DOCSLIB.ORG

King Edward Point Wharf Redevelopment Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
King Edward Point Wharf Redevelopment Project King Edward Point Wharf Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Assessment BAS Environment Office July 2019 (Revision 1) British Antarctic Survey High Cross, Madingley Road Cambridge, CB3 0ET 1 This page intentionally left blank 2 Contents Non-Technical Summary ....................................................................................................................... 11 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 16 1.1. Background to Project........................................................................................................... 16 1.2. Overview of Proposed Development .................................................................................... 16 1.2.1. KEP Wharf ..................................................................................................................... 16 1.2.2. KEP Slipway ................................................................................................................... 16 1.2.3. Sourcing rock fill material ............................................................................................. 17 1.3. Purpose and Scope of Document.......................................................................................... 17 2. APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 18 2.1. Statutory Requirements ........................................................................................................ 18 2.2. EIA Methodology................................................................................................................... 19 2.3. Sustainability Strategy .......................................................................................................... 21 2.4. Consultation .......................................................................................................................... 23 3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1 – KEP wharf and associated structures.............. 24 3.1. Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................. 24 3.2. Location ................................................................................................................................. 25 3.3. Site Investigations completed in 2018-19 season ................................................................ 25 3.3.1. Trial pits ......................................................................................................................... 26 3.3.1.1. Contamination Risk Assessment ........................................................................... 26 3.3.2. Bathymetry.................................................................................................................... 26 3.4. Design Details & Scope of Preferred Option ......................................................................... 27 3.4.1. Wharf ............................................................................................................................ 28 3.4.2. Dolphin & Walkway ....................................................................................................... 30 3.4.3. Shoreline Moorings ....................................................................................................... 31 3.4.4. Slipway .......................................................................................................................... 32 3.4.5. Scouring of seabed by vessel operation ....................................................................... 33 3.5. Alternatives considered ........................................................................................................ 35 3.5.1. Do nothing ..................................................................................................................... 35 3.5.2. Do minimum ................................................................................................................. 35 3.5.3. Demolish and rebuild the existing wharf ...................................................................... 35 3.5.4. Rebuild the wharf at an alternative location ................................................................ 36 3.5.5. Alternative designs ........................................................................................................ 37 3.6. Overview of Works ................................................................................................................ 41 3.7. Site Set Up Areas ................................................................................................................... 41 3.8. Construction Methodology ................................................................................................... 45 3 3.8.1. Temporary Works ......................................................................................................... 45 3.8.2. Wharf Extension ............................................................................................................ 