampling station, the following procedure was employed: i) trammel nets (three layer netting) with inner net panel with a mesh size of 4.5 cm and two (2) outer net panels with mesh size of 5.0 cm was employed. ii) the net was employed as barrier nets, with both ends affixed to anchor or stakes (F6.96). iii) the length and width of the nets was about 54 and 2.7 m, respectively. iv) the net was affixed for one (1) hour. v) fish caught was collected, separated and identified up to the genus or species level based on keys in De Bruin et al. (1995), Mohsin et al. (1993), Kong (1998) and the Fishbase.org website. vi) the weight and length measurements were recorded for all the fish collected. The total length (TL) of the fish was measured from the snout until the outer tip of the tail using measuring tape. A portable weighing scale was used for weight measurement (F6.97). vii) photographs of the representative fish specimens will be taken. Some fish specimens were preserved in 10% formalin solution for documentation and record purposes.

6-143 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

F6.96 Trammel nets employed at the study area

F6.97 Length (cm) and Weight (g) Measurement of fish specimen

b) Results

A total of 186 individuals of fish, 11 individuals of crustaceans (shrimp, mantis shrimp and crab) and four individuals of cephalopods (cuttlefish) were caught at the study area. The fish caught belonged to 19 families and comprised of 36 species, while three families and three species were of crustaceans (mantis shrimp, shrimp and crab) and one family and one species of cephalopods (cuttlefish) (T6.50 and F6.98).

Most of the fish caught were largely adult demersal fish. Several pelagic species were also caught, such as Selar ( Atule mate ), Cupak ( Carangoides malabaricus ), Talang (Scomberoides commersonnianus ), Kebasi ( Anodontostoma chacunda ), Bilis Bunga Air (Escualosa thoracata ), Kasai ( Thryssa hamiltonii ), Kasai Kucing ( Thryssa mystax ) and Bilis (Stolephorus commersonii ). In terms of size, the total lengths of fish caught ranged from 5.4 to 39.4 cm while their weights varied from 2 to 272 g.

The highest number of individual species caught was from family Tetraodontidae (pufferfish), which contributed 20.7% of the total number of fish caught. Tetraodontidae was represented by two species i.e. Buntal Pisang ( Lagocephalus lunaris ) and Buntal Askar ( Tetraodon nigroviridis ), of which Lagocephalus lunaris was the most dominant with 36 individuals caught (CPUE: 0.247/m 2/hour), compared to four individuals for Tetraodon nigroviridis (CPUE: 0.027/m 2/hour). Total lengths ranged from 12.6 to 19.9 cm with a composite weight of 3,525 g. Most of the fish caught were adults.

The second highest number of individual species caught was from family Leiognathidae (ponyfish) which contributed 18.1% of the total number of fish caught. Leiognathidae was represented by three species i.e. Leiognathus brevirostris, Leiognathus blochii and Secutor insidiator.

6-144 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

/hour) 2 0.583 0.069 2.263 0.549 1.783 0.240 0.274 0.274 1.749 0.206 0.206 1.715 0.206 2.997 1.001 0.185 1.248 0.137 0.706 0.686 0.048 0.144 0.041 0.336 0.274 1.866 0.075 0.460 Biomass (g/m

CPUE

/hour) 2 0.055 0.007 0.034 0.021 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.117 0.041 0.021 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 Density (No./m

7 6 10 35 40 40 30 30 30 21 40 11 67 260 255 250 272 49.0

15 (CW: 85) 30 (CW: 80) 31(CW: 146) 54(CW: 100) 1027) (CW: 1220) (CW: 80 (CW: 330) 41 (CW: 437) 93 (CW: 182) 58 (CW: 103) - - Weight (g) ------7 8 10 20 16 46 55 10 89 45

15.4 21.5 15.5 15.7 16.4 14.7 - 10.9 13.5 10.4 10.6 ------9.4 6.0 6.7 7.4 7.7 39.4 13.2 16.1 15.3 28.3 13.9 15.5 14.7 11.0 14.9 15.1 28.3 11.9 (cm) Total Length 9.1 8.6 9.4 9.5 20.5 12.9 15.6 15.8 14.1 13.2

8 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 No.

(54 m x 2.7m), CW: Composite3: m (54 weight x

sp. sp. Scientific Name Secutor insidiator Leiognathusbrevirostris Osteogeneiosus militaris Thryssahamiltonii Sphyraenajello Dasyatis zugei Pellona ditchella Nibeasoldado Otolithes ruber Dendrophysa russelii Penaeus merguiensis Portunus pelagicus Sepia Siganus fuscescens Opisthopterus tardoore Thryssahamiltonii Lagocephalus lunaris melinoptera Liza Triacanthusnieuhofii Secutor insidiator Leiognathusbrevirostris Leiognathusblochii Pomadasyskaakan Nibeasoldado Otolithes ruber Penaeus merguiensis Sepia Ariusplatysomus size net were 145.8 m netsize 145.8 were

gerut

alu - Local Name Kikek Kikek Duri Misai Kasai Ketuka Puput Gelama Pisang Tengkerong Gelama Udang Besar Ketam Renjong Sotong KitangLada Kasai Golok Kasai Buntal Pisang Duri Goh Kedera Lembu Kikek Kikek Kikek Gerut Gelama Pisang Tengkerong Udang Besar Sotong Alu

Family Leiognathidae Engraulidae Sphyraenidae Dasyatidae Pristigasteridae Sciaenidae Penaeidae Portunidae Sepiidae Siganidae Pristigasteridae Engraulidae Tetraodontidae Mugilidae Triacanthidae Leiognathidae Haemulidae Sciaenidae Penaeidae Sepiidae Ariidae Ariidae

Fish species caught at the study areaFishatcaughtspecies study the

F1 F2 Station T6.50 Note: 1. The nets were affixed for2.Note: 1 netsaffixed Mesh hour, were 1. The

6-145 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

/hour) 2 4.540 0.645 0.967 0.665 1.344 0.569 0.082 0.144 0.521 0.165 0.432 0.590 0.096 0.130 0.782 0.370 2.366 0.514 0.027 0.514 0.254 0.460 0.446 0.240 1.235 0.364 11.550 Biomass

(g/m

CPUE

/hour) 2 0.048 0.007 0.014 0.014 0.007 0.014 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.151 0.027 0.027 0.014 0.014 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.048 0.007 Density (No./m

94 12 21 76 24 63 86 14 19 54 37 67 65 35 53 196 114 5 (CW:8) - 58 (CW: 97) 22 (CW: 75) 65 (CW: 75) 37(CW: 180) 2 (CW: 4) 73 (CW: 141) - - - Weight (g) 3 - 186 (CW: 662) 107 (CW: 345) - 110(CW: 1684) - -

- 39 14 10 17 68 64 53 51

6.8 5.8 19.9 19.9 17.4 16.9 22.4 14.5 10.5 15.6 ------8.5 9.2 7.2 13.9 24.2 11.4 20.9 12.0 15.0 23.1 10.5 12.4 19.1 16.7 16.1 20.2 39.0 (cm) Total 5.4 5.7 Length 9.4 9.5 14.4 18.8 15.2 12.6 18.8 10.3

7 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 7 1 22 No.

(54 m x 2.7m), CW: Composite3: m (54 weight x

sp.

Scientific Name sp. sp.

Lagocephalus lunaris Tetraodonnigroviridis Osteogeneiosus militaris Leiognathusblochii Secutor insidiator Leiognathusbrevirostris Panna microdon Johnius belangerii Pomadasyskaakan Platycephaluscultellatus Escualosa thoracata Cynoglossus puncticeps Lutjanus johnii Sepia Lagocephalus lunaris Otolithes ruber Leiognathusbrevirostris Leiognathusblochii Siganus fuscescens Opisthopterus tardoore Triacanthusnieuhofii Scomberoides commersonnianus Trichiurus lepturus Oratosquilla Sepia Arius thalassinus Ariusplatysomus size net were 145.8 m netsize 145.8 were

gerut

Local Name Buntal Pisang Buntal Askar Duri Misai Duri Otek Duri Goh Kikek Kikek Kikek Gelama Merah Gelama Gerut Baji Bilis Bunga Air Lidah Tanda Sotong Buntal Pisang Tengkerong Kikek Kikek KitangLada Kasai Golok Lembu Talang Timah Udang Lipan Sotong

Family Tetraodontidae Leiognathidae Sciaenidae Haemulidae Platycephalidae Clupeidae Cynoglossidae Lutjanidae Sepiidae Tetraodontidae Sciaenidae Leiognathidae Leiognathidae Siganidae Pristigasteridae Triacanthidae Carangidae Trichiuridae Squillidae Sepiidae Ariidae

Fish species caught at the study areaFishatcaughtspecies (cont’d) study the

F3 F4 Station T6.50 Note: 1. The nets were affixed for2.Note: 1 netsaffixed Mesh hour, were 1. The

6-146 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

/hour) 2 1.001 0.096 0.055 3.457 2.325 1.193 0.096 0.288 0.562 0.501 0.226 0.727 0.240 0.274 0.357 0.466 0.213 3.258 1.063 1.475 1.235 0.377 0.274 0.892 70.988 Biomass (g/m

CPUE

/hour) 2 0.069 0.014 0.007 0.034 0.021 0.021 0.014 0.007 0.014 0.014 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.034 0.007 0.027 0.021 0.007 0.007 0.007 1.324 Density (No./m

8 42 33 35 40 52 68 31 55 40 106 155 130

10,345.0 6 (CW: 14) 58 (CW: 82) 43 (CW: 73) 21(CW: 156) 60(CW: 215) 1114) (CW: 62 (CW: 174) - - - Weight (g) - - 145 (CW: 504) 225 (CW: 399) 130 (CW: 475) - - 8 - - - 60 (CW: 180) 3 24 30 10 50 56 88 68 80

7.8 18.4 19.4 15.6 17.4 14.8 22.6 15.6 15.6 11.0 10.6 ------8.5 15.9 15.3 20.7 16.5 14.0 14.0 16.5 13.5 25.3 15.6 15.2 23.8 (cm) Total 7.5 Length 8.6 6.5 15.7 13.0 14.8 13.4 14.6 18.9 14.8 14.4

2 1 5 3 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 4 3 1 1 1 10 No. 193

(54 m x 2.7m), CW: Composite3: m (54 weight x

Scientific Name

Leiognathusbrevirostris Leiognathusblochii Secutor insidiator Lagocephalus lunaris Tetraodonnigroviridis Pomadasyskaakan Stolephorus commersonii Thryssa mystax Osteogeneiosus militaris Opisthopterus tardoore Terapon jarbua Johnius belangerii Oratosquilla sp. Osteogeneiosus militaris Terapon theraps Carangoides malabaricus Otolithes ruber Ariusplatysomus Arius thalassinus Ariuscaelatus Anodontostoma chacunda Ariusplatysomus Anodontostoma chacunda Atule mate size net were 145.8 m netsize 145.8 were

gerut -

Local Name Kikek Kikek Kikek Buntal Pisang Buntal Askar Gerut Bilis Kasai Kucing Duri Goh Duri Misai Duri Otek Duri Kokak Kasai Golok Kebasi Gegendang Gelama Udang Lipan Goh Duri Misai Kebasi Gegendang Cupak Pelata Tengkerong

Family Leiognathidae Tetraodontidae Haemulidae Engraulidae Pristigasteridae Clupeidae Terapontidae Sciaenidae Squillidae Clupeidae Terapontidae Carangidae Sciaenidae Ariidae Ariidae

Fish species caught at the study areaFishatcaughtspecies study the (cont’d)

F5 F6 Station Total T6.50 Note: 1. The nets were affixed for2.Note: 1 netsaffixed Mesh hour, were 1. The

6-147 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

Kikek ( Secutor insidiator ) Kikek ( Leiognathus brevirostris ) Kikek ( Leiognathus blochii )

Buntal Kuning ( Lagocephalus Buntal Askar ( Tetraodon Kasai Golok ( Opisthopterus lunaris ) nigroviridis ) tardoore )

Kasai ( Thryssa hamiltonii ) Puput ( Pellona ditchella ) Gelama ( Dendrophysa russelii )

Gelama ( Johnius belangerii ) Gelama Pisang ( Nibea soldado ) Gelama Merah ( Panna microdon )

Tengkerong ( Otolithes ruber ) Kedera ( Liza melinoptera ) Tanda ( Lutjanus Johnii )

Gegendang ( Terapon theraps ) Gerut -gerut ( Pomadasys kaakan ) Kebasi ( Anodontostoma chacunda )

Goh ( Arius platysomus ) Alu -alu ( Sphyraena jello ) Timah ( Trichiurus lepturus ) F6.98 Fishes caught at the study area

6-148 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Pelata ( Atule mate ) Kitang Lada ( Siganus fuscescens ) Ikan Lembu ( Triacanthus nieuhofii )

Cupak ( Carangoides malabaricus ) Baji ( Platycephalus cultellatus ) Lidah ( Cynoglossus puncticeps )

Duri Misai ( Osteogeneiosus Bilis Bunga Air ( Escualosa Talang ( Scomberoides militaris ) thoracata ) commersonnianus )

F6.98 Ketuke ( Dasyatis zugei ) Fishes caught at the study area

Among these three species, Leiognathus brevirostris was the most dominant with 17 individuals caught (CPUE: 0.117/m 2/hour), followed by Secutor insidiator with 11 individuals (CPUE: 0.075/m 2/hour) and Leiognathus blochii with seven (7) individuals (CPUE: 0.048/m 2/ hour). Total lengths ranged from 5.4 to 11 cm with a composite weight of 427 g. Most of the fish caught were adults.

Leiognathids (ponyfish) are a bottom -living species and are widely distributed in the coastal waters of tropical and sub -tropical regions (James, 1984). They derive their common name i.e. ponyfish from their highly protractible mouths, which protract dorsorostrally, rostrally or ventrorostrally (Chakrabarty et al ., 2010). Ponyfish have bacterial light organs, where the transparent patch of skin associated with the organ is usually more developed in males (Paxton and Esch, 1998). These schooling fish have been known to feed on phytoplankton and benthic invertebrates (Woodland et al ., 2001).

The third highest number of individual species caught was from family Ariidae (catfish) and contributed 12.4% of the total number of fish caught. Ariidae was represented by four (4) species i.e. Arius caelatus, Arius platysomus, Arius thalassinus and Osteogeneiosus militaris. The highest number of individuals caught were Arius platysomus and Osteogeneiosus militaris with 10 individuals each (CPUE: 0.068/m 2/hour), while Arius thalassinus and Arius caelatus recorded at three (3) individuals (CPUE: 0.021/m 2/hour) and one (1) individual (CPUE: 0.007/m 2/hour) respectively. Total lengths ranged from 5.4 to 11 cm with a composite weight of 427 g. Most of the fish caught were also juveniles.

6-149 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

The number of individuals caught for other families ranged from 1 to 19 individuals (CPUE: 0.007 to 0.123/m 2/hour). The highest number was contributed by Kasai Golok ( Opisthopterus tardoore ) from family Pristigasteridae, Tengkerong ( Otolithes ruber ) from family Sciaenidae and Kasai ( Thryssa hamiltonii ) from family Engraulidae with 8 individuals (CPUE: 0.055/m 2/ hour), seven (7) individuals (CPUE: 0.048/m 2/hour) and 6 individuals (CPUE: 0.041/m 2/hour) respectively. Most of the fish caught were adults.

As for crustaceans, only 11 individuals were caught which were two (2) individuals of Udang Besar ( Penaeus merguensis ), eight (8) individuals of Udang Lipan ( Oratosquilla sp.) and one (1) individual of Ketam Renjung ( Portunus pelagicus ) (F6.99). Penaeus merguensis was caught at F1 and F2, Oratosquilla sp. caught at F4 and F5, while Portunus pelagicus at F1. Both Penaeus merguensis and Portunus pelagicus caught were adults, having a carapace length of 11.9 to 15.3 cm (11 to 30 g) and 147.7 cm (250 g) respectively, while Oratosquilla sp. caught were juvelines (10.3 to 14.5 cm; 17 to 37 g). Only four individuals of cuttlefish (Sepia sp.) were caught at study area. All cuttlefish caught were juveniles, having mantel lengths between 6.0 to 9.2 cm and composite weight of 204 g (30 to 67 g).

A B

F6.99 Crustacean and Cephalopods Caught at Study Area. A: Udang Besar ( Penaeus merguensis ), B: Udang Lipan ( Oratosquilla sp.), C: Ketam Renjong ( Portunus C D pelagicus ), D: Sotong ( Sepia sp.)

In terms of fish biomass, five species had CPUE value > 3 g/m 2/hour i.e. Arius platysomus (CPUE: 5.302 g/m 2/hour) , Osteogeneiosus militaris (CPUE: 4.794 g/m 2/hour), Otolithes ruber (CPUE: 6.872 g/m 2/hour), Siganus fuscescens (CPUE: 3.512 g/m 2/hour) and Lagocephalus lunaris (CPUE: 20.796 g/m 2/hour). In addition, 11 species had CPUE value between 1 to 3 g/ m2/hour i.e. Tetraodon nigroviridis (CPUE: 2.970 g/m 2/hour), Anodontostoma chacunda (CPUE: 1.749 g/m 2/hour), Pomadasys kaakan (CPUE: 1.962 g/m 2/hour), Leiognathus brevirostris (CPUE: 1.872 g/m 2/hour), Opisthopterus tardoore (CPUE: 1.495 g/m 2/hour), Sphyraena jello (CPUE: 1.783 g/m 2/hour), Terapon theraps (CPUE: 1.235 g/m 2/hour), Triacanthus nieuhofii (CPUE: 1.145 g/m 2/hour), Oratosquilla sp. (CPUE: 1.447 g/m 2/hour), Portunus pelagicus (CPUE: 1.715 g/m 2/hour) and Sepia sp. (CPUE: 1.399 g/m 2/hour). Other species recorded CPUE values of less than 1 g/m 2/hour (F6.100).

Demersal fish species are commonly bottom dwellers of the sea. According to Ansari et al. (1995), the demersal fish community could be classified into two groups i.e. resident and seasonal, where the resident species consisted of juveniles and mature adults while the seasonal species consist of juveniles only. Based on the data collected, it indicates that most of the fish caught at the study area were resident species type. The distribution of demersal fish in Malaysia is commonly related to the availability and distribution of food resources as well as seabed conditions (Sakri et al ., 2004). Moreover, the study by Ansari et al. (1995)

6-150 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

reported the size of demersal fish community also to be partially controlled by the size of the food organisms, where, for instance, smaller epibenthic and infaunal organisms were not suitable for large fish.

F6.100 Fish biomass (CPUE: g/m 2/hour) at the study area

6.4 Existing Human Environment

The proposed Project area is stringed by fishing villages which have already been developed or inhabited. It is thus essential to assess this existing human environment in the surrounding areas stretching from Tanjung Teluk Tempoyak in the east to Tanjung Gertak Sanggul in the west as it is the locals who will finally end up facing whatever consequences arising from the developer’s actions. The string of major fishing villages starts off from Kampung Permatang Damar Laut/Kampung Permatang Tepi Laut, weaving through to Kampung Sungai Batu, Teluk Kumbar, Kampung Bagan and culminates in Kampung Gertak Sanggul in the west. Hence, an understanding of the existing socio -economic make -up of a place or locality is essential in order to anticipate the kind of reactions or consequences that may evolve out of a planned action or development.

6.4.1 Overall Socio -economy

This section is written to highlight the socio -economic profile of the local residents who will be impacted and to gauge their level of awareness and perception towards the impending Project. In addition, this study also seeks to establish the level of social acceptability of the area with regards to the Project. The latter is crucial in determining the smooth implementation of the proposed development.

Social statistics on the settlements at the south of Penang Island are practically unavailable. When they are, they would usually be in aggregate form as a part of the constituting local council or district statistics. Hence, there is a need to conduct a social survey for this study, in order to know not only the background of the population in the area but more importantly

6-151 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

their views and assessment of the proposed Project. The latter is crucial for the current impact study as they are among the stakeholders that would be either directly or indirectly impacted by the Project.

The consideration given to the human or socioeconomic features within the confined zone as earmarked for the study area is based on the wisdom that whilst socioeconomic impacts could affect long -distance areas or be borderless and far reaching, it is the population of the immediate surroundings that would bear the head -on or right -of -way impacts, if any, due to their proximity to the development zone or Project site. In addition, it is the concerns of the immediate locals that have to be taken into consideration in order to ensure that a project is socially sound and balanced.

6.4.1.1 Methodology

A specific study such as the current one shall have to rely on generated data collated from surveys. Besides enabling the assemblage of the necessary information sought after, social survey also ensures public participation and input in decision -making at the onset. Hence, social survey was utilized and formed the major method of data collection for this study. It involved a public opinion poll gathered through a questionnaire survey directed to both the affected fishing communities and the general public within the area of 5 -km perimeter. The latter group was further sub -divided into other component groups which were thought relevant to the study insofar as to the type of impact they would be facing i.e. the general public per se, the business operators and the beach users. As required, a public dialogue is also conducted to complement the information gathered and to provide the platform for the other members of the society who were not randomly selected for the questionnaire survey to get to know the Project and air their views. Other sources of primary data include Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and informal conversation. The inclusion of the latter was made due to its availability and utilized for the SIA study to ensure greater public involvement and coverage. The settlements covered for this EIA study are shown in F6.101.

6.4.1.2 Sample Size

The questionnaire survey was directed towards a purposive sample of 635 respondents chosen randomly from among the household heads representing the public, business operators, beach users and fishermen in the impacted zone. As such, the households become the statistical population of the study which numbered approximately 15,961 within the 5 km perimeter of the study area (estimated population of 62,250 people divided by the average household size of the area i.e. 3.9 persons per household). Taking a sample of approximately 4% of the statistical population of the study area the resultant sample size comes up to 638 which rounded up to 635 samples or respondents comprising heads of household. Appendix D.1 in Volume 3: Appendices details out the methodology of the sampling frame adopted.

T6.51 shows the distribution of the sample size according to the population components in the study area. Accordingly, 31.5% or 200 samples and 47.2% or 300 samples were respectively gathered from among the fishing communities and the general public in the area; 15.7% or 100 samples and 5.5% or 35 samples were each directed to the local business operators and the beach users. From within the sampled fishermen group, 72.5% were the would be directly affected fishermen whilst the remaining 27.5% comprised fishermen from the outlaying areas of Kampung Pulau Betung and Kampung Teluk Tempoyak. F6.102 and F6.103 show some of the interviews conducted with the fishermen respondents.

6-152 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Settlements area study the within

F6.101

6-153 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

Business Beach T6.51 Area Fisherman Public Operator User The population Kampung Teluk Tempoyak 25 - - - components Kampung Permatang Damar Laut 20 15 - - surveyed by area and their - Kampung Sungai Batu 35 19 4 respective Kampung Teluk Kumbar 40 23 10 - sample size Kampung Gertak Sanggul 15 15 - - Kampung Bakar Kapur 10 - - - Kampung Pulau Betung 20 - - - Kampung Pasir Belanda 4 - - - Kampung Gemuruh 2 - - - Kampung Nelayan 9 - - - Kampung Binjai 10 15 - - Kampung Permatang Tepi Laut 10 - - - Kampung Permatang Damar Laut - 15 - - Kampung Sungai Tiram - 18 13 - Kampung Matahari Jatuh - 9 - - Kampung Perlis - 8 - - Kampung Seronok - 11 - - Taman Desaria Sri Merpati - 19 - - Taman Tunas Damai - 15 - - Taman Sri Puteri - 16 - - Taman Sri Bayu - 14 - - Kampung Tengah - 3 - - Kampung Masjid - 12 - - Kampung Bukit - 16 - - Bukit Gedung - 11 - - Kampung Manggis - 13 - - Bayan Lepas - 7 - - Taman Mutiara Perdana - 7 - - Kampung Padang - 9 - - Kampung Matahari Naik - 7 - - Pangsapuri Taman Emas - 11 - - Kampung Baruh Bayan Lepas - 7 - - Pantai Teluk Bayu - - - 12 Pesisir Pantai Sungai Batu - - - 6 Pesisir Pantai Permatang Damar Laut - - - 8 Pesisir Pantai Permatang Tepi Laut - - - 4 Pesisir Pantai Gertak Sanggul - - - 5 Bayan Lepas - - 8 - Bayan Baru - - 4 - Queensbay - - 7 - Jalan Mahkamah - - 7 - Bandar Baru Teluk Kumbar - - 9 - Persiaran Rajawali - - 7 - Jalan Kolam Air - - 13 - Persiaran Bayan - - 10 - Persiaran Relau - - 8 - Total 200 300 100 35 Source: Field

Grand Total 635 survey, 2016

6-154 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

F6.102 Interviewing a respondent at Kampung F6.103 Interviewing a respondent at Kampung Permatang Tepi Laut Gertak Sanggul

Altogether six FGDs were conducted involving a total of 126 participants. Nevertheless, in terms of category, more discussions with fishermen were successfully carried out compared to with the public due to two main reasons. First, the failure to raise an FGD group comprising the public in Kampung Sungai Batu. Second, an extra FGD with fishermen was convened as it was realized that the one in Sungai Batu which was meant for both fishermen of Sungai Batu and Teluk Kumbar ended up with the attendees being mostly from Sungai Batu and very few from Teluk Kumbar. Since Zone B i.e. fronting Island B is a major fishing area, the study team decided to hold another FGD for Teluk Kumbar. The combined effort was decided earlier on by the management in order to avoid repetitive discussions with similar target groups which could cause unnecessary social fatigue. T6.52 shows the distribution and details of the FGDs conducted and F6.104 and F6.105 show some snaps taken of the FGDs carried out.

