Annex I: Satellite Tracks from post-nesting hawksbill turtles from Malacca
16
17
18
19 Annex II: Photographs of impacts to nesting beaches in Malacca.
Restaurant located adjacent to the beach, resulting in Recreation facilities blocking access to the beach above lack of access and light pollution. high tide to nesting turtles.
Fishing boats and discarded nets above the high tide Sea walls to limit erosion also change sand deposition line, which could inhibit nesting. rates and alter nearshore currents.
A local house being built right on the high tide line, Logs and other natural accumulated debris on a beach limiting beach access. limiting access to nesting areas.
20
Assessment of potential impacts of the Proposed Kuala Linggi International Port (KLIP project) on marine turtles.
Nicolas J Pilcher, PhD. Marine Research Foundation
A. Summary of the Proposed Project Linggi Base Sdn. Bhd. (the project proponent) plans to develop the Kuala Linggi International Port (KLIP)at Kuala Linggi, Malacca, Malaysia in four Phases. The proposed KLIP development will be an expansion of the existing Sungai Linggi Port and will increase the Port capacity to meet future maritime services needs. The KLIP will comprise access bridge (800 m in length), liquid products jetty (1.3 km in length) and onshore developments comprising of liquid product storage terminal, shipyard, fabrication yard, general cargo wharf, administration and support services, and government reserve area.
The proposed port will be developed over four phases, culminating in a reclaimed area of ~620 ac, with a total length of 3.8 km and a maximum width of 2.55 km and capital dredging involving volume of 3 million m3. The proposed reclaimed land development will lie southwest of the Sungai Linggi estuary, and south of the Malacca – Negeri Sembilan state border, and at its nearest point will lie approximately 300 m from the shoreline. The proposed development will be connected to the mainland via a bridge, and when completed will leave a shallow channel (-0.5m to -2m below chart datum) oriented NNW to SSE, with an average width of ~350m. The mainland shoreline of this channel presently hosts one of Malacca’s marine turtle nesting beaches, namely Kuala Linggi beach. A total of 17 additional beaches are located along the Malacca coastline, southeasterly to Pulau Burung / Lalang (Figure 1), of which four (Kuala Linggi, Tg. Serai, Mariam Patah and Tg. Dahan) lie closest (within 5km) to zones of potential impacts from salinity and sedimentation, wave heights and current speeds, and pollution from treated wastewater discharges from the proposed development.
In addition there are anecdotal reports of nesting on Negeri Sembilan beaches located between the proposed project site and Tg Tuan, although there has been no systematic collection of nesting data for these beaches, and numbers are considered to be low in comparison with Malacca beaches given the lack of reporting. Nesting is reported for eight beaches in Negeri Sembilan: Pasir Panjang, Eagle Ranch, Kg. Tg. Pelanduk, Pantai UPM Teluk Kemang, Pantai Batu Empat, Blue Lagoon, Pantain Cermin and Tg Tuan (Fig. 2). Given the dearth of information on these beaches, and the lack of knowledge on their extent or significance to hawksbill turtles, and particularly as the lack of systematic reporting is suggestive of low and random nesting, these beaches are only provided a cursory overview in this risk assessment.
21
Figure 1: Location of key nesting sites in the State of Malacca, along with the proposed development.
22
Figure 2: Location of key nesting sites in the State of Negeri Sembilan, along with the proposed development.
B. Marine Turtles in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project The State of Malacca hosts one of Malaysia’s most significant hawksbill sea turtle nesting assemblages, recording some 350 to 600 nests per year (data available for 2006 to 2014; Source: DOF Malacca, unpublished data). This is far in excess of the ~20 nests per year on Pulau Redang, Terengganu (Chan & Liew, 1999) and similar numbers in Sarawak (Leh 1985), but comparable in size in Malaysia only to the ~500 nests per year on Pulau Gulisaan, Sabah (Pilcher & Ali, 1999). These are the only other hawksbill nesting sites in Malaysia.
Closest to the proposed development, Kuala Linggi beach supports an average of 4.55 hawksbill nests per year (2006-2014), with a maximum of 10 recorded in 2006 (DOF Malacca, unpublished data). This nesting represents approximately 1% of all nesting along the Malacca coast since 2006, and ranged from a low of 0% in 2007 and 2008 to a high of 2.56% in 2006. A breakdown of the annual nesting and proportion represented by Kuala Linggi beach is provided in Table I.
23 Table I: Numbers and proportions of hawksbill turtles utilizing Kuala Linggi beach and the four key beaches (Kuala Linggi to Tg. Dahan), in comparison with total nesting numbers for the State of Malacca 2006-2014.
Kuala Linggi Beach Kuala Lunggi - Tg. Dahan Total Nests % Nests % Nests 2006 10 2.56% 111 28.46% 390 2007 0 0.00% 74 19.68% 376 2008 0 0.00% 87 18.47% 471 2009 2 0.53% 55 14.47% 380 2010 9 2.24% 61 15.17% 402 2011 2 0.35% 102 17.96% 568 2012 4 1.13% 87 24.65% 353 2013 2 0.43% 107 22.77% 470 2014 12 2.75% 144 33.03% 436
Three additional beaches from Malacca lie within close proximity (5km) of the proposed development, and within reach of potential impacts as provided in the hydraulic modeling Study (Tg. Serai, Meriam Patah and Tg. Dahan). These beaches host an average of ~8%, ~6% and ~7% of all nesting respectively and these four beaches, and combined they represent some 22% of all hawksbill turtle nesting along the Malacca coast. The overall proportion of nesting on these four beaches, which lie within range of potential impacts as assessed by the hydraulic modeling study, has ranged from a minimum of 14.47% in 2009 to a high of 33.02% in 2014. There appears to be a slight but steady increase in the proportion of turtles utilizing these beaches since 2009 (black line, Figure 2), possibly as a result of increased development along southern key nesting beaches (in particular offshore of Malacca city itself, where land reclamation development has encroached significantly on waters in the vicinity of Pulau Upeh (see Figure 1). Overall numbers of nests across the entire State do not appear to be increasing in a similar manner as the proportion of nesters in the northern beaches (blue line, Figure 2). A breakdown of the annual nesting and proportion represented by turtles on these four northernmost beaches is also provided in Table I. One beach in Negeri Sembilan, to the north of the proposed development, lies within the 5km radius of potential impacts (Pasir Panjang), but there is no data aavailable on nesting numbers and trends.
In addition to utilization of beaches for nesting, hawksbill sea turtles also use Malacca’s and Negeri Sembilan’s nearshore waters as internesting areas (the two-week periods between laying eggs within a season) with several core areas extending southeastwards from Tg. Serai to the Malacca / Johor border, and extending offshore ~10km from Tg. Bidara and ~20km from Pulau Upeh (Figure 3). Core areas used by hawksbills in Malacca and Negeri Sembilan extend over some 480 sq. km of marine habitat, and in the northern range the core areas overlap with soft coral areas in the vicinity of the proposed development. However, it is unlikely that these core areas represent foraging grounds, as these turtles forage in waters south of Singapore (WWF Malaysia / DOFM, unpublished data).
24 600 35%
30% 500
25% 400
20% 300 15%
200 10%
100 5% Total Number of nests / year (blue line) (blue year / nests of Number Total y = 0.0072x + 0.1802
R² = 0.102 line) (black beaches northern four on the nests of % 0 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
FigureMap 2: Trend 3. Hom in proportione range of of Hawksbills hawksbill turtles duri nutilizingg inter-nes the fourting key per beachesiod in Me in Malaccalaka (Kuala Linggi to Tg. Dahan) within reach of potential impacts as described by the hydraulic modeling study. Formula describes trend function.
Figure 3: Density analysis of habitat use for Malacca hawksbill turtles during the internesting period. Graphic courtesy of WWF-Malaysia.
25
5 C. Risk assessment of impacts to marine turtles by the proposed KLIP project This section commences with a list describing the generic impacts from coastal development projects such as the proposed KLIP project on marine turtles (D), and which addresses impacts to the turtles themselves, and to their habitats (nesting, foraging, migration and critical areas).
In subsequent sections (E) we address those impacts specific to the proposed KLIP project, and further consider the residual impacts of each of these following a rigorous risk assessment (F), which evaluates both the likelihood of the impact occurring based on a range of frequencies of potential environmental effects of the project, and the level of severity for the consequence or impact (that is, the varying levels of consequence that would result in environmental effects which would be adverse to sea turtles) based on specific consideration categories used to characterise adverse environmental effects and consequences related to environmental impacts.
Specific probability levels are defined for each aspect of the project activities based on expert knowledge on the biology and ecology of the species, past practices, statistical data, local conditions and specific prevention and mitigation measures.
D. Summary of potential impacts to marine turtles by coastal development projects Turtles face a multitude of threats worldwide. They are highly migratory, and require suitable developmental habitats throughout their range and at each stage of their life cycle. Nesting turtles require clean beaches free from human encroachment, foraging turtles require healthy coral reefs, seagrass beds and even the deep sea, and hatchlings and juveniles require unpolluted open oceans free from debris and fishery pressures. Being migratory, turtles are a shared resource among coastal States and Nations, within small confined seas and across vast ocean expanses. Marine turtles are sometimes used for their meat, oils, shells for curio- making, and eggs and some body parts are considered potent aphrodisiacs. But by far the greatest threat to sea turtles worldwide is fisheries bycatch (Lewison et al. 2004, Finkbeiner et al. 2011), and particularly the small, unregulated artisanal fisheries (Koch et al. 2006, Peckham et al. 2007) due to the overlaps in fishery activity and marine turtle habitats.
Coastal industrial installations such as the proposed KLIP development can have substantial impacts on sea turtles, including excessive light emissions (e.g. Kamrowski et al. 2012) leading to dis- and mis-orientation (Lorne & Salmon 2007), beach loss and habitat alteration (Lutcavage et al. 1997), direct mortality via cooling water intakes (Applied Biology Inc 1989), and chemical spills and habitat contamination (IPIECA 1999, van de Merwe et al. 2009), among others.
The following threats are generic to sea turtles and coastal development projects, and restricted to those impacts expected by the proposed development based on expert knowledge of other, similar coastal developments, along with published accounts of impacts elsewhere across the turtles’ range. These impacts address the following life stages of hawksbill sea turtles: breeding adult males and females; eggs; hatchlings; juveniles; and sub- adults.
1. Direct loss of, or impaired access to nesting grounds. The direct loss of nesting habitat may occur through direct landfilling of nesting beaches, or through restriction of access to that habitat (e.g. rock walls, beachfront development). While turtles are able
26 to move amongst suitable beaches (Musick & Limpus 1997), the loss of nesting beaches can have major adverse impacts on the overall nesting potential of a species, as the locations of suitable nearby nesting beaches may be unknown to animals which have been displaced from their normal nesting habitats (e.g. Schroeder et al. 2003). Changes in design are the most practical and effective mitigation measures to prevent loss or degradation of nesting habitats. 2. Degradation of nesting beach quality. All sea turtles require sandy beaches with specific environmental qualities on which to deposit their eggs for incubation (Mortimer 1990). Changes in salinity may impair osmotic processes in eggs and developing embryos (Ackerman, 1997) and/or act as a desiccator agent. Changes in silt and fine sediment proportions may restrict oxygen and carbon dioxide transport through the sand column (Ackerman & Prange 1972). While adult turtles may continue to nest, alteration of nesting beach quality can have impacts on overall reproductive output, if incubation success is lowered as a result of changes to chemical and physical properties of incubation substrate. Changes in design, and limitations on effluents and discharges are the most practical and effective mitigation measures to prevent loss or degradation of nesting habitats. 3. Vessel strikes. Direct impacts to sea turtles can result by vessel and propeller strikes when vessel speeds exceed 4-5kn (Hazel et al. 2007). While typical freight and container vessel speeds in the vicinity of ports and jetties rarely occurs above these speeds, support and pilot vessels frequently move outside of normal shipping corridors and at speeds in excess of 4-5kn. In the absence of a dedicated stranding monitoring and reporting protocol, mortalities of turtles at sea are also infrequently detected or accounted for. In addition, stranding networks only record a proportion of total turtle mortality, as many carcasses decompose at sea or are carried away by currents. Indeed, only 7-13 % of turtles may typically strand given these processes (Epperly et al. 1996). The lack of a standardised monitoring and reporting system for stranded turtles in Malacca means there is no baseline information on current rates of hawksbill turtle mortality via vessel strikes in the State. Restrictions on vessel speeds are the only practical mitigation measure to prevent / minimise impacts from vessel strikes. 4. Loss and/or degradation of foraging habitat. Sea turtles feed on a suite of benthic and pelagic organisms, typically being greater ominvores in earlier life stages, and selecting for either herbivorous or carnivorous diets as larger sub-adults and adults (Bjorndal 1997). Hawksbills are typically spongiverous (Meylan 1988) and select for a diet of coral-reef related sponges and other invertebrates in advanced life stages (e.g. Rincon- Diaz et al. 2011). At present there is little known of foraging behaviour of hawksbills in Malacca State waters, and at present adults appear to migrate southwards to the Riau archipelago and elsewhere in Indonesia (WWF-Malaysia / DOFM, unpublished data). However, occasional reports of juvenile turtle strandings have been recorded by the Department of Fisheries Malaysia (that is, non-nesting sized turtles), and thus the potential for some level of foraging in Malacca can not be discounted. Absolute loss of foraging habitat may occur through dredging and landfilling, propeller wash, and construction-related vessel activity. Degradation of foraging grounds may occur through sedimentation, pollution, altered salinity and changes to current and wave patterns. Changes in design, and limitations on effluents and discharges are the most practical and effective mitigation measures to prevent loss or degradation of foraging habitats. 5. Noise and vibration in the marine environment. Increases in noise in the ocean can mask important acoustic cues, however no information exists on critical ratios and 27 masking in sea turtles. Increased noise and vibration levels may also cause turtles to avoid certain areas, and lead to decreased nesting and decreased reproductive output. Increases in noise and vibration may also disrupt mating behaviour and alter submergence patters, displacing sea turtles from normal foraging and internesting habitat. Conversely, decreases in hearing sensitivity can reduce an animal’s ability to monitor its acoustic environment, and repeated exposures to sound sources can cause habituation or sensitization (decreases or increases in behavioral response) increasing long-term physiological effects. High-intensity sounds can cause physiological effects and even death in some species (Richardson et al. 1995), although there is little known of the impact of noise on marine turtles (Dow Piniak et al. 2012). Sources of noise and vibration may include marine vessel activity, earthworks, drilling, vehicles and equipment, commissioning of industrial components, gas flaring and explosives. Timing of activities and limits on confounding sources are likely the most practical mitigation measures for noise and vibration. 6. Light pollution. Light is one of the more frequently overlooked sources of pollution in major industrial developments and installations, with detrimental impacts of artificial light at night recorded in virtually all taxonomic groups (Rich & Longcore 2006, Hölker et al. 2010). Hawksbill sea turtles are sensitive to ambient lighting when adults are nesting, and during hatchling sea-finding (Witherington & Martin 2000; Salmon 2003). Adult females preferentially choose to nest on darker beaches, and artificial lighting adjacent to the nesting beach can deter females from emerging to nest (Talbert et al. 1980; Salmon et al. 2000). Artificial lighting disrupts hatchling ability to locate the ocean after emerging from the nest, because hatchlings use topographic and brightness cues for sea-finding (Salmon et al. 1992; Lohmann et al. 1997). Sea-finding behaviour in sea turtles is primarily regulated by visual cues (Mrosovsky 1972), with hatchlings preferentially orienting towards low, bright horizons and away from elevated, dark silhouettes. Sources of light pollution may include (among many others) street lighting, safety lighting in industrial complexes, lack of shielding of lights, lack of curtains on windows during night-time operations, gas flares, along with vehicular and construction traffic. Mitigation measures exist for most lighting issues. 7. Physical presence of facilities. The existence of new facilities in otherwise intact marine environments can lead to entrapment of hatchlings, disturbance to migrations and internesting movements, and disruption to hatchling dispersal, among others. A key concern from coastal and in-water developments is interruptions to marine turtle migrations, which take place to and from nesting and foraging sites, sometimes over vast distances (Musick & Limpus 1997). Hawksbill turtles from Malacca migrate southward to foraging grounds, but also spend substantial periods in internesting areas (those areas where they rest in between successive clutches of eggs). Physical structures can entrap hatchlings, particularly if these are also being attracted to these structures via light pollution. The physical presence of facilities can also lead to changes in sea turtle behaviour, limiting nesting and thus reproductive output. Mitigation measures for the presence of facilities are limited, but include design change considerations, seawall design optimisation, minimising light pollution, minimising spills and uncontrolled contaminated runoff, and control of vessel activities. 8. Marine pollution. Impacts to sea turtles via marine pollution sources is generally limited to direct exposure and ingestion of oils and other spilled chemicals, and also via changes in salinity (and thus osmotic regulatory capacity; Lutz, 1997) and altered temperature regimes (Lamont & Fujisaki 2014). Sources of marine pollution include altered oceanographic regimes which may limit flushing and water exchange, spills, accidents, and solid waste (including microplastics) disposal to the sea. Sea turtles can
28 suffer from blocked gastrointestinal tracts from non-biodegradable plastics (Carr 1987, Andrady 2011) and tissues can be contaminated by petroleum products (Hall et al 1983) and organochlorides (Clark & Krynitsky 1980). Primary mitigation measures for marine pollution include adherence to MARPOL regulations, heightened adherence to Health, Safety and Environment policies and guidelines, the provision and systematic use of solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and 9. Increased human presence. Finally, the increased human presence in the vicinity of important turtle areas can lead to increased levels of egg poaching, increased solid waste disposal, disturbance of nesting females, increased feral predator activity, and compounded impacts via the development of secondary industries, tourism and housing expansion, and other urban growth. The impacts of the proposed development can thus not be assessed in isolation, but rather via an appreciation of the cumulative impacts of subsequent urban and industrial growth spurred by the proposed KLIP project.
E. Ecological & Biological Impact Assessment Process E.1. Likelihood An environmental impact matrix was used to assess the impacts on sea turtles by the proposed KLIP project, which first defined the Likelihood of occurrence levels from 1 to 6 in declining likelihood, based on a range of anticipated frequencies of occurrence of each potential species- or habitat-specific effects of the project. Specific probability levels were defined for each aspect of the project activities based on expert knowledge, past practices, statistical data, local conditions and special prevention and mitigation practices. The likelihood descriptions and categories are detailed in Table II.
Table II: Likelihood descriptions and indices used in assessing impacts to hawksbill sea turtles. Likelihood Descriptions & Index Description Indices Consequences can reasonably be expected to 1 Likely occur in life of the project Conditions may allow the consequences to occur
on the project during its lifetime, or the event has 2 Occasional
occurred in similar cases Exceptional conditions may allow consequences to occur within the project lifetime, or has 3 Seldom occurred within the industry Reasonable to expect that the consequence will not occur at this project. Has occurred several 4 Unlikely times in the industry Has occurred once or twice within the industry 5 Remote
Rare or unheard of 6 Rare Decreasinglikelihood
E.2. Consequence / Impact The second step in the impact assessment process described the level of severity for the consequence or impact (that is, the varying levels of consequence that would result in environmental effects that would be adverse to hawksbill sea turtles) based on specific consideration categories used to characterise adverse environmental effects and consequences related to environmental impacts. Consequence values were assigned with the understanding that mitigation measures would be in place and functional. Summary descriptors of the types of impacts to the environment and to species are presented in Table III. The consequence / impacts descriptions and categories are detailed in Table IV.
29 Table III: Descriptors of the types of impacts to sea turtles. Consequences Incidental Minor Moderate Major Severe Catastrophic Behaviour Behaviour Behaviour Behaviour Behaviour Behaviour Short-term Long-term Widespread and Significant and Significant and Significant and behavioural impact behavioural impact short-term persistent change persistent change persistent change in to turtles within local to turtles within local behavioural impact in turtles behavior in turtles behavior turtles behavior at a area area or widespread Abundance across multiple across entire regional level Abundance and short-term Localised locations project area Abundance Localised and short- behavioural impact irreversible or Abundance Abundance Localised extinction term decrease in Abundance widespread and Significant and Permanent loss of and significant and abundance Localised and long- long-term decrease persistent change the entire permanent reduction Sea turtles Population Viability term or widespread in abundance in population population in abundance at a Localised and short- and short term Population abundance across Population regional level term reduction of decrease in Viability multiple locations Viability Population Viability population viability, abundance Localised and Population Extinction of turtle Extinction or near no lasting impact on Population Viability irreversible or Viability population extinction at a regional the whole population Localised and long- widespread and Significantly scale term or widespread long-term reduced population and short term reduction of viability across reduction of population viability multiple locations population viability Nesting beach Nesting beach Nesting beach Nesting beach Nesting beach Nesting beach suitability suitability suitability suitability suitability suitability Localised Localised Localised and Significant and Significant and Significant and contamination or contamination or irreversible or persistent persistent persistent contamina- physical disturbance physical disturbance widespread and contamina-tion contamina-tion tion and/or physical that can be requiring long-term long-term and/or physical and/or physical disturbance or beach Nesting beaches remediated remediation or contamina-tion disturbance or disturbance or loss on a regional scale widespread and/or physical beach loss across beach loss across contamination or disturbance or multiple locations multiple locations physical disturbance beach loss outside including protected that can be readily of protected areas areas remediated Seabed / Sediment Seabed / Sediment Seabed / Seabed / Seabed / Seabed / Sediment Localised Localised Sediment Sediment Sediment Significant and contamination of low contamination or Localised and Significant and Significant and persistent toxicity, or disturbance irreversible or persistent persistent contamination or disturbance that can requiring long-term widespread and contamination or contamination or disturbance on a be remediated remediation or long-term disturbance across disturbance across regional scale Benthic Substrate widespread contamination multiple locations multiple locations Benthic Substrate Foraging Localised and short- contamination or outside of Benthic Substrate including protected Significant but grounds / term impact on disturbance that can protected areas Significant but areas persistent change in benthic substrate be readily Benthic Substrate persistent change Benthic Substrate benthic substrate internesting characteristics remediated Localised and in benthic Significant but characteristics on a areas Benthic Substrate irreversible or substrate persistent change regional scale Localised and long- widespread and characteristics in benthic term or widespread long-term changes across multiple substrate and short-term in benthic locations characteristics impact on benthic substrate across multiple substrate characteristics locations including characteristics outside of protected areas protected areas
30 Table IV: Consequence descriptions and indices used in assessing potential impacts.
Consequences / Impacts Descriptions & Index
Decreasing Consequence / Impact Consequence Indices
6 5 4 3 2 1 Incidental Minor Moderate Major Severe Catastrophic Impacts such as Impacts such as Impacts such as significant, Impacts such as localised, long-term localised but widespread and persistent Impacts such as degradation of irreversible habitat persistent changes reduction in Loss of a significant localised or short sensitive habitat or loss or widespread, in habitat, sea ecosystem portion of sea turtles term effects on widespread, short- short-term impacts turtles or function on a or loss of effective habitat, species or term impacts to to habitats, sea environmental landscape scale ecosystem function environmental habitats, sea turtles turtles or media (e.g. to significant on a landscape scale media or environmental environmental widespread disruption to sea media media habitat turtle ecology degradation)
Consequence Descriptions E.3. Resultant Impact Analysis Impact management in the context of the proposed KLIP project is defined here as the systematic application of management policies, procedures and practices to identify, analyse, assess, treat and monitor potential impacts on sea turtles within the scope and duration of the project. The level of environmental impact is based on the severity and the likelihood of occurrence as estimated using the Impact Matrix (Table V) to categorize the possible combinations of severity and likelihood of occurrence to be higher, medium or lower risk - shown by (red, yellow and green). In general, there is a one order of magnitude reduction (i.e., factor of 10) in the stated probability for each decreasing Likelihood category.