45 3.8.3. Mooring Dolphin ........................................................................................................... 49 3.8.4. Onshore Moorings ........................................................................................................ 51 3.8.5. Slipway .......................................................................................................................... 53 3.9. Construction Materials ......................................................................................................... 53 3.10. Equipment & Vehicles ....................................................................................................... 54 3.11. Personnel .......................................................................................................................... 54 3.12. Predicted Lifespan ............................................................................................................. 56 3.13. Plans for Decommissioning ............................................................................................... 56 4. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2 – Quarrying ........................................................ 57 4.1. Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................. 57 4.2. Site Investigations completed in 2018/19 ............................................................................ 57 4.3. Location ................................................................................................................................. 58 4.4. Alternatives considered ........................................................................................................ 59 4.4.1. Importing rock fill .......................................................................................................... 59 4.4.2. Sourcing rock at other local areas ................................................................................. 59 4.5. Overview of works ................................................................................................................ 59 4.5.1. Quarry 1 (main site) ...................................................................................................... 60 4.5.2. Quarry 2 (back-up site) ................................................................................................. 62 4.6. Personnel and equipment & vehicles ................................................................................... 63 4.7. Transport of material ............................................................................................................ 63 5. DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES ............................................................................ 64 5.1. Fuel management and oil spill response .............................................................................. 64 5.1.1. BAM Refuelling Procedure ............................................................................................ 64 5.1.1.1. Procedure for refuelling with towable bowser ..................................................... 65 5.1.2. BAM Emergency Oil Spill Contingency .......................................................................... 66 5.1.3. BAM Spill Response Equipment .................................................................................... 68 5.2. Waste management (refer to SWMP) .................................................................................. 68 5.3. Biosecurity............................................................................................................................. 69 6. DESCRIPTION OF SUPPORT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................... 70 6.1. Shipping – cargo .................................................................................................................... 70 6.2. Transport – personnel ........................................................................................................... 70 6.3. Accommodation .................................................................................................................... 70 6.4. Energy use ............................................................................................................................. 71 6.5. Water ...................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Unexpected Diversity in Neelipleona Revealed by Molecular Phylogeny Approach (Hexapoda, Collembola)