T6.52 Details of the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) conducted in the study area Location Date/Time Venue Category Attendees Kampung Sungai 30/1/2016 Dewan JKKK Kampung Fishermen 13 Batu 10:00 am Sungai Batu Kampung Permatang 5/2/2016 Dewan Unit Nelayan Kampung Public 17 Tepi Laut 10:00 am Permatang. Tepi Laut Kampung Permatang 5/2/2016 Dewan Unit Nelayan Kampung Fishermen 19 Tepi Laut 5:00 pm Permatang Tepi Laut Kampung Teluk 19/2/2016 Dewan JKKK Kampung Teluk Fishermen 28 Kumbar 5:20 pm Kumbar Kampung Gertak 12/3/2016 Dewan Orang Ramai Kampung Public 9 Sanggul 10:00 am Gertak Sanggul Kampung Gertak 12/3/2016 Dewan Orang Ramai Kampung Fishermen 40 Sanggul 4:00 pm Gertak Sanggul

F6.104 FGD with the public at Kampung F6.105 FGD with the public at Kampung Gertak Permatang Tepi Laut Sanggul

6-155 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.53 shows the distribution of the informal conversations (F6.106 and F6.107) performed as well as the characteristics of the participants involved. As shown by the table, altogether 17 informal conversations were conducted involving a total of 50 participants with majority (82%) being Malay and the remaining 16% Chinese. Nevertheless, in terms of category they are almost equally divided with 54% being the public and the remaining 46% fishermen. F6.108 summarises the locations of the various types of data collected.

T6.53 Distribution of the informal conversations in the study area Ethnicity Category Site Malay Chinese Fishermen Public Kampung Sungai Batu (4 sessions) 14 0 6 8 Kampung Teluk Kumbar (3 sessions) 5 3 4 4 Kampung Nelayan, Teluk Kumbar (2 sessions) 5 2 3 4 Kampung Permatang Damar Laut (2 sessions) 5 0 2 3 Kampung Permatang Tepi Laut (1 session) 3 0 0 3 KampungTeluk Tempoyak Kecil (2 sessions) 4 0 2 2 Kampung Teluk Tempoyak Besar (1 session) 2 0 2 0 Kampung Gertak Sanggul (2 sessions) 3 4 4 3 Total 41 9 23 27 Grand Total 50 50

F6.106 Informal conversation at Kampung Teluk F6.107 Informal conversation at Kampung Gertak Tempoyak Kecil Sanggul

6-156 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Location of the various types of Locationdatacollected of typesof variousthe

F6.108

6-157 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

A Public Dialogue was also conducted to enable a face -to -face discussion between the stakeholders and the study team cum representative of the proponent, insofar as the Project details were concerned. The latter would enable the stakeholders to have a clearer perspective of what they were facing and for them to air any issues that matter to them. The feedbacks from such a forum would be of tremendous value to the study team in drawing conclusions and propagating recommendations of the study to be considered by all the parties concerned. Held at Lexis Suites, Teluk Kumbar, Pulau Pinang, the public dialogue was conducted on 17 December 2016 attracting some 835 locals and other interested individuals excluding another 25 reporters and journalists from both the electronic and print media. The list of attendees present at the dialogue is given in Appendix C.2 in Volume 3: Appendices..

The detailed verbal exchanges that took place during the Q&A session, as well as the written comments collected at the end of the dialogue session are reported in Appendix C.6 and Appendix C.9 in Volume 3: Appendices respectively. F6.109 to F6.116 show the various moments taken at the public dialogue session.

F6.109 The opening of the Dialogue F6.110 The Project brief by Chief Minister

F6.111 Facing the public F6.112 The Q&A session: Voice from Seberang Perai

F6.113 Speaking for local fishermen F6.114 Raising other local concerns

6-158 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

F6.115 Demonstration outside the venue F6.116 Counter picketing by Project supporters

The above sources of information act as the primary data of the study. Information gleaned from published and unpublished reports and documents are the sources of secondary data for the report utilized to supplement and complement the self -generated data and information.

6.4.1.3 General Population Perspectives of the Study Area

6.4.1.3.1 General Population Growth and Distribution

The study area is located in the Southwest District of Pulau Pinang i.e. commiserating with its namesake, the south -western most district of Pulau Pinang, fronting the Straits of Malacca. With a population of 197,131 persons in 2010 (2010 Census) it accounted for only 12.9% of the state population, making it the fourth largest district from the five districts in the State of Pulau Pinang in terms of population size, after the districts of Timur Laut (Northeast), Seberang Perai Tengah and Seberang Perai Utara with Seberang Perai Selatan being the fifth and the smallest.

The population of the study district in 2000 was 159,129 persons but had increased to 197,131 persons in 2010. This is an increase of 2.09% per annum between 2000 to 2010 but a decrease from the higher annual increase experienced previously from 1991 to 2000 which was 2.88%. A total of 58,344 living quarters was also recorded comprising 50,564 households with an average of 3.89 persons per household. The latter is found to be lower than the state average of 3.94 as well as even lower than the national average of 4.31 persons per household, meaning it has smaller households than the state or the national average.

The local authority areas/ mukims in the Southwest District that are relevant to the study are Mukim I, Mukim J and Mukim 7 to Mukim 12 whose respective population size is given in T6.54. Although the average household size of the district was earlier found to be 3.89, the average household size of our samples was found to be larger amounting to 4.13 persons per household.

6-159 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

Local Authority Area/Mukim Population T6.54 Southwest District 2000 2010 The population size of what become part of the study area, 2000 and 2010 Mukim I (Pulau Betung) 1,311 1,333 Mukim J (Dataran Ginting) 1,405 1,102

Mukim 7 (Bukit Ginting) 1,678 1,462 Source: 1. Dept. of Statistics. 2001. Population

Mukim 8 (Bukit Pasir Panjang) 837 1,185 distribution by local authority areas Mukim 9 (Bukit Gemuroh) 11,069 14,925 and mukims, Population and Housing Census of Malaysia, 2000 . Kuala Mukim 10 (Bukit Relau) 2,195 2,673 Lumpur. Mukim 11 (Teluk Kumbar) 11,734 15,711 2. Ibid. 2011. Population distribution by Mukim 12 (Bayan Lepas) 94,740 122,654 local authority areas and mukims, Population and Housing Census of

Total 124,969 161,045 Malaysia, 2010 . Putrajaya.

6.4.1.3.2 General Population Age and Sex Structure

T6.55 shows the population age and sex structures of the State of Pulau Pinang and the Southwest District according to the 2010 Census. With the exception of Sabah, Selangor, WP Labuan and WP Putrajaya all the other states in Malaysia have a matured age structure as reflected by the matured age structure of Malaysia when the aged group of 65 years and above account for more than 5.1% of the total population. This applies to Pulau Pinang too when its matured age structure as reflected by the percentage of the old population is found to be 6.5% and that of the study district 5.2% (demographically an age structure is considered matured when the percentage of the aged population is between 4% and 7% of the total population).

One possible reason for this phenomenon would be the predominance of net in -migration of the young matured and matured population in seeking better opportunities in the area or a feature of returned migration involving retired migrants who return to their origin to spend the rest of their retirement days. Another plausible reason is the low vital processes of birth and death rates which may result in longevity among the adult populations.

The situation is also similar with sex ratio when it pointed to a situation of balanced sex ratio of relatively similar numbers of males and females. One would expect the sex ratio to be imbalanced considering it to be close to the fast developing area of Bayan Lepas and Bayan Baru area. But the potentially high population turnover would balance out when in -migration more or less equalized out -migration.

Characteristics Pulau Pinang Southwest District T6.55 Age Structure Matured Matured Population age and sex structures 0-14 years 15.7 17.8 of the State of Pulau Pinang and

15 -64 years 77.8 77.0 the Southwest District, 2010 65+ years 6.5 5.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Sex Ratio Balanced Balanced Males/100 Females 101 100 Source: Adapted and computed from 1. Population and Housing Census of Malaysia 2010, Preliminary Count Report . 2. Population distribution by Local Authority Areas and Mukims 2010 . Dept. of Statistics. 2010.

6-160 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

6.4.1.4 Profile of the Overall Respondents a) Demographic Background

The profile of the respondents is necessary to help one in discerning the type of population one is dealing with. It is the make -up of a society that often determines the kind of reaction, impacts and degree of acceptability. The analysis of data gathered from the questionnaire survey revealed the community profile in respect of its demography, social and economic characteristics. b) Size and Ethnicity

According to the 2010 Population Census, the population of the Southwest District of Pulau Pinang comprised mainly Chinese (42.9%), 41.2% Bumiputra, 9.8% Indian and the rest were Others. However, the ethnicity of our respondents did not reflect the ethnic representation of the study District but an over -representation of Bumiputra, comprising more than half (simply due to the nature of our sampling frame), with the Chinese representation reduced to about half and the remaining 6% comprised Indians (T6.56). The over representation of Bumiputra was unavoidable due to the nature of our purposive sampling technique which favoured fishermen as the latter were seen to be the most impacted. Most of the fishermen in the area were Malays.

General Business Beach T6.56 Characteristics Fishermen Public Operators Users Demographic Malay 80.5 90.6 75.0 68.5 characteristics of the respondents Chinese 19.5 5.7 19.0 22.9 Ethnicity (%) Indian 0.0 3.7 6.0 8.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Below 30 years 9.5 19.0 17.0 60.0 30 -39 years 24.0 25.0 29.0 28.6 40 -49 years 28.5 26.7 28.0 5.7 Age 50 -59 years 27.5 18.0 18.0 2.9

Group 60 -69 years 10.0 9.0 8.0 0.0 70 + 0.5 2.3 0.0 2.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Median age 45.3 years 42 years 40.5 years 27 years Source: Field

N 200 300 100 35 data, 2016

c) Age Structure

As mentioned above, the age structure and sex ratio of the Southwest Pulau Pinang District in 2010 reflected one which was matured when 77% of its population were in the 15 to 64 years age group and the aged (65 years and above) making up 5.2% of the population (Dept. of Statistics 2011).

Accordingly, our respondents were generally in the mature age group too, with more than 80% of them being in the age group of 30 years and above (T6.56). Nevertheless, the fishermen were older, with more than half in the 50 years and above age group with a median age of 45 years, while the public group was slightly younger with the median age of between 40 to 42 years. The youngest is the beach users group, whose median age is 27 years. Contrarily, the age structure of the surveyed population (respondents’ total household

6-161 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

members) showed one which was young when the proportion of the aged population 65 years and above does not even touch 1% (T6.57).

Contrarily to the sex ratio of the state and Southwest District which portray balanced ratio, the sex ratio in the study area is very much imbalanced for all the population components. The imbalances take the form of either excess of males over females as in the case of fishermen and general public, or likewise a shortage of males compared to females as reflected in the households of the business operators and beach users.

Household General Business Beach T6.57 Fishermen Characteristics Public Operators Users Characteristics

Household Size Household 1-3 persons 30.0 30.4 30.0 28.6 of respondents’ household and 4-6 persons 67.0 65.3 63.0 71.4 household members 7+ persons 3.0 4.3 7.0 - Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Average h/h size 4.17 4.11 4.2 4.03 0-14 years 37.7 37.8 16.0 22.0

Age Group Age 15 -39 years 29.5 37.6 49.0 73.7 40 -64 years 32.2 23.6 34.3 3.6 65+ years 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Age structure Young Young Young Young Sex Distribution SexDistribution Male 479 711 117 58 Female 355 631 165 83 Total 834 1,342 282 141 135M/100F 113M/100F 71M/100F 70M/100F Sex ratio Source: Field Imbalanced Imbalanced Imbalanced Imbalanced

data, 2016

6.4.1.5 Socio -economic Background a) Educational Background

With the majority of the respondents being matured adults need not also necessarily mean they had similar educational background. The fishermen were found to be comparatively less educated when more than 65% of them had no formal education or having education up to lower secondary only (F6.117). The beach users were found to be more educated as all of them had at least upper secondary education. Although all of the other groups had at least three -quarters of each group having upper secondary education, it is the beach users who had more members having gone through tertiary education (25.7% compared to 22% for the business operators and 15% for the general public). b) Employment and Income Distribution

Economically, with the exception of the fishermen and the business operators who were solely employed in their respective sector, two occupational categories i.e. business and private sector employees stood out as main occupations of the general public and the beach users (T6.58). The largest employer among the public and the beach users was the wage sector which engaged about one -third and 91% of them respectively with the majority working in the private sector. Those engaged in business were relatively high too accounting for about one -fifth.

6-162 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Source: Field data, 2016 F6.117 Educational achievement of the respondents

T6.58 Employment and income profile of the respondents (%) General Business Beach Characteristics Fishermen Public Operators Users Not working - 4.3 - 2.1 Fishermen 100.0 - - - Business person - 17.0 100.0 - Public sector employee - 4.7 - 8.6 Private sector employee - 27.7 - 82.0 - - Occupation Driver 4.3 2.9 Pensioners - 3.3 - - Seafood restaurant - 3.3 - 2.9 operator Others - 35.0 - - Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 200 300 100 35 RM1,000 and below 21.0 23.6 11.0 2.9 RM1,001 -2,000 65.0 56.7 49.0 85.7 RM2,001 -3,000 14.0 13.7 20.0 8.6 RM3,001 -4,000 - 4.0 9.0 2.9 Main Income EM4,001 -6,000 - 1.0 5.0 - RM5,000+ - 1.0 6.0 - Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Mean RM1,578 RM1,780 RM2,483 RM1,765 RM1,000 and below 10.5 9.0 3.0 0.0 RM1,001 -2,000 27.5 16.0 18.0 0.0 RM2,001 -3,000 30.0 25.3 26.0 22.9 Household RM3,001 -4,000 17.0 19.3 15.0 28.6

Income EM4,001 -6,000 8.0 10.7 11.0 14.3 RM5,000+ 7.0 19.7 27.0 34.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Mean RM2,710 RM3,683 RM4,073 RM4,665 Source: Field data, 2016

6-163 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

On a whole, the income profile of the respondents showed one with slightly more than 85% of the fishermen earning less than RM2,000 a month with a mean monthly income of RM1,578 (T6.59 and F6.118). The general public’s income distribution showed one which was slightly better with approximately 80% earning less than RM2,000 a month or a mean monthly income of RM1,780. The business operators tend to earn slightly more with an average of RM2,483. One would expect income from business would be much higher but with the kind of business captured in our survey which was mainly in the prepared food industry and small businesses, the managers and supervisors were the ones ended up being interviewed. So too the hotels, electric and electronic goods and gadgets outlets, apparel and the like. However, it is the household income (comprising respondents’ income from the main and secondary occupations plus other household members’ income) that really matters when measuring the economic standing of the households and the level of poverty.

When household income was computed for the respondents it was found that it had improved the total income earned by reducing those having income of less that RM1,000 and increasing the percentage of those having higher income of more than RM3,000 a month with a higher mean monthly household income of RM2,710 for the fishermen, RM3,683 for the general public, RM4,073 for the business operators and RM4,665 for the beach users (T6.59 and F6.119). However, the improvement was seen to be more pronounced in the household of the business operators and beach users.

In a recent Finding of Household Income Survey of Malaysia 2012 published by the Department of Statistics, Malaysia, the mean monthly household income for three income groups of the top 20%, the middle 40% and the lowest 40% were found to be RM12,159; RM4,573 and RM1,847 respectively. The respective equivalent incomes for the urban dwellers were RM13,654, RM5,294 and RM2,235. Taking the cue from here, it can be said that the majority of the population in the study area belongs to the lower 40% income group.

Source: Field data, 2016 Source: Field data, 2016 F6.118 F6.119 Distribution of the respondents’ main income Household income of the surveyed population

6-164 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

6.4.1.6 Housing, Ownership and Efficiency of Public Facilities and Amenities a) Housing

As the study area would potentially be faced by the impending fast developing area within the vicinity of the Southwest District of Pulau Pinang, it would be beneficial to know the type of residences, ownership and utilities and amenities enjoyed by its residents. T6.59 shows the state of affair as analysed from our survey data. It was found that more than two thirds of the houses in the area comprised traditional village houses, followed by modern housing (as in housing garden, flats and condominiums) accounting for about one -quarter as in the case of both the fishing settlements and the general public residential area, and the rest are detached bungalows. The business operators and beach users appeared to be living in modern housing comprising linked or terraced houses as well as flats or condominiums.

T6.59 Housing, house ownership and condition, utilities and amenities enjoyed by the households General Business Beach Items Fishermen Public Operators Users Bungalow 3.0 6.7 4.0 - Semi -d - 0.7 9.0 - Link/terraced house 1.0 7.3 30.0 20.0 Type of Traditional village house 78.5 62.0 17.0 25.7 House Flat/apartment/condominium 17.5 23.0 33.0 54.3 Shop house/single -storey - 0.3 7.0 - Others/stall - - - - Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Own house/premise 58.5 74.0 86.0 25.7 Rented house/premise 1.0 26.0 14.0 74.3 House/ Lodger 34.0 - - - Premises - - - Ownership TOL/ wakaf 6.5 Quarters - - - - Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 New/sound 6.5 58.3 20.0 88.6 House/ Fair/moderate 92.5 41.0 80.0 11.4 Premises Old/poor 1.0 0.7 - - Condition Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Electricity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 With Water 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Utilities/ Proper toilet facilities 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Amenities Telephone 11.0 25.7 27.0 5.7 Mobile telephone 99.0 99.4 100.0 100.0 1-2 50.0 45.3 46.0 5.7 Mobile 3-4 42.6 40.7 40.0 65.7 Telephone > 4 7.0 14.0 14.0 28.6 Source: Field data, 2016

6-165 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

Approximately 59% of the fishermen respondents owned the house they lived in which mainly featured village houses and flats, while it is 74% owner -occupied house for the general public. Almost one -quarter of the latter rented the house they lived in. As for the business operators, the percentage owning their own houses was higher at 84%, while the remaining14% rented them. Contrarily, majority of the beach users rented the house they lived in. The latter was mainly in good or fair condition, with all enjoying electricity, clean water and proper toilet facilities. Not many had fixed-line telephone services and almost everybody had mobile or cellular phones.

Data on ownership of vehicles and other household items, however, pointed one that reflected a relatively high level of affordability. As an example, the percentage owning motorized vehicles, cellular phones and other household gadgets was high (T6.60). Whilst these items could be considered as nowadays necessities, the high level of affordability could either reflect the readily available credit or hire purchase services offered and hence a degree of indebtedness, or that they were simply affordable to the locals.

T6.60 Ownership of vehicles and other household items among the respondents General Business Vehicles / Goods Fishermen Beach Users Public Operators Motorcar 76.0 87.0 100.0 100.0 Van 11.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Lorry 1.5 3.7 4.0 0.0 Motorcycle 92.5 100.0 100.0 94.3 Bicycle 52.5 46.7 51.0 51.4 Powered Boat 88.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sampan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Television 100.0 100.0 99.0 94.3 Radio 100.0 96.0 98.0 100.0 Video player 100.0 90.7 95.0 100.0 Refrigerator 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Electric fans 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Lounge set 100.0 96.3 99.0 100.0 Gas stove 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Electrical appliances 100.0 99.7 99.0 100.0 Source: Field data, 2016

That the area was highly urbanised could be partially gauged by the level of satisfaction that the locals had on the infrastructure and facilities found in the area. As can be seen in T6.61, not all of the respondents (except for the business operators) rated most of them as satisfactory. To the fishermen, all the facilities and services were considered as less satisfactory. To both the public and fishermen, the overall development of their area was also less satisfactory.

6-166 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Types of Facilities, General Business Beach T6.61 Fishermen etc. Public Operators Users Efficiency of facilities Electricity 32.0 64.7 46.0 and services found as perceived by the

Piped water 30.5 61.7 100.0 respondents (% saying Public telephone 8.0 20.3 100.0 very satisfactory) Postal services 27.5 46.0 53.0 Clinic 31.0 56.0 66.0 Hospital 30.0 52.7 59.0 Road network 26.5 43.3 66.0 Bus services 29.0 57.7 62.0 Taxi services 28.0 58.0 70.0 Markets 32.5 61.0 73.0 NA Shops 32.5 63.7 79.0 Place of worship 31.5 64.3 76.0 Community hall 32.0 63.0 75.0 Garbage collection 31.5 62.0 74.0 Sewerage 31.5 63.7 76.0 Fire brigade 27.5 55.7 77.0 Policing 27.0 54.7 72.0 Entertainment 25.0 47.0 64.0 Sports/recreation 14.5 39.0 59.0

Overall development 23.0 47.0 65.0 Source: Field data, 2016

b) Mobility and Migration

That the majority of the fishermen respondents had been living in the study area for the past 45 over years is testimony that they were locals. Among the general public, the percentage was only 36% (T6.62). The fact that 20% of the public and 54% of the beach users had been living in the area for 10 years or less implied that the population turnover in the study area is relatively high, thus further implying that most likely the area was a potential population receiving area. Those who moved in were trying to look for a job or on job transfer or following spouse or family. The latter were mainly from the neighbouring areas or other parts of Penang and the neighbouring states of Kedah and Perak. Purchase of land or house was also discerned among the public and business operators for reason of moving into the study area.

With regard to the beach users, 37% were found to be locals, mainly from Balik Pulau, Gelugor, Jelutong, Seberang Perai and Bukit Mertajam. The remaining 63% were from other states, mainly from Kedah and Perak.

6.4.1.7 Survey Results on Opinions and Perceptions a) Level of Project Awareness

With respect to their knowledge of the proposed reclamation Project, it was found that the percentage among the respondents who were aware about it varied, with full awareness among the fishermen, 72% among the general public and 48% among the beach users. The business operators were the least aware. Those who were aware knew about it mainly from mass media and other villagers or neighbours (T6.63).

6-167 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.62 Length of domiciliation and respondent’s origin before moving to study area (%) General Business Beach Length of Stay and Reasons for Migrating Fishermen Public Operators Users <10 - 20.0 54.3 11 -20 0.5 16.0 11.4 21 -30 10.5 12.7 20.0 31 -40 25.5 14.7 11.4 No. of - N/A - Years 41 50 29.0 12.3 51 -60 26.0 16.3 - 61 + 8.5 8.0 2.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Mean 45 years 35 years 15 years Looking for job - 11.7 23.0 48.6 Job transfer - 1.7 - 5.7 Following spouse - 4.3 1.0 11.4 Following family - 2.7 2.0 8.6 Reasons Resettlement - 0.7 - - Others (purchase land/house) - 6.7 3.0 - Locals 100.0 72.3 71.0 25.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Field data, 2016

T6.63 Awareness and knowledge about the proposed Project (%) General Business Beach Awareness and Knowledge Fishermen Public Operators Users Knew about the Project 100.0 72.0 43.0 48.6 Did not know - 27.7 56.0 51.4 Awareness Not sure - 0.3 1.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Mass media 28.0 34.3 29.0 37.1 Village head and Penghulu 20.0 4.7 - 5.7 Household member 4.5 5.7 1.0 - Other villagers/neighbours 35.0 25.7 10.0 8.6 Source of - - Knowledge Politician 0.3 1.0 Fishermen/Fishermen 12.5 1.3 2.0 - Association Not relevant - 28.0 57.0 48.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Field data, 2016

6-168 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

b) Perceptions Towards the Proposed Project

Perception of Socio -economic Impacts

The study attempts to gauge the perceptions of the locals regarding the potential impacts of the Project, particularly with regards to the various environmental components. One of the perceptions sought was the socio -economic advantages and disadvantages of the Project as listed in T6.64.

If 60% and above is taken as relatively significant, then an analysis of the responses pointed to different levels of perceptions among the different population components of the respondents. To the fishermen, general public and the beach users, the proposed Project would not bring much advantage to the area as shown by the relatively low score in percentages of the kind of advantages listed, except for employment opportunities for the locals, improvement of basic amenities and increased value of land or property. Instead they, especially the fishermen and the beach users, perceived that all the disadvantages would befall them i.e. loss of employment, loss of source of income, displaced and loss of property as they foresee themselves to be directly impacted. Nevertheless, the business operators saw it to be most advantageous but for it being the source of the shrinkage of local fishing ground. None of the disadvantages was highly rated by the general public.

General Business Beach T6.64 Perceptions Fishermen Public Operators Users Ratings of perceived socio -economic Employment advantages and opportunities to own 37.5 51.3 81.0 57.1 disadvantages h/hold members brought about by the Employment proposed Project (% opportunities to local 67.5 56.7 83.0 71.4 saying “Yes”) population

Improvement of basic 66.0 63.0 100.0 54.3

Advantages amenities Increased value of 70.5 71.3 99.0 74.3 land/property

Increased standard of

42.0 54.0 100.0 4.3 living Increased business 48.5 53.0 42.0 37.1 opportunities

Increased opportunity 7.0 32.0 32.0 5.7 for property ownership

Increased 16.5 36.3 72.0 11.4 international trade Loss of employment 100.0 19.3 0.0 85.7

Loss of source of

Disadvantages 100.0 22.3 0.0 82.9 income Shrinkage of fishing 100.0 53.0 64.0 48.6 ground Displaced 26.0 18.3 0.0 62.9

Loss of property 61.0 20.0 0.0 71.4 Probability of locals 33.5 20.3 0.0 8.6 Source: Field data, being marginalized 2016

6-169 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

Perception of Impacts on Health and Safety

T6.65 shows how the respondents perceived the impacts of the Project on their health and safety. As can be seen, the fishermen respondents were seen to be moderately to strongly certain that most of the possible impacts on health and safety listed would befall them. Impacts such as increase in water and noise pollution as well as increased accidents with small fishing boats were rated fairly strongly.

The general public perceived that the proposed Project would trigger all the environmental pollutions, especially water, air and noise and strongly perceived that it would also cause traffic congestion. The beach users also had similar perception as the general public but with a moderate undertone. The business operators seemed to perceive strongly that it would only bring about increased traffic congestion and marine water pollution.