Table V: Impact Matrix used to determine resultant risks based on likelihood and consequence.
1,2,3,4 – Short-term, interim impact reduction required. Long-term impact reduction plans must be developed and implemented 5- Additional long-term impact reduction required. 6 – Impact is tolerable if reasonable safeguards / management systems are confirmed to be in place Legend 7,8,9,10 – Manage impact. No further impact reduction required.
Likely 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
Occasional 2 7 6 5 4 3 2
Seldom 3 8 7 6 5 4 3
Unlikely 4 9 8 7 6 5 4
Remote 5 10 9 8 7 6 5 DecreasingLikelihood Rare 6 10 10 9 8 7 6
Decreasing Consequence / Impact
6 5 4 3 2 1
c
Minor Major
Severe
Moderate
Incidental
Catastrophi
In a practical sense, impact levels of 1, 2, 3 or 4 will require some level of short-term, interim impact reduction to counter the initial activities, and long-term impact reduction plans must
31 be developed and implemented for each of the separate impacts. Impact levels of 5 should require additional long-term impact reduction. Impact levels of 6 may be considered conditions where that impact is tolerable if reasonable safeguards / management systems are confirmed to be in place, and will require management commitment and regulatory oversight. Impact levels 7, 8, 9 and 10 are the lowest impact categories, where existing impact must be managed but no further risk reduction may be required.
F. Summary of potential impacts on sea turtles The following table (Table VI) describes the predicted changes to the surrounding environment and sea turtles based on the natural biological and ecological attributes of sea turtles as introduced in Section C, and based on the outcomes of the hydraulic modeling study which highlighted several potential impacts relevant to sea turtles. The section also provides an explanation of how these might impact sea turtles and those life stages that may be affected, along with an assessment of the severity of the impact of these changes on the sea turtle population of Malacca and Negeri Sembilan, considered in isolation. Where necessary, these predicted changes are considered for specific Phases of the proposed project; otherwise they are considered across all four Phases of the proposed project. Where changes in existing baseline conditions were considered of no consequence to sea turtles either as permanent or temporary impacts, no further descriptions or assessments are provided. The likelihood and consequence along with resultant impact factor were determined for each activity and are colour coded (consistent with Table V) for easier detection of impact levels.
Table VI: Predicted changes to the surrounding environment relevant to sea turtles, and a brief explanation of the effect on sea turtles (with an indication of which life stages may be affected), an assessment of the impact of these changes on the Malacca hawksbill turtle population, along with scores for Likelihood of the event occurring (L), Consequences with mitigation measures in place (C) and Resultant Impact (R). References to the ‘channel’ refer to the resultant water body between the proposed development and the mainland. Predicted change on the Description of effect on turtles and life Extent of impact to overall L C R environment stage(s) population General Considerations (considered for whole project scenario) Artificial light from marine vessel Attraction of hatchlings to lighting from Increases in light levels are lighting (support vessels, barges, onshore and offshore sources leads to predicted to have an impact across dredge vessels, etc.) and from disorientation and misorientation as hatchlings three Malacca beaches within line of lighting associated with construction emerge sight of the proposed development of onshore infrastructure (industrial Exhaustion and dehydration of misoriented (Kuala Linggi beach, Mariam Patah and administrative) and disoriented hatchlings makes them more and Tg Serai). Tg Dahan beach is prone to predation onshore or reduced fitness shielded by Tg Dahan itself and when they reach the ocean and commence the likely will not be impacted by light. initial nearshore migration to deeper offshore In Negeri Sembilan it is predicted waters that all beaches will be in direct line
of sight of the proposed (3)
Altered levels of predation on hatchlings may (1) development. occur in inshore waters if they are trapped in 4 light spill from facilities or vessels These light sources do not include vessels moving towards or away Likely Potential influence on neophyte females during from the proposed Port. Moderate their first nesting beach selection, elevated light intensity may drive them to select less These beaches represent an average suitable nesting beaches of 14% annual nesting amongst all turtles in Malacca. It is unknown Increased illumination of beaches makes what number of turtles/hatchlings hatchlings more visible to predators (birds, nest on Negeri Sembilan beaches. monitor lizards, dogs, etc.) Increased light levels expected to impact hatchlings and, to a lesser extent, nesting adults.
32 Noise and vibration from Potential influence on various life stages of Noise and vibration is predicted to earthworks, drilling, vehicles and marine turtles: nesting females and their have an impact on two beaches equipment, use of explosives, physical distribution on nesting beaches, within 1-2km of the proposed blasting, marine vessels, rock female nesting success, hatching success of development (Kuala Linggi beach dumping, piling eggs, and hatchling behaviour as they emerge and Mariam Patah). No beaches in from the nest Negeri Sembilan are predicted to be
Offshore noise associated with vessels may impacted by noise and vibration. disrupt resident turtles on foraging grounds, These beaches represent an average mating pairs, neophyte females during initial of 9% annual nesting amongst all 7 beach selection and experienced nesting turtles in Malacca.
Noise and vibration is expected primarily Noise & vibration may impact in- (6) Incidental Occasional (2) Occasional during construction, and to be of negligible water turtles during the nesting impact during commissioning and operations. season. Effects will be short term (construction) and only impact the northern turtle beaches (~14% 0f the population). Increase physical interaction Death or injury to turtles by physical contact Impact to turtles in the vicinity of through marine vessels (trading and with vessels, dredges, etc. the port during construction is support), dredges, infrastructure Movements / activity visible from nesting predicted to be high but over a small installation vessels, people, vehicles footprint (recognising that the port
beaches may disturb nesting females or footprint, including construction hatchlings vessel activities, only represents a Recreational fishing could hook turtles, conservative ~2% of the Home 6 entanglement in broken fishing line Range area and does not overlap
Physical disturbance of nests by people or with any of the Core Areas used by (5) Minor vehicles on beaches internesting turtles. (2) Occasional Increase in disturbance/collisions between Main effects to be short term and turtles sheltering in dredged basins and localised. shipping channels Benthic habitat disturbance through Propeller wash from vessels, tankers, Disturbance to the seabed will limit marine vessels (anchoring, propeller increasing turbidity in the area of the loading foraging options for sea turtles in the wash); dredging and spoil disposal; facilities and channels, and potential impacts to vicinity of the proposed installation of causeway, and liquid turtle foraging habitat development. product jetty Loss of internesting and foraging habitat Impacts will be localised to the directly from dredging or through burial of greater construction footprint of the habitat from dredge spoil disposal proposed Port (~36 sq km). 6
Creation of resting/sheltering habitat in This area represents a conservative (3) Seldom channels ~2% of the Home Range area and (4) Moderate does not overlap with any of the Core Areas used by internesting turtles. Spills (loss of containment, Impacts to turtle habitats (nesting beaches, Oil fouling and other toxic chemical unplanned discharges to sea or on benthic habitats) poisoning can result in turtle deaths turtle nesting beaches) via storing, Death or injury to turtles by physical contact and incapacitation. transporting, and handling of
with spill or via impacts to turtle health There will be an increased risk of hydrocarbons, chemicals, drilling spills and contamination in the fluids, wastes, and other hazardous Alteration of water quality if spills to marine environment; may deter turtle activity vicinity of the proposed material; refuelling (onshore and development. The scale of this risk 6 offshore); activities during will likely be limited to the greater construction of the shore crossing; construction footprint, and will (5) Minor Occasional (2) Occasional marine vessel collision or grounding likely mirror or improve on current practices (the area is already currently used as a liquids transshipment facility.
33 Physical presence of infrastructure Changes to availability of turtle nesting habitat In the worst case and most likely due to erosion/accretion of beaches in the scenario, Kuala Linggi and Mariam channel and down to Tg Dahan Patah beaches will be lost and this Potential influence on turtle nesting patterns represents some 9% of all nesting in and marine turtle movements along Malacca Malacca. beaches If nesting is lost, impacts to Potentially increased predation risk to hatchlings and eggs are thus hatchlings moving around the proposed negated. development In terms of potential nesting beach Potential trapping of hatchlings within the X availability, the loss of these beaches
blocks development seawall (if used) represents 13.0% of all suitable (and currently used) habitat. Potential disruption to patterns of hatchling 3 dispersal/preferred migratory pathways due There are no guarantees that turtles that once used these beaches will
Major (3) Major to circumnavigation of physical structure (1) Likely move to other suitable locations. Potential influence on hatchling dispersal and survivorship in the immediate offshore zone (after leaving the beach) due to increased predators associated with the proposed structure Loss of nesting and feeding habitat within the construction footprint Entrainment of hatchlings and juvenile turtles in ocean intakes (e.g. desalination, cooling water or for pressure testing of pipelines)
Lack of 500m buffer as per National Impacts to turtle habitats (nesting beaches, May increase erosion / deposition
Physical Plan of Malaysia benthic habitats) rates, alter sediment composition, Alteration of water quality if spills to marine decrease water quality, and increase 4 environment; may deter turtle activity the potential for vessel strikes.
Extent limited to the channel area (1) Likely down to Tg Serai. (3) Moderate Proposed sand renourishment @ Sand on sea turtle nesting beaches is of Renourishment needs to replace 30,000m3 as per hydraulic study particular composition, physically and eroded sand with sand of the same
mitigation suggestion chemically. chemical and physical properties of Impacts to nesting success beach sand so that incubation 4 success rates are not impacted.
Impacts to incubation success (1) Likely
Extent limited to channel area (3) Moderate extending to Tg. Serai. Hydraulic modeling permanent Impacts - (all seasons considered, worst case scenario assumed) Water levels expected to decrease Slightly more exposed beach (although note 1-2 cm water level increases unlikely ~1–2 cm at Kuala Linggi beach comments in increased erosion in hydraulic to impact beaches in a significant report); possible degradation of nesting beach way. Falls within natural variability. 7 quality at Kuala Linggi Impact extent within channel area (2) (6)
Incidental Incidental only. Occasional
Water levels expected to temporarily Beach may be shallower by 1-2 cm during the Temporary water level changes of
increase at Tg Serai ~ 1-2cm (Phase course of construction; possible temporary only 1-2cm unlikely to impact I-III) but returning to normal by increase in incubation temperatures at Tg Serai beaches in a significant way. Falls Phase IV if eggs deposited closer to beach surface within natural variability. 7 Impact extent within Tg Serai only,
returning to normal after (6) Incidental
Occasional (2) Occasional construction. Water levels expected to increase at Beach may be shallower by 1-2 cm following Water level changes of only 1-2cm Tg Dahan ~ 1-2cm (starting in Phase construction; possible increase in incubation unlikely to impact beaches in a II), and continuous thereafter temperatures at Tg Dahan if eggs deposited significant way. Falls within natural 7 closer to beach surface variability. (2) (6)
Incidental Incidental
Occasional Occasional
Mean water currents expected to Decreases in currents may lead to heavier Increase in fine sediments not
vary at Kuala Linggi, Tg Serai and deposition of fine sediments and silts, expected to mix with beach sands at Mariam Patah by -0.06 to +0.01 m/s degrading O2/CO2 transport within nesting dune area where turtles nest. across all Phases beach sand columns Unlikely to impact nesting. Possible 7 impacts to nesting turtle access. Extent limit to Tg Serai ~14% of
Incidental (6) Incidental
Occasional (2) Occasional population. Maximum water currents expected Changes in currents may lead to altered Potential for erosion of beach at to vary at Kuala Linggi by -0.13 m/s sediment composition, degrading O2/CO2 Kuala Linggi beach (~1% of nesters) to +0.07 across all Phases transport within nesting beach sand columns 7
(2) (6)
Incidental Incidental
Occasional Occasional
34 Overall mean current speed after Increases in current speeds may result in Potential for erosion of beach down Phase IV to increase by 0.1 to 0.2 erosion of nesting beaches, potentially to Tg Serai beach (~14% of nesters) m/z in the vicinity of Tg Serai exposing bedrock and decreasing nesting 7 Overall mean current speed after activity. Decreases at Tg Serai may lead to (2) Phase IV to decrease by -0.05 to -0.1 positive changes in beach structure.
Occasional Occasional m/s in the vicinity of Tg Serai (6) Incidental
Mean wave height to decrease at Changes in wave activity may lead to altered Wave decreases may lead to reduced Kuala Linggi by -0.01 to -0.12 m sediment composition, degrading O2/CO2 sediment transport and reduced across all Phases transport within nesting beach sand columns erosion. Falls within natural variability. 7 Impact extent within channel area (2) asional
Incidental (6) Incidental only. Occ
Maximum wave height to decrease Overall decreases in wave height may lead to Wave decreases may lead to reduced from -0.48m at Kuala Linggi to - heavier deposition of fine sediments and silts, sediment transport and reduced 0.05m at Tg Serai across all Phases degrading O2/CO2 transport within nesting erosion. Falls within natural beach sand columns variability. 7 Impact extent to Tg Serai (14% of
Incidental (6) Incidental nesters). (2) Occasional Sediment transport of sands and Accretion of sediments may lead to increased Changes in sediment transport rates
other non-fine sediment across nesting area availability. can lead to erosion and deposition Kuala Linggi to Tg Serai, with However, accretion of sands may also limit across beaches within the channel changes in transport rates of 0.4 to access to nesting beaches, decreasing overall and areas outside of the channel SE 3 7 0.8 m /day/m at the conclusion of nesting potential. of Tg Serai. all Phases, generally in a NE Potential long term impact to the
Incidental (6) Incidental direction, accreting inside the channel could include lack of access (2) Occasional channel to sea turtles at all tide levels. A general increase of 2cm of fines Changes in sediment transport may lead to Fines sediments unlikely to mix with and silts will be experienced in the altered sediment composition at Kuala Linggi dune sands, which are used for channel areas beach, degrading O2/CO2 transport within nesting. 7 nesting beach sand columns Changes limited to Kuala Linggi (2) (6)
Incidental Incidental beach (~1% of nesters) Occasional
Flushing capacity will change so that Water-borne pollutants from the river may Potential impacts to turtles across
5-10% of effluents from Sungai impact turtle behaviour as effluents from the channel areas, and across greater Linggi will be distributed Linggi river to remain in the vicinity of the construction footprint (36 sq km). southwards in varying channel where otherwise these would travel to This area represents a conservative 7 concentrations to Tg Dahan the NW. ~2% of the Home Range area and does not overlap with any of the
Incidental (6) Incidental Core Areas used by internesting (2) Occasional turtles. DO may increase up to 0.2 mg/ in the Impacts limited to channel area. This channel at the surface, and decrease is unlikely to be foraging ground due up to 0.6 mg/l at the bottom to limited water depth. Proportion of turtles using these waters is limited to nesters at Kuala Linggi and Mariam Patah (~9% of all Surface BOD may increase up to 0.3 Malacca turtles). mg/ in the channel Chemical changes in the water column may impact primary productivity and in turn Water area represents <0.01% of impact forage material. internesting turtle home range area, and none of core internesting area. Alteration of water quality (salinity, pH, temperature and chemical toxicity) within the
Surface ammoniacal nitrogen may mixing zone: may deter turtle activity away increase up to 0.4 mg/ at Kuala from mixing zone Linggi to 0.1 mg/l by Tg Serai in the While lack of dissolved oxygen may not impact 7 channel turtles themselves, this might impact forage material (if turtles are foraging during the
Incidental (6) Incidental internesting period) (2) Occasional Surface nitrate levels may increase up to 0.4 mg/ at Kuala Linggi to 0.5 Reduced water quality may reduce the fitness mg/l by Tg Serai in the channel of the animals leading to chronic health impacts
Bottom nitrate levels may increase up to 0.05 mg/ at Kuala Linggi
35 Surface phosphate levels may increase up to 0.3 mg/ at Kuala Linggi to 0.1 mg/l by Tg Serai in the channel
Feacal coliform will increase in the Increased potential for disease or secondary Proportion of turtles using these
channel beyond 40 MPN/100ml infections to turtles. waters is limited to nesters at Kuala Linggi and Mariam Patah (~9% of all Malacca turtles). 7 Water area represents <0.01% of
internesting turtle home range area, (6) Incidental
Occasional (2) Occasional and none of core internesting area. Mean surface salinity will decrease Reduced osmotic capacity as sea turtles invest Proportion of turtles using these up to -6 PSU in channel areas all the greater energy to rid their bodies of excess salt waters is limited to nesters at Kuala
way down to Tg Serai by end of Linggi and Mariam Patah (~9% of all Phase IV Malacca turtles). 5 Water area represents <0.01% of internesting turtle home range area, (1) Likely (5) Minor and none of core internesting area. Hydraulic modeling temporary Impacts - (all seasons considered, worst case scenario assumed) Mean suspended solids from Unknown overall impact on sea turtles; In a worst case scenario, sediment construction processes will increase however increases in sediments may restrict impact area will overlap with 2.2% south of Tg Dahan and reaching visibility (turtles are sight-dependent of all internesting home range area, Teluk Gong, extending through foragers); sedimentation may also impact and 2.7% of home range area. internesting zones up to 25 mg/l foraging grounds Nesting beaches potentially 5 impacted represent ~14% of nesters in Malacca. (1) Likely (5) Minor Impacts will be temporary and limited to construction period. Maximum suspended solids from Unknown overall impact on sea turtles; In a worst case scenario, sediment construction processes will increase increases in sediments may restrict visibility; impact area will overlap with 2.2% substantially across Tg Dahan and sedimentation may also impact foraging of all internesting home range area, reaching Tg Bidara (zone of major grounds and 2.7% of home range area. impact), extending through Nesting beaches potentially 5 internesting zones up to 100mg/l impacted represent ~14% of nesters outwards to 25 mg/l (zone of in Malacca. (1) Likely (5) Minor moderate impact) Impacts will be temporary and limited to construction period.
Major, moderate and minor impact Unknown overall impact on sea turtles; Unknown if turtles forage in the zones to extend across important increases in sediments may restrict visibility; nearshore waters and hard substrate soft coral and hard substrates, limitations on visibility may impact ability to areas of Malacca. 4 comprising some ~2.2% (~40 sq km evade predators; or to select forage material; These foraging grounds may be (2) out of 1780 sq km) of known home sedimentation may also impact foraging permanently lost or degraded. Occasional range internesting areas. grounds (3) Moderate
Major, moderate and minor impact Unknown overall impact on sea turtles; Unknown if turtles forage in the zones to extend across important increases in sediments may restrict visibility; nearshore waters and hard substrate soft coral and hard substrates, limitations on visibility may impact ability to areas of Malacca. 4 comprising some 2.7% of the core evade predators; or to select forage material; These foraging grounds may be (2) internesting areas (~13 sq km out of sedimentation may also impact foraging permanently lost or degraded. Occasional 478 sq km). grounds (3) Moderate
G. Assessment of species / ecological significance / mitigation options Key ecological and biological processes vulnerable to project activities include disruption of ecosystem function, changes in sea turtle behaviour, degradation of nesting and foraging habitat integrity, and alterations to water quality. The key marine species that will be impacted by project activities and which is listed on National and State legislation is the hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata; listed as Critically Endangered by IUCN). This species requires specific safeguards and mitigation measures to prevent project activities having significant population-level impacts.
For each of the impacts which were determined to meet or exceed tolerable levels (those with a score ≤6), for which short-term, interim impact reduction will be required, and long-term risk reduction plans must be developed and implemented; or where additional long-term risk
36 reduction may be required are presented in in Table VII in order of higher to lower impact, along with suggested mitigation measures where these are deemed practicable.
Table VII: Resultant impact assessment for those impacts which will require management intervention, along with summarised impact and suggested mitigation (where this is deemed possible and practical). (L – Likelihood; C – Consequence; R – Residual Impact). Extent of impact to overall Predicted change on the environment L C R Suggested mitigation action population Physical presence of infrastructure Kuala Linggi and Mariam Patah No mitigation possible. beaches will be lost (~9% of all If losses were to be accepted by regulators, nesting and ~13% of nesting compensation plans would need to provide area available in Malacca). safe havens for sea turtles and long-term There are no guarantees that and complete protection of all remaining
turtles that once used these beach habitat, along with major coastal beaches will move to other light and erosion management would need 3 suitable locations. to be implemented, to increase the value to
Major (3) Major Likely (1) Likely turtles of those remaining habitats. A caution remains that future compromises of habitat will further jeapordise sea turtles of Malacca and political commitments will be required to safeguard all remaining habitat.
Artificial light from marine vessel Increases in light predicted to Adherence to (e.g.) Dark Sky Association lighting (support vessels, barges, dredge impact hatchlings and adults on principles & guidelines. Complete light vessels, etc.) and from lighting Kuala Linggi beach, Mariam shielding, selection of turtle-friendly associated with construction of onshore Patah and Tg Serai) 4 lighting & luminaires, integrated light
infrastructure (industrial and representing ~14% annual (1) Likely management plan.
administrative) nesting. (3) Moderate
Lack of 500m buffer as per National Increased erosion / deposition No mitigation options other than Physical Plan of Malaysia rates, altered sediment relocation of project. composition, decrease water 4 quality, and increase the
potential for vessel strikes. (1) Likely
Moderate (3) Moderate
Proposed sand renourishment @ Incubation success rates may be Renourishment sand needs to have similar 30,000m3 as per hydraulic study impacted through inadequate chemical and physical properties of mitigation suggestion grain size composition and 4 existing beach sand; contractors should be salinity levels extending to Tg. knowledgeable of biological and ecological
Serai. (1) Likely sea turtle requirements.
Moderate (3) Moderate Major, moderate and minor impact zones These foraging grounds may be Unknown if turtles forage in the nearshore
to extend across important soft coral and permanently lost or degraded. waters and hard substrate areas of
hard substrates, comprising some ~2.2% Malacca. (~40 sq km out of 1780 sq km) of known Dredging and landfill to be spread over 4 home range internesting areas. time to minimise total suspended solids across turtle habitat.
Moderate (3) Moderate Occasional (2) Occasional Impacts will be temporary and limited to construction period. Major, moderate and minor impact zones Unknown if turtles forage in the Unknown if turtles forage in the nearshore
to extend across important soft coral and nearshore waters and hard waters and hard substrate areas of
hard substrates, comprising some 2.7% substrate areas of Malacca. Malacca. of the core internesting areas (~13 sq These foraging grounds may be Dredging and landfill to be spread over 4 km out of 478 sq km). permanently lost or degraded. time to minimise total suspended solids across turtle habitat.
Moderate (3) Moderate Occasional (2) Occasional Impacts will be temporary and limited to construction period. Mean surface salinity will decrease up to May impact osmotic regulation No mitigation known for this impact. -6 PSU in channel areas all the way down in ~9% of all Malacca turtles Potential engineering solutions which to Tg Serai by end of Phase IV across <0.01% of internesting 5 redirect water flow may reduce impacts. turtle areas.
