Lobster Aqua Technologies Sdn Bhd

62800860-RPT-01 Rev. 02 October 2014

Special EIA for the Proposed Integrated Lobster

Aquaculture Project (iLAP), Including Marine Aquaculture

Zone Around Pulau Timbun Mata Waters, Earthworks and

Jetty for Operations Base at Pulau Bait

Volume I of III: Main Report

This proposal has been prepared under the DHI Business Management System

certified by DNV to comply with ISO 9001 (Quality Management)

DHI Water & Environment (M) Sdn. Bhd. (535484-V)

Kota Kinabalu Office • Tel: +60 88 260780 • Fax: +60 88 260781

Kuala Lumpur Office • Tel: +60 3 7958 8160 • Fax: +60 3 7958 1162

dhi@dhi.com.my • www.dhi.com.my

Prepared for Lobster Aqua Technologies Sdn Bhd

Represented by Dr. Shahridan Faiez Lobster trial farm at Pulau Bait

Name / Title Signature Date

Prepared by Melissa Mary Mathews

Sep 24, 2014

Reviewed by Tony Chiffings

Sep 26, 2014

Approved by Tania Golingi

Sep 29, 2014

Open Restricted Confidential

Special EIA for the Proposed Integrated

Lobster Aquaculture Project (iLAP),

Including Marine Aquaculture Zone

Around Pulau Timbun Mata Waters,

Earthworks and Jetty for Operations Base

at Pulau Bait

Volume I of III: Main Report

Current Revision Approvals

Classification

This page is intentionally left blank

The information contained in this document produced by DHI Water and Environment (M) Sdn. Bhd. is solely for the

use of the Client identified on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has been prepared. DHI Water and

Environment (M) Sdn. Bhd. makes no representation, undertakes no duty, and accepts no respon sibility to any third

party who may use or rely upon this document or the information.

All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this document, reproduced,

electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of DHI Water and Environment (M)

Sdn. Bhd.

© DHI Water and Environment (M) Sdn. Bhd.

DHI Water & Environment (M) Sdn. Bhd.

11th Floor, Wisma Perindustrian, Jalan Istiadat, Likas,

88400 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah Malaysia

Tel: +60 88 260780• Fax: +60 88 260781• dhi@dhi.com.my • www.dhi.com.my

Project No. 62800860

Project Title

Special EIA for the Proposed Integrated Lobster Aquaculture Project (iLAP),

Including Marine Aquaculture Zone Around Pulau Timbun Mata Waters,

Earthworks and Jetty for Operations Base at Pulau Bait

Subject Volume I of III: Main Report

Client Lobster Aqua Technologies Sdn Bhd

Document No. 62800860-RPT-02 Rev 1

Distribution Type of Data No of copies

Lobster Aqua Technologies Sdn Bhd Hardcopy+Digital 1+1

Environment Protection Department Hardcopy+Digital 31+1

DHI Water & Environment (M) Sdn. Bhd. Digital 1

Rev Rev Date Description of Change/

Reason for Issue Prepared by Checked by Approved by

1 May 20, 2014 Draft for Client Review mmm ndh tag

2 Sep 29, 2014 Final for EPD Submission mmm tag tag

Document Information

Document Revision History

This page is intentionally left blank

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

VOLUME I: MAIN REPORT Chapter 1 Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

Chapter 2 General Information

Chapter 3 Project Description

Chapter 4 Description of Existing Environment

Chapter 5 Impact Prediction and Evaluation

Chapter 6 Recommended Mitigation Measures

Chapter 7 Environmental Management Plan

Chapter 8 References

VOLUME II: Appendix A - D

Appendix A Terms of Reference Approval

Appendix B Project Information

Appendix C Baseline Study

Appendix D Impact Threshold Report

VOLUME III: Appendices E - K

Appendix E Hydraulic and Water Quality Assessment Report & Early Comments

Appendix F iLAP Collective Management Agreement

Appendix G Socioeconomic Studies

Appendix H iLAP Marine Navigation Report & Navigation (MRTA) Early Comments

Appendix I Consultations Activities & Supporting Letters

Appendix J Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

Appendix K Preliminary Geology and Geohazard Report

i

CONTENTS

1  Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif] ....................................................... 1-1 1.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2  Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2.1  Project Concept .................................................................................................................. 1-3 1.2.1.1  ILAP Operations Base ........................................................................................................ 1-4 1.2.1.2  ILAP Grow-Out Cages ........................................................................................................ 1-5 1.2.1.3  Bridge, Jetty and Access Roads ......................................................................................... 1-5 1.2.2  Development Schedule ....................................................................................................... 1-7 1.3  Existing Environment at Project Site ................................................................................... 1-7 1.3.1  Physical Environment ....................................................................................................... 1-11 1.3.2  Biological Environment ..................................................................................................... 1-13 1.3.3  Human Environment ......................................................................................................... 1-15 1.4  Impact Assessment, Mitigation and Monitoring ................................................................. 1-17 1.4.1  Physical Environment ....................................................................................................... 1-21 1.4.2  Biological Environment ..................................................................................................... 1-39 1.4.3  Human Environment ......................................................................................................... 1-51 

2  General Information .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2  Project Title......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3  Project Proponent ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4  SEIA Consultants ............................................................................................................... 2-2 2.5  SEIA Report ........................................................................................................................ 2-5 2.5.1  Legal Requirements ........................................................................................................... 2-5 2.5.2  Environmental Guidelines ................................................................................................... 2-5 2.5.3  Stage of Project .................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.5.4  SEIA Scope ........................................................................................................................ 2-6 2.5.4.1  Project Components ........................................................................................................... 2-6 2.5.4.2  SEIA Focus Issues ............................................................................................................. 2-6 2.5.5  SEIA Report Outline ........................................................................................................... 2-8 

3  Project Description ............................................................................................... 3-1 3.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2  Statement of Need .............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2.1  Global Seafood Demand .................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.2  The iLAP Project ................................................................................................................. 3-4 3.2.2.1  Need for Lobster Aquaculture ............................................................................................. 3-4 3.2.2.2  Project Benefits .................................................................................................................. 3-4 3.2.2.3  Global Aquaculture Alliance Certification ............................................................................ 3-5 3.2.3  Policies Supporting Aquaculture ......................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.3.1  Sabah Aquaculture ............................................................................................................. 3-6 3.3  Project Options ................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.3.1  Alternative Project Locations .............................................................................................. 3-8 3.3.2  Aquaculture Zone Layout .................................................................................................... 3-8 3.4  Project Location ................................................................................................................ 3-10 3.5  Project Concept ................................................................................................................ 3-12 3.5.1  ILAP Grow-Out Cages ...................................................................................................... 3-19 3.5.1.1  Farming Area .................................................................................................................... 3-20 3.5.1.2  Cage System Description ................................................................................................. 3-22 3.5.1.3  Mooring and Anchoring System Description ..................................................................... 3-24 3.5.2  Bridge and Other Infrastructure ........................................................................................ 3-25 3.5.3  Project Phases ................................................................................................................. 3-28 3.6  Project Activities ............................................................................................................... 3-29 

ii 62800860-RPT-02

3.6.1  Pre-construction................................................................................................................ 3-29 3.6.2  Construction ..................................................................................................................... 3-29 3.6.2.1  General Activities .............................................................................................................. 3-29 3.6.2.2  Access Road and Jetty ..................................................................................................... 3-35 3.6.2.3  Operations Base ............................................................................................................... 3-35 3.6.2.4  Production Units ............................................................................................................... 3-37 3.6.3  Operations ........................................................................................................................ 3-37 3.6.3.1  Production Description ...................................................................................................... 3-38 3.6.3.2  Lobster Stock .................................................................................................................... 3-39 3.6.3.3  Feeding Regime ............................................................................................................... 3-39 3.6.3.4  Lobster Health .................................................................................................................. 3-39 3.6.3.5  Harvesting ........................................................................................................................ 3-39 3.6.3.6  On-site Maintenance ......................................................................................................... 3-39 3.6.3.7  Operations Base ............................................................................................................... 3-40 3.6.3.8  Vessels ............................................................................................................................. 3-40 3.6.3.9  Wastes Inventory .............................................................................................................. 3-41 3.6.3.10  Operational Workforce ...................................................................................................... 3-42 3.6.3.11  Water Usage for Operations Stage ................................................................................... 3-42 3.6.4  Decommissioning ............................................................................................................. 3-43 3.7  Project Status ................................................................................................................... 3-43 3.8  Development Schedule ..................................................................................................... 3-44 

4  Description of Existing Environment .................................................................. 4-1 4.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2  Physical Environment ......................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.1  Bathymetry ......................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2  Meteorology ........................................................................................................................ 4-3 4.2.2.1  Wind ................................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.2.2  Air Temperature and Precipitation ...................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.2.3  Solar Radiation ................................................................................................................... 4-6 4.2.3  Currents .............................................................................................................................. 4-7 4.2.4  Tides ................................................................................................................................. 4-11 4.2.5  Waves .............................................................................................................................. 4-13 4.2.6  Coastal Geomorphology ................................................................................................... 4-16 4.2.7  Marine Sediments ............................................................................................................. 4-16 4.2.8  Noise and Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 4-19 4.2.8.1  Total Suspended Particulates ........................................................................................... 4-21 4.2.8.2  Ambient Noise .................................................................................................................. 4-22 4.3  Hydrology and Riverine Discharges .................................................................................. 4-22 4.3.1  River Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 4-24 4.4  Marine Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 4-27 4.5  Biological-Ecological Environment .................................................................................... 4-29 4.5.1  Regional Setting ............................................................................................................... 4-29 4.5.1.1  Coral Triangle ................................................................................................................... 4-29 4.5.1.2  Darvel Bay ........................................................................................................................ 4-30 4.5.1.3  Tun Sakaran Marine Park ................................................................................................. 4-30 4.5.1.4  Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 4-31 4.5.2  Critical Marine Habitats ..................................................................................................... 4-32 4.5.2.1  Coral Reefs ....................................................................................................................... 4-32 4.5.2.2  Seagrass .......................................................................................................................... 4-42 4.5.2.3  Mangroves ........................................................................................................................ 4-45 4.5.3  Marine Species ................................................................................................................. 4-52 4.5.3.1  Species of Conservation Significance ............................................................................... 4-52 4.5.3.2  Reef Fish .......................................................................................................................... 4-56 4.5.3.3  Plankton Communities ...................................................................................................... 4-59 4.5.3.4  Benthic Communities ........................................................................................................ 4-60 4.5.4  Terrestrial Habitat ............................................................................................................. 4-61 4.5.4.1  Terrestrial Vegetation ....................................................................................................... 4-61 

iii

4.5.4.2  Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................................................. 4-65 4.6  Socio-economics .............................................................................................................. 4-66 4.6.1  Data Basis ........................................................................................................................ 4-67 4.6.1.1  Socio-economic Survey Methodology ............................................................................... 4-69 4.6.2  Settlements....................................................................................................................... 4-72 4.6.3  Demographic Profile ......................................................................................................... 4-75 4.6.3.1  Household Size ................................................................................................................ 4-75 4.6.3.2  Age Structure .................................................................................................................... 4-76 4.6.3.3  Gender Ratio .................................................................................................................... 4-77 4.6.3.4  Ethnic Composition and Citizenship ................................................................................. 4-77 4.6.3.5  Education and Literacy Rate ............................................................................................. 4-79 4.6.4  Occupation and Source of Livelihood / Income ................................................................. 4-80 4.6.5  Fisheries ........................................................................................................................... 4-85 4.6.5.1  Local Fishing Grounds ...................................................................................................... 4-86 4.6.6  Mariculture ........................................................................................................................ 4-88 4.6.6.1  Artificial Reef .................................................................................................................... 4-90 4.6.7  Sites of Socio-cultural Significance ................................................................................... 4-91 4.6.8  Tourism ............................................................................................................................ 4-94 4.7  Land use ........................................................................................................................... 4-96 4.8  Maritime Uses ................................................................................................................... 4-99 4.8.1  Commercial Shipping .......................................................................................................4-100 4.8.2  Local Transport ................................................................................................................4-101 

5  Impact Prediction and Evaluation ....................................................................... 5-1 5.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2  Summary of Impacts ........................................................................................................... 5-3 5.2.1  Impact Significance ............................................................................................................ 5-3 5.2.2  Zone of Impact .................................................................................................................... 5-5 5.3  Impact Evaluation Methodology ........................................................................................ 5-10 5.3.1.1  Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................ 5-10 5.3.1.2  Score and Range System ................................................................................................. 5-11 5.4  Impacts to the Physical Environment ................................................................................ 5-12 5.4.1  Water Quality during Operations ....................................................................................... 5-13 5.4.1.1  Nutrient Releases from Cages .......................................................................................... 5-13 5.4.1.2  Cage Cleaning .................................................................................................................. 5-22 5.4.2  Water Quality during Construction .................................................................................... 5-23 5.4.2.1  Soil Erosion and Sedimentation during Earthworks .......................................................... 5-23 5.4.2.2  Water Quality Impacts during Marine Construction Works ................................................ 5-24 5.4.3  Sedimentation and Sediment Enrichment from PUs ......................................................... 5-25 5.4.3.1  Particulate Matter and Organic Carbon............................................................................. 5-26 5.4.3.2  Heavy Metals and Other Pollutants .................................................................................. 5-30 5.4.4  Hydrodynamics and Coastal Morphology ......................................................................... 5-31 5.4.4.1  PUs (Cages) ..................................................................................................................... 5-31 5.4.4.2  Bridge and Jetty Structures .............................................................................................. 5-33 5.4.5  Solid Wastes ..................................................................................................................... 5-36 5.4.5.1  Waste Streams ................................................................................................................. 5-36 5.4.5.2  Waste Management ......................................................................................................... 5-39 5.4.5.3  Impact Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 5-39 5.4.6  Sewage and Waste Water Discharges ............................................................................. 5-39 5.4.7  Noise ................................................................................................................................ 5-41 5.4.7.1  Sensitive receptors ........................................................................................................... 5-41 5.4.7.2  Noise sources ................................................................................................................... 5-41 5.4.7.3  Existing Noise Levels and Guidelines ............................................................................... 5-43 5.4.7.4  Predicted Noise Levels ..................................................................................................... 5-44 5.4.7.5  Impact Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 5-49 5.4.8  Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 5-49 5.5  Impacts to Biological Environment .................................................................................... 5-51 5.5.1  Impact on Benthic Habitats ............................................................................................... 5-52 

iv 62800860-RPT-02

5.5.1.1  Coral Reefs ....................................................................................................................... 5-53 5.5.1.2  Seagrass .......................................................................................................................... 5-59 5.5.1.3  Benthic In-fauna ............................................................................................................... 5-60 5.5.2  Impacts on Mangrove ....................................................................................................... 5-61 5.5.2.1  Mangrove Loss due to Project Footprint ........................................................................... 5-62 5.5.2.2  Impacts from Organic Nutrient Loading ............................................................................ 5-65 5.5.2.3  Impacts from Sedimentation ............................................................................................. 5-66 5.5.3  Impacts on Marine Fauna ................................................................................................. 5-68 5.5.3.1  Farm Workers and Wildlife Interactions ............................................................................ 5-68 5.5.3.2  Fish Fauna ........................................................................................................................ 5-68 5.5.3.3  Marine Megafauna ............................................................................................................ 5-69 5.5.3.4  Biosecurity Risk ................................................................................................................ 5-74 5.5.4  Impact on Terrestrial Flora and Fauna .............................................................................. 5-75 5.5.4.1  Flora ................................................................................................................................. 5-75 5.5.4.2  Fauna ............................................................................................................................... 5-77 5.6  Stakeholder Engagement ................................................................................................. 5-79 5.6.1  Project Awareness ............................................................................................................ 5-79 5.6.2  Project Acceptance ........................................................................................................... 5-79 5.6.3  Perceived Issues and Impacts on Human Environment .................................................... 5-80 5.7  Impacts to the Human Environment .................................................................................. 5-83 5.7.1  Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 5-83 5.7.1.1  Impact Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 5-86 5.7.2  Tourism............................................................................................................................. 5-86 5.7.2.1  Impact Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 5-86 5.7.3  Access to Sea Space ........................................................................................................ 5-86 5.7.3.1  Fishing .............................................................................................................................. 5-86 5.7.3.2  Local Navigation ............................................................................................................... 5-88 5.7.3.3  Security............................................................................................................................. 5-93 5.7.4  Impact on Land Use and Ownership ................................................................................. 5-94 5.7.5  Impact on Local Businesses and Employment .................................................................. 5-97 5.7.5.1  Employment ...................................................................................................................... 5-97 5.7.5.2  Business Opportunities ..................................................................................................... 5-99 5.7.5.3  Seaweed and Pearl farms ............................................................................................... 5-100 5.7.6  Demographic Impacts ..................................................................................................... 5-101 5.7.7  Pressure on Basic Amenities .......................................................................................... 5-103 5.7.7.1  Impact Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 5-103 5.7.8  Water Demand ............................................................................................................... 5-104 5.7.9  Public Health and Well Being .......................................................................................... 5-105 5.7.9.1  Impact Evaluation ........................................................................................................... 5-106 5.7.10  Food Security ................................................................................................................. 5-106 5.7.11  Wider Socioeconomic Impact ......................................................................................... 5-106 5.7.12  Project Abandonment ..................................................................................................... 5-107 

6  Recommended Mitigation Measures ................................................................... 6-1 6.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2  Implementation Mechanisms .............................................................................................. 6-1 6.2.1  GAA Compliance ................................................................................................................ 6-2 6.2.2  Collective Management Agreement .................................................................................... 6-2 6.2.3  iCMA Implementation and Organisation ............................................................................. 6-2 6.2.3.1  Regulatory Authorities ........................................................................................................ 6-2 6.2.3.2  iCMA Organisation .............................................................................................................. 6-3 6.3  Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................ 6-7 6.3.1  Water and Sediment Quality Impacts from PUs .................................................................. 6-7 6.3.1.1  Issue ................................................................................................................................... 6-7 6.3.1.2  Mitigation ............................................................................................................................ 6-8 6.3.1.3  Summary .......................................................................................................................... 6-11 6.3.2  Other Water Quality Impacts ............................................................................................. 6-11 6.3.2.1  Heavy metals and other Pollutants ................................................................................... 6-11 

v

6.3.2.2  Control of Soil Erosion and Sedimentation during Construction ........................................ 6-13 6.3.3  Coral Reef Impacts ........................................................................................................... 6-18 6.3.3.1  Issues ............................................................................................................................... 6-18 6.3.3.2  Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 6-19 6.3.3.3  Summary .......................................................................................................................... 6-23 6.3.4  Mangrove Impacts ............................................................................................................ 6-24 6.3.4.1  Issue ................................................................................................................................. 6-24 6.3.4.2  Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 6-24 6.3.4.3  Summary .......................................................................................................................... 6-26 6.3.5  Biosecurity ........................................................................................................................ 6-27 6.3.5.1  Issue ................................................................................................................................. 6-27 6.3.5.2  Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 6-27 6.3.5.3  Summary .......................................................................................................................... 6-27 6.3.6  Hydrodynamic Impacts of PUs .......................................................................................... 6-27 6.3.6.1  Issue ................................................................................................................................. 6-27 6.3.6.2  Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 6-27 6.3.6.3  Summary .......................................................................................................................... 6-28 6.3.7  Navigation Impacts ........................................................................................................... 6-28 6.3.7.1  Construction Phase Impacts ............................................................................................. 6-28 6.3.7.2  Operational Impacts.......................................................................................................... 6-29 6.3.7.3  Summary .......................................................................................................................... 6-30 6.3.8  Impacts of Bridge and Jetty on Morphology ...................................................................... 6-30 6.3.8.1  Issue ................................................................................................................................. 6-30 6.3.8.2  Mitigation .......................................................................................................................... 6-30 6.3.8.3  Summary .......................................................................................................................... 6-30 6.3.9  Marine and Terrestrial Fauna............................................................................................ 6-31 6.3.9.1  Habitat Fragmentation ...................................................................................................... 6-31 6.3.9.2  Farm Workers and Wildlife Interaction .............................................................................. 6-31 6.3.9.3  Marine Megafauna ............................................................................................................ 6-31 6.3.9.4  Summary .......................................................................................................................... 6-32 6.3.10  Waste Management ......................................................................................................... 6-33 6.3.10.1  Construction Waste .......................................................................................................... 6-33 6.3.10.2  Sewage and Water Treatment .......................................................................................... 6-34 6.3.10.3  Operation Solid Wastes .................................................................................................... 6-35 6.3.10.4  Organic waste from Lobster Mortalities in cages and during packaging ........................... 6-35 6.3.10.5  Cages, Feed Bags and Redundant Equipment ................................................................. 6-36 6.3.10.6  Oily Waste for Construction & Operational Phase ............................................................ 6-36 6.3.10.7  Summary: ......................................................................................................................... 6-37 6.3.11  Socioeconomic Impacts .................................................................................................... 6-38 6.3.11.1  iLAP Community Working Group ...................................................................................... 6-41 6.3.11.2  Human Resource Development ........................................................................................ 6-41 6.3.11.3  Competition for Sea Space ............................................................................................... 6-42 6.3.11.4  Tourism ............................................................................................................................ 6-43 6.3.11.5  Compensation of Affected Crop Owners ........................................................................... 6-43 6.3.11.6  Ongoing Engagement and Community Consultation ........................................................ 6-43 6.3.11.7  Public Health and Safety .................................................................................................. 6-44 6.3.11.8  Odour during Operations .................................................................................................. 6-45 6.3.11.9  Socioeconomic Summary ................................................................................................. 6-45 6.3.12  Water and Electricity Demand .......................................................................................... 6-46 6.3.13  Abandonment or Decommissioning .................................................................................. 6-46 6.4  Additional Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 6-47 6.4.1  Recommended Mitigation Measures ................................................................................ 6-47 6.4.2  Other Available Measures Not Recommended ................................................................. 6-50 6.5  Applicable Regulations and Guidelines ............................................................................. 6-50 6.5.1  Aquaculture Operations .................................................................................................... 6-50 6.5.2  Waste Management ......................................................................................................... 6-51 6.5.2.1  General Wastes ................................................................................................................ 6-51 6.5.2.2  Incinerator ........................................................................................................................ 6-51 

vi 62800860-RPT-02

6.5.2.3  Scheduled Wastes ............................................................................................................ 6-52 6.5.3  Marine Navigation ............................................................................................................. 6-52 

7  Monitoring Programme ......................................................................................... 7-1 7.1  Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.1  Purpose of EMMP ............................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.2  Structure of the EMMP ....................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1.3  Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2  Organisation and Responsibilities ....................................................................................... 7-2 7.3  Monitoring Overview ........................................................................................................... 7-5 7.3.1  Baseline Monitoring of Ambient Conditions ........................................................................ 7-5 7.3.2  Monitoring Summary ........................................................................................................... 7-6 7.4  Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 7-8 7.4.1  Management Objective ....................................................................................................... 7-8 7.4.2  Quality Objectives ............................................................................................................... 7-8 7.4.3  Mitigation Measures: ........................................................................................................... 7-8 7.4.4  Compliance Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 7-9 7.4.4.1  Construction Stage ............................................................................................................. 7-9 7.4.4.2  Operations Stage .............................................................................................................. 7-10 7.4.5  Water Quality Monitoring Programme ............................................................................... 7-10 7.4.5.1  Construction ..................................................................................................................... 7-10 7.4.5.2  Operations Stage .............................................................................................................. 7-12 7.5  Sediment Enrichment ....................................................................................................... 7-16 7.5.1  Management Objectives ................................................................................................... 7-16 7.5.2  Quality Objectives ............................................................................................................. 7-16 7.5.3  Operations Stage Impact Monitoring ................................................................................. 7-17 7.5.3.1  Frequency ......................................................................................................................... 7-17 7.5.3.2  Stations............................................................................................................................. 7-17 7.5.3.3  Description ........................................................................................................................ 7-18 7.6  Coral Reefs ....................................................................................................................... 7-19 7.6.1  Management Objectives ................................................................................................... 7-19 7.6.2  Quality Objectives ............................................................................................................. 7-19 7.6.3  Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 7-20 7.6.4  Compliance Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 7-20 7.6.5  Impact Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 7-20 7.6.5.1  Frequency ......................................................................................................................... 7-21 7.6.5.2  Stations............................................................................................................................. 7-21 7.6.5.3  Description ........................................................................................................................ 7-23 7.7  Marine Fauna ................................................................................................................... 7-24 7.7.1  Management Objectives ................................................................................................... 7-24 7.7.2  Quality Objectives ............................................................................................................. 7-24 7.7.3  Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 7-24 7.7.4  Compliance Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 7-24 7.7.5  Impact Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 7-25 7.8  Mangroves and Mangrove Fauna ..................................................................................... 7-25 7.8.1  Management Objectives ................................................................................................... 7-25 7.8.2  Quality Objectives ............................................................................................................. 7-26 7.8.3  Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 7-26 7.8.4  Compliance Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 7-26 7.8.5  Impact Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 7-27 7.8.5.1  During Construction .......................................................................................................... 7-27 7.8.5.2  During Operations ............................................................................................................. 7-29 7.9  Seagrass Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 7-29 7.9.1  Management Objectives ................................................................................................... 7-29 7.9.2  Quality Objectives ............................................................................................................. 7-29 7.9.3  Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 7-29 7.9.4  Compliance Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 7-29 7.9.5  Impact Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 7-29 

vii

7.9.5.1  Frequency ........................................................................................................................ 7-29 7.9.5.2  Stations ............................................................................................................................ 7-30 7.9.5.3  Description ....................................................................................................................... 7-31 7.10  Noise ................................................................................................................................ 7-31 7.10.1  Management Objective ..................................................................................................... 7-31 7.10.2  Quality Objectives ............................................................................................................. 7-31 7.10.3  Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................... 7-32 7.10.4  Compliance Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 7-33 7.10.5  Impact Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 7-33 7.10.5.1  Frequency ........................................................................................................................ 7-33 7.10.5.2  Stations ............................................................................................................................ 7-33 7.10.5.3  Description ....................................................................................................................... 7-34 7.11  Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 7-35 7.11.1  Management Objective ..................................................................................................... 7-35 7.11.2  Quality Objectives ............................................................................................................. 7-35 7.11.3  Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................... 7-35 7.11.4  Compliance Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 7-35 7.11.5  Impact Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 7-36 7.11.5.1  Frequency ........................................................................................................................ 7-36 7.11.5.2  Stations ............................................................................................................................ 7-36 7.11.5.3  Description ....................................................................................................................... 7-36 7.12  Waste Management ......................................................................................................... 7-36 7.12.1  Management Objective ..................................................................................................... 7-36 7.12.2  Quality Objectives ............................................................................................................. 7-37 7.12.3  Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................... 7-37 7.12.4  Compliance Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 7-37 7.12.5  Impact Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 7-38 7.13  Maritime Safety ................................................................................................................. 7-38 7.13.1  Management Objective ..................................................................................................... 7-38 7.13.2  Quality Objectives ............................................................................................................. 7-39 7.13.3  Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................... 7-39 7.13.4  Compliance Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 7-39 7.13.5  Impact Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 7-39 7.13.5.1  During Construction .......................................................................................................... 7-39 7.13.5.2  During Operations ............................................................................................................ 7-40 7.14  Land Traffic and Public Road Quality ............................................................................... 7-40 7.14.1  Management Objective ..................................................................................................... 7-40 7.14.2  Quality Objectives ............................................................................................................. 7-40 7.14.3  Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................... 7-40 7.14.4  Compliance Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 7-40 7.15  Socio-Economy ................................................................................................................ 7-41 7.15.1  Management Objective ..................................................................................................... 7-41 7.15.2  Quality Objectives ............................................................................................................. 7-41 7.15.3  Mitigation Measures.......................................................................................................... 7-41 7.15.4  Compliance Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 7-42 7.15.5  Impact Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 7-43 7.15.5.1  Fish Catch Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 7-43 7.15.5.2  Social Surveys .................................................................................................................. 7-43 