General Business Beach T6.65 Characteristic Fishermen Public Operators Users Ratings of perception Increased traffic congestion 55.5 87.7 92.0 80.0 of impacts on health and safety brought Increased accident with - 73.0 56.7 22.9 about by the small fishing boats proposed Project (% Increased noise pollution 80.0 79.3 - 62.9 saying “Yes”) Increased air pollution 64.0 82.3 - 74.3 Increased water pollution 100.0 91.7 97.0 74.3 Hazardous to people 51.0 54.7 - 31.4 Disturb peace / tranquillity 53.5 60.3 - 48.6 Increased communicable Source: Field data, 25.0 42.0 29.0 14.3 diseases 2016

Perception of Impacts on Aesthetics and Culture

An analysis of the perception of impacts on aesthetics and culture revealed that all the respondents were fairly sure about the impacts of the development on the aesthetics and culture of the area. This was deduced when more than 80% of all the respondent groups perceived that the Project would affect the seascape of the area, the beauty of the landscape, water quality and the air quality of the area (T6.66). However, a noticeable percentage from among the fishermen, the general public and the beach users perceived that the Project would also affect tranquillity of the area.

General Business Beach T6.66 Perceptions Fishermen Public Operators Users Ratings of perception Affect seascape of the area 95.0 93.0 80.0 85.7 of impacts on aesthetics and culture Affect beauty of landscape 93.5 92.7 81.0 80.0 brought about by the Affect air quality 63.5 78.7 0.0 71.4 proposed Project (%

Affect water quality 100.0 94.0 97.0 97.1 saying “Yes”) Affect tranquillity of the area 73.0 69.7 52.0 68.6 Affect community integration 17.5 32.7 24.0 80.0 Affect local tradition 45.0 47.3 32.0 30.0 Affect historical places 16.0 24.7 15.0 0.0 Affect place of worship 12.0 21.0 14.0 0.0 Source: Field data,

Affect important buildings 13.0 21.3 15.0 0.0 2016

6-170 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

c) Assessment of Level of Acceptability

Analysis of the data on respondents’ assessment of the Project showed that a significant percentage (94.5%) of the fishermen were of the opinion that the Project would bring about more disadvantages than advantages whilst among the general public and business operators the assessment was more (74% and 84% respectively) for the positive aspects or advantages (F6.120). Being indirectly impacted, the general public and the business operators were at a better position to make an independent assessment. Nevertheless, 57.1% of the beach users, being almost akin to being directly impacted, were of the opinion that it would bring more disadvantages than advantages. Taken as a whole, slightly more than half (53.1%) were of the opinion that the proposed Project would bring about more positive impacts as opposed to 46.9% saying there would be more negative ones.

It is thus not surprising that there appeared to be a strong disagreement among the fisherman respondents as to its implementation, while a strong agreement among the business operators and general public for it, but the beach users seemed to be torn in two, being equally strong for and against it (F6.121). On the average, about 51.1% of the respondents agreed to the implementation of the Project, 46.9% disagreed and 2% not sure.

Overall 46.9 53.1

42.9 Beach Users 57.1

Business Operators 16 84 More negative impacts More positive impacts 26 Public 74

Fishermen 94.5 5.5 Source: Field data, 2016 F6.120

Percentage 0 20 40 60 80 100 Overall assessment of the proposed Project

2 Overall 46.9 51.1 8.6 Beach Users 42.8 48.6

Do not know Business Operators 16

84 Disagree

1 Agree Public 26 73

2 Source: Field data, 2016 Fishermen 94.5 3.5 F6.121

Percentage Level of acceptability of the different 0 20 40 60 80 100 component of the respondents

6-171 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

The more significant reasons for agreeing or disagreeing vary from among the different groups of the respondents, commensurable with their different interests in life. The fishermen respondents seemed to agree if only they would be compensated although they also saw it as making Pulau Pinang more developed (T6.67). But their main contentions for disagreeing were its potential source of income loss, accounting for about half of them and the related reason of shrinkage of fishing ground.

T6.67 Reasons for agreeing and disagreeing to the proposed Project (%) General Business Beach Reasons Fishermen Public Operators Users Government Project, need to agree 14.3 - 1.2 - Business/employment opportunities for future 42.8 81.3 48.9 82.4 generation If given new settlement 14.3 - - - Age factor 14.3 - - - Attract tourists/new opportunity as tourist boat - -

For Agreeing For 14.3 8.3 operators Attract foreign investors to generate Penang’s - 12.3 8.3 5.9 economy Increased growth and development for Penang - 6.4 - 5.9

Source of state economy/Penang becoming - - 14.3 5.9 industrial city Beneficial to future generation - - 16.7 - Improved village area but preserve for heritage - - 1.2 - Able to support population increase - - 1.2 - Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 7 219 84 20 Important fish and prawn spawning area 22.8 - - - Other source of funding not from reclamation 17.9 1.3 - - Loss of livelihood 13.2 1.3 - - Shrinkage of fishing ground/sea area 13.2 - - - Problem of marine water pollution and mud 11.6 30.8 37.5 40.0 Malay fishermen will lose their village and lag 6.9 - - - behind Will benefit specific group only 4.8 1.3 6.3 - - - For Disagreeing For Not beneficial to fishermen/locals but foreigners 4.8 15.4 Disturb marine ecosystem and life 4.8 - - - Fear of being relocated - 29.5 - - Marginalization of locals/fishermen/Malays in the - 10.3 - - future - - - More negative impacts will arise 10.3 Will benefit foreign workers more - - 37.5 - Housing development not beneficial to the locals - - 18.8 - Loss of natural seaview, coastal aesthetics, - - - 46.6 water pollution Too many reclamation projects in Penang - - - 6.7 To discuss with the directly impacted - - - 6.7 surrounding population Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N 189 78 16 15 Source: Field data, 2016

6-172 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

To the general public, the proposed Project was mainly seen by 72.9% of them as providing an alternative route and thus would potentially reduce future traffic congestion. However, they seemed to be with the fishermen as their reasons for disagreeing were very much related to disrupting fishing activities such as shrinkage of fishing ground, marine water pollution and disturbing fishing activities.

The business operators would view from the business perspective of providing an alternative route, thus reducing traffic congestion and making Pulau Pinang more developed and as long as it does not affect business but promoting it. For those who disagreed, more than half were afraid that it would affect their businesses, but they were not partial to the fate of the fishermen when quoting marine water pollution and disturbance to fishing activities.

To the beach users, it is not surprising that their main concern would be due to aesthetics with almost half of them citing the loss of the aesthetic value of the natural environment that they had been coming to the place to enjoy and that it would also affect the environment and causing disaster. Like the general public and the business operators, they were also seen to have thought of the fishing communities around the area when they quoted loss of source of income, marine water pollution and disturbance to fishing activities as some of the reasons for disagreement.

Nevertheless, two main reasons for agreeing stood out, which are its role of providing alternative route and thus reducing traffic congestion, and in making Pulau Pinang more developed. The concern for marine water pollution and affecting fishing activities seemed to be the reasons mentioned across the board by a section of the respondents.

Finally, the respondents were asked for their views on the overall development in their part of Penang Island. The responses reflected a mixed view, with the majority of the general public and business operators accounting for 60% and 66%, respectively believing it to be developing very fast, whilst at the same time commenting on more luxury homes being built as opposed to affordable homes. The latter was strongly felt by the fishermen respondents followed by the business operators, beach users and general public (T6.68). All these pointed to the level of exposure and amount of information filtered by the respective group of respondents.

T6.68 Perception of overall development in South Pulau Pinang (%) General Business Beach Characteristics Fishermen Public Operators Users Developing very fast 7.5 60.0 66.0 11.4 More luxury homes built than affordable homes 77.5 15.3 32.0 28.6 Progressing fast and clean 1.5 7.0 - 37.1 Too many development and hill -cutting 2.0 6.3 - - Good but need to limit development - 4.7 - - Traffic congestion, flooding due to development 2.0 3.0 - 22.9 More development now than before - 1.0 - - Increased cost of living - 0.3 - - Disappearance of village atmosphere - 0.3 - - Too many road repairs - - 2.0 - To develop urban area not disturbing rural area 8.0 - - - Government only focuses on mega project 1.5 - - - No response/view - 2.0 - - Source: Field data, 2016

6-173 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

6.4.2 Fishing Community in the Study Area

This section is written to briefly highlight the background and other related information regarding the local fishermen and their fishing activities in the area, as they would be the ones to be directly impacted. There are at four fishermen units fronting the sea of the proposed reclaimed area identified in the study area namely at Kampung Permatang Tepi Laut, Kampung Sungai Batu, Kampung Teluk Kumbar and Kampung Gertak Sanggul with most fishermen mooring their boats by the coasts (F6.122).

A B C

D E F

F6.122 Fishing jetties found at the study area. A: Tanjung Permatang Tepi Laut Jetty, B: Kampung Sungai Batu Jetty, C: Kampung Teluk Kumbar Jetty, D: Boats mooring at Kampung Nelayan/Teluk Kumbar, E: Kampung Gertak Sanggul Jetty, F: Boats mooring at Gertak Sanggul

The fishing villages directly fronting the proposed reclaimed area fall under four Fishermen Unit areas of Permatang Tepi Laut, Sungai Batu, Teluk Kumbar and Gertak Sanggul. Together they support 805 registered and approximately 135 unregistered fishermen. T6.69 shows the distribution of the registered fishermen in these four unit areas. By far Kampung Teluk Kumbar is the largest fishing village measured in terms of number of active fishermen with 233 fishermen, followed by Kampung Permatang Tepi Laut with 207 fishermen. Sungai Batu and Gertak Sanggul have an almost equal number of fishermen with 183 and 182 respectively.

Fishermen Unit No. Percent T6.69 Permatang Tepi Laut 207 25.7 Number of fishermen in the study area by Fishermen Unit Sungai Batu 183 22.7 Teluk Kumbar 233 29.0 Gertak Sanggul 182 22.6 Source: Lembaga Kemajuan Ikan Malaysia, Total 805 100.0 2016

6-174 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

6.4.2.1 Characteristics of the Fishermen Respondents

The local fishermen were mainly (84.5%) owner -operators by using their own boats to ply the coastal waters to fish, whilst 15% turned out as awak -awak or hired workers to assist the owners out. More than 95% went fishing more than 10 times or days per month and spending more than five hours on each trip (T6.70).

T6.70 Nature of involvement as fishermen Characteristics Percent Characteristics Percent Type of Involvement Hour Spent Fishing/Day Owner -operator 84.5 Up to 5 hours 5.5 Tekong (Skipper) 0.5 6-10 hours 93.5 Awak -awak (worker) 15.0 11+ hours 1.0 Total 100.0 Total 100.0 Mean (hours) 6.9 No. of Years Involved as Fisherman < 19 years 24.0 20 -29 years 26.5 30 -39 years 28.5 40 -49 years 14.5 50+ years 6.5

Total 100.0 Source: Field data, 2016 Mean (years) 27.0

T6.71 shows that the main fishing gear used in the area is pukat or trawl. This is shown when almost all of the fishermen in the study area admitted to using them to fish although there were a few others who had utilized other fishing gears such as bubu or fish trap and cast net. Their main landings were fish, prawn and also crab.

T6.71 Type of fishing gears used and marine resources landed Fishing Gears Used Percent Type of Landing Percent Pukat 53.0 Prawn ( udang putih/kaki merah) 88.0 Kail, pukat 20.0 Fish, prawn and crab 12.0 Jala, pukat 8.0 Total 100.0 Pukat, bubu 7.5 Jala, pukat, bubu 4.0 Pukat hanyut/tunda 3.0 Combination of 3 or 4 gears 4.5

Total 100.0 Source: Field data, 2016

Being inshore fishermen, they did not reap in much a day. Our survey revealed that currently the majority (93.5%) landed less than 200 kg a month, which happened to be only 45% in the last 5 years and 41% in the last 10 years (T6.72). What the statistics are telling is that fish/ prawn landing had deteriorated significantly over the past 10 years, especially now when compared to 5 years ago.

6-175 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

Monthly Landing T6.72 Landing (kg) Present Last 5 years Last 10 years Respondents’ monthly landings in the last 10 years (%) < 200 93.5 45.0 41.0 201 -400 4.5 49.0 28.5 401 -600 - 1.0 14.5 601 -800 - 1.0 2.0 801 -1,000 2.0 4.0 14.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Field data, 2016

The fishermen did not go far to fish as all of them were inshore fishermen combing their own territorial waters right up to Pulau Rimau and Pulau Kendi (T6.73). As such, the proposed reclamation Project was seen by them as a threat in shrinking their fishing ground further after that of the Second Crossing or Bridge. Hence the notion of forwarding a request for compensation is carried out to the Project Proponent.

Our survey also tried to capture how the fishermen respondents, as the directly impacted group, opined on the changes and differences in their fishing activities after the implementation of the Second Bridge project. Their responses are as listed in T6.74. Accordingly, more than half felt that the main impact was pollution from mud resulting in decline in marine resources and landings followed by or could be related to shrinkage of fishing ground, causing competition for space with other fishermen.

T6.73 Local fishermen’s normal fishing ground Fishing Ground Percent Distance from Coast Percent Coastal waters up to Pulau 1-5 nautical miles 83.0 99.0 Rimau and Pulau Kendi 10+ nautical miles 1.0 Deep sea 1.0 Depending on availability of catch 16.0 Total 100.0 Total 100.0 Source: Field data, 2016

Opinion Percent T6.74 Marine water pollution 5.0 Respondents’ opinion on the differences that occur in their

Shallowing of coastal waters 4.5 fishing activities after the Deposition of mud affecting marine ecosystem and implementation of the Penang 78.5 landings Second Bridge Shrinkage of fishing ground had to compete with others 12.0

Total 100.0 Source: Field data, 2016

Such an impact was further reflected in their opinion on how it will further impact them. To these respondents, the Second Penang Bridge had turned the former sandy beaches to muddy stretches which had encumbered them to go out fishing. But most importantly the polluted coasts or inshore waters would take a long time to rehabilitate, hence making it hard for marine resources especially fish and prawn to come back and breed naturally. Hence their notion that the proposed Project would further destroy the fish and prawn spawning area.

6-176 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Last but not least, they were asked whether or not they had children working as fishermen. Slightly one -fifth had, with a majority (71.4%) had one member working and still others had two or three members working as fishermen, accounting for 23.8% and 4.8% respectively. When asked as to the reasons for the choice, the majority (78.6%) mentioned to help their family and it had been a tradition, an interest (14.3%) and the remaining 6.2% due to low education, being used to go out to sea and doing it part time. With such a background, fishing is seen to still being considered a traditional vocation for at least one -fifth of the next generation fishing communities. The following sections elaborate more on the fishing community and industry in detail.

6.4.2.2 Marine Capture Fisheries

This section is a detailed assessment of fisheries and the fishing community within the study area. The assessment was undertaken through discussions and interviews with sample fishing population at the study area. A questionnaire was prepared for this purpose (Appendix D.3 in Volume 3: Appendices). The fishermen were interviewed from major fish landing points at the proposed Project area i.e. Sri Jerjak, Batu Maung, Teluk Tempoyak, Permatang Damar Laut, Sungai Batu, Teluk Kumbar, Gertak Sanggul and Pulau Betung (F6.123 and T6.75). The survey was undertaken from 14 to 19 January 2016, 2 to 5 February 2016 and 10 to 12 March 2016.

F6.123 Fish landing points within the impact zone

6-177 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.75 Location of the fish landing points within the impact zone Coordinates Fish Landing Point Fishing Village Latitude (N) Longitude (E) Kampung Sungai Nibong, Kampung Sri Jerjak 5°18.608' 100°17.957' Sungai Kluang, Kampung Jawa and Kampung Sungai Tiram Batu Maung 5°17.138' 100°17.466' - Teluk Tempoyak 5°16.625' 100°17.284' Kampung Teluk Tempoyak Permatang Damar Laut 5°15.877’ 100°16.920’ Kampung Teluk Tempoyak Sungai Batu 5°16.606’ 100°15.792’ Kampung Permatang Damar Laut Kampung Permatang Tepi Laut and Teluk Kumbar 5°16.863’ 100°15.375’ Kampung Binjai Gertak Sanggul 5°16.905' 100°14.429' Kampung Sungai Batu Pulau Betung 5°17.276' 100°13.516' Kampung Nelayan

To cater for all fisheries -based stakeholders within the impact zone, the following FGDs were undertaken at several places (F6.124 to F6.127), which were: a) 1st FGD: JKKK Hall, Kampung Sungai Batu for fishermen in 30 January 2016; b) 2nd FGD: Fishermen Hall, Permatang Damar Laut for fishermen in 5 February 2016; c) 3rd FGD: JKKK Hall, Teluk Kumbar for fishermen in 19 February 2016; and d) 4th FGD: JKKK Hall, Gertak Sanggul for fishermen in 12 March 2016.

In addition, capture fisheries data was also requested from the Penang State Department of Fisheries, Fisheries Development Board (LKIM), Persatuan Nelayan Kawasan South of Penang Island.

A B C

D E F

F6.124 Interviews with fishermen. A: Sri Jerjak, B: Batu Maung, C: Teluk Tempoyak, D: Permatang Damar Laut, E: Sungai Batu, F: Teluk Kumbar, G: Gertak G H Sanggul, H: Pulau Betung

6-178 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

F6.125 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) at Permatang Tepi Laut

F6.126 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) at Gertak Sanggul

F6.127 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) at Teluk Kumbar

6.4.2.2.1 Overview of Marine Capture Fisheries Industry a) Fishing Infrastructure

Artisanal Fish Landing Points

The jetties at Sri Jerjak, Sungai Batu, Teluk Kumbar and Pulau Betung are of concrete. At Sri Jerjak and Sungai Batu (F6.128 to F6.130), the jetties are equipped with minimal facilities such as mooring site, treated water supply and beaching winch for loading purposes. The

6-179 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

jetties not only have minimal facilities, but are in a moderately satisfactory operating condition. Unfortunately, only a few fishermen use these facilities due to insufficient loading bays and lack of stairways. Most of the fisherman at these two jetties preferred to land on the beach.

F6.128 Fish landing points at Sri Jerjak

F6.129 Fish landing points at Sungai Batu

F6.130 Fish landing points at Pulau Betung

6-180 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

In addition, the existing concrete jetties at the same sites have been enhanced by fishermen themselves using wood based substitutes. These jetties are not rigid and are unstable for mooring the boats.

At Pulau Betung, the jetty was much more developed and equipped with the necessary fish - landing facilities such as loading bays, wharf, fish market and icemaker. The jetty appears fully utilized by the fishermen (F6.131). However, there is a lack of a beaching winch for loading purposes and there are limited vehicle parking facilities.

The concrete jetty at the fish -landing point at Teluk Kumbar (F6.132) is underutilized. This is due to the location of the jetty, which is located far from the fish market. In addition, the jetty is also not equipped with landing facilities such as trolley, winches, mooring site and icemaker. Landings at this site commonly are made directly on the beach.

F6.131 Fish landing points at Teluk Kumbar

F6.132 Fish landing points at Batu Maung

Besides concrete jetties, wooden jetties were also observed at several fish landing points such as Batu Maung, Teluk Tempoyak Kechil, Teluk Tempoyak Besar, Permatang Tepi Laut and Gertak Sanggul (F6.133 to F6.136). At Batu Maung, Teluk Tempoyak Besar and Permatang Tepi Laut, the jetties did not have solid foundations and were equipped with minimal landing facilities. As for Teluk Tempoyak Kechil and Gertak Sanggul, the jetties were

6-181 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

of much poorer operational condition and on the verge of collapse. Fishermen in these areas landed their catch directly on the beach. At Permatang Damar Laut, there was no fishing jetties (F6.137). Landings at this site was made directly on the beach.

F6.133 Fish landing points at Teluk Tempoyak Besar

F6.134 Fish landing points at Permatang Tepi Laut

F6.135 Fish landing points at Teluk Tempoyak Kecil

6-182 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

F6.136 Fish landing points at Gertak Sanggul

F6.137 Fish landing points at Permatang Damar Laut

Overall, most of landing points were bereft of infrastructure for handling and storage of fish, treated water supply, sewerage and wastewater links, solid waste collection systems and limited parking facilities.

Commercial Fish Landing Point

As mentioned earlier, the LKIM complex at Batu Maung incorporating the Malaysian International Tuna Port complex is the only major commercial fish landing point in the study area. The complex has a capacity to cater for long side mooring of large fishing vessels, including foreign tuna vessels fishing in the Indian Ocean as well as commercial fishing vessels, such as trawlers and purse seiners, operating within state waters. Substantial fisheries infrastructure have been provided in this complex including ice plants, cold room, fish auction and dedicated packing areas.

6-183 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

b) Fishing Population

Physical and Ethnic Distribution

In 2015, a total of 2,757 licensed fishermen operated within the impact zone. The highest number of licensed fishermen was at LKIM Batu Maung with 1,591 fishermen, accounting for 57.7% of the total fishermen in the impact zone. This is followed by Pulau Betung (226 fishermen: 8.2%) and Teluk Kumbar (220 fishermen: 8.0%) (T6.76 and F6.138). The other fish landing points only had 92 to185 full -time fishermen.

T6.76 Number of fishermen working in licensed vessels by ethnic groups in impact zone, 2015 No. of Fishermen Fish Landing Point Malays Chinese Indians Others Total Sri Jerjak 52 30 10 0 92 Batu Maung 785 682 11 113 1,591 Teluk Tempoyak 145 10 2 0 157 Permatang Damar Laut 150 35 0 0 185 Sungai Batu 180 0 0 0 180 Teluk Kumbar 108 112 0 0 220 Gertak Sanggul 10 96 0 0 106 Pulau Betung 120 106 0 0 226 Total 1,550 1,071 23 113 2,757 Note: Data for Teluk Tempoyak Besar and Teluk Tempoyak Kecil are registered under Teluk Tempoyak, Permatang Tepi Laut is registered under Permatang Damar Laut Source: Department of Fisheries, Penang, 2016 - unpublished

Source: Department of Fisheries, Penang, 2016 - unpublished F6.138 Fishing population within the impact zone

Most of fishermen were Malays, constituting 56.2% of the total fishing population, followed by Chinese (38.8%) and foreigners (mainly Indonesians) (4.1%). The highest number of Malay fishermen was recorded at LKIM Batu Maung (785 fishermen), while lowest was at Gertak Sanggul (10 fishermen). The majority fishermen at Gertak Sanggul were Chinese (DOF, 2016 - unpublished ). Indian fishermen were only recorded at LKIM Batu Maung (11

6-184 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

fishermen), Sri Jerjak (10 fisherman) and Teluk Tempoyak (2 fishermen) (DOF, Penang, 2016 - unpublished ).

Most foreign fishermen registered at LKIM Batu Maung worked as fishing crew for tuna long - line boats. The highest number was Indonesians (63 fishermen), followed by Filipinos (22 fishermen), Chinese (11 fishermen) and Taiwanese (1 fisherman). In addition, there were also 34 Thai fishermen who worked for trawler boats operating from the LKIM Batu Maung base (DOF, 2016 - unpublished ).

The database for licensed fishermen differed from that registered as members of Fishermen’s Association (FA). The absence of detailed data on the names of both the licensed and the FA members means that the actual number that overlaps both databases cannot be ascertained.

A total of 1,575 persons within the impact zone was also registered as member of the Fishermen’s Association ( Persatuan Nelayan South of Penang Island). In 2015, only 1,261 persons were paying members (there is a membership fee of RM3 a year). The balance of 314 persons had not made payment extending their membership beyond 2014.

Most of the registered members for 2015 -2017 were Malays i.e. 846 persons, followed by Chinese with 413 persons, while only two (2) Indians registered. Before 2015, the membership was also dominated by Malays with 212 persons, while Chinese and Indians recorded 99 persons and three (3) persons respectively (South Penang Fishermen Association, 2016 - unpublished ).

LKIM provided detailed data on the number of fishermen that received fuel subsidy and cost of living allowances (COLA/ESH) based in Permatang Damar Laut, Sungai Batu, Teluk Kumbar and Gertak Sanggul. In these four areas, a total of 276 fishermen claimed for the fuel subsidy, while 495 fishermen were registered for the COLA/ESH (LKIM, 2016 - unpublished ). The differences in the figures provided by the Department of Fisheries (DOF), the Persatuan Nelayan and LKIM are accounted by the fact that there is no legal definition of “fisherman” in any of the three Acts that relate to the fisheries industry i.e. Fisheries Act, 1985 (Amended 1991), LKIM Act, 1972 and Akta Persatuan Nelayan, 1972.

The DOF licenses fishermen as a precondition of a boat licence. The “ Lesen Nelayan” does not identify fishermen as being active; only that he has been fishing at the time the licence was issued. The Persatuan Nelayan is a voluntary organisation and fishermen are encouraged, but not compelled, to join it. The LKIM subsidy count is probably the most accurate indicator of active fishermen, since the subsidy is only dispensed when fishermen are licensed by the DOF, are members of the Persatuan Nelayan and have declared their catch.

Age Profile of Fishermen

From the survey that was carried out, the age of fishermen varied between 20 to 90 years old. Most, however, were within 41 to 60 years old. The survey findings are supported by the membership records of the PNPPS, which indicated 51% to be within this age. For the members within 20 to 40 years old and above 60 years old, the numbers were recorded at 310 persons and 306 persons respectively (T6.77 and F6.139).