Likely (1) Likely (5) Minor
Mean suspended solids from Sediment impact area may Dredging and landfill to be spread over construction processes will increase overlap with 2.2% of all time to minimise total suspended solids south of Tg Dahan and reaching Teluk internesting home range area, across turtle habitat. 5 Gong, extending through internesting and 2.7% of home range area Impacts will be temporary and limited to
zones up to 25 mg/l along with ~14% of nesting (1) Likely (5) Minor construction period. area.
37 Maximum suspended solids from Sediment impact area may Dredging and landfill to be spread over
construction processes will increase overlap with 2.2% of all time to minimise total suspended solids substantially across Tg Dahan and internesting home range area, across turtle habitat. reaching Tg Bidara (zone of major and 2.7% of home range area 5 Impacts will be temporary and limited to impact), extending through internesting along with ~14% of nesting construction period. zones up to 100mg/l outwards to 25 area. (1) Likely (5) Minor mg/l (zone of moderate impact) Increase physical interaction through Impact to turtles during Use of turtle deflectors on all dredge marine vessels (trading and support), construction including vessel vessels; 5kn speed limit for construction dredges, infrastructure installation strikes, entrainment in dredging and other project-related vessel vessels, people, vehicles operations movements; adoption of JNCC guidelines
Main effects to be short term during maritime construction activities; and localised. 6 contractor awareness programmes; management commitment and clear
Minor (5) Minor guidelines for operations. Occasional (2) Occasional Implementation of dredging outside of peak turtle season (nesting and internesting) would be an advantage.
Benthic habitat disturbance through Disturbance to the seabed to Integrated marine management movement
marine vessels (anchoring, propeller limit foraging options for sea and activity plan; precautionary plan for wash); dredging and spoil disposal; turtles, localised to the 6 sediment disposal; adoption of measures installation of causeway, and liquid construction footprint. to minimise sedimentation levels to <50% product jetty of those projected at highest outputs. Seldom (3) Seldom Moderate (4) Moderate Spills (loss of containment, unplanned Oil fouling and other toxic Adherence to strict and measurable HSE discharges to sea or on turtle nesting chemical poisoning can result in standards; implementation of IMO
beaches) via storing, transporting, and turtle deaths and incapacitation regulations, oil-spill prevention handling of hydrocarbons, chemicals, in the vicinity of the proposed programmes. drilling fluids, wastes, and other development, limited to the 6 Readiness of equipment and personnel to hazardous material; refuelling (onshore greater construction footprint. immediately contain spills.
and offshore); activities during (5) Minor Zoning and permitting processes to limit construction of the shore crossing; (2) Occasional marine vessel collision or grounding potential areas of exposure.
H. Summary / Conclusion Predicted impacts to sea turtles are mostly confined to the beaches from Kuala Linggi down to Tg Dahan, which represent some 13% of nesting habitat available to sea turtles, and up to 20% of nesting volume in Malacca. It is not predicted that major impacts will occur on beaches in Negeri Sembilan given the distance from the proposed development and hydrological modeling. In addition, nesting on these beaches is likely negligible in comparison with nesting in Malacca.
A number of impacts were assessed as being minor or incidental, and short-term in nature. However, several more substantial impacts are anticipated to require mitigation measures which will need to be in place alongside a strong management and political commitment to minimise predicted impacts and provide the opportunity for continued sea turtle reproductive success at present levels in the State, given the current project design.
Key predicted impacts to sea turtles include: loss of the Kuala Linggi and Mariam Patah nesting beaches; degradation of Tg Serai and Tg Dahan nesting beaches; light pollution impacts southward from the proposed development to Tg Serai; impacts to soft and hard coral foraging habitats; impacts to core and home-range internesting habitat; potential for vessel strikes, and potential for spills and contamination of beaches and turtles.
When assessing the overall implications of the proposed development, it is important to note that the hawksbill turtles of Malacca are the only species of sea turtle nesting in the State, which comprises one of the two largest populations in Malaysia. Protection of nesting and foraging habitat should be considered as a priority given their conservation and protection status at both National and International levels.
38
While mathematically the proposed development may impact only small proportions of habitat or nesting adults, their loss could lead to further and steady reduction of nesting along State beaches which may be problematic to assess with sufficient statistical power given detection capability and natural variability given sea turtles’ skipped breeding behaviour.
Finally, it is important to note that given the evolutionary adaptation of sea turtles and the choices they make for nesting habitat, compensatory measures (such as artificial beaches and egg hatcheries) which might be used to offset any development process or resultant structures and activities, and which impacts nesting turtles and their habitat, are unlikely to result in increased nesting levels of nesting at a State level with continued development and deterioration of the balance of the nesting habitat available.
39 Literature Cited Ackerman RA & HD Prange, 1972. Oxygen diffusion across a sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) egg shell. Comparative biochemistry and physiology 43(4): 905-909. Ackerman KA, 1997. Foraging ecology and nutrition in sea turtles. In: Lutz PL & JA Musick (eds) The biology of sea turtles, Vol 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 199-231. Andrady AL, 2011. Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(8), 1596–1605. Applied Biology Inc. 1989. Annual activity report for 1989 to Florida Department of Natural Resources. Atlanta GA (unpublished). Bjorndal, RA, 1997. The nest environment and the embryonic development of sea turtles. In: Lutz PL & JA Musick (eds) The biology of sea turtles, Vol 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 83-106. Carr A, 1987. Impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival outlook of sea turtles. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 18(6, Supplement 2), 352–356. Chan EH & HC Liew. 1999. Hawksbill turtles, Eretmochelys imbricata nesting on Redang Island, Terengganu, Malaysia from 1993 to 1997. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2): 326-329. Clark DR & AJ Krynitsky, 1980. Organochloride residues in eggs of loggerhead turtles nesting at Merritt Island, Florida. Pesticide Monitoring Jopurnal 14(1): 7. Dow Piniak WE, SA Eckert, CA Harms & EM Stringer, 2012. Underwater hearing sensitivity of the leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea): Assessing the potential effect of anthropogenic noise. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Baldwin, MO. 25 pp. Epperly SP, J Braun, AJ Chester, FA Cross, JV Merriner, PA Tester & JH Churchill, 1996. Beach strandings as an indicator of at-sea mortality of sea turtles. Bulletin of Marine Science, 59(2): 289-297. Finkbeiner EM, BP Wallace, JE Moore, RL Lewison, LB Crowder & AJ Read, 2011. Cumulative estimates of marine turtle bycatch and mortality in USA fisheries between 1990 and 2007. Biological Conservation 144: 2719–2727. Hall RJ, AA Belisle & L Sileo, 1983. Residues of petroleum hydrocarbons in tissues of sea turtles exposed to the Ixtoc I oil spill. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 19: 106. Hazel J, IR Lawler, H Marsh & S Robson, 2007. Vessel speed increases collision risk for the green turtle Chelonia mydas. Endangered Species Research 3, 105–113 Hölker F, C Wolter, EK Perkin & K Tockner, 2010. Light pollution as a biodiversity threat. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25, 681-682. IPIECA (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association), 1999. Biological impacts of oil pollution: sedimentary shores. IPECA Report Series Vol. 9. 24pp. Kamrowski RL, C Limpus, J Moloney & M Hamann, 2012. Coastal light pollution and marine turtles: assessing the magnitude of the problem. Endangered Species Research 19: 85- 98. Koch V, WJ Nichols, SH Peckham & V de la Toba, 2006. Estimates of marine turtle mortality from poaching and bycatch in Bahia Magdalena, Baja California Sur, Mexico. Biological Conservation 128: 327-334.
40 Lamont MM & I Fujisaki, 2014. Effects of ocean temperature on nesting phenology and fecundity of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Journal of Herpetology 48: 98– 102. Leh C, 1985. Marine turtles in Sarawak. Marine Turtle Newsletter 35: 1-3. Lewison RL, LB Crowder, AJ Read & SA Freeman, 2004. Understanding impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine megafauna. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: 598−604 Lohmann KJ, B Witherington, CMF Lohmann & M Salmon, 1997. Orientation, navigation, and natal beach homing in sea turtles. In: Lutz PL & JA Musick (eds) The biology of sea turtles, Vol 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 107-135. Lorne JK & M Salmon, 2007. Effects of exposure to artificial lighting on orientation of hatchling sea turtles on the beach and in the ocean. Endangered Species Research 3: 23−30. Lutcavage M, P Plotkin, B Witherington & P Lutz, 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle survival In: Lutz PL & JA Musick (eds) The biology of sea turtles, Vol 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 395-396. Lutz P, 1997. Salt, water and pH balance in sea turtles. In: Lutz PL & JA Musick (eds) The biology of sea turtles, Vol 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 395-396. Meylan AB, 1988. Spongivory in hawksbill turtles: a diet of glass. Science, 239: 393-395. Mortimer JA, 1990. The influence of beach sand characteristics on the nesting behavior and clutch survival of green turtles (Chelonia mydas). Copeia 3: 802-817. Mrosovsky N, 1972. The water-finding ability of sea turtles; behavioural studies and physiological speculations. Brain, Behaviour & Evolution, 5, 202–225. Musick JA & CJ Limpus (1997) Habitat utilization and migration in juvenile sea turtles. In: Lutz PL & JA Musick (eds) The biology of sea turtles, Vol 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 137−163 Peckham SH, D Maldonado Diaz, A Walli, G Ruiz, LB Crowder & WJ Nichols, 2007. Small-scale fisheries bycatch jeopardizes endangered Pacific loggerhead turtles. PLoS ONE 2(10): e1041. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001041 Pilcher NJ & L Ali, 1999. Reproductive biology of the hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata in Sabah, Malaysia. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2): 330-336. Rich C, & T Longcore, 2006. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Richardson WJ, CR Greene, CI Malme & DH Thompson, 1995. Marine mammals and noise. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 576pp. Rincon-Diaz MP, CW Diez, RP Van Dam & AM Sabat, 2011. Foraging selectivity of the hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys Imbricata) in the Culebra Archipelago, Puerto Rico. Journal of Herpetology 45(3): 277-82. Salmon, M. (2003) Artificial night lighting and sea turtles. Biologist, 50, 163-168. Salmon M, J Wyneken, E Fritz & M Lucas, 1992. Seafinding by hatchling sea turtles: role of brightness, silhouette and beach slope as orientation cues. Behaviour, 122, 56-77. Salmon M, BE Witherington & CD Elvidge, 2000. Artificial lighting and the recovery of sea turtles. In: N Pilcher & G Ismail (eds). Sea turtles of the Indo-Pacific: Research, management and conservation. ASEAN Academic Press, London, pp 25-34
41 Schroeder BA, AM Foley & D Bagley, 2003. Nesting patterns, reproductive migrations, and adult foraging areas of loggerhead turtles. In: A Bolten & B Witherington (eds) Loggerhead sea turtles. Smithsonian Press, DC, pp 114-124. Talbert OR, SE Stancyk, JM Dean & JM Will, 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in South Carolina I: a rookery in transition. Copeia: 709-719. van de Merwe JP, M Hodge, HA Olszowy, JW Whittier, K Ibrahim & SY Lee, 2009. Chemical contamination of green turtle (Chelonia mydas) eggs in Peninsular Malaysia: Implications for conservation and public health. Environmental Health Perspectives 117(9): 1397–1401. Witherington B & RE Martin, 2000. Understanding, Assessing, and Resolving Light-Pollution Problems on Sea Turtle Nesting Beaches. 2nd ed., rev., St Petersburg, FL. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Marine Research Institute, Tech. Rep. TR-2.
42
Suggested environmental monitoring program of the Proposed Kuala Linggi International Port (KLIP project) on marine turtles.
Nicolas J Pilcher, PhD. Marine Research Foundation
Compliance Monitoring Sea turtles monitoring program is recommended as shown in Table Error! No text of specified style in document..1.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document..1 Compliance monitoring program for sea turtles.
Required Activity Compliance Monitoring Frequency Establishment of a dedicated Submit team names and Prior to construction sea turtle monitoring team qualifications Conduct morning surveys of Daily data sheets listing Daily from 01 February to 30 nesting beaches to count tracks; nesting activity and nesting September mark nests for subsequent success as determined by a determination of incubation competent authority, cross success, and determine nesting referenced with those of the success of all nests from Kuala Department of Fisheries Linggi to Pasir Gembur Malacca (includes potentially affected area and control beaches) Determine incubation success Data sheets of nest A minimum of 50% of nests via nest marking and excavations and analyses of on all beaches between Kuala subsequent excavation overall incubation success Linggi and Pasir Gembur following incubation, broken (includes potentially affected down by total number of eggs, area and control beaches) number of dead eggs (if any), number of hatched eggs and number of dead hatchlings (if any). Determine baseline ambient Baseline lighting levels report Prior to construction and light levels with a Sky42TM or mobilisation of workforces equivalent with a 360o view of and equipment the horizon (not a standard light meter) Light monitoring – construction Construction phase light level Quarterly during construction phase reports Light monitoring – post- Post-construction phase light Quarterly for two years construction phase level reports following completion of construction and commissioning
43 Required Activity Compliance Monitoring Frequency Satellite tracking to determine Reports including maps and Annually during the peak of potential impacts due to density graphics for five (5) the nesting season construction and shipping satellite tracked post-nesting activities sea turtles during each season season Hatchling orientation Reports and statistics of mean Seasonally during evaluation of emergent nests offset and mean spread angles construction and two seasons for beaches between Kuala of hatchlings departing post-construction and Linggi and Tg Dahan previously-marked nests commissioning Hatchling dispersal evaluation Reports on hatchling dispersal Seasonally during from impact beaches and construction and two seasons control beaches for a post-construction and minimum of 30 hatchlings per commissioning site
Impact Monitoring Monitoring of sea turtles will provide data on all phases of sea turtle life cycles which are known for Malacca, along with determination of potential impacts, as follows: Nesting volume (total number of tracks) will enable comparisons with past data sets. This will be determined by counting nesting tracks on the following beaches each season from 01 February to 30 September during construction and two seasons post-commissioning: Kuala Linggi, Tg Serai, Mariam Patah, Tg Dahan (impact beaches), as well as Teluk Gong, Padang Kemunting, Pengkalan Balak and Pasir Gembur (control beaches). Nesting success (how many emergences result in successful nests) as a measure of effort and energy expenditure). This will be determined by assessing the nesting success of each and all of the emergent tracks on the following beaches each season and two seasons post-commissioning: Kuala Linggi, Tg Serai, Mariam Patah, Tg Dahan (impact beaches), as well as Teluk Gong, Padang Kemunting, Pengkalan Balak and Pasir Gembur (control beaches).
Incubation success (how many eggs develop successfully in each clutch, and how many of these result in live emergent hatchlings (a measure of reproductive output). This will be determined by marking successful nests and subsequently excavating this after incubation on the following beaches each season during construction and two seasons post- commissioning: Kuala Linggi, Tg Serai, Mariam Patah, Tg Dahan (impact beaches), as well as Teluk Gong, Padang Kemunting, Pengkalan Balak and Pasir Gembur (control beaches). The monitoring programmes will also evaluate sea turtle behaviour by tracking post- nesting females using satellite transmitters on sea turtles at the peak of each nesting season during construction and two seasons post construction, enabling comparisons between baseline, construction and post-commissioning phases. The sea turtle monitoring programme will also evaluate light levels prior to construction, during construction and post commissioning at three key sites (Kuala Linggi, Mariam Patah and Tanjung Dahan) to provide comparisons across impact and non-impact beaches. Light monitoring should be conducted quarterly prior to mobilisation, during construction and for two seasons post-commissioning at the following locations as shown in Table Error! No text of specified style in document..2 and Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..1:
Table Error! No text of specified style in document..2 Coordinates for turtle light monitoring stations.
44 Location Coordinates Longitude Latitude Kuala Linggi 101.969161 2.384861 Meriam Patah 101.979763 2.370524 Tg. Dahan 101.989593 2.368653 Tg. Dahan 101.998087 2.367979
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..1 Turtle light monitoring stations.
Finally, the turtle monitoring programme will evaluate the impact of lighting on hatchling orientation and offshore dispersal each season and for two seasons post-construction. Monitoring of onshore hatchling orientation will be carried out by assessing the mean and total spread of hatchling tracks as they depart the nest towards the ocean, and comparing these with the direct offshore orientation. Onshore sea-finding monitoring for hatchlings will be conducted at impact and control beaches for a minimum of 20 nests in each category.
Offshore hatchling orientation will be conducted by tracking marked hatchlings by boat from both impact and control beaches, with a minimum of 30 hatchlings tracked from each beach category.
45
46
PAINTED TERRAPIN ASSESSMENT FOR THE DEIA KUALA LINGGI INTERNATIONAL PORT FINAL DOCUMENT BY CHEN PELF NYOK
BASELINE
Common Name: Painted Terrapin Local Name: Tuntung Laut Scientific Name: Batagur borneoensis
The Painted Terrapin, Batagur borneoensis, is a large freshwater turtle (carapace length up to 50 cm) that inhabits parts of large rivers under tidal influence. Its distribution is limited geographically to Sumatra, southern Thailand, Peninsular Malaysia and Borneo (Moll et al. 1981). Peninsular Malaysia is believed to be the last stronghold for the species with an estimated remaining total population of a few thousand individuals (CITES, 2016).
Figure 1 An adult male B. borneoensis (left) exhibiting sexual dichromatism during the breeding season. B. borneoensis hatchlings (right). The distribution of B. borneoensis in Malaysia is not very well studied. Moll (1990) visually confirmed the presence of the species in 14 rivers in his survey in Peninsular Malaysia. In addition to this, it possibly occurs in 19 other rivers, based on museum specimens, interviews with local people, visual confirmation by the investigators, and scientific literature (Moll 1990).
B. borneoensis was previously thought to be the sole species of the genus Callagur, but was recently found to be congeners with the River Terrapin, Batagur affinis (Praschag et al. 2007) which occurs along the western coast of Thailand, western coast of Peninsular Malaysia and eastern Sumatera, Indonesia. Although B.
1
borneoensis and B. affinis may live in the same river system, B. borneoensis nest mainly on marine beaches. Occasionally, they have also been sighted to nest on sandbanks upriver (Wazel b. Mahad, pers. comm.).
B. borneoensis is active during the day and night. Their activities appear to correlate with the tides more than any other factors (Moll 1980). As the tide rises, the terrapins move upstream, into tributaries where they forage until ebb tide when the current carries them downstream (Moll 1980).
Figure 2 B. borneoensis nesting beaches in the Linggi area, based on Sharma (1997) and personal communication with Dr. Reuben Sharma and DHI personal communication with Mr. Fardian, DOF, Padang Kemunting 2016.
2
Population status— Estimates of B. borneoensis population sizes in the rivers in Peninsular Malaysia is non-existent (Sharma 1997). Based on interviews with licensed egg collectors, Moll (1985) noted that only five out of 17 rivers surveyed contained more than 100 nesting females. The Setiu and Paka Rivers in Terengganu are believed to harbor the largest nesting populations, followed by the Linggi, Pahang, Semerak and Kemaman Rivers (Sharma et al. 1995, Sharma 1997).
Reports on population sizes usually refer only to the number of nesting females based on field research (Moll 1986, Sharma 1996). The most practical population size estimation is based on the number of nests and nesting females per season. Historical data shows that in a span of 25 years from 1990 to 2014, only 901 B. borneoensis nesting were recorded (Dept. of Fisheries, Melaka). The highest number of nesting was recorded in 1997, with a total of 198 landings. On the contrary, only one nesting was recorded in 2002. However, annual nesting statistics gathered by the Department of Fisheries do not reflect the actual nesting numbers since nesting surveys are not conducted by the Department, and data are supplied by egg collectors and restricted to locations where licenses were issued (Sharma 1997).
B. borneoensis populations have been rapidly decreasing due to the harvesting of adults and eggs for consumption, and the construction of beach front property causing the loss of nesting area (CITES, 2016). As a result of this population decline, B. borneoensis is listed by the IUCN as Critically Endangered, indicating a high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future. However, no reliable baseline data exists for most rivers in Peninsular Malaysia to accurately assess B. borneoensis population size and declines (Sharma et al. 1995).
Secondary data provided by the Department of Fisheries, Melaka revealed that from 1990 to 2005, the number of eggs that were incubated were not recorded. From 2006 to 2014, a total of 75 nesting were recorded, with a mean of 8.3 nesting per year. In the same period, 939 B. borneoensis eggs were incubated at the Turtle Conservation and Information Center in Padang Kemunting, Melaka (Dept. of Fisheries Melaka, 2014). The mean clutch size recorded from 2006 to 2014 (12.9 eggs) was slightly smaller compared to those recorded in 1995 and 1996 (13.4 eggs) (Sharma 1997).
Reproduction— B. borneoensis exhibits sexual dimorphism and adult females may attain a carapace length of 50 cm while males are often smaller and seldom reach 40 cm (Moll 1985; Sharma 1996). B. borneoensis also exhibits pronounced seasonal and sexual dichromatism (Moll et al. 1981). Adult males undergo seasonal color transformations, which is accompanied by sexual maturity and may be attained at a carapace length
3
of 28 cm (Moll et al. 1981). This seasonal color transformation is characterized by turning its head white and a red stripe that appears over the back of its head.
Reproduction— Reproduction is seasonal and the start of the nesting season may vary annually (Sharma 1996). B. borneoensis characteristically spend a great portion of their life cycle in estuarine and brackish waters, even laying their eggs on beaches in the same areas as sea turtles (Rasmussen et al. 2011). On the east coast, sporadic nesting begins in May, with June to August being the main nesting period (Moll 1985, Sharma 1996). Painted terrapin nesting from Sg. Linggi is reported to peak between October to February, during the northeast monsoon (personal communication Mr. Fardiansah, Turtle Information Centre, Padang Kemunting). The months with the most nesting are December and January. Historical data (1995 and 1996) show that Painted Terrapins nest all year round.
B. borneoensis lay relatively large eggs with small clutch sizes in comparison to other freshwater turtles (Moll 1986). The small clutch sizes that had been reported for this species — 11.36 (Moll 1986), 10.6 (Moll 1990), 12.4 (Sharma et al. 1995) and 12.9 (Dept. of Fisheries, 2014) was possibly due to geographic or annual variation.
Hatching success of B. borneoensis in the Sg. Linggi was reported as less than 15% in 1988 (Moll 1990) and 31.4% in 1990 (Mortimer & Zaid 1991). Comparatively, the mean hatching success of the species in the Setiu and Paka Rivers were reported as 71.5% and 80.1%, respectively. The differences in the hatching success could due to varying egg handling methods, incubation conditions, egg fertility and predation rates (Sharma 1997).
After an incubation duration of approximately 70 − 90 days, the hatchlings emerge and swim back to the freshwater estuaries (Bonin et al. 2006). Hatchlings can tolerate 100% salinity for up to two weeks, allowing them to survive during their swim to freshwater (Dunson & Moll 1980).
Although B. borneoensis has generally been reported to nest on marine beaches (Moll 1985, Sharma 1996), they are also known to nest on estuarine sand islands and upriver sand banks (Sharma 1996, Wazel b. Mahad, pers. comm.). On the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia, B. borneoensis swim out of the river and nest on adjacent beaches, often within several kilometers of the river mouth. On the west coast, nesting may occur as far as 16 kilometers (Sg. Linggi) and 18 kilometers (Perak River) (Sharma et al. 1995, Sharma 1997) from the estuary.