    S O I L O R G A N I S M S Volume 83 (3) 2011 pp. 383–398 ISSN: 1864-6417 Unexpected diversity in Neelipleona revealed by molecular phylogeny approach (Hexapoda, Collembola) Clément Schneider1, 3, Corinne Cruaud2 and Cyrille A. D’Haese1 1 UMR7205 CNRS, Département Systématique et Évolution, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, CP50 Entomology, 45 rue Buffon, 75231 Paris cedex 05, France 2 Genoscope, Centre National de Sequençage, 2 rue G. Crémieux, CP5706, 91057 Evry cedex, France 3 Corresponding author: Clément Schneider (email: [email protected]) Abstract Neelipleona are the smallest of the four Collembola orders in term of species number with 35 species described worldwide (out of around 8000 known Collembola). Despite this apparent poor diversity, Neelipleona have a worldwide repartition. The fact that the most commonly observed species, Neelus murinus Folsom, 1896 and Megalothorax minimus Willem, 1900, display cosmopolitan repartition is striking. A cladistic analysis based on 16S rDNA, COX1 and 28S rDNA D1 and D2 regions, for a broad collembolan sampling was performed. This analysis included 24 representatives of the Neelipleona genera Neelus Folsom, 1896 and Megalothorax Willem, 1900 from various regions. The interpretation of the phylogenetic pattern and number of transformations (branch length) indicates that Neelipleona are more diverse than previously thought, with probably many species yet to be discovered. These results buttress the rank of Neelipleona as a whole order instead of a Symphypleona family. Keywords: Collembola, Neelidae, Megalothorax, Neelus, COX1, 16S, 28S 1. Introduction 1.1. Brief history of Neelipleona classification The Neelidae family was established by Folsom (1896), who described Neelus murinus from Cambridge (USA).
    [Show full text]
  • Why Are There So Many Exotic Springtails in Australia? a Review
    90 (3) · December 2018 pp. 141–156 Why are there so many exotic Springtails in Australia? A review. Penelope Greenslade1, 2 1 Environmental Management, School of School of Health and Life Sciences, Federation University, Ballarat, Victoria 3353, Australia 2 Department of Biology, Australian National University, GPO Box, Australian Capital Territory 0200, Australia E-mail: [email protected] Received 17 October 2018 | Accepted 23 November 2018 Published online at www.soil-organisms.de 1 December 2018 | Printed version 15 December 2018 DOI 10.25674/y9tz-1d49 Abstract Native invertebrate assemblages in Australia are adversely impacted by invasive exotic plants because they are replaced by exotic, invasive invertebrates. The reasons have remained obscure. The different physical, chemical and biotic characteristics of the novel habitat seem to present hostile conditions for native species. This results in empty niches. It seems the different ecologies of exotic invertebrate species may be better adapted to colonise these novel empty niches than native invertebrates. Native faunas of other southern continents that possess a highly endemic fauna, such as South America, South Africa and New Zealand, may have suffered the same impacts from exotic species but insufficient survey data and unreliable and old taxonomy makes this uncertain. Here I attempt to discover what particular characteristics of these novel habitats are hostile to native invertebrates. I chose the Collembola as a target taxon. They are a suitable group because the Australian collembolan fauna consists of a high percentage of endemic taxa, but also exotic, non-native, species. Most exotic Collembola species in Australia appear to have originated from Europe, where they occur at low densities (Fjellberg 1997, 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • First Record of the Order Stauromedusae (Cnidaria
    Species Diversity, 1999, 4, 381-388 First Record of the Order Stauromedusae (Cnidaria, Scyphozoa) from the Tropical Southwestern Atlantic, with a Review of the Distribution of Stauromedusae in the Southern Hemisphere Priscila A. Grohmann', Mara P. Magalhaes1 and Yayoi M. Hirano2 'Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Institute de Biologia, Departamento de Zoologia, CCS-Bloco A• Ilha do Funddo, Rio de Janeiro, CEP 21.941-590, Brazil -Marine Biosystems Research Center, Chiba University, Amatsu-Kominato, 299-5502, Japan (Received 21 April 1999; Accepted 22 July 1999) Kishinouyea corbini Larson, 1980 is recorded from Santa Cruz, Espirito Santo State, southeastern Brazil. This is the first record of the order Stauromedusae from Brazil, and also from the tropical Southern Hemisphere. Kishinouyea corbini has been known only from two localities in Puerto Rico, and this new record constitutes a great southward extension of the known range of the species. This is also the first report of the species since its original description, so a description of the Brazilian specimens and a comparison with the type material are given. Records of Stauromedusae in the Southern Hemisphere are briefly reviewed. Key Words: Kishinouyea corbini, Stauromedusae, new record, Brazil, range extension, Southern Hemisphere distribution. Introduction Stauromedusae are sessile polypoid scyphozoans that generally have a goblet- shaped body and mostly are attached to the substratum by means of an adhesive disc on the base of a stalk-like peduncle of varied length. Uchida (1973) regarded their body as composed of an upper octamerous medusan part and a lower tetramerous scyphistoma polypoid portion. They do not undergo strobilation and do not produce ephyrae.
    [Show full text]
  • Antarctica, South Georgia & the Falkland Islands