A high percentage (35.8%) of those aged below 40 was recorded from Permatang Damar Laut, Teluk Tempoyak (31.8%) and Sungai Batu (25%). Older members (above 60 years old) were prominent in Teluk Kumbar (28.0%), Batu Maung (27.0%) and Pulau Betung (26.6%). Only two persons were recorded below 20 years old; one at Teluk Kumbar and another one at Pulau Betung (South Penang Fishermen Association, 2016 - unpublished ).

6-185 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.77 Age profile of the members of Fishermen Association in South of Penang Island Registered Before 2015 Fish Landing Registered for 2015 -2017 (2004 -2014) Total Point >60 41 -60 20 -40 <20 >60 41 -60 20 -40 <20 Sri Jerjak 37 82 37 0 19 15 7 0 197 Batu Maung 17 31 15 0 28 18 10 0 119 Teluk Tempoyak 22 68 42 0 11 26 14 0 183 Permatang Damar 35 80 64 0 2 18 8 0 207 Laut Sungai Batu 39 72 37 0 11 17 7 0 183 Teluk Kumbar 52 93 40 1 11 26 10 0 233 Gertak Sanggul 39 99 15 0 3 18 8 0 182 Pulau Betung 65 118 60 1 5 16 6 0 271 Total 306 643 310 2 90 154 70 0 1,575 Source: Department of Fisheries, Penang, 2016 - unpublished

Source: Department of Fisheries, Penang, 2016 - unpublished F6.139 Age profile of the members of Fishermen Association in South of Penang Island, 2015 - 2017

c) Fishing Fleet

In 2015, there was a total of 733 fishing boats licensed in the study area (F6.140). Most worked small boats powered by outboard engines (650 units or 94.0%). The highest number of outboard -powered boats was recorded from Teluk Kumbar (129 units) and Pulau Betung (109 units). The vessel count at other fish -landing points ranged from 50 to 91 units (DOF, Penang, 2016 - unpublished ). Most of the boats were operated using 30 to 60 HP engines.

On the other hand, inboard powered boats were only recorded from LKIM Batu Maung (77 units), Gertak Sanggul (4 units) and one (1) unit each at Permatang Damar Laut and Teluk Kumbar (T6.78). Out of 77 units of inboard powered boats registered in LKIM Batu Maung, six (6) were 70 GRT and above and operated in offshore waters (DOF, Penang, 2016 - unpublished ).

6-186 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

A B C

D E F

F6.140 Fishing fleets in south of Penang Island. A: Sri Jerjak, B: Teluk Tempoyak, C: Sungai Batu, D: Teluk Kumbar, E: Gertak

Sanggul, F: Pulau Betung, G H G-H: LKIM Batu Maung

No. of Fishing Boat T6.78 Fish Landing Point Total Outboard Inboard Number of licensed fishing boat at the study area (2015) Sri Jerjak 50 0 50 Batu Maung 40* 77 117* Teluk Tempoyak 85 0 85 Note: Data for Teluk Tempoyak Permatang Damar Laut 91 1 92 Besar and Teluk Tempoyak Kecil Sungai Batu 90 0 90 are registered under Teluk Tempoyak, Permatang Tepi Laut

Teluk Kumbar 129 1 130 is registered under Permatang Gertak Sanggul 56 4 60 Damar Laut Pulau Betung 109 0 109 *Estimated - Source: DOF, Penang, 2016 Total 650* 83 733* unpublished

d) Fishing Gear

In 2015, there were 1,389 licensed fishing gears in the study area (T6.79). Both commercial and artisanal gears were employed. Commercial gear included trawl nets and tuna longlines, while drift/gill nets, hook and lines and bag nets were common in the artisinal fisheries sub - sector. The trawl nets and tuna longlines were only registered at LKIM Batu Maung and were employed using inboard powered boats. The major artisanal gear registered at all fish landing points were drift/gill nets (1,319 units), which contributed 95% of the total gear count. Hook -and -line was only registered at Teluk Tempoyak (1 unit), while bag nets were licensed to operate at Batu Maung (5 units) and Pulau Betung (1 unit). Overall, the highest numbers of licensed fishing gears were recorded from Batu Maung (773 units), while the lowest from Sri Jerjak (50 units) (DOF, Penang, 2016 - unpublished ).

6-187 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.79 Number of licensed fishing gear at the study area (2015) Commercial Gear Artisinal Gear Fish Landing Point Trawl Tuna Drift Hook and Bag Total Net Long -line Net Lines Net Sri Jerjak 0 0 50 0 0 50 Batu Maung 57 6 705 0 5 773 Teluk Tempoyak 0 0 84 1 0 85 Permatang Damar Laut 0 0 92 0 0 92 Sungai Batu 0 0 90 0 0 90 Teluk Kumbar 0 0 130 0 0 130 Gertak Sanggul 0 0 60 0 0 60 Pulau Betung 0 0 108 0 1 109 Total 57 6 1,319 1 6 1,389

Note: Data for Teluk Tempoyak Besar and Teluk Tempoyak Kecil are registered under Teluk Tempoyak, Permatang Tepi Laut is registered under Permatang Damar Laut Source: Department of Fisheries, Penang, 2016 - unpublished

Based on the survey undertaken in January until March 2016, among the major gears used for outboard vessels were bottom gill nets (e.g. Pukat Udang, Pukat Kedera, Pukat Hantu, Pukat Jenahak, Pukat Kerapu and Pukat Ketam ), followed by surface drift nets ( Pukat Bawal, Pukat Senangin, Pukat Temenong ). Other gears employed were long -lines ( rawai umpan ), rod and lines and portable traps (F6.141). As for inboards, besides drift nets, trawl nets were commonly used, particularly from Batu Maung.

A B C

F6.141 Fishing gears employed in south of Penang Island. A: Trammel Net (“ Pukat Udang ”), B: Drift Net (“ Pukat Temenong ”), C: Long -lines (“ Rawai ”)

e) Fishing Practice and Fishing Grounds

Fishing activities were undertaken extensively within the proposed reclamation area as well in within the surrounding sea. The fishing area within the impact zone is provided in F6.142. The survey indicated that a significant level of the landings was by artisanal fishermen within the impact zone. Fishing was carried out for 10 to 30 days/month, with more than 80% of the fishermen active for 20 to 25 days/month. The number of fishing can vary depending on the weather, season, type of fishing boat and engine capacity (HP), type of fishing gears and resource availability.

6-188 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

F6.142 Fishing grounds at the study area

The fishing grounds can be divided into three zones. The closer fishing zone i.e. 300 to 500 m from existing low water line is focus for crab fishing. Two main species of crabs are caught i.e. Ketam Bunga (Swimming Crab or Portunus spp.) and Ketam Mere (Crucifix Crab or Charybdis spp.). Single -layer drift nets with a 10 cm mesh are used to catch crabs. Commonly, the sizes of nets employed have a 200 m length and 1.5 m depth. The nets are commonly set at 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm and drawn the next morning. The peak season for crab fishing is in April to June, where the catch recorded around 500 to 600 crabs/shot as compared to 100 to 200 crabs/shot for the rest of the year.

The second zone is at depths between 1.5 to 6.0 m, where shrimps catch were actively carried out. The shrimp grounds can be found up to 2 to 3 nautical miles from the shore, especially during flood tide. There is no specific season for the shrimp fishery. Catch yield is all -year with declines in March to April. A 100 m net shot for 15 to 30 minutes can provide a catch of 1 kg.

The third zone is carried out in 4 m waters and beyond, with the focus being on finfish. However, only some boats actually go beyond the 7 m bathymetry. For example, out of 130 licensed fishing boats at Teluk Kumbar, only 20 boats reported going out beyond the 7 m bathymetry. There is no specific season for the fish catch. Yield is all -year with declines in March to April.

6-189 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

f) Landings and Species

Catch Profile

About 58 species of fish, seven (7) species of shrimp and three (3) species of cephalopods and two (2) species of crab were caught at the study area (T6.80). Pelagic fish such as Pelaling/Temenong ( Rastrelliger spp.), Bawal ( Pampus argentius /Pampus chinensis /Pampus spp ./Parapampus spp.) and Senangin ( Polynemus spp.) were the major fish species caught, particularly at Teluk Tempoyak Besar and Pulau Betung. As for demersal species, the major species caught were Gelama ( Johnius spp ./Pennahia spp ./Otolithes spp.) and Duri ( Arius spp.).

T6.80 List of fish landed from the study area (2015) Local Name Common Name Scientific Name Kebasi/Selangat Chacunda shad Anodontostoma chacunda Beliak Mata Elongated ilisna Ilisha elongata Lidah Tonguefish Cynoglossus spp. Sebelah Flatfish Psedorhombus spp. Biji Nangka Goat fish Upenus spp./ Parupeneus spp. Daun Baharu Spotted batfish Drepane puntaca Dengkis/Debam Rabbit fish Siganus spp. Duri/Pulutan/Utik Marine catfish Arius spp. Gelama/Tengkerong Croaker Johnius spp./ Pennahia spp./ Otolithes spp. Gerut -Gerut Grunter Pomadasys spp . Jahan/Goh Giant seacatfish Arius thalassinus Jebong Trigger fish Abalister stellaris Jenahak John’s snapper Lutjanus johni Kaci Sweetlips Plectorhinchus spp. Kapas Laut Majorras Gerres spp. Kerapu Grouper Epinephelus spp. Kerisi Threadfin bream Nemipterus spp. Kikek Ponyfish Leiognathus spp ./Secutor spp. Malong Conger eel Muraenesox spp. Merah Red snapper Lutjanus malabaricus Mengkerong/Conor Lizard fish Saurida spp. Puntong Damar/Bulus Sillago -whitings Sillago spp. Semilang Eel catfish Plotosus spp . Tanda Russel’s snapper Lutjanus russelli Temenggong/Lara Bara Red bigeye Priachantus macrachantus Lagocephalus spp./ Tetraodon spp./ Ikan Buntal Puffer fish Chelonodon spp./ Xenopterus spp. Alu -Alu/Kacang -Kacang Barracuda Sphyraena spp. Aruan Tasik Cobia Rachycentron canadum Bawal Hitam Black pomfret Parastromateus spp. Bawal Putih Silver pomfret Pampus argentius Bawal Tambak Chinese silver pomfret Pampus chinensis Bawal Selatan Small pomfret Pampus spp.

6-190 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.80 List of fish landed from the study area (2015) (cont’d) Local Name Common Name Scientific Name Belanak/Kendera Mullets Liza sp. Cermin/Sagai/Cupak Trevally Alectis indicus Cincaru Hardtail scad Megalaspis cordyla Senangin Threadfin Polynemus spp . Senangin Buis Threadfin Polydactylus sextarius Kerepoh Bigeye trevally Caranx sexfasciatus Lolong Ox -eye scad Selar boops Selar Yellowtail scad Alepes spp . Pelata Yellowtail scad Atule mate Selar Kuning Rainbow runner Elagatis bipinnulatus Selayang/Curut Round scad Decapterus spp. Talang Queen fish Scomberoides spp. Tamban Sisek Fringescale sardine Sardinella frimbriata Tamban Buluh Bulat Rainbow sardine Dussumieris spp. Bilis/Bunga Air Anchovy Stolephorusas spp. Parang -Parang Wolf herring Chirocentrus dorab Aya/Tongkol/Aya Hitam Longtail tuna Thunnus tonggol Aya/Tongkol/Aya Kurik Eastern little tuna Euthynnus affinis Tenggiri Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus spp. Kembong Indian mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta Pelaling/Temenong Mackerel Rastrelliger spp. Timah/Layor/Selayor Ribbon fish Lepturacanthus spp. Yu Shark Carcharhinus spp ./Sphyrna spp. Pari/Ketuka Rays Dasyatis zugei Himantura spp./ Gymnura spp./ Myliobatis Pari Rays spp./ Aetobabus spp./ Dasyatis spp. Ikan Baja Trash fish - Ikan Campur Mixed fishes - Ketam Laut Swimming crab Potunus spp. Ketam Renjong Swimming crab Potunus pelagicus Udang Harimau Tiger prawn Panaeus monodon Penaeus merguiensis /P. indicus / Udang Putih Banana prawn Metapenaeus lysianassa Udang Kaki Merah/Sua Lor Red prawn Solenecera subnuda Udang Kulit Keras Rainbow prawn Parapenaeopsis sculptilis Udang Cendana Rotan Sharp rostrum prawn Parapenaeopsis hungerfordi Metapeneopsis stridulans /M. berbeensis / Udang Pasir Sand prawn Trachypenaeus fulvus Udang Lipan Mantis shrimp Squilla spp. Sotong Biasa/Cumit Common squid Loligo spp . Sotong Katak Cuttle fish Sepia spp. Sotong Kereta Octopus Octopus spp. Source: Department of Fisheries, Penang, 2016 - unpublished

6-191 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

Besides finfish, shrimps and crabs also constitute another important component of marine resources exploited from South Penang’s waters. Udang Putih ( Penaeus merguiensis) was the dominant the shrimp species caught in the area, while the main crab species was Ketam Bunga ( Portunus spp.) and Ketam Mere ( Charybdis spp.).

According to the fishermen interviewed during the course of this study, about 2 to 3 persons at Teluk Tempoyak and Permatang Damar Laut were involved in the collection of shellfish. Among the major species of shellfish collected were Siput Sudu/Kupang ( Perna viridis) , Kemudi (Pinna bicolor ), Kepah ( Meretrix meretrix ) and Siput Belitong ( Terebralia sulcata ). Normally, shellfish collection was undertaken for around two to four hours. It was estimated around 5 to 20 kg/hour of shellfish could be collected at any one time, depending on the species. Besides the collection of shellfish, Pulau Betung is also active in catching horseshoe crabs ( Trachypleus spp.). The horseshoe crabs caught were used for self - consumption or sold at RM1 to RM2/each.

Catch Volume

In 2015, fish landings in the study area amounted to 4,169.37 tonnes, excluding the landing from LKIM Batu Maung as they do not come from nearby waters, but from distant and offshore waters. The highest fish landing was recorded at Teluk Kumbar with 1,083.19 tonnes, and contributed 26% of the total fish landing, followed by Pulau Betung (802.62 tonnes: 19.3%) and Teluk Tempoyak (579.97 tonnes; 13.9%). Fish landing at other landing points ranged from 363.09 to 496.86 tonnes. In terms of months, the highest fish landing was recorded during March 2015 with 455.12 tonnes, followed by November 2015 (435.78 tonnes) and January 2015 (387.85 tonnes) (T6.81).

T6.81 Fish landing (tonnes) by month at the impact zone, 2015 Month Damar Laut Damar Permatang Permatang Tempoyak Sri JerjakSri Sanggul Kumbar Betung Sungai Gertak Gertak Pulau Pulau Teluk Teluk Teluk Landing Batu Total Points

January 30.42 168.25 24.96 26.58 66.27 22.23 49.14 387.85 February 34.32 30.76 28.16 30.30 74.9 25.08 55.44 278.96 March 56.16 49.92 46.08 48.92 122.28 41.04 90.72 455.12 April 35.10 31.69 28.8 31.10 76.65 25.65 56.70 285.69 May 34.32 30.67 28.16 30.37 74.93 25.08 55.44 278.97 June 36.66 32.54 30.08 32.35 80.00 26.79 59.22 297.64 July 41.34 36.33 33.92 36.38 90.17 30.21 66.78 335.13 August 42.12 37.07 34.56 36.97 91.83 30.78 68.04 341.37 September 39.78 34.65 32.64 34.64 86.61 29.07 64.26 321.65 October 46.8 40.14 38.40 40.72 101.88 34.20 75.60 377.74 November 53.82 47.28 44.16 47.01 117.24 39.33 86.94 435.78 December 46.02 40.67 37.76 40.62 100.43 33.63 74.34 802.62 Total 496.86 579.97 407.68 435.96 1,083.19 363.09 802.62 4,169.37 Source: Department of Fisheries, Penang, 2016 - unpublished

6-192 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

The landings at most of the fish -landing points recorded increased from January to March 2015, decreased during May 2015 and increased again in August 2015. However, in September 2015, the landing slightly decreased, but increased in November 2015 before decreasing again in December 2015 (F6.143) (DOF, Penang, 2016 - unpublished ).

F6.143 Trend of fish landing (tonnes) by month at the impact zone, 2015

Fish landings in the study area in 2015 were slightly lower than in 2014, when it amounted to 4,212.07 tonnes. The highest landing that year was recorded in July (405.38 tonnes), followed by April (392.06 tonnes) and September (385.64 tonnes). As in 2015, Teluk Kumbar and Pulau Betung recorded the highest landings (1,132.17 tonnes and 841.98 tonnes) as compared to other fishing bases (379.62 to 519.48 tonnes) (DOF, Penang, 2016 - unpublished ).

From the survey, the highest landing recorded per boat was 500 kg and the lowest was 1 to 2 kg. As for shrimps and crabs, the catch was normally around 5 to 10 kg and 5 to 7 kg per boat respectively. On average, the gross income per day per fisherman is around RM100 to RM150, depending on the fishing effort, weather, location (fishing ground) and type of fishing gears used.

Value

In 2015, the wholesale value of fish landed at the study area was estimated at RM42.09 million, which amounted to 12.4% of the total wholesale value of fish landings (RM339.21 million) from Penang Island (Barat Daya and Timur Laut) (DOF, Penang, 2016 - unpublished ). The value was contributed by several commercial species such as Bawal (Pampus argentius / Pampus chinensis / Pampus spp . / Parapampus spp.), Senangin (Polynemus spp.), Kerapu ( Epinephelus spp.), Jenahak ( Johnius spp.) and Udang Putih Besar (Penaeus merguensis ) (F6.144). Based on interviews undertaken at the study area, the wholesale price of Bawal, Senangin, Kerapu, Jenahak and Udang Putih ranged from RM30 to RM65/kg, RM15 to RM22/kg, RM40 to RM42/kg, RM30 to RM32/kg and RM38 to RM60/kg, respectively with the highest price recorded during Chinese New Year.

6-193 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

A B F6.144 Fish landings in south of Penang Island. A – B: Udang Putih (Penaeus merguiensis ), C: Gelama ( Johnius spp. / Pennahia spp. / Otolithes spp.), D: Ketam Bunga ( Portunus spp.) and Bawal ( Pampus argentius / Pampus chinensis / Pampus C D spp . / Parapampus spp.)

6.4.2.2.2 Survey Findings

A total of 250 respondents were interviewed during the survey. The outcome of the survey is as follows. a) Fishing Population

Physical and Ethnic Distribution

The ethnic distribution of the respondents followed the ethnic breakdown of the general population of the various fish landing points. The majority of the respondents consisted of Malays (71.6%) with Chinese fishermen accounting for 28.4%. Chinese fishermen were more predominant in fish landing points like Batu Maung and Gertak Sanggul. Of the 250 respondents that were successfully interviewed, 91.2% of the fishermen were fishing full - time, while the remaining 8.8% were part time fishermen (T6.82).

T6.82 The distribution of fishermen surveyed according to their occupational status and ethnicity

Fishermen Surveyed Occupational Status (%) Ethnic (%) Fish Landing Point (Frequency) Full -time Part -time Malay Chinese Sri Jerjak 32 11.6 1.2 10 2.8 Batu Maung 37 14.8 - 6.4 8.4 Teluk Tempoyak Kechil 21 7.2 1.2 7.6 0.8 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 9 3.6 - 3.6 - Permatang Damar Laut 9 3.6 - 3.6 - Permatang Tepi Laut 29 11.6 - 11.6 - Sungai Batu 21 6.4 2 8.4 - Teluk Kumbar 30 8.8 3.2 9.2 2.8 Gertak Sanggul 30 10.8 1.2 3.6 8.4 Pulau Betung 32 12.8 - 7.6 5.2 Total (%) 91.2 8.8 71.6 28.4 Note: Population surveyed = 250 respondents

6-194 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Part -time fishermen were only found at five (5) fish -landing points as listed in T6.83. Part - time fishermen were either boat owners or boat crew (“Awak -Awak” ). The majority of the part -timers (70%) were boat crew, whilst the remaining 27.3% owned a boat. Boat owners usually rented out their boats or had fishermen working for them.

Age Profile of Fishermen

Only 14.8% of the respondents were over 60 years old, 18% between 31 to 40 years and 7.6% between 20 to 30 years, respectively (T6.84). The majority of the fishermen surveyed were between 41 to 50 (34%) and 51 to 60 (25.6%) years old. This age pattern was quite similar among all fish -landing points.

Status T6.83 Fish Landing Point Boat Owner (%) Assistant (%) The distribution status of part - time fishermen surveyed

Teluk Tempoyak Kechil 4.5 9.1 according to occupation Sungai Batu - 22.7 Teluk Kumbar 9.1 27.3 Gertak Sanggul 13.6 - Sri Jerjak - 13.6 Note: Total part time fishermen Total (%) 27.3 72.7 = 22 persons

T6.84 Distribution of age categories of surveyed fishermen by age cohort and fish landing point Age Categories (%) Fish Landing Point 20 – 30 31 – 40 41 – 50 51 – 60 > 60 Sri Jerjak 1.2 1.2 5.6 2.4 2.4 Batu Maung 0.4 2.4 4.4 5.2 2.4 Teluk Tempoyak Kechil 0.4 0.8 4.4 2.0 0.8 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 0.8 - 2.0 0.8 - Permatang Damar Laut - - 2.8 0.8 - Permatang Tepi Laut 1.6 3.6 3.2 1.2 2.0 Sungai Batu 0.8 2.0 2.4 1.6 1.6 Teluk Kumbar 1.2 4.0 2.4 2.8 1.6 Gertak Sanggul - 2.0 3.2 6.0 0.8 Pulau Betung 1.2 2.0 3.6 2.8 3.2 Total (%) 7.6 18 34 25.6 14.8 Note: Based on total fishermen survey = 250 respondents

b) Fleet Character

A wide range of boats and engine sizes were owned by the fishermen. The sizes of the fishing boats ranged from 4.3 to >9.4 m long. About 76% were between 6.1 to 7.6 m, while 12.2% were less than 6 m. Only a few fishermen (1.5%) had boats longer than 9.4 m (T6.85).

About 15.5% had second -hand boats, while the majority (84.5%) owned new boats (T6.86). Similar proportions also applied to engine ownership, with 88.6% fishermen owning a new engine, while the remaining 11.4% had bought a reconditioned engine (T6.86).

6-195 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.85 Lengths of fishing boat used by surveyed fishermen by length cohort and fish landing point Boat Length (m) Fish Landing Point 4.3 – 6.0 (%) 6.1 – 7.6 (%) 7.7 – 9.4 (%) > 9.4 (%) Sri Jerjak - 10.2 - - Batu Maung 2.0 14.2 1.5 0.5 Teluk Tempoyak Kechil 0.5 7.6 1.0 - Teluk Tempoyak Besar - 3.6 - - Permatang Damar Laut - 4.1 0.5 - Permatang Tepi Laut 4.1 5.1 1.5 - Sungai Batu 0.5 6.1 - - Teluk Kumbar 2.5 6.6 2.0 - Gertak Sanggul 1.0 10.7 2.0 0.5 Pulau Betung 1.5 8.1 1.5 0.5 Total (%) 12.2 76.1 10.2 1.5 Note: Boat owner surveyed = 193 persons

T6.86 Boat ownership (new or second hand) Boat Engine Fish Landing Point New (%) Second Hand (%) New (%) Second Hand (%) Batu Maung 14.0 4.7 15.0 3.6 Teluk Tempoyak 8.8 1.0 9.8 0.0 Permatang Damar Laut 4.7 0.0 4.7 0.0 Permatang Tepi Laut 8.3 2.6 10.4 0.5 Sungai Batu 6.2 0.0 6.2 0.0 Teluk Kumbar 8.8 1.0 8.3 1.6 Gertak Sanggul 13.5 1.0 13.0 1.6 Pulau Betung 9.3 2.1 10.4 1.0 Pulau Jerjak 7.3 3.1 7.8 2.6 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 3.6 0.0 3.1 0.5 Total (%) 84.5 15.5 88.6 11.4 Note: Boat owner surveyed = 193 persons

Most (81%) fishermen employed engine capacities between 40 HP to up to 99 HP. The highest percentage was for engine capacities ranging from 60 to 99 HP (47%) and 40 to 49 HP (34%). About 7% used engine capacities between >100 HP, while 3% used low -capacity engines between 10 to 19 HP (T6.87). The ownership of productive assets by fishermen is supported by a low -interest loan facility provided by LKIM. The loan facility requires that the fisherman be a member of the Fishermen Association (Persatuan Nelayan - PN). With the endorsement of the PN, which acts as a guarantor on their behalf, the fishermen are entitled to take a loan of up to RM25,000 from LKIM. By agreeing to the terms determined by PN, the fishermen are bounded to sell their catch to PN. Loan repayments are then deducted directly from the sales proceeds of the monthly catches.

6-196 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.87 Engine capacity of fishing boat used by surveyed fishermen by engine size and fish landing point Engine Capacity (Horsepower, HP) Fish Landing Point 10 - 19 (%) 20 - 39 (%) 40 - 59 (%) 60 - 99 (%) >100 (%) Sri Jerjak - 0.5 3.6 4.7 1.0 Batu Maung 0.5 4.7 5.2 7.2 1.0 Teluk Tempoyak Kechil - 0.5 3.6 4.6 0.5 Teluk Tempoyak Besar - - 0.5 3.1 - Permatang Damar Laut - 0.0 1.6 3.1 - Permatang Tepi Laut - 1.6 6.7 2.0 0.5 Sungai Batu - 1.0 2.6 3.1 - Teluk Kumbar - 1.0 4.1 4.6 - Gertak Sanggul 0.5 - 5.2 7.3 2.1 Pulau Betung 1.5 1.0 1.0 6.8 2.1 Total (%) 2.5 10.4 34.3 46.7 7.2 Note: Boat owner surveyed = 193 persons

Normally, boat prices vary even among those of similar sizes, depending on the boat yard and hull quality. Purchases of fishing equipment are normally on cash terms. Thus, fishermen purchasing high capacity boat engines need to invest huge amounts of their savings, especially where larger engines are concerned. Another necessary fishing equipment used by fishermen is net hauler (F6.145). Net haulers are powered hydraulically and are known as “Robert” (a mispronunciation of “robot”). On average, the cost of this machine is around RM6,000. T6.88 provides a list and the price of common equipment used in fishing boats. However, sonar detector and walkie -talkie are not commonly used on boats with engine capacities below 115 HP.