Unlike its congener B. affinis, B. borneoensis does not excavate a body pit during nesting, possibly consequent of their relatively smaller body size (Norkarmila 2009). They are also more sensitive to disturbances compared to B. affinis, and they would
4
abort the nesting process if disturbed (Norkarmila 2009, pers. observation). Studies have also shown that this species prefers to nest in sand with small particle size (Effendy & Azizan 2007).
Habitat and Threats— This species nests primarily on coastal beaches (Moll 1985) and the lack of such beaches may be the reason for its limited distribution in the west coast rivers.
Adult B. borneoensis are herbivorous in the wild (Moll 1985), feeding mainly on leaves, fruits, flowers, stems and roots of selected riparian plants (Sharma 1997) while the juveniles are omnivorous (Moll 1985).
The major threat to the species is the overexploitation of eggs for human consumption, improper coastal and estuarine development and habitat degradation (Sharma et al. 1995).
B. borneoensis are rarely eaten in Malaysia because it is prohibited to Muslims. However, the eggs are highly prized and exploited due to their alleged aphrodisiacal properties. Licensing regulation for egg collection in most states are not properly regulated, observed nor enforced. Egg poaching is rampant even within licensed areas (Norkarmila 2009).
Habitat alteration and destruction adversely affect the critical habitats needed for their survival. Nesting beaches for B. borneoensis are heavily disturbed to make way for industrial and tourism development. Water pollution due to toxic and industrial wastes is another major threat not only to the terrapins but also affects the other species and the entire ecosystem (Norkarmila 2009).
Terrapins are also killed by humans in a variety of accidental and intended purposes. Collisions with motorboats occasionally occur and could be fatal (Norkarmila 2009). In smaller rivers where fishermen lay their fishing nets across the river, the terrapins also get trapped in fishing nets and other fishing gears.
Natural predators known to attack B. borneoensis nests are monitor lizards, wild boars, feral dogs, ghost crabs and ants (Sharma 1997). Hatchlings emerging from nests will have to swim out to the sea to locate a freshwater body, and during this migration, they are susceptible to attack by ants and ghost crabs. Predators of adults or large juveniles are not known, and deformed individuals are most likely a result of incidental collision with boats (Sharma et al. 1995).
Conservation status— Batagur borneoensis is listed as one of the top 25 most critically endangered tortoises and freshwater turtles in the world (Turtle Conservation Coalition 2011). It is also listed as Critically Endangered (CR) in the IUCN Red List of Threatened
5
Species (Asian Turtle Trade Working Group 2000). This species was included in CITES Appendix II in 1997. In Malaysia, B. borneoensis is listed as a Protected Species in the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010.
In Peninsular Malaysia, six of the 11 states have legislation pertaining to protection and exploitation of turtles. However, in many cases, existing legislation is unclear as to which species are covered, although generally it is taken that B. borneoensis is included in the relevant ordinances (CITES, 2016).
Only legislation in the states of Melaka and Terengganu grant powers to establish turtle sanctuaries for protection, research, conservation and management purposes (Sharma 1997). In Terengganu, the authority to appoint licensing officers lies with the Sultan on advice from the State Council.
The legal collection of B. borneoensis eggs is provided through licensing agreements usually granted by the State Department of Fisheries, or as stipulated in State enactments (Sharma 1997). Licenses are granted to individuals for the purpose of regulated exploitation, and for conservation purposes, the licensee is obligated to sell a required number of eggs back to the Department of Fisheries for incubation in beach hatcheries (Sharma 1997).
The licensed egg collection system, although established for conservation purposes, was deemed not very successful (Sharma 1996) due to the average annual loss of 40% of potential recruitment to the population, presumably due to varying incubation conditions, egg fertility and predation rates.
Current conservation efforts— The Department of Fisheries Melaka initiated a Painted Terrapin Conservation Project in 1990, where terrapin eggs were purchased from licensed egg collectors for incubation. From 1990 to 2006, the Department managed to secure a total of 826 painted terrapin nests for incubation (Dept. of Fisheries Melaka, 2014). Assuming that each nest contained an average of 13 eggs, the Department would have saved more than 10,700 eggs from human consumption.
In 2006, the Department started collaborating with WWF Malaysia in its conservation project. Currently, the Department pays the licensed egg collectors RM1.50 for each painted terrapin egg, which WWF incubates. The nest protection programme is carried out entirely by WWF (Fardian, pers. comm.). Upon emergence, the hatchlings are released into the Sg. Linggi.
More recently, in 2014, a B. borneoensis population study was initiated in the Sg. Linggi. This study, which is headed by Dr. Reuben Sharma from Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) involves marking-and-recapturing and temporarily tagging the painted terrapins (Dr. Reuben Sharma, pers. comm). Dr. Reuben is also monitoring
6
the genetic health of the B. borneoensis in the Sg. Linggi. However, the results of these studies have yet to be published.
Additional Information
Salinity levels for Painted Terrapins The Painted Terrapin (Batagur borneoensis) is a unique species in that it lives in the freshwater environment but shares a nesting beach with the marine turtles. Adults have been reported mainly in tidal upstream areas of the Perak, Setiu, Paka and Linggi Rivers. It is likely that hatchlings must swim through the sea to reach the river mouths, yet they are intolerant of long-term immersion in sea water when tested in the laboratory (Dunson and Moll, 1980). Painted Terrapin hatchlings are not physiologically specialized for a life in estuaries of high salinity, yet they can survive for at least two weeks in 100% seawater (35 ppt). Adult Painted Terrapins, unlike sea turtles that spend 99% of their lives in the sea, spend some time in the river. However, it is unclear how long the Painted Terrapin adults can spend in the sea as there aren’t any published studies on the movements of the adults.
A few similar species includes the Diamondback Terrapins, Pig-nosed Turtles and the Common Snapping Turtles. At hatching and for many months afterward, Diamondback Terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin) cannot grow in salinities above about two-thirds seawater (i.e. 23.3 ppt). Yet, salinities near the nests are above this level (Dunson, 1985). Furthermore, laboratory experiments revealed that when held in seawater without access to freshwater, the appetite of Diamondback Terrapins is gradually depressed (Davenport and Ward, 1993).
In the case of female turtles nesting in estuarine areas, they may also rely on a second temporal factor, which is related to periods of fresh water runoff generated by heavy rainfall (Dunson and Moll, 1980). In large rivers, tidal salinity fluctuation allows periods of exposure to salinity levels below 50% seawater (i.e. 17.5 ppt), which is sufficient for rehydration and foraging (Davenport and Wong, 1986; Kinneary, 1993, 1996). In the mouth of the Purari River, where the Pig-nosed Turtle, Carettochelys insculpta, coastal nesting also occurs (Pernetta and Burgin, 1980), salinity never exceeds 10% of standard ocean water, i.e. 3.5 ppt (Thom & Wright, 1983).
Laboratory experiments showed that the Common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) are unable to osmoregulate when forced to remain in relatively saline water (mean salinity = 13.9 ppt) over periods ranging from 11 to 27 days (Kinneary, 1993).
7
IMPACTS/MITIGATION
Construction Phase
Evaluation Framework The life cycle of the painted terrapin as described above points to four key elements where development pressures may affect the population. These are:
The adults in the estuary and riverine waters of Sg. Linggi; The period of the passage of the adult females from Sg. Linggi to the estuary and thereafter to the nesting beaches; The nesting beaches; and The hatching and the return of the hatchlings to Sg. Linggi
As is evident from the description provided above that the biological and ecological needs of the species is not well understood; based on what is known and what may be concluded from similar species the following evaluation criteria are relevant (Table 1)
Table 1 Life cycle stages and potential development impact pressures.
Stages of Life Cycle Development Pressure Adults in the estuary, lower river Salinity regime change Turbidity regime change Passage of adult females to the Salinity regime change estuary and nesting beaches Turbidity regime change Increase current speed Nesting beaches and hatchlings Change in sediment particle size Sedimentation Physical obstruction Net loss of beaches Lights Noise Return of the hatchlings to Sg. Salinity regime change Linggi Turbidity regime change Increase current speed
8
One of the unique characteristics of B. borneoensis is that this species lives in the brackish and freshwater environments, but nests in marine/coastal beaches and riverine sandbanks. While B. borneoensis is able to tolerate salinity at some stages of its life cycle, Dunson & Moll (1980) and Davenport & Wong (1986) found that B. borneoensis is intolerant of long-term immersion in sea water. Davenport & Wong (1986) reported that the maximum salinity tolerance for juveniles lies between 25 and 50% sea water (i.e. 8.5 to 17 ppt). They respond to exposure to high salinity by not feeding, drinking, defaecating or urinating. On return to low salinities, they rapidly replace lost water by drinking. At this time there is nothing known about the impact of changes in turbidity or suspended solids on the behavior or broad ecology of the painted terrapin. Any direct impact presumably would be related to a change in visual acuity and therefore reduced exposure to predators; indirect impacts are most likely as a result from impacts on food and other secondary sources. One approach is to use the national water quality criteria with significant higher background concentrations ranging between 20 and 50mg/l;
Excess SSC > 25mg/l less than 25% of the time Excess SSC > 50 mg/l less than 5% of the time
Potential Impacts Key construction activities that will be assessed that may affect the painted terrapins include:
Water levels Turbidity Current speed Lights and noise Mortality from construction activities
Key construction activities such as land reclamation and capital dredging would not only impact the immediate environment, but also the surrounding areas. Much of the effects, such as siltation and a dramatic increase in suspended particles, will be on the water clarity, where it will be reduced due to the increased turbidity. The painted terrapins will venture into the sea for nesting during the Inter monsoon (IM) and Southwest monsoon (SW). Total suspended solids results predicted for Southwest and Intermonsoon show that the area which is unsuitable for the painted terrapin are near the project site and not near the nesting sites as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. This will impact the painted terrapins that nest at Kuala Linggi to Tg. Serai only very slightly.
9
Figure 3 Exceedance of 25 mg/l excess TSS in % of time for SW (picture above) and inter monsoon (picture below).
10
Figure 4 Phase 4: Exceedance of 50 mg/l excess TSS in % of time for SW (picture above) and Inter (picture below) monsoons. Water levels within the nesting beach areas only increase by 0.01 m to 0.02 m which is not considered a significant change and hence no significant changes to the project area. There will be a slight decrease in current speed at Kuala Linggi nesting site waters due to the project construction footprint with a maximum decrease of 0.06 m/s, Even though major project components such as reclamation and dredging, the construction of marine facilities and sewage treatment plants are carried out mostly in the sea and not on the beach, these activities will directly impact the movements of painted terrapins as well as erosion of the beaches along the coast. The access bridge and sewage treatment plant will be built at the estuary, where the painted terrapins have been reported to nest (Kuala Linggi and Tanjung Serai areas).
11
The painted terrapins are extremely sensitive to any form of disturbances, especially to light. Lights from construction during the night may also deter or distract the movements of nesting terrapins as well as prevent the terrapins from nesting at beaches nearby. Noise from construction may also confuse the terrapins and prevent them from taking their normal route, exposing them to more dangers from predators. The most direct impact these activities will have on the painted terrapins is the permanent loss of terrapin nesting beaches. The critical nesting beaches of the painted terrapins are as highlighted in the map in Figure 5.
Figure 5 B. borneoensis nesting beaches in the Linggi area, based on Sharma (1997) and personal communication with Dr. Reuben Sharma and Mr. Fardian, DOF, Padang Kemunting. Three terrapin nesting beaches are located right at the estuary, and a few more nesting beaches down south. The construction of the access bridge (which will be connected to the shore) and the sewage treatment plant will take place right at the estuary. The access bridge and sewage treatment plant construction will take place for one year. For the remaining project development years (8 years), the terrapins
12
will need to either take the long route to access the nesting beaches or face mortality along the way. The loss of access to three nesting beaches as well as loss of beach material from the beaches directly cause the loss of nesting and egg productivity, and in long term, causes the decimation of the species due to low recruitment and survival rates. And since the painted terrapins may take up to 20 years to mature, these effects will not be seen immediately, until it is too late. Reclamation process uses TSHD dredgers during construction which produce sounds levels below 500 Hz with a maximum broadband source SPL at 189.9 dB re 1 µPa at 1 metre. This impact is continuous throughout the project. The reclamation (10 years) and piling works (1 year) of the proposed project will inevitably increase the level of underwater noise in an unprecedented level. Commonly expected response to this is that the painted terrapin would avoid the area where the construction sound is generated. During construction (which may last for 8 – 10 years), three nesting beaches (Kuala Linggi, Tg. Dahan and Tg. Serai) will no longer be feasible for painted terrapin to nest, because the painted terrapins, though similar to green turtles, are even more sensitive to disturbances, what more the construction of structures such as access bridge and sewage treatment plant, right on the shore.
Mitigation Measures As the project activities will directly impact and ultimately cause the loss of nesting beaches for painted terrapins, it is proposed that major activities such as reclamation and dredging be performed outside of the peak terrapin nesting season, i.e. from November to April as well as stop works for access bridge. To create an environmental offset by funding terrapin researchers to study the movement of these terrapins and to better understand the impacts of the project to the terrapins and how to best manage their conservation. A long term painted terrapin monitoring programme (at least 10 years) would be most necessary as researcher may monitor any changes to behaviour or movements of the terrapins and make appropriate mitigation suggestions.
Residual Impacts If the major activities are stopped during nesting season and the bridge allows movements, the adult painted terrapins may still nest at the three beaches. However, all eggs deposited on these nesting beaches should immediately be relocated to an ex-situ hatchery for incubation.
13
Operation Phase
Painted Terrapins
Evaluation Framework The life cycle of the painted terrapin as described above points to four key elements where development pressures may affect the population. These are:
The adults in the estuary and riverine waters of Sg. Linggi; The period of the passage of the adult females from Sg. Linggi to the estuary and thereafter to the nesting beaches; The nesting beaches; and The hatching and the return of the hatchlings to Sg. Linggi
As is evident from the description provided above that the biological and ecological needs of the species is not well understood; based on what is known and what may be concluded from similar species the following evaluation criteria are relevant (Table 2)
Table 2 Life cycle stages and potential development impact pressures.
Stages of Life Cycle Development Pressure Adults in the estuary, lower river Salinity regime change Turbidity regime change Passage of adult females to the Salinity regime change estuary and nesting beaches Turbidity regime change Increase current speed Nesting beaches and hatchlings Change in sediment particle size Sedimentation Physical obstruction Net loss of beaches Lights Noise Return of the hatchlings to Sg. Salinity regime change Linggi Turbidity regime change Increase current speed
14
One of the unique characteristics of B. borneoensis is that this species lives in the brackish and freshwater environments, but nests in marine/coastal beaches and riverine sandbanks. While B. borneoensis is able to tolerate salinity at some stages of its life cycle, Dunson & Moll (1980) and Davenport & Wong (1986) found that B. borneoensis is intolerant of long-term immersion in sea water. Davenport & Wong (1986) reported that the maximum salinity tolerance for juveniles lies between 25 and 50% sea water (i.e. 8.5 to 17 ppt). They respond to exposure to high salinity by not feeding, drinking, defaecating or urinating. On return to low salinities, they rapidly replace lost water by drinking.
Potential Impacts Key operational activities that are likely to affect the painted terrapins include:
Ship traffic Salinity Permanent loss of beaches Oil Spill Beach nourishment (Tg. Che’ Amar to Tg. Bt. Supai)
The access bridge is built on the beach where the painted terrapins have been reported to nest (Kuala Linggi and Tanjung Serai areas). During operations, the access bridge will partially obstruct the movements of the painted terrapin from the river to the nesting beaches during the nesting season. However, there is space in between the piles for the movements of painted terrapins to access the 3 nesting beaches adjacent to the bridge. Phase 3 and 4 show that some sedimentation is expected east of the reclamation at expected value of 2 cm/year as shown in Figure 6. It is likely that some of this fine sediments with time will deposit in the existing beaches between Tg. Serai and Tg. Bt. Supai. Changes are, however, minor and not expected to affect the stability of the shoreline but it should be expected that the coastline will change its present sandy characteristics to a silty type since there will be an increase in the content of fine sediments in the beach. The changes in the sedimentation pattern are mainly related to the reduction in wave action due to the sheltering effect of the reclamation, waves tend to have a cleansing effect in the beach when they break.
15
Figure 6 Phase 4: Predicted changes in annual bed thickness between baseline and Phase 4. Surface Salinity variation also varies slightly with a maximum increase of 5 PSU change from ambient conditions (Kuala Linggi Beach) and 6 PSU (rivermouth) increase over ambient conditions at the river mouth as shown in Figure 7. Hence, the impacts are very slight. It is also perhaps good for the terrapins since they could physiologically tolerate freshwater and seawater. However, it is not clear how terrapins navigate in water and what navigation signals lead them to the beaches and hence other impacts cannot be assessed.
16
Figure 7 Predicted changes in mean surface salinity for existing and Phase 4 during SW (picture above) and inter monsoon (picture below). The most direct impact these activities will have on the painted terrapins is a partial obstruction to the loss of terrapin nesting beaches by piling works. Though, there will be space in between pillars of the bridge for terrapins to swim through, it is unclear whether the terrapins would still nest on these beaches despite the destruction of such magnitude. The quality of the beaches (Kuala Linggi, Tg. Serai and Tg. Dahan) will be deteriorated (from sandy to silty) hence it is also not immediately clear whether the terrapins will still nest under these conditions. Another concern is whether the painted terrapins would return to nest here after a ten year period of construction. There are no studies to show the resilience of these painted terrapins hence this will be unresolved. A long term monitoring programme would enable this aspect of painted terrapins to be studied and understood. While vessel strikes will continue to pose a threat to the painted terrapins during the operational phase, vessels are expected to travel at slower speed as they approach berths therefore reducing the probability of boat strikes. The risk of oil spill is a common threat to the marine animals due to the nature of the operational phase in such industries. All living marine organisms including the painted terrapins, are very vulnerable to oil spills whereby they are either smothered by the oil slicks or experience physiological toxicity due to ingestion of the oil spill (e.g. ulceration of intestinal tract, damaged respiratory system, superficial lesions and eye infection). The oil spill modelling shows no impacts to the turtle nesting beaches and low impact for surface oil (0.01 g/m2-10 g/m2 hydrocarbon concentration).
Mitigation Measures As the project activities will directly impact and ultimately cause the loss of nesting beaches for painted terrapins, it is proposed that major activities such as reclamation
17
and dredging be performed outside of the terrapin nesting season, i.e. from May to August. To create an access bridge which allows for navigation of painted terrapins. Thirty thousand cubic meter of sand is proposed (Refer to Appendix F-Hydraulic Modelling Report) to be piled onto the beaches, in an attempt to improve the beach quality. However, it should not be done during the terrapin nesting season. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the terrapins will nest on nourished beach as the origin (river sand versus coastal sand) and properties (for example, sand particle size) of the new sand is unknown. To create an environmental offset by funding terrapin researchers to study the movement of these terrapins and to better understand the impacts of the project to the turtles and how to manage their conservation A management response team headed by painted terrapin expert to monitor any issues with the painted terrapin caused by the project operations as they occur along the way.
Residual Impacts As the biology and movements of the painted terrapin is still largely unknown, it is likely that there are residual impacts that could potentially occur.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM
Painted Terrapins Due to the population status of the painted terrapins and their sensitivity to various changes to their environment and habitats, and it is crucial to monitor their behavior as a result of the changes that take place during the construction and operation stages. Specific activities and proposed compliance monitoring are listed in Table 3. Proposed research projects include assessing the reproductive biology of the painted terrapin in the Sg. Linggi area; and the relationship between habitat use and disease. These projects could be led by a Lead Researcher over a perios of 10 years, for example, but may also involve numerous students and/or volunteers.
18
Table 3 Compliance monitoring programme for painted terrapins
Required Activity Compliance Frequency Monitoring Appoint a Lead Researcher To have in hand, the Prior to construction and discuss the various names of student (T=0) as frequently as painted terrapin research and researchers or interns needed thereafter. monitoring programmes that or volunteers as well as are necessary throughout the the nature of the KLIP project. This could be a monitoring long-term monitoring project programmes, according either carried out by the same to the different team of researchers, or broken construction and down into smaller aspects, operational activities. undertaken by a few student interns and/or volunteers. Provide sufficient funding to This is critical to ensure Funding should be Lead Researcher for the the continuity of the available at least in an necessary research and monitoring programme. annual basis to allow monitoring projects. researchers to focus on the research and monitoring programmes, rather than on securing external funds. Develop a Species To have a list of As soon as possible. Conservation Strategy. stakeholders, The Conservation Appoint a Lead Researcher to researchers, Strategy should be spearhead the development of conservationists, and referred to from time to a conservation strategy. moderators to meet for time, and amendments a few times to develop be made wherever the conservation necessary. strategy.
Impact Monitoring The environmental monitoring programme comprises the following components as described further in the following subsections:
Sediment plume monitoring during dredging. Water quality monitoring Coastal profile monitoring Ecological monitoring Air quality monitoring Noise monitoring Social impact monitoring
19
Fisheries and Aquaculture Painted Terrapins
Painted Terrapins The most critical impact to the painted terrapin resulting from this KLIP project is the loss of nesting beaches, which would in turn; affect the population and status of this critically endangered species. It is of utmost importance that a versatile monitoring programme be put in place prior to the construction of the project. The major construction activities will cause beach erosion and the loss of at least three painted terrapin nesting beaches. Although beach nourishment is proposed, it is not immediately clear whether the new sand would be appropriate for the female terrapins to nest. Hence, a monitoring programme that covers all known terrapin nesting beaches must be put in place even before the start of the project. Construction activities and sediment plume generated goes on for at least 10 years. A programme that monitors the movement of the painted terrapins is crucial to the understand of how such a big-scale project impacts a species. It is proposed that the monitoring of painted terrapins be conducted at the Sg. Linggi, as well as at the following five stations. These stations are known painted terrapin nesting beaches, and would be the best indicator of the health of the painted terrapins during the construction and operation stages of the KLIP project.
Table 4 Geographic coordinates (degrees decimals) of the painted terrapin monitoring stations.
Beach Starting Point Beach Ending Point Station Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude Estuary 2.392649 101.983787 2.406423 102.008975 Tg, Serai 2.370872 101.976006 2.373516 101.973814 Teluk 2.348798 102.039231 2.34478 102.048717 Belanga Padang 2.316414 102.072025 2.30378 102.075779 Kemunting Tg. Kling 2.222815 102.151021 2.219868 102.153354
20
Figure 8 Location of painted terrapin monitoring stations. These proposed monitoring stations are subject to change, as deem necessary by the appointed Lead Researcher.
21
REFERENCES
Asian Turtle Trade Working Group. 2000. Batagur borneoensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2000: e.T163458A5608163. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2000.RLTS.T163458A5608163.en. Downloaded on 24 Mac 2016.
Bonin, F., Devaux, B. & Duprae, A. 2006. Turtles of the world. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA.
Dunson, W. A. & Moll, E. O. 1980. Osmoregulation in sea water of hatchling emydid turtles, Callagur borneoensis, from a Malaysian sea beach. Journal of Herpetology 14(1): 31-36.