    Antarctica, South Georgia & the Falkland Islands January 5 - 26, 2017 ARGENTINA Saunders Island Fortuna Bay Steeple Jason Island Stromness Bay Grytviken Tierra del Fuego FALKLAND SOUTH Gold Harbour ISLANDS GEORGIA CHILE SCOTIA SEA Drygalski Fjord Ushuaia Elephant Island DRAKE Livingston Island Deception PASSAGE Island LEMAIRE CHANNEL Cuverville Island ANTARCTIC PENINSULA Friday & Saturday, January 6 & 7, 2017 Ushuaia, Argentina / Beagle Channel / Embark Ocean Diamond Ushuaia, ‘Fin del Mundo,’ at the southernmost tip of Argentina was where we gathered for the start of our Antarctic adventure, and after a night’s rest, we set out on various excursions to explore the neighborhood of the end of the world. The keen birders were the first away, on their mission to the Tierra del Fuego National Park in search of the Magellanic woodpecker. They were rewarded with sightings of both male and female woodpeckers, Andean condors, flocks of Austral parakeets, and a wonderful view of an Austral pygmy owl, as well as a wide variety of other birds to check off their lists. The majority of our group went off on a catamaran tour of the Beagle Channel, where we saw South American sea lions on offshore islands before sailing on to the national park for a walk along the shore and an enjoyable Argentinian BBQ lunch. Others chose to hike in the deciduous beech forests of Reserva Natural Cerro Alarkén around the Arakur Resort & Spa. After only a few minutes of hiking, we saw an Andean condor soar above us and watched as a stunning red and black Magellanic woodpecker flew towards us and perched on the trunk of a nearby tree.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity: the UK Overseas Territories. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee
    Biodiversity: the UK Overseas Territories Compiled by S. Oldfield Edited by D. Procter and L.V. Fleming ISBN: 1 86107 502 2 © Copyright Joint Nature Conservation Committee 1999 Illustrations and layout by Barry Larking Cover design Tracey Weeks Printed by CLE Citation. Procter, D., & Fleming, L.V., eds. 1999. Biodiversity: the UK Overseas Territories. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Disclaimer: reference to legislation and convention texts in this document are correct to the best of our knowledge but must not be taken to infer definitive legal obligation. Cover photographs Front cover: Top right: Southern rockhopper penguin Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome (Richard White/JNCC). The world’s largest concentrations of southern rockhopper penguin are found on the Falkland Islands. Centre left: Down Rope, Pitcairn Island, South Pacific (Deborah Procter/JNCC). The introduced rat population of Pitcairn Island has successfully been eradicated in a programme funded by the UK Government. Centre right: Male Anegada rock iguana Cyclura pinguis (Glen Gerber/FFI). The Anegada rock iguana has been the subject of a successful breeding and re-introduction programme funded by FCO and FFI in collaboration with the National Parks Trust of the British Virgin Islands. Back cover: Black-browed albatross Diomedea melanophris (Richard White/JNCC). Of the global breeding population of black-browed albatross, 80 % is found on the Falkland Islands and 10% on South Georgia. Background image on front and back cover: Shoal of fish (Charles Sheppard/Warwick
    [Show full text]
  • A Non-Bilaterian Perspective on the Development and Evolution of Animal Digestive Systems
    Cell and Tissue Research (2019) 377:321–339 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00441-019-03075-x REVIEW A non-bilaterian perspective on the development and evolution of animal digestive systems Patrick R. H. Steinmetz 1 Received: 22 March 2019 /Accepted: 8 July 2019 /Published online: 7 August 2019 # The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Digestive systems and extracellular digestion are key animal features, but their emergence during early animal evolution is currently poorly understood. As the last common ancestor of non-bilaterian animal groups (sponges, ctenophores, placozoans and cnidarians) dates back to the beginning of animal life, their study and comparison provides important insights into the early evolution of digestive systems and functions. Here, I have compiled an overview of the development and cell biology of digestive tissues in non-bilaterian animals. I will highlight the fundamental differences between extracellular and intracellular digestive processes, and how these are distributed among animals. Cnidarians (e.g. sea anemones, corals, jellyfish), the phylogenetic outgroup of bilaterians (e.g. vertebrates, flies, annelids), occupy a key position to reconstruct the evolution of bilaterian gut evolution. A major focus will therefore lie on the development and cell biology of digestive tissues in cnidarians, especially sea anemones, and how they compare to bilaterian gut tissues. In that context, I will also review how a recent study on the gastrula fate map of the sea anemone Nematostella vectensis challenges our long-standing conceptions on the evolution of cnidarian and bilaterian germ layers and guts. Keywords Cnidaria . Porifera . Placozoa . Ctenophora . Gastrovascular system . Gut evolution . Extracellular digestion . Intracellular digestion . Germ layer evolution Introduction ester bonds.