T6.88 List of equipment (and price) used aboard fishing vessel. Average price incurred by fishermen. Fishing Equipment Price/Unit (RM) 4.3 6,300 5.5 7,800 6.4 9,800 Boat profile 6.7 11,000 (size, m) 7.0 13,000 8.2 18,000 9.1 21,000 15 4,600 30 8,000 Engine 40 15,000 (horsepower, HP) 60 23,000 115 30,500 Trawl towing machine 6,000

Sonar machine 2,500 F6.145 Net hauler or “Robert” (robot) Walkie -talkie 1,600 Life jacket 180 Source: All estimation is given by respondent base on average fishermen estimation and also according

Plastic barrel (capacity of 25L) 150 to the market price observation

6-197 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

c) Fishing Gear

The fishing gear used at the study area include drift/gill net, bottom gill net, hooks and line and portable traps (T6.89). For instance, trammel nets are used to catch shrimp, while the Pukat Bawal (pomfret net) is used to catch pomfret. The nets are differentiated by their lengths and mesh size. Among the fishing gears, the bottom gill nets was the most widely used gear, followed by drift/gill nets, hooks and line and portable traps.

The most widely used drift/gill nets were Pukat Bawal (pomfret net) and Pukat Senangin (threadfin net), which were worked by 59.4 and 55.9% of the respondents, respectively. Only 21.3% used the Pukat Temenong (mackerel net). These nets are usually employed in open waters as they could reach a total length of 1 km.

On the other hand, where bottom gill nets are concerned, about 88.2% of the fishermen interviewed used trammel nets, which largely targeted shrimp. Another net that is used by the fishermen is the Pukat Ketam (crab net), used by 17.1% of the respondents. Both of these nets are commonly employed in shallow waters; the trammel net at depths less than 10 m and Pukat Ketam (crab net) in less than 3 m. Other nets that are also used included the Pukat Kedera (mullet net) (3.5%), Pukat Jenahak (snapper net) (0.5%), Pukat Kerapu (grouper net) (0.5%) and Pukat Hantu (2.5%).

Less common gears used include hooks and line and portable traps, with about 6.3% of the surveyed fishermen used longlines, followed by rod and line with 6.2%. Only 3.1% of the fishermen used bubu . While the longlines and rod and lines are usually employed at the open waters, much like the drift/gill net, the bubu is usually set near to the coastline where the water is calmer and shallower.

T6.89 Gear group according to engine horsepower

Engine – Powered (Horsepower, HP) (%) Total Gear Group 10 - 19 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 - 99 >100 (%) Pukat Temenong (Mackerel Net) 0.5 1.6 4.1 11.4 3.7 21.3 Drift/Gill Pukat Senangin (Threadfin Net) 0.5 6.2 19.7 25.3 4.2 55.9 Net Pukat Bawal (Pomfret Net) 1.0 5.7 21.7 26.4 4.6 59.4 Pukat Tiga Lapis (Trammel Net) 1.6 8.3 30.0 42.6 5.7 88.2 Pukat Ketam (Crab Net) - 1.6 4.7 9.8 1.0 17.1 Bottom Pukat Kedera (Mullet Net) 1.0 1.0 - 1.5 - 3.5 Gill Net Pukat Jenahak (Snapper Net) - - - 0.5 - 0.5 Pukat Kerapu (Grouper Net) - - - 0.5 - 0.5 Pukat Hantu - - - 1.0 1.5 2.5 Hooks Rod and line - - 1.6 4.1 0.5 6.2 and Line Long -lines - - 1.6 4.2 0.5 6.3 Portable Bubu - - 3.1 - - 3.1 Traps Note: Boat owner surveyed = 193 persons

d) Fishing Practice and Fishing Ground

Ten specific sites were identified in the survey as fishing grounds. A larger, more generalized fishing ground, was from 3 to 10 nautical miles from the shoreline was also targeted by fishermen (T6.90).

6-198 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

F6.90 Major fishing ground by fishermen from different fish landing point Month Permatang Damar Permatang Teluk Tempoyak Teluk Tempoyak Teluk Permatang Tepi Permatang Gertak Sanggul Gertak Teluk Kumbar Teluk Pulau Batung Pulau Sungai Batu Sungai Batu Maung Batu Sri JerjakSri Kechil Besar Laut Laut Landing Points Total

(%)

< 3 n.m. 3.2 6.8 6.8 2.4 3.6 7.6 6.8 11.6 10.0 7.6 66.4 < 10 n.m. - 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.0 - - 0.4 2.4 6.4 Balik Pulau 24 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.4 1.2 - - - - 6.8 Coast Pulau Betung ------0.8 - 0.4 1.2 East Penang - - 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 - - 0.8 4.4 Pulau Rimau 9.2 12.0 6.0 2.8 3.2 6.8 4.4 10.0 5.2 4.0 63.6 Pulau Kendi 7.2 9.6 6.8 3.2 2.0 6.8 5.6 10.4 8.8 7.2 67.6 Pulau Aman 0.8 3.6 2.0 0.4 1.2 0.4 2.0 0.8 0.4 - 11.6 Penang Second 2.0 7.2 0.8 0.8 - 0.4 0.8 2.0 0.4 0.8 15.2 Bridge Tanjung Bungah 0.8 ------0.8 Padang Kota 0.8 ------0.8 - 1.6 Note: Based on total fishermen survey = 250 respondents

However, based on the interviews and discussions with fishermen, the most important fishing ground was within 3 nautical miles from the coast, with 66% of the fishermen attesting that they fished there regularly. Other major areas of fishing effort were Pulau Kendi and Pulau Rimau. Both these islands supported coral reefs, which accounted for the large aggregations of fish around them. While a minority of fishermen (1.6%) went eastwards to Padang Kota and west as far as Tanjung Bungah, the bulk of the fishermen (92.6%) fished within the boundaries indicated in F6.146.

In general, the main factor determining the willingness of the fishermen to reach a certain fishing ground was engine size and fuel cost. Not many fishermen were able to reach Tanjung Bungah and Padang Kota, which are at a considerable distance from their home villages. Another related factor is the fact that the southern coast fringes major fisheries habitats, especially around Pulau Kendi and Pulau Rimau. e) Landings and Species

T6.91 provides the list of main species caught by coastal fishermen in the study area namely Udang Putih (Banana Shrimp or Penaeus merguensis / P. indicus ), Temenong (Mackerel or Restrelliger spp.), Senangin (Threadfin or Polynemus spp.), Bawal (Pomfret or Pampus spp.), Kedera (Mullet or Liza spp.), Jenahak (Snapper or Lutjanus spp .) and Kerapu (Grouper or Epinephelus spp.). Shrimp is at the top of the catch list, with some 88% of respondents identifying them as target species. Fishermen at Batu Maung, Sungai Batu, Teluk Kumbar and Gertak Sanggul particularly targeted the commodity.

6-199 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

F6.146 Major fishing grounds of coastal fishermen off the study area

T6.91 Species caught by fishermen Species Categories (%) ( Penaeus merguensis/ Penaeus ( ( ( Epinephelus Restrelliger Polynemus Charybdis ( ( ( Portunus Lutjanus Lutjanus Udang Putih Udang Pampus Temenong P. indicus P. ( Senangin Liza Jenahak Kerapu Kedara Ketam Bawal Fish Landing Points spp.) spp.) spp./ spp.) spp.) spp.) spp.)

spp.)

)

Sri Jerjak 6.8 0.4 10.8 9.6 0.0 1.6 - 0.4 Batu Maung 12.8 5.6 11.6 10.8 0.4 - - 2.0 Teluk Tempoyak Kechil 8.8 3.2 4.0 7.6 1.2 0.4 - 1.2 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 4.0 0.4 2.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 - 2.0 Permatang Damar Laut 3.6 0.4 2.0 2.8 - 1.6 - 0.4 Permatang Tepi Laut 8.4 2.0 5.6 6.4 - 0.8 - 5.6 Sungai Batu 12.8 0.4 3.6 4.4 0.8 0.8 - 1.2 Teluk Kumbar 11.2 1.2 6.0 6.8 - 1.2 - 2.0 Gertak Sanggul 11.6 6.0 5.6 4.4 - - - 3.6 Pulau Betung 9.6 1.6 2.8 6.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Total (%) 89.6 21.2 54.8 59.6 3.2 7.2 0.4 18.8 Note: Percentage of respondents (N = 250) who targeted the species

6-200 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Among the finfish, Senangin ( Polynemus spp.) and Bawal ( Pampus spp.) were major target species, with 54.8% and 89.6% of the respondents targeting these species. Species such as Kedera ( Liza spp.), Jenahak ( Lutjanus spp.) and Kerapu ( Epinephelus spp.) are caught mainly by bigger boats and not the favoured target fish of smaller boats, hence accounting for the low percentage of fishermen that target these species. Temenong ( Restrelliger spp.) is caught seasonally by all fishermen, but some smaller boats are unable to accommodate larger volumes of catch. Most Temenong fishing is carried out on the west coast of the island, around Balik Pulau.

On average, fishermen in the study area indicated that about 35% of their catch by volume consisted of Udang Putih ( Penaeus merguensis /P. indicus ), 22% of Senangin ( Polynemus spp.) and 23% of Bawal ( Pampus spp./ Parastromateus spp.). Despite the anectodal importance of the Temenong ( Restrelliger spp.), the fish accounted for only 8%, probably because of its seasonality. f) Output Values and Socio -economics

Overview

The estimated gross incomes of fishermen are based on values reported by the fishermen during the survey. The mean gross income per fishermen was RM1,989.50 per month, ranging from RM500 to RM9,000 per month. About 93% reported their incomes came entirely from fishing, with only 7% supplementing their income from other sources. These other sources included operating restaurants and boat rentals. The lowest dependence on fishing incomes was 20%, while the highest was 100%. Hence, while the latter group is entirely dependent on fishing, there are those who obtain up to 80% from non -fishing sources.

The mean incomes from fishing averaged RM1,837.00 per month, ranging from RM350 to RM9,000 per month. The mean incomes from non -fishing sources averaged RM145.30 per month, ranging from zero to as high as RM3,600 monthly.

Out of the 250 respondents, 192 or 76.8% were boat owners, one person (0.4%) used a rented boat, while the rest (57 persons or 22.8%) were boat crew ( awak -awak ). A fishing team generally comprised of the boat owner and one or two crew members, though, especially for smaller boats, the owner may operate the boat singly. Where a fishing team is involved, income distribution from fishing is distributed into two: one part for the boat owner and the other for the boat crew. If the boat owner hired a ‘ tekong’ (lead fishermen), then the split is three ways. For most part, however, the boat owner acted as the lead fishermen. The breakdown of the overall sources of incomes according to the types of fishermen is provided in T6.92.

Boat owners, who were are the “ tekong” , earned a wider range of incomes, with the lowest range

There were more boat owners/ tekongs earning from the overall monthly income categories of RM1,001 to 1,500 (23.4%), RM1,501 to RM2,000 (37.5%), RM2,001 to RM2,500 (9.9%), RM2,501 to RM3,000 (6.8%), RM3,001 to RM3,500 (4.7%) and RM3,501 to RM5,000 (6.8%). A smaller proportion (3.6%) of the boat owners/ tekongs did earn RM5,001 to RM8,000. Only one (0.5%) boat owners/ tekong claimed to have earned in excess of RM8,000 per month. The fishermen who rented a boat (1 respondent) earned RM1,501 to RM2,000 a month.

6-201 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

Income Boat Owner/T ekong Boat Rental Boat Crews T6.92 Range (RM) No. % No. % No. % Overall income (percentage - - distribution of respondents < 1,000 13 6.8 7 12.3 by income cohort and types 1,001 -1,500 45 23.4 - - 21 36.8 of fishermen) 1,501 -2,000 72 37.5 1 100.0 16 28.1 2,001 -2,500 19 9.9 - - 6 10.5 2,501 -3,000 13 6.8 - - 6 10.5 3,001 -3,500 9 4.7 - - 1 1.8 3,501 -5,000 13 6.8 - - 0 - 5,001 -8,000 7 3.6 - - 0 -

>8,000 1 0.5 - - 0 - Note: Total no. of respondent = Total 192 100 1 100 57 100 250 persons

The boat crew/ awak -awak tend to have lower incomes, unlike the tekong who also earns a portion of the haul if he is the boat owner. The incomes of boat crews/ awak -awak ranged from

Fishing Incomes

As mentioned earlier, the fishermen of southern Penang Island depended very much on fishing, deriving 93.5% of their overall incomes from the activity. T6.93 provides the distribution of incomes earned directly from fishing. The majority of boat owners /tekongs had fishing incomes in range RM1,501 to RM2,000, with 18.8% within RM1,001 to RM1,500 cohort and 7.2% within RM2,001 to RM2,500 cohort. None of them earned in excess of RM8,000 per month.

The incomes of boat crews/ awak -awak exhibited a different pattern. Most (9.2%) were within the RM1,001 to RM1,500 income category. There were no boat crews/ awak -awak having fishing incomes in the RM3,001 to RM3,500 category and beyond. This suggests that the boat crews/ awak -awak must rely on other non -fishing income as well. Being younger, and the fact that they earn only a share of the fishing haul, they are more likely to seek additional employment opportunities elsewhere.

Percentage (%) of Respondents T6.93 Income Fisherman/ Fishermen/ Boat Fishing income (percentage Range (RM) Total Boat Owner Boat Rental Crew distribution of respondents by income cohort and types < 1,000 7.6 0 6.8 14.4 of fishermen) 1,001 – 1,500 18.8 0 9.2 28.0 1,501 – 2,000 26.8 0.4 4.8 32.0 2,001 – 2,500 7.2 0 1.6 8.8 2,501 – 3,000 5.2 0 0.4 5.6 3,001 – 3,500 4.4 0 0 4.4 - 3,501 5,000 0.4 0 0 0.4 Note: No. of respondents: 5,001 – 8,000 6.4 0 0 6.4 192 persons for fishermen/ >8,000 0 0 0 0 boat owner, 1 person for fishermen/boat rental and

Total (%) 76.8 0.4 22.8 100 57 persons for boat crew

6-202 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Fishermen from Batu Maung, Teluk Tempoyak, Permatang Tepi Laut, Teluk Kumbar, Gertak Sanggul, Pulau Betung and Sri Jerjak are reported to have higher incomes from fishing than those from Teluk Tempoyak Besar, Permatang Damar Laut and Sungai Batu [T6.94 (in numbers) and T6.95 (in percentage)]. A few fishermen from Batu Maung, Teluk Tempoyak, Teluk Kumbar, Gertak Sanggul and Pulau Betung (0.4 to 1.6%) reported that they could earn more than RM5,001 per month. Fishermen in Permatang Damar Laut asserted that they could at least obtain beyond RM1,000 monthly.

T6.94 Fishing income (number of respondents by income cohort) Income Levels (RM) >5,001 <1,000 1,001 1,501 2,001 2,501 3,001 3,501 Fish Landing Point 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 5,000 Total ------

Sri Jerjak 4 16 6 2 2 1 1 0 32 Batu Maung 3 5 15 3 1 3 6 1 37 Teluk Tempoyak Kechil 3 8 4 3 2 0 0 1 21 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 9 Permatang Damar Laut 0 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 9 Permatang Tepi Laut 4 8 10 0 3 3 1 0 29 Sungai Batu 6 8 6 1 0 0 0 0 21 Teluk Kumbar 7 10 11 0 0 0 1 1 30 Gertak Sanggul 1 7 10 6 3 2 0 1 30 Pulau Betung 6 6 8 3 3 0 2 4 32 Total No. of Respondent 36 70 80 22 14 9 11 8 250

T6.95 Percentage of fishing incomes Percentage (%) of Income Levels (RM) >5,001 <1,000 1,001 1,501 2,001 2,501 3,001 3,501 Fish Landing Point 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 5,000 Total ------

Sri Jerjak 1.6 6.4 2.4 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 0 12.8 Batu Maung 1.2 2 6 1.2 0.4 1.2 2.4 0.4 14.8 Teluk Tempoyak Kechil 1.2 3.2 1.6 1.2 0.8 0 0 0.4 8.4 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 0.8 0 2.8 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Permatang Damar Laut 0 0.8 1.2 1.6 0 0 0 0 3.6 Permatang Tepi Laut 1.6 3.2 4 0 1.2 1.2 0.4 0 11.6 Sungai Batu 2.4 3.2 2.4 0.4 0 0 0 0 8.4 Teluk Kumbar 2.8 4 4.4 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 12 Gertak Sanggul 0.4 2.8 4 2.4 1.2 0.8 0 0.4 12 Pulau Betung 2.4 2.4 3.2 1.2 1.2 0 0.8 1.6 12.8 Total No. of Respondent 14.4 28 32 8.8 5.6 3.6 4.4 3.2 100

Within each fish landing point, the spread of fishermen among income cohorts varied quite significantly. Most of respondents from Sri Jerjak (50%), Teluk Tempoyak Kechil and Sungai Batu (both at 38.1%) were within the RM1,001 to RM1,500 income cohort (T6.96).

6-203 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.96 Percentage of fishing incomes by fish landing point Percentage (%) of Income Levels (RM) <1,000 >5,001 1,001 1,501 2,001 2,501 3,001 3,501 Fish Landing Point 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 5,000 Total ------

Sri Jerjak 12.5 50.0 18.8 6.3 6.3 3.1 3.1 0 100 Batu Maung 8.1 13.5 40.5 8.1 2.7 8.1 16.2 2.7 100 Teluk Tempoyak Kechil 14.3 38.1 19.1 14.3 9.5 0 0 4.8 100 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 22.23 0 77.8 0 0 0 0 0 100 Permatang Damar Laut 0 22.2 33.3 44.4 0 0 0 0 100 Permatang Tepi Laut 13.8 27.6 34.5 0 10.3 10.3 3.5 0 100 Sungai Batu 28.6 38.1 28.6 4.8 0 0 0 0 100 Teluk Kumbar 23.3 33.3 36.7 0 0 0 3.3 3.3 100 Gertak Sanggul 3.3 23.3 33.3 20.0 10.0 6.7 0 3.3 100 Pulau Betung 18.8 18.8 25.0 9.4 9.4 0 6.3 12.5 100

Respondents at Batu Maung, Teluk Tempoyak Besar, Permatang Tepi Laut, Teluk Kumbar, Gertak Sanggul and Pulau Betung were largely (25 to 78%) within RM1,501 to RM2,000 income cohort, while most (44%) in Permatang Damar Laut reported income within RM2,001 to RM2,500 income cohort.

The > RM5,001 income cohort was reported by only eight (8) sampled fishermen or 3.2% of all respondents, mostly of whom from Pulau Betung (T6.97). Most (32%) respondents reported being within the RM1,501 to RM2,000 and were represented in all the fish landing points, especially Batu Maung (18.75%), Teluk Kumbar (13.75%), Permatang Tepi Laut (12.5%) and Gertak Sanggul (12.5%).

T6.97 Percentage of fishing incomes by income cohort Percentage (%) of Income Levels (RM) <1,000 >5,001 1,001 1,501 2,001 2,501 3,001 3,501 Fish Landing Point 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 5,000 Total ------

Sri Jerjak 11.1 22.9 7.5 9.1 14.3 11.1 9.1 0 12.8 Batu Maung 8.3 7.1 18.8 13.6 7.1 33.3 54.6 12.5 14.8 Teluk Tempoyak Kechil 8.3 11.4 5.0 13.6 14.3 0 0 12.5 8.4 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 5.6 0 8.8 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 Permatang Damar Laut 0 2.9 3.8 18.2 0 0 0 0 3.6 Permatang Tepi Laut 11.1 11.4 12.5 0 21.4 33.3 9.1 0 11.6 Sungai Batu 16.7 11.4 7.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 8.4 Teluk Kumbar 19.4 14.3 13.8 0 0 0 9.1 12.5 12.0 Gertak Sanggul 2.8 10.0 12.5 27.3 21.4 22.2 0 12.5 12.0 Pulau Betung 16.7 8.6 10.0 13.6 21.4 0.0 18.2 50.0 12.8 Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total No. of 36 70 80 22 14 9 11 8 250 Respondent

6-204 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Non -fishing Incomes

As mentioned earlier, only 41 respondents reported alternative income sources. These addition income streams are generally much lower than that of fishing (T6.98). Among the boat owners/ tekongs , the highest percentage range was within RM3,501 to RM5,000 per month, while it was RM2,001 to RM2,500 per month for the boat crews/ awak -awak.

Percentage (%) of Respondents T6.98 Income Range - Fisherman/ Fishermen/ Boat Non fishing income (RM) Total Boat Owner Boat Rental Crew (percentage distribution of respondents by

< 1,000 29.3 0 36.6 65.9 income cohort and types 1,001 - 1,500 9.8 0 12.2 22.0 of fishermen) 1,501 - 2,000 2.4 0 2.4 4.9 2,001 - 2,500 2.4 0 2.4 4.9 2,501 - 3,000 0 0 0 0 3,001 - 3,500 0 0 0 0 3,501 - 5,000 2.4 0 0 2.4 5,001 - 8,000 0 0 0 0 >8,000 0 0 0 0 Total (%) 46.4 0.0 53.7 100

The distribution of non -fishing incomes by fish -landing point is given in T6.99 (in numbers) and T6.100 (in percentage). Fishermen from Batu Maung, Teluk Tempoyak Kechil, Teluk Tempoyak Besar, Permatang Tepi Laut, Sungai Batu, Teluk Kumbar, Gertak Sanggul, Pulau Betung and Sri Jerjak had reported non -fishing incomes. One fisherman from Teluk Kumbar and two fishermen from Sri Jerjak (4.9%) claimed that they could earn high incomes from other sources, ranging from RM5,001 to RM8,000 and RM2,501 to RM3,000 per month respectively.

T6.99 Number of respondents for non -fishing income Percentage (%) of Income Levels (RM) >5,001 <1,000 1,001 1,501 2,001 2,501 3,001 3,501 Fish Landing Point 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 5,000 Total ------

Sri Jerjak 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 6 Batu Maung 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Teluk Tempoyak Kechil 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Permatang Damar Laut 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Permatang Tepi Laut 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 Sungai Batu 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 1 11 Teluk Kumbar 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 Gertak Sanggul 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Pulau Betung 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 6 Total No. of Respondent 0 27 9 2 2 0 0 1 41

6-205 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.100 Percentage of non -fishing incomes Percentage (%) of Income Levels (RM) >5,001 <1,000 1,001 1,501 2,001 2,501 3,001 3,501 Fish Landing Point 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 5,000 Total ------

Sri Jerjak 0 7.3 4.9 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 Batu Maung 0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 Teluk Tempoyak Kechil 0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Permatang Damar Laut 0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 Permatang Tepi Laut 0 14.6 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1 Sungai Batu 0 19.5 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 26.8 Teluk Kumbar 0 4.9 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 Gertak Sanggul 0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 Pulau Betung 0 4.9 2.4 2.4 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 Total No. of Respondent 0 65.9 22.0 4.9 4.9 0.0 0.0 2.4 100.0

6.4.2.3 Aquaculture Industry at the Study Area

Discussions and interviews with aquaculture farmers particularly cage culture operators off Batu Maung (01 o 18.962’ N; 103 o 26.614’ E) and hatchery operators at Permatang Damar Laut, Teluk Kumbar, Gertak Sanggul and Pulau Betung were undertaken (F6.147 to F6.149). A questionnaire was prepared for this purpose ( Appendix D.3 in Volume 3: Appendices). FGD was also undertaken for Persatuan Akuakultur Pulau Pinang (PENKUA) at Orkid Room, Safira Club, Butterworth on 8 th April 2016. In addition, aquaculture data was also requested from the Penang State Department of Fisheries.

Three (3) aquaculture systems are employed in the study area i.e. marine cage culture, brackish water pond culture and oyster culture. In 2015, aquaculture production in the study area amounted to 2,297.48 tonnes, of which 69.4% was contributed by marine cage culture (1,594.90 tonnes), 30.1% by brackish water pond culture (692.31 tonnes) and 0.4% by oyster culture (10.26 tonnes). In addition, shrimp/marine fish fry production (hatchery) is also actively undertaken at the study area.

F6.147 Interview with the cage operators at Batu Maung

6-206 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

A B C

F6.148 Interview with the hatchery operators. A: BE Biomarine, B: Gertak Sanggol Hatchery Sdn. Bhd., C: Seaharvest Aquamarine (M) Sdn. Bhd.

F6.149 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with PENKUA

The detailed descriptions for each system are as follows: a) Hatcheries and Seed Production

In 2015, there were seven private hatcheries involved in the shrimp fry production, two in prawn fry production and one in oyster production in the study area (F6.150 and T6.101).