Effendy, A. W. M. & Azizan, T. R. P. T. 2007. The influence of sand particle size on nesting site selection of painted terrapin (Callagur borneoensis) in Kuala Setiu Baru, Penarik, Terengganu. Journal of Sustainability Science and Management 2(2): 16- 20.
Moll, E. O. 1980. Natural history of the river terrapin, Batagur baska (Gray) in Malaysia (Testudines: Emydidae). Malaysian Journal of Science 6: 23-62.
Moll, E. O. 1985. Estuarine turtles of tropical Asia: status and management. Proceedings: Symposium of Endangered Marine Animals and Marine Parks, pp. 214-226.
Moll, E. O. 1986. Nesting biology of Callagur borneoensis, an unusual tropical Asian river turtle. Neotropical Turtle Symposium, Estacion De Biologica "Los Tuxtlas". Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Veracruz, Mexico, 6 March 1986.
Moll, E. O. 1990. Status and management of the river terrapin (Batagur baska) in tropical Asia. Final project report produced under WWF Project Number 3901 October 1990.
Moll, E. O., Matson, K. E. & Krehbiel, E. B. 1981. Sexual and seasonal dichromatism in the Asian river turtle Callagur borneoensis. Herpetologica 37(181-194):
Mortimer, J. A. & Zaid, A. 1991. The turtle egg hatcery at Pengkalan Balak, Melaka.
Norkarmila, D. 2009. Morphometric and genetic variability of river terrapin (Batagur baska) and painted terrapin (Batagur borneoensis). Master of Science, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Praschag, P., Hundsdörfer, A. K. & Fritz, U. 2007. Phylogeny and taxonomy of endangered South and South‐ east Asian freshwater turtles elucidated by mtDNA sequence variation (Testudines: Geoemydidae: Batagur, Callagur, Hardella, Kachuga, Pangshura). Zoologica Scripta 36(5): 429-442.
Rasmussen, A. R., Murphy, J. C., Ompi, M., Gibbons, J. W. & Uetz, P. 2011. Marine Reptiles. PloS one 6(11): e27373.
22
Sharma, D. K. 1996. Conservation of the Painted Terrapin (Callagur borneoensis) in Peninsular Malaysia. Serdang: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Press.
Sharma, D. K. 1997. Reproductive ecology and conservation of the Painted Terrapin (Callagur borneoensis) in Peninsular Malaysia. Ph.D., The Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent, Canterbury.
Sharma, D. K., Mohd. Nasir, A. S. & Giles, A. 1995. Incubation and hatchling emergence of painted terrapin (Callagur borneoensis) eggs under hatchery conditions at Paka, Terengganu. Seventh Veterinary Association of Malaysia Scientific Congress. Seremban, Malaysia, 7-8 October 1995.
Turtle Conservation Coalition. 2011. Turtles in Trouble: The World's 25+ Most Endangered Tortoises and Freshwater Turtles--2011. Lunenburg, MA: IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group, Turtle Conservation Fund, Turtle Survival Alliance, Turtle Conservancy, Chelonian Research Foundation, Conservation International, Wildlife Conservation Society, and San Diego Zoo Global.
Davenport, J. and Ward, J.F. 1993. The effects of salinity and temperatyure on appetite in the diamondback terrapin Malaclemys terrapin (Latreille). Herpetological Journal 3:95-98.
Davenport, J. and Wong, T.M. 1986. Observations on the water economy of the estuarine turtles Batagur baska (Gray) and Callagur borneoensis (Schlegel and Muller). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology 84(4):703- 707.
Dunson, W.A. 1985. Effect of water salinity and food salt content on growth and sodium efflux of hatchling diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys). Physiological Zoology 58(6):736-747.
Dunson, W.A. and Moll, E.O. 1980. Osmoregulation in sea water of hatchling emydid turtles, Callagur borneoensis, from a Malaysian sea beach. Journal of Herpetology 14(1):31-36.
Kinneary, J.J. 1993. Salinity relations of Chelydra serpentina in a Long Island estuary. Journal of Herpetology 27, 441–446.
Kinneary, J.J. 1996. The origin of marine turtles: a pluralistic view of evolution. Chelonian Conservation Biology 2, 73–77.
Pernetta, J.C. and Burgin, S. 1980. Census of crocodile popu- lations and their exploitation in the Purari area (with an annotated checklist of the herpetofauna). Purari River (Wabo) Hydroelectric Scheme Environment Studies 14, 1–44p.
Thom, B.G. & Wright, L.D. (1983). Geomorphology of the Purari delta, In The Purari – tropical environment of a high rainfall river basin: 47–65. Petr, T. (Ed.). The Hague: Dr W. Junk Publishers.
23
CROCODILE SURVEYS AT SUNGAI LINGGI PROF. SHAHRUL ANUAR MOHD SAH
Introduction
The Indo-Pacific crocodile or Saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus Schneider) has an extensive distribution ranging from southern India and Sri Lanka, throughout southeast Asia and the Indo-Malay Archipelago, to the Philippines, New Guinea and northern Australia. Isolated populations are also known from the Solomon Islands, the Banks Islands (Vanuatu) and on Palau (Caroline Islands) (Webb et al., 2010). The species o occurs typically in brackish waters where salinity ranges from 5 to 20 /oo. Although inhabiting large rivers estuaries and deltas with associated mangroves, C. porosus also colonizes river far above tidal influence including freshwater pools and swamps (Messel et al., 1981). In Sabah and Sarawak, this species is found mainly in mangrove and swamp forest, though there are reports of crocodiles occurring well over 100km inland along major rivers (Stuebing and Shahrul, 1992; Stuebing et al., 1985).
Saltwater crocodiles are the largest living predator on land or in aquatic environments. Newly hatched saltwater crocodiles measure about 25 to 30 cm (9.8–11.8 in) long and weigh an average of 70 g. By their second year, young crocodiles grow to 1 m (3 ft 3 in) long and weigh 2.5 kg. Males reach sexual maturity around 3.3 m (10 ft 10 in) at around 16 years of age, while females reach sexual maturity at 2.1 m (6 ft 11 in) and 12–14 years of age.
In Australia, they lay their eggs in a mound of vegetation during the annual wet season (October-May; Webb et al. 1977, 1983). In Sabah, C. porosus lay their eggs during the wet season from November to January (Shahrul & Stuebing, 1996). Mean clutch size in Australia is around 50 eggs at 113 g per egg (Webb et al. 1983), whereas in Papua New Guinea it is around 60 eggs at 100 g per egg (Cox et al. 2006). Incubation is typically 80- 90 days (depending on temperature). As nesting is a wet season activity, loss of nests due to flooding is typically very high (Webb et al. 1983; Cox 1985). Some wild females actively defend their nests. Lizards (varanids) take eggs, but usually when the eggs are dead, rotten and can be located by smell. Crocodylus porosus feeds on a wide range of prey from crustaceans, fish, amphibians, lizards, birds and mammals (Shahrul & Stuebing, 1996).
Long-term studies of C. porosos are essentially non-existent from Peninsular Malaysia except by Sebastian (1993) listed 10 localities where C. porosus had been reported and suggested that few rivers in Terengganu, Perak, and Pahang, Negeri Sembilan may the most significant population. A preliminary survey of C. porosus in Rembau Estuary, undertaken in 2009, the presence of hatchlings indicating successful nesting in the previous season (Nazli and Hashim 2009).
From the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, C. porosus is currently listed as ‘Least Concern/Lower Risk’ and this was based on its population assessment by Crocodile Specialist Group in 2009 (Webb et al., 2010). Crocodylus porosus is also listed in Appendix I of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora throughout most of its range except for Australia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea which are included in Appendix II (CITES, 2009; Webb et al., 2010). Crocodylus porosus has been listed as a Protected Species since 1982, and remains on Schedule 2 of the Sabah Wildife Conservation Enactment (1997). For Sarawak listed as Protected Animals under The Wild Life Protection Ordinance, 1998. This species is listed under of The Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 (Act 716) as a ‘Totally Protected Wildlife’ species in Peninsular Malaysia.
Materials and Methods
Sungai Linggi is located in the south-west of Negeri Sembilan or north-west of Melaka (Negeri Sembilan-Malacca border) that flow into Straits of Malacca. Brackish water forms when tidal influences the Straits of Malacca mixes with the freshwater during high tides. Vegetation along the stretch of the survey areas is dominated by mangroves genera such as Sonneratia, Rhizophora, Avicennia and Nipa with extensive mangrove mudflats especially around the river bends. Land use types around the study area varied; however, it is mainly dominated by oil palms, human settlements and poultry farms.
Surveys were carried out from downstream Sungai Linggi to the confluence of Sungai Linggi with Sungai Rembau. The total length surveyed is about 10 km, from C1 (2°23'26.16"N 101°58'24.53"E) to C10 (2°25'57.11"N 102° 2'3.27"E) is about 9 km and another 1 km from C9 (2°25'50.53"N 102° 1'38.62"E) to C11 (2°26'19.85"N 102° 1'48.36"E). Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for crocodiles surveys points and coordinates.
Figure 1: Reference points for crocodile surveys
Table 1: Point coordinates for crocodiles surveys (For references, each about 1 km apart) Points Coordinates C1 2°23'26.16"N 101°58'24.53"E C2 2°23'37.43"N 101°58'52.03"E C3 2°23'56.89"N 101°59'16.23"E C4 2°24'4.57"N 101°59'47.25"E C5 2°24'24.19"N 102° 0'12.78"E C6 2°24'34.32"N 102° 0'43.13"E C7 2°25'0.01"N 102° 1'2.70"E C8 2°25'24.18"N 102° 1'23.96"E C9 2°25'50.53"N 102° 1'38.62"E C10 2°25'57.11"N 102° 2'3.27"E C11 2°26'19.85"N 102° 1'48.36"E
To survey for crocodiles, night surveys were carried out along the estuary of Sg Linggi and the mangroves to the north-west. The areas included several distinct vegetation types such as Rhizophora sp and Nipa sp. Surveys were carried out at night (2000 – 0600 h) from a motor boat boat at a speed of c. 15 km/h. The survey team included a boatman (driver) and second boatman, and two observers. Each surveyed one riverbank if possible and depending on the width of the riverbank. Surveys were carried out at different stages of tide, and also were conducted within a few hours of the lowest water levels. For night survey, the eyes shines of the crocodiles were spotted using 300,000 candle power spotlights. When a crocodile was spotted, it was approached at safe distance until either it submerged or escaped from observation. Crocodiles detected were entered to one of four size categories of estimated total lengths shown in Table 2 (modified from Messel et al., 1981; Shahrul & Stuebing, 1996). The last category as EO or ‘eyes only’ were considered almost always large individuals, often exceeding 3 m in length, which submerged within moments of being spotted (Webb & Messel, 1979). When a crocodile was spotted, at the location of each sighting, GPS coordinates will be recorded and their locations mapped to the Google Map.
Table 2: Crocodylus porosus size categories Class Size (m) Class 1 < 50 cm Class 2 50 cm – 1. 5 m Class 3 > 1.5 m Class 4 EO
A total of four spotlight surveys were carried out from May 2015 – December 2015 (Table 3), along the downstream stretch of Sungai Linggi (refer to Figure 1).
Table 3. Survey dates in 2015 No. or Survey Date Survey 1 01 May 2015 Survey 2 30 May 2015 Survey 3 12 June 2015 Survey 4 14 December 2015
Results and Discussion
Between May 2015 and December 2015, four surveys were conducted in the study area. During the four surveys, night activities commonly sighted were mostly artisanal fisheries, angling for prawns and cast-netting for prawns. They really onto their activities and seemed oblivious to the presence of crocodiles in their vicinity.
From the results (Table 4), 12 (6.6%) were found to be Class 1 individuals which are considered as hatchlings, followed by 101 (55.8%) Class 2, 38 (21%) were classified as Class 3, and Class 4, EO recorded was 30 individuals (16.6%) which might be varied of different size classes. Individual densities varies between surveys, the lowest in 12 June 2015 with 3.6 ind/km and the highest in 1st May 2015 with 5.7 ind/km. Based on the formula proposed by Whitaker (1984), the corrected densities was highest in 30 May 2015 with 24.9 ind/km and the lowest in 14 December 2015 with 5 ind/km. From Whitaker (1984) formula, the highest density in 30 May 2015 is due to the higher percentage of “eyes-only’ class for the survey with no. individuals of 15 or 31.2% from the total observations of 48 individuals.
From the overall total of four surveys, minimum density is about 4.5 ind/km, and within the values of monthly densities of 3.6 ind/km – 5.7 ind/km. For corrected density, overall total of four surveys, the density is 12.5 ind/km and and within the values of monthly corrected densities of 5.0 ind/km – 24.9 ind/km.
Table 4. Estimated crocodile densities in Sungai Linggi (per km of river bank)
Survey Km Class No. Minimum Corrected Surveyed crocodiles Density / Density / detected km km 1 2 3 EO < 50 cm 50 cm – > 1.5 m Eyes only Based on 1.5 m formula by Whitaker (1984) 01 May 11 30 10 6 57 5.7 9.9 2015 10 (19.4%) (52.6%) (17.5%) (10.5%) 30 May 18 15 15 48 4.8 24.9 2015 10 (37.6%) (31.2%) (31.2%) 12 June 1 28 1 6 36 3.6 9.9 2015 10 (2.8%) (77.8%) (2.8%) (16.6%) 14 25 12 3 40 4.0 5.0 December 2015 10 (62.5%) (30%) (7.5%)
TOTAL 40 12 101 38 30 181 4.5 12.5
(6.6%) (55.8%) (21%) (16.6%)
In Sabah, C. porosus is reportedly common in the Kinabatangan River and associated wetlands. Shahrul and Stuebing (1996) surveyed the Klias River and recorded density was 0.9 – 1.8 ind/km. Cox and Gombek (1985) reported uniformly low densities throughout Sarawak. More recently, Kaur (2006) reported the relative density of C. porosus in the Segama River compared from around 0.04 ind/km in 1981 (Whitaker 1984) to 1.42 ind./km in 2005. Stuebing et al. (2002) reported a mean density of 1.1non- hatchlings/km in Sabah rivers: 22 times that reported by Whitaker in 1984 (0.05 ind/km).
In Sarawak C. porosus occurs in most major rivers and large individuals are sufficiently common to be a serious threat to people. Surveys undertaken in the early 1980s found uniformly low densities of crocodiles throughout Sarawak (Cox and Gombek 1985), but more recent surveys indicate that numbers have increased markedly in many rivers. Surveys conducted in 28 rivers since 1996 indicate an overall relative density of 0.62 ind/km but the data are insufficient to allow trends over time to be quantified. Surveys undertaken in 2008 in five rivers reported a mean density of 0.87 ind/km (range= 0.60 to 2.07) (Webb et al., 2010).
For Sabah, the protection of Crocodylus porosus under Protected Species since 1982, and on Schedule 2 of the Sabah Wildife Conservation Enactment (1997) and for Sarawak listed as Protected Animals under The Wild Life Protection Ordinance, 1998 have definitely helped in term of survivability and recruitment of these species.
A preliminary survey of C. porosus in Rembau Estuary, undertaken in 2009, indicated a relative density of 2.9 ind/km; and the presence of hatchlings indicating successful nesting in the previous season (Nazli et al., 2009), and from our surveys it might indicates that C. porosus populations in Sungai Linggi have undergone marginal increase over the past 5 years, to reach density approximately 4.5 crocodiles per km of river bank. Our record of 6.6% (12) hatchlings of size < 50 cm also indicating a successful nesting in the previous months. The substantial numbers of crocodiles within the size of 80 cm also indicating a successful breeding season and nesting and this size (80 cm) probably hatched in the previous year in November or December 2014. The calculated range for density for the Sungai Linggi compares favourably with densities reported from the Australian Type I river systems in Northern Territory of Australia (Messel & Vorlicek, 1989). Type I river is big and meandering river and having a heavy freshwater input during the rainy seasons, and the salinity upstream never above the values of salinity measured at the river mouth during the dry seasons. Type I river is have good to excellent nesting habitat and could be expected to have good recruitment potential (Messel & Vorlicek, 1989).
Crocodiles inhabiting the Sungai Linggi (especially the downstream stretch) and surrounding areas do not appear to be threatened. Surveys for 2015 have shown the population of C. porosus have relatively stable population density and varies from month to month. Variation probably due to the external factors (such as phase on moon, disturbance intensity during the survey, and tidal current during the survey) and not due to significant fluctuation in population. And compared to surveys in 2009 (Nazli et al., 2009), the density showed marginal increase over the past 5 years. Differences between years may reflect increase or decrease of crocodiles within the area, but in any overview, densities are comparable to those reported from relatively undisturbed (for 10 years) areas in Australia (Messel & Vorlicek, 1989). Although many parts in the north and south of the Sungai Linggi has been developed for oil palms plantations, few settlements and poultry farms, there are still many intact mangrove forests along the river fringes and extensive swamps to the south of Sungai Linggi, most of which provide ideal breeding habitat for C. porosus, and are sparsely inhabited by local people. With protection and good conservation measures, minus direct exploitation and severe or total habitat loss for nesting, breeding and feeding; crocodiles showed resilience to survive in areas with habitat modification as showed by study in Sungai Segama, and Sungai Kinabatangan, Sabah. In Sungai Segama, density is about 1.42 ind/km from study by Kaur (2006), although some parts of the rivers were bordered directly with oil palm plantations along the Sungai Segama. Study by Evan et al. (2015), recorded crocodile nest occurred about 100 m from oil palm plantation in Sungai Kinabatangan, Sabah. It might also attributed to disruption wrought by land clearing for plantations (usually oil palm, Elaeis guinaeensis) has now stabilized and experiences less disturbance, and many of these areas also have developed extensive grassy banks, potentially suitable nesting crocodiles.
The density of crocodiles in the 10 km stretch downstream of Sungai Linggi, is relatively higher compared to previous studies in Sabah (Whitaker, 1984; Shahrul & Stuebing, 1996; Stuebing et al., 2002) Sarawak (Cox & Gombek, 1985) and Rembau Estuary (Nazli et al., 2009). The emergence of hatchling and crocodiles size less than 50 cm indicates the existence of substantial areas of suitable habitat, as well as numbers of breeding adults, forming an important reservoir population of C. porosus in Sg. Linggi.
Conclusions concerning the present and future status of C. porosus in Sungai Linggi and its tributaries, should be based on repeated surveys in specific areas, over long periods of time, rather than brief and short surveys. In the past experiences, from surveys in Sabah and Sarawak, brief and extensive short surveys have not provided the type of status information required for the management of C. porosus. Intensive and repeated surveys of C. porosus are extremely needed on Sungai Linggi, where they are increasingly threatened by land development, habitat modification and habitat loss for agricultural and other purposes.
RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT PLAN AND ACTIONS
a) For the Public
1. The relevant authorities need to initiate short-term campaign, through press releases and other forms of the mass media, to ensure that a better understanding exists of crocodiles as a valuable part of the Malaysian biodiversity, as a keystone species of Malaysia’s wetland ecosystems, and as totally protected species in Peninsular Malaysia, that cannot be killed or captured without a special permit from the Department of Wildlife and National Parks.
2. The relevant authorities shall improve public awareness and perceptions of conservation, and safety issues involving crocodiles in Sungai Linggi. b) For the protection and conservation 1. The relevant authorities need to identify and seek to gazette protected status for crocodile nesting areas where human-crocodile conflicts are expected to increase, to protect the crocodile population for conservation.
2. The relevant authorities need to develop a long-term strategy to efficiently control and relocate problem or “nuisance” crocodiles if any c) For Inventory, surveys and monitoring
1. The relevant authorities need to plan and implement an inventory of crocodiles in Sungai Linggi and Sungai Rembau based upon systematic surveys to provide the comprehensive data on distribution and abundance.
2. For the long-term plan, based on a detailed inventory, the relevant authorities shall monitor: a) Trends in crocodile abundance, distribution, population density and structure; b) Factors affecting breeding, and survivorship; c) Habitat changes along rivers (human population density, land use, plantation, aquaculture, poultry/live-stock industry) d) Changes in areas of crocodile habitat designated as protected areas.
References
Cox, J. (1985). Crocodile nesting ecology in Papua New Guinea. Field document No. 5 of the FAO/UNDP, PNG/74/029, Assistance to the Crocodile Skin Industry Project. Wildlife Division, Port Moresby, PNG.
Cox, J. and Gombek, F. (1985). A preliminary survey of the crocodile resource in Sarawak, East Malaysia. IUCN/ WWF Project No. MAL 74/85. WWF: Malaysia.
Cox, J.H., Gowep, B., Mava, A., Wana, J., Genolagani, J.-M.,Kula, V., Solmu, G., Sine, R., Wilken, D. and Langelet, E. (2006). The saltwater crocodile Crocodylus porosus egg harvest program in Papua New Guinea: Linking conservation, commerce and community development. Pp. 134-155 in Crocodiles. Proceedings of the 18th Working Meeting of the IUCN-SSC Crocodile Specialist Group. IUCN: Gland.
Kaur, T. (2006). Segama River survey. Crocodile Specialist Group Newsletter 25(1): 15.
Evans, L.J. Jones, T.F., Pang, K., Evans, M.N., Saimin, S. and Goossens, B. (2014). Use of Drone Technology as a Tool for Behavioral Research: A Case Study of Crocodilian Nesting. Herpetological Conservation and Biology. 10(1):90-98.
Messel, H., G.C. Vorlicek, A.G. Wells, W.J. Green, H.S. Curtis, C.R.R. Roff, CM. Weaver and A. Johnson. (1981). Surveys of Tidal Waterways on Cape York Peninsula, Queensland, Australia, and their Crocodile Populations. Monograph 16. Pergamon Press Ltd, Oxford, England, and Sydney, Australia.
Messel, H. and Vorlicek, G.C. (1989). Ecology of Crocodylus porosus in northern Australia. In Crocodiles. Their Ecology, Management and Conservation. A Special Publication of the IUCN-SSC Crocodile Specialist Group. IUCN: Gland.
Nazli, M.F. Hashim, N.R. and Zakaria, M. (2009). Preliminary survey of Crocodylus porosus in Rembau Estuary, Peninsular Malaysia. Proceedings of Postgraduate Qolloquium Semester 1 2009/2010. Universiti Putra Malaysia. Pp 130-135.
Sebastian, A.C. (1993). The crocodilians of Malaysia. In Crocodiles. Proceedings of the 2nd Regional Meeting of the IUCN-SSC Crocodile Specialist Group. Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory: Darwin.
Shahrul Anuar, M. S. and Stuebing, R. (1996). Diet, growth and movements of juvenile crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus Schneider) in the Klias River, Sabah. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 12: 651-662.
Stuebing, R., Ismail, G. & Sallih, K. (1985). The ecology of crocodiles attacks in Batang Lupar, Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal. 55:189-214.
Stuebing, R. and Shahrul Anuar, M. S. (1992). Population characteristics of the Indo- pacific crocodile (Crocodylus porosus Schneider) in the Klias River, Sabah. Proceedings of the 11th Working Meeting of the IUCN-SSC, Crocodile Specialist Group, 2-7 August, 1992, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe. pp 149-162. ISBN 2-8317-0132-5
Stuebing et al. (2002). Crocodile Management Plan, Sabah. Unpublished report prepared by R. Stuebing with assistance and support of the Sabah Wildlife Department.