8  References ............................................................................................................. 8-1 

viii 62800860-RPT-02

FIGURES

Figure 1.1  Project location [Rajah 1.1 lokasi projek]. ............................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 1.2  Project components [Rajah 1.2 Komponen projek]. ............................................................................... 1-4 Figure 1.3  Layout of the Project key infrastructure. [Rajah 1.3 Susun atur infrastruktur projek.] ............................ 1-7 Figure 1.4  Development phases for the Project. [Rajah 1.4 Jadual Pembangunan Projek] ................................... 1-7 Figure 1.5  Environmental sensitive receptors within 5 km of the project site. [Rajah 1.5 Reseptor sensitif

yang ditemui dalam jarak 5 km dari tapak projek.] ................................................................................. 1-9 Figure 1.6  Monitoring stations and zone of impact at P. Bait and Tanjung Kapor during construction. [Rajah

1.6 Stesen pemantauan dan zon impak di P. Bait dan Tanjung Kapor semasa pembinaan] .............. 1-19 Figure 1.7  Overall locations of the monitoring stations and zone of impact during operation [Rajah 1.7

Lokasi stesen pemantauan dan zon impak secara keseluruhan semasa operasi] .............................. 1-20 Figure 2.1   Partners of the iLAP project. ................................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 3.1  Global fish supply, capture vs. aquaculture /10/. .................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3.2  Global fish supply, food fish supply and population /1/. .......................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3.3  Global Seafood Production /10/. ............................................................................................................. 3-3 Figure 3.4  Investments sources for iLAP. ................................................................................................................. 3-4 Figure 3.5  Increasing trend in aquaculture’s contribution to Sabah’s economy //. .................................................. 3-7 Figure 3.6  Initial iLAP marine aquaculture area (as presented in the SEIA TOR document). ................................ 3-9 Figure 3.7  Final iLAP marine aquaculture area as assessed in this SEIA (initial layout shown in orange

outline). .................................................................................................................................................. 3-10 Figure 3.8   Project location at Semporna. Refer to Table 3.1 for coordinates of the points shown in this

figure. ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3.9  Operations Base boundary points (Survey Drawing: JTSB-3060-IP01.dwg-Land Title Drawing) ....... 3-13 Figure 3.10  Overall layout of the Operations Base, including access road, bridge and jetty. ................................. 3-16 Figure 3.11  Proposed jetty boundary points ............................................................................................................. 3-17 Figure 3.12  Detail of key OB components for the current planned development. ................................................... 3-18 Figure 3.13  Locations of potential point sources of pollution ................................................................................... 3-19 Figure 3.14  Production zones, units in tonnes. ........................................................................................................ 3-21 Figure 3.15  Production Unit design. ......................................................................................................................... 3-22 Figure 3.16  Raft design of the Production Unit. ....................................................................................................... 3-23 Figure 3.17  Example of mooring systems to be used at iLAP: top - Radial mooring; bottom - orthogonal

mooring. ................................................................................................................................................. 3-25 Figure 3.18  Bridge and connecting roads. Coordinates of the boundary points indicated are given in Table

3.7. ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-26 Figure 3.19  Alignment of access road. Coordinates of the boundary points indicated are given in Table 3.7. ...... 3-27 Figure 3.20   Cross sectional layout of the access road. ........................................................................................... 3-28 Figure 3.21  Development phases for the Project. .................................................................................................... 3-28 Figure 3.22  Outline sequence of land-based construction works. ........................................................................... 3-31 Figure 3.23  Construction materials and equipment transportation route. ................................................................ 3-32 Figure 3.24  Temporary construction workers’ quarters and septic tank provided within the OB. ........................... 3-34 Figure 3.25  Project development schedule .............................................................................................................. 3-45 Figure 4.1  The Project site within Darvel Bay showing key geographic features referred to in the following

sections. ................................................................................................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4.2   Bathymetry showing the relatively shallow areas around Pulau Timbun Mata which support coral

and mangrove habitats and the rapid progression to deeper water channels (>10m) which are the focus for the iLAP. ............................................................................................................................. 4-3 

Figure 4.3  A comparison of annual wind roses for 2012 surface winds for the Sula Sea region, Sulawesi Sea region and Darvel Bay (data obtained from NOAA Global Forecast System). ............................... 4-4 

Figure 4.4  Monthly wind roses for the two monsoon periods and the transition period in Darvel Bay (data obtained from NOAA Global Forecast System) ...................................................................................... 4-5 

Figure 4.5  Average monthly air temperature for Tawau (Source: Meteorological Department, Sabah //) .............. 4-6 Figure 4.6  Average monthly rainfall data for Tawau (Sources Meteorological Department, Sabah /19/). .............. 4-6 Figure 4.7  Monthly average daily radiation for Kota Kinabalu (Source: Meteorological Department, Sabah

/19/). ......................................................................................................................................................... 4-7 

ix

Figure 4.8   Time series plots of current speed measured at two sites within the study area over a 14 day tidal period from neaps to springs. .......................................................................................................... 4-8 

Figure 4.9  Current patterns during a flooding mid tide for the NE monsoon scenario. ........................................... 4-9 Figure 4.10  Current patterns during an ebbing mid tide for the NW monsoon scenario ........................................... 4-9 Figure 4.11  Current patterns during a ebbing mid tide for the NE monsoon scenario ............................................ 4-10 Figure 4.12  Current patterns during an ebbing mid tide for a SW monsoon scenario ............................................ 4-10 Figure 4.13  Maximum current speed in the vicinity of Pulau Timbun Mata between July and December 2013. ... 4-11 Figure 4.14  Average current speed in the vicinity of Pulau Timbun Mata between July and December 2013. ...... 4-11 Figure 4.15  Time series of the tidal cycles at Kunak and Semporna hydrographic stations over a fourteen-

day period in August 2013 .................................................................................................................... 4-12 Figure 4.16  Example of predicted wave height and direction during the NE monsoon........................................... 4-14 Figure 4.17  Example of predicted wave height and direction during the SW monsoon. ......................................... 4-14 Figure 4.18  Average significant wave height in the vicinity of Pulau Timbun Mata. ................................................ 4-15 Figure 4.19  Maximum significant wave height in the vicinity of Pulau Timbun Mata. ............................................. 4-15 Figure 4.20   Sediment total organic carbon (percent). .............................................................................................. 4-17 Figure 4.21  Sediment TKN. ...................................................................................................................................... 4-18 Figure 4.22  Sediment TP concentrations. ................................................................................................................ 4-19 Figure 4.23  Air and noise quality sampling stations used to obtain baseline data .................................................. 4-20 Figure 4.24  River catchments in the Darvel Bay region. .......................................................................................... 4-23 Figure 4.25   River catchments along Pulau Timbun Mata. ....................................................................................... 4-24 Figure 4.26  TSS concentrations during the water quality survey for this SEIA conducted in October 2013. ......... 4-26 Figure 4.27  Ammoniacal nitrogen concentrations during the survey in October 2013. All values were below

0.3 mg/l, the Class II A/B limit under the Malaysian National Water Quality Standards. ..................... 4-27 Figure 4.28  The iLAP project location within the Coral Triangle. The solid line is the biological species

maximum while the dotted line is the border of the Coral Triangle Initiative Countries. ...................... 4-30 Figure 4.29  Coral reefs around Pulau Timbun Mata. ............................................................................................... 4-33 Figure 4.30  Coral distribution and live coral cover in the study area. ...................................................................... 4-36 Figure 4.31  Percentage of the reef area covered with living coral and sponges. Sites with many visible blast

fishing craters are also indicated. ......................................................................................................... 4-39 Figure 4.32  Coral diversity (number of coral species observed per hour) around the project area and in the

Semporna region (from previous studies, included for comparative purposes). .................................. 4-41 Figure 4.33   Locations of observed seagrass around P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait. ................................................ 4-43 Figure 4.34  Mangrove areas and mangrove forest reserves around the Project site. ............................................ 4-50 Figure 4.35  Dolphin sighting locations as reported by local villagers. ..................................................................... 4-54 Figure 4.36   Macroalgae (brown seaweed) beds covering the reef flats in the area indicated by the red box. ....... 4-58 Figure 4.37   Relative density of HAB species found during the survey. ................................................................... 4-60 Figure 4.38   Benthos composition and density within the project area. ................................................................... 4-61 Figure 4.39  Vegetation within Timbun Mata and surrounding islands ..................................................................... 4-62 Figure 4.40   Census block area used during the application of data from the Statistics Department (indicated

in yellow rectangle). ............................................................................................................................... 4-68 Figure 4.41  Location of villages ................................................................................................................................ 4-71 Figure 4.42  Distribution of the population according to age group in the study area .............................................. 4-76 Figure 4.43  Distribution of the population according to age group (Project site). .................................................... 4-77 Figure 4.44  Overall results on occupation of the respondents ................................................................................ 4-80 Figure 4.45  Sources of income reported by the survey respondents. ..................................................................... 4-81 Figure 4.46  Preferred fishing grounds within the project area ................................................................................. 4-86 Figure 4.47  Mariculture activities in the vicinity of the Project. ................................................................................ 4-88 Figure 4.48  Potential seaweed culture areas as planned by LKIM /49/ .................................................................. 4-89 Figure 4.49  Location of the proposed artificial reef. ................................................................................................. 4-91 Figure 4.50   Burial grounds within the study area. .................................................................................................... 4-92 Figure 4.51  Hotels/ resorts in islands of Semporna. ................................................................................................ 4-94 Figure 4.52  Zoning plan proposed for the Semporna Islands Park during the Semporna Islands Project

(1998-2001) ........................................................................................................................................... 4-95 Figure 4.53  Overview of land use at project area. ................................................................................................... 4-97 Figure 4.54  Cadastral parcels on P. Bait .................................................................................................................. 4-98 Figure 4.55   Cadastral parcels on mainland Tg. Kapor. ........................................................................................... 4-99 Figure 4.56  Common local fishing craft routes (Extract from chart MAL 8503). .................................................... 4-102 

x 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.57  Navigation routes indicated by survey respondents. Numbers indicate the number of respondents. ........................................................................................................................................ 4-103 

Figure 5.1   Zones of impact – all Project components. ............................................................................................. 5-8 Figure 5.2  Zones of impact around P. Bait and Tg. Kapor. ...................................................................................... 5-9 Figure 5.3   A schematic of the main processes included in the ECO Lab model template used in the

present study ......................................................................................................................................... 5-14 Figure 5.4  Production zones within the iLAP and the sources entered in the model for modelling impacts. ........ 5-15 Figure 5.5  Mean excess ammonium (concentrations above existing) over 1 month during NE, SW and Inter

monsoon periods. Black cross-hatched areas represent coral reefs. .................................................. 5-17 Figure 5.6   Mean excess ammonium concentration for 18,000 tons of production over a 6 month modelling

period. Black cross-hatched areas represent coral reefs. .................................................................... 5-18 Figure 5.7   Samples sites for the four water quality sampling campaigns. Note that in the first campaign a

total of 27 sites were sampled. In the subsequent three campaigns there were only 6 sites sampled (marked with the yellow rings). ............................................................................................... 5-19 

Figure 5.8   A comparison of chlorophyll a values at the six sites sampled on four occasions in October and November 2013. .................................................................................................................................... 5-20 

Figure 5.9  Comparison of two satellite images processed to show chlorophyll concentrations. The red circles show the Darvel Bay area where the red spots show very high concentrations of chlorophyll indicating possible algal blooms. The black denotes land or cloud cover (images are a subset of images published by Jones, 2002 & Cummings et al. 2007 /, /. ........................................ 5-20 

Figure 5.10   Means and standard errors for the means (bars) for the four campaigns. Note site CO1a is the same as CO1 but the data are from the subset of sample sites for the other three campaigns allowing a direct comparison across the four sample periods. ............................................................. 5-21 

Figure 5.11  Mean predicted increases in chlorophyll-a concentration over a background value of 0.0013 mg/L (1.3 µg/L) for 18,000 tons of production over a 6 month modelling period. ................................ 5-22 

Figure 5.12   Location of the representative sites used to model potential impacts from sedimentation of lobster feed and waste and the estimate of deposition on the seabed. The extent of predicted sediment deposition is shown for each farm for comparative purposes............................................... 5-26 

Figure 5.13  Model results for a one year deposition of cage-derived waste to the sediment at the four cage farm locations. ....................................................................................................................................... 5-27 

Figure 5.14  Larger scale copies of the modelling results showing the position of a blue line which delineates the area of a threshold of 0.75kg/m2/yr (no impact) and red line delineates the area of 3.0 kg/ m2/yr (seen only at Farm 2). The black box indicates a 100 m buffer zone placed around each set of cages. .......................................................................................................................................... 5-28 

Figure 5.15  Model results for a one year deposition of cage-derived organic carbon to the sediment at four representative cage farm locations. Blue line represents the threshold of 0.036 kg/m2/yr TOC (no impact), while red line (seen only at Farm 2) represents the threshold of 0.730kg/m2/yr (minor) and the black box represents a 100 m buffer around the cages. ............................................. 5-30 

Figure 5.16  Difference in mean current speed across four farm sites in and around Pulau Timbun Mata between existing conditions and with the four farms (Flood tide). ........................................................ 5-32 

Figure 5.17  Difference in mean current speed across four farm sites in and around Pulau Timbun Mata between existing conditions and with the four farms (ebb tide). ........................................................... 5-32 

Figure 5.18  Difference in mean (top) and maximum (bottom) current speed after bridge construction compared to baseline conditions during NE monsoon conditions. ....................................................... 5-34 

Figure 5.19  Difference in mean (top) and maximum (bottom) current speed after jetty construction compared to baseline conditions during NE monsoon conditions. ........................................................................ 5-35 

Figure 5.20  Predicted noise contours from OB construction works. ........................................................................ 5-45 Figure 5.21  Predicted noise contours from marine construction works. .................................................................. 5-47 Figure 5.22  Predicted noise contours from road construction activities. ................................................................. 5-48 Figure 5.23  Prevailing wind direction in relation to the airborne dust impact. ......................................................... 5-50 Figure 5.24  iLAP farming area, coral reefs and seagrass habitats. ......................................................................... 5-53 Figure 5.25  Zone of Minor water quality impact and coral areas. ............................................................................ 5-55 Figure 5.26   Fringing reefs in the vicinity of the proposed bridge and jetty. ............................................................. 5-58 Figure 5.27  Impact severity of ammonium nitrogen exposure within seagrass areas. ............................................ 5-60 Figure 5.28  Direct mangrove loss due to the Project. .............................................................................................. 5-64 Figure 5.29  Indicative zone of impact for potential sedimentation around road/bridge at Tg. Kapor. ..................... 5-67 Figure 5.30  Indicative zone of underwater noise impact from piling at bridge and jetty sites. ................................ 5-73 Figure 5.31   Vegetation loss within the Operations Base, bridge and access road. ................................................ 5-76 

xi

Figure 5.32  Mangrove fragment between Kg. Tg. Kapor and the proposed access road and bridge. ................... 5-78 Figure 5.33   Reported fishing grounds with respect to the project area ................................................................... 5-87 Figure 5.34  Marine traffic activity at the peripherals of the project area. ................................................................. 5-89 Figure 5.35  Bridge section at apex. .......................................................................................................................... 5-91 Figure 5.36  Navigation routes indicated by survey respondents. Trip numbers indicate the number of

respondents reporting a particular route. .............................................................................................. 5-92 Figure 5.37  Land titles on P. Bait ............................................................................................................................. 5-95 Figure 5.38   Vegetation map shows most of P. Bait has been developed for horticulture. ...................................... 5-96 Figure 5.39   Cadastral boundaries at Tanjung Kapor ............................................................................................... 5-97 Figure 5.40  Pearl and seaweed mariculture within the impact zone based on site surveys. ................................ 5-101 Figure 6.1  Broad regulatory stakeholders for aquaculture. ...................................................................................... 6-3 Figure 6.2  iCMA organisation chart. ......................................................................................................................... 6-4 Figure 6.3  Summary of the long term water quality monitoring required in determining the final Trigger

Limits for water quality parameters within iLAP. ..................................................................................... 6-9 Figure 6.4  Management responses to levels of changes within the monitored water quality of iLAP. ................. 6-10 Figure 6.5  Recommended locations of silt curtain. ................................................................................................ 6-14 Figure 6.6  Erosion and sediment control measures on P. Bait.............................................................................. 6-17 Figure 6.7  Details of the temporary silt trap (see also Appendix J). ...................................................................... 6-18 Figure 6.8  Recommended 100 m buffer zone from live coral areas. ..................................................................... 6-20 Figure 6.9   Removal of LF6 to preserve the live coral area. ................................................................................... 6-21 Figure 6.10  Temporary construction Right of Way (ROW) areas to be replanted with mangrove. ......................... 6-25 Figure 6.11  Internal channel width calculation ......................................................................................................... 6-29 Figure 6.12  Governmental Agencies Responsible for Ensuring the Safety and Security of Port Operations at

Kunak and Semporna ........................................................................................................................... 6-53 Figure 6.13  Extract from COLREGS 10h), 10j) MANOEUVRING ROOM (See Marine Navigation Study

report, Appendix H). .............................................................................................................................. 6-53 Figure 7.1  Marine water quality stations................................................................................................................. 7-11 Figure 7.2  Water quality monitoring stations during operations ............................................................................. 7-13 Figure 7.3   The location of water quality sampling sites for phytoplankton/HAB monitoring are shown as

large pink circles overlying the selected site. ....................................................................................... 7-15 Figure 7.4  Example of sampling transects through a PU. Not drawn to scale. ..................................................... 7-17 Figure 7.5  Coral reef monitoring transects. ............................................................................................................ 7-22 Figure 7.6  Mangrove monitoring stations around the Project land-based components during the

Construction Stage. ............................................................................................................................... 7-28 Figure 7.7  Seagrass monitoring stations ................................................................................................................ 7-30 Figure 7.8  EMP Noise and Air Quality Station ....................................................................................................... 7-34 

TABLES

Table 1.1  Summary of environmental impacts, mitigation measures and monitoring requirements identified for physical environmental components. .............................................................................................. 1-23 

Table 1.2  Summary of the environmental impacts, mitigation measures and monitoring requirements for biological environmental components ................................................................................................... 1-41 

Table 1.3   Summary of the environmental impacts, mitigation and monitoring requirements identified for the human environment ........................................................................................................................ 1-51 

Table 2.1  SEIA team members registered with EPD. ............................................................................................. 2-3 Table 2.2  EIA Supporting Team .............................................................................................................................. 2-4 Table 2.3  Key impacts as determined during the project scoping. ......................................................................... 2-7 Table 2.4  SEIA report outline .................................................................................................................................. 2-9 Table 3.1  Project geographic coordinates in BRSO (metres). Source: Survey drawing -

JTSB3060TT01_PULAU TIMBUN MATA_CLIENT_26-03-2014.dwg & JTSB-3060-IP01.dwg. ......... 3-12 Table 3.2  Operations Base boundary coordinates (BRSO meters) for the points indicated in Figure 3.9

above (Survey Drawing: JTSB-3060-IP01.dwg-Land Title Drawing). .................................................. 3-13 Table 3.3  Indicative jetty boundary coordinates extracted from GIS (BRSO, m). ................................................ 3-17 

xii 62800860-RPT-02

Table 3.4  iLAP commercial lobster farming area. ................................................................................................. 3-21 Table 3.5  Lobster cage design. ............................................................................................................................. 3-22 Table 3.6  Design principles for iLAP aquaculture moorings. ................................................................................ 3-24 Table 3.7  Proposed bridge and road boundary coordinates in BRSO (Figure 3.18 and Figure 3.19)

(Survey Drawing: ACAD-BAIT ROAD.dwg). ......................................................................................... 3-27 Table 3.8  Anticipated production stages. .............................................................................................................. 3-29 Table 3.9  Estimated construction workforce. ........................................................................................................ 3-33 Table 3.10  Estimated iLAP water demand throughout the whole construction phase. .......................................... 3-34 Table 3.11  Summary of activities at the Operations Base during the construction phase. .................................... 3-36 Table 3.12  Summary of proposed lobster farming methods ................................................................................... 3-38 Table 3.13  Expected operational vessels. ............................................................................................................... 3-41 Table 3.14  Breakdown of the semiskilled workers during the operations phase. ................................................... 3-42 Table 3.15  Approximate water usage during the iLAP Operational Stage. ............................................................ 3-43 Table 3.16  Approximate water usage during the decommissioning stage. ............................................................ 3-43 Table 4.1  Water level conditions for Semporna station (Source: Malaysian tide Tables, Volume 2, 2013) ........ 4-12 Table 4.2  TSP results (24-hr average) in µg/m3. ................................................................................................... 4-21 Table 4.3  Noise survey results. ............................................................................................................................. 4-22 Table 4.4   Coral reef type, health and dominant species around P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait. ........................... 4-34 Table 4.5  Zoning of villages within the study area ................................................................................................ 4-69 Table 4.6  Number of respondents according to village ......................................................................................... 4-69 Table 4.7  Total population by sex, household and living quarters in Study area /41/ .......................................... 4-75 Table 4.8  Total population by sex, households and living (Pulau Timbun Mata & Pulau Bait) /41/ ..................... 4-75 Table 4.9  Household size according to village zones ........................................................................................... 4-75 Table 4.10  Representation of Male-Female, Households and Living Quarters in Project Site- Semporna,

Sabah, Malaysia, 2010 compared to number of respondents .............................................................. 4-77 Table 4.11   Ethnic composition and citizenship in the project site in 2010 as sourced from Population and

Housing Census of Malaysia for the study area. .................................................................................. 4-78 Table 4.12  Total population by ethnic group, for P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait, Semporna. Source:

Department of Statistics. ....................................................................................................................... 4-78 Table 4.13  Respondents’ ethnicity (number of respondents) ................................................................................. 4-79 Table 4.14  Percentage of fish sold for income ........................................................................................................ 4-81 Table 4.15  Respondents involved in farming against village zone ......................................................................... 4-82 Table 4.16  Youth interest in traditional fishing ........................................................................................................ 4-84 Table 4.17  Reef features and planned sea-based activities within the Tun Sakaran Park under the

Semporna Islands Project (1998-2001) ................................................................................................ 4-95 Table 4.18  Dimensions of vessels ......................................................................................................................... 4-100 Table 4.19   Vessel Calls at Kunak Port by Type (2009-2012) at Wharf (Source: SPSB) ..................................... 4-100 Table 4.20   Vessel Calls at Lahad Datu Port by Type (2009-2012) at Wharf (Source: SPSB) ............................. 4-100 Table 4.21  Statistics of Vessel Calls at Lahad Datu Port (2009-2012) at Anchor (Source: SPSB) ..................... 4-101 Table 5.1   Key impacts as identified in the TOR ...................................................................................................... 5-1 Table 5.2  Summary of evaluated impacts and impact significance. ....................................................................... 5-3 Table 5.3  Outline of affected areas (zones of impact) for each identified impact................................................... 5-5 Table 5.4  Importance of the condition – scoring, generic and project-specific definitions. .................................. 5-10 Table 5.5  Magnitude of the impact ........................................................................................................................ 5-11 Table 5.6  Scale for Group B criteria. ..................................................................................................................... 5-11 Table 5.7  Range bands used for RIAM ................................................................................................................. 5-12 Table 5.8  Allocation of production across the proposed iLAP zones in the proposed project ............................. 5-16 Table 5.9  Impact severity thresholds of ammonium nitrogen on marine habitats (see Appendix D). .................. 5-16 Table 5.10  Descriptive statistics for Chl-a for the four sampling campaigns. ......................................................... 5-21 Table 5.11  Sources of water quality pollution during construction phase ............................................................... 5-23 Table 5.12  Sedimentation intensity thresholds selected for model interrogation/72/ ............................................. 5-27 Table 5.13  Thresholds for organic input to the sediment (Hargrave 2008 & 2010 /, /). ......................................... 5-29 Table 5.14  Sources and estimated amounts of solid wastes during the construction phase. ................................ 5-36 Table 5.15  Sources of solid wastes during the operational stage. ......................................................................... 5-37 Table 5.16   Estimates of domestic waste water loads over the duration of the project /66/. .................................. 5-40 Table 5.17  Typical Noise Level from Construction Equipment /, /. ......................................................................... 5-41 Table 5.18  Type of equipment and number of units assumed for construction works ........................................... 5-42 

xiii

Table 5.19  Maximum permissible sound level (Percentile LN and LMAX) of construction, maintenance and demolition work by receiving land use // ............................................................................................... 5-43 

Table 5.20  Estimated maximum noise level at sensitive receptors during construction works ............................. 5-45 Table 5.21  Summary of marine ecology components and sources of impacts. ..................................................... 5-51 Table 5.22  Impact severity thresholds of ammonium nitrogen on marine habitats. ............................................... 5-54 Table 5.23  Total area of mangrove affected by the project footprint. ..................................................................... 5-64 Table 5.24  Total area of mangrove affected by location. ....................................................................................... 5-65 Table 5.25  Observed /estimated tolerances for sedimentation based on literature review for the dominant

mangrove species observed around the Project site............................................................................ 5-67 Table 5.26  Summary of vegetation loss and percentage loss of existing area on P. Bait. .................................... 5-76 Table 5.27  Summary of engagement exercise activities conducted in 2013 ......................................................... 5-79 Table 5.28  Perceived benefit of project to local community ................................................................................... 5-80 Table 5.29  Perceived benefit of project to local community according to gender .................................................. 5-81 Table 5.30  Perceived household effect according to respondents’ age ................................................................. 5-81 Table 5.31  Perceived project benefit according to respondents’ occupation ......................................................... 5-82 Table 5.32  Estimated number of operational vessels ............................................................................................. 5-90 Table 5.33  Types of vessels observed around P. Timbun Mata ............................................................................ 5-91 Table 5.34  Projected potential workforce in study area and Semporna ................................................................. 5-98 Table 5.35  Potential available workforce willing to work for the project (Project site and Semporna) ................... 5-98 Table 5.36  Projected peak demand for workforce during construction phase ..................................................... 5-102 Table 5.37  Anticipated peak workforce during operational phase ........................................................................ 5-102 Table 5.38  Estimated water demand over the project lifecycle. ........................................................................... 5-104 Table 6.1  iCMA Organisational roles and responsibilities ...................................................................................... 6-4 Table 6.2  Interim Stocking Limit Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 6-8 Table 6.3  Water quality monitoring thresholds and management responses. ..................................................... 6-10 Table 6.4   Redistributed production tonnages and cages. .................................................................................... 6-21 Table 6.5   Revised production per hectare to be used for Interim stocking limit guidelines. ................................ 6-22 Table 6.6  Proposed mitigation of social impacts. ................................................................................................. 6-38 Table 6.7  Additional Mitigation measures ............................................................................................................. 6-48 Table 7.1  Environmental management organisation and responsibilities. ............................................................. 7-3 Table 7.2  Summary of monitoring programmes over the Project life cycle. .......................................................... 7-6 Table 7.3  Compliance monitoring activities for water quality management. .......................................................... 7-9 Table 7.4  Construction water quality monitoring station coordinates (in BRSO, m) ............................................ 7-11 Table 7.5  Water quality monitoring station coordinates (in BRSO, m). ................................................................ 7-14 Table 7.6  HAB monitoring station coordinates (BRSO, m). .................................................................................. 7-15 Table 7.7  Guideline sediment quality criteria (subject to revision). ...................................................................... 7-18 Table 7.8  Compliance monitoring for protection of coral reefs. ............................................................................ 7-20 Table 7.9  Geographic coordinates of coral transect start points (BRSO, m). ...................................................... 7-22 Table 7.10  Compliance monitoring for protection of marine fauna during construction and operations................ 7-25 Table 7.11  Compliance monitoring for protection of mangrove flora and fauna. ................................................... 7-26 Table 7.12  Mangrove monitoring stations coordinates (BRSO, m). ....................................................................... 7-28 Table 7.13  Seagrass monitoring stations coordinates (BRSO, m). ........................................................................ 7-31 Table 7.14  Maximum permissible sound level (Percentile LN and LMAX) of construction, maintenance and

demolition work for residential land uses (day-time work permitted only) /129/ .................................. 7-32 Table 7.15  Maximum permissible sound level (LAeq) by receiving land use for planning and new

development .......................................................................................................................................... 7-32 Table 7.16  Compliance monitoring for noise management during construction .................................................... 7-33 Table 7.17  Coordinates of noise monitoring stations (BRSO, m). .......................................................................... 7-34 Table 7.18  Air emissions abatement measures and related compliance monitoring during the construction

phase. .................................................................................................................................................... 7-35 Table 7.19  Waste management measures and methods for monitoring compliance. ........................................... 7-37 Table 7.20  Compliance monitoring measures for maritime safety. ........................................................................ 7-39 Table 7.21  Land traffic mitigation measures and related compliance monitoring during the construction

phase ..................................................................................................................................................... 7-40 Table 7.22  Socio economic compliance monitoring programme ............................................................................ 7-42 

xiv 62800860-RPT-02

PHOTOS

Photo 3.1  Trial sea cage culture operations off P. Bait, Semporna. ..................................................................... 3-20 Photo 3.2  Coconut plantation within the Operations Base area. ........................................................................... 3-35 Photo 3.3  Part of a hill located on the Operations Base. ....................................................................................... 3-36 Photo 4.1  Example of a small pocket beach on Pulau Batik with Pulau Timbun Mata in the background........... 4-16 Photo 4.2  Air quality and noise sampling at Site AN3 (Kg. Melantah). ................................................................. 4-21 Photo 4.3  Aquaculture along the river and sediment plume discharged into Darvel Bay (from Sabah