F6.150 Aquaculture activities (hatcheries) operating at the study area

6-207 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.101 Details of hatcheries operating at the study area, (2015) Gertak Teluk Permatang Pulau Location Total Sanggul Kumbar Damar Laut Betung No. of culturist 3 4 2 1 10 No. of hatchery 3 6 2 1 12 Production Udang Putih ( P. vannamei ) - Naupli 40 million 755.8 million - - 795.8 million - Post Larvae (PL9 -15) - 396.2 million 105.0 million - 314.7 million - Broodstock - 1,200 - - 1,200 Udang Harimau ( P. monodon ) - Naupli - 4.20 million - - 4.20 million - Post Larvae (PL9 -15) - 4.27 million 4.5 million - 8.77 million Udang Galah ( M. - 6 million 12 million - 18 million rosenbergii ) Tiram ( C. iredelei , - - - 6 million 6 million Crassosstrea hybrids) Wholesale Value Udang Putih ( P. vannamei ) - Naupli RM 28,000 RM 40,600 - - RM 58,600 RM RM - Post Larvae (PL9 -15) - - RM 5,657,000 4,462,000 1,195,000 - Broodstock - RM 144,000 - - RM 144,000 Udang Harimau ( P. monodon ) - Naupli - RM 29,400 - RM 29,400 - Post Larvae (PL9 -15) - RM 128,100 RM 135,000 - RM 263,100 Udang Galah ( M. - RM 420,000 RM 720,000 - RM 1,140,000 rosenbergii ) Tiram ( C. iredelei , RM - - - RM 1,500,000 Crassosstrea hybrids) 1,500,000 Total Wholesale Value RM RM RM RM 28,000 RM 8,802,100 (RM) 5,224,100 2,050,000 1,500,000 Source: Field data, 2016

Shrimps i) Size and Locations

Shrimp hatcheries are operated at Teluk Kumbar (Gertak Sanggol Hatchery Sdn. Bhd., BE Biomarine Sdn. Bhd., Ocean Sea Culture Hatchery), Gertak Sanggul (Soon Jaya Hatchery, Global Agro Life Sdn. Bhd., Yu Full Aquaculture Trading) and Permatang Damar Laut (Ocean Star Aquaculture, Permatang Aquaculture) (F6.151). These hatcheries produce post - larvae of the Udang Putih (Pacific White Shrimp or Litopenaeus vannamei ) and Udang Harimau (Tiger prawn or Penaeus Monodon ).

6-208 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

A B C

D E F

F6.151 Shrimp hatcheries in south of Penang Island. A -B: Teluk Kumbar (Gertak Sanggol Hatchery Sdn. Bhd.), C -D: Gertak Sanggul (Global Agro Life Sdn. Bhd.), E -F: Permatang Damar Laut (Ocean Star Aquaculture)

ii) Productive Assets

Shrimp hatcheries consist of facilities for quarantine, maturation, spawning, hatching, larval rearing, indoor or outdoor algal culture and artemia preparation area. Supporting infrastructure was also provided for water management (facilities for abstraction, filtration, storage, disinfection, aeration, temperature adjustment and distribution), larval laboratories, feed laboratories (for analysis and preparation) and storage facilities, maintenance areas, packing areas for nauplii and PL, offices, store rooms and staff living quarters and other related facilities.

Water used in the hatcheries is filtered and treated to prevent entry of predatory invertebrates, pathogens and sediments present in the source water so as to ensure consistent quality for larval rearing. Water was abstracted from the shoreline. Most of the intake pipelines were located within 100 m from the low water line. Only one (1) hatchery at Gertak Sanggul had the intake pipeline located approximately 400 m from the coastline. Filtration involves sub -surface well points at the intakes and sand filters (gravity or pressure), and/or mesh bag filters, before being piped to the reservoir tanks. Following settlement of residual sediments, water is disinfected by chlorination. Some of the hatcheries do additional filtration again with a cartridge/bag filter and a final disinfection using ultraviolet light (UV) and/or ozone. The use of activated carbon filters, the addition of ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA) and temperature and salinity regulation are other features of the water supply system.

Specific tanks are assigned for quarantine, spawning, hatching, larval rearing, live feed culture (algal and artemia), water storage and packing purpose. The number of tanks vary for each hatchery. For example, the number of larvae -rearing tanks ranged from <10 to 50 units. Their sizes also vary from 1 to 10 tonnes. Tanks are of fibreglass, prefabricated concrete or cement. iii) Husbandry

Shrimp farms essentially require reliable post larval stocks. Hatcheries play an essential role in supplying seed stock on a year -round basis in substantial quantities for the shrimp grow- out farms.

6-209 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

The production of each hatchery in the study area depends on larval survival and nutrition, disease as well as the quality of the source water. In this respect, different husbandry approaches were taken by each hatchery. iv) Production and Value

In 2015, shrimp fry production at the study area amounted to 1,309.97 million fry (800 million nauplii and 433.47 million PL9 -PL15), valued at RM6.018 million. Most of the production (99%) came from Udang Putih ( Litopenaeus vannamei ), while only 1% was from Udang Harimau ( Penaeus monodon ). According to farmers, cultured Udang Harimau was more challenging as compared to Udang Putih, with low survival rates.

The highest production was recorded from Gertak Sanggol Hatchery Sdn. Bhd., which contributed 76.3% of the total production, followed by Ocean Sea Culture Hatchery (9.2%) and Ocean Sea Culture (6.5%). Production of BE Biomarine Sdn. Bhd., Yu Full Aquaculture Trading and Permatang Aquaculture was less than 50 million a year.

It is important to note that there was no production in 2015 from Soon Jaya Hatchery and Global Agro Life Sdn. Bhd., both of which operated at Gertak Sanggul. Soon Jaya Hatchery is a collaboration with Gertak Sanggol Hatchery Sdn. Bhd. and was only used for storing the stocks and equipment, while Global Agro Life Sdn. Bhd. just recently began operation with first harvest recorded in February 2016.

The PL9 -PL15 was sold at RM0.010 to RM0.013/ind. for Udang Putih and RM0.03 to RM0.045/ind. for Udang Harimau, while RM600 to RM800/million ind. for nauplii.

Prawn i) Size and Locations

There are two hatcheries producing Udang Galah, freshwater giant prawn ( Macrobrachium rosenbergii ) at study area, i.e. at Teluk Kumbar (Exauhall (M) Sdn. Bhd.) and Pematang Damar Laut (Permatang Aquaculture) (F6.152).

A B C

D E F

F6.152 Prawn hatcheries in south of Penang Island. A -C: Teluk Kumbar [Exauhall (M) Sdn. Bhd.], D -F: Permatang Damar Laut (Permatang Aquaculture)

6-210 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

ii) Productive Assets

Same information as mentioned for shrimp culture. iii) Husbandry

Prawn farms also require reliable post -larval stocks either from the wild or from shrimp/prawn hatcheries. However, the supply from the wild is extremely unpredictable and thus hatcheries play an important role in supplying seed stock on year -round basis in substantial quantities for grow -out farms.

The production of each hatchery in the study area depends on larval survival and nutrition, control of disease as well as the quality of the source water. In this respect, different husbandry approaches were undertaken by each hatchery. iv) Production and Value

Based on the data collected in 2016, the production freshwater prawn fry amounted to 18 million juveniles, valued at RM1.140 million in 2015. The main producer was Permatang Aquaculture (12 million), which accounted for 66.7% of the total production, while Axauhall (M) Sdn Bhd. supplied the remaining 33.3% (6 million). The prawn fry was sold at RM0.06 to 0.07/ind.

Oysters i) Size and Locations

The country’s only commercial hatchery producing Tiram (Oyster or Crassostrea iredelei, Crassostrea sp.) is located at Pulau Betung, and operated by Sea Harvest Aqua Marine Sdn. Bhd. (F6.153).

F6.153 Oyster hatchery (Sea Harvest Aqua Marine Sdn. Bhd.) at Pulau Betung

ii) Productive Assets

An oyster hatchery also consists of facilities for quarantine, maturation, spawning, hatching, larval rearing and algal culture. The superstructure in the hatchery involves 20 units of larval tanks with a capacity of 3 tonnes/tank, 16 units of water storage tanks, 4 units of nursery tanks, 12 units of holding tanks and 1 earthen pond.

Supporting infrastructure was also available for the water management (facilities for abstraction, filtration, storage, disinfection, aeration, temperature adjustment and distribution), feed laboratories and storage facilities, maintenance areas, packing areas, offices, storerooms and staff living quarters and facilities.

6-211 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

iii) Production and Value

Though production of oyster spat amounted to 321.75 million in 2014, the figure had dropped to 6 million in 2015 (DOF, 2016 - unpublished ). This was due to the degradation of water quality off Pulau Betung. The wholesale value in 2015 was recorded at RM1.5 million, the oyster seed being sold at RM0.20 to 0.30/ind. b) Grow Out

Marine Cage Culture

Cage culture has a long history in Penang. The first attempt of cage culture in the country was carried out in Teluk Kumbar and Jelutong in the 1970s (Chua and Teng, 1977). The culture did not take off initially as the biology of many marine fish was relatively unknown. Seed supply was a problem and its availability was uncertain. It was only in the 1980s, when farmers were more familiar with the culture system and seed, especially sea bass fry, and becoming available from Thailand that the marine cage culture industry took off. The industry also relies on the steady supply of trash fish landing in the state as feed. i) Size and Locations

There are 40 farmers involved in marine cage culture in study area. The locations are related to the sheltered nature of the site and the proximity to feed sources. Most cages are located around Pulau Jerejak and off Batu Maung on the leeward side of islands to protect against strong winds and wave action (T6.102). Their locations relative to the proposed reclamation Project is provided in F6.154 and F6.155.

T6.102 Cage culture information at the study area Location Pulau Jerejak Off Batu Maung Pulau Betung No. of culturist 30 8 2 No. of cage 6,885 2,240 400 Area (m 2) 139,000 49,365 4,500 Kerapu ( Epinephelus sp.), Kerapu ( Epinephelus sp.), *Kerapu Merah ( Lutjanus spp.), Siakap Merah ( Lutjanus spp.), Siakap (Epinephelus sp.), Fish reared (L. calcarifer ), Bawal Mas (L. calcarifer ), Bawal Mas Merah ( Lutjanus (Trachinotus blochii ), Nyok - (Trachinotus blochii ), Nyok - spp.) nyok ( Caranx sexfasciatus ) nyok ( Caranx sexfasciatus ) Production 1,594.90 *829 *15 (tonnes) Wholesale 38,483,162.70 *20,002,847.75 *290,000.00 value (RM) Source: Department of Fisheries, Penang, 2016 - unpublished, *Survey undertaken in 2016

6-212 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

F6.154 Aquaculture activities (grow out) undertaken at the study area

A B

F6.155 Cage culture. A -B: Batu Maung, C D C-D: Pulau Betung

ii) Productive Assets

The major asset of a cage farm is the floating superstructure, which consists of the sets of interlinked rafts. These, in turn, support net cages that are used to hold the farmed fish. In 2015, the number of cages that are operated within the impact zone amounted to 6,885 units at Pulau Jerjak, 2,240 units off Batu Maung and 400 units off Pulau Betung with a total productive area of 192,865 m 2. Besides the cages, the superstructure housed shelters for workers, stores for the safe keeping of feed, extra netting with different mesh size for different size of fish, small generators and pumps for general washing purpose.

6-213 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

Each farm was equipped with motorised boats for transportation of workers and materials to and from their base on land to the culture site. The boats are also used for the transportation of fish fry, and harvested fish to be marketed. iii) Husbandry

The superstructure of the cage farms is made of hardwood, with plastic drums used as floats. Cages are usually 5 m x 9 m x 5 m in size, though some could be slightly smaller or bigger. The net cages are made of braided polyethylene and hung from hardwood rafts. The cages are anchored to prevent them from being swept away by currents. iv) Production and Value

In 2015, the estimated production from marine cage culture at the study area amounted to 2,438.9 tonnes, with an estimated wholesale value of RM58.776 million or an average of RM24.10/kg (DOF, 2016 - unpublished ). The relatively high price is partly because grouper, a high value fish, is increasingly being cultured in relation to other species. The average price for grouper of less than one kilogram each was RM38/kg, while those weighing more than one kilogram were priced at RM40/kg and could reach a maximum of RM46/kg.

Brackishwater Pond Culture (Shrimp Farming)

Traditional shrimp farming began in Malaysia in the 1930s with the utilization of the trapping pond culture system, which depends on incoming tides for the supply of wild fry. Successful larvi -culture of shrimp in the late 1960s led to large -scale seed production and the establishment of government and private sector shrimp hatcheries in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Mazuki and Subramaniam, 2005). i) Size and Locations

Two companies were involved in shrimp farming in study area, i.e. Great Fishore Sdn. Bhd. and Iyin Cooperation Sdn. Bhd. both of which operated at Sungai Pulau Betung. Great Fishore Sdn. Bhd. operated a total of nine (9) ponds while Iyin Cooperation Sdn. Bhd. has ten (10) ponds (T6.103 and F6.156). Both shrimp farms were located close to the coast within a mangrove forest area. Their locations relative to the proposed reclamation Project are provided in F6.154 (A2: Sungai Pulau Betung).

Location Sungai Pulau Betung T6.103 No. of culturist 2 Shrimp farming information at the study area No. of pond 19 Area (ha) 13 Udang Harimau ( Penaeus monodon ), Commodity cultured Udang Putih ( L. vannamei ) Production (tonnes) 692.32 Source: Department of Fisheries,

Wholesale value (RM) 19,601,239.00 Penang, 2016 - unpublished

6-214 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

A B C

D E F

F6.156 Brackishwater pond culture at Sungai Pulau Betung. A -D: Great Fishore Sdn. Bhd., E -F: Iyin G H Cooperation Sdn. Bhd.

ii) Productive Assets

The culture of shrimps is mostly carried out in ponds built in coastal low -lying areas. In 2015, there were 19 excavated ponds with sizes of between 0.5 to 0.7 hectares. Three -phase electricity outlets were located around the pond walls to enable aerators (paddle wheels) to be connected by cable. At least three (3) paddle wheels were installed in each pond.

All ponds are installed with small jetties to provide access for monitoring of feed trays and water quality. There are also stores located within the farm area to keep formulated feed and other equipment. The administration building and workers’ quarters are also located within the farm. Transportation of seed, farm materials as well as harvested shrimp is undertaken by lorries and pick -up trucks. iii) Husbandry

The man shrimp species cultured were Udang Harimau ( P. monodon ) and Udang Putih ( L. vannamei ). The stocking density was 175,000 fry/pond or 35 fry/m 2 for Udang Harimau ( P. monodon ) and 700,000 fry/pond or 100 fry/m 2 for Udang Putih ( L. vannamei ). Commonly fry were stocked early morning around 7:00 am to 9:00 am. The fry were bought from a hatchery at Sitiawan for Udang Harimau ( P. monodon ) and Gertak Sanggul Hatchery Sdn. Bhd. for Udang Putih ( L. vannamei ). The price of fry (PL) were RM0.04/fry and RM0.014/fry for P. monodon and P. vannamei respectively.

Frequent change of pond water was carried out at both farms to maintain water quality. Approximately 40% water exchange was undertaken daily and carried out during high tide. The process helped to introduce new food organisms into the pond and to stimulate moulting of shrimp. In stagnant water, decomposition of accumulated organic wastes or depletion of trace metals would affect shrimp growth.

6-215 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

Shrimps were fed with formulated feed pellets. The pellets cost around RM4.60 to RM4.80/ kg. Each pond required at least 200 kg/day. The formulated feed pellets were placed in the feeding trays that were installed strategically at different parts of the pond. The feeding frequency was 2 to 3 times a day. In addition, multivitamin mixes were also added at a rate of 5 gm for every 1 kg of pellet to enhance the immunity, growth and biological performance of shrimps.

The shrimp was harvested upon reaching the marketable size. The local market preferred small shrimp, commonly within 14 to 16 g/ind. or 60 to 70 ind./kg, while the Korean market preferred bigger size shrimp of 20 to 25 g/ind. or 40 to 50 ind./kg. Culture periods were around 4 months and shrimp were harvested twice a year. iv) Production and Value

In 2015, shrimp production from both of the farms amounted to 692.32 tonnes, valued at RM19.601 million (DOF, Penang, 2016 - unpublished ). The price of shrimp depended on the size, ranging from RM25.00/kg for 16 g/ind. (70 shrimp/kg), RM 26.50/kg for 14 g/ind. (60 shrimp/kg) and RM 29.50/kg for 25 g/ind. (40 shrimp/kg) and RM 28/kg for 20 g/ind. (50 shrimp/kg).

Oyster Farming

Oyster culture in Peninsular Malaysia is still in the initial stages of development. At present, total oyster production is very low and estimated at only about 10 tonnes/year. Out of five (5) locations where oyster farming is carried in the country, one is located within the study area i.e. at Pulau Betung (F6.155) (A1: Pulau Betung). The species cultured were Crassosstrea belcheri, C. iredalei and Ostrea folium . i) Size and Locations

The oyster farming carried out at Pulau Betung was undertaken by only one (1) farmer i.e. Mr. Alan Wong Chin Poh (T6.104 and F6.157).

Location Pulau Betung T6.104 No. of culturist 1 Oyster farming information at the study area No. of raft 150 Area (m 2) 3,000 Commodity cultured Tiram ( Crassosstrea iredalei ) Production (tonnes) 10.26 Source: Department of Fisheries,

Wholesale value (RM) 409,000.00 Penang, 2016 - unpublished

F6.157 Oyster farm at Pulau Betung

6-216 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

ii) Productive Assets

The farming of the oyster was by using plastic trays suspended from rafts. The plastic trays were hung from the raft frame in tiers. Besides the plastic trays, the raft housed a shelter for workers, a store for the safe keeping of extra culture materials and other equipment.

There were also motorised boats for transportation of workers and materials to and from their base on land to the culture site. The boat was also be used for the transportation of oyster seed, and harvested oyster to market. iii) Husbandry

The sizes of the rafts were approximately 7 m x 7 m and could support about 100 to 120 plastic trays. The size of the plastic trays was 50.8 cm x 40.6 cm. To increase their carrying capacity of the raft, the plastic trays were hung from the raft frame in tiers. Stocking density of the oysters per tray depended on the size of seed. Commonly not more than 100 seeds were placed in each tray. The size of seed was between 7 to 10 cm. If there was any mortality, or growth is not satisfactory, the oysters were thinned out by transferring a portion to the new trays.

To ensure a high survival rate, the husbandry involved cleaning, thinning, sorting, grading, pest control and predator protection of the oyster. Silt and other debris was removed by washing the oysters, either with a pump or swishing the trays up and down in the water. Monthly washing was carried out if the siltation was heavy. However, during the dry season, siltation was not much of a problem.

Thinning activities were carried out monthly to avoid overcrowding. If the oysters were overcrowded, growth would be very slow and mortality increased rapidly. In addition, sorting was also frequently carried out. The sorting process was continued until oysters were marketed. In addition, removal of pests such as sponges, ascidians and barnacles, unwanted bivalves species, as well as predators such as crabs, oysters drill and blister worms were also frequently carried out. iv) Production and Value

Cultured oysters reach marketable size around 8 months after stocking. The marketable size of oyster was commonly within 11 to 15 cm. In 2015, the oyster production amounted to 10.26 tonnes, valued at RM0.409 million. The oyster was sold at RM3.50/ind.

6.4.2.4 Recreational Fisheries Activity at the Study Area

Discussion and interviews with anglers were undertaken at the study area (F6.158). A questionnaire was prepared for this purpose ( Appendix D.3 ).

Recreational fishing is the sport of catching fish. Also known as angling, it includes the catching of freshwater and saltwater fish, typically with rod, line, and hook. Recreational fishing, often called sport fishing to distinguish it from artisanal commercial fishing, is a popular participant sport. Unlike artisanal and commercial fishing, which are commodity based, recreational fishing is more of a service -based industry.

6-217 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

A B C

F6.158 Interviews with the anglers. A: Tanjung Karang, B: Sungai Batu, C; Teluk Tempoyak, D: Gertak Sanggul

Malaysia has had a long -standing tradition of fishing, either commercially or for recreation. In the past, hobby fishing was undertaken from nearby ponds, rivers, disused mining pools, swamps and rice fields in inland areas or from tidal lagoons or estuaries along the shoreline. Angling has thus strong traditional linkages and is part of the cultural landscape of most Malaysians. Despite this, there is little or no data on the activity.

The rapid urbanization and development of the country has meant that more people now live in built -up areas with little time or access to nature -based recreational facilities on a day -to - day basis. This has created a demand for outdoor leisure -based activities, of which angling is among the most popular.

Another major factor that supports the continued growth of the angling and the recreational fisheries industry is its egalitarian appeal and easy entry requirements. Entry is open ended and the activity can be undertaken in any water body that lends itself to the purpose. The equipment requirements are also flexible, ranging from a basic rod and line that costs very little to sophisticated deep sea trolling ensembles that can cost RM 20,000 or more. a) Location of Recreational Fishing Activity

In the study area, recreational fishing activities were carried out at Pantai Sri Jerjak, Batu Maung, Teluk Tempoyak Besar, Sungai Batu, Pasir Belanda, Tanjung Karang, Gertak Sanggul and Pulau Betung. Recreational fishing activity was recorded as being more intense during weekends as compared to weekdays. The coastal area is also famous for its other beach -based recreational activities, the assessments of which are not part of the scope of this study.

Angling hotspots within the study area were dominated by two (2) main activities which are shore -based angling and boat -based angling (T6.105 and F6.159). Basically, the classification is made from a fishing skills point of view. The shore -based anglers use line casting and bottom fishing, while boat -based anglers use trolling and line casting. However, in both cases, it is the value of the experience, rather than of fish caught, that is the primary economic determinant.

6-218 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Coordinates T6.105 Location Latitude Longitude Staging locations for shore -based and boat - Gertak Sanggul 5°16.974'N 100°11.453'E based angling at the Shore -based Tanjung Karang 5°16.729'N 100°12.407'E study area Angling Sungai Batu 5°16.905'N 100°14.429'E Teluk Tempoyak Besar 5°15.732'N 100°17.029'E Pantai Sri Jerjak 5°18.608'N 100°17.957'E Boat -based Batu Maung 5°17.138'N 100°17.466'E Angling Pasir Belanda 5°16.898'N 100°12.648'E Pulau Betung 5°18.302'N 100°11.688'E

F6.159 Recreational fishing staging locations within the study area

b) Fishing Effort and Catch Type

Fishing effort was estimated using a model developed by Nagaraj et al. (2013). The model is not commodity -based, but takes time input into account and is more reminiscent of contingent valuation models used in nature -based tourism (Hakim, 2011) rather than traditional fish stock models.

The modelling indicated that total fishing effort amounted to 27,690 person -days per year, where 64.5% was shore -based angling, while the remaining 35.5% from boat -based angling. From the investigation, the total economic value for recreational fisheries at study area amounted to RM5.229 million (T6.106).

6-219 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.106 Recreational fishing effort and total economic value for recreational fishing activity at study area Recreational Fishing Effort Total Economic Type of Angling Activities/Location (Total Person Days) Value (RM) Gertak Sanggul 7,377 737,700 - Shore Tanjung Karang (Gemuruh Cape) 5,789 578,900 based

Angling Sungai Batu 2,342 234,200 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 2,342 234,200 Subtotal 17,850 1,785,000 Pulau Betung 864 302,400 - Boat Pasir Belanda 7,038 2,463,300 based

Angling Batu Maung 264 92,400 Pantai Sri Jerjak 1,674 585,900 Subtotal 9,840 3,444,000 Total 27,690 5,229,000

Detailed elaboration on each angling location according to their type of angling activities is discussed below.

Shore -based Angling

Shore -based angling was undertaken primarily at Gertak Sanggul, Tanjung Karang, Sungai Batu and Teluk Tempoyak Besar (F6.160). Shore -based angling at Gertak Sanggul was mainly carried out at the recreational fee -based pond in the village i.e. Gertak Sanggul Fishing Stage, while at Tanjung Karang, Sungai Batu and Teluk Tempoyak Besar angling is mostly undertaken at jetties or along the rocky shore. Angling activity is commonly undertaken during weekends.

An average of 5 to 15 persons was recorded undertaking angling activities during weekdays at Gertak Sanggul Fishing Stage, increasing from 5 to 25 persons during weekends and public holidays. At Tanjung Karang, a low number of anglers was observed during weekdays, only 2 to 5 persons during the day, while no anglers were recorded at night. However, during weekends and public holidays, the area supported a large number of anglers, from 20 to >50 anglers during the day and 1 to 2 anglers at night.

The same situation was also recorded at Sungai Batu and Teluk Tempoyak Besar. The number of anglers was low during weekdays (1 to 2 anglers: day time) and increased during weekends and public holidays (5 to 20 anglers: day -time; 5 to 10 anglers: night -time).

The most common baits used were live shrimp, small fish, shrimp, fishmeal, polychaete worms ( pumpun ), hermit crabs and squids. Normally the live -baits (shrimps, small fish) were purchased at aquarium shops at around RM0.6 to RM1.0/ individual, while fish, shrimp and squid were purchased at wet markets for around RM2 to RM3. The standard fishing gears used by anglers were the rod -and -line. According to the anglers, the cost of their gear ranged from RM50 to RM300. The best catch was obtained during incoming tides, particularly springs, with catch averaging from 0.5 to 1.5 kg/person. Among the common species caught include the Semilang ( Plotosus sp.), Duri ( Arius spp.), Bedukang ( Arius sagor ), Gelama ( Johnius sp.), Jenahak ( Lutjanus sp.), Kerapu ( Epinephelus sp.), Siakap (Lates calcarifer ), Merah ( Lutjanus malabaricus ), Senangin ( Polynemus spp.), Belanak (Mugil spp./ Liza spp./ Valamugil spp.) and Pari ( Himantura spp./ Gymnura spp./ Dasyatis spp.).