Webb, G.J.W. and Messel, H. (1979). Wariness in Crocodylus porosus (Reptilia: Crocodilidae). Australia Wildlife Research. 6: 227-234. Webb, G.J.W., Manolis, S.C. and Brien, M.L. (2010). Saltwater Crocodile Crocodylus porosus. Pp. 99-113 in Crocodiles. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. Third Edition, ed. by S.C. Manolis and C. Stevenson. Crocodile Specialist Group: Darwin.
Webb, G.J.W., Messel, H., and Magnusson, W. (1977). Nesting of Crocodylus porosus in Arnhem Land, Northern Australia. Copeia 1977: 238-249.
Webb, G.J.W., Sack, G.C., Buckworth, R. and Manolis, S.C. (1983). An examination of Crocodylus porosus nests in two northern Australian freshwater swamps, with an analysis of embryo mortality. Aust. Wildl. Res. 10: 571-605.
Whitaker, R., 1984. Preliminary survey of crocodiles in Sabah, East Malaysia. IUCN/WWF Project No. 3127. World Wildlife Fund, Kuala Lumpur.69pp.
Appendix 1
Date: 010515 The distribution of crocodiles found in Kuala Sg. Linggi according their size. Green point: < 50 cm; Yellow point: 50 cm - 1.5 m; Blue point: > 1.5 m; and Red point: Eyes only.
Date: 010515
No. Time GPS Size 1 900 2°23.443' 101°58.528' 1.5 m 2 901 2°23.443' 101°58.528' 1.5 m 3 910 2°23.443' 101°58.528' 2 m 4 910 2°23.443' 101°58.528' 2 m 5 934 2°23.992' 101°59.180' 1.5 m 6 940 2°23.998' 101°59.221' 2 m 7 943 2°23.974' 101°59.377 2 m 8 945 2°24.009' 101°59.489' 1.5 m 9 945 2°24.009' 101°59.489' > 2 m 10 950 2°24.020' 101°59.556' 1 m 11 950 2°24.020' 101°59.556' 1 m 12 950 2°24.020' 101°59.556' 1 m 13 1000 2°24.123' 101°59.912' 1 m No. Time GPS Size 14 1000 2°24.123' 101°59.914' 1 m 15 1009 2°24.284' 102°00.080' 1.5 m 16 1009 2°24.284' 102°00.080' 1.5 m 17 1009 2°24.284' 102°00.080' 1.5 m 18 1009 2°24.284' 102°00.080' 1.5 m 19 1020 2°24.388' 102°00.290' 1.5 m 20 1020 2°24.546' 102°00.462' EO 21 1020 2°24.556' 102°00.602' 1.5 m 22 1035 2°24.565' 102°00.634' 1.5 m 23 1035 2°24.566' 102°00.636' 1.5 m 24 1038 2°24.608' 102°00.714' 1.5 m 25 1038 2°24.610' 102°00.716' 1.5 m 26 1043 2°24.590' 102°00.824' < 50 cm 27 1043 2°24.590' 102°00.824' < 50 cm 28 1054 2°24.814' 102°00.840' App. 80 cm 29 1100 2°24.850' 102°00.992' 1.5 m 30 1100 2°24.853' 102°00.992' 1.5 m 31 1104 2°24.902' 102°01.009' EO 32 1114 2°25.009' 102°01.098' < 50 cm 33 1114 2°25.009' 102°01.098' < 50 cm 34 1119 2°25.132' 102°01.063' App 3 m 35 1125 2°25.071' 102°01.127' 1.5 m 36 1125 2°25.071' 102°01.126' 1.5 m 37 1128 2°25.123' 102°01.176' EO 38 1133 2°25.223' 102°01.272' 1.5 m 39 1133 2°25.223' 102°01.272' EO 40 1139 2°25.324' 102°01.384' 1.5 m 41 1139 2°25.325' 102°01.386' 1.5 m 42 1145 2°25.428' 102°01.376' App 3 m 43 1147 2°25.514' 102°01.498' 1.5 m 44 1151 2°25.608' 102°01.601' EO 45 1155 2°25.687' 102°01.597' >2 m 46 1204 2°25.897' 102°01.680' >2 m 47 1210 2°26.077' 102°01.663' >2 m 48 1210 2°26.077' 102°01.663' EO 49 1210 2°26.077' 102°01.663' 1.5 m 50 1210 2°26.077' 102°01.663' 1.5 m 51 1220 2°25.903' 102°01.611' < 50 cm 52 1220 2°25.903' 102°01.611' < 50 cm 53 1227 2°25.935' 102°01.710' < 50 cm No. Time GPS Size 54 1227 2°25.935' 102°01.709' < 50 cm 55 1237 2°25.895' 102°02.073' < 50 cm 56 1240 2°25.845' 102°02.083' < 50 cm 57 1240 2°25.844' 102°02.084' < 50 cm *EO- eyes only
Appendix 2
Date: 300515 The distribution of crocodiles found in Kuala Sg. Linggi according their size. Yellow point: 50 cm - 1.5 m; Blue point: > 1.5 m; and Red point: Eyes only.
Date: 300515
No. Time GPS Size 1 1050 2°23.465' 101°58.423' > 2 m 2 1050 2°23.460' 101°58.477' > 3 m 3 1100 2°23.446' 101°58.577' > 3 m 4 1114 2°23.471' 101°58.609' 1.5 m 5 1126 2°23.439' 101°58.740' > 3 m 6 1125 2°23.549' 101°58.700' 1.5 m 7 1134 2°23.734' 101°58.966' > 2 m 8 1138 2°23.817' 101°59.016' > 3 m 9 1140 2°23.982' 101°59.198' EO 10 1145 2°23.982' 101°59.198' EO 11 1150 2°23.960' 101°59.327' > 2 m 12 1154 2°23.986' 101°59.506' EO No. Time GPS Size 13 1154 2°23.986' 101°59.506' > 2 m 14 1154 2°23.986' 101°59.506' > 2 m 15 1200 2°24.061' 101°59.663' > 3 m 16 1200 2°24.061' 101°59.663' 1.5 m 17 1204 2°24.024' 101°59.730' EO 18 1204 2°24.024' 101°59.730' EO 19 1207 2°24.087' 101°59.825' EO 20 1211 2°24.119' 101°59.867' 2 m 21 1223 2°24.343' 102°00.175' 1.5 m 22 1223 2°24.343' 102°00.175' 1.5 m 23 1223 2°24.343' 102°00.175' 1.5 m 24 1235 2°24.543' 102°00.501' EO 25 1239 2°24.568' 102°00.682' 2 m 26 1250 2°24.760' 102°00.939' 1.5 m 27 1256 2°24.906' 102°01.024' EO 28 1256 2°24.906' 102°01.020' 2 m 29 100 2°24.958' 102°01.053' 2 m 30 102 2°24.982' 102°01.065' 2 m 31 110 2°25.157' 102°01.208' app 80 cm 32 115 2°25.223' 102°01.284' app 80 cm 33 115 2°25.223' 102°01.284' app 80 cm 34 132 2°25.272' 102°01.331' app 80 cm 35 133 2°25.272' 102°01.331' EO 36 135 2°25.315' 102°01.313' app 80 cm 37 142 2°25.359' 102°01.431' app 80 cm 38 145 2°25.390' 102°01.307' app 80 cm 39 146 2°25.375' 102°01.292' EO 40 148 2°25.443' 102°01.421' EO 41 148 2°25.443' 102°01.421' EO 42 150 2°25.583' 102°01.575' app 80 cm 43 152 2°25.619' 102°01.582' app 80 cm 44 155 2°25.788' 102°01.685' EO 45 200 2°25.845' 102°01.680' EO 46 201 2°26.038' 102°01.624' EO 47 202 2°26.047' 102°01.640' app 80 cm 48 210 2°26.139' 102°01.690' app 80 cm *EO- eyes only
Appendix 3
Date: 120615 The distribution of crocodiles found in Kuala Sg. Linggi according their size. Green point: < 50 cm; Yellow point: 50 cm - 1.5 m; Blue point: > 1.5 m; and Red point: Eyes only.
Date: 120615
No. Time GPS Size 1 947 2°23.446' 101°58.577' 1.5 m 2 950 2°23.443' 101°58.551' 1.5 m 3 955 2°23.443' 101°58.551' 1.5 m 4 1015 Under bridge EO 5 1022 2°23.986' 101°59.153' < 50 cm 6 1025 2°23.986' 101°59.153' EO 7 1030 2°23.974' 101°59.438' EO 8 1037 2°24.000' 101°59.465' app. 1.5 m 9 1037 2°24.000' 101°59.465' app. 1.5 m 10 1037 2°24.000' 101°59.465' app. 1.5 m 11 1041 2°24.028' 101°59.566' app. 1 m 12 1045 2°24.047' 101°59.623' app. 1 m 13 1110 2°24.068' 101°59.672' 1.5 m 14 1110 2°24.070' 101°59.684' EO No. Time GPS Size 15 1115 2°24.124' 101°59.762' app. 1 m 16 1115 2°24.124' 101°59.762' app. 1 m 17 1123 2°24.291' 102°00.092' EO 18 1128 2°24.361' 102°00.227' 1.5 m 19 1142 2°24.551' 102°00.550' app. 1 m 20 1142 2°24.474' 102°00.621' app. 1 m 21 1148 2°24.533' 102°00.736' app. 1 m 22 1150 2°24.632' 102°00.737' app. 1 m 23 1155 2°24'36.48"N 102° 0'50.47"E app. 80 cm 24 1157 2°24.630' 102°00.862' app. 80 cm 25 1200 2°24.717' 102°00.795' app. 80 cm 26 1202 2°24.841' 102°00.865' app. 80 cm 27 1208 2°24.903' 102°01.019' app. 80 cm 28 1052 2°26.059' 102°01.658' app. 80 cm 29 1055 2°25.987' 102°01.640' > 1 m 30 1055 2°25.965' 102°01.618' > 1 m 31 1100 2°25.899' 102°01.660' > 1 m 32 1102 2°25.965' 102°01.686' 1.5 m 33 1106 2°26.025' 102°01.748' 1.5 m 34 1108 2°26.015' 102°01.827' 1.5 m 35 1110 2°26.029' 102°01.886' > 1.5 m 36 1115 2°26.019' 102°01.919' EO *EO- eyes only
Appendix 4
Date: 141215 The distribution of crocodiles found in Kuala Sg. Linggi according their size. Yellow point: 50 cm – 1.5 m; Blue point: > 2 m; Purple point: 3m and Red point: Eyes only.
Appendix Date: 141215
No. Time GPS Size 1 410 2°23.451' 101°58.580' app 2m 2 412 2°23.485' 101°58.645' app 2m 3 415 2°23.627' 101°58.765' app 2m 4 422 2°23.666' 101°58.925' >2m 5 425 2°23.753' 101°58.967' EO 6 431 2°23.986' 101°59.208' >2m 7 432 2°23.986' 101°59.214' >2m 8 434 2°23.936' 101°59.493' >2m 9 441 2°24.012' 101°59.524' 1m 10 445 2°24.027' 101°59.575' 1m 11 452 2°24.090' 101°59.885' 1.5m 12 456 2°24.166' 101°59.877' 1.5m No. Time GPS Size 13 501 2°24.332' 102°00.003' 1.5m 14 507 2°24.303' 102°00.115' 1.5m 15 507 2°24.303' 102°00.115' 1.5m 16 509 2°24.383' 102°00.289' 1.5m 17 510 2°24.394' 102°00.323' 1.5m 18 514 2°24.520' 102°00.345' 1.5m 19 517 2°24.547' 102°00.454' > 2m 20 523 2°24.508' 102°00.699' app 80cm 21 526 2°24.640' 102°00.750' app 80cm 22 534 2°24.922' 102°00.905' app 80cm 23 542 2°25.116' 102°01.068' 3m 24 543 2°25.122' 102°01.128' EO 25 545 2°25.135' 102°01.185' 2m 26 546 2°25.157' 102°01.217' app 80cm 27 548 2°25.201' 102°01.257' app 80cm 28 552 2°25.281' 102°01.341' 1m 29 555 2°25.426' 102°01.348' 1.5m 30 557 2°25.448' 102°01.407' > 2m 31 605 2°25.531' 102°01.529' EO 32 610 2°25.720' 102°01.701' > 2m 33 612 2°25.784' 102°01.697' app 80cm 34 615 2°25.797' 102°01.678' app 80cm 35 615 2°25.797' 102°01.678' app 80cm 36 617 2°25.958' 102°01.740' 1m 37 619 2°25.986' 102°01.796' 1m 38 621 2°26.009' 102°01.855' app 80cm 39 622 2°26.060' 102°01.890' 1m 40 626 2°25.950' 102°02.025' 1m *EO- eyes only
APPENDIX F Socio-economic Impact Assessment (SIA) Study Report
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port including Reclamation at Kuala Linggi Malacca DEIA (Socio-Economic Component)
Final Report
Prepared by: PE Research Sdn Bhd
1 Introduction The proposed project involves reclaiming 620 acres of the coastal areas off Kampung Kuala Linggi, Malacca, and building on-shore facilities to support developments for an international port. Once reclaimed, the proposed land use includes tank farm storage (including oil and gas terminal), shipyard, fabrication yard, general cargo wharf and government land.
1.1 Objectives
. To profile the local communities in the study area (defined as the area within 5km radius from the project site), or its consequent activities (i.e., on-shore facilities), etc.
. Identify the nature and significance of potential social impacts that may arise as a result of the proposed project;
. Identify design aspects to avoid or minimise negative impacts and to enhance positive impacts; and
. Identify mitigation measures for the development of a management and monitoring plan to effectively address and manage the identified impacts.
1
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
1.2 Approach and scope of work
This study gives a detailed assessment of the existing socio-economic conditions and perspective of the communities within 5-km radius of the proposed project site. In addition, the project also requires a profile of the socio-economic conditions of the communities and settlements beyond the 5-km radius and that is based on secondary data from Department of Statistics, and the District Office.
The approach used was to solicit the views of people who are affected, directly as well as indirectly. This entailed a ground survey, using listing questionnaires to profile the people who live in the study area. Key interviews with district level government agencies and community elders/leaders were held to solicit any views that they may have on impacts and mitigation. In addition, two stakeholder meetings (with various communities) were held to determine opinions and perceptions of the stakeholders. Mitigation proposals were developed using this information. Table 1.1 indicates the methods used.
Table 1.1: Summary of Methods Used Methods Description Listing Primary data: Listing of all activities and communities within 5 km of the project site. Interviews with ketua masyarakat (see below). Secondary data: Data collected from Department of Statistics, Department of Fisheries and other relevant agencies Survey Random survey of communities and activities within 5 km of project site FGD 4 sessions. Fishermen communities (2) in Melaka side and Fishermen communities (1) and local communities (1) in Negeri Sembilan Stakeholders One Stakeholders meeting cover Melaka side Interviews with Community In-depth interviews with Head of villages were carried out to find out the leaders local situation and economic activities Fishermen Association Fisherman Association of Melaka Barat Fisherman Association of Teluk Kemang
Table 1.2: Fieldwork Summary Methods Duration Listing 27/2/2016 - 18/3/2016 Survey 27/2/2016 - 18/3/2016 Stakeholder Meetings 12/3/2016 FGD 28/2/2016 - 11/3/2016 Interviews with Community 27/2/2016 - 1/3/2016 leaders Fishermen Association 4/3/2016 - 7/3/2016
2
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
The study area for this assessment is defined by the 5-km boundary of the proposed project site, i.e. the project site and 5km beyond its boundaries. As this project involves mainly the reclamation activities, the study area shall encompass all these characteristics.
. Communities and settlements that fall within the study area, and beyond if the footprint of the proposed activities is likely to cause a major impact outside of the study area;
. People and current users who use the study area and would be affected by the proposed reclamation and/or construction activities in the marine and riverine areas of Sungai Linggi (especially fishermen); and The following lists out the tasks carried out based on the approach outlined above.
Task 1: Define the study area It is proposed that the study area be defined as 5-km boundary from the proposed reclamation of the Kuala Linggi international port. It shall include riverine sections of Sg Linggi (up to the 5-km boundary). The key communities that would be impacted has been identified. From site visit and publicly available information, there are seven (7) villages in the study area (Tasks 2 and 3).
Task 2: To profile the local communities, and relevant stakeholders of the study area Profiling will help establish a baseline of the local communities in the study area. It would allow a better understanding of the social and economic conditions of people, residents, businesses and institutions that lie within the study area. It will provide a basis for determining any social impact arising from the proposed project.
A listing survey was carried out in the study area.
Task 3: The Communities in the vicinity of the study area The proposed project will affect several communities, more than others, e.g. Kampung Kuala Linggi and Kampung Tanjung Agas. Listing survey was done to obtain the socio-economic information will enable an accurate profile to be made. Additionally, we interviewed the ketua kampung or JKKK to get an economic profile of the local population – the demographic, social and employment pattern, housing types, and if possible local economy. Other secondary data includes household information compiled from the 2010 Census.
3
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
Task 4: Discussions with local population Meetings with local communities were organised to share information about the proposed project and to gather feedback views and concerns about the project and how the people perceive its impact. They are a more effective means to communicate project details to the local community and receive their response. Their reaction to the project was documented. Interviews were held with the local leaders of Kampung Sungai Linggi, which is the largest community that is located closest to the project site on Melaka side as well as Kg Tanjung Agas on Negeri Sembilan side. Interviews local community for Kampung Tanjung Dahan and Kampung Tengah for Melaka side also been done. Besides Tanjung Agas, there was Kampung Sungai Raya, Bukit Tembok and Kampung Telok also had interviews with the local community leader. FGD’s were held with the local leaders of Negeri Sembilan side The subject matter of these meetings was to discuss issues that they were concerned about and to provide information about the project so that they have a better understanding of the proposed project.
Task 5: Fishermen communities within 10-km boundary As fishery is an open resource. In this study, fishermen within the 10-km boundary of the project site were the key targets. In this study, the boundaries shall include areas up to Tanjung Tuan and within the KLIP port limit. Similar to Task 4, few discussions were held separately with fishermen communities from Melaka and Negeri Sembilan to obtain their view with regards to the project.
Task 6: Impact analysis The impact analysis is based on the nature of operations of the proposed project (i.e. port activities, reclamation and construction). Using available information, an analysis of the impact was made. The impact is specifically referenced with the local community and local economy, especially those who use the coastal waters and riverine areas. In addition, there is tourism in this area. Attempts were made to find out from the operators their current business conditions (baseline condition).
Task 7: Socio-economic Assessment A socio-economic assessment was made with respect to the local communities and to the users of the study area. Thus, the socio-economic assessment would look for options that the impact of the project. Information was provided by DHI or via their sub-consultants for a more comprehensive assessment of the impacts.
4
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
Task 8: Proposed Mitigation Measures, Residual Impacts and Recommendations Based on the impact analysis, mitigation measures (with respect to social issues) has been proposed with respect to the project. Residual impacts, based on post-mitigation situation, is also discussed in this report. Recommendations have been made accordingly.
The following supporting materials are contained in the annexes.
. Annex 1: contains the listing form used to do a census of the population in the study area.
. Annex 2: contains the perception survey questionnaire
. Annex 3: contains map for fishermen to estimate fishing activities
. Annex 4: contains list of people met
. Annex 5: contains the meeting notes during the stakeholder discussion sessions
. Annex 6: contains list of secondary data received/used in the report
5
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
2 Existing Environment of the study area The project is located at the northern shoreline of the State of Malacca. It is situated near the rivermouth of Sg. Linggi. Administratively, the project is within Mukim Kuala Linggi, District of Alor Gajah. The project site lies 35 km from Malacca Town and 23 km from Port Dickson Town in Negeri Sembilan. The Malaysia-Indonesia International Border is located approximately 22 km from the project site while the Negeri Sembilan-Malacca State Boundary lies approximately 400 m to the north of the project. The proposed project footprint lies partially within the existing Kuala Sg. Linggi Port Limit. The project site access adjoins the existing Jalan Kuala Sg. Baru/Kuala Linggi.
The coastal areas around the project site in both Malacca and Negeri Sembilan are delineated as tourism corridors in the Draft Alor Gajah District Local Plan 2020 and Port Dickson District Local Plan 2020. From Alor Gajah District Local Plan 2020 also, Kuala Linggi is identified as location for maritime industry.
Task 1 of this study, the study area was defined as all areas within 5 km radius of the project site boundary. A household listing was administered for all settlements within 5-km radius of the project site boundary. The study area includes areas located in Alor Gajah District, encompasses parts of mukim Kuala Linggi and Mukim Kuala Sungai Baru i.e. Kampung Kuala Linggi, Kampung Tanjong Dahan, and Kampung Tengah. This study also includes Kampung Tanjung Agas, Kampung Sungai Raya, Kampung Bukit Tembok and Kampung Telok in Mukim Pasir Panjang, the district of Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan.This chapter outlines the current socio-economic characteristics of the population in the study area as whole and where possible, comparison was made with data at the state and district levels.
2.1 Defining Study Area
A reconnaissance trip was made in April 2015 to the study area. Two more trips were made in June 2015 and July 2015. In late February, 27/2/2016 until mid March 18/3/2016 fieldwork trip was carried to conduct listing and survey. The purpose of these trips was
. To identify communities and settlements that are located in the study area as well as to get first hand impressions of the study area;
. To identify the population and economic activities within 5-km of the study area;
. To discuss the proposed project with local agencies and community representatives to find out about their perceptions and to identify issues that they may have;
. To compile relevant secondary data on the population and economic activities from the respective agencies; and
. To plan for the listing and survey exercise in the study area to capture primary data for the baseline profile and identification of issues and perceptions.
6
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
The reconnaissance trips identified seven (7) villages in the study area. The listing and survey exercise covered all 7 settlements within 5 km radius as shown in the Figure 2.1 below. Table 2.1 shows the areas covered in the listing and survey exercise.
From listing exercise show in Table 2, there are 1,055 houses in the study area but the study only managed to list 692 of them. There are 148 houses categorised as “No Response” because interviewers unable to meet them although a few attempts made.
Besides that, 69 houses are categorised as “Homestay/ 2nd House”. During the listing exercise, interviewers found out/ informed by neighbours that some houses are homestay or owners only come back for vacation (owners stay at other places permanently)
About 77 houses refused to participate in the listing while another 69 houses are vacant.
Figure 2.1: Location Map of Proposed Project
7
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
Table 2.1: Listing Exercise
Homestay / Total Houses Houses No Houses Villages 2nd House Number Listed Refused Response Vacant of Houses Melaka 332 73 102 51 58 616 Kampung Kuala Linggi 157 55 59 32 43 346 Kampung Tanjong Dahan 90 18 20 4 8 140 Kampung Tengah 85 23 15 7 130 Negeri Sembilan 360 4 46 18 11 439 Kampung Tanjung Agas 177 4 3 184 Kampung Sungai Raya 55 3 25 4 4 91 Kampung Bukit Tembok 35 3 5 1 44 Kampung Telok 93 1 18 5 3 120 Total Households 692 77 148 69 69 1055
8
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
2.2 Social profile of the study area
2.2.1 Household and population profile
From the seven (7) villages, 2,438 people in 692 households were listed or an average household size of 3.5 persons in the study area. Males comprise 48.6% of the population, which is lower than the national average of 51.4.
The villages with most number of households is Kampung Tanjung Agas, and followed by Kampung Kuala Linggi.