    [Show full text]
  • Por Que Devemos Nos Importar Com Os Colêmbolos Edáficos?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Biblioteca Digital de Periódicos da UFPR (Universidade Federal do Paraná) REVISTA SCIENTIA AGRARIA Versão On-line ISSN 1983-2443 Versão Impressa ISSN 1519-1125 SA vol. 17 n°. 2 Curitiba abril/maio. 2016 p. 21-40 POR QUE DEVEMOS NOS IMPORTAR COM OS COLÊMBOLOS EDÁFICOS? Why should we care about edaphic springtails? Luís Carlos Iuñes Oliveira Filho¹*, Dilmar Baretta² 1. Professor do curso de Agronomia da Universidade do Oeste de Santa Catarina (Unoesc), Campus Xanxerê - SC, E-mail: [email protected] (*autor para correspondência). 2. Professor do curso de Zootecnia da Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC Oeste), Campus Chapecó - SC. Bolsista em Produtividade Científica CNPq. E-mail: [email protected] Artigo enviado em 26/08/2016, aceito em 03/10/2016 e publicado em 20/12/2016. RESUMO: Este trabalho de revisão tem como objetivo apresentar a importância dos colêmbolos edáficos, com destaque para aspectos agronômicos e ecológicos. São abordadas as características gerais, densidade e distribuição dos colêmbolos, bem como a relação dos colêmbolos com práticas agrícolas, com fungos, com ciclagem de nutrientes e fertilidade do solo. São também reportados trabalhos da literatura, demonstrando a importância desses organismos aos serviços do ecossistema, como ciclagem de nutrientes, melhoria na fertilidade, agregação do solo, controle de fungos e indicadores da qualidade do solo. Pretende-se com este trabalho demonstrar o importante papel desempenhado pelos colêmbolos e expandir o campo de pesquisa com esses organismos, aumentando o conhecimento dos importantes processos mediados por eles e a interface entre a Ecologia do Solo e Ciência do Solo.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing UAV Monitoring of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands’ Iconic Land-Based Marine Predators
    fmars-08-654215 May 26, 2021 Time: 18:32 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 01 June 2021 doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.654215 Developing UAV Monitoring of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands’ Iconic Land-Based Marine Predators John Dickens1*, Philip R. Hollyman1, Tom Hart2, Gemma V. Clucas3, Eugene J. Murphy1, Sally Poncet4, Philip N. Trathan1 and Martin A. Collins1 1 British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2 Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 3 Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States, 4 South Georgia Survey, Stanley, Falkland Islands Many remote islands present barriers to effective wildlife monitoring in terms of Edited by: challenging terrain and frequency of visits. The sub-Antarctic islands of South Georgia Wen-Cheng Wang, National Taiwan Normal University, and the South Sandwich Islands are home to globally significant populations of seabirds Taiwan and marine mammals. South Georgia hosts the largest breeding populations of Antarctic Reviewed by: fur seals, southern elephant seals and king penguins as well as significant populations of Gisele Dantas, wandering, black-browed and grey-headed albatross. The island also holds important Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais, Brazil populations of macaroni and gentoo penguins. The South Sandwich Islands host the Sofie Pollin, world’s largest colony of chinstrap penguins in addition to major populations of Adélie KU Leuven Research & Development, Belgium and macaroni penguins. A marine protected area was created around these islands in *Correspondence: 2012 but monitoring populations of marine predators remains a challenge, particularly John Dickens as these species breed over large areas in remote and often inaccessible locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Collembola: Actors of Soil Life
    Collembola: actors of soil life Auteurs : 02-05-2019 Encyclopédie de l'environnement 1/9 Généré le 01/10/2021 An unsuspected diversity of invertebrates swarms under our feet when we walk on the ground in a forest, meadow or garden. Invisible communities are active in the soil as in a parallel world, with the difference that this world is very real and well connected to the above ground level. It is indeed essential to plants that grow above it. Among the invertebrates living in the soil, Collembola (or springtails) are important because of their abundance and therefore their ability to impact the functioning of an entire ecosystem. They have a wide variety of forms and live in a wide variety of habitats. Their main role is to regulate the microorganisms responsible for the decomposition of organic matter and the recycling of nutrients that will be used by plants for their development. Unfortunately, many human activities can affect the communities of Collembola. These include, for example, soil pollution by metals, pesticides, etc., but also human practices such as the introduction of exotic plants or the use of waste to fertilize the soil. 1. Soil invertebrates, shadow workers Encyclopédie de l'environnement 2/9 Généré le 01/10/2021 Table 1.Invertebrates, sizes, abundances (in a temperate meadow) and dominant diets in each of the three soil fauna size classes. Ind.: individuals; L: length; ø: diameter. Saprophagous: a diet consisting of dead organic matter of plant or animal origin. Carnivory: a diet consisting of live animals. Microphagous: a diet consisting of bacteria, fungi and/or unicellular algae.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment for Fisheries Operating in South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands
    FAO International Plan of Action-Seabirds: An assessment for fisheries operating in South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands by Nigel Varty, Ben Sullivan and Andy Black BirdLife International Global Seabird Programme Cover photo – Fishery Patrol Vessel (FPV) Pharos SG in Cumberland Bay, South Georgia This document should be cited as: Varty, N., Sullivan, B. J. and Black, A. D. (2008). FAO International Plan of Action-Seabirds: An assessment for fisheries operating in South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands. BirdLife International Global Seabird Programme. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK. 2 Executive Summary As a result of international concern over the cause and level of seabird mortality in longline fisheries, the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) Committee of Fisheries (COFI) developed an International Plan of Action-Seabirds. The IPOA-Seabirds stipulates that countries with longline fisheries (conducted by their own or foreign vessels) or a fleet that fishes elsewhere should carry out an assessment of these fisheries to determine if a bycatch problem exists and, if so, to determine its extent and nature. If a problem is identified, countries should adopt a National Plan of Action – Seabirds for reducing the incidental catch of seabirds in their fisheries. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI) are a United Kingdom Overseas Territory and the combined area covered by the Territorial Sea and Maritime Zone of South Georgia is referred to as the South Georgia Maritime Zone (SGMZ) and fisheries within the SGMZ are managed by the Government of South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands (GSGSSI) within the framework of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living (CCAMLR).
    [Show full text]
  • Zootaxa, Haliclystus Californiensis, A
    Zootaxa 2518: 49–59 (2010) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2010 · Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) Haliclystus californiensis, a “new” species of stauromedusa (Cnidaria: Staurozoa) from the northeast Pacific, with a key to the species of Haliclystus AMANDA S. KAHN1, GEORGE I. MATSUMOTO2, YAYOI M. HIRANO3 & ALLEN G. COLLINS4,5 1Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, 8272 Moss Landing Road, Moss Landing, CA 95039. E-mail: [email protected] 2Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, 7700 Sandholdt Road, Moss Landing, CA 95039. E-mail: [email protected] 3 Department of Biology, Graduate School of Science, Chiba University, 1-33 Yayoi-cho, Inage-ku, Chiba, 263-8522. E-mail: [email protected] 4NMFS, National Systematics Laboratory, National Museum of Natural History, MRC-153, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013-7012. E-mail: [email protected] 5Corresponding Author. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract We describe Haliclystus californiensis, a new species of stauromedusa from the northeast Pacific. Haliclystus californiensis differs from other species within the genus primarily by its horseshoe-shaped anchors, but also by the presence of prominent glandular pads at the base of its outermost secondary tentacles and by geographic range. It has been found from southern to northern California in coastal waters, 10 to 30 m depth. A single specimen of the species was originally described in an unpublished dissertation; nine additional specimens have been found since that time. We provide an annotated key to the known species of Haliclystus. Key words: Haliclystus, Staurozoa, stauromedusa, Cnidaria, H.
    [Show full text]
  • Operational Plan for the Eradication of Rodents from South Georgia: Phase 1
    1 Operational Plan for the eradication of rodents from South Georgia: Phase 1 South Georgia Heritage Trust 21 December 2010 Rodent eradication on South Georgia, Phase 1: Operational Plan, version 4. 21 Dec 2010 2 Table of Contents RELATED DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................................. 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 4 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 5 Background .................................................................................................................................................... 5 This project..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Eradication methodology & timing ................................................................................................................ 6 Project management & staffing ...................................................................................................................... 8 Risk management............................................................................................................................................ 8 Project and Operational Plan development ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]