6-220 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

A B C

D E F

F6.160 Shore -based angling. A - B: Tanjung Karang, C -D: Gertak Sanggul, E: Teluk Tempoyak Besar, F: Sungai Batu

The investigation indicated that the total fishing effort amounted to 17,850 person -days a year. The highest numbers were recorded at Gertak Sanggul, which accounted for 41.3% of the total fishing effort, followed by Tanjung Karang with 32.4% (5,789 person -days a year), while balance 13.1% each was in Sungai Batu and Teluk Tempoyak Besar (2,342 person - days a year) (T6.107). Commonly, anglers spent around 4 to 6 hours during the day and sometimes over the night too.

T6.107 Recreational fishing effort for shore -based angling Total Total Person Person Location Time Segment Weekdays Weekends Person Person (hrs/yr) (hrs/yr) (hrs) (days) 0900 - 1300 hrs 5 5,220 7.5 (5 -10) 3,120 8,340 1,043 Gertak 1300 - 1900 hrs 7.5 (5 -10) 11,745 17.5 (5 -20) 10,920 22,665 2,833 Sanggul 1900 - 2400 hrs 12.5 (10 -15) 16,313 22.5 (20 -25) 11,700 28,013 3,502 Sub -total 7,377 0900 - 1300 hrs 3.5 (2 -5) 3,654 50 20,800 24,454 3,057 Tanjung 1300 - 1900 hrs 3.5 (2 -5) 5,481 25 (20 -30) 15,600 21,081 2,635 Karang 1900 - 2400 hrs 0 0 1.5 (1 -2) 780 780 98 Sub -total 5,789 0900 - 1300 hrs 1.5 (1 -2) 1,566 15 (10 -20) 6,240 7,806 976 Sungai 1300 - 1900 hrs 1.5 (1 -2) 2,349 7.5 (5 -10) 4,680 7,029 879 Batu 1900 - 2400 hrs 0 0 7.5 (5 -10) 3,900 3,900 488 Sub -total 2,343 - - - Teluk 0900 1300 hrs 1.5 (1 2) 1,566 15 (10 20) 6,240 7,806 976 Tempoyak 1300 - 1900 hrs 1.5 (1 -2) 2,349 7.5 (5 -10) 4,680 7,029 879

Besar 1900 - 2400 hrs 0 0 7.5 (5 -10) 3,900 3,900 488 Sub -total 2,342 Total 17,850

6-221 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

Boat -based Angling

Four (4) boat -based angling locations were recorded at the study area which are Pantai Sri Jerjak, Batu Maung, Pasir Belanda and Pulau Betung (F6.161). Detailed discussions of boat - based angling are as follows.

F6.161 Boat -based angling - Boats for rental for angling activity. A-B: Inboard powered boat (Pasir Belanda), C: Outboard powered boat (Pasir Belanda), D: Outboard powered boat (Pantai Sri Jerjak)

Pasir Belanda was the most productive location for boat -based angling. Two outboard and three inboard powered boats were generally available for rental. Most of these boats were licensed by the Marine Department, Peninsular Malaysia. The outboard -powered boats were chartered for angling at Pulau Kendi and the surrounding areas while inboard -powered boats went offshore (Kapal Karam and Karang). The rental rates for outboard were RM400/trip (4 to 9 hours/trip), while it was RM2,800/trip (2 days and 1 night) for an inboard -powered boat. Each outboard boat could accommodate 6 anglers/boat, while inboard and could carry 10 passengers.

The second most important location for boat -based angling was Pantai Sri Jerjak, where there were five outboard powered boats available for boat rental. Three (3) boats could be chartered for angling at Pulau Kendi and the surrounding area, while two (2) larger boats were for offshore areas (“ Kapal Karam” and “ Karang ”). The smaller boats had engine sizes of 40, 60 and 90 HP, while larger boats used 115 HP engines (2 units). Most of the boats are licensed by the Marine Department, Peninsular Malaysia.

Rental rates for angling at Pulau Kendi ranged from RM800 to RM1,000/trip (12 hours) during daytime and an additional RM100 for angling during night -time. As for angling at more distant locations, the rental rate was RM1,500/trip (24 hours) for angling at “ Kapal Karam ” and RM2,500/trip (24 hours) for angling at “ Karang ”. The rate included cost of food and bait. Each boat could accommodate around 3 to 4 anglers/trip for angling at Pulau Kendi and 4 to 5 anglers/trip for angling at offshore area. An average of 2 trips/month/boat for angling at Pulau Kendi and 4 trips/month/boat for angling at “ Kapal Karam ” and “ Karang ” was recorded.

The third most important location for boat -based angling was at Pulau Betung, where there was one (1) outboard -powered boat available for rental. The boat was licensed by the Marine Department, Peninsular Malaysia, and had an engine size of 150 HP (2 units). Rental rates depended on the fishing area, with rates as high as RM1,500/trip for angling at “ Kapal 40” and “ Kapal Taiping” , RM 1,000/trip at “ Kapal Russia ” and RM800/trip at “ Kapal Jepun ”. Besides charter for angling in offshore areas, boats were also available for angling at Pulau

6-222 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Kendi, with rental rate recorded at RM600/trip. The rates for all areas were for a 12 -hour period. A typical boat could accommodate around 6 anglers/trip. Trips were mostly undertaken during daytime (7:00 am to 7:00 pm). There were an estimated 8 trips/month.

In addition, boat rental was also available at Batu Maung. Two (2) outboard -powered boats owned by fishermen were available for boat rental. The angling locations were at Penang Bridge, Pulau Rimau and Pulau Kendi. The rental rates were RM200 to RM300 for angling at Penang Bridge and Pulau Rimau, and RM450 for Pulau Kendi. The rental excluded bait and food. Each boat could accommodate 5 to 6 anglers. Trips were mostly undertaken during daytime (9:00 am to 5:00 pm). There were an estimated 2 trips/month by each of those boats. Summaries of the profile of boat services and service charge (rental rate/trip) are provided in T6.108 and T6.109 respectively.

T6.108 Profile of boat services for angling activity at the study area Staging No. of Boats Boat Capacity Engine Capacity Point Available for Rental Pulau Betung 1 outboard 6 anglers/boat 150 HP (2 units) Pasir 5 units (2 outboard 6 anglers/boat (outboard) and 60 HP (outboard), data on Belanda and 3 inboard) 10 anglers/boat (inboard) inboard not available Batu Maung 2 outboard 5 to 6 anglers/boat Not available 3 to 4 anglers/boat (Pulau Angling at Pulau Kendi - 40, 60 Pantai Sri 5 outboards Kendi) and 4 to 5 anglers/ and 90 HP and offshore Jerjak boat (offshore) angling - 115 HP (2 units)

T6.109 Recreational service fee (RM/boat/trip) for angling activity at the study area Staging Angling Fee Rate (RM/boat/trip) Average Fishing Period Point Location Pulau Kendi RM600/boat/trip 12 hours (0700 – 1900 hrs) Kapal Jepun RM800/boat/trip 12 hours (0700 – 1900 hrs) Pulau Betung Kapal Russia RM1,000/boat/trip 12 hours (0700 – 1900 hrs) Kapal 40 RM1,500/boat/trip 12 hours (0700 – 1900 hrs) Kapal Taiping RM1,500/boat/trip 12 hours (0700 – 1900 hrs) – Pulau Kendi and 8 hours (0800 1600 hrs) or RM400/boat/trip – Pasir surrounding area 4 hours (1800 2000 hrs) Belanda Kapal Karam RM2,800/boat/trip 36 hours (2 days and 1 night) Karang RM2,800/boat/trip 36 hours (2 days and 1 night) Penang Bridge RM200 -300/boat/trip 8 hours (0900 – 1700 hrs) Batu Maung Pulau Rimau RM200 -300/boat/trip 8 hours (0900 – 1700 hrs) Pulau Kendi RM400/boat/trip 8 hours (0900 – 1700 hrs) - Pulau Kendi and RM800 RM1,000/boat/trip and – 12 hours (0700 1900 hrs) Pantai Sri surrounding area additional RM100 for night angling Jerjak Kapal Karam RM1,500/boat/trip 24 hours (0700 – 1900 hrs) Karang RM2,500/boat/trip 24 hours (0700 – 1900 hrs)

According to the boat operators, more than 80% of anglers were from Penang itself, while others from Kuala Lumpur, Perak, Selangor, Pahang, Kelantan and also foreigners. The majority of the anglers were about 30 to 35 years old. Most of the anglers were Malays, who formed more than 50% of the total anglers, followed by Chinese (<40%), Indians (>10%) and foreigners (1%).

6-223 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

The main fishing gear was rod -and -line with 2 to 4 rods per person. Anglers commonly use live shrimp, juvenile Belanak ( Mugil spp.) and small -sized octopus as baits. Live shrimp costs about RM1/ind., juvenile Belanak ( Mugil spp.), RM0.60 to RM0.80/ind. and small octopus, RM1.50/ind. Commonly, the fish caught include Jenahak ( Lutjanus johnii ), Tanda ( Lutjanus russelli ) Kerapu ( Epinephelus spp.), Merah ( L. malabaricus ), Senangin ( Polynemus spp.), Tenggiri (Scomberomorus sp), Alu -alu ( Sphyraena spp.), Golden Trevally ( Charanx ignobilis ), Talang ( Scomberoides spp.), Bawal ( Pampus spp.), Kerisi ( Nemipterus spp.) and Mengkerong ( Saurida spp.). The average number of fish caught was about 10 to 20 kg/boat. However, sometimes the catch could exceed 50 kg/boat, especially at distant waters.

The study indicated that the fishing effort for boat -based angling amounted to 9,840 person days a year. Pasir Belanda recorded the highest fishing effort with 7,038 person days a year, followed by Pantai Sri Jerjak (1,674 person days a year). As for Pulau Betung and Batu Maung, the recreational fisheries efforts were recorded at 864 person days a year and 264 person days a year respectively (T6.110).

T6.110 Recreational fishing effort for boat -based angling Person Total Person Location Time Segment No. of Anglers (hrs/yr) (days) Pantai Sri 0700 - 1900 or 1900 - 0700 10.5 (3 -4 anglers x 3 boats) 3,024 378 Jerjak 1900 - 0700 9 (4.5 anglers x 2 boats) 10,368 1,296 Sub -total 1,674 Batu Maung 0900 - 1700 11 (5 -6 anglers x 2 boats) 2,112 264 Sub -total 264

2 days 1 night (36 hours) 30 (10 anglers x 3 boats) 51,840 6,480 Pasir Belanda 0800 - 1700 12 (6 anglers x 2 boats) 3,888 486 1800 - 2000 12 (6 anglers x 2 boats) 576 72 Sub -total 7,038 Pulau Betung 0700 - 1900 or 1900 - 0700 6 (6 anglers x 1 boats) 6,912 864 Sub -total 894 Total 9,840

c) Output Values and Socio -economics

The data from all locations involving recreational fisheries activity along the Penang waters indicate that the total fishing effort amounted to 27,690 person -days per year. The economic value of recreational fisheries is difficult to estimate. Some of the fishers are from outside the immediate area while others are local residents. MIER (2000) adopted a value of RM50 per person -day.

These figures are clearly outdated. For instance, the boats at Pulau Betung rent out RM1,500 for 6 anglers, which averages out at RM250 per 12 hour period or RM500 per person man -day. Data from T6.111 suggests rental rates vary from RM200 to RM500/person -day. The cost of shore -based fishing is not as high, but RM50 would probably be insufficient to cover the cost of bait, food and other relevant expenses. Assuming: i) An average payout of RM350/person -day for boat -based anglers; and ii) An average payout of RM100/person -day for shore -based anglers.

6-224 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.111 Estimation of the total economic value at the study area Total Person Unit Economic Value Total Economic Value Fishing Type (days) (RM) (RM) Shore -based fishing 17,850 100 1,785,000 Boat -based fishing 9,840 350 3,444,000 Total 27,690 - 5,229,000

It is estimated the direct economic value from the recreational fisheries amounts to RM 5.229 million per year.

6.4.3 Feedback from the Focus Group Discussion (FGDs) with the Public and Fishing Community

The FGDs were conducted by initially informing the participants of its objectives and then followed by a briefing about the proposed 3 -island reclamation fronting the southern coastal area from Kampung Permatang Damar Laut in the east to Kampung Gertak Sanggul in the west. Some details were also given as pertained to its construction sequence, methods of reclamation, island size, the width of the separation channel, general topside development and the conservation of the coastal area through beach nourishment and revetment where applicable and also of the upgrading of local fish landing jetties before construction is carried out.

The discussion commences at this juncture when the participants were asked how they foresee such a kind of project would be affecting them. This was done in lieu of exploring residents’/people’s views and perceptions of the proposed Project based on their current level of knowledge of the Project. Hence it complements the results gathered from the questionnaire survey. The discussion was left to progress and flow by itself with occasional remarks or chipping in by the facilitators when it was felt that it had gone out of context and brought it back to focus/mainstream. Further prompting of other lead issues or questions will follow to lead for further discussion. In this way, what are uppermost in the people's mind, what are their concerns, fears, expectations and aspirations could be assessed.

There were various feedbacks received from, or issues raised, during the discussions carried out at the FGD sessions with the fishermen. The main concerns voiced out by them include among others: a) The sea fronting their villages or the proposed reclaimed area is an important fish and prawn (spawning) area which when reclaimed would destroy it, thus affecting local fishermen’s livelihood; b) Demand compensation if reclamation is implemented based on the loss and destruction of the prawn catching site which they have to bear to sustain them and the second generation or at least for the duration until the completion of the Project; c) Concern over the possibility of a repeat of mud being washed to the shore by the reclamation project as previously experienced from the delayed effects of mud/ sediments from the 2 nd Penang Bridge project affecting the water quality and the coasts; d) Demand for improvement of infrastructural facilities which are especially related to fishing activities such as storage, jetty and generating new economic venture such as seafood eateries or promotion for tourist attraction;

6-225 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

e) Voiced the need to build special settlement of affordable housing for fishermen since there are still fishermen who are lodgers. Fishermen need modern settlements, plans for making existing fishermen involved in more advanced practice, with modern facilities and settlement. They hoped that part of the reclaimed island will be allocated for fishermen; and f) Last but not least, fear of marginalisation with the influx of foreign workers into the area had also gripped them.

Details of the feedbacks and issues raised by the fishermen during the FGD sessions conducted is given in Appendix B.1 in Volume 3: Appendices whereby there are issues common to all being raised as well as matters peculiar to specific localities where the FGD were conducted.

The FGD sessions with the public revealed different concerns, for although they were concerned with the well -being of their fishermen co -inhabitants when the latter’s fishing ground will be covered and turned into islands, they also fear of their own physical -being and sustainability from being relocated or displaced due to land being sold in lure of future economic gains from sale of land. To them not only their physical being is being threatened, their cultural sustainability is also at stake as future spill -over development from the reclamation may see to the demise of the kampung atmosphere and social as well as cultural values. They even see the need to preserve the village historical and cultural heritage as well as traditions. The issues raised or the feedbacks received from the discussions carried out during the two FGD sessions with the public are given in Appendix B.2 in Volume 3: Appendices.

T6.112 lists the feedbacks received from, or issues that rose, during the various discussions carried out at the FGD sessions with the fishermen while T6.113 lists the issues raised or the feedbacks received from the various discussions carried out during the two FGD sessions with the public:

T6.112 Feedbacks and issues raised in the Focus Group Discussion with the fishermen Arbitrary Place Feedback/Issues Zone Concern over the site for Island A as an important fish and prawn area which when reclaimed would destroy it and local fishermen’s livelihood since most of them are inshore fishermen. Concern over the length of the underwater/seabed pipeline for sand transport to the construction site and its potential to cause Kampung damage to fishing gears. Permatang Tepi Zone A Fear of relocation due to land being acquired by the private Laut company owning the land where their settlement sits, when and if the latter decides to develop the land in conjunction with the development of the reclaimed island. Concern over fishing as a vocation of generational tradition and that it should be improved upon and upgraded. Concern over delayed effects of mud/sediments from the 2 nd bridge project affecting the water quality and the possibility of a repeat of mud being washed to the shore by the reclamation Project, Fear of loss of livelihood and the obstruction of the reclamation Zone B Kampung Teluk for fishing boats to pass through. Kumbar Compensation is necessary, but there needs long term planning for fishermen to carry on fishing legacy. Fishermen need modern settlements, planning to make existing fishermen move towards a more advanced practice, facilities and settlement. Hopefully, part of the island will be allocated for fishermen’s use.

6-226 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.112 Feedbacks and issues raised in the Focus Group Discussion with the fishermen (cont’d) Arbitrary Place Feedback/Issues Zone Majority disagreed with the proposed Project as they claimed that the area is the most important prawn and prawn spawning area in Penang and that 99 % of the fishermen in Sungai Batu and Teluk Kumbar are involved in prawn landing. Reclamation will destroy the spawning area and livelihood of the local fishermen. Those who agreed, especially among Chinese fishermen, only if the reclamation does not affect their livelihood during construction. Worry over the construction method and the surety that disposed materials containing mud would not be washed back to the coasts from its designated disposal area located 30 km away which would potentially threaten and destroy the prawn catching and spawning area. Demand compensation of RM1.5 million each if reclamation is implemented based on the loss and destruction of the prawn catching site which they have to bear to sustain them and the second generation. Zone B Kampung Sungai They also demand for improvement of infrastructural facilities (cont’d) Batu which are especially related to fishing activities such as storage, jetty and generating new economic venture such as seafood eateries or promotion for tourist attraction. Questioned the logic of building low cost or affordable housing on a multi -billion cost island, what more when they are sold to a third party. Voiced concern over the need to also see into the welfare of the other members of society such as women, youth and children when it was obvious that the focus was zoomed towards the impact on fishermen. Fear of marginalisation with the influx of foreign workers into the area. Upset with the state government to rationalize the proposed reclamation Project, despite the fact that local fishermen have been grappling to preserve their marine areas from the threat of illegal trawling and Rimau net and that the site is an important fishing ground. Concern over the site for Island C as an important fish and prawn area which when reclaimed would destroy it and local fishermen’s livelihood as prawns do not thrive in deep water i.e. beyond the reclaimed land. Should reclamation be implemented, the fishing community demanded that they be compensated by giving monthly stipend of RM5,000 to fishermen (owner -operator) and Zone C RM3,000 to boat crew or awak -awak for the duration until the Kampung Gertak C completion of the Project. Sanggul They also demand for higher subsidy for petrol and bigger boat should they have to go further for deep sea fishing. The need to build special settlement of affordable housing for fishermen since there are still fishermen who are lodgers. Suggestion to put artificial reefs in the area to attract and stimulate fish and prawn spawning was not well received as it was said to defeat the purpose when they would be damaged by the trawl nets from “illegal” trawling carried out in the area.

6-227 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.113 Feedbacks and issues raised in the Focus Group Discussion with the public Arbitrary Place Feedback/Issues Zone Perceived concern on the possibility that there will be land acquisition for road widening as access road for transportation of construction materials. Fear of relocation due to land being acquired by the private company owning the land when and if the latter decides to Kampung Zone A develop the land in conjunction with the development of the Permatang Tepi reclaimed island. Laut That they be relocated at one resettlement or a new fishing settlement in order to retain and preserve local tradition and culture. Seeking assurance that they be given priority when applying for affordable housing on the island. Concern over the impact of the reclamation of the three islands on the habitat of fish and other marine life in the area. Concern over the impact of the reclamation over the physical sustainability or future existence of Kampung Gertak Sanggul when the impact of increased land value may end up in the locals and private land owners selling off their land. Demand to know more about the Project to the very detail of the topside development and the number of job opportunities created and to be briefed during weekends not on weekdays as many were away working. Concern over cultural sustainability as future spill -over Zone C Kampung Gertak development from the reclamation may see to the demise of the C Sanggul kampung atmosphere and social as well as cultural values. Concern over the preservation of the village historical and cultural heritage as well as traditions. Concern over the impact on fishermen who have to go further to fish, hence having to bear higher petrol cost and the fact that the area is an important prawn breeding area. Concern on survival of future generations through economic and housing benefits for them and the need to conserve the environment. Majority of the locals disagreed with the proposed Project due to its long term negative impacts and wanted the environment to be preserved for future generations.

6.4.4 Feedback from the Informal Conversation with the Public and Fishing Community

The informal conversations were conducted using some lead questions pertaining to the proposed Project in terms of its possible impacts on the local communities, its acceptability as well as the local needs and aspirations ( Appendix B.3 in Volume 3: Appendices). The study team (normally comprising at least two persons) started off by approaching and inviting themselves to join in the small gathering and slowly gearing the conversation towards the PSR Project and asking what they (the group) think of the impending Project.

The various feedbacks gathered from the informal conversations conducted clearly portray dual responses - one was that of the fishermen and the other the public. What can be deduced from the various feedbacks was that the fishermen, as the directly impacted stakeholders, were less supportive whilst the public, being indirectly impacted were more keen as seen from the support given to the likely benefits that the impending Project would generate. However, they had also cautioned about the likelihood that the benefits may miss the locals’ grasps if care was not taken to see to their just distribution. Details of the feedbacks are given in Appendix C.9 in Volume 3: Appendices.

6-228 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Taking the cue from the highest score (in terms of percentage) of opinion or opinions given during the informal conversation based on the lead questions revealed that: a) On the opinion regarding the PSR Project – they opined that although it is good for the development of the area, it will give major impacts on fishermen and marine resources; b) On its advantages – they were of the opinion that it will benefit specific group(s) only and not the local population; c) On its disadvantages – to them fishermen and fish landing will be badly affected; d) On recommendation for improvement – it would be better to seek fishermen’s opinion since they are the ones to be directly impacted; e) On reducing the disadvantages – to form a just task force in conducting a study to find out whether or not it is for the better or worse and to relocate it elsewhere; f) On expectation of the implementation of the Project to own -self – good if benefit the locals but disagree if for advantage of specific groups; g) On expectation of the implementation of the Project to family members – do not disturb the livelihood of the fishermen and give priority to locals and not foreign labour; h) On expectation of the implementation of the Project to local community – all will reap benefit in terms of comfort and harmony; i) On expectation of the implementation of the Project to South Penang – to give employment to the locals and to built affordable housing; and j) On aspiration for the progress of South Penang - upgrade each village and turn each of them as tourist centre and improve the local fishermen as modern fishermen like the west.

Feedbacks received from the various lead questions brought up for the informal conversation are given in Appendix B.4 in Volume 3: Appendices .

6.4.5 Feedback from the Public Dialogue

The feedbacks from the public dialogue would refer mainly to those residing in the study area, more specifically within the 5 km perimeter of the Project site. As it is, they did not only participate in the social survey but for some others who were not randomly selected during the social survey were also expected to be involved in the public dialogue organized to better understand their problems and to provide the platform for them to air their grievances, views and opinions.

As mentioned earlier, the public dialogue attracted some 853 people (comprising 485 Malay, 342 Chinese and 26 Indians), not only from among the locals especially fishermen, but also from as far out as Seberang Prai and some 26 reporters and journalists from various electronic and print media came to cover the occasion ( Appendix C.2 in Volume 3: Appendices). The dialogue started at 9:00 am with a brief introduction on the Project and its components by the Chief Minister of Penang, followed by the presentation of the DEIA studies and findings. Hence, the feedback described in this section mainly refers to the opinions given by those gathered during the public dialogue. They were mixed opinions of for and against the proposed development, the latter concerning issues akin to their fishing activities that they were concerned with.

However, during the Q&A session, the crowd gathered was seen to be slowly leaving the hall as early as 11:30 am and gathered momentum by 12:47 pm apparently for a greater agenda of demonstrating against the project taking the cue from the protest mooted by one of the local peripheral fishermen. The (peaceful) demonstration (as depicted in F6.116) was led by the Fishermen Association of Penang.

6-229 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

In the Q&A session, 44 questions and issues were raised by 18 interested participants comprising fishermen/head of Fishermen Units both local and non -local, a cage -culture operator from Pulau Jerjak, a local pig breeder, a chemist, a retiree and even a blogger. While some expressed support for the proposed Project, others mooted concerns, the details of which could be gleaned from Appendix C.9 (as mentioned earlier) and summarised into four major issues raised especially by the general public and the fishermen, the latter would be the directly impacted group:

a) The concern over reclamation affecting fishing activities and livelihood and the associated demand for compensation; b) The concern over eligibility and ability of purchasing affordable houses; c) The concern over the Project’s impacts on the environment and the associated aspects covered in the DEIA; and d) Other local and state issues of concerns such as pig farming and several aspects of the Transport Master Plan.

Issues raised by the representatives of the fishing communities were seen not to be so different from those expressed by the respondents in the social survey, particularly with regards to the concerns of the impacted fishing communities.

Besides verbal questions, the Dialogue also allowed written questions or comments to be forwarded by the participants to enable those who did not have the opportunity to ask questions or shied away from asking questions directly, to write down their concerns. According to the record, 165 forms of written comments were received from the participants who returned the ‘Question slips’ handed out during the dialogue. Out of 165 forms returned, half (83 forms) were from Malay and the other half (82 forms) were from Chinese attendees. On scrutiny it was found that 21 or 12.7% of them were devoid of comments except for giving the vital information sought. This means that 144 or 87.3% were returned filled forms. Most were written comments from fishermen who comprised 42% of them, followed by 17% housewives, 10% private sector employees, 3% business people and the rest were of mixed occupation or retirees.

Out of the 144 filled forms, 63.2% expressed their support, 13.9% expressed their disagreement and the remaining 22.9% were non -committal. Also more than half (57.6%) of the filled forms were written with mere statements of support or against the project and only 61 forms or 42.4% were comments made or given. Mostly were wary of their fishing activities, but a few did caution on matters that relate to the environment, marine ecology in the affected area as well as that the locals be given due consideration and priority for the employment opportunities created from the Project. Appendix C.6 (mentioned earlier) lists out the comments and the reciprocated remarks as well as the copies of the original handwritten comments.