Shoreline Management Plan, Baseline Report //. ................................................................................. 4-25 Photo 4.4  Pristine, aquamarine waters on the northern shores of P. Timbun Mata. ............................................ 4-28 Photo 4.5  Turbid waters in the shallow areas southwest of P. Bait. ..................................................................... 4-29 Photo 4.6  Pulau Batik (foreground) and Pulau Timbun Mata (background) with fringing coral reefs. ................. 4-32 Photo 4.7  Reefs off the North West coast of Pulau. Timbun Mata. ....................................................................... 4-34 Photo 4.8   The reefs which have not been blasted are very diverse with a very wide range of coral species. .... 4-37 Photo 4.9  Blast fishing damage was common in the surveyed area, blasts were heard on every day of

survey with a maximum of 3 blasts per hour. No fresh blast sites were found, most reef areas between 5 & 15m had clearly been blasted multiple times and the seabed reduced to rubble. Actual craters from individual blasts are visible in the bottom two photos. .......................................... 4-40 

Photo 4.10   Reef diversity: A – Diadema long spine sea urchins on a rubble reef area provide the only shelter for schools of small fish. B – Sponge and soft corals were commonly seen as first colonisers of blasted areas. C – Giant basket sponge. D – a lost fishing net being colonised by crinoids and sponges. E - Fish schools were uncommon, these yellow tail fusiliers were seen mostly on the outer reefs away from villages. F – A fish pot being colonised by red and blue sponges. Lost fishpots which continue to kill fish but are not recovered are a major threat to the reef fish stocks ....................................................................................................................................... 4-42 

Photo 4.11   Seagrass Enhalus acoroides. ................................................................................................................ 4-44 Photo 4.12   Seagrass Thalassia hemprichii. ............................................................................................................ 4-44 Photo 4.13  Subtidal seagrass and coral communities at Northeast P. Bait. ........................................................... 4-45 Photo 4.14  Mangroves at Kg. Tg. Kapor (Class V Mangrove Forest Reserve). ..................................................... 4-46 Photo 4.15  Back mangrove; Ceriops tagal at Tg Kapor .......................................................................................... 4-46 Photo 4.16  Back mangrove; Lumnitzera littorea at Tg. Kapor. ............................................................................... 4-47 Photo 4.17  Class V Mangrove Forest Reserve along P. Bait; at proposed bridge location. .................................. 4-48 Photo 4.18   Mangroves along P. Bait; at proposed jetty. ......................................................................................... 4-48 Photo 4.19  Healthy mangroves fringing the shoreline at Tg. Timbun Mata (October 2013). ................................. 4-51 Photo 4.20  Rhizophora spp. is the dominant mangrove species within the study area (October 2013). ............... 4-51 Photo 4.21  Rhizophora spp. established on sandy substrate at P. Timbun Mata. ................................................. 4-52 Photo 4.22   Dolphins sighted during the field surveys ............................................................................................. 4-53 Photo 4.23  Tridacna maxima found on the reefs of P. Timbun Mata. ..................................................................... 4-56 Photo 4.24   The reefs within the study area have few predators and larval fish were abundant. The fishing

pressure is high since few adult fish were seen (© Steve Oakley) ....................................................... 4-57 Photo 4.25   Macroalgae were very abundant on reefs to the NE of the P. Timbun Mata. There is clearly a

source of nutrients nearby which is causing eutrophication and reef community changes from coral dominated to macro algae dominated. ......................................................................................... 4-59 

Photo 4.26  Illegal clearing on P. Timbun Mata Protection Forest Reserve and in the mangrove fringe ................ 4-63 Photo 4.27  Cleared area southwest of P. Batik Kulambu 2 (Left); Topsoil visible along P. Batik’s northeast

(Right). ................................................................................................................................................... 4-63 Photo 4.28   Typical vegetation found on P. Bait. ...................................................................................................... 4-64 Photo 4.29   Vegetation classes within Tg. Kapor. .................................................................................................... 4-65 Photo 4.30   Osprey perching on a branch (© Steve Oakley) ................................................................................... 4-66 Photo 4.31  Kg. Tg. Kapor ......................................................................................................................................... 4-72 Photo 4.32  Kg. Tg. Kapor jetty. ................................................................................................................................ 4-73 Photo 4.33  Kg. Parang Tengah located on northwest side of P. Timbun Mata. ..................................................... 4-73 Photo 4.34  Kg. Pangi Hujung, on the mainland west of P. Timbun Mata. .............................................................. 4-74 Photo 4.35  Bajau Laut settlement on P. Timbun Mata. ........................................................................................... 4-74 Photo 4.36  Women also engage in productive tasks although they may not be reported as such. ....................... 4-82 Photo 4.37  Fish processed and being dried for subsequent sale. .......................................................................... 4-83 

xv

Photo 4.38  A seaweed farmer tending his lines at Kg Ligit-Ligitan ......................................................................... 4-83 Photo 4.39  Boat making at Kg. Sumandeh ............................................................................................................. 4-84 Photo 4.40   Fishing trawlers moving towards the eastern channel about 2 nm from P. Timbun Mata (Kasi,

2013)...................................................................................................................................................... 4-85 Photo 4.41  Artisanal fishing (laying fish pots) around P. Timbun Mata. ................................................................. 4-87 Photo 4.42  Fish pots are a common fishing method in the area (Photo credit: Dr. Paul Porodong) ..................... 4-87 Photo 4.43  Seaweed farming (Photo credit: Dr. Paul Porodong) ........................................................................... 4-90 Photo 4.44   Burial grounds at Tg. Kapor behind village houses. ............................................................................. 4-93 Photo 4.45   Burial ground at Tg. Kapor next to a village house. .............................................................................. 4-93 Photo 4.46  A typical small boat ferrying people to and from their villages on the islands. ................................... 4-104 Photo 5.1   Scattered corals found along the proposed jetty area. ......................................................................... 5-57 Photo 5.2  Mangrove fringe between Kg. Limau-Limau and Kg. Bait on P. Bait. .................................................. 5-62 Photo 5.3   Mangroves within the proposed Operations Base area. ...................................................................... 5-63 Photo 5.4   Current seascape in the channel in between P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait. ......................................... 5-84 Photo 5.5   Seascape around P. Timbun Mata. ...................................................................................................... 5-84 Photo 5.6   Example of grow out cages with a working space; side view (DHI, 2013). .......................................... 5-85 Photo 5.7   Lobster grow out cages at Darden Pilot Farm at P. Bait ...................................................................... 5-85 Photo 6.1  Example of silt curtain along mangrove area. ...................................................................................... 6-15 Photo 6.2  Example demarcation of working areas to prevent encroachment. ..................................................... 6-26 

APPENDICES

A Terms of Reference Approval B Project Information C Baseline Study D Impact Threshold Report E Hydraulic and Water Quality Assessment Report & Early Comments F iLAP Collective Management Agreement G Socioeconomic Studies H iLAP Marine Navigation Report & Navigation (MRTA) Early Comments I Consultations Activities & Supporting Letters J Erosion and Sediment Control Plan K Preliminary Geology and Geohazard Report

xvi 62800860-RPT-02

ABBREVIATIONS

ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current profiler AIZ Aquaculture Industrial Zone BAP Best Aquaculture Practice BMP Best Management Practice BOD Biological Oxygen Demand CD Chart Datum Chl-a Chlorophyll a COLREGS Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea CPUE Catch per Unit Effort CSR Corporate Social Responsibility CTI Coral Triangle Initiative DHI DHI Water & Environment (M) Sdn Bhd DID Department of Irrigation and Drainage DO Dissolved Oxygen DOE Department of Environment DoF Department of Fisheries ECR Environmental Compliance Report EIA Environment Impact Assessment EMMP Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan EMP Environment Management Plan ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation EO Environmental Officer EPD Environment Protection Department ES Environmental Score ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan ESS Environmental Scoping Study ESSCOM Eastern Sabah Security Command EWG Environmental Working Group FAD Fish Aggregating Devices FAO Food and Aquaculture Organisation FCR Feed Conversion Ration FR Forest Reserve GAA Global Aquaculture Alliance GDP Gross Domestic Product GFS Global Forecast System GIS Geographic Information System GMO Genetically Modified Organism GNI Gross National Income GPS Global Positioning System HAB Harmful Algal Bloom HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points HAT Highest Astronomical Tide HD Hydrodynamic IALA International Association of Lighthouse Authorities iCMA iLAP Collective Management Agreement iCMAMG iCMA Management Group iCWG iLAP Community Working Group iLAP Integrated Lobster Aquaculture Project ISLG Interim Stocking Limit Guidelines IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature JKKK Jawatankuasa Kemajuan Keselamatan Kampung JKR Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) JVR Virgin Jungle Reserve Kg. Kampung Kg Kilogram KK Kota Kinabalu Lmax Maximum Sound Level

xvii

LAeq Equivalent A-weighted Sound Level LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide LATSB Lobster Aqua Technologies Sdn. Bhd. LEED Leadership in Energy and Environment Design LF Lobster Farming LHMP Lobster Health Management Plan LKIM Lembaga Kemajuan Ikan Malaysia LOA Length Overall MASP Marine Area Spatial Plan MHWS Mean High Water Spring MHWN Mean High Water Neap MIC Marine Integrated Cluster MLD Million Litres per Day MLWN Mean Low Water Neap MLWS Mean Low Water Spring MMEA Malaysia Maritime Enforcement Agency MO Management Officer MPA Marine Protected Area MSL Mean Sea Level MT Mud Transport MTRA Marine Traffic Risk Assessment NACA Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia Pacific NE Northeast NGO Non- Government Organisation NH4 Ammonia NKEA National Key Economic Area NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA NW Northwest OB Operations Base O&G Oil and Grease P. Pulau PAR Photosynthetically Active Radiation PCA Principles Component Analysis PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PE Population Equivalent PIANC Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses PU Production Unit QA Quality Assurance R&D Research and Development RACE Rapid Assessment Coral Ecosystem RIAM Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix ROW Right of Way RV Rating Value SEDIA Sabah Economic Development Corridor Agency SEIA Special Environment Impact Assessment Sg. Sungai SMP Shoreline Management Plan SME Small Medium Enterprise SOP Standard Operating Procedures SOPEP Ship Oil Pollution Emergency Plan SS Suspended Sediment SSME Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion ST Sediment Transport STP Sewage Treatment Plant SW Southwest Tg. Tanjung TSMP Tun Sakaran Marine Park TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen TN Total Nitrogen TOC Total Organic Carbon

xviii 62800860-RPT-02

TOL Temporary Occupation Licenses TOR Terms of Reference TP Total Phosphorus TPA Tonnes per annum TPH Tonnes per hectare TSP Total Suspended Particulates TSS Total Suspended Sediments UD Undetectable UMS University Malaysia Sabah UNEP United Nation Environment Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization USEPA U.S Environmental Protection Agency USGBC U.S Green Building Council UV Ultra-Violet WL Water level WQ Water Quality WWF World Wildlife Fund

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-1

1 Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1.1 Introduction

This report is titled the “Special Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed

Integrated Lobster Aquaculture Project (iLAP), including Marine Aquaculture Zone around

Pulau Timbun Mata Waters, Earthworks and Jetty for Operations Base at Pulau Bait and

Bridge from Tg. Kapor to P. Bait’. The Terms of Reference (TOR) for this SEIA study has

been approved by the Environment Protection Department (EPD) on May 26, 2014.

The SEIA study focuses on all major environmental impacts that would be caused by the

proposed iLAP as identified through the scoping exercise and documented in the TOR, and

their subsequent mitigation measures as specified within the EPD guidelines.

Pendahuluan

Laporan ini bertajuk “Penilaian Khas Impak Alam Sekitar (SEIA) bagi Cadangan Projek

Akuakultur Udang Kara (iLAP), termasuk zon akuakultur marin di perairan P. Timbun Mata,

Kerja Tanah dan Jeti untuk Pangkalan Operasi di P. Bait dan Jambatan dari Tg. Kapor ke P.

Bait”. Terma Rujukan bagi laporan SEIA ini telah diluluskan oleh Jabatan Perlindungan Alam

Sekitar (JPAS) pada 26 Mei 2014.

Kajian SEIA projek ini memberi tumpuan kepada semua impak utama alam sekitar yang

akan berpunca daripada cadangan iLAP ini seperti yang dikenal pasti melalui latihan skop

dan didokumenkan dalam Terma Rujukan dan seterusnya langkah-langkah mitigasi

sepertimana yang dinyatakan di dalam garis panduan JPAS.

1.2 Project Description

The project is located at P. Bait and the waters around P. Timbun Mata in the Semporna

District, approximately 12 km northwest of Semporna and 7 km to the east of Kunak

Township, see Figure 1.1.

The iLAP is a fully integrated lobster aquaculture facility that will produce lobsters in

progressive phases beginning from juvenile production in hatcheries, lobster grow-out to

commercial size, packaging and final shipment to the end consumer. The present project at

Semporna focuses on the lobster grow-out, packaging and shipment.

The project will serve to enhance the local infrastructure; specifically power, water supply

and telecommunication, benefiting the Semporna District. Moreover, the development is

designed to be environmentally sustainable which entails ecologically friendly construction

and design plus operational methods with compliance to world’s best practise in sustainable

aquaculture policies and methods.

Other beneficial elements of the project are the creation of jobs and business opportunities

for Semporna and the surrounding districts, contributing greatly to the economy of the state

of Sabah. An estimated 20,000 jobs will be created comprising of skilled/semi-skilled

workers/general workers and contract farmers. The Project encompasses education and

training as well as skills and technology transfer to local communities.

The project will bring in gross net income of RM 3.3 billion annually and investment of RM

2.96 billion over three development phases through to 2030. The total investment for the

1-2 62800860-RPT-02

iLAP Operations Base and initial production in the first phase is estimated at RM 2.23 billion

through to 2020.

Deskripsi Projek

Projek in terletak di P. Bait dan sekitar kawasan laut P. Timbun Mata di Daerah Semporna,

iaitu lebih kurang 12 km barat laut Semporna dan 7 km dari timur Bandar Kunak, lihat Figure

1.1

Projek ini merupakan satu kemudahan akuakultur udang kara bersepadu yang akan

membekalkan udang kara melalui fasa-fasa yang progresif bermula daripada pembiakan di

kolam sehinggalah pembesaran udang kara, pembungkusan dan penghantaran terakhir ke

pengguna. Projek di Semporna ini akan memberi tumpuan kepada pembesaran udang kara,

pembungkusan dan penghantaran.

Projek ini akan meningkatkan infrastruktur tempatan, terutamanya bekalan elektrik, bekalan

air dan kemudahan telekomunikasi di Semporna. Tambahan pula, pembangunan ini direka

untuk alam sekitar yang mampan di mana ianya melibatkan pembinaan mesra ekologi dan

reka bentuk serta kaedah operasi dengan mematuhi amalan terbaik dunia dengan polisi dan

kaedah akuakultur yang mampan.

Elemen lain yang memberi faedah kepada projek ini adalah peluang pekerjaan dan

perniagaan untuk daerah Semporna dan daerah-daerah di sekitarnya serta menyumbang

kepada perkembangan ekonomi negeri Sabah. Anggaran 20,000 peluang pekerjaan akan

wujud yang terdiri daripada pekerja mahir/separuh mahir/pekerja awam dan petani kontrak.

Projek ini juga melibatkan pendidikan dan latihan termasuklah kemahiran dan peningkatan

teknologi kepada penduduk tempatan.

Projek ini akan menyumbang kepada pendapatan tahunan sebanyak RM 3.3 juta dan

pelaburan sebanyak RM 2.96 juta sepanjang tiga fasa pembinaan sehingga tahun 2030.

Jumlah pelaburan untuk pangkalan operasi iLAP dan permulaan pengeluaran pada fasa

pertama dianggarkan sebanyak RM 2.23 juta sehingga tahun 2020.

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-3

Figure 1.1 Project location [Rajah 1.1 lokasi projek].

1.2.1 Project Concept

The iLAP scope in Sabah includes the following components:

Lobster grow out production units (PU) in Semporna

Operations Base (OB) in Semporna

Supporting infrastructure including access roads, bridge to P. Bait, jetty at P. Bait and

worker quarters in Semporna.

Hatchery at Kudat

Lobster Processing Plant in Kota Kinabalu.

This SEIA focuses on the first three components above which are based in Semporna,

with the lobster grown out area around P. Timbun Mata, the Operations Base on P. Bait and

the bridge from Tg. Kapor on the mainland to the Operations Base on Bait (Figure 1.2).

Konsep Projek

Skop tujuan cadangan projek ini di Sabah termasuk dalam komponen yang berikut:

Unit pengeluaran (PU) pembesaran udang kara di Semporna.

1-4 62800860-RPT-02

Pangkalan operasi (OB) di Semporna.

Infrastruktur sokongan termasuklah jalan penghubung, jambatan ke P. Bait, jeti di P.

Bait dan tempat tinggal pekerja di Semporna.

Pusat penetasan di Kudat

Kilang pemprosesan udang kara di Kota Kinabalu.

SEIA ini fokus kepada tiga komponen pertama di atas yang ditempatkan di Semporna,

dengan kawasan pembesaran untuk udang kara di sekitar P. Timbun Mata, Pangkalan

operasi di P. Bait dan jambatan dari Tg. Kapor ke Pangkalan Operasi di Bait (Rajah 1.2).

Figure 1.2 Project components [Rajah 1.2 Komponen projek].

1.2.1.1 ILAP Operations Base An area of 55.23 ha on P. Bait (Figure 1.3) will be utilised for the Operations Base (OB). The

OB comprises the following facilities:

Lobster collection and packaging centre,

Research and environmental monitoring laboratories,

Engineering workshop,

Land and sea base workshop,

Feed warehouse and preparation area,

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-5

Sewage treatment plant (26,000 PE)

Incinerator to dispose of lobster biomass (mortalities)

General office,

Operations office,

Staff quarters, and

Supporting infrastructure.

Pangkalan Operasi iLAP

Kawasan seluas 55.23 hektar di P. Bait (Rajah 1.3) akan digunakan untuk Pangkalan

Operasi. Pangkalan Operasi tersebut akan terdiri daripada kemudahan-kemudahan berikut:

Pusat pengumpulan dan pembukusan udang kara,

Makmal kajian dan kawalan alam sekitar,

Bengkel jurutera,

Bengkel darat dan laut,

Gudang makanan dan kawasan penyediaan,

Logi rawatan kumbahan (26,000 PE);

Alat pembakar / insinerator untuk melupuskan sisa biomas udang kara,

Pejabat am,

Pejabat operasi,

Tempat tinggal pekerja, dan

Infrastruktur sokongan.

1.2.1.2 ILAP Grow-Out Cages The farming areas for the iLAP grow-out cages (PU) encompass a total of 9,300 ha (Figure

1.3). The areas will be divided into a number of production zones according to the carrying

capacity of the areas, primarily driven by water depths and adequate flushing (current

speeds). The design or arrangement of the PUs and cages, cage technology and animal

husbandry will improve over time (especially given the long development period of the

project), likely resulting in larger PUs than those initially proposed here. However, this will

not change the total farm areas, but rather the distribution pattern and density i.e. how many

per unit area.

Sangkar pembesaran iLAP

Kawasan untuk sangkar pembesaran iLAP (PU) merangkumi kawasan sejumlah 9,300 ha;

(Rajah 1.3). Kawasan tersebut akan terbahagi kepada zon penghasilan berikutan kepada

kapasiti kawasan yang bergantung oleh kedalaman air dan curahan yang mencukupi

(kelajuan arus). Rekabentuk PU dan sangkar, teknologi sangkar dan peningkatan akan

bertambah baik dari masa ke masa (terutamanya memandangkan jangka masa yang lama

untuk pembangunan projek) dan mungkin akan menghasilkan PU yang lebih besar daripada

yang dicadangkan pada permulaan ini. Walaubagaimanapun, ini tidak akan mengubah

jumlah keluasan kawasan ladang, tetapi akan mengubah taburan bentuk dan kepadatan,

iaitu berapa unit sangkar dalam satu kawasan.

1.2.1.3 Bridge, Jetty and Access Roads A reinforced concrete piled jetty located to the northwest of the OB with a 500 m length

trestle and 112 m length jetty head is also to be constructed as part of the infrastructure for

the project (Figure 1.3).

The proposed bridge covering a distance of 1.2 km from Tg. Kapor to P. Bait will be a dual

carriage way structure of 11 m width (road width and bridge shoulder).

1-6 62800860-RPT-02

A new tarmac road complying with the Public Works Department (JKR) R3 standard

connecting the bridge to the existing road at Tg. Kapor on the mainland will be constructed

as the access road to the project site.

Both the bridge and the access roads will be built by the proponent as public infrastructure

and will be handed over to the relevant government agency post construction.

Jambatan, Jeti dan Jalan Masuk

“Reinforced Concrete Piled” jeti terletak di barat laut OB dengan anggaran sepanjang 500 m

dan 112 m kepala jeti (jetty head) juga akan dibina sebagai sebahagian daripada

infrastruktur projek (Rajah 1.3).

Jambatan cadangan akan merangkumi jarak sepanjang 1.2 km dari Tg. Kapor ke P. Bait dan

akan membentuk dua laluan kenderaan. Lebar jambatan (lebar jalan dan bahu jambatan)

adalah 11 m.

Jalan baru yang mematuhi syarat Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR) R3 bagi menghubungkan

jambatan kepada jalan sedia ada di Tg. Kapor akan dibina sebagai jalan penghubung ke

tapak projek. Kedua-dua jambatan dan jalan masuk akan dibina oleh pemaju projek sebagai

infrastruktur awam dan akan diserahkan kembali kepadan agensi kerajaan yang berkaitan

selepas pembinaan.

Figure 1.3 Layout of the Project key infrastructure. [Rajah 1.3 Susun atur infrastruktur projek.]

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-7

1.2.2 Development Schedule

The Project is presently in the early stages in the Front End Engineering Design (FEED)

where design and detailed planning is being carried out. The construction is proposed to

start in 2015 and will be rolled out in stages until 2028 as shown in Figure 1.4.

The Project will be implemented according to a carefully phased schedule so as to increase

the grow-out capacity in a controlled and structured manner.

Jadual Pembangunan

Pada masa ini, projek adalah di peringkat awal “Front End Engineering Design” (FEED) di

mana rekabentuk dan pelan terperinci sedang dijalankan. Projek pembinaan dijangkakan

bermula pada tahun 2015 dan akan dilaksanakan secara berfasa sehingga tahun 2028

(Jadual 1.2).

Projek ini akan dilaksanakan berdasarkan jadual berfasa bagi memastikan peningkatan

kapasiti pembesaran secara terkawal dan berstruktur.

Figure 1.4 Development phases for the Project. [Rajah 1.4 Jadual Pembangunan Projek]

1.3 Existing Environment at Project Site

The main sensitive areas around the project site are the mangrove forest at Tg. Kapor on the

mainland, coral reefs and human settlements with associated land and sea usage (Figure

1.5). The physical-chemical, biological and human environment is summarised briefly in the

following.

Keadaan Semasa Persekitaran di Tapak Projek

Kawasan utama yang sensitif di sekitar tapak projek adalah hutan paya bakau di Tg. Kapor

yang terletak di tanah besar, kawasan terumbu karang dan kawasan penempatan dengan

penggunaan darat dan laut yang berkaitan (Rajah 1.4). Persekitaran fizikal-kimia, biologi dan

persekitaran manusia diringkaskan di bahagian yang berikut.

Phase 3

Infrastructure

Revenue at

Maturity

2022

Phase 3: 5,100 Ha

Jetties

Potable water, Telecommunications, Local

Sewerage

Paved Roads, Bridge, Drains, Power

Supply, Regulatory Work

2026 2027 20282023 2024 2025

Synergy Farm: RM 88.3 million

Seaspace

2020 2021Component 2016 2017 2018 20192015

Phase 2

Corporate Growers: RM 2.6 Billion

Phase 1: 1,700 Ha

Phase 2: 3,350 Ha

1-8 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 1.5 Environmental sensitive receptors within 5 km of the project site. [Rajah 1.5 Reseptor sensitif yang ditemui dalam jarak 5 km dari tapak projek.]

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-9

1.3.1 Physical Environment

Bathymetry The iLAP aquaculture growout areas have water depths of greater than 10 m, extending to a maximum of 90 m.

Meteorology As with the rest of Sabah, the climate at Semporna is of uniform temperature, receiving a considerable amount of rainfall and high humidity of over 70 percent throughout the year. Rainfall is more uniform throughout the year although months of February to April are dryer than rest.

Wind During the NE-monsoon, offshore winds generally blow from the NNE sector and typically occur during November through to March. The slightly shorter SW monsoon from mid-May to late October typically results in less strong and more variable offshore winds from the SSW. Outside the two monsoonal periods (inter-monsoon) there is generally calm or only light winds varying in directionality and in strength.

Currents Current speeds in the Project area are very low, with measurements at two sites showing:

North west of Pulau Timbun Mata: rarely exceed 0.3 m/s

In the channel between Pulau Timbun Mata and Pulau Bait :

maximum current speed of 0.2 m/s

Neap tide currents did not exceed 0.01 m/s at both sites.

Tides Tidal elevations in Darvel Bay, including the proposed site, are mixed semi-diurnal (i.e. the tide peaks twice in one day but at different heights) with a maximum tidal range of approximately two (2) meters.

Waves Wind induced sea waves and swell are of only a small magnitude. The average significant wave height is about 0.01-0.05 m around the project area.

Coastal Geomorphology

Morphologically active sections of the coastline are mainly pocket beaches on P. Timbun Mata, which are generally well protected by the presence of coral reefs and/or mangrove forests.

Marine Sediments

The marine sediments at the site ranges from highly organic mud near the riverine areas to well sorted sand with low organic content next to coralline areas. Total Kjedahl Nitrogen concentrations are within a normal range found within tropical ecosystems.

Noise and Air Ambient noise and air quality surveys conducted at the nearest villages to the Project area showed good air quality with dust within the Malaysian Ambient Air Quality Standards.

The average noise level at all the sensitive receptors is also below the standard of 50 dB(A) for Rural Residential Areas.

Hydrology and Riverine Discharges

There are four rivers discharging into the project area. Three of the rivers belong to Segarong Catchment which is the largest catchment draining into the study area. Agriculture and farming are the main developments within the catchment. The river water quality contains high concentrations of pollutant loads during all seasons and low dissolved oxygen. However, currents cause these discharges to move longshore avoiding the project area except during extreme flow conditions or storm events. The rivers are within Class II A/B under the Malaysian National Water Quality Standards.

1-10 62800860-RPT-02

Marine Water Quality

The southern shorelines of P. Timbun Mata and around P. Bait are subject to occasional periods of high suspended sediments from riverine plumes during high flow conditions and the waters are visibly more turbid. Sampling showed suspended sediment concentrations around P. Selangan, Pababag and P. Bait were all below 5 mg/l. Nutrient levels are also generally low.

Persekitaran Fizikal

Batimetri / Kedalaman Air

Kawasan iLAP adalah di kawasan laut dengan kedalaman lebih daripada 10 m; dengan kedalaman maksikum sehingga 90 m.

Meteorologi Ciri keseluruhan bagi iklim di Sabah adalah dikategorikan sebagai suhu yang tetap, menerima sejumlah hujan yang banyak dan mempunyai kelembapan yang tinggi iaitu melebihi 70 % sepanjang tahun. Hujan adalah lebih sekata sepanjang tahun kecuali pada bulan Februari hingga April yang lebih kering berbanding bulan-bulan yang lain.

Angin Semasa monsun timur laut, angin dari laut bertiup dari kawasan timur laut yang biasanya berlaku pada bulan November hingga Mac. Monsun barat daya adalah lebih singkat iaitu dari pertengahan Mei sehingga hujung Oktober; biasanya angin bertiup kurang kuat dan banyak pembolehubah angin dari barat daya. Selain daripada dua monsun tersebut keadaan angin yang tenang atau hanya angin perlahan yang berbeza arah dan kekuatan.

Arus Kelajuan arus adalah perlahan di kawasan projek dengan pengukuran di dua kawasan menunjukkan:

Barat laut Pulau Timbun Mata: jarang akan melebihi 0.03 m/s

Saluran di antara Pulau Timbun Mata dan Pulau Bait : kelajuan arus

maksimum sehingga 0.02 m/s

Arus air pasang surut tidak melebihi 0.01 m/s di kedua-dua kawasan.

Pasang Surut Perubahan kadar pasang surut di Teluk Darvel (Darvel Bay), termasuk kawasan cadangan, adalah bercampur (semi-diurnal) (iaitu arus puncak berlaku dua kali sehari tetapi pada ketinggian yang berbeza) dengan julat maksimum bagi air pasang surut dianggarkan setinggi dua (2) meter.

Ombak Angin mempengaruhi ombak laut dan ketinggian pada magnitud yang kecil. Purata ketinggian ombak yang signifikan adalah 0.01 – 0.05 m di sekitar kawasan projek.

Geomorfologi pantai

Bahagian pantai dengan morfologi yang aktif adalah di pantai poket (pocket beaches) di P. Timbun Mata, yang biasanya dilindungi oleh kewujudan terumbu karang dan/atau hutan paya bakau.

Sedimen Marin Ciri-ciri sedimen di kawasan kajian adalah dari lumpur yang sangat organik berhampiran kawasan sungai sehingga pasir dengan kandungan organik yang rendah bersebelahan kawasan karang. Jumlah kepekatan Nitrogen adalah dalam lingkungan biasa yang boleh didapati dalam ekosistem hutan tropika.

Bunyi dan Udara

Kualiti ambien bunyi dan udara yang dijalankan di kawasan kampung yang terdekat dengan kawasan projek menunjukkan kualiti udara yang baik dan dalam tahap Piawaian Kualiti Udara Malaysia.

Purata tahap bunyi pada kesemua reseptor sensitif ialah di bawah tahap

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-11

piawaian iaitu 55 dB(A) di kawasan perumahan Luar Bandar.

Hidrologi dan Pelepasan Sungai

Terdapat empat sungai yang mengalir daripada kawasan projek. Tiga daripada sungai tersebut berada pada kawasan tadahan Segarong yang merupakan kawasan tadahan terbesar mengalir ke kawasan kajian. Pertanian dan perladangan adalah pembangunan utama dalam kawasan tadahan tersebut. Kualiti air sungai mengandungi bahan pencemar yang tinggi pada kesemua musim dan oksigen terlarut yang rendah. Walaubagaimanapun, arus menyebabkan pelepasan ini bergerak sepanjang persisiran pantai dan mengelakkan kawasan projek, kecuali semasa aliran yang kuat atau ribut. Kualiti sungai adalah dalam Kelas II A/B di bawah Piawaian Nasional Kualiti Air Malaysia.

Kualiti Air Marin Keadaan persisir pantai selatan di P. Timbun Mata dan kawasan P. Bait adalah bergantung kepada mendapan sedimen yang tinggi dari sungai semasa aliran tinggi yang akan menyebabkan keadaan air kelihatan lebih keruh. Penyampelan menunjukkan kepekatan sedimen di kawasan P. Selangan, Pababag dan P. Bait adalah di bawah 5 mg/l. Tahap nutrient juga rendah.

1.3.2 Biological Environment

Regional Setting

The project site lies in the southern part of Darvel Bay in the waters surrounding P. Bait, P. Timbun Mata and its satellite islands to the north, including P. Batik and P. Batik Kulambu as well as Tg. Kapor mainland.

The area is within the Coral Triangle (CTI) and at the centre of the Coral Triangle is the Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion (SSME).The Tun Sakaran Marine Park is close to the Project site, with its border located 900 m away from the project boundary at its closest point.

Critical Marine Habitats

Coral Reefs

Coral reefs within the study area encompass an approximate area of 79 km

2. There is at least 50% live coral cover at all the offshore reef sites to

the north of P. Timbun Mata, up to 79% on the northwest of P. Timbun Mata and around 40% live coral cover at P. Bait Channel.

Fish blasting and other destructive fishing techniques such as cyanide poisoning are a significant ongoing threat to the corals of the area, where many areas of the reefs have evidence of obvious blast damage.

Although high coral cover is important for larval fish, the low fish numbers recorded leads to the conclusion that heavy overfishing and not environmental degradation has reduced fish numbers in the area.

Seagrass

Seagrass areas are limited to around P. Bait and in very sparse patches around P. Timbun Mata. Species observed include Enhalus acoroides, Thalassia hemprichii and Halodule sp. The seagrass substrate coverage

in the seagrass beds is approximately 30% to 50%.

Mangroves

Mangroves line the mainland shoreline adjacent to the Project site, much of P. Bait and most sheltered embayments on P. Timbun Mata.

The dominant mangrove species observed in the area are Rhizophora species. Mangroves at P. Timbun Mata are larger compared to those at P. Bait and Tg. Kapor, as the latter mangrove areas are established on fossil reefs which generally produce more stunted communities. There were little signs of harvesting around the project site.

1-12 62800860-RPT-02

The mangroves at Tg. Kapor, P. Timbun Mata and southern sections of P. Bait are gazetted Class V Mangrove Forest Reserves.

Marine Species Marine fauna of conservational significance include otters, dolphins, turtles, whale sharks and rays. Local villagers also reported the presence of giant grouper, Giant clams, Napolean Wrasse (Humphead Wrasse), sharks, and seahorses. The beaches on P. Timbun Mata and northern P. Bait are not turtle nesting beaches as evidenced by the absence of turtle nest pits during field surveys.

Terrestrial Flora

The entire island of P. Timbun Mata is a Class I Protection Forest Reserve. Apart from small patches of grassland and cultivation, the island is generally covered in dense forest.

In contrast, cultivated land (coconut, oil palm and tapioca) has replaced the original terrestrial vegetation covering P. Bait, situated southwest of P. Timbun Mata, except on the southern area and patches covered with mangrove which is protected as Class V Mangrove Forest Reserve.

On the mainland at Tg. Kapor, the natural vegetation in the hinterland has been cleared to make way for villages and associated cultivated lands.

Wildlife Short Clawed Otter, Long tailed macaque, Monitor lizard, Wild Boar and Proboscis Monkeys have been sighted along the mangroves of the project area by the study team. Other wildlife reported by the local villagers within the area includes crocodiles and wild deer.

Persekitaran Biologi

Tetapan Serantau

Tapak projek terletak di bahagian selatan Teluk Darvel di perairan sekitar P. Bait, P. Timbun Mata dan pulau-pulau kecil di bahagian utara, termasuklah P. Batik dan P. Batik Kulambu P. serta Tg. Kapor di tanah besar.

Kawasan tapak projek terletak di dalam Inisiatif Segi Tiga Terumbu Karang (CTI) dan di pusat Inisiatif Segi Tiga Terumbu Karang ini ialah kawasan eko-marin Sulu-Sulawesi (SSME). Projek ini dari kawasan yang paling dekat adalah 900 m dari Taman Marin Tun Sakaran.

Habitat Marin Kritikal

Terumbu Karang

Terumbu karang di kawasan kajian merangkumi kawasan lebih kurang 79 km

2. Terdapat sekurang-kurangnya 50% karang hidup di sekitar luar

pesisiran utara P. Timbun Mata, sehingga 79% di barat laut P. Timbun Mata dan 40% di saluran P. Bait. Teknik letupan ikan dan cara memancing yang merosakkan seperti penggunaan racun cyanide memberi kesan buruk kepada kawasan terumbu karang, di mana kawasan terumbu mempunyai kesan kerosakan yang jelas akibat daripada letupan.

Walaupun kawasan terumbu yang banyak adalah penting untuk kawasan ikan larval, bilangan ikan yang sedikit membawa kepada kesimpulan bahawa penangkapan ikan yang berlebihan telah mengurangkan bilangan ikan di dalam kawasan ini dan bukan pencemaran alam sekitar.

Rumput Laut

Kawasan rumput laut terhad di kawasan P. Bait sahaja dan sedikit di kawasan P. Timbun Mata. Spesis yang ditemui adalah Enhalus acoroides, Thalassia hemprichii dan Halodule sp. Litupan rumput laut adalah lebih kurang 30% hingga 50%.

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-13

Paya Bakau

Kawasan paya bakau adalah disepanjang pesisir pantai di tanah besar berdekatan dengan tapak projek, banyak juga terdapat di P. Bait dan bahagian terlindung di kawasan Teluk P. Timbun Mata.

Spesies bakau yang utama di kawasan kajian adalah Rhizophora spp. Bakau di P. Timbun Mata adalah lebih besar berbanding dengan bakau di P. Bait dan Tg. Kapor. Tanda-tanda penuaian di sekitar tapak projek sukar di kesan.

Paya bakau di Tg. Kapor, P. Timbun Mata dan bahagian selatan P. Bait diwartakan sebagai Hutan Simpan Kelas V.

Spesis Marin Spesies pemuliharaan penting adalah memerang, ikan lumba-lumba, penyu, ikan yu paus dan ikan pari. Penduduk kampung juga melaporkan terdapatnya kerapu pertang (giant grouper), kerang gergasi (giant clams), Napolean Wrasse (Humphead Wrasse), ikan jerung dan kuda laut.

Pantai-pantai di kawasan kajian di P. Timbun Mata dan utara P. Bait bukan merupakan kawasan penyu bertelur kerana tiada bukti yang menunjukkan terdapatnya lubang penyu bertelur semasa kerja lapangan.

Flora Daratan Keseluruhan kawasan P.Timbun Mata adalah merupakan hutan simpan Kelas 1 (Hutan Dilindungi). Selain daripada kawasan kecil padang rumput dan kawasan penanaman, pulau ini secara amnya dilitupi oleh hutan tebal.

Tanah yang diusahakan (kelapa, kelapa sawit dan ubi kayu) telah menggantikan tumbuhan asal yang melitupi P. Bait, terletak di barat daya P. Timbun Mata, kecuali di kawasan selatan dan kawasan yang dilitupi oleh paya bakau yang dilindungi sebagai Hutan Simpan Paya Bakau Kelas V.

Di kawasan tanah besar Tg. Kapor, tumbuhan darat semulajadi di kawasan pedalaman telah dibersihkan untuk membina kampung-kampung dan untuk tanah tanaman.

Hidupan Liar Memerang kecil (Short Clawed Otter), monyet (Long tailed macaque), biawak (Monitor lizard), babi hutan (Wild Boar) dan kera belanda (Proboscis monkey) telah dilihat di sekitar kawasan bakau projek oleh pasukan projek. Hidupan liar lain yang dilaporkan oleh penduduk kampung di dalam kawasan termasuklah buaya dan rusa liar.

1.3.3 Human Environment

Demographics The study area had a population of 17,572 in 2010 including P. Bait (1,740) and P. Timbun Mata (377). About 55% of the population are of working age; i.e. between 15-54 years of age. Bajau are the largest ethnic group in the project area.

Settlements A total of 28 settlements occur within a 5 km radius of the project site; 15 on mainland, 4 on P. Timbun Mata, 6 on P. Bait, 1 on. P. Larapan, 1 on P. Pababag and 1 on Kg. Selangan.

1-14 62800860-RPT-02

Occupation

and Source of

Livehood/

Income

Almost 60% of the social survey respondents for the SEIA study are fishermen. Accordingly, fishing is reported as the primary source of income (69.5% of survey respondents) especially for those who live in islands such as Pulau Bait, Larapan and Timbun Mata and those living along the coast between Kg. Pangi to Kg. Keramat (60.5% of respondents). Fishing however is only secondary for other villages on the mainland in the area between Tg. Kapor up to towards Kunak, where agricultural activities are a more important (56.6% respondents) source of income.

Historically

Sensitive

Areas

Aside from burial sites reported on P. Bait and Tg. Kapor, no other historically or culturally sensitive areas are reported or known in the project area.

Fisheries and

Aquaculture

The majority of the fisher population in the Semporna islands are involved in traditional or reef fisheries. Two pearl farms, seaweed farms, fish cage operations and the Darden lobster trial farm are also present within the study area. There is a proposal to create an artificial reef at P. Pababag in 2014 endorsed by Department of Fisheries.

Tourism There is currently no tourism infrastructure available on P. Timbun Mata, P. Bait or surrounding islands. There are however diving tours available for these islands as part of the larger dive tourism industry in the region.

Land Use Land uses around the study area are mainly rural with low density development which includes residential areas, forest reserve and small-scale agriculture.

Maritime Uses Local marine traffic (mostly fishing boats and bagangs) occurs mainly in the channel between the mainland and P. Timbun Mata, and west of P. Timbun Mata.

Commercial marine traffic does not occur within project area but the peripherals of the project area, with tankers, dry bulkers, container vessels, tugs and barges being the key types of commercial traffic. No traffic incidents have been recorded in the area over the past 5 years. .

Persekitaran Manusia

Demografik Kawasan kajian mempunyai populasi sebanyak 17,572 orang pada tahun 2010 termasuklah P. Bait (1,740) dan P. Timbun Mata (377). Kira-kira 55% daripada jumlah penduduk berumur di antara 15 hingga 54 tahun, iaitu kumpulan umur bekerja. Bajau membentuk kumpulan etnik yang terbesar di kawasan projek.

Penempatan Terdapat sebanyak 28 penempatan dalam radius 5 km dari tapak projek yang dicadangkan iaitu 15 di tanah besar, 4 di P. Timbun Mata, 6 di P.

Bait, 1 di P. Larapan, 1 di P. Pababag dan 1 di Kg.Selangan.

Pekerjaan dan

Sumber

Kehidupan/

pendapatan

Hampir 60% responden daripada kaji selidik sosial untuk kajian SEIA ini adalah nelayan. Aktiviti memancing dilaporkan sebagai sumber utama pendapatan (69.5% responden yang ditemubual) terutamanya bagi mereka yang tinggal di kawasan pulau seperti P. Bait, Larapan dan Timbun Mata dan juga mereka yang tinggal di sepanjang pantai iaitu antara Kg Pangi ke Kg Keramat (60.5% responden). Walaubagaimanapun, memancing merupakan sumber pendapatan kedua bagi penduduk di tanah besar iaitu kawasan di antara Tg. Kapor sehingga Kunak dimana aktiviti pertanian adalah lebiih penting (56.6% responden) sebagai sumber pendapatan.

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-15

Kawasan

Sensitif

Bersejarah

Selain daripada tapak perkuburan di P.Bait dan Tg. Kapor, tiada lagi kawasan bersejarah yang lain atau kawasan kebudayaan sensitif yang dilaporkan di kawasan projek.

Perikanan dan

Akuakultur

Majoriti penduduk nelayan di pulau-pulau Semporna terlibat dalam perikanan tradisional atau perikanan di kawasan terumbu. Dua ladang akuakultur mutiara, ladang rumpai laut, operasi sangkar ikan dan percubaan ladang udang kara Darden wujud di kawasan kajian. Terdapat juga cadangan untuk mewujudakan tukun terumbu tiruan di P. Pababag pada tahun 2014 yang disahkan oleh Jabatan Perikanan.

Pelancongan Pada masa kini, tidak terdapat kemudahan pelancongan di P.Timbun Mata, P.Bait atau pulau-pulau sekitarnya. Walaubagaimanapun, terdapat aktiviti menyelam disediakan untuk pulau-pulau ini sebagai sebahagian daripada industri pelancong serantau yang lebih besar.

Guna Tanah Guna tanah di sekitar kawasan kajian merupakan kawasan luar Bandar yang mempunyai pembangunan dengan kepadatan yang rendah termasuklah kawasan penempatan, hutan simpan dan kawasan pertanian yang berskala kecil.

Kegunaan

Maritim

Trafik Marin tempatan (bot nelayan dan ‘bagang’) berlaku terutamanya dalam laluan di antara tanah besar dan P.Timbu Mata dan barat P.Timbun Mata.

Trafik marin komersial tidak dilihat berlaku di kawasan projek tetapi berlaku di persisiran kawasan projek yang dikelilingi dengan kapal tangki, pukal kering, kapal kontena, kapal tunda dan tongkang yang merupakan jenis-jenis trafik komersial yang utama. Tiada rekod insiden trafik di kawasan tersebut sepanjang tempoh 5 tahun yang lalu.

1.4 Impact Assessment, Mitigation and Monitoring

Table 1.1 to Table 1.3 below summarises the environmental impacts, mitigation measures,

and monitoring requirements identified for the proposed iLAP. The predicted zone of impacts

for the marine aquaculture zone and land based operations, and the location of the key

mitigation measures and monitoring stations recommended for both construction and

operations are shown in Figure 1.6 and Figure 1.7 respectively.

In general, environmental impacts to the study site can be mitigated to acceptable levels if

the recommended mitigation measures are implemented. This finding reflects to some extent

the nature of the lobster farming, where the organisms are highly sensitive to their

environment and hence the proposed production has been designed to avoid negative

impacts to the water quality, which in turn minimises impacts to seabed sediments and

associated benthic habitats. A key consideration in the project design has also been to avoid

live coral reef areas, and a buffer of 100 m from live coral reef areas has been

recommended based on the predicted zones of impact.

The environmental management programme encompassing the mitigation measures and

monitoring is based on the adaptive management principle, such that adjustments in

production, methodology, etc. can be made to reduce impacts and at the same time

maximise sustainable lobster production. A key element of the management programme is

the establishment of the iLAP Collective Management Agreement (iCMA) between the

contract farmers, SME and corporate growers and the Proponent which details the Standard

Operating Procedures (SOPs) and responsibilities as well as a platform to implement,

monitor and update mitigation measures.

The Environment Protection Department (EPD) will be the main government body

overseeing the Project’s compliance with the mitigation and monitoring programmes

1-16 62800860-RPT-02

proposed in this SEIA for the construction stage. During the operations stage, the

Project’s environmental performance will be overseen by an Environmental Steering

Committee chaired by the Department of Fisheries (DoF). In addition to the DoF the

Environmental Steering Committee will comprise other key stakeholders such as EPD,

Sabah Parks, and NGOs such as WWF.

Another pivotal management tool between all stakeholders within the iLAP study area is the

iLAP Community Working Group (iCWG) which is chaired by the District Officer involving key

governmental agencies, iLAP proponent, and ketua kampungs (village heads). The iCWG be

the lead management entity for any socioeconomic issues that arise in terms of impacts,

mitigation or monitoring.

Penilaian Kesan, Langkah-langkah Mitigasi dan Pemantauan

Jadual 1.3 hingga Jadual 1.5 dibawah meringkaskan kesan terhadap alam sekitar, langkah-

langkah mitigasi dan keperluan pemantauan yang dikenalpasti untuk pembangunan

cadangan iLAP. Zon impak ramalan digambarkan bagi operasi zon akuakultur dan operasi

darat, serta lokasi langkah-langkah mitigasi utama dan stesen pemantauan yang disyorkan

untuk kedua-dua fasa pembinaan dan operasi ditunjukkan pada Rajah 1.6 dan Rajah 1.7.

Secara umumnya, kesan alam sekitar terhadap tapak kajian dapat dikurangkan kepada

tahap yang boleh diterima sekiranya langkah-langkah kawalan yang telah dicadangkan

dilaksanakan. Hasil kajian menggambarkan sedikit sebanyak aktiviti perladangan udang

kara, di mana organisma adalah sangat sensitif terhadap alam sekitar. Maka pengeluaran

yang dicadangkan adalah direka untuk mengelakkan impak negatif terhadap kualiti air dan

seterusnya mengurangkan kesan terhadap sedimen dasar laut dan habitat bentik.

Pertimbangan utama dalam reka bentuk projek juga adalah dengan mengelakkan kawasan

terumbu karang, serta mengambil kira kawasan penampan 100 m dari kawasan terumbu

karang berdasarkan zon impak yang dijangka.

Program pengurusan alam sekitar yang meliputi langkah-langkah mitigasi dan pemantauan

adalah berdasarkan kepada prinsip pengurusan mudah suai, seperti penyesuaian dalam

produksi, kaedah dan lain-lain yang dapat mengurangkan kesan dan pada masa yang sama

memaksimumkan pengeluaran udang kara. Elemen utama dalam program pengurusan ialah

penubuhan Perjanjian Pengurusan Kolektif iLAP (iCMA) di antara peladang kontrak, SME

serta peladang korporat dan pemaju projek yang memperincikan Prosedur Operasi Standard

(SOPs) dan tanggungjawab, serta satu platform untuk melaksanakan,

memantau dan mengemaskinikan langkah mitigasi.

Jabatan Perlindungan Alam Sekitar (JPAS) Sabah akan menjadi badan kerajaan utama

dalam menyelia pembinaan iLAP agar proses pembinaan ini mematuhi program mitigasi dan

pemantauan yang dicadangkan dalam SEIA. Semasa fasa operasi, keadaan alam sekitar

projek akan diselia oleh Jawatankuasa Pemandu Alam Sekitar (Environmental Steering

Committee) yang akan diketuai oleh Jabatan Perikanan. Selain Jabatan Perikanan,

Jawatankuasa Pemandu Alam Sekitar ini juga termasuk JPAS, Taman-Taman Sabah dan

organisasi bukan kerajaan seperti WWF.

Satu lagi kaedah pengurusan yang penting di antara semua pemegang saham dalam

kawasan kajian iLAP ini adalah Kumpulan Kerja Komuniti iLAP (iCWG) yang diketuai oleh

Pegawai Daerah yang melibatkan agensi-agensi kerajaan utama, pemaju projek iLAP, dan

ketua kampung. iCWG akan menerajui entiti pengurusan utama bagi isu-isu sosioekonomi

yang akan timbul dari segi impak, mitigasi atau pemantauan.

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-17

Figure 1.6 Monitoring stations and zone of impact at P. Bait and Tanjung Kapor during construction. [Rajah 1.6 Stesen pemantauan dan zon impak di P. Bait dan Tanjung Kapor semasa pembinaan]

1-18 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 1.7 Overall locations of the monitoring stations and zone of impact during operation [Rajah 1.7 Lokasi stesen pemantauan dan zon impak secara keseluruhan semasa operasi]

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-19

1.4.1 Physical Environment

A summary of the impact evaluation, recommended mitigation and abatement measures and

monitoring programmes for each issue relating to the physical-chemical environment is given

in Table 1.1.

Persekitaraan Fizikal

Ringkasan penilaian impak, cadangan langkah mitigasi dan langkah pengurangan serta

program pemantauan bagi setiap isu yang berkaitan dengan persekitaran fizikal-kimia

diberikan dalam Jadual 1.3.

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-21

Table 1.1 Summary of environmental impacts, mitigation measures and monitoring requirements identified for physical environmental components.

No Issue Impact Severity

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

1 Water quality during operations

1.1

Impact of nutrient releases from cages on water quality

Moderate negative

Adhere to interim stocking guidelines outlined in this report

Establish water quality action levels and response trigger values based on SEIA limits

Revise to Interim targets (after first 24 months of monitoring.

Final triggers values set after 48 months of monitoring and refined numerical modelling

Benchmarking with view to compliance with Global Aquaculture Alliance Best Aquaculture Practice requirements (GAA BAP)

Water quality monitoring at up to 33 stations (based on production phasing), with additional 18 reference sites, including one inside Tun Sakaran Marine Park.

Parameters: – nutrients, phytoplankton, Chl a, TSS and light attenuation, turbidity, DO

Monthly (EO)

Phytoplankton & HAB historical assessment using satellite imagery

Monitoring to assess thresholds (combined as part of the above water quality monitoring)

Every 6 months for all monitoring sites regardless of operational phasing

When there is an algal bloom, 6 hour or daily monitoring

Weekly monitoring at operational PU (EO)

Meterological station at the OB for wind speed and direction, rainfall, air temperature, humidity, PAR & atmospheric pressure

Startup and ongoing ( Proponent)

Random iCMA compliance audit of operators

Biannually (EO)

GAA BAP audit (during interim and full certification) after a suitable roll out plan of 5-10 years

TBA (Specialist Consultant)

1-22 62800860-RPT-02

No Issue Impact Severity

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

1.2 Impact of cage cleaning on water quality

Minor negative

Rotation of cages for air drying and cleaning on the PUs

Proper disposal of waste from land based cleaning of nets and cages

Auditing of SOP Biannually (EO)

2 Water quality during construction

2.1 Impacts on water quality during earthworks

Slight negative

Implement ESCP measures including silt curtain/fences, sediment basin, earth drain, silt traps, vegetative stabilisation and wash bay

To include Erosion Soil Control Plan (ESCP) requirements in all subcontractor’s contracts

Compliance monitoring of ESCP

measures.

Water quality monitoring at 8 sites

and 2 reference stations –

Turbidity and TSS

When necessary by EO

Tri-monthly compliance audit by EMP Consultant

2.2 Impacts on water quality during marine construction works

Minor Negative

Liquid waste management to adhere DOE Scheduled Wastes Regulations - to be included in tender specifications and contract documents

Site inspections Monthly (EO/ EMP Consultant)

3 Sedimentation and sediment enrichment during operations

3.1 Particulate matter and organic carbon - operations

Slight negative

iCMA SOP Benthic sediment deposition monitoring – to include oxidation state, TOC and associated parameters

Video surveys of sediments beneath and around major PU mooring footprints.

Testing feed content

Prior to operations; monthly for the first 12 months and annually thereafter

Annual (EMP Consultant)

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-23

No Issue Impact Severity

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

3.2 Heavy metals and other pollutants

Slight negative

Monitor feed composition;

Air dry nets on regular basis

Avoid antifouling agents whenever possible

Routine lobster health monitoring and testing to ensure no heavy metal contamination

Benthic sediment monitoring (as above) to include selected metals

Routine necessary according to Best

Aquaculture Practises

(Veterinarian/DOF)

4 Hydrodynamics and coastal morphology

4.1 Hydrodynamic and coastal morphology impacts due to production units cages

Minor negative

Gaps between production units to ensure minimal disruption of flow:

- ~100 m or more for small farms, i.e. (15-30 cages)

-~100 -500 m for larger farms (100 cages or more)

Additional measurements and modelling will be undertaken around PU clusters to refine the optimisation of the longer-term development in Phase 2

Flow measurements and modelling studies of actual cage deployments once significant PUs established

At a suitable-point in the Phase 1 operations

Preceding Phase 2 (Proponent)

4.2 Hydrodynamic and coastal morphology impacts due to bridge and jetty structures

Slight negative

None required (mangrove monitoring is recommended)

NA NA

1-24 62800860-RPT-02

No Issue Impact Severity

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

5 Solid wastes during construction and operations

Significant negative

Reuse of biomass waste as mulch / soil conditioner.

Disposal of mangrove biomass to be carried out in accordance to Sabah Forestry Department requirements.

Solid waste to be collected and stored appropriately before disposal at the Municipal Land fill.

No open burning permitted.

Waste management requirements included in the tender specifications and contract documents

Oily waste management based on DOE Guidelines and Shell Oil Pollution Avoidance technology

Proponent to initiate or facilitate recycling or reuse programmes involving the local community

Site inspections and documentation – Layout plan, photographs, log schedules

Contractor to submit report on waste diversion performance

Status report on community participation in waste recycling programmes

Daily / ongoing (Contractor/EO)

Tri-monthly audits during construction (EMP Consultant)

Quarterly by EO and trimonthly compliance report by EMP Consultant

6 Pressure on public amenities

Moderate negative

Forward planning of demand over construction/production Phases and supply options assessed and acted upon

Ongoing consultations with relevant authorities

iCWG meetings will serve as the key mechanism to register and solve complaints arising from pressure on public amenities.

Once in 2 months (Community Engagement Officer)

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-25

No Issue Impact Severity

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

7 Water demand throughout the construction and operations

Moderate negative

Forward planning of demand over construction/production Phases and supply options assessed and acted upon

Non potable water to be recycled on site wherever possible.

Proponent will liase with DOE on water operational permit for OB

NA

NA

8 Sewage and waste water discharges for both construction and operations

Minor Negative

Provision of portable toilets/ toilets with septic tanks at the OB site office and work areas

Periodically maintain and de-sludge septic tanks and portable toilets

Workers quarters on the production units (over water) will dispose sewage wastes at the central STP on the OB.

Treated sewage to comply with Standard A of the Environmental Quality (Sewage) Regulation 2009.

Discharge water to be monitored for compliance with the Environmental Quality (Sewage and Industrial Effluent) Regulations 2009.

As required by DOE (Proponent)

1-26 62800860-RPT-02

No Issue Impact Severity

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

9

Construction noise

Slight Negative

Limit the working hour to daytime (7am to 7 pm) with exception of jetty site at P. Bait

Selection of quieter running equipment

Properly service and maintain all vehicles and machinery.

Construction vehicles to comply with regulatory noise emission limits

Install suitable noise absorbent materials on machinery that produces high noise levels.

Local community to be informed of extended working hours

Noise complaint register

Site inspections(photographs and compliance)

Machinery maintenance log

Photographic evidence of sign posting working hours

Log of iCWG community briefings informing working hours

Noise complaints recorded and investigated

Noise monitoring at five locations during construction phase

Registration of complaints (Community Engagement Officer)

Quarterly (EMMP Consultant)

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-27

No Issue Impact Severity

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

10 Air quality Slight negative

Construction machinery comply with emissions standards

Cover vehicle loads.

Utilise washing bays to wash off mud adhering to the tyres or manual washing

Regular wetting of unsealed access roads and internal roads within the project site.

Soils scattered onto roads will be removed immediately either manually or washed by water jets.

Regular maintenance of vehicles and machinery to reduce emissions.

Open burning strictly prohibited.

Impose speed limits of 30 km/hr on unpaved roads within the Project Site.

Stabilisation of access points and hauls roads by gravel surfacing.

Re-vegetate cleared areas and slopes as soon as possible

Equipment maintenance logging

Layout plan and description of stabilisation works

Layout Plan and photographs of washing bay system

Site inspection.

TSP monitoring during construction at 5 stations.

Public complaints recorded

Daily (EO)

Quarterly (EMMP consultant)

1-28 62800860-RPT-02

Jadual 1.3 Ringkasan impak alam sekitar, langkah-langkah mitigasi dan keperluan program pemantauan yang telah dikenalpasti untuk komponen alam

sekitar fizikal.

No Isu Impak Langkah-langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantaun Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

1 Kualiti air semasa operasi

1.1

Impak nutrien daripada sangkar terhadap kualiti air

Impak negatif sederhana

Membentuk tahap kualiti air untuk tindakan dan nilai-nilai yang pencetus respons berdasarkan had SEIA.

Sasaran interim (Nilai Pencetus Interim) telah ditetapkan pada 24 bulan pertama pemantauan.

Nilai pencetus akhir ditetapkan selepas 48 bulan pemantaun

Menanda aras dengan tujuan mematuhi Keperluan Amalan Akuakultur Global Terbaik (Global Aquaculture Alliance Best Aquaculture Practice).

Pemantauan kualiti air di 33 stesen (berdasarkan peringkat pengeluaran), dengan tambahan 18 stesen rujukan termasuk di dalam Taman Marin Tun Sakaran.

Parameter:--Nutrien, Fitoplankton, Klorofil a, Jumlah Pepejal Terampai, atenuasi cahaya, kekeruhan air, oksigen terlarut

Bulanan (Pegawai Alam Sekitar (PAS))

Ledakan alga dan HAB akan dinilai menggunakan imej satelit.

Pemantauan untuk menilai nilai ambang (disatukan sebagai sebahagian daripada pemantauan kualiti air di atas)

Setiap 6 bulan untuk semua tapak pemantauan tanpa mengira fasa operasi

Apabila terdapat ledakan alga, 6 jam atau permantauan harian

Pemantauan Mingguan di PU operasi (PAS)

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-29

No Isu Impak Langkah-langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantaun Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

Penubuhan stesen meterologi di OB untuk kelajuan dan arah angin, hujan, suhu udara, kelembapan, PAR dan tekanan atmosfera.

Permulaan dan berterusan (Pemaju)

Audit rambang bagi pengendali untuk memastikan pematuhan iCMA

Dua kali setahun (Pemaju)

Audit GAA BAP (semasa interim dan pensijilan penuh) selepas 5-10 tahun pelan pelaksanaan yang sesuai

TBA (Pakar Perunding)

1.2 Kesan pembersihan sangkar terhadap kualiti air.

Impak negatif kecil

Penggiliran sangkar bagi tujuan pembersihan dan pengeringan pada PU

Pelupusan sisa yang komprehensif (sisa dari pembersihan jaring dan sangkar di darat)

Pengauditan SOP Dua kali setahun (PAS)

2 Kualiti air semasa pembinaan

1-30 62800860-RPT-02

No Isu Impak Langkah-langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantaun Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

2.1 Kesan terhadap kualiti air semasa kerja tanah

Negatif Tirai kelodak, sistem pemparitan, perangkap kelodak, kawasan simpanan dan kawasan mencuci (washbay) akan dipasang di Pangkalan Operasi sebagai langkah kawalan hakisan.

Keperluan ESCP perlulah dimasukkan ke dalam kontrak semua subkontraktor dan pelaksanaannya dipantau.

Tirai kelodak, sistem pemparitan, perangkap kelodak, kawasan simpanan dan kawasan mencuci (washbay) dan langkah-langkah lain yang dinyatakan dalam ESCP.

Pemantauan kualiti air di lapan (8) tapak dan 2 stesen rujukan – kekeruhan dan TSS.

Pemantauan Apabila Perlu oleh PAS

Pematuhan tiga bulan sekali (Perunding EMP

2.2 Impak terhadap kualiti air semasa kerja pembinaan marin

Negatif Bagi tumpahan mesin pembinaan dan hidrokarbon, keperluan pengurusan sisa cecair telah dimasukkan ke dalam spesifikasi tender dan dokumen kontrak.

Pemantauan di tapak projek

Bulanan (PEO/ Perunding EMP)

3 Pemendapan sedimen semasa operasi

3.1 Bilangan zarah dan karbon organik-operasi

Negatif

Prosedur operasi standard iCMA SOP Pemantauan mendapan bentik-untuk memastikan keadaan pengoksidaan, jumlah karbon organic (TOC) dan parameter yang berkaitan.

Kajian video sedimen tahunan yang terletak di bawah dan sekitar tambatan PU.

Menguji kandungan makanan untuk memastikan penyebaran ke hiliran dikurangkan,

Sebelum fasa operasi, Bulanan untuk 12 bulan pertama dan selepas itu pada setiap tahun

Tahunan (Perunding EMP)

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-31

No Isu Impak Langkah-langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantaun Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

3.2 Logam berat dan bahan pencemar lain

Negatif

Pemantauan komposisi makanan; diuji dan diluluskan.

Mengeringkan jaring di udara secara rutin tetap.

Elakkan agen “antifouling” seboleh yang mungkin

Rutin pemantauan dan ujian kesihatan udang kara untuk memastikan tiada pencemaran logam berat.

Pemantauan sedimen bentik untuk memasukan logam terpilih

Rutin yang ditetapkan mengikut Amalan Akuakultur Terbaik (Doktor Haiwan/ DOF)

4 Hidrodinamik dan morfologi persisiran pantai

4.1 Impak Hidrodinamik dan morfologi persisiran pantai disebabkan oleh unit pengeluaran sangkar

Negatif minor Jurang yang sesuai antara unit-unit pengeluaran bagi memastikan gangguan minimal terhadap aliran.

100m atau lebih untuk ladang kecil; 100 sangkar atau lebih akan mempunyai jurang antara 100-500m.

Pengukuran tambahan dan permodalan akan dilaksanakan di sekitar kelompok PU untuk memperbaiki pengoptimuman pembangunan jangka panjang dalam Fasa 2.

Kajian pengukuran aliran dan permodelan pemasangan sangkar sebenar sejurus selepas PU ditubuhkan

Pada lokasi yang sesuai semasa Operasi Fasa 1

Sebelum Fasa 2 (Pemaju)

4.2 Impak Hidrodinamik dan morfologi persisiran pantai disebabkan oleh jambatan dan struktur jeti.

Negatif

Tidak diperlukan (Pemantauan paya bakau adalah disyorkan)

NA NA

1-32 62800860-RPT-02

No Isu Impak Langkah-langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantaun Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

5 Sisa pepejal semasa pembinaan dan operasi

Impak negatif yang ketara

Sisa bio dari tumbuhan akan dikumpulkan dan digunakan sebagai perapi tanah dalam penubuhan semula kawasan terganggu.

Pelupusan biomass bakau mesti dijalankan mengikut keperluan Jabatan Perhutanan Sabah

Semua sisa pepejal lain yang dihasilkan di tapak akan dikumpul dan disimpan sebelum diangkut untuk pelupusan di kawasan pelupusan Tanah Perbandaran.

Tiada pembakaran terbuka dibenarkan

Keperluan pengurusan sisa termasuk dalam spesifikasi tender dan dokumen kontrak

Pencegahan dan pengurangan sisa berminyak berdasarkan Garis Panduan Jabatan Alam Sekitar dan Teknologi Pengelakan Pencemaran Minyak Shell.

Pemaju untuk memulakan atau memudahkan program-program kitar semula atau penggunaan semula yang melibatkan masyarakat setempat

Pemeriksaan pembinaan dan semua tapak operasi - pelan susun atur, gambar, jadual log

Kontraktor untuk mengemukakan laporan mengenai sisa

Laporan status penyertaan masyarakat dalam program kitar semula sisa

Harian / program penilaian berterusan (Kontraktor / PAS)

Tiga bulan sekali semasa fasa pembinaan (Perunding EMP)

Setiap suku tahun oleh PAS dan tiga bulan sekali oleh Perunding EMP

6 Tekanan ke atas kemudahan awam

Impak Negatif sederhana

Perancangan yang terdahulu terhadap permintaan ke atas Fasa pembinaan / pengeluaran dan pilihan bekalan dinilai dan diambil tindakan.

Perundingan berterusan dengan pihak berkuasa yang berkenaan

Mesyuarat iCWG akan berfungsi sebagai mekanisme utama untuk mendaftar dan menyelesaikan aduan yang timbul daripada tekanan ke atas kemudahan awam.

Dalam dua bulan sekali (Pegawai Penglibatan Komuniti)

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-33

No Isu Impak Langkah-langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantaun Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

7 Keperluan air sepanjang pembinaan dan operasi

Impak negatif sederhana

Perancangan yang terdahulu terhadap permintaan ke atas Fasa pembinaan / pengeluaran dan pilihan bekalan dinilai dan diambil tindakan

Air yang tidak boleh diminum untuk dikitar semula di lokasi, di mana mungkin.

Pemaju akan bekerjasama dengan Jabatan Alam Sekitar mengenai permit operasi air untuk OB.

NA NA

8 Kumbahan dan pelepasan sisa air bagi pembinaan dan operasi

Negatif Tandas dengan tangki septik dan tandas mudah alih hendaklah disediakan dalam jumlah dan lokasi yang mencukupi di kawasan pejabat tapak OB dan kawasan kerja

Menyelenggara dan membersihkan enapcemar tangki septik dan tandas mudah alih secara berkala

Kediaman pekerja di unit pengeluaran akan diperlukan untuk melupuskan sisa kumbahan di pusat STP di OB.

Kumbahan dirawat untuk mematuhi Standard B Peraturan Kualiti Alam Sekeliling (Kumbahan) 2009.

Pelepasan air dipantau untuk pematuhan Kualiti Alam Sekeliling (Kumbahan dan Efluen Perindustrian) 2009.

Mengikut keperluan JAS (Pemaju)

1-34 62800860-RPT-02

No Isu Impak Langkah-langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantaun Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

9

Bunyi pembinaan Impak negatif kecil

Hadkan masa kerja pada waktu siang (7 pagi hingga 7 malam) dengan pengcualian bagi tapak jetty di P. Bait.

Penggunaan peralatan yang lebih senyap

Menyelenggara semua kenderaan dan jentera.

Kenderaan pembinaan perlu mematuhi peraturan kawalan bunyi bising.

Pemasangan bahan-bahan penyerap bunyi yang sesuai.

Masyarakat tempatan dimaklumkan sekiranya waktu kerja dilanjutkan

Daftar aduan mengenai pencemaran bunyi

Pemeriksaan tapak di kawasan projek (gambar dan pematuhan

Log penyelenggaraan jentera

Dokumen fotografi bagi papan tanda pemberitahuan waktu berkerja

Log taklimat iCWG untuk memaklumkan waktu kerja.

Rekod aduan bunyi bising

Pemantauan bunyi dilaksanakan di lima lokasi berhampiran tapak projek semasa fasa pembinaan

Pendaftaran aduan (Pegawai Penglibatan Masyarakat)

Suku tahunan (Perunding EMMP)

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-35

No Isu Impak Langkah-langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantaun Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

10 Kualiti udara Impak negatif yang kecil

Pembinaan jentera mengikut standard kebangsaan untuk pengeluaran

Menutup muatan kenderaan.

Menggunakan “washing bay” untuk menanggalkan lumpur yang melekat di tayar atau mencuci secara manual

membasahkan dengan kerap jalan masuk dan jalan dalaman tidak berturap di dalam tapak projek terutamanya semasa keadaan cuaca kering dan berangin.

Tanah bertaburan ke jalan raya akan disingkirkan dengan serta-merta sama ada secara manual atau dibasuh dengan jet air.

Penyelenggaraan kenderaan dan jentera untuk mengurangkan pengeluaran asap.

Pembakaran terbuka adalah dilarang.

Mengenakan had laju 30 km / jam di atas jalan tidak berturap dalam tapak projek.

Memantapkan laluan akses dan jalan dengan permukaan gravel.

Menanam kawasan dan cerun yang dibersihkan secepat mungkindengan tumbuhan tutup bumi

Log penyelenggaraan peralatan

Pelan susun atur dan penerangan kerja-kerja penstabilan

Pelan susun atur dan gambar sistem “washing bay”

Pemeriksaan tapak.

Pemantauan TSP semasa pembinaan di 5 stesen.

Merekodkan aduan awam

Setiap hari (EO)

Suku tahunan (Perunding EMMP)

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-37

1.4.2 Biological Environment

A summary of the impact evaluation, recommended mitigation and abatement measures and monitoring programmes for each issue relating to

the biological/ ecological environment is given in Table 1.2.

Persekitaraan Biologi

Ringkasan penilaian impak, cadangan langkah mitigasi dan langkah pemberhentian serta program pemantauan bagi setiap isu yang berkaitan

dengan persekitaran biologikal/ekologi diberikan dalam Jadual 1.4.

Table 1.2 Summary of the environmental impacts, mitigation measures and monitoring requirements for biological environmental components

No Issue Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

1 Coral Reefs

1.1. Impacts to coral reefs due to nutrient discharges from cages

Moderate negative

100m buffer zone from coral reefs.

Coral patches smaller than 1m2 in

area or with less than 20% coral cover to be relocated within the LF Zone.

No production in LF6.

Assess and moderate cage positioning based on ongoing data collection and assessment of likely impacts

Coral rehabilitation at P. Timbun Mata (offset for permanent mangrove loss at Tg. Kapor)

Compliance monitoring with documentation of layout, GPS and photographic verification.

Impact monitoring of coral abundance and diversity, health, macroalgae and fish diversity at 22 permanent transects.

As required during farming start within each PU (EO)

Proponent (EO) to monitor reef rehabilitation:

Tri-monthly during nursery stage

Bi-annually till 3 years after planting

First Baseline survey for all production areas: in 2015 or 2016 and then repeats survey 2-6 months before construction of cages in each production area.

1-38 62800860-RPT-02

No Issue Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

1.2 Impacts to corals from anchoring and mooring

Slight negative

100 m buffer zone from reefs

Exclusion of LF6 Zone

Micro scale PU optimisation to ensure cages are not established over live corals or seagrass

Accurate deployment of anchors and mooring lines

Layout showing deployed cages and distance from cages

Photographic evidence of seabed conditions under the PU’s prior to their deployment

As required during farming start within each PU (EO)

1.3 Impact to corals from bridge and jetty footprint

Slight negative

No direct mitigation available. Area to be assessed for coral restoration as part of the Environmental Offset programme

NA NA

2 Seagrass

2.1 Impact on seagrass due to operational water quality

Slight negative

Deployment of PUs in high sea grass areas to be avoided.

Monitoring at up to 11 stations (according to production zones/ phases)

1 month after PU operational then annually for each operational LF zone

Proponent/ iCMA

3 Benthic In-Fauna

3.1 Impact to benthos from cage deposition

Slight negative

Benthic monitoring Visual sediment surveys, grab sampling and benthic infauna surveys

12 stations per LF zone.

Visual (video) survey and sediment chemistry.

Monthly for the first year then annual

4. Mangrove

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-39

No Issue Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

4.1 Loss of mangrove due to project footprint at P. Bait and Tg. Kapor

Slight negative

Replant mangroves in temporary construction areas.

Demarcate work area to avoid inadvertent encroachment into adjacent mangroves.

Rehabilitation of dead/damaged coral reefs (23 ha) around P. Timbun Mata as an environmental off-set

Sabah Forestry Department to consider gazettement of 7.5 ha of Class V Mangrove Forest Reserve elsewhere in Sabah.

Compliance monitoring: Visual and photographic surveys of revegetated areas

Construction monitoring: 8 monitoring stations

Operations stage monitoring: 1 station per production zone, 2 reference stations

Daily site inspections (EO)

At Construction phase- Biannual

Operational Stage- 1 month after lobsters introduced & annual thereafter.

4.2 Impacts on mangrove due to nutrient loading from cages

No Change No specific mitigation considered necessary

Monitoring as described above to capture unforeseen impacts

As above.

4.3 Impacts on mangrove due to sedimentation (due to bridge structure)

Slight negative

No specific mitigation considered necessary as impact low

Mangrove monitoring as described above

As above.

5 Marine Fauna

5.1 Marine Fish Fauna

1-40 62800860-RPT-02

No Issue Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

5.1.1

Impacts on fish fauna

Moderate positive

No specific mitigation considered necessary

Fish surveys included in coral monitoring sites – see item (1) above.

Fish catch/ landing surveys at Tg Kapor fish market

As per coral monitoring in Item (1) above (EO)

Baseline monitoring – 3 times

a week for 2 non consecutive

weeks

Monthly during construction

Bi-annually during Operations

5.2 Marine Megafauna

5.2.1

Impacts to megafauna due to habitat exclusion during operations

Moderate negative

No mitigation measures available. Record faunal observations Per incident

5.2.2

Impacts to megafauna due to vessel disturbance (strikes and noise) during operations

Significant negative

Implement speed limit of 13 knots for all project vessels

Marine traffic to follow identified vessel lanes

Audits and reporting to iCMA and proponent

Ongoing (EO)

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-41

No Issue Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

5.2.3

Noise and disturbance to to megafauna during construction

Slight Negative

Implement speed limit of 13 knots for all project vessels

Marine traffic to follow identified vessel lanes

Megafauna observations prior to start of piling; delay start if present.

Employ soft-start piling for marine works

The Proponent / contractor is to keep a log of marine megafauna observations during pre-startup and piling operations.

As above As above

5.2.4

Entanglement impact to megafauna during operation

Minor negative

iCMA SOP to specify equipment type and use to prevent entanglement

iCMA SOP detailing procedure for wildlife interactions.

Records of wildlife incidents and actions taken for audit

Ongoing – iLAP EO and Veterinarian

5.2.5

Biosecurity Risk / Introduction of disease/foreign pathogenic strains

Moderate negative

As required by Fisheries Act and Culture Regulations – Imported species to be inspected, cleaned and assessed for disease (short quarantine-like period).

iCMA will detail relevant SOPs which operators will be required to follow.

Operation to GAA BAP requirements when operation uses only hatchery bred stock.

Refer to Lobster Health Management Plan ( Appendix F)

Routine inspections and testing programme across opertions.

Random audit of operators to ensure compliance with iCMA.

GAA BAP audit (during interim and full certification).

Education of staff on fish health issues and SOP & LHMP training

Quarterly (Lobster Health Working Group/DOF)

Approximately quarterly Lobster Health Working Group)

TBA

When necessary as part of the operations –Proponent

1-42 62800860-RPT-02

No Issue Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

5.2.6

Worker impacts on fauna – particularly harvesting of endangered species

Moderate negative

iCMA SOPs dealing with correct procedure for interactions with wildlife and endangered species.

Employment contracts that specifically forbid harvesting or hunting of local wildlife will be used.

Wildlife Education Campaign

Audits and reporting to Environmental Steering Committee

Wildlife monitoring at Cages at selected PUs – otters, sea snakes etc

Annually (EO))

Ongoing (Proponent/ iCMA)

6 Terrestrial Flora and Fauna

6.1 Impact on terrestrial flora – direct loss of woodland & forest and mixed horticulture area

Slight negative

NA NA NA

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-43

No Issue Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

6.2 Impact on terrestrial fauna especially endangered species & direct loss of mangrove

Moderate negative

iCMA dealing with correct procedure for interactions with wildlife and endangered species.

Employment contracts that specifically forbid harvesting or hunting of local wildlife will be used.

Wildlife Education Campaign will be implemented

Investigation of complaints from local communities

Consult Wildlife Department if any Proboscis monkeys are observed at the Tg. Kapor area prior to site clearing

Audits and reporting to iCMA and proponent

Record of consultations

Ongoing

At construction start

1-44 62800860-RPT-02

Jadual 1.5 Ringkasan kesan alam sekitar dan langkah-langkah mitigasi yang disarankan serta keperluan program pemantauan yang telah dikenalpasti

untuk pemantauan persekitaran biologi.

No Isu Impak Langkah-langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantaun Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

1 Terumbu karang

1.1 Impak terhadap terumbu karang oleh pelepasan nutrien dari sangkar

Impak negatif yang sederhana

Zon penampan 100 m dari terumbu karang

Tompok terumbu karang dalam Zon Pengeluaran yang kurang dari 1 m

2 atau

kurang dari 20% liputan terumbu karang akan dipindah

Zon LF6 dikecualikan daripada zon pengeluaran

Menilai dan mengawal kedudukan sangkar berdasarkan pengumpulan data yang berterusan dan penilaian impak yang dijangka

Penanaman semula/rehabilitasi terumbu karang di perairan P. Timbun Mata (sebagai pampasan untuk kehilangan kekal hutan paya bakau di Tanjung Kapor)

Pemantauan pematuhan dengan pelan sangkar, GPS dan pengesahan foto.

Pemantauan impak termasuk kepadatan dan kepelbagaian terumbu karang, kesihatan, kepelbagaian makroalga dan ikan di 22 transek tetap.

Apabila diperlukan semasa permulaan penternakan udang kara dalam setiap PU(Pegawai Alam Sekitar-PAS)

Pemaju projek(PAS) akan memantau pemuliharaan semula terumbu karang :

Setiap tiga bulan semasa peringkat semaian

Setiap enam bulan hingga tahun ketiga selepas penanaman.

Kajian “Baseline” dijalankan untuk semua kawasan pengeluaran; pada tahun 2015 atau 2016 dan 2 - 6 bulan sebelum pembinaan sangkar di setiap kawasan pengeluaran bermula

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-45

No Isu Impak Langkah-langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantaun Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

1.2 Impak kepada batu karang daripada berlabuh dan tambatan

Impak negatif kecil Zon penampan 100 m dari terumbu karang

Pengecualian Zon LF6 sebagai unit pengeluaran

Unit pengeluaran skala mikro optimum untuk memastikan sangkar tidak terbina atas terumbu karang atau rumpai laut

Penempatan sauh dan tali tambatan yang tepat

Pelan menunjukkan penempatan semua sangkar PU dan jarak dari sangkar.

Gambar foto sebagai bukti keadaan dasar laut di bawah PU sebelum penempatan tetap.

Apabila diperlukan semasa penternakan udang kara bermula dalam setiap PU (PAS)

1.3 Kesan jambatan dan jeti terhadap batu karang

Impak negatif kecil Tiada langkah pencegahan langsung yang mungkin. Kawasan yang akan dinilai untuk pemulihan karang sebagai sebahagian daripada program mengimbangi Alam Sekitar

Tidak ada Tidak ada

2 Rumput Laut

2.1 Kesan ke atas rumput laut disebabkan oleh kualiti air semasa operasi

Impak negatif sedikit

Penempatan PU di kawasan ketumpatan rumput laut yang tinggi hendaklah dielakkan.

Pemantauan 11 stesen rumput laut (mengikut zon/fasa pengeluaran)

1 bulan selepas operasi PU, kemudian selang 12 bulan bagi setiap operasi zon LF

Pihak pemaju/iCMA

3 Fauna Bentik

3.1 Impak kepada bentos dari pemendapan sangkar

Impak negatif kecil Pemantauan Bentik Kajian rakaman video sedimen, sampel Grab and kajian fauna bentik:

12 stesen untuk setiap zon pengeluaran

Kajian rakaman video dan analisis kimia sedimen

Bulanan untuk setahun kemudian Tahunan (PAS)

1-46 62800860-RPT-02

No Isu Impak Langkah-langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantaun Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

4 Hutan Paya Bakau

4.1 Kehilangan bakau disebabkan oleh kehadiran projek di P. Bait dan Tg. Kapor

Impak negatif kecil Penanaman semula pokok bakau di kawasan akses pembinaan

Penandaan kawasan kerja untuk mengelakkan penceborohan yang tiada sengaja ke kawasan bakau berdekatan.

Pemulihan terumbu karang yang mati/rosak (23 ha) di sekitar P. Timbun Mata sebagai “off-set” persekitaran.

Jabatan Perhutanan Sabah untuk mempertimbangkan pewartaan 7.5 ha Kelas V Hutan Simpanan Paya Bakau kawasan bakau tempat lain di Sabah.

Tinjauan visual dan fotografi di kawasan tumbuhan semula

Pemantauan Pembinaan: 8 Stesen Pemantauan

Pemantauan Fasa Operasi: 1 stesen untuk setiap zon pengeluaran, 2 stesen kontrol

Pemeriksaan tapak harian (PEO)

Semasa fasa pembinaan: Two kali setahun

Semasa fasa operasi: 1 bulan selepas udang kara diternak dan berikutnya setiap tahun.

4.2 Impak terhadap bakau akibat pelepasan nutrient dari sangkar

Tiada Perubahan Tiada mitigasi tertentu yang dianggap perlu disebabkan impak yang rendah, tetapi bakau di kawasan yang berpotensi didedahkan termasuk dalam program pemantauan biologi

Pemantauan seperti yang di atas untuk menangani impak yang tidak dijangka

Seperti diatas

4.3 Impak terhadap bakau akibat pemendapan (kerana struktur jambatan)

Impak negatif kecil Tiada mitigasi tertentu yang dianggap perlu disebabkan impak yang rendah,

Pemantauan bakau seperti di atas

Seperti diatas

5.0 Fauna Marin

5.1 Fauna Ikan Marin

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-47

No Isu Impak Langkah-langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantaun Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

5.1.1 Impak terhadap fauna ikan

Impak positif yang sederhana

Tiada langkah pencegahan tertentu dianggap perlu

Kajian ikan termasuk dalam stesen pemantauan terumbu karang - Sila lihat item(1) diatas.

Kajian hasil penangkapan ikan/ pendaratan ikan di pasar ikan Kg. Tg. Kapor.

Seperti pemantauan terumbu karang dalam item (1) di atas (PAS)

Pemantauan “Baseline”- 3 kali dalam seminggu untuk 2 minggu tidak berturut-turut

Setiap bulan semasa fasa pembinaan

Dua kali setahun semasa fasa operasi

5.2 Megafauna Marin

5.2.1 Impak kepada megafauna kerana habitat pengecualian semasa operasi

Impak negatif yang sederhana

Tiada langkah mitigasi. Mencatat penemuan fauna

Apabila dilihat

5.2.2 Impak kepada megafauna kerana gangguan kapal semasa fasa operasi (serangan dan bunyi)

Impak negatif yang ketara

Sekatan kelajuan (kurang dari 13 knot)

Trafik marin perlu mematuhi laluan kapal yang ditetapkan (iCMA)

Audit dan laporan kepada iCMA dan pihak pemaju

Secara berterusan (PAS)

1-48 62800860-RPT-02

No Isu Impak Langkah-langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantaun Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

5.2.3 Kesan bunyi kepada megafauna semasa pembinaan PU

Impak negatif kecil Sekatan kelajuan (kurang dari 13 knot)

Trafik marin perlu mematuhi laluan kapal yang ditetapkan (iCMA)

Jika megafauna dilihat sebelum aktiviti “piling”; dimohon berhenti seketika

Menggunakan cara “soft-start piling” untuk kerja-kerja marin

Pihak pemaju perlu menyimpan sebuah buku catatan penemuan megafauna marin semasa sebelum-bermula dan fasa operasi “piling”

Seperti diatas Seperti diatas

5.2.4 Kemungkinan kematian megafauna disebabkan oleh tersangkut semasa fasa operasi

Impak negatif yang sederhana

iCMA SOP untuk menyatakan peralatan spesifik dam fasij untuk menambat tersangkut.

iCMA SOP menyenaraikan prosedur untuk interaksi dengan hidupan liar

Log mengenai insiden pada megafauna marin yang tersangkut dan tindakan diambil untuk audit

Berterusan – iLAP EO dan Doktor Haiwan

5.2.5 Risiko biokeselamatan

Impak negatif yang sederhana

Seperti yang dikehendaki oleh Akta dan Peraturan Perikanan - spesies yang diimport harus diperiksa, dibersihkan dan dinilai untuk penyakit (seperti kuarantin tempoh pendek).

iCMA akan memperincikan SOP yang berkenaan di mana pengendali akan dikehendaki untuk ikut

Operasi mengikut keperluan GAA BAP apabila operasi hanya menggunakan stok yang dibesarkan di hatceri

Sila rujuk Pelan Pengurusan Kesihata Udang Kara (Lampiran F)

Program persampelan kesihatan ikan di seluruh operasi secara berkala.

Audit rambang untuk memastikan pengendali mematuhi iCMA

Audit GAA BAP (semasa interim dan pensijilan penuh).

Pendidikan para pekerja mengenai isu-isu kesihatan ikan dan latihan SOP & LHMP

Suku Tahunan (Jawatankuasa Kerja Kesihatan Udang Kara/Jabatan Perikanan)

Suku Tahunan (Jawatankuasa Kerja Kesihatan Udang Kara)

Untuk Diperincikan

Apabila perlu sebagai sebahagian fasa operasi

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-49

No Isu Impak Langkah-langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantaun Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

5.2.6 Impak pekerja pada fauna - terutama penuaian spesies terancam

Impak negatif yang sederhana

iCMA menguruskan prosedur yang betul untuk interaksi dengan hidupan liar dan spesies terancam.

Kontrak perkhidmatan yang khusus melarang penuaian atau memburu hidupan liar tempatan akan digunakan.

Kempen Pendidikan Hidupan Liar

Audit dan laporan ke Jawatankuasa Pemandu Alam Sekitar

Pemantauan hidupan liar di sangkar – memerang, ular laut dan lain-lain

Tahunan (PEO)

Berterusan (Pihak pemaju/ICMA)

6.0 Flora dan Fauna Daratan

6.1 Impak terhadap flora daratan – kehilangan hutan dan kawasan hortikultur bercampur secara langsung

Impak negatif kecil Tidak Ada Tidak Ada Tidak Ada

1-50 62800860-RPT-02

No Isu Impak Langkah-langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantaun Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

6.2 Impact on terrestrial fauna khususnya species ternancam dan bakau yang hilang

Impak negatif yang sederhana

iCMA beurusan dengan prosedur yang betul untuk berinteraksi dengan hidupan liar dan species terancam.

Kontrak pengambilan pekerja melarang penuaian atau pemburuan hidupan liar.

Kempen Pendidikan Hidupan Liar akan dilaksanakan.

Penyiasatan aduan daripada masyarakat tempatan.

Berbincang dengan Jabatan Hidupan Liar jika dilihat monyet bangkatan di Tg Kapor sebelum kerja-kerja penyediaan tapak bermula

Audit dan pelaporan kepada iCMA dan pemaju/ iCWG

Mengambil maklum tentang pemerhatian yang dilaporkan

Pemeriksaan pembinaan dan operasi di semua tapak

Pemantauan pelaksanaan Kempen Hidupan Liar

Log aduan

Berterusan

Apabila fasa pembinaan bermula

1.4.3 Human Environment

A summary of the impact evaluation, recommended mitigation and abatement measures and monitoring programmes for each issue relating to

the biological/ ecological environment is given in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3 Summary of the environmental impacts, mitigation and monitoring requirements identified for the human environment

No Issue Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

3.1 Aesthetics impact during construction & operations

Moderate negative

NA. NA NA

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-51

No Issue Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

3.2 Project impacts on tourism during operations

Moderate negative

Explore aquaculture tourism as part of the Corporate Social Responsibility program

Implement schemes such as micro-financing for locals interested in start of ventures as part of Corporate Social Responsibility program to benefit locals.

Reporting on implementation progress to Environmental Steering Commiittee

Annually

3.3 Access to sea space

3.3.1

Project impacts on fishing activities

Significant positive

Continous information dissemination on project through iLAP Community Working Group

Fishing permitted within iLAP navigation channels and outside the boundaries of iLAP PU.

Prioritize training, certification and employment or contract farming opportunities to local fishermen

Monitor total fish catch and fish diversity at Tg. Kapor fish market

Baseline monitoring- 3 times a week/2 non-consecutive weeks

Construction stage – monthly

Operations Stage – Bi-annually

(Proponent).

Records of briefings and project updates to fishermen

Ongoing (iLAP Community Engagement Officer)

Records of number of training, education programmes & number of locals trained

Ongoing (Proponent)

Annual review by CEO Committee

Register any complaints from fishermen

Ongoing (iLAP Community Engagement Officer)

Reporting to iCWG every 2 months

3.3.2 Local navigation

1-52 62800860-RPT-02

No Issue Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

3.3.2.1 Impacts of PUs (cages) on navigation

Minor negative Identify location / routes of 60 m navigation channels through the iLAP in consultation with local communities through iLAP Community Working Group, Marine Department and Marine Police

Clearly mark and publiciise navigation routes per local regulations.

Speed limits will be agreed and applied to all craft within the iLAP~ interim: 13 knots.

Notification to all vessel owners and operators advising the commencement of the construction operations.

Floodlights during construction to be pointed downward to maintain visibility during night navigation.

Navigational Safety Contingency Plan/Marine Risk Traffic Assessment to be prepared prior to start of operations.

Documentation of compliance through site inspections.

Ongoing Consultations with iCWG

Record navigation collisions or near misses.

Records kept by Contractor at construction start and when necessary; Monthly Site Inspection by EO

When necessary- the Community Engagement Officer,ketua kampungs , iCWG

When necessary- record of navigation collision or near miss by the Occupational Health and Safety Officer

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-53

No Issue Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

3.3.2.2 Impacts of jetty and bridge on navigation during construction and operations

Slight negative Clearly mark structures and associated navigation routes according to local regulations

Notification to all vessel owners and operators advising the commencement of the jetty and bridge construction

Floodlights during construction to be pointed downwards to maintain visibility during night navigation.

Documentation of compliance

Copy of notification to be included in Environmental Compliance Report

At construction start and when necessary by contactor

Monthly Site inspections by EO

3.3.3 Impact on public security during construction and operations

Significant positive

Zero tolerance toward anti-social behaviour among iLAP workforce. Mitigation measures to include:

Dismissal and disciplinary

actions for anti-social behaviour;

Close liaison with the community

working group, police and other

stakeholders to monitor and

manage anti-social behaviour

Document public grievance and opinion

As required by the Community Engagement Officers

3.4 Impacts on land use

Slight negative Compensation for loss of agricultural assets to be arranged through the proper channels; i.e. District Office and Department of Agriculture

Logs of complaints to be recorded and handed to the District Office and Department of Agriculture

Ongoing (Community Engagement Officer)

3.5 Local business and employment

3.5.1 Employment opportunities

Significant positive

Prioritise local employment Maintain employment and training records to monitor level

At construction start/ then annually by Proponent

1-54 62800860-RPT-02

No Issue Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

3.5.2 Local business opportunities

Major positive Prioritise local contractors of class F category

Implementation of iLAP community working group

Provision of training including scholarships / arrangement for microcredit financing

of local participation.

Provide statistical data of percentage of local employment and unemployment rate and business established. This should include breakdown of job category.

Statistics collected monthly from villages by Community Engagement Officer

3.5.3 Impact on seaweed and pearl farming

No change Residual impact monitoring as part of the water quality monitoring programme

Concerns or complaints will be individually addressed

Log of concerns and complaints

Ongoing communication between the pearl farm owners and seaweed farmers/associations

Ongoing (Community Engagement Officer)

3.6. Other socioeconomic impacts

3.6.1 Demographic impacts

Moderate negative

Priorityise local employment to reduce in-migration

Monitor in-migration status through the Ketua Kampungs/JKKK

Annual assessment and reporting (Proponent)

3.6.2 Pressure on public amenities – construction and operations

Moderate negative

Inform Semporna District Council and service providers on the workforce numbers in advance

Communicate projected demand on electricity, water, waste disposal, and other services to the Semporna District Council in advance.

NA

On going but reported annually (Proponent)

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-55

No Issue Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

3.6.3 Impact on public health and nuisance during construction

Minor Negative Workers to be trained in health and safety procedures.

Health screening mandatory for all iLAP workers during induction and ongoing. Notification of Health Department for any notifiable diseases.

Heavy vehicle transport along Jalan Tg. Kapor to be avoided during school drop-off/pick-up hours.

Provision of traffic wardens at the schools along Jalan Tg. Kapor during peak construction vehicle traffic

To keep all health records of all employees

Social Survey of community public health and wellbeing

Log – ongoing (iLAP Occupational Health and Safety officer)

Anually (Specialist Consultant)

3.7 Odours during operations

Minor negative Ensure feeds are kept in cold and secure storage at OB.

Dry nets before storage at OB.

Dead lobster to be collected and sealed in watertight bins prior to incineration.

Document public grievance and opinion at iCWG meetings

Ongoing

3.8 Impact on food security

Significant positive

No mitigation necessary NA NA

1-56 62800860-RPT-02

No Issue Impact Significance

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Programme Frequency / (Responsible)

3.9 Wider socioeconomic impact

Significant positive

Measures to enhance benefits:

* Develop Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programme to address the wider issues of Community and Health, Education and Training, and Environment which could include:

Scholarships/Microfinancing

Community Sanitation

Environmental Education Centre on Bait

Recycling initiatives

Other community initiatives

Document initiatves started; success rates.

Annual (Proponent)

4 Project Abandonment

Minor negative Implementation of site closure plan as documented in the iCMA including:

Waste removal (ie. PU and moorings and disposal and recycling of equipment)

Personnel and asset management plan

Bond held by iCMA for use only in abandonment removals and mitigations may be considered.

When necessary

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-57

Jadual 1.6 Ringkasan kesan alam sekitar, langkah-langkah mitigasi dan keperluan program pemantauan yang telah dikenalpasti untuk persekitaran

manusia.

No. Isu Impak Langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantauan Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

3.1 Kesan estetika semasa pembinaan dan operasi

Impak negatif sederhana

Tidak ada Tidak ada Tidak ada

3.2 Impak projek terhadap pelancongan semasa operasi

Impak negatif sederhana

Meneroka pelancongan akuakultur sebagai sebahagian daripada program Tanggungjawab Sosial Korporat

Melaksanakan skim seperti pembiayaan mikro bagi penduduk tempatan yang berminat untuk memulakan usaha niaga sebagai sebahagian daripada program Tanggungjawab Sosial Korporat untuk manfaat penduduk tempatan.

Laporan khusus mengenai penilaian projek dan kemajuan pelaksanaan kepada Jawatankuasa PenasihatAlam Sekitar (Environmental Steering Group)

Tahunan

3.3 Akses kepada ruang laut

3.3.1

Impak projek terhadap aktiviti perikanan

Impak positif yang ketara

Penyebaran maklumat mengenai jadual kerja pembinaan projek, zon penampan keselamatan dan kawasan larangan sebelum pembinaan bermula melalui Kumpulan Kerja KomunitiiLAP.

Menangkap ikan adalah dibenarkan dalam saluran navigasi iLAP dan di luar sempadan PU iLAP.

Memantau jumlah tangkapan ikan dan kepelbagaian ikan di pasar ikan Tg. Kapor.

Pemantauan “baseline”-3 kali seminggu/ 2 minggu yang tidak berturutan

Phasa pembinaan – bulanan

Phasa operasi – setiap 6 bulan

Jadual dan taklimat kepada nelayan

Rekod berterusan oleh Pemaju Projek – Kumpulan

1-58 62800860-RPT-02

No. Isu Impak Langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantauan Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

Keutamaan pensijilan latihan dan pekerjaan atau kontrak perladangan diberikan kepada nelayan tempatan.

Rekod-rekod bilangan latihan, program pendidikan dan bilangan penduduk tempatan yang telah dilatih.

Pengurusan iCMA

Semakan tahunan oleh Ketua Jawatankuasa

Laporan kepada iCMA setiap dua bulan

Mendaftarkan apa-apa aduan daripada nelayan

3.3.2 Navigasi tempatan

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-59

No. Isu Impak Langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantauan Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

3.3.2.1 Impak PU (sangkar) ke atas navigasi

Negatif minor Laluan navigasi utama, 60m melalui iLAP untuk semua kapal akan dikenal pasti dalam perundingan dengan masyarakat tempatan melalui Kumpulan Kerja Komuniti iLAP, Jabatan Laut dan Polis Marin

Laluan ini akan ditandakan dengan jelas mengikut peraturan tempatan dan diumumkan (lampu pandu arah dan lampu isyarat)

Had laju akan dipersetujui dan digunakan untuk semua kapal dalam iLAP~ interim: 13 knot

Pemberitahuan kepada semua pemilik dan pengendali kapal mengenai bermulanya operasi pembinaan

Lampu sorot semasa pembinaan perlu menghala ke bawah untuk membantu penglihatan semasa navigasi malam

Pelan Pelayaran Keselamatan Kontigensi / Penilaian Risiko Trafik Marin

Dokumentasi pematuhan melalui pemeriksaan tapak

Perundingan yang berterusan dengan iCWG/ Jawatankuasa Penasihat Alam Sekitar

Rekod pelanggaran navigasi atau atau hampir berlanggar

Rekod disimpan oleh kontraktor apabila perlu dan pemeriksaan bulanan oleh EO

Apabila perlu – Pegawai Penglibatan Komuniti, Ketua Kampung, iCWG

Apabila perlu - Pegawai Kesihatan dan Keselamatan Pekerjaan dan memaklumkan iCMAMG. iCMAMG pelru mengkaji trafik marin dan navigasi SOP untuk mengurangkan risiko yang dikenal pasti dan sebab-sebab kejadian.

1-60 62800860-RPT-02

No. Isu Impak Langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantauan Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

3.3.2.2 Impak jeti dan jambatan terhadap navigasi semasa pembinaan dan operasi

Impak negatif kecil

Struktur dan laluan navigasi yang berkaitan akan ditandakan dengan jelas mengikut peraturan tempatan dan akan diumumkan.

Pemberitahuan kepada semua pemilik dan pengendali kapal mengenai bermulanya operasi pembinaan jeti dan jambatan

Lampu sorot semasa pembinaan perlu menghala ke bawah untuk membantu penglihatan semasa navigasi malam

Dokumen fotografi dan peta lokasi pemasangan di sepanjang jeti dan jambatan

Salinan notis pemberitahuan dimasukkan ke dalamlaporan ECR

Apabila pembinaan bermula dan apabila perlu oleh kontaktor

Pemeriksaan Tapak Bulanan(EO)

3.3.3 Kesan ke atas keselamatan awam semasa pembinaan dan operasi

Kesan positif yang signifikan

Penggerak projek dan kontraktor

tidak harus bertolak ansur

dengan mana-mana kelakuan

dalam kalangan tenaga kerja

yang boleh memberi kesan

kepada Keselamatan Awam.

Langkah-langkah mitigasi

termasuklah:

Pemecatan dan tindakan disiplin

kerana tingkah laku anti-sosial;

Berkerjasama dengan Kumpulan Kerja Komuniti, polis dan pihak berkepentingan yang lain untuk memantau dan menguruskan tingkah laku anti-sosial.

Mendokumenkan aduan dan pendapat awam

Seperti yang dikehendaki oleh Pegawai Penglibatan Komuniti

3.4 Impak ke atas penggunaan tanah

Impak negatif yang kecil

Tuntutan kehilangan tanaman akan diuruskan melalui saluran yang betul; iaitu Pejabat Daerah dan Jabatan Pertanian.

Log aduan akan direkod untuk diserahkan kepada Pejabat Daerah dan Jabatan Pertanian

Berterusan (Pegawai Penglibatan Komuniti)

3.5 Perniagaan tempatan dan peluang pekerjaan

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-61

No. Isu Impak Langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantauan Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

3.5.1 Peluang pekerjaan Impak positif yang ketara

Pekerja tempatan diutamakan

Kontraktor tempatan kelas F diutamakan

Melaksanakan Kumpulan Kerja Komuniti iLAP

Biasiswa untuk latihan akuakultur dan menawarkan pembiayaan mikro

Menyimpan rekod pekerja iLAP, kontraktor dan pembekal bagi memantau tahap penglibatan

Menyediakan data statistic bagi peratusan pekerja dan penggangur tempatan serta perniagaan yang telah ditubuhkan. Data ini perlulah dipecahkan mengikut kategori pekerjaan.

Pada pembinaan bermula / setiap tahun oleh pemaju projek

Statistik dikumpul setiap bulan dari kampung-kampung oleh Pegawai Penglibatan Komuniti

3.5.2 Peluang perniagaan tempatan

Positif

3.5.3 Impak ke atas pertanian rumpai laut dan mutiara

Tidak berubah Tiada dijangka tetapi kesan secara tidak langsung daripada kualiti air atau sedimen akan dinilai sebagai sebahagian daripada program pemantauan keseluruhan

Kebimbingan atau aduan akan ditangani secara individu

Log kebimbangan dan aduan

Komunikasi yang berterusan antara pemilik lading mutiara dan petani rumpai laut/ persatuan

Secara berterusan (Pegawai Penglibatan Masyarakat)

3.6 Impak Sosial Lain

3.6.1 Impak demografik Impak sederhana negatif

Memberi keutamaan kepada pekerja tempatan

Pemantauan status imigrasi masuk melalui Ketua Kampung / JKKK

Penilaian dan laporan tahunan (Pemaju projek)

3.6.2 Tekanan ke atas kemudahan orang awam – pembinaan dan operasi

Impak sederhana negatif

Memberitahu Majlis Daerah Semporna dan pembekal kemudahan tentang jumlah pekerja terlebih dahulu.

Memaklumkan unjuran permintaan bekalan elektrik, air, pelupusan sampah dan servis lain kepada Pejabat Daerah Semporna terlebih dahulu.

Tidak ada

Berterusan tetapi dilaporkan setiap tahun (pemaju projek)

Berterusan dan laporan Tahunan (Pihak Pemaju)

1-62 62800860-RPT-02

No. Isu Impak Langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantauan Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

3.6.3 Impak kepada kesihatan orang awam dan ketidakselesaan semasa pembinaan

Negatif Minor Para pekerja akan dilatih dalam prosedur-prosedur kesihatan dan keselamatan

Pemeriksaan kesihatan adalah diwajibkan untuk semua pekerjaiLAP semasa induksi dan berterusan. Pemberitahuan Jabatan Kesihatan bagi mana-mana penyakit yang perlu dilaporkan.

Pengangkutan kenderaan berat di Jalan Tg. Kapor yang perlu dielakkan semasa waktu penghantaran dan pengambilan murid sekolah.

Penyediaan warden lalu lintas di sekolah-sekolah di sepanjang Jalan Tg. Kapor pada waktu puncak lalu lintas kenderaan pembinaan

Menyimpan semua rekod kesihatan semua pekerja Tinjauan kesihatan dan kesejahteraan awam komuniti

Tinjauan Sosial terhadap kesihatan dan kesejahteraan masyarakat awam

Log – berterusan (Pegawai Kesihatan dan Keselamatan Pekerjaan iLAP)

Tahunan (Pakar Perunding).

3.7 Bau semasa Operasi Projek

Negatif Minor Memastikan makanan udang kara disimpan di stor yang sejuk dan selamat di tapak operasi.

sangkar perlu berada dalam keadaan kering sebelum disimpan dalam Tapak Operasi

Udang kara yang mati perlu dikumpulkan dan disimpan dalam kotak yang air tidak boleh masuk untuk pembuangan yang diluluskan

Mendokumenkan aduan dan pendapat awam serta membentangkannya semasa mesyuarat iCWG / Jawatankuasa Penasihat Alam Sekitar

Pemantauan berterusan oleh Pegawai Penglibatan Komuniti dari permulaan peringkat operasi.

3.8 Impak sekuriti makanan

Positif yang ketara

Tidak memerlukan mitigasi Pemantauan tidak diperlukan Tidak Ada

Executive Summary [Ringkasan Eksekutif]

1-63

No. Isu Impak Langkah Mitigasi Program Pemantauan Kekerapan / (Tanggungjawab)

3.9 Impak sosioekonomi yang lebih luas

Positif yang ketara

Projek sebesar ini dianggap sebagai peluang ekonomi yang penting dan oleh itu, memberi manfaat kepada ekonomi serantau

Program Tanggungjawab Sosial Korporat (CSR) akan dibangunkan untuk menangani isu-isu Masyarakat dan Kesihatan, Pendidikan dan Latihan, dan Alam Sekitar yang lebih luas merangkumi:

-Biasiswa/pembiayaan mikro

-Kebersihan Komuniti

-Pusat Pendidikan Alam Sekitar di Bait

-Inisiatif kitar semula

-Inisiatif komuniti lain

Cadangan tambahan untuk menilai mekanisme tempatan untuk perkongsian disamping membantu membina kapasiti tempatan sebagai elemen penting dalam penciptaan program CSR.

Tahunan (Pemaju Projek)

4 Pengabaian Projek

Negatif Minor Melaksanakan pelan penutupan tapak projek seperti yang dicatatkan dalam Perjanjian Pengurusan Kolektif (iCMA)yang merangkumi:

Pembuangan bahan buangan (iaitu: PU dan tambatan dan pelupusan serta kitar semula peralatan)

Pelan pengurusan personel dan aset

Bon yang dipegang oleh iCMA digunakan hanya dalam pembersihan fasa pengabaian projek dan mitigasi

Apabila diperlukan

General Information

2-1

2 General Information

2.1 Introduction

The present Special Environmental Impact Assessment report (SEIA) is for proposed

Integrated Lobster Aquaculture Project (iLAP) located in the waters around Pulau Timbun

Mata and P. Bait in the District of Semporna.

This section provides an overview of the Project details relevant to the SEIA, including

background information on the project such as title, identification of the project proponent;

background information on the SEIA report and a reading guide for this document; and finally

the EIA consultant and study team involved in the preparation of this report.

2.2 Project Title

The project is titled “Special EIA for the Proposed Integrated Lobster Aquaculture

Project (iLAP), including Marine Aquaculture Zone around P. Timbun Mata Waters,

Earthworks and Jetty for Operations Base at P. Bait and Bridge from Tg. Kapor to P.

Bait”, referred to hereafter as the “iLAP” or the “Project”.

A Terms of Reference (TOR) for this SEIA has been submitted, reviewed and endorsed by

the Environment Protection Department (EPD) on May 26, 2014 (Ref: JPAS/PP/18/600-

1/06/1/26 Kit.2(2)). A copy of the TOR approval letter is provided in Appendix A.

2.3 Project Proponent

The project proponent is Lobster Aqua Technologies Sdn Bhd (hereinafter referred to as

LATSB). LATSB is a special purpose vehicle to develop and manage the Integrated Lobster

Aquaculture Project (iLAP) in Semporna, Sabah and is a partnership between Darden

Aquafarm Inc (a subsidiary of Darden Restaurants Inc, USA), Yayasan Sabah and Ever

Nexus Sdn Bhd (Figure 2.1).

Key components of the partnership include:

Yayasan Sabah is a Sabah State entity that will play a pivotal role in obtaining sea and

land space for the ILAP, legal approvals, Temporary Occupation Licenses (TOL) and

resolving land matters.

Darden will be the foreign investor that provides investment, technology input, R&D and

will be the guaranteed market of the product. Darden is listed as a Fortune 500 company

with a turnover of USD 8 billion in 2012 and the largest buyer of lobsters in the world.

Ever Nexus, a Malaysian aquaculture specialist management company will provide

management expertise through LATSB to manage the iLAP.

In addition, the Department of Fisheries (DoF) will be the key agency that manages the

15,000 ha Aquaculture Industry Zone (AIZ) linked to the iLAP.

2-2 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 2.1 Partners of the iLAP project.

Details pertaining to the Project Proponent are as follows:

Lobster Aqua Technologies Sdn. Bhd.

C19-2, First Floor, Block C

Kepayan Perdana Commercial Centre

88300 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah.

Contact Person : Shahridan Faiez, PhD

Designation : President and CEO

Tel. No. : 088 413 155 / 03 2284 7575 Fax. No. : 088 413 255 / 03 2284 0041 Email Address : shah.faiez@ever-nexus.com

2.4 SEIA Consultants

The main Consultant for the SEIA study is DHI Water & Environment with the following

registered address:

DHI Water and Environment (M) Sdn. Bhd. (535484-V)

(EPD Reg. No. F008 – Exp. 30/09/2014) 11

th Floor, Hill View side, Wisma Perindustrian

Jalan Istiadat, Likas, 88400 Kota Kinabalu Sabah, Malaysia

Tel: 088 260 780

Fax: 088 260 781

Contact Persons: Tania Golingi (SEIA Team Leader) Email: tag@dhi.com.my Melissa Mary Mathews (Project Coordinator) Email: mmm@dhi.com.my

General Information

2-3

The list of consultants involved in the preparation of this SEIA report, their expertise and

EPD registration details is given in Table 2.1, while Table 2.2 lists the consultants and

experts that are not fully registered as EIA consultants with EPD.

Table 2.1 SEIA team members registered with EPD.

Name/ Qualifications Area(s) of study in SEIA

EPD Registration / Expiry Date

Signature

Tania Golingi

BSc. Environmental Science

SEIA Team Leader

Ecology

S0027

30/09/2016

Dr. Neil Hartstein

PhD. Marine and Environmental Science

MSc (Hons), Earth Science

BSc, Geology/Earth Science

Hydraulic modelling team supervisor

Fisheries & Aquaculture

S0371

16/02/2015

Amy Ling Chu Chu

B. Eng. (Hons.) in Civil Engineering

Hydraulic S0143

14/11/2015

Felix Ku Kok Hu

BEng. (Hons) Civil & Environmental Engineering

Hydraulic / GIS S0150

14/11/2015

Wong Lie Lie

Master of Environment and Business Management

Mapping / GIS S0083

23/09/2015

Siti Nurulfirdauz Hashim

BSc. (Environment)

Water / Noise / Air Quality

S0189

16/02/2016

Velerie Siambun

B.Sc Applied Biology Hons. Environmental

Biology / Socioeconomics

S0029

30/09/2015

Captain Walter Nair (KASI)

Master Mariner

Marine Traffic and Navigational Safety

S0138

10/06/2015

2-4 62800860-RPT-02

Table 2.2 EIA Supporting Team

Name/ Qualifications Area(s) of study in SEIA Signature

Prof. Stephen Oakley (TRACC)

Ph.D. Marine Biology

Technical Advisor, Marine Ecology

Dr. Paul Porodong (UMS)

PhD. Anthropolgy & Sociology

Socioeconomic Expert

Dr Tony Chiffings

PhD Marine Eutrophication

BSc Biology

Technical Advisor - Environmental Processes

Johnny Gisil (UMS)

Flora Survey Team Leader, Institute for Tropical Biology and Conservation, UMS

Flora

Marjorie Lim

Bachelor of Civil Engineering (Hons.)

Masters of Environmental Science

Water quality modeller

Crisanto V. Cayon

Master in International Crisis Management

Social Development Expert

Mohd Zambri Mohd Akhir

BSc. Aquatic Biology

Marine Ecology

Lance Searle (Sashimi Group Ltd, NZ)

BSc. Marine Biology

Aquaculture production and planning specialist

Melissa Mathews

MSc. Environmental Studies (JEMES-Erasmus Mundus)

BSc. Conservation Biology (Hons)

Marine and Coastal Ecology/ Project Coordinator

Evelyn Teh

BSc. Marine Biology (Hons)

Environmental Scientist

Noor Atika Binti Abdullah

BSc. Marine Science (Hons)

Marine Biologist

General Information

2-5

Name/ Qualifications Area(s) of study in SEIA Signature

Thayalan Mogana Sundaram

Bsc. Marine Science

Habitat mapping (Side Scan Sonar Survey)

Carl H. Andersen

Electronics Engineer, Technical College

Hydrographic Surveys

Ranjani Rajamanickam

Bsc. Marine Science

Water Quality

2.5 SEIA Report

2.5.1 Legal Requirements

The proposed project requires an EIA under the First and Second Schedule of the

Environment Protection (Prescribed Activities) Order 2012 /1/, falling under a number of

prescribed activities:

First Schedule (requiring Proposal for Mitigation Measures)

- Item 6(ii): Construction of open jetties with a length of 100 metres or more for

commercial or public use along rivers or sea front.

Second Schedule (requiring EIA)

- Item 3(iv): Development of housing, commercial or industrial estates involving

earthwork with a volume of 40,000 cubic metres or more;

- Item 6(i): Establishment of fisheries or aquaculture within wetland forests, in the

river or sea involving an area of 50 hectares or more;

- Item 12(v): Construction of main bridge involving reclamation of river, sea or

wetlands.

The objective of the EIA is to identify and assess potential environmental impacts arising

from the construction and operations of the iLAP and to propose environmental management

measures (mitigation and monitoring) to reduce these impacts to acceptable levels.

Given the sensitive location of the project site and the scale of the project, a Special EIA

(SEIA) is required as outlined in the approved Terms of Reference.

2.5.2 Environmental Guidelines

This SEIA study has been undertaken in accordance with the EIA guidelines issued by the

EPD and DOE as well as other relevant guidelines listed below.

Handbook of EIA in Sabah (2005) (2nd

Edition) published by EPD /2/

2-6 62800860-RPT-02

Guidelines on Preparation and Submission of Environmental Impact Assessment

Reports: JKAS/PP/100/600-4/13/1(28) circulated by EPD to all environmental

consultants /3/

Sabah Shoreline Management Plan (2005) /4/

Guidance Document for Addressing Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Aspects in

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Reports (DOE, 2011) /5/

Guidelines on Erosion Control for Development in Coastal Zone (JPS 1/97) published by

DID /6/

The Planning Guidelines for Environmental Noise Limits and Control. 2004. Department

of Environment Malaysia /7/

Guidelines for Preparation of Coastal Engineering Hydraulic Study & Impact Evaluation

(Dec 2011) published by DID and updated requirements via circular June 2013 /8/

FAO 2009. Environmental impact assessment and monitoring in aquaculture:

requirements, practices, effectiveness and improvements /9/.

2.5.3 Stage of Project

The Project is currently in the early stages of Front End Engineering Design (FEED), with

detailed engineering studies on aspects of the development and associated infrastructure

currently in the early stages. However, the key elements which are necessary to form an

impact evaluation have been determined within this SEIA and any assumptions made clearly

highlighted.

2.5.4 SEIA Scope

2.5.4.1 Project Components The SEIA scope is limited to the development components in Semporna. The overall lobster

aquaculture project will also involve off-site developments such as a hatchery in Kudat and

processing plant development in Kota Kinabalu, which are not assessed in this SEIA. Hence

the main project components covered within the SEIA are:

iLAP Jetty and Operations Base on Pulau Bait

iLAP Grow Out Areas (water space around P. Timbun Mata)

Access road and bridge from Tg. Kapor to P. Bait.

2.5.4.2 SEIA Focus Issues The main focus of the impact evaluation in this SEIA has been determined through a scoping

process by the SEIA Consultant to formulate the Terms of Reference for the SEIA study, in

addition to recommendations of the review panel comprising technical government agency

officers, EPD officers and NGOs.

The scoping exercise identified several key environmental issues that have cascading

effects or consequential impacts on other sectors of the environment. These are summarised

in the table below.

General Information

2-7

Table 2.3 Key impacts as determined during the project scoping.

Pri

ori

ty I

ss

ue

s

Marine water and sediment quality.

Impacts from release and deposition of nutrients/ organic matter from lobster secretion, excretion (faeces) and feed wastes during operations. This may also have residual impacts during abandonment. Nutrient releases are the key issue of concern, however, other water quality impacts such as oil spills and leaks, application of anti-foulants on cages and suspended sediments released from cage cleaning are also issues to note.

Solid wastes

A large amount of solid wastes will be generated from farm maintenance (e.g. discarded nets, etc.), biological wastes (stock mortalities) and workers areas (domestic wastes) at the farm area.

Loss of mangrove

Mangrove areas within the Mangrove Forest Reserve at Tg. Kapor and mangroves on P. Bait will be affected due to the jetty, bridge and land based operations footprints.

Fauna impacts

Terrestrial and marine wildlife may be subject to increased hunting/ harvesting pressure by farm workers targeting endangered or locally rare species such as giant clams, sea cucumber, etc. Primarily during operations but may also occur to a limited extent during construction.

If trash fish is used for lobster feed, unsustainable fishing methods may result in further pressure to fisheries and the marine ecosystem

Socio-cultural conflicts

The large workers’ population, if not local to the Semporna region, may result in conflicts with the local communities. In particular during operations, when the largest number of workers is required.

Impact on tourism

The presence of the project may conflict with existing and future potential tourism activities around P. Timbun Mata. On the other hand, there is also an opportunity for the project to enhance tourism (farm and seafood based tours).

Iss

ue

s o

f N

ote

Sewage and waste water discharges

Discharges, in particular from the operations base and workers quarters on the production units may result in water quality impacts that affect the marine environment.

Noise Noise from marine and land traffic at jetty/ bridge, operations base and production units (including underwater noise impacts) during construction may affect terrestrial and marine fauna and local communities nearby.

Lighting Lighting over the large area of the farm during operations and construction may cause impacts to marine fauna and the local communities.

Hydrodynamics and morphological impacts

Effect of cage structures

Effect of jetty/ bridge structure to a lesser extent

Land and maritime use conflicts

Potential conflicts with local communities, including:

Loss of fishing grounds

Impact on navigational routes

Other aquaculture developments

Marine traffic and navigation impacts

Physical obstruction from cages, bridge and jetties during operations

Increased traffic during operations (for feeding, maintenance)

Increased construction traffic

Employment and entrepreneurial opportunities

Potential-beneficial employment impact (supporting industries, tourism etc.)

Technical skills training and mechanisms to ensure local communities benefit.

2-8 62800860-RPT-02

Re

ma

inin

g I

ssu

es

Removal of seabed habitat

Within anchoring and mooring areas of the cages

Within bridge and jetty pile footprints

Aesthetic impacts

Visual impact of farm/ cages during project construction and operations

Air quality Impacts during construction

Suspended sediments

Impact of releases to the marine environment during piling for the bridge and jetty construction

Introduction of diseases / foreign strains

Potential introduction and spread of disease from the farmed animals to wild populations during operations (biosecurity).

Introduction of different genetic strains of lobsters and other associated marine organisms.

Food security If fish is used to feed the lobsters, this may result in a reduction of food source for the local communities, which rely on ‘trash’ fish as a food source.

Land traffic impacts during construction

Increased vehicular traffic may cause some impact to local communities on the main land.

Soil erosion and runoff

Sediments generated from land based construction activities, i.e. earthworks for access road and operations base on P. Bait.

2.5.5 SEIA Report Outline

The structure of the report is shown in Table 2.4. As per EPD guidelines, this SEIA

document provides a concise overview of the baseline environment, the predicted impacts

and evaluation and the proposed mitigation measures and monitoring programmes. These

descriptions are based on detailed sectoral studies which are documented in detail in the

Appendices.

General Information

2-9

Table 2.4 SEIA report outline

Sec. Title Description

Volume 1: Main Report

1 Executive summary A summary of the project, the key findings of the impact assessment and the recommendations for mitigation and environmental management

2 General Information (This Section) provides the background of the iLAP project and the SEIA study.

3 Project Description Describes Project location, concept, activities, status and schedule

4 Existing Environment at Project Site

This section describes the baseline environmental conditions at the project site, including the physical and biological environment, land and maritime uses, and socio-economics.

Detailed information on the data basis for this description is provided in the Appendices.

5 Impact Prediction and Evaluation

Describes the impact prediction and evaluation of the environmental issues identified in the scoping and TOR.

6 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures for all identified significant issues are described in this section.

7 Environmental Management Plan

This section describes the environmental management and monitoring programmes to be implemented during project construction and operations.

8 References Lists the references used throughout the report.

Project Description

3-1

3 Project Description

3.1 Introduction

This section provides details on the Project Concept and Activities, the Statement of Need

and Project Status. The reading guide is as follows:

Title Description Section number

Project Background Information

Statement of Need This section gives background information and supporting data on the need for the project and the anticipated project benefits.

3.2

Project Options Background on the options considered up to the presently proposed project concept, including location and layout options.

3.3

Project Location Identifies the geographic location of the site. Further detail on the environment at the project location is given in Section 4.

3.4

Project Description

Project Concept Outlines the main components of the project, their layout and purpose

3.5

Project Activities Details the activities to be carried out for both the construction and operational stages.

3.6

Project Status This section describes the status of the project in terms of land ownership and zoning, and the stage of the project development at which this SEIA is being carried out.

3.7

Development Schedule

Outlines the proposed phases and implementation schedule. 3.8

3.2 Statement of Need

3.2.1 Global Seafood Demand

Globally, seafood is one of the most highly traded food commodities. Demand for seafood is

set to rise substantially but supply from catch fisheries has stagnated and will not increase

significantly. Aquaculture already provides half of all seafood supplies and only aquaculture

can increase production to keep pace with the growing seafood demand. Despite rapid

expansion for several decades, the rate of aquaculture growth is now slowing /1/.

Global seafood production is projected to reach about 172 million metric tons (T) in 2021,

which is up 15 % from the 2009-11 average, according to the United Nation’s Food and

Agriculture Organisation /1/.

The increase in global seafood production is expected to come mainly from aquaculture

production, which is projected to grow 33 % to 79 million metric tons by 2021. Wild fisheries

production is projected to grow only 3 % between 2012 and 2021.

3-2 62800860-RPT-02

However, the rate of aquaculture production increase is forecasted to slow, from an average

annual rate of 5.8 % in the previous decade to 2.4 % between 2012 and 2021. The decline is

attributed mainly to funding constraints, water constraints, limited availability of optimal

production locations and the rising costs of fishmeal and fish oil. Aquaculture will however,

remain one of the fastest-growing animal food-producing sectors /1/.

The current FAO report “State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012” shows that global

seafood production for human consumption hit a record 128.3 million metric tons, or an

average of 18.4 kilograms per person, in 2010 /1/.

This is an increase from 123.6 million metric tons in 2009, 119.7 million metric tons in 2008

and 117.3 million metric tons in 2007. Asia accounted for approximately 66% of total seafood

consumption, at 85.4 million metric tons, or 20.7 kilograms per capita /1/.

Global seafood production for human consumption was estimated to total 130.8 million

metric tons in 2011, according to the FAO. The total farm gate value of food fish production

from aquaculture was estimated at USD 119.4 billion in 2010 /1/.

Figure 3.1 Global fish supply, capture vs. aquaculture /1/.

Project Description

3-3

Figure 3.2 Global fish supply, food fish supply and population /1/.

In 2018 farmed fish will account for half of the total seafood consumed (Figure 3.1).

Aquaculture represented 47 % of global food fish production in 2010, compared with just 9 %

in 1980. The growth rate of farmed food fish production from 1980 to 2010 far outpaced the

1.5 % growth of the world population (Figure 3.2), resulting in average annual per-capita

consumption of farmed fish rising by almost seven times, from 1.1 kilograms in 1980 to 8.7

kilograms in 2010, at an average annual rate of 7.1 %. China is responsible for most of the

increase in per-capita consumption /1/.

Global seafood production for all purposes, including human consumption, totalled 148.5

million metric tons in 2010, up from 145.3 million metric tons in 2009. Wild fisheries

accounted for 88.6 million metric tons, while aquaculture represented 59.9 million metric tons

(Figure 3.3) /1/.

Figure 3.3 Global Seafood Production /1/.

3-4 62800860-RPT-02

Aquaculture holds tremendous potential for the future supply of seafood for the world’s

rapidly growing population. Supplies of seafood from catch fisheries have stabilised and any

increases in seafood supplies must ultimately come from aquaculture in the future.

The iLAP project will aid in supplying the global demand for lobsters, a high value seafood

commodity. The project is also currently the best example of retail level investment in

aquaculture production to ensure supply, price, quality food safety and sustainability.

3.2.2 The iLAP Project

3.2.2.1 Need for Lobster Aquaculture Commercial production of Tropical Rock Lobster (Panulirus ornatus) worldwide is largely

harvested from wild stocks. In recent times there has been a decline in lobster production

worldwide. Existing small scale lobster culture operations are dependent on wild caught

juveniles that also deplete wild populations. In view of the dwindling wild caught lobster

output, Darden Restaurants Inc. has embarked on developing a sustainable lobster

aquaculture on a commercial scale to provide a secure and sustainable source of lobster

that is produced in an environmentally sound manner.

Darden Aquafarms Inc (a subsidiary of Darden Restaurants Inc) was established to pioneer

the development of a commercial lobster farm to provide a sustainable supply of lobster and

reduce pressure on wild populations. The iLAP site in Semporna, Sabah was selected for

this pioneering project because of good marine water quality essential for lobster culture and

the political stability and progressive government in Sabah.

Lobster Aqua Technologies Sdn Bhd (LATSB) is a special purpose vehicle to develop this

project, established as a strategic partnership initiative between Darden Restaurants Inc,

Yayasan Sabah, and Ever Nexus Sdn Bhd. (see also Section 2).

3.2.2.2 Project Benefits The total investment for the iLAP Development Project is 2.96 billion which is divided into

private investments of RM 2.0 billion and NKEA (National Key Economic Area) Investment at

Kudat of RM 414 million and NKEA Investment at Semporna of RM 459 million. These

investments will fuel the pre- and post-construction phases plus the operational phases of

iLAP. At full capacity of this development, the GNI (Gross National Income) is expected to be

RM 3.3 billion annually.

Figure 3.4 Investments sources for iLAP.

Project Description

3-5

Besides this, the iLAP Project has created a local development support program with an

investment of RM 68.5 million. Through this program, the project will create high income

employment for the local communities and support a Bumiputera industry transition program

towards high-value aquaculture. Targeted groups of villagers involved in artisanal fishing and

unsustainable livelihoods will be incorporated into the project through training programs and

a Synergy Farm Project. The estimated revenue per year is RM 125 million and yearly profits

of RM 38 million/year.

Training programs are incorporated into the iLAP skills development program. There will be

continuous skills development training to cater for the jobs created. The employees will

undergo new certified lobster programs conducted by Ever Nexus and partner Global

Aquaculture Alliance. Among the planned programs are lobster aquaculture management,

food safety, HACCP and farm certification. These four program levels, which will be certified

on the job, lead to a recognized Diploma.

Overall, the project aims to create more than 20,000 employment opportunities. The types of

professional and skilled jobs that will be created include:

semi-skilled (workers), estimated around 20,000 jobs.

specialists (supervisors, technicians), estimated around 600 jobs.

experts (Managers, Scientists, Engineers), estimated around 30 jobs.

SME Entrepreneurs, estimated around 300 opportunities.

Companies

Services (engineering, veterinary, nutrition, logistics, etc.), estimated around 30 jobs.

The Project will also enhance the local infrastructure; specifically power, water supply and

telecommunication benefiting Semporna, and in Kudat for the hatchery and other future

planning for processing plants.

The development is designed to be environmentally sustainable leveraging on the world

renowned brand of Darden. This entails ecologically friendly construction and design plus

operational methods with compliance to sustainable aquaculture policies and methods. In

this respect, the integrated park concept enables a more environmentally sensitive

development compared to the potential cumulative impact of individual, smaller scale, ad hoc

developments to achieve the same production.

In summary, Lobster Aqua Technologies Sdn Bhd will bring in:

GNI of RM 3.3 billion annually

Investment of RM 2.96 billion over 3 phases

Jobs to 20,000 employees/contract farmers

Higher wages, especially to skilled and newly trained local staff

The total investment for the iLAP Operations Base is estimated at RM 2.23 billion.

Local Development Support Program: high income jobs for local communities support a

Bumiputera industry transition program towards high value aquaculture.

Local population-beneficiaries- implementation of a Synergy Farm will target local

villagers and enable them to participate in this industry.

A grant will be provided by NKEA to finance the Synergy Farm (RM 50 million) and

Training Program (RM 18.5 million).

3.2.2.3 Global Aquaculture Alliance Certification The project proponent throughout the development and operational phase will strive to work

towards complying with the Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) Certification Requirements in

stages (please refer to Schedule 5: Appendix F). Compliance targets will be rolled out within

a 5-10 year plan depending on the rate of lobster production (estimated 10% production

within a rollout). This 5-10 year plan will be incorporated within the iLAP Collective

Management SOP Agreement (iCMA) between the project proponent and contract farmers.

3-6 62800860-RPT-02

3.2.3 Policies Supporting Aquaculture

Policies and plans are in place created by the Malaysian Federal Government and Sabah

State authorities that support the development of aquaculture within Sabah.

In Sabah, the administration of aquaculture and fisheries is under Sabah’s Department of

Fisheries. This is in contrast to the other states excluding Sarawak which is under the

management of Lembaga Kemajuan Ikan Malaysia (LKIM). The Masterplan for Aquaculture

Development in Sabah was created in 1996 in collaboration with Department of Fisheries,

Sabah and the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia Pacific (NACA). Within this

Masterplan, the State of Sabah aims to promote the development of aquaculture as a means

to provide employment and a higher income for the coastal communities in Sabah by

increasing the production and export of Sabah’s marine aquaculture products.

The Department of Fisheries has also come up with a set of strategic plans associated and

complementing investment policies under Malaysia Third National Agriculture Policy and

Sabah 2nd

Agricultural Policy. Among the plans are:

to pin point competent private sector participants and encourage commercial fishing and

large scale aquaculture production

to encourage the establishments of consortiums and estate groupings between

aquaculture farmers for commercial production

to initiate business interest from suitable corporate mega companies which are already

successful in business and to encourage them to invest and take up commercial fishing

and aquaculture industry in Sabah

to encourage joint ventures between local companies and investors from other countries

under existing regional trade cooperation like the BIMP-EAGA

to encourage investment from local and foreign companies to invest in high level

seafood processing, packaging and marketing

to establish a One Stop Sabah Seafood Investment and Information Centre to cater to

potential investors who needs assistance and services plus to strengthen the investment

and market link within the Sabah Seafood Sector.

One of the Malaysia Third National Agriculture Policy strategies is to increase the production

of aquaculture. Thus a programme called the Aquaculture Industry Zone Programme (AIZ)

was established and involved in zoning land and coastal areas that have been identified as

suitable for development of commercial scale aquaculture projects. Thus Aquaculture

Industrial Zones have been earmarked nationwide including in Semporna as part of the

Aquaculture Masterplan. The AIZ in the Semporna area is earmarked by the Sabah

Department of Fisheries which covers an area of about 20,000 ha of sea space surrounding

waters of P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait.

A Marine Area Spatial Plan for the AIZ area is currently being finalised in parallel to this SEIA

and the iLAP zone presented in this EIA has been determined based on this spatial planning

exercise in order to better optimise growing conditions and environmental compatibility

The Sabah Government under the helm of Chief Minister of Sabah, Datuk Seri Panglima

Musa Haji Aman supports the iLAP project by declaring the iLAP project as a type of smart

partnership between the government and private sectors that Sabah is keen to support

during the signing ceremony between Darden Inc and Yayasan Sabah on November 5,

2012.

3.2.3.1 Sabah Aquaculture The Economic Development Plan for Sabah is managed by The Sabah Economic

Development Corridor Agency (SEDIA). SEDIA envisions Sabah to be the leading economic

region in Asia by being the preferred gateway for trade, investment and leisure for

businesses key professional and entrepreneurs. As Malaysia progresses towards year 2020,

Sabah aspires to achieve RM 110 billion of GNI by then to fulfil Malaysia’s goal and

Project Description

3-7

determination to be a developed nation. Sabah’s goal target per year is to achieve a 9%

growth per annum. Aquaculture will contribute to this growth as can be seen through the

increasing GDP contribution from the aquaculture industry (Figure 3.5).

Figure 3.5 Increasing trend in aquaculture’s contribution to Sabah’s economy /2/.

SEDIA has identified agriculture as one of six key areas for development. In the Malaysian

context, fisheries and aquaculture are under the umbrella of agriculture. Agriculture specific

visions created by SEDIA are to be highly productive, attain food self-sufficiency and to be

certified sustainable and safe. The development will focus on agriculture food production

especially aquaculture, high value crops and livestock.

Aquaculture is an important industry to the government and people of Sabah as it provides a

source of global knowledge and technical sharing in trade, a steady supply of affordable

animal protein and employment benefits to the communities. In the past ten years, the

fisheries and aquaculture industry has played its part as a contributor to Sabah’s economy.

Tiger prawns and seaweed aquaculture has been the main aquaculture export commodity.

Other types of aquaculture are freshwater fish culture, marine fish cage culture and mollusc

farming.

Sabah aims to be a significant player within the global aquaculture industry. Sabah via

SEDIA actively seeks to attract and support aquaculture businesses by offering investment

tax incentive package for the Sabah Development Corridor projects. For example,

aquaculture projects within the Marine Integrated Cluster (MIC) such as the iLAP Project will

be eligible for full tax exemption on statutory income for 10 years or investment tax

allowance of 100% on qualifying capital expenditure for five years. These businesses will

also be exempted from import, duty and sales tax on equipment and machineries used.

3-8 62800860-RPT-02

3.3 Project Options

3.3.1 Alternative Project Locations

Prior to the selection of the Semporna site in Sabah, the project proponent considered

several locations within five different countries, namely Singapore, Thailand, Brunei and

Indonesia.

At the end of their study, the project proponent selected Semporna as the optimum location

for the iLAP. Lobsters are a tropical species and Semporna being in the tropical zone makes

it a logical choice. Semporna also has excellent water quality conditions for a large scale

aquaculture grow-out. This is very important for the successful growth of the lobsters

especially those in the juvenile stages.

Besides water quality, logistics and infrastructure facilities are in existence or easily

upgraded to match the requirements of iLAP. Semporna’s location is also ideal as it is not

prone to natural disasters and has political stability.

In addition, Semporna is located in South East Asia where the cost of running a business is

lower compared to other regions in the world, thus providing a competitive advantage

businesswise.

To verify the suitability of the proposed Semporna site, the project proponent has conducted

pilot tests (trial sea cages) since 2009 within Semporna waters with favourable results for

lobster grow-out.

3.3.2 Aquaculture Zone Layout

Detailed numerical modelling studies have been carried to determine the optimal

configuration of the marine aquaculture production area within the general Aquaculture

Industry Zone (AIZ). The studies have focused on site optimisation based on current speeds,

water depth, and wave exposure. In addition, an over-riding consideration was the

avoidance of coral reefs that are found fringing P. Timbun Mata.

The starting point was the AIZ of approximately 20,000 ha gazetted by the Department of

Fisheries as presented in the TOR (Figure 3.6). Following the completion of the bathymetry

survey, hydraulic study and coral reef surveys, the iLAP aquaculture zone has been further

optimised to avoid impacts to coral reefs, minimise water quality impacts and maximise

production potential.

The project area considered in this SEIA report is as shown in Figure 3.7 and the sea space

amounts to a total area of 9,300 ha.

Project Description

3-9

Figure 3.6 Initial iLAP marine aquaculture area (as presented in the SEIA TOR document).

3-10 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 3.7 Final iLAP marine aquaculture area as assessed in this SEIA (initial layout shown in orange outline).

3.4 Project Location

The iLAP is located within an Aquaculture Industry Zone (AIZ) established by the

Department of Fisheries, northwest of Semporna Town. A lobster grow out area (aquaculture

zone) will occupy the sea space around P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait, and an Operations

Base located at Pulau Bait (Figure 3.8 and Table 3.1). The Operations Base occupies an

area of 55.23 ha, while the marine area allocated to the farm is 9,300 ha.

The Operations Base will be accessed by means of a 1.2 km bridge from Tg. Kapor on the

mainland to P. Bait. There is an existing road to Kg. Tg. Kapor, which is approximately 14 km

from Semporna town by road. A new access road of approximately 0.5 km length will be

constructed to connect the bridge to the existing village road.

Access from the Operations Base to the marine grow out areas will be by means of a jetty

(with a trestle length of approximately 500 m) on P. Bait north of the Base.

Project Description

3-11

Figure 3.8 Project location at Semporna. Refer to Table 3.1 for coordinates of the points shown in this figure.

3-12 62800860-RPT-02

Table 3.1 Project geographic coordinates in BRSO (metres). Source: Survey drawing - JTSB3060TT01_PULAU TIMBUN MATA_CLIENT_26-03-2014.dwg & JTSB-3060-IP01.dwg.

Project Component Easting Northing

1 Operations base (mid-point) 981,882.763 504,995.385

2 Jetty (trestle end point) 981,678.438 505,940.412

3 Bridge (landfall at Tg. Kapor) 982,044.259 504,420.231

4 Access road start point (connection to existing road) 982,108.894 502,678.614

5 Aquaculture Zone (Northern limit) 980,303.222 526,103.183

6 Aquaculture Zone (Southern limit) 980,147.896 504,354.236

7 Aquaculture Zone (Eastern limit) 989,932.358 519,409.131

8 Aquaculture Zone (Western limit) 967,171.792 524,205.800

3.5 Project Concept

The iLAP is a fully integrated lobster aquaculture facility that will produce in progressive

phases more than 18 thousand metric tonnes of Panulirus ornatus lobsters annually by

2030.

LATSB intends to attain Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) certification1 for the project (see

also Appendix F) with a 5-10 year roll-out plan. This will ensure that all future operational

activities will be undertaken according to globally agreed aquaculture best management

practice (BMP). Both social and environmental requirements will be met for GAA

certification across all operations from hatchery to harvest.

The overall iLAP concept encompasses all stages of lobster production beginning from

juvenile production in hatcheries, lobster grow-out to commercial size, processing and final

shipment to the end consumer. The proposed project scope in Sabah includes the following

components:

Lobster grow out production units (PU) in Semporna

Operations Base (OB) in Semporna.

Supporting infrastructure including access roads, bridge from Tg. Kapor to P. Bait and

jetty at P. Bait.

Hatchery at Kudat

Lobster Processing Plant in Kota Kinabalu.

This SEIA focuses on the first three components above, based in Semporna.

3.5.1 ILAP Operations Base

An area of 55.23 ha on P. Bait will be utilised for the Operations Base (OB) as shown in

Figure 3.9 below. The boundary coordinates are given in Table 3.2.

1 GAA - Finfish and Crustacean Farms BAP Standards http://www.gaalliance.org/cmsAdmin/uploads/bap-fishcrustf-314.pdf).

Project Description

3-13

Figure 3.9 Operations Base boundary points (Survey Drawing: JTSB-3060-IP01.dwg-Land Title Drawing)

Table 3.2 Operations Base boundary coordinates (BRSO meters) for the points indicated in Figure 3.9 above (Survey Drawing: JTSB-3060-IP01.dwg-Land Title Drawing).

Point Easting (m) Northing (m)

1 982,278.128 505,434.458

2 982,398.823 505,299.980

3 982,416.460 505,262.926

4 982,156.477 505,202.915

5 982,191.671 505,068.940

6 982,148.764 504,885.864

7 981,972.070 504,688.719

8 982,044.944 504,420.871

3-14 62800860-RPT-02

Point Easting (m) Northing (m)

9 981,973.982 504,354.556

10 987,753.913 504,384.596

11 981,454.950 504,479.516

12 981,522.468 504,723.514

13 981,616.525 504,830.611

14 981,930.139 504,790.184

15 981,869.121 505,056.976

16 981,691.911 504,955.109

17 981,519.939 504,934.270

18 981,470.677 505,000.182

19 981,684.287 505,302.346

20 981,609.907 505,478.257

21 981,775.313 505,518.071

Key components of the development as shown in Figure 3.10 include:

Bridge from Tg. Kapor to Pulau Bait, approximately 1.2 km length (Section 3.5.3).

RC piled jetty at Pulau Bait, approximately 500 m in length with a 112 m jetty head

(Figure 3.11 and Table 3.3).

Operations Base (Figure 3.12):

- Lobster collection and packaging centre

- Research laboratory

- Engineering workshop

- Land base and sea base workshop

- Feed warehouse and preparation area

- General office

- Operations office

- Staff quarters

- Supporting infrastructure

The Operations Base components listed above cover an approximate area of 30 ha of the

total 55.23 ha OB area. The remaining OB area will be developed in the future to cater for

the planned expansion in lobster production (see Section 3.5.4), with similar facilities as

listed above.

The OB will be developed to LEED2 Certification requirements and in accordance with the

GREEN planning principles adopted by Darden’s central office in the USA. LEED

certification provides independent, third-party verification that a building, home or community

was designed and built using strategies aimed at achieving high performance in key areas of

human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy

2 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, LEED, is a set of rating systems for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of green buildings, homes and neighbourhoods.

Project Description

3-15

efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality. The U.S. Green Building

Council (USGBC) developed LEED in 2000 and the LEED rating systems are developed

through an open, consensus-based process led by LEED committees.

Darden has undertaken a number of initiatives as part of its sustainability efforts, including:

Setting goals to reduce energy and water use by 15 percent by 2015 and, long term, to

send zero waste to landfills;

Creating Green Teams in each of its 1,800 operations that focus on implementing

programs aimed at reducing waste and energy and water usage; and

Using LEED standards in its restaurant and other facility design process for all new

developments and, where feasible, remodels of existing facilities.

The company is also committed to supply chain sustainability. It has joined the Sustainability

Consortium (http://www.sustainabilityconsortium.org/) - an independent organisation of

diverse global participants working collaboratively to build a scientific foundation that drives

innovation to improve consumer product sustainability.

Alternative energy and water supply in the form of integrated solar energy and rainwater

harvesting forms some of the few environmentally sustainable features of the development.

3-16 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 3.10 Overall layout of the Operations Base, including access road, bridge and jetty.

Project Description

3-17

Figure 3.11 Proposed jetty boundary points

Table 3.3 Indicative jetty boundary coordinates extracted from GIS (BRSO, m).

Point Easting Northing

1 981,611.485 505,907.101

2 981,603.763 505,921.635

3 981,711.030 505,975.315

4 981,717.325 505,960.768

5 981,661.3357 505,932.483

6 981,876.320 505,510.979

7 981,870.032 505,511.854

8 981,655.538 505,929.785

3-18 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 3.12 Detail of key OB components for the current planned development.

The locations of the potential point sources of pollution within the OB are summarised in

Figure 3.13. These include:

Feed warehouse (as potential source of malodour)

Wastewater treatment system and treatment plant

Sewage Treatment Plant

Compactor waste bin

Incinerator

Fuel depot.

Project Description

3-19

Figure 3.13 Locations of potential point sources of pollution

It is noted that detailed design specifications and drawings of the above elements are not

available at this stage in the Project development as the engineering detailed design phase

has just begun (see Section 3.7). In the case of the wastewater treatment plant, sewage

treatment plant and the incinerator, the required notifications and approvals from the

Department of Environment will be addressed as soon as design details are available.

3.5.2 ILAP Grow-Out Cages

A trial floating sea cage culture unit (PU) has been established at Semporna since 2009.

This is shown in the photos below (Photo 3.1). LATSB has carried out research and

development (R&D) on the culture methods and operating procedures to optimise the

effectiveness of grow out operations.

Factors such as growth rate, lobster health, feed efficiencies, current flows, and

environmental impacts have been studied so that optimised methods and procedures can be

adopted in the first commercial phases. Optimisation will be ongoing and adaptive

management principles will be used to ensure minimal environmental effects and ensure

mitigation actions are undertaken quickly and effectively in the case of any issues.

3-20 62800860-RPT-02

The production units will be distributed and configured to maximise depth and water flows.

This will ensure the health and good growth/performance of stock and ensure that

environmental effects are minimised. An ongoing monitoring program will track water quality

and benthic conditions throughout the development period and beyond. Agreed standards

and triggers will be adopted and environmental performance information will be shared

transparently with stakeholders. Adaptive management principles will be used to ensure

environmental sustainability at all times and the appropriate sectors of the Sabah

government will oversee environmental management decisions.

Photo 3.1 Trial sea cage culture operations off P. Bait, Semporna.

3.5.2.1 Farming Area The overall aquaculture area has been divided into a number of production zones as shown

in Figure 3.14. These zones have been determined based on the carrying capacity of the

areas, primarily driven by water depths and adequate flushing (current speeds). Details on

the modelling studies that have been carried out to derive these zones are provided in

Appendix E.

The details of the commercial farming areas are listed in Table 3.4. The farming areas

encompass a total of approximately 9,300 ha (Figure 3.15).

Project Description

3-21

Figure 3.14 Production zones, units in tonnes.

Table 3.4 iLAP commercial lobster farming area.

Farming Area Area (ha) Production (T) Total No. Cages*

LF1 2,552 4,500 80,000

LF2 1,501 3,000 53,000

LF3 431 2,400 42,600

LF4 1,583 1,200 21,800

LF5 2,376 6,000 106,666

LF6 242 240 4,266

LF7 206 240 4,266

LF8 409 420 7,466

Totals 9,300 18,000 320,064

* based on current proposed 125m3 cages; larger cages will likely be used in the future.

3-22 62800860-RPT-02

The production zones and their tonnage indicated above are planned production estimates.

This could change during the implementation stage due to feedback monitoring and further

assessments on lobster carrying capacities and trigger limits in the future.

3.5.2.2 Cage System Description Detailed design of the Production Units (PU) and cages is currently underway and a

preliminary design and description of the operations is given in Table 3.5 below and shown

in Figure 3.15 and Figure 3.16. It should be noted that over time (especially given the long

development period of the project), cage technology and animal husbandry will improve,

likely resulting in larger PUs than these proposed here. However, this will not change the

total farm area described above, but rather the distribution pattern i.e. how many per unit

area.

Table 3.5 Lobster cage design.

Item Description

PU footprint 375 m2

PU density 3/ ha

Cages per PU 15

Operations platform per PU 1 (floating house)

Cage dimensions, see Figure 3.16 5 m x 5 m x 5m

Cage materials Nylon net on wood and steel frame

Figure 3.15 Production Unit design.

Project Description

3-23

Figure 3.16 Raft design of the Production Unit.

Navigational Markers and Lighting Two levels of navigational markers will be employed:

iLAP Zone marking (Cardinal marks)

PU zone marking (Special marks)

Cardinal Marks Cardinal marks will be used to delineate the boundaries of the iLAP zones. A cardinal mark

is a sea mark (a buoy or other floating or fixed structure) used in maritime pilotage to indicate

the position of a hazard and the direction of safe water. Cardinal marks indicate the direction

of safety as a cardinal (compass) direction (north, east, south or west) relative to the mark.

This makes them meaningful regardless of the direction or position of the approaching

vessel, in contrast to the (perhaps better-known) lateral mark system.

The characteristics and meanings of cardinal marks are as defined by the International

Association of Lighthouse Authorities. They will be of adequate size for visual recognition,

bright colour (generally yellow/black), have solar powered flashing lights with cardinal shape

and flashing pattern of lights indicating vessel orientation in relation to the iLAP zone and

incorporate radar reflectors. The markers will conform to local Marine Department and Ports

and Harbours Department requirements.

Special Marks The individual PUs will have a Special Mark positioned at each of their four corners at the

extent of their mooring systems. A Special Mark, as defined by the International Association

of Lighthouse Authorities, is a sea mark used in maritime pilotage. It is recognisable by its

yellow colour and X, (often referred to as a St. Andrews Cross) top-mark. It has a distinctive

sequence of various flashes that does not match any other navigational mark flashes in its

vicinity.

3-24 62800860-RPT-02

These special marks will show the positions of farms clearly during day/night and will

indicate the hazard of submerged mooring systems to vessels in the vicinity. The markers

will conform to local Marine Department requirements.

3.5.2.3 Mooring and Anchoring System Description Moorings are required to hold cages against the forces generated by wind, currents and

waves and the design is hence site specific and determined by depth, tidal and wind forces,

size and drag of the moored aquaculture equipment and the type benthic substrate.

Final designs will be determined through further investigations by marine engineers expert in

aquaculture mooring system design. The general design principles are shown below in

Table 3.6 but may be altered should PU sizes change with optimization.

Table 3.6 Design principles for iLAP aquaculture moorings.

Mooring configuration Radial double moorings from each of four corners. Full grid (orthogonal) configuration if required at exposed and high tidal flow sites. See Figure 3.17.

Anchors Concave bottom concrete block (0.5T up to 1T). In some areas with high flow or exposure, double blocks in series may be used to anchor each mooring line.

Chain Approx. 75mm for 1/3 of terminal (block) line length. Stud link stainless steel 316.

Rope Approx. 25mm for 2/3 of PU line length (Polypropylene)

Depth to line length ratio 1:3

Shackles, plates, rings swivels and thimbles

Stainless steel 316 – specification to calculated loads at specific sites

As an example, the mooring footprint of a PU at the following depths would be:

20m depth = 144m x 144m (2.07 ha)

10m depth = 84m x 84m (0.71 ha)

Project Description

3-25

Figure 3.17 Example of mooring systems to be used at iLAP: top - Radial mooring; bottom - orthogonal mooring.

3.5.3 Bridge and Other Infrastructure

The proposed bridge from Tg. Kapor to P. Bait will be a 1.2 km length, dual carriage way

structure (Figure 3.18). A new tarmac road complying with the Public Works Department

(JKR) R3 standard connecting the bridge to the existing road at Tg. Kapor will also be

constructed and the connecting junction upgraded (Figure 3.19). This road dissects the

mangroves which are part of the Semporna Class V Mangrove Forest Reserve. The

coordinates for the road and bridge are shown in Table 3.7.

The JKR R3 design standard has the following specifications

Minimum lane width – 3 m

Minimum reserve width – 20 m

Maximum design speed limit – 70 km/h

Application – secondary road

The road will have an approximate width of 28 m (Figure 3.19) and a cross section of the

road alignment is shown in Figure 3.20.

3-26 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 3.18 Bridge and connecting roads. Coordinates of the boundary points indicated are given in Table 3.7.

Project Description

3-27

Figure 3.19 Alignment of access road. Coordinates of the boundary points indicated are given in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7 Proposed bridge and road boundary coordinates in BRSO (Figure 3.18 and Figure 3.19) (Survey Drawing: ACAD-BAIT ROAD.dwg).

Point Easting (m) Northing (m)

1 982,013.608 504,390.024

2 982,229.529 503,187.501

3 982,108.894 502,678.614

3-28 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 3.20 Cross sectional layout of the access road.

3.5.4 Project Phases

The iLAP project in Semporna will be implemented according to a carefully phased schedule

so as to increase the grow-out capacity in a controlled and structured manner. Production

will be increased in parallel with the development and expansion of the hatchery in Kudat as

production capacity and growth is constrained by the development of broodstock breeding in

phases.

The Project construction will commence in 2015 and will be rolled out in three phases up to

2028 as shown in Figure 3.21 and Appendix B Project Information. The anticipated number

of cages and production for these phases are shown in Table 3.8.

Figure 3.21 Development phases for the Project.

Phase 3

Infrastructure

Revenue at

Maturity

2022

Phase 3: 5,100 Ha

Jetties

Potable water, Telecommunications, Local

Sewerage

Paved Roads, Bridge, Drains, Power

Supply, Regulatory Work

2026 2027 20282023 2024 2025

Synergy Farm: RM 88.3 million

Seaspace

2020 2021Component 2016 2017 2018 20192015

Phase 2

Corporate Growers: RM 2.6 Billion

Phase 1: 1,700 Ha

Phase 2: 3,350 Ha

Project Description

3-29

Table 3.8 Anticipated production stages.

Phases (completion) Phase 1 (2020) Phase 2 (2025) Phase 3 (2028)

Number of cages (cumulative)

50,000 170,000 320,000

Production, T (cumulative)

5,500 11,900 18,000

Job opportunities 5,800 14,000 22,000

3.6 Project Activities

3.6.1 Pre-construction

Pre-construction activities that have already been carried out include:

Hydrodynamic and depositional modelling for the prediction of lobster aquaculture

environmental impact /3/

Research on Lobster Faecal Output and Dissolved Nutrients /4/

Marine Habitat Mapping using Hyper Spectral Imaging Analysis /5/

Environmental Scoping Study (ESS) for iLAP /6/

Establishment and operations of trial farm off P. Bait since 2009.

Environmental surveys for this SEIA

Navigation study

Layout and Preliminary Design Studies including bridge design, jetty design, access road

alignment, drainage design, earthworks plan and development plan

Permission from Sabah Parks to develop iLAP

Preliminary Geological and and Risk and Hazard Reports

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan

Other studies in progress or will be commissioned include:

Soil investigation

Ongoing consultations with Sabah Forestry Department

Marine Traffic Risk Assessment

PU design studies, including detailed PU, cage designs, mooring and anchoring design.

3.6.2 Construction

3.6.2.1 General Activities The anticipated construction activities for the project are described below:

Clearing and Earthwork:

- Survey and setting out works for boundary and layout (Operations Base, bridge

and access roads).

- Vegetation clearing of road corridors, bridge land fall and OB area

- Cut and fill works on Operations Base and bridge land fall areas (including in-filling

of mangrove areas)

3-30 62800860-RPT-02

- Construction of temporary drainage works, laydown areas and temporary

accommodation facilities.

Production Units Construction:

- Survey and setting out works for floating cages and floating houses.

- Construction of floating houses using ecologically friendly methods and materials.

- Installation of the nets and lobster cages including anchors

Operations Base Building Construction:

- Survey and setting out works for building layout and piling points

- Piling works for building foundation

- Building construction

- Construct external infrastructure such as perimeter drains, water tank, sewage pipe

and septic tanks, car parks and road driveway

Bridge & Jetty Construction:

- Survey and setting out works for bridge alignment level

- Piling works

- Excavate trench foundation for abutment structures and cut pile to level

Road Works:

- Survey and setting out works for boundary and road alignment

- Site clearing and excavation

- Construct road and road shoulders according to NKEA requirements to JKR R3

standard with utilities reserve

Sequence of Works The sequence of works is outlined in Figure 3.22 below. The stages shown are not

necessarily consecutive as some activities may overlap; the purpose of this figure is to

illustrate the overall sequence of activities, while a more detailed development schedule is

given in Section 3.8.

Project Description

3-31

Figure 3.22 Outline sequence of land-based construction works.

Transportation of Materials and Equipment Materials delivery and construction of the jetty and operations base will be marine-based,

with the RC piles barged in directly from the supplier. The construction material will be

transported to the project site through road and sea routes as outlined within Figure 3.23.

It is likely that the temporary offloading area on P. Bait will be located on the southern part of

the OB, where the bridge land fall is located. From here earthworks machinery and materials

can be transported to the OB construction site.

P. Bait

Mobilisation Works

Clearing and construction of temporary offloading facility at bridge landfall area

Clearing and Earthworks

Construction of temporary workers quarters & other site facilities

PIling and building works

Jetty construction

Access road and Bridge (Tg. Kapor)

Access road construction

Bridge construction

3-32 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 3.23 Construction materials and equipment transportation route.

Project Description

3-33

Construction Workforce The anticipated workers at the peak of construction (2016-2017) and deployment of cages

(2020) is given in Table 3.9. These estimates may change depending on the appointed

contractor’s construction methodology.

Table 3.9 Estimated construction workforce.

Component Estimated workforce

Bridge 250-300

Jetty 120 -150

Operations Base 270 - 300

Production units (cages) 900 – 1,000

Total 1,540 – 1,750

Workers’ Quarters The temporary workers’ quarters and Septic Tank will be located within the Project site as

shown in Figure 3.24.

Water Demand during Construction Stage Total water demand for construction stage is 17,100 m

3 over the estimated construction

period as shown in Table 3.10.

3-34 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 3.24 Temporary construction workers’ quarters and septic tank provided within the OB.

Table 3.10 Estimated iLAP water demand throughout the whole construction phase.

PHASE Workforce Duration

(months)

Water Consumption l/day (@95/cap)

Total Demand (m

3)

Operational base, bridge and jetty

300 for bridge 12 28,500 10,260

150 for jetty 8 14,250 3,420

100 for OB 6 9,500 1,710

Production units 50 12 4,750 1,710

TOTAL 57,000 17,100

Project Description

3-35

3.6.2.2 Access Road and Jetty Construction will include mangrove clearing in the Semporna Class V Forest Reserve at Tg.

Kapor, along most of the 550 m access road and bridge land fall length. Assuming a

construction and final access corridor of 100 m (i.e. 50 m on both sides of the road/bridge),

approximately 7.9 ha of mangrove forest reserve will be affected in the road and bridge right-

of-way (ROW) on the mainland.

At Pulau Bait, approximately 115 m of the bridge length is through fringing mangrove. Again

assuming a corridor of 100 m, a limited mangrove forest reserve area of 1.2 ha will be

affected.

3.6.2.3 Operations Base The operations base current area is shown in Photo 3.2 and Photo 3.3. The key construction

activities on the operations base are outlined in Table 3.11.

Photo 3.2 Coconut plantation within the Operations Base area.

3-36 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 3.3 Part of a hill located on the Operations Base.

Table 3.11 Summary of activities at the Operations Base during the construction phase.

Component Details

Clearing and Access Construction access to the Operations Base site will be established to the south of the Operations Base at the site of the bridge land fall on P. Bait. Clearing of mangrove and establishment of the bridge ROW (100 m corridor) will be carried out to enable barge access to the site.

Earthworks activity Cut and fill volume for the Operations Base estimated at approximately 307,500 m

3 respectively.

Cut and fill volume approximately balanced and hence cut will be used on site for fill.

Earthworks to be carried out within the project site using backhoe and dump trucks

Proper cut-off drainage shall be provided as necessary.

Provide proper site perimeter drainage to ensure all runoff is diverted into sediment basins.

Adequate, properly designed sediment basins &/ sediment traps will be provided at suitable locations and maintained as necessary.

Storage and management of Scheduled Wastes according to DOE regulations.

Setting up construction infrastructure

Temporary occupation:

This involves the construction of temporary buildings (e.g. workers’ quarters - Figure 3.24), storage facilities, site offices, etc.

Utilities such as water, power supply, sanitation will be provided by portable unit.

Project Description

3-37

Component Details

There will be no direct discharge of domestic sewage and construction waste into the sea.

All scheduled waste will be disposed off following appropriate regulations

Construction of buildings i.e. juvenile centre & ancillary buildings, administration and support facilities; staff and workers quarters (permanent); collection centre and packaging, etc.

Key construction activities include:

Foundation preparation (piling)

Construction of new buildings

Associated transport and stockpiling of construction material, machines and workers.

Internal roads

Drainage system

Sewage Treatment Plant and sewerage system.

Landscaping

3.6.2.4 Production Units Before mooring deployment for each PU commences, a good understanding of the site is

required. From depth, current, weather and drag calculations, marine mooring engineers will

design a mooring system for each PU. If depth varies greatly over a site or current and

exposure is high this design becomes critical. The mooring design requires accurate

deployment of anchors to address adequately the forces that will be experienced.

Additionally strict quality assurance (QA) must be implemented on all equipment deployed

and terminations of ropes and chains.

Contractors will be employed for the deployment of mooring systems. These contractors will

have the skills, equipment and demonstrated experience in the accurate and proper

assembly and deployment of mooring systems. Accurate deployment according to set

coordinates will be ensured.

Cages will be assembled at the Operations Base and delivered to the PU sites from the OB.

Nets will be attached once the cages are moored at the production unit location.

3.6.3 Operations

The lobster farming method is summarised in Table 3.12 below. Notable features of the

proposed project include:

The Lobster Research & Development and Training zone: This will be used for

optimisation trials and training skilled labour for the commercial operations. This will

place Sabah on the forefront of commercial lobster culture on the global stage.

A sustainable lobster culture model will be developed to set a benchmark for the

industry.

3-38 62800860-RPT-02

Table 3.12 Summary of proposed lobster farming methods

No Item Description

1 Culture species Tropical Rock Lobster (Panulirus ornatus)

2 Grow out cycle 18 months to achieve market size from egg : 800 -1000 g

3 Source of juveniles Initially wild caught & imported from Indonesia.

Hatchery - R&D in progress

4 Feed Pelletised feed (R&D trials on going)

5 Antibiotics & hormones To be avoided - in compliance with Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) criteria

6 Culture method Grow out of Tropical Rock Lobster in floating cages in the sea with minimum seabed depth of 7 m

7 Type of cage Cage: Nylon net cages attached to floating carboys secured to a wooden & steel frame

Anchorage: to the seabed using concrete blocks (placed without any damage to sensitive marine habitats) or 'screw anchors’ to minimise footprint on seabed

8 Size per cage Width: Length: Depth = 5 m x 5 m x 5 m

9 No of cages/ PU 15 + 1 work space

10 No of PU/ hectare 3

11 Total sea surface area utilised

Each PU will have a footprint of 375 m2. At 3 PU/ ha, only 12% of the

area will be occupied by cages (i.e. low impact mariculture)

12 Stocking density Low density stocking 2-3kg/m2 & 50-75 kg/m2 per cage

13 Culture area Lobster Farming Area: LF01 to LF08

3.6.3.1 Production Description The Lobster PUs will be developed in the production zones outlined in Figure 3.14. Details

of the areas and proposed PU stocking rates are also given in Table 3.4.

Stocking within each cage will vary depending on depth and current flow. This is likely to

vary from 2-5 kg per square metre and will be adjusted for each zone and PU based on the

initial indications of production in each zone obtained through modelling. With time, these

cage stocking densities will be optimized for each PU and for different life cycle stages.

Young lobsters are transferred to cages at lengths of 3.5 - 5.0 cm. They will initially be

sourced from Indonesian wild stock (as is currently the case at the trial farm) but they will be

produced later in the Kudat hatchery. Significant R&D has already been undertaken at the

research hatchery in Tuaran, and designs for the commercial hatchery are in preparation.

Growout will take approximately 18 months. The stock will be harvested live and transported

to the processing facilities on the OB for packing and distribution.

Project Description

3-39

3.6.3.2 Lobster Stock As mentioned above, the lobsters stock will be sourced from the hatchery in Kudat and

transported by road using tankers filled with seawater and supplied with oxygen during

transport.

3.6.3.3 Feeding Regime Feeding would likely be undertaken once daily. The compound diets (pellets) would

comprise approximately 35% protein. Other ingredients are likely to be wheat flours, oil nut

powder, added fish oils and a vitamin/mineral premix.

All diets would be added by hand to distribute feed evenly about the cages. This will

promote even growth among the stock in the cage.

3.6.3.4 Lobster Health

Veterinary Practices LATSB intends to attain Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) certification. Veterinary

management and procedures would be undertaken according to aquaculture best practice

(BAP)

Pharmaceuticals Vaccinations and natural methods to promote fish health will be favoured. Antibiotics and

antifungal treatments will only be used in LATSB aquaculture operations during emergency

situations. Good farm management, low to moderate stocking densities, quality diets, good

farm placements and vigilance to stock health will promote chemical and pharmaceutical free

farming. The GAA does allow the controlled use of therapeutics for specific issues based on

animal welfare considerations.

Management of Mortalities Mortalities will be collected daily from each cage and assessed for any identifiable causes.

Unexplained or notable issues will require the submission of samples to local fish health

diagnostic laboratories to determine causes. Health management and mitigation of disease

issues will be undertaken with the advice of fish veterinarians and in accordance with any

local regulations.

Mortalities will be transported in waterproof bins to be incinerated on-site. This process kills

pathogens and the wastes can then be utilised safely as fertilisers or other useful by-

products.

3.6.3.5 Harvesting Lobster will be harvested live from cages in a manner that prevents stress. This may include

the use of Food-Safe anesthetics such as AQUI-S. Lobsters will be chilled at the processing

facility and packed for either live shipping (eco-friendly transport systems) or processed to

fresh and frozen value added products.

All packing and packaging facilities will be operated under strict HACCP (Hazard Analysis

and Critical Control points) procedure with regularly updated and audited activity. Packing

and packaging operations will also operate under local national and global standards

required by both regulators and specific customers for both domestic and export markets.

3.6.3.6 On-site Maintenance Regular maintenance of equipment will be undertaken on land sites operated by LATSB

according to local regulations and environmental standards that the company adheres to

3-40 62800860-RPT-02

both internally and those required for best practice certifications such as GAA (Global

Aquaculture Alliance).

The project proponent is currently investing in ongoing research and development on

production of environmentally friendly and efficient antifoulants.

Antifoulants will not be used on a daily basis. In emergency cases, anti-fouling may be

required on nets, LATSB will use environmentally friendly and efficient antifoulants based