Table 2.2: Population and Household Distribution in the Study Area Villages Household HH Size Population Male % Female % Gender Ratio Melaka 332 3.3 1,082 48.6 51.4 95 Kampung Kuala Linggi 157 3.3 522 48.7 51.3 95 Kampung Tanjong Dahan 90 3.7 332 49.1 50.9 96 Kampung Tengah 85 2.7 228 47.8 52.2 92 Negeri Sembilan 360 3.8 1,356 48.6 51.4 95 Kampung Tanjung Agas 177 4.7 838 48.0 52.0 92 Kampung Sungai Raya 55 2.7 151 46.4 53.6 86 Kampung Bukit Tembok 35 3.3 115 52.2 47.8 109 Kampung Telok 93 2.7 252 50.4 49.6 102 Overall Study Area 692 3.5 2,438 48.6 51.4 95 Kuala Linggi Mukim and Kuala Sungei Baru Mukim 2,490 5.1 12,738 47.5 52.5 90 Pasir Panjang Mukim 2,935 5.2 15,277 51.8 48.2 107 Malaysia 6,353,470 4.3 28,334,135 51.4 48.6 106 Source: Household Listing 2016, PE Research; Population Distribution and Basic Demographic Characteristics 2010, DOS, Characteristic of Living Quarters 2010, DOS
9
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
2.2.2 Age structure The study area indicates a relatively low percentage of population between 0-14 years of age (14.3%) compared to the percentage for Malaysia (27.6%). However, as for those aged between 15 and 64 years of age, the study area showed a relatively high percentage which is 72.3% compared to national level (67.3%). The percentage of population above 65 years old in the study area (13.4%) is higher compared to the national level (5.1%). The percentage for working population for all study area is higher than 68%. The dependency ratio of the study area (38.3%) is lower than the national level (48.5%).
Tables 2.3 provide details on the population distribution of the study area by age group and dependency ratio.
Table 2.3: Population Distribution of the Study Area by Age Group and Dependency Ratio Percentage by Row (%) Dependency Villages Population Young Age Working Age (15- Old Age Ratio (0-14) 64) (65 and above) Melaka 1,082 14.5 69.1 16.4 44.7 Kampung Kuala Linggi 522 16.7 70.1 13.2 42.6 Kampung Tanjong Dahan 332 16.9 68.1 15.1 46.9 Kampung Tengah 228 6.1 68.4 25.4 46.2 Negeri Sembilan 1,356 14.1 74.9 11.1 33.6 Kampung Tanjung Agas 838 13.8 76.6 9.5 30.5 Kampung Sungai Raya 151 9.3 74.2 16.6 34.8 Kampung Bukit Tembok 115 23.5 73.0 3.5 36.9 Kampung Telok 252 13.5 70.2 16.3 42.4 Overall Study Area 2,438 14.3 72.3 13.4 38.3 Malaysia 28,334,135 27.6 67.3 5.1 48.5 Source: Household Listing 2016, PE Research; Population Distribution and Basic Demographic Characteristics 2010, DOS
10
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
2.2.3 Educational Levels Table 2.4 details the educational attainment of the population of age 18 years old and above. A majority of the population, i.e., 63.7% indicated that they have attended secondary education. Another 22.9% indicated likewise for primary education. About 7.2% of the population has tertiary education. Only 3.1% of the population have had no schooling.
Table 2.4: Education Attainment by Age and Education Levels Villages (%) Overall Study Education Level Melaka Negeri Sembilan Area
No schooling 4.3 2.3 3.1 Primary school 27.9 19.2 22.8 Lower secondary 15.5 6.8 10.3 Upper secondary 42.5 60.3 53.1 Technical cert. 1.1 2.7 2.0 Form 6/ Matriculation 2.2 0.4 1.1 Polytechnic/College/University 6.4 8.4 7.6 Total (N) 716 1050 1766 *Note: missing value= 202,160 from Melaka Village and 42 from Negeri Sembilan Source: Household Listing 2016, PE Research
2.2.4 Occupational Structure Looking at the working age population (between 15 and 64 years of age) in the study area, 57% are employed in various sectors, 21.8% are housewives, 3.4% are retired and 12.2% still schooling. The remainder 5.3% is unemployed. Table 2.5 shows the detailed breakdown by settlements and gender.
Table 2.5: Working Population Aged 15-64 by Status within Study Area Villages Melaka Negeri Sembilan Overall Study area Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Working 35.3 18.3 53.6 38.0 21.7 59.7 36.8 20.2 57.0 Housewives 0.0 23.5 23.5 0.0 20.3 20.3 0.0 21.8 21.8 Retired 3.0 0.5 3.5 2.9 0.4 3.4 3.0 0.5 3.4 Still Schooling 5.7 5.1 10.8 5.6 7.8 13.3 5.6 6.6 12.2 Unemployed 5.8 2.3 8.1 1.5 1.4 2.9 3.4 1.8 5.3 Not interested 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4 in finding job Total (N) 369 370 739 440 476 916 809 846 1655 *Note: missing value =108 Source: Household Listing 2016, PE Research
There is significant difference between Melaka villages and Negeri Sembilan villages in terms of occupation structure. Most of the working population in Melaka listed factory workers (19.6%), general workers (17.7%) and fishermen (12.8%) as their top job.
11
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
Compared to Negeri Sembilan, general workers (33.3%), shop keepers (12.8%) and factory workers (8.0%) are the top jobs. “Others” refers to mainly village jobs (kerja kampung) or ad hoc workers such as fruit harvester, grass cutter, painter, etc. For the overall study area only 7.4% are fishermen and aquaculture operators. Table 2.6 shows the percentage breakdown by occupation structure.
Table 2.6: Working Population by Occupation Structure within Study Area Melaka Negeri Sembilan Overall Fishermen 12.8 3.5 7.4 Farmer 6.0 3.3 4.4 Fish farmers 0.8 1.6 1.3 Livestock/Poultry farm worker 0.0 2.0 1.2 Professional 5.8 3.8 4.7 Shopkeeper 10.8 12.8 12.0 Hawker 0.3 2.7 1.7 Manufacturing worker 19.6 8.0 12.9 Clerical 6.5 6.2 6.4 General worker 17.6 33.3 26.7 Manager / Supervisor 3.0 0.9 1.8 Labor 5.0 3.5 4.1 Others 11.6 18.3 15.5 Total (N) 397 547 944 *Note: missing value =108 Source: Household Listing 2016, PE Research
Table 2.7 details the breakdown of workforce by industrial sector. Most people work in manufacturing sector (15.6%), followed by wholesale and retail (12.9 percent) and public administration (10.7%). About 8.5% work in the fisheries sub-sector. We were unable to identify “others” category because respondents informed that they are general workers without indicating which sector that they work in.
Table 2.7: Working Population by Industry Sector in Study Area Melaka Negeri Sembilan Overall Fishing 14.0 4.3 8.5 Agriculture 9.3 5.1 6.9 Construction 8.0 4.9 6.3 Manufacturing 19.6 12.4 15.6 Wholesale and retail trade 12.7 13.0 12.9 Hotels and restaurant 6.2 10.0 8.3 Transport 4.9 2.6 3.6 Public administration 9.8 11.4 10.7 Education 3.1 3.9 3.5 Others 12.4 32.4 23.6 Total (N) 387 491 878 *Note: missing value =174 Source: Household Listing 2016, PE Research
2.2.5 Ethnic Composition The ethnic composition in the study area which in Melaka side there only Malay ethnic are been listed based on survey and only 33 Chinese ethnic from 9 family in Tanjung Agas are been identified at Negeri Sembilan side.Its only about 1.4% Chinese in study
12
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port area from overall study area based on listing excercise. The ethnic composition in Kuala Linggi, Kuala Sungai Baru and Pasir Panjang is mainly made up of Malays who represent about 88.5% for Mukim Kuala Linggi dan Kuala Sungai Baru and 75.7% for Mukim Pasir Panjang while the Chinese community only make up about 4.8% (Mukim Kuala Linggi dan Kuala Sungai Baru) and 10.9% (Mukim Pasir Panjang).The ethnic composition in Mukim Kuala Linggi, Kuala Sungai Baru and Pasir Panjang not mirrors the general ethnic composition in Malaysia (Table 2.8)
Table 2.8: Ethnic Composition in the Study Area Area Population Malaysian Citizens (%) Non- Bumiputera Chinese Indian Others Malaysian Citizens Malay Others (%) Melaka 1,082 44.4 Kampung Kuala Linggi 522 100 Kampung Tanjong Dahan 332 100 Kampung Tengah 228 100 Negeri Sembilan 1,356 54.3 1.4 Kampung Tanjung Agas 838 96.1 3.9 Kampung Sungai Raya 151 100 Kampung Bukit Tembok 115 100 Kampung Telok 252 100 Overall Study Area 2,438 98.6 1.4 Kuala Linggi Mukim and Kuala Sungei Baru Mukim 12,738 88.5 0.3 4.8 1.1 0.1 5.1 Pasir Panjang Mukim 15,277 75.7 2.0 10.9 9.2 0.1 2.0 Malaysia 28,334,135 50.1 11.8 22.6 6.7 0.7 8.2 Source: Household Listing 2016, PE Research; Population Distribution by Local Authority Area and Mukims 2010, DOS.
2.3 Economic Profile of the village communities
2.3.1 Individual Monthly Income in the Study Area In terms of income earned by types of occupations, professionals earn the highest mean average income of RM36,571 per annum whereas aquaculture operators earn the lowest mean average of RM9,800 per annum. Fishermen earn RM14,521 per annum.
In terms of income earned by different industrial sectors, education services sector indicates the highest mean income of RM22,414 per annum compared to agricultural
13
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port sector with the lowest mean income of RM11,007 per annum. Tables 2.9 and 2.10 show the individual annual income by occupation category and industrial sectors.
Table 2.9: Mean Individual Annual Income by Occupation within Study Area
Occupational structure Mean, RM Professional 36,571 Manager/ Supervisor 27,975 Clerical workers 17,018 Factory workers 14,521 Fishermen 14,210 General workers 14,001 Poultry farmers 14,000 Cattle/goat farmers 13,200 Shop keepers 10,993 Farmers 10,938 Hawker 10,865 Fish farmers 9,800 Others 17,420 Total 16,270 Source: Household Listing 2016, PE Research
Table 2.10: Mean Individual Annual Income by Industrial Sector within Study Area
Sector Mean, RM Education 22,414 Transportation 19,964 Construction 17,904 Public Administration 17,689 Manufacturing 15,655 Wholesale/ Retail trade 14,316 Fishery 14,113 Hotel/Restaurant 13,154 Farming 11,007 Lain-lain 16,775 Total 15,857 Source: Household Listing 2016, PE Research
14
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
2.3.2 Household Monthly Income in the Study Area About 45.4% of the household working population in the study area earn an annual income of RM12, 000 or less as shown in Table 2.11 below
Table 2.11: Household Annual Income by Location RM6,000 RM6,001 - RM12,001 - RM24,001 - RM36,001 - More than
and lower 12,000 24,000 36,000 60,000 RM60,000 Total Kampung Kuala Linggi 33 14 36 23 16 13 135 Kampung Tanjong Dahan 16 27 21 6 8 1 79 Kampung Tengah 19 13 22 9 5 1 69 Melaka 68 54 79 38 29 15 283 Melaka (%) 24.0% 19.1% 27.9% 13.4% 10.2% 5.3% 100% Kampung Tanjung Agas 52 25 32 17 14 24 164 Kampung Sungai Raya 11 9 10 7 4 1 42 Kampung Bukit Tembok 8 9 10 3 3 1 34 Kampung Telok 15 21 15 17 7 1 76 Negeri Sembilan 86 64 67 44 28 27 316 Negeri Sembilan (%) 27.2% 20.3% 21.2% 13.9% 8.9% 8.5% 100% Total 154 118 146 82 57 42 599 Grand Total (%) 25.7% 19.7% 24.4% 13.7% 9.5% 7.0% 100% Source: Household Listing 2016, PE Research
2.3.3 Aquaculture Activities Sungai Linggi was declared as aquaculture industrial zones, approval from MMKN (Malacca State Legislative Assembly) on 3 December 2003. The project has a total of 1692 units of aquaculture fish cage breeding red tilapia. However, from the fieldwork trip, currently there are only few aquaculture activities left.
From interviews with locals, there are three fish cage operators from Negeri Sembilan side and each has about 16 cages for fish farming, with Siakap as the main species of fish farmed. On the other hand, in Melaka, study team was told that there are two fish cage operators; one of them operates for about one (1) kilometre in length.
15
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
Table 2.12 shows a summary for the aquaculture activities and number of operators identified by interviews with locals:
Table 2.12: Type of Aquaculture Activities State (Number of operator identified) Type of Aquaculture Activities Melaka Negeri Sembilan Fish Cage 2 3 Panggar Kupang (s) 0 1 Total 2 4 Source: From interviews with locals, PE Research
The study team was informed by En Abidin, Panggar Kupang (mussels) operators that there are a few Panggar Kupang (mussels) operators from Negeri Sembilan but only one operater was identified, this is because the other possible mussel operators are not registered with the Fishermen Association of Telok Kemang. There is no mussel operator at Melaka side near the proposed project site.
2.3.4 Other Commercial Activities Figure 2.2: Location of resort, chalets and and homestay cluster
From the field study, there are 9 chalets with 172 rooms, 1 resort with 78 rooms and 50 homestays located in the study area. These chalets and homestays mainly located along the coastal areas. The room rate ranges from RM80 to RM250 per night while one homestay is about RM350 to RM1, 000 per night. Location
During the field study, the study team noticed some recreational fishing activities around the project site and along Sg. Linggi. There are two main operators (one (1) each from Melaka and Negeri Sembilan) and local fishermen (as boatmen) and boats are hired for the activities. Since the activities are ad hoc, boatmen consider this as pocket money rather than part time income hence information is not captured during the listing exercise. Unfortunately, the study team were unable to get in contact with the operators for more information.
16
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
2.4 Fishermen Profile
This section describes the fishermen profile from Melaka and Negeri Sembilan within the study area (i.e from project site to port limit for Melaka and from Tg Agas to Tn Tuan for Negeri Sembilan).
2.4.1 Fishermen Distribution From Table 2.13, Melaka has more fishermen (57%) than Negeri Sembilan (43%), all within the study area.
Table 2.13: Overall Fishermen Distribution
State No. of Fishermen Melaka 345 Negeri Sembilan 263 Overall 608 Source: Persatuan Nelayan Kawasan Melaka Barat, Persatuan Nelayan Kawasan Telok Kemang
Kuala Linggi being the closest to the project site has the second highest number of fishermen (14%) after Kuala Sungai Baru (22%), as shown in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3: Fishermen Distribution in Melaka
Source: Persatuan Nelayan Kawasan Melaka Barat,
In Negeri Sembilan, the highest proportion of fishermen is found in Pangkalan Kempas (19%), Telok Pelandok (16%) and Kampung Telok (15%), as shown in Figure 2.4. Tanjung Agas is in close proximity to the proposed development has about 8%.
17
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
Figure 2.4: Fishermen Distribution in Negeri Sembilan
Source: Persatuan Nelayan Kawasan Telok Kemang
18
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
2.5 Licensed Fishermen
In Melaka, 323 fishermen are the members of West Melaka Fishermen Association (Persatuan Nelayan Kawasan Melaka Barat), and are licensed by the Department of Fisheries (DOF). Another 22 fishermen in Melaka are members of smaller fishermen associations, but do not have a license.
Negeri Sembilan has a completely different structure. There are 263 fishermen registered as members of Telok Kemang Fishermen Association (Persatuan Nelayan Kawasan Telok Kemang), but 134 out of the 263 members do not have fishermen license.
Table 2.14: Members of Fishermen Association
Location Total members of local Members of other No license fishermen association fishermen association
Melaka 323 22 22 (same as previous) Negeri Sembilan 263 - 134 (although they are members of association) Source: Persatuan Nelayan Kawasan Melaka Barat, Persatuan Nelayan Kawasan Telok Kemang
2.5.1 Age Structure In Table 2.15, the average working fishermen’s age in Melaka is 51 years old, whereas the average fishermen’s age in Negeri Sembilan is 52 years old. Generally, the number of old age fishermen that work in Melaka is higher than Negeri Sembilan, and Negeri Sembilan has a higher percentage of working age group. Overall, 83% of the fishermen are of working age, which will be affected by the proposed project.
Table 2.15: Profile of Fishermen by Age of Working Population
Villages No of Percentage by row Max Min Average Fishermen Age Age Age Working Age Old Age (18-64) (above 65) Melaka 345 82% 18% 85 18 51 Kuala Linggi 50 84% 16% 80 18 50 Tanjung Dahan 45 87% 13% 85 25 48 Kampung Tengah 16 69% 31% 75 29 55 Kampung Baru 27 85% 15% 72 26 49 Kuala Sungai Baru 76 83% 17% 85 25 51 Kampung Telok Gong 36 94% 6% 70 22 47 Kampung Padang 19 79% 21% 74 30 50 Kemunting Pengkalan Balak dan 9 78% 22% 74 27 55 Sungai Tuang
19
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
Villages No of Percentage by row Max Min Average Fishermen Age Age Age Working Age Old Age (18-64) (above 65) Pasir Gembur 20 70% 30% 75 30 53 Kampung Balik Batu 19 74% 26% 82 43 59 Ramuan China 28 71% 29% 79 29 56
Negeri Sembilan 263 86% 14% 81 21 52 Tanjung Agas 22 86% 14% 72 40 55 Sungai Raya 10 90% 10% 65 31 46 Kampung Telok 38 82% 18% 76 23 52 Pasir Panjang 12 83% 17% 81 29 53 Kampung Balak 21 62% 38% 81 27 57 Telok Pelandok 43 91% 9% 70 21 48 Kampung Sungai 28 68% 32% 75 31 58 Sekawang Telok Kemang 27 93% 7% 71 33 53 Batu 5&6 11 100% 0% 61 33 48 Pengkalan Kempas 51 96% 4% 70 27 50 Overall 608 83% 17% 85 18 52 Source: Persatuan Nelayan Kawasan Melaka Barat, Persatuan Nelayan Kawasan Telok Kemang
Figure 2.5 Fishing villages
20
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
2.5.2 Fishing Gears From the field study, it is noticed that the fishermen use outboard-powered boats in most of the jetties visited. Inboard-powered boats were only found in the Kuala Sungai Baru Jetty. An example of these boats are shown in Figure 2.6.
Figure 2.6: Outboard and Inboard-power boats
Outboard-powered boat Inboard-powered boat
According to Department of Fisheries (DOF) Negeri Sembilan, there are 115 fishermen with drift net (pukat hanyut) license, 1 with purse seine (pukat tarik) and 4 with hook & line (merawai) in the study area (i.e. Tg Agas to Tg Tuan). Such information was not provided by DOF Melaka. However, in our conversation with local fishermen, the majority of fishermen use drift net and some use hook and line.
2.6 Fish Landings
From the Department of Fisheries (DOF) Melaka and Negeri Sembilan, the total annual fisheries output from their territorial waters are about 1,500 tonnes and 500 tonnes per year respectively. There is no breakdown of that information to detail out fish landing for jetties in study area.
However according to the local fishermen, there is a possibility that the fish landings data from LKIM or DOF is underreported because usually fishermen will sell their fish directly to middlemen (for higher price). Fishermen only record their landing in LKIM in order to qualify for incentives (i.e. landing and fuel incentives, living allowance, etc.).
Therefore, fishermen suggested the middlemen might have “better” information compare to DOF or LKIM wrt fish landing. Nevertheless, the study team was unable to meet with any middlemen during the duration of field study.
From various interviews and conversation with the fishermen, Figure 2.7 shows the estimated location of their fishing activities.
Figure 2.7: Location of Fishermen Activities
21
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
Stringray
22
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
3 Opinion & Perception of Surveyed Households This chapter is based on an opinion survey conducted at seven villages within the study area of 5 km radius. In this survey, only adults (aged 18 and above) in the selected households were interviewed. Houses were selected randomly by interviewers. By using systematic sampling, a sampling interval of 4 is determined hence every 4th house is chosen to participate in the survey.
3.1 Characteristics of respondents
The interviewers approached 263 respondents, but only 259 were interviewed. Four (4) refused to answer any question although they initially agreed to participate.
The distribution of respondents by villages is shown in Table 3.1. About 62.9% of respondents are male, whereas another 37.1% are female.
Table 3.1: Distribution of Respondents by Villages and Gender
Gender (%) Percent Kampung Male Female Total (n) (%) Melaka 61.7 38.3 167 64.5 Kampung Kuala Linggi 59.4 40.6 69 26.6 Kampung Tanjong Dahan 61.9 38.1 63 24.3 Kampung Tengah 65.7 34.3 35 13.5 Negeri Sembilan 65.2 34.8 92 35.5 Kampung Tanjung Agas 66.7 33.3 30 11.6 Kampung Sungai Raya 63.6 36.4 11 4.2 Kampung Bukit Tembok 60.0 40.0 15 5.8 Kampung Telok 66.7 33.3 36 13.9 Total 62.9 37.1 259 100
23
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
3.2 Knowledge about the proposed project
As shown in Table 3.2, the majority of the respondents (83%) already heard or knew about this proposed project. They knew about it mainly through the local community leaders, friends and relatives.
Table 3.2: Knowledge about Project by Villages Hear about project Kampung Yes No Total (n) Melaka 88.6 11.4 167 Kampung Kuala Linggi 85.5 14.5 69 Kampung Tanjong Dahan 88.9 11.1 63 Kampung Tengah 94.3 5.7 35 Negeri Sembilan 72.8 27.2 92 Kampung Tanjung Agas 76.7 23.3 30 Kampung Sungai Raya 81.8 18.2 11 Kampung Bukit Tembok 20.0 80.0 15 Kampung Telok 88.9 11.1 36 Total (n) 83.0 17.0 259
3.3 Perception towards the Project
Overall, the majority of the respondents agreed that the project will benefit their villages. However, there is some variation by village. For instance, the majority of respondents from Kampung Tengah and Kampung Tanjung Agas do not think that the project will benefit them. On the other hand, around 73% of the respondents from Kampung Bukit Tembok do not know if the project will benefit the villagers.
Table 3.3: Distribution of Respondents by Villages
Would this project benefit villagers? (%) Kampung Yes No Don’t know Total (n) Melaka 50.9 45.5 3.6 167 Kampung Kuala Linggi 58.0 36.2 5.8 69 Kampung Tanjong Dahan 49.2 49.2 1.6 63 Kampung Tengah 40.0 57.1 2.9 35 Negeri Sembilan 43.5 38.0 18.5 92 Kampung Tanjung Agas 40.0 46.7 13.3 30 Kampung Sungai Raya 63.6 18.2 18.2 11 Kampung Bukit Tembok 13.3 13.3 73.3 15 Kampung Telok 52.8 47.2 0.0 36 Total (n) 48.3 42.9 8.9 259
24
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
In terms of gender, 64.6% of all females perceive that the proposed project will benefit the villagers compared to 38.7% of males (see Table 3.4).
Table 3.4: Gender Distribution of Respondents Would this project benefit villagers? Gender Yes No Don’t know Total (n) Males 38.7 54.0 7.4 62.9 Females 64.6 24.0 11.5 37.1 Total (n) 48.3 42.9 8.9 259
Respondents were asked for the reason why they perceived positively or negatively towards the proposed project, and their views are tabulated in Table 3.5.
In terms of perceived positive impacts, about 21.2% of the respondents believe that the proposed project will create jobs and reduce unemployment. Respondents also believe that the proposed project will help to improve development and economy in village (12.4% and 10.8% respectively). Other perceived benefits include improvement of living standards for current and future generations.
About 22.8% viewed the project will have negative impacts on fishermen while 15.1% cited environmental pollution. Other perceived negative impacts include heavy traffic, risk of increase in road accidents, issues of safety and security of villages due to influx of labour during construction, etc.
Table 3.5: Perceived positive or negative impacts of the Project
Negeri Sembilan Melaka (%) Total (%) Perceived Impacts (%) Positive Impacts
Create a job opportunities and reduce unemployment 22.8 18.5 21.2 Improve village development 12.6 12.0 12.4 Improve economy people in village 12.0 8.7 10.8 Tourists’ attraction 1.2 2.2 1.5 Other positive impacts 4.8 1.1 3.5 Negative Impacts Negative impact to fishermen 24.6 19.6 22.8 Pollution and damage the enviroment 16.2 13.0 15.1 Other negative impacts 5.4 7.6 6.2 Don’t know, follow others opinion /none 3.6 18.5 8.9 Total (n) 167 92 259 Note: Multiple answer, sum of percentage not equals to 100%
25
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
3.4 Information needed about this Project
Respondents were asked if they would like to know more about the proposed project. Most of the respondents (22%) would like to know more about proposed project timeline (i.e. the commencement date and duration of the proposed project). Respondents (12%) were also concerned about compensation for the fishermen, chalet/homestay operators and those who live near to the proposed project access road. About 10% would like to know more about the impacts (both positive and negative) from the project.
Table 3.6: Information Needed in this Project
Type of Information Melaka (%) Negeri Sembilan (%) Total (%) Project timeline 24.6 17.4 22.0 Compensations 14.4 7.6 12.0 Impacts 10.8 8.7 10.0 Reason for building the port 9.0 4.3 7.3 Job opportunity 7.8 3.3 6.2 Impact to fishermen 6.0 3.3 5.0 Land acquisition 4.2 2.2 3.5 Land vehicle route 3.6 3.3 3.5 Project proponent 2.4 1.1 1.9 Others 10.2 12.0 10.8 Total (n) 167 92 259 Note: Multiple answer, sum of percentage not equals to 100%
3.5 Other Comments
Respondents were asked for their comments about the proposed project. About 26.3% of the respondents disagreed with the project while 16.2% agreed. The comments given mainly reassert their views in earlier section i.e. fishermen livelihood, pollution, safety and securities, job opportunity, compensation, etc.
Table 3.7: Other Comments
Comments Melaka (%) Negeri Sembilan (%) Total (%) Disagreed with the project 26.9 25.0 26.3 Agreed with the project 16.8 15.2 16.2 Good for youngsters because of the job opportunity 13.2 9.8 12.0 Should pay compensation to the affected community 7.2 1.1 5.0 Others 14.4 17.4 15.4 No Comment 21.6 31.5 25.1 Total (n) 167 92 259
26
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
3.6 Household Monthly Income
Respondents were asked for their monthly household income during the survey. Their monthly household income range between RM901 to RM1,500. About 32.5 percent of households earn less than RM900 a month with 6.2% have no income. About 7% of the respondents earn a household monthly income of more than RM7,000.
Table 3.8: Monthly Income by location
Monthly Income Melaka Negeri Sembilan Total No Income 5.4 7.6 6.2 RM 900 and Below 21.6 34.8 26.3 RM 901-RM 1,500 26.9 34.8 29.7 RM1,501-RM2,000 18.6 10.9 15.8 RM2,001-RM3,000 17.4 7.6 13.9 RM3,001-RM5,000 7.8 3.3 6.2 RM5,001-RM7,000 1.8 0.0 1.2 RM7,001-RM10,000 0.6 1.1 0.8 More than RM10,000 5.4 7.6 6.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
27
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
4 Stakeholders Identified
4.1 Stakeholders Identified
The key stakeholders of the project include the following: A. Local Communities (within 5km radius of the project site). ADUN Kuala Linggi B. Fishing Communities Fisheries of Kuala Linggi Fisheries of Tanjung Dahan Fisheries of Kampung Tengah Fisheries Association of Teluk Kemang Fisheries Association of Melaka Barat C. Chalet and Homestay D. State Governments: Negeri Sembilan (Port Dickson district) and; Melaka (Alor Gajah district) E. Federal Governments Department of Environment (DOE) Department of Fisheries (DOF) F. Project Proponent Linggi Base Sdn Bhd
4.2 Stakeholder Analysis & Position
Table 24 provides an analysis of the major stakeholders in terms of the following:
characteristic their issues impact if project approved their position with reference to the project
28
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
Table 4.1: Local Community: Characteristics, Issues and Position Description Potential Impact on Characteristics Key Issues Position with Project Stakeholder
Local Community (within 5km . Rural community Perceived positive impacts: . River and sea pollution . Local communities’ leaders radius from the project site) . 4.4% of the working . Job opportunities for the . Traffic will increase agree with the proposed . Kampung Kuala Linggi population involved in youngster especially the lorries for project: will increase the socio-economic and young . Kampung Tanjong Dahan Fishing sector . Economic development project progress . The community can be Perceived negative impacts: . Safety for the community generation had an . Kampung Tengah opportunity to work at their classified as lower income . river and sea pollution, as project progresses . Negeri Sembilan own village. group and middle literacy . increase risk of traffic . Air quality . Kampung Tanjung Agas group accident . Health . Kampung Sungai Raya . Access road will be . Kampung Bukit Tembok damaged by lorries . Kampung Telok
Fishing Community . The fishing community will Perceived negative impacts: . Fishing grounds destroyed . Disagree with the proposed Fishermen be impacted the most by . Loss of livelihood (reclaimed area; spoil project the proposed project . Incur higher cost to fish dumping area; port limit) . Demand fair compensation elsewhere . Need to travel far away to . Safety at sea continue fishing . Increase marine traffic/ big ships pose safety risk Chalet/Homestay Operators . High occupancy during Perceived positive impacts: . Change of customer . Demand compensation if weekends and school . Increase in occupancy rate profile business is affected holidays Perceived negative impacts: . Reduced (coastal) erosion . Loss of aesthetics (sea view) . Limited swimming and fishing areas for customer . Water pollution
29
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
Table 4.2: Federal and State Government: Characteristics, Issues and Position Potential Impact on Description Characteristics Key Issues Position with Project Stakeholder Department of Environment . EQA, 1974 & 1996 . Delicate position to decide . Takes responsibility for . Maintaining a position that . Chair of EIA process on the EIA decision on the EIA examines all facts that are . Principal agency presented; will ensure responsible for minimal negative impact environment quality State Governments: (Melaka) . The State government is . An important project that . increase state revenue . Supportive towards the authority over state land could raise economic from land development proposed project output for the state as well as stimulate local economic growth and employment Department of Fisheries . To manage the national Perceived negative impacts: . To ensure fishery . Disagree with proposed fishery resources . Environment pollution resources is properly project as it would reduce . Destroy fishing ground and managed the fishing areas and impact fishermen livelihood of fishermen’s livelihood
Table 4.3: Project Proponent: Characteristics, issues and position Description Characteristics Key Issues Potential Impact on Stakeholder Position with Project Linggi Base Sdn Bhd . Owner of proposed project . Business opportunity . A substantial investment by . Project proponent of the the firm into this project international port project
30
Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
5 Key issues and suggestions from local communities
The key issues raised by the communities and also their suggestions have been recorded for the study. Several stakeholder meetings were held in both Melaka and Negeri Sembilan with the following persons:
Melaka:
. JKKK from Kampung Kuala Linggi, Kampung Tanjong Dahan and Kampung Tengah
. Fishermen from Kampung Kuala Linggi, Kampung Tanjong Dahan and Kampung Tengah Negeri Sembilan:
. JKKK from Kampung Tanjung Agas, Kampung Sungai Raya, Kampung Bukit Tembok and Kampung Telok
. Fishermen Association of Telok Kemang
Attempts were made to interview the leader of fishermen in Kuala Sungai Baru, the president and the committees in West Melaka Fishermen Association in order to obtain their view on the proposed project and also to request for additional data (fish landings and fishing gears). However, the effort was futile because both the heads (from Kuala Sungai Baru) and the president (from West Melaka Fishermen Association) did not provide any cooperation.
5.1 Issues Raised
The stakeholder discussions clearly identified the perceived issues and impacts on the local communities. The issues raised are grouped into two stakeholders, which are JKKK and fishermen.
Issues raised by JKKK In principle, the JKKK from Melaka and Negeri Sembilan do not oppose to the proposed project as they perceive that it will help to improve the socio-economic status in the area. Their concerns are summarised below:
Concerns about health and safety issues regarding road traffic during construction period due to the following impacts:
. Air pollution (Dust from lorries that carry sand or soil)
Affect the health of the villagers Affect the roadside business of the villagers . Noise pollution and vibrations from the lorries
. Damaged road conditions
Page 31 Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
. Frequency of the lorries passing through the village’s roads
Inconvenience (and danger) to the villagers to carry out their activities Concerns about safety issues regarding road traffic after the port begin their operations
Concerns about the source of sand/soil/rock for the reclamation
Concerns about the cost of living on the villagers. The impacts discussed are:
. Possibility of inflation resulting from the proposed project but their incomes still remains the same
However, it might good for businessman since the population will be increased
Concerns about the income of villagers that would be affected:
. Income of fishermen would be affected by the reclamation and construction of the port
. Chalet/homestay/room rent would be affected because tourist attractions will be decreased
. Tourism activities (e.g recreational fishing activities at the Linggi river) also will be decreased
JKKK from Negeri Sembilan would like the Traffic Impact Assessment report to be submitted by their state government.
Issues raised by fishermen The participants from both Melaka and Negeri Sembilan totally disagree with the proposed project as it will have great impact to the sea and fishermen’s income. Their concerns are summarised below:
The Fishermen Association of Telok Kemang, Negeri Sembilan concerns about the validity of the border between Melaka and Negeri Sembilan. Change of border will impact the availability of fishing grounds.
Concerns about the source of income of the following will be affected:
. Fishermen
. Fish cage operator
. Panggar Kupang (mussels) operator
Concerns about the reclamation site will destroy all the karang and tukun (reef and artificial reef as they are the fish breeding grounds)
Concerns about the proposed disposal site, as the disposal site is the place for the fishermen to catch stingray.
Concerns about the safety of fishermen during construction process and after the port began operations
Concerns about the allowance and subsidies of fishermen will be affected due to limited fishing activities during construction period
Page 32 Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
Concerns about welfare of fishermen after the port begins operation (eg. Compensation for damage equipment incurred by the ship activity)
Concerns about the use of boiler at project site during operation period. Fishermen explained that residue water released to the sea after maintenance of boiler tank kills fish and destroys reef.
Concerns about illegal immigrant (PATI) that come to Malaysia illegally to seek opportunity as the result of the proposed project
Concerns about whether there will be a marker of restricted area (e.g buoy) from the project site
Concerns about Linggi river will become shallow due to the waves from big ships carry the sand into the Linggi river
Concerns about whether this project will block the access from Linggi river to the sea
5.2 Suggestions and Recommendations
The local communities also suggested a few recommendations that can be put forward to the project proponent. These are summarized below:
Suggestions and recommendations by JKKK
Adequate compensation must be given to the following affected communities:
. Fishermen
. Chalet/homestay/rent room owner
. Villagers who live near the reclamation and construction route
Constant monitoring of traffic (e.g. lorry speed limit, spillage, congestion, potholes, etc.) Suggestions and recommendations by fishermen
Project proponent needs to give priority to the fishermen because there are directly impacted by the proposed project negatively.
Fishermen’s safety at sea is important. Suggested project proponent to build wave breaker so that fishermen can have passage to safety during bad weather.
If there is compensation, both fishermen from Melaka and Negeri Sembilan prefer a one- off compensation scheme.
Fishermen from Melaka would want the compensation to be paid directly to fishermen while Negeri Sembilan recommended that compensation payment go through their fishermen association.
Amount of compensation suggested are RM250,000 per fisherman (from Negeri Sembilan) and RM300,000 (from Melaka). Rationale of the amount are loss of income during the construction process as fishing grounds will be destroyed, change of boat and engine in order to venture further to fish, increase in petrol cost as need to travel further, etc.
Fishermen requested the project proponent to present the compensation scheme to them.
Page 33 Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
Page 34 Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
6 Analysis: Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures In this assessment, we propose to have two reference points, i.e. a “no-project” option, and a “proposed project” option.
“No-project” option is assuming the proposal to build the on-shore facilities of the international port does not go ahead, i.e. status quo. A no project option is being undertaken as this is a baseline condition. The “proposed project” option is based on the assumption that the proposal to build the international port is approved, and the project is implemented.
Potential environmental impacts are discussed first to understand the anticipated changes of the existing environment. The next section is to discuss the impacts on the stakeholders.
6.1 Potential Environmental Impacts
Potential environmental impacts that may have direct and indirect effects on local communities are discussed as follows:
. Air, Noise and Water Pollution
. Loss of marine life
6.1.1 Pollution Three types of pollution are expected to occur during the reclamation and construction stage, viz. air pollution, noise pollution and water pollution.
Air pollution: Dust flying from lorries that carry sand or soil will affect the health of the villagers and also the roadside business of the villagers;
Noise pollution: Noise and vibrations from activities will disturb village tranquility; and
Water pollution: Linggi river and sea water will become murky from the reclamation activities. It will affect aquaculture activities (fish cage and Panggar Kupang) near the project site.
6.1.2 Loss of marine life The area of the proposed project site covers a large fish breeding ground. The construction stage activities might destroy the marine life and affect the livelihood of fishermen.
Page 35 Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
6.2 Potential Impact on key Stakeholders
The impacts on key stakeholders are discussed in the following. The summary of the impacts is shown in Table 6.1.
6.2.1 Impact on local community – villages within 5 km The local community is worried that the proposed project may cause environmental pollution and affect their daily activities. Besides that, villagers are also concerned about potential land acquisition for the project purpose. While the project might spur local economy, local communities also worried about influx of workers and rising cost of living (inflation) caused by the development.
During the construction stage, there will be a lot of heavy vehicles that will use the village roads as the main access to the project site. The safety of the villagers is at risk and inconvenient for them in their daily activities. It can also be anticipated that roads may be damaged by lorry activities and increase the risk of road accidents.
Zoning certain roads for construction and heavy vehicles would likely concentrate the impact to smaller areas. The suggestion is to discuss the zoning proposals with the local community and to get their cooperation. Conditions for road usage should also be strictly imposed in order to minimise adverse road effects.
6.2.2 Impact on fishing community Fishing is an important income source to the fishermen. From past experience, such as the development of RTC and reclamation at Klebang, fishermen informed that their output had decrease tremendously overtime due the event.
With the view of the project’s potential to destroy the fish breeding ground and pollute the water body, fishermen are unable to carry out fishing activities during the project construction stage and fishery stock might decline significantly in the future. They will incur high cost if they are to fish further away from their common fishing grounds.
As a result of the proposed project, the increase in marine traffic also increases the risk of exposure to accidents for the fishermen. Simultaneously, the waves created from the large vessel will pose a serious threat to their safety.
It is proposed that the government consider the proposal to compensate fishermen through a “license buy back” scheme. For those fishermen who are directly impacted, and who would like to give up fishing, this scheme would provide them with some compensation. It can be effected through an ex-gratia payment, which is discretionary but it will give cognizance to their fishing. The condition for this payment is that they will retire from fishing. The value of this scheme shall be determined by the relevant government agency. There are some examples of such cases, e.g. the US, and New
Page 36 Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
Zealand. For those who want to continue fishing, the relevant government agency shall try to provide options for them.
6.2.3 Chalet and Homestay Community Most of the chalets and homestays are located at the coastal areas. With the implementation of the project, operators believe that the altered view will no longer be attractive to the tourists. Besides that, the availability of swimming and fishing areas will be affected. These consequences will hamper their current business.
Most likely, there may not be a need for any mitigation measure because it is very likely that there will be a huge demand for accommodation by those involved in the construction of the port. The character of their clientele will certainly change and it is likely that there may even be pressure to convert more residential homes to meet the additional demand.
A proposed list of mitigation measures by each of the stakeholder groups is shown in Table 6.1.
Page 37 Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
Table 6.1: Project Impacts on Two Scenarios Stakeholders No Project Option Project Proceeds As Planned Mitigation Measures Local Community (within 5km radius Status quo; no changes to their Perceived Positive impacts: . Put up clear road signs to warn from the project site) routine life . Creation of job opportunities communities about the presence . Kampung Kuala Linggi . Economic development of heavy vehicles, limit their speed. . Kampung Tanjong Dahan Perceived Negative impacts: . Measures to reduce dust or road . Kampung Tengah . Safety and securities issues (road damage cause by travelling . Negeri Sembilan traffic, influx of foreign labours) heavy vehicle. . . Kampung Tanjung Agas Environmental pollution . Communication scheme that can . Kampung Sungai Raya . Psychological fear for their land quickly respond to communities’ . Kampung Bukit Tembok to be taken for the project problems caused by project . Kampung Telok purpose related activities . Increase in cost of living . Measures to limit disturbances by foreign workers towards locals
Fishing Community Status quo; Fishing activities Perceived Negative impacts: . Measures to reduce pollution Fishermen continue as usual . Environmental pollution . Compensation should be . Destruction of coral and artificial adequate with the potential reefs that serve as fish breeding losses. License buy back scheme. ground . To provide assistance to . Loss of income (current and fishermen so that they can future) continue to fish somewhere else. . High travel cost in order to fish . Restoration of marine life after further away. construction stage.
Page 38 Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
Stakeholders No Project Option Project Proceeds As Planned Mitigation Measures Chalet/Homestay Operators Status quo; Continue to enjoy Perceived Positive impacts: . Promote/ encourage working weekends and holiday season . More business due to surge of personnel to stay at the chalets/ surge in business working population homestays; possibility of collaboration between project Perceived Negative impacts: proponent and operators. . Loss of aesthetic value . Adequate compensation if . Loss of attraction for tourism project cause losses to the activities businesses. . Loss of business
Page 39 Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
7 Residual impacts Despite mitigation measures, there will still be impacts that cannot be eliminated. These are called residual impacts. The main residual impacts that have been identified at this stage are as follows:
7.1 Access road and Traffic
The presence of additional heavy vehicles and increase in traffic volume is inevitable. It will pose increased risk to the local communities that use the main roads. It may be important for physical restrains to be added on secondary roads, e.g. speed bumps. It will be necessary to review the road hierarchy and establish road priorities so that the traffic risk can be contained and managed. The JKR and/or project proponent needs to quickly respond to the road damages caused by the heavy vehicles.
7.2 Water quality of river and sea
During the construction stage, the degradation in water quality is expected from reclamation related activities which would negatively impact the area of reclamation, including fish breeding grounds and fish population in the direct vicinity. However, it is less clear whether fish breeding grounds further away and fish population would be affected. Fish, being migratory, will move away from the reclamation area. As for fish breeding grounds further away, the exact impact will have to be determined in a scientific study. During the reclamation, water quality in the surrounding areas would have increased sediment load. The increased sedimentation may infiltrate the river during high tide but its exact impact will also need to be properly studied.
It is important to note that the proposed reclamation is within the port’s limits. Hence, certain development activities are permitted and their collective impact could extend to areas beyond the port. It is incumbent on the project proponent to minimise the impact of the reclamation on biological systems in the surrounding areas.
7.3 Economic impacts
Fishing activities will be significantly impacted due to the disturbance to fisheries resources. Fishermen will either stop fishing hence loss of income/livelihood or incur higher cost to fish somewhere else. The exact impact cannot be determined based on the limited work done for this DEIA, mainly because there are no records of fisheries output and where those outputs are coming from. The reclamation will be carried out within the port limits, and they are within their rights to do so since the proposed activity is merely to develop the on-shore activities of the port operations.
From the fishermen’s feedback, it seems that they are currently fishing within the port limits, and that’s the reason they are asking for compensation for disrupted activity that is expected to damage fishing grounds. It is important to conduct a more detailed
PE Research 40 Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
and comprehensive estimate of income and earnings from the fishing activity if such data is to be used as inputs to the compensation package. The cursory work done in terms of asking for household income is based on voluntary response and has not been validated.
As for the impact on tourism, it is also less clear. It is true that there will be a change in the landscape – from the current sea view of shipping lanes to a landscape of port activities. It is assumed that the current customers come to the chalets and homestays because of the aesthetic value and water quality. This fact needs to be established with a survey of the tourists (which was not done). What was carried out is a survey of the owners and operators of the chalets and holiday homes. One potential scenario that was mentioned is that there could be a huge increase in demand for housing in the area, arising from the port construction activities. This potential increase in demand would be for the construction period and will offset the loss of seasonal tourist incomes (weekends and holidays only). As the housing availability in the area is far less than the potential demand (potentially 6,000 workers during construction) from the construction and reclamation activities.
Tourism related activities/ operators will be impacted but perhaps not in the way in which the local hotel operators are envisaging the scenario.
As with all construction activities in an area that does not have adequate social and economic resources to absorb the demand, it is envisaged that all social facilities and amenities will be fully utilised. The consultant envisages that all kinds of businesses will sprout up in the study area that would service the new but temporary demand.
Along with this, inflation is also anticipated due to the shortage of resources to meet the new and rapid demand. The poor and vulnerable sections of the local community will be the main victims, and interventions by the government will be necessary. In particular, the local government which is the closest to the local community will have a big role in this intervention.
7.4 Social impacts
Although not always true but presence of foreign labours is perceived to be linked to undesirable activities, mainly because certain things are taboo and unstated. The influx of labours/ non-local workers will change the social structure of local community and many of the locals may feel unsafe and vulnerable. There are some measures to take in terms of confining the workers to the workplace and their temporary housing sites and to require the contractors to impose regulating conditions on their off-hours and activities. The problem is usually more complex than that because contractors will appoint sub-contractors and in turn sub-sub-contractors. It is likely that the problem will be at the level below the main contractors.
Again, the local authorities and the federal agencies operating at the local levels may have to make a greater effort at monitoring and enforcement. However, it is also important that the project proponent impose strict conditions when appointing their
PE Research 41 Proposed Development of Kuala Linggi International Port
contractors and setting penalties for their appointment, as they are more effective because of the impact on profits and contractors’ income.
It is obvious that there are many problems related to the perception of the people that does not correspond to the actual conditions. Their expectations seem to be based on local sentiment, which is understandable because the current social conditions are that of a rural outback village environment. The people in the study area, especially the villages closest to the proposed development, seem contented with their current living conditions. And their perception, which is correct, is that the proposed project will change their social environment in a very significant way, and not in the direction that they would like or agree to. For instance, there is little unemployment in the area and so the job creation is unlikely to benefit them significantly. The result is more inflation which is undesirable and punitive on the wage earners and low income self-employed. The overall net balance is likely to be economic growth at the expense of social disruption. The government should impose conditions and regulations to minimise the social impact and interventions to take care of extreme negative ones.
PE Research 42