6-230 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

6.5 Environmentally Sensitive Areas

The Department of Environment (DOE) Malaysia defines an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) as an area where specific attention or proper consideration is duly given prior to any development being authorised within or in the vicinity of the area. The coverage of the existing environment to indicate the ESAs is within a 5-km radius from the Project area (F6.162 and F6.163). This is to ensure that their well -being is taken into account in the development.

The ESAs are explained in detail according to the following (T6.114): a) Physical ESAs; b) Biological ESAs; and c) Socio -economic ESAs.

F6.162 5-km radius study area from the Project location

6-231 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

F6.163 ESAs within the study area

6-232 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.114 Summary of ESAs within the study area Type of ESA Point Location Distance (km) B1 Pantai Pasir Panjang 2.0 B2 Pantai Gertak Sanggul 0.3 Recreational B3 Pantai Tanjung Asam 0.5 Beaches B4 Pantai Nelayan 0.5 B5 Pantai Bakar Kapor 0.1 Pulau Betung 3.9 Island Pulau Kendi 2.9 Pulau Rimau 0.6 R1 Sungai Gertak Sanggul <0.1 R2 Sungai Gemuruh 0.4 Physical R3 Sungai Teluk Kumbar 0.5 R4 Sungai Mati 0.2 Rivers R5 Sungai Batu 0.2 R6 Sungai Bayan Lepas <0.1 R7 Bayan Lepas Main Drain 0.2 R8 Sungai Ikan Mati 0.2 Along the coastline: Permatang Damar Mudflat _ <0.1 Laut, Teluk Kumbar and Gertak Sanggul

Historical HS1 Teluk Kumbar 0.1 Structures HS2 Permatang Damar Laut 0.1

(WW2 Pillbox) HS3 Bayan Lepas Main Drain 0.3 C1 Pulau Kendi 2.6 Coral Reef C2 Pulau Rimau 0.6 T1 Gertak Sanggul <0.1 T2 Pasir Belanda 0.1 Turtle Landing T3 Teluk Kumbar <0.1 Area T4 Sungai Batu 0.3 T5 Teluk Tempoyak 1.4 FR1 Hutan Simpan Balik Pulau 2.4 Biological Forest Reserve FR2 Hutan Simpan Bukit Genting 2.1 FR3 Hutan Simpan Bukit Gemuruh 0.8 M1 Sungai Gertak Sanggul 0.1 M2 Sungai Teluk Kumbar 0.5 M3 Sungai Teluk Kumbar 0.2 Mangrove M4 Sungai Bayan Lepas <0.1 M5 Bayan Lepas Main Drain 0.3 M6 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 1.2 M7 Teluk Tempoyak Kecil 1.7 H1 Near Sungai Pulau Betung (1 location) 2.4 H2 Gertak Sanggul (3 locations) 0.2 Hatchery H3 Teluk Kumbar (6 locations) <0.1 Socio - H4 Permatang Damar Laut (2 locations) <0.1 economic A1 Pulau Betung 3.3 Cage Culture A2 Sungai Pulau Betung 2.2 A3 Batu Maung 2.3

6-233 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

T6.114 Summary of ESAs within the study area (cont’d) Type of ESA Point Location Distance (km) F1 Sungai Pulau Betung 2.3 F2 Gertak Sanggul <0.1 F3 Teluk Kumbar 0.6 F4 Sungai Batu 0.2 F5 Permatang Tepi Laut <0.1 Fish Landing Point F6 Permatang Damar Laut <0.1 F7 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 1.2 F8 Teluk Tempoyak Kecil 1.9 Socio - F9 Batu Maung 2.4 economic F10 Sri Jerejak 4.5 RF1 Sungai Pulau Betung 2.3 RF2 Gertak Sanggul 0.5 RF3 Tanjung Karang <0.1 Recreational Fishing RF4 Pasir Belanda 0.5 Staging Area RF5 Sungai Batu 0.2 RF6 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 1.3 RF7 Batu Maung 2.5 RF8 Pantai Sri Jerjak 4.5

6.5.1 Physical ESAs

6.5.1.1 Beaches

The proposed Project area is approximately 250 m from the southern coastline of Penang Island, extending from Tanjung Teluk Tempoyak to Tanjung Gertak Sanggul. The coastline faces the Straits of Malacca and experiences direct impact from currents and waves. The coastline erosion conditions at certain areas are mostly categorized as Category 2 (“Significant”) and Category 3 (“Acceptable”) (NCES, 2015). The erosion category of Penang Island southern coastline is visualized in F6.164.

From a field observation on March 2015 at Teluk Kumbar, the coastal erosion area had been stabilized by the constructed coastal protections which still require regular maintenance to ensure sustainability. Several beaches have been identified namely Pantai Pasir Panjang, Pantai Gertak Sanggul, Pantai Tanjung Asam, Pantai Nelayan and Pantai Bakar Kapor (F6.165).The beaches along the coastline are considered as ESAs as they could be directly impacted from the hydrodynamic changes happening once the proposed Project is in place.

6.5.1.2 Islands

The nearest islands within a 5 -km radius from the Project area are Pulau Rimau, Pulau Kendi and Pulau Betung (F6.165). These small islands are not marine park islands, but their existence contributes towards economic purposes such as fisheries and tourism, which therefore makes them environmentally sensitive.

6-234 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

F6.164 Erosion category of south coast of Penang Island

F6.165 Recreational beaches within the study area

6-235 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

a) Pulau Rimau

Pulau Rimau is a small island on the southeast corner of Penang Island, off the coast of Permatang Damar Laut. It is located approximately 800 m away from the tip of Tanjung Teluk Tempoyak. Pulau Rimau is the site of a lighthouse which helps ships navigate into the South Channel of Penang. Apart from the lighthouse itself, Pulau Rimau is uninhabited. The Pulau Rimau formation is of microcline granite, which is medium to coarse -grained biotite granite (Ahmad et al ., 2006). b) Pulau Kendi

Towards the southwest tip of Penang Island (off Gertak Sanggul), sits the petite island of Pulau Kendi. Due to its distance from the Penang Island, it has managed to stay relatively pristine. It is located about 3.5 km away from the tip of Tanjung Gertak Sanggul. It is a popular spot for recreational fishing. The formation of Pulau Kendi is Mahang formation, which is mainly ferruginous spotted slate (Ahmad et al ., 2006). c) Pulau Betung

Pulau Betung is a small island on the west of Penang Island, about 1 km from Sungai the Pulau Betung river mouth. Pulau Betung is uninhabited and safe for some fish -breeding activities. Pulau Betung is not a tourist site but is often visited by fishermen and anglers. Pulau Betung as well as villages on the Penang Island nearby were affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

6.5.1.3 River Outlets

Rivers are considered as environmentally sensitive because a slight change of water level at the outlet can cause flooding. Flooding of major rivers can threaten lives and cause tremendous damage to the settlements and towns at the south coast of Penang Island.There are eight (8) river outlets found along the Penang Island south coast namely (F6.166): a) Sungai Ikan Mati; b) Bayan Lepas Main Drain; c) Sungai Bayan Lepas; d) Sungai Batu; e) Sungai Mati; f) Sungai Teluk Kumbar; g) Sungai Gemuruh; and h) Sungai Gertak Sanggul.

The rivers discharging along the south coast of Penang Island are small but there are many, with the existing topography showing that the upstream of these rivers are mostly of hilly areas (F6.167). A map showing flood extent recorded from year 2001 to 2009 is shown in F6.168. The flood extent shows that Sungai Teluk Kumbar and Sungai Bayan Lepas are most prone to flooding.

6-236 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

F6.166 River outlets at the south coast of Penang Island

F6.167 Topography of south Penang Island with the rivers in 3D

6-237 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

F6.168 Recorded flood extent at the south of Penang Island

Based on the Water Quality Index (WQI) classification (EQR, 2006) (T6.115), the existing river water quality for can generally be categorised as polluted as detailed out in T6.116. Only five (5) rivers from eight (8) were selected as these rivers carry the main contributors to pollutants downstream.

T6.115 Water Quality Index (WQI) classification Class Parameter Unit I II III IV V Ammoniacal Nitrogen mg/l <0.1 0.1 – 0.3 0.3 – 0.9 0.9 – 2.7 >2.7 BOD mg/l <1 1 – 3 3 – 6 6 – 12 >12 COD mg/l <10 10 – 25 25 – 50 50 – 100 >100 DO mg/l >7 5 – 7 3 – 5 1 – 3 <1 pH - >7.0 6.0 – 7.0 5.0 – 6.0 <5.0 >5.0 TSS mg/l <25 25 – 50 50 – 150 150 – 300 >300 WQI >92.7 76.5 – 92.7 51.9 – 76.5 31.0 – 51.9 <31.0 WQI Index Range Clean 81 – 100 Slightly Polluted 60 – 80 Polluted 0 – 59 Source: Environmental Quality Report (DOE, 2006)

6-238 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

T6.116 Existing river water quality based on Water Quality Index (WQI) Name of River WQI Classification WQI Range Bayan Lepas Main Drain Class III 56.1 - Polluted Sungai Bayan Lepas Class III 75.0 - Slightly polluted Sungai Batu Class III 61.0 - Slightly polluted Sungai Teluk Kumbar Class IV 36.8 - Polluted Sungai Gertak Sanggul Class IV 49.4 - Polluted

6.5.1.4 Mudflats

A mudflat is muddy land that is covered by water during high tide. They form when sediment carried by the sea encounters low -energy environment and settles to the bottom. Mudflats normally form at bays that are sheltered from waves. Hence, they are found along the south coast of Penang Island due to its sheltered conditions with rocky headlands (F6.169).

F6.169 Mudflats, mangrove and coral reefs found at the south coast of Penang Island

Mudflats may seem insignificant and unimportant from their physical appearance. However, a unique ecosystem of lifeform thrives in the anoxic conditions common below the surface of these mudflats. Since mudflats also have high organic content, bacteria is extremely prevalent. These bacteria perform vital services in decomposing plant matter, making it more digestible as food for other organisms.

6-239 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

6.5.2 Biological ESAs

6.5.2.1 Coral Reefs

Pulau Kendi and Pulau Rimau at the south of Penang T6.117 Range of coral health status Island (F6.170) are two of many islands in the country Coral Health Coral Cover (%) that are inhabited by corals. Both soft and hard corals Status were found at both Pulau Rimau and Pulau Kendi. From Excellent >75 the study, the coral cover in Pulau Kendi was less than 30% of the total coral area which indicates “fair” coral Good 50 to 75% health, while the coral cover in Pulau Rimau was less Fair 25 to 50% than 5% which indicates “poor” coral health. The range Poor >25 of coral health is divided into four (4) categories based on the percentage of coral cover as shown in T6.117.

Photos of corals were taken during the survey as shown in F6.170. Nevertheless, coral bleaching was spotted at Pulau Kendi (at approximately 5°13'49.06"N, 100°10'46.71"E) (F6.171). Bleaching indicates stress response of corals to disturbances such as sedimentation which was observed in the water column during the survey.

F6.170 Corals found at Pulau Rimau and Pulau Kendi

F6.171 Coral bleaching observed during the study survey

6-240 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

6.5.2.2 Turtle Landing Areas

Turtles are among the world’s longest -lived creatures and are unique marine animals, categorized as reptiles. Female turtles start to breed between 30 and 50 years of age and usually only produce eggs once every four or five years. They do not lay their eggs on just any beach, but migrate back to their beach of birth. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), nearly all species of turtles are classified as endangered species because of human activities.

Five (5) landing sites were identified at the south coast of Penang Island namely Teluk Kumbar, Pantai Medan, Gertak Sanggul, Teluk Tempoyak and Pantai Belanda (F6.172). These turtle landing occurrences were recorded from year 2001 to 2014 (DHI Environment, 2014).

The landings on Teluk Kumbar beach have become a rare occurrence because of rapid development along the beach. In recent years, an Olive Ridley female turtle was spotted emerging from the sea to Teluk Kumbar beach to lay eggs (The Star, 2015). According to a study conducted by DHI Environment (2014), the possibility of the turtles finding an alternative nesting site is present if the original site had been disturbed by human activities.

Source: DHI Environment, 2014 F6.172 Turtle landing sites at the south coast of Penang Island

6-241 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

6.5.2.3 Permanent Reserved Forests (PRFs)

Forests in Penang are classified into five categories, i.e. Reserved Forest, National Park, State Park, Mangrove Forest and Permanent Reserved Forest (PRF). In the southern part of Penang Island, most of the forest hill lands are gazetted as PRF. According to RSNPP, Forestry Department Peninsular Malaysia (FDPM) reported that a total of 4,746.77 hectares had been constituted as PRF throughout Pulau Pinang. About 93.52 hectares of PRFs are located at southern Penang Island as shown in F6.173. The PRFs are Hutan Simpan Bukit Genting, Hutan Simpan Bukit Gemuruh and Hutan Simpan Pasir Panjang. The details of each PRFs are tabulated in T6.118.

F6.173 Permanent Reserved Forests (PRFs) within the study area

T6.118 Permanent Reserved Forests (PRFs) at the south of Penang Island Location Area Estimated Terrain Elevation Local Name Coordinates (hectare) Above Sea Level (m) 5° 18' 39.6" N, Hutan Simpan Bukit Genting 9.09 162.0 100° 13' 08.4" E 5° 17' 38.8" N, Hutan Simpan Bukit Gemuruh 51.66 214.0 100° 12' 28.8" E 5° 17' 30.5" N, Hutan Simpan Pasir Panjang 32.77 350.0 100° 11' 19.0" E Total Area (hectare) 93.52

6-242 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

6.5.2.4 Mangroves

In Penang, the total of mangrove forests makes up about 1,695.6 hectares. Mangroves in Penang mainly consisted of genera such as Avicennia, Rhizophora and Sonneratia (Hamdan et al. , 2012). Like mudflats, mangroves play a significant role in marine ecosystems. They provide habitat for aquatic plants and organisms as well as shelter that act as nursery and feeding grounds for fishes, crustaceans and mollusks. In addition, they also help reduce shoreline erosion and provide protection from wave impacts to inland areas. A study by Blasco et al. (1996) stated that mangroves can be used as an indicator of coastal changes and sea level rise.

There are no significant mangrove forests found surrounding the Project area. However, small patches of mangroves were discovered mostly in the rivers at Teluk Tempoyak Kecil, Teluk Tempoyak Besar, Permatang Tepi Laut, Kampung Binjai, Bayan Lepas Main Drain, Sungai Batu, Teluk Kumbar and Sungai Gertak Sanggul as mapped in F6.170.

6.5.3 Socio -economic ESAs

Fishing activities are actively undertaken at the south coast of Penang Island. There are also aquaculture and hatchery industries operated at these areas. This makes the south coast an important ESA that needs to be considered.

6.5.3.1 Fisheries

As mentioned above, the south coast of Penang Island is T6.119 also populated by fishermen. The proposed Project area List of fish landing points at the is originally their fishing ground, extending from Teluk south of Penang Island Tempoyak to Gertak Sanggul. The study area is located Point Fish Landing Location in the Southwest District of Penang, with a population of F1 Sungai Pulau Betung 197,131 people as of year 2010 (2010 Census). ISMP Pulau Pinang also stated that the southern part of the F2 Gertak Sanggul island has fish landing points as listed below (T6.119). F3 Teluk Kumbar F4 Sungai Batu

F5 Permatang Tepi Laut 6.5.3.1.1 Fishermen Population F6 Permatang Damar Laut The majority of the fishermen living in these villages are F7 Teluk Tempoyak Besar 71.6% Malay while the other 28.4% are Chinese (Field F8 Teluk Tempoyak Kecil data, 2016). The number of fishermen working in F9 Batu Maung - licensed vessels are 2,757 (DOF, Penang, 2016 F10 Sri Jerejak unpublished ).

6.5.3.1.2 Fish Landing Volume and Value

Some fish -landing points are within the rivers such as in Sungai Bayan Lepas and Sungai Teluk Kumbar. The fishermen had built small facilities with sheds and platforms on stilts to ease them in berthing their boats when they return from fishing. These fishermen’s facilities are present along the river as shown in F6.174.

6-243 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

Fish landings in the study area amounted to 4,169.37 tonnes in year 2015, excluding the landings at LKIM in Batu Maung. The landings at LKIM in Batu Maung mostly come from distant and offshore waters. The highest fish landing was recorded at Teluk Kumbar with 1,083.19 tonnes (26% of total fish landing), followed by Pulau Betung with 802.62 tonnes (19.3%) and Teluk Tempoyak with 579.97 tonnes (13.9%). T6.120 shows the fish landings recorded in tonnes by F6.174 Fishermen’s facilities found within month within the study area in year 2015. Sungai Bayan Lepas

T6.120 Fish landing in tonnes by month in 2015 at south of Penang Island Fish Landing Point Sungai Batu Sungai Damar Laut Damar Permatang Permatang Tempoyak Sri JerjakSri Sanggul Kumbar Betung Gertak Gertak Pulau Pulau Teluk Teluk Teluk Teluk Month Total

January 30.42 168.25 24.96 26.58 66.27 22.23 49.14 387.85 February 34.32 30.76 28.16 30.30 74.90 25.08 55.44 278.96 March 56.16 49.92 46.08 48.92 122.28 41.04 90.72 455.12 April 35.10 31.69 28.8 31.10 76.65 25.65 56.70 285.69 May 34.32 30.67 28.16 30.37 74.93 25.08 55.44 278.97 June 36.66 32.54 30.08 32.35 80.00 26.79 59.22 297.64 July 41.34 36.33 33.92 36.38 90.17 30.21 66.78 335.13 August 42.12 37.07 34.56 36.97 91.83 30.78 68.04 341.37 September 39.78 34.65 32.64 34.64 86.61 29.07 64.26 321.65 October 46.8 40.14 38.40 40.72 101.88 34.20 75.60 377.74 November 53.82 47.28 44.16 47.01 117.24 39.33 86.94 435.78 December 46.02 40.67 37.76 40.62 100.43 33.63 74.34 373.47 Total 496.86 579.97 407.68 435.96 1,083.19 363.09 802.62 4,169.37 Source: Department of Fisheries (DOF), Penang, 2016 – unpublished

The wholesale value of fish landed at the study area in 2015 was estimated at RM42.09 million. This contributed about 12.4% of the total wholesale value in Penang Island (DOF, Penang, 2016 - unpublished ). Several commercial species had contributed to the value such as Bawal, Senangin, Kerapu, Jenahak and Udang Putih Besar .

6.5.3.1.3 Income

Based on the survey, the mean gross income of the fishermen is RM1,989.50 per month, ranging from RM500 to RM9,000 per month. 93% reported that their income comes entirely from fishing, while 7% supplement their income from other sources. These other sources include in operating restaurants and boat rentals for sports fishing to outsiders or domestic tourists.

6-244 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

6.5.3.2 Recreational Fishing

Recreational fishing activities are also carried out by the local people. The activities are mainly restricted to weekends and public holidays. Several major locations near the Project area that are commonly visited for recreational fishing are Pulau Kendi and Teluk Kumbar. The staging areas where these enthusiasts depart from by boat are Pantai Sri Jerjak, Batu Maung, Teluk Tempoyak Besar, Sungai Batu, Pasir Belanda, Tanjung Karang, Gertak Sanggul and Pulau Betung. Recreational fishing within the study area is categorized into two (2) types which are shore -based angling and boat -based angling. The locations are shown in F6.175 and tabulated in T6.121.

It is difficult to estimate the economic value of recreational fishing as some of the fishers are outsiders. It is estimated that the direct economic value from recreational fishing amounts to RM5.229 million per year.

F6.175 Recreational fishing/angling staging locations at the Project study area

Coordinates T6.121 Location Latitude Longitude Coordinates of the recreational fishing/

Gertak Sanggul 5° 16.974’N 100° 11.453’E angling staging locations Shore -based Tanjung Karang 5° 16.729’N 100° 12.407’E angling Sungai Batu 5° 16.905’N 100° 14.429’E Teluk Tempoyak Besar 5° 15.732’N 100° 17.029’E Pantai Sri Jerjak 5° 18.608’N 100° 17.957’E Boat -based Batu Maung 5° 17.138’N 100° 17.466’E angling Pasir Belanda 5° 16.898’N 100° 12.648’E Pulau Betung 5° 18.302’N 100° 11.688’E

6-245 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

6.5.3.3 Aquacultures

Penang has the second highest aquaculture production in Peninsular Malaysia. According to recent fisheries statistics, in 2013 Penang had contributed 41,051.25 tonnes. (Department of Fisheries Malaysia, 2013).

The locations of aquacultures in Penang had been indicated in RSNPP and ISMP Pulau Pinang. The shoreline survey had also helped with validating the indicated locations. Aquacultures near Teluk Tempoyak at the southeast of Penang Island, Pulau Betung and Sungai Pulau Betung at southwest of Penang Island are actively well -managed, consisting of cage cultures and pond cultures respectively. RSNPP had gazetted certain areas at southern Penang Island as Aquaculture Zone for state development planning. These areas are Kampung Perlis Zone near Sungai Pulau Betung, Pulau Kendi Zone and Pulau Rimau Zone. Despite the gazetted areas mentioned, currently there are no aquaculture activities found in Pulau Rimau and Pulau Kendi. The existing aquacultures present within the study area are shown in F6.176. Photos of the aquacultures are shown in F6.177 to F6.180.

F6.176 Aquacultures within the Project study area

Marine cage cultures

F6.177 Cage cultures near Teluk Tempoyak F6.178 Cage cultures near Pulau Betung

6-246 Volume 2: Main Report Chapter 6 | Existing Environment

Oyster farm

F6.179 Pond cultures near Sungai Pulau Betung F6.180 Oyster pond culture near Sungai Pulau Betung

6.5.3.4 Hatcheries

Hatcheries basically are facilities where eggs are hatched under controlled artificial conditions, typically for fish and shrimps. The hatcheries facilities that rear saltwater fish or shrimp eggs are found built near coastal areas since they use sea water pumped from the open sea to operate. They comprise of quarantine, maturation, spawning, hatching, larval rearing, indoor or outdoor algal culture and artemia preparation areas. There are 11 hatcheries identified near the proposed Project area as listed in T6.122 (also shown in F6.150). The types of hatcheries operating at the south of Penang Island are mostly shrimp and prawn fry. There is only one (1) hatchery that produces oysters which is at Pulau Betung. The hatcheries extract sea water using pipelines in which the water intake points are shown in F6.181. Details of hatcheries operating within the Project study area are summarized in T6.123.

Name Location Coordinates Type T6.122 Gertak Sanggol 5° 16' 56.15" N List of hatcheries Teluk Kumbar Shrimp fry Hatchery Sdn. Bhd. 100° 13 '17.48" E operators and their locations within the Gertak Sanggol 5° 16' 59.02" N Gertak Sanggul Shrimp fry Project study area Hatchery Sdn. Bhd. 100° 13' 4.57" E 5° 17' 2.94" N Soonjaya Hatchery Gertak Sanggul Shrimp fry 100° 11' 51.28" E BE Biomarine (M) Sdn. 5° 16' 52.21" N Teluk Kumbar Shrimp fry Bhd. 100° 13' 15.28" E Ocean Sea Culture 5° 16' 54.75" N Teluk Kumbar Shrimp fry Hatchery 100° 13' 11.25" E 5° 16' 53.67" N Exauhall (M) Sdn. Bhd. Teluk Kumbar Prawn fry 100° 13' 10.00" E Yu Full Aquaculture 5° 16' 52.60" N Gertak Sanggul Shrimp fry Trading 100° 11' 22.82" E Global Agro Life Sdn. 5° 16' 53.74" N Gertak Sanggul Shrimp fry Bhd. 100° 11' 26.21" E Permatang Damar 5° 16' 28.91" N Permatang Aquaculture Prawn fry Laut 100° 16' 5.63" E Permatang Damar 5° 16' 36.17" N Ocean Star Aquaculture Shrimp fry Laut 100° 15' 49.83" E Sea Harvest Aqua 5° 18' 14.79" N Pulau Betung Oyster Marine Sdn. Bhd. 100° 11' 49.50" E

6-247 Proposed Reclamation & Dredging Works for the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) Environmental Impact Assessment (2 nd Schedule) Study

A B C D

E F G

F6.181 Water intake pipes seen on the beaches. A: Global Agro Life Sdn. Bhd., B: Soonjaya Hatchery, C: Yu Full Aquaculture, D: Ocean Star Aquaculture, E: Permatang Aquaculture, F: Ocean Sea Culture, G: Gertak Sanggol Hatchery

T6.123 Details of hatcheries operating within the Project study area Gertak Teluk Permatang Pulau Location Total Sanggul Kumbar Damar Laut Betung No. of culturists 3 4 2 1 10 No. of hatcheries 3 6 2 1 12 Production Udang Putih Naupli 40 million 755.8 million - - 795.8 million Post Larvae (PL9 -15) - 396.2 million 105.0 million - 314.7 million Broodstock - 1,200 - - 1,200 Udang Harimau Naupli - 4.20 million - - 4.20 million Post Larvae (PL9 -15) - 4.27 million 4.5 million - 8.77 million Udang Galah - 6 million 12 million - 18 million Tiram - - - 6 million 6 million Wholesale Value (RM) Udang Putih Naupli 28,000 40,600 - - 58,600 Post Larvae (PL9 -15) - 4,462,000 1,195,000 - 5.657 million Broodstock - 144,000 - - 144,000 Udang Harimau Naupli - 29,400 - - 29,400 Post Larvae (PL9 -15) - 128,100 135,000 - 263,100 Udang Galah - 420,000 720,000 - 1.14 million Tiram - - - 1.5 million 1.5 million Total Wholesale Value 28,000 5.224 million 2.05 million 1.5 million 8.802 million (RM) Source: Field data, 2016

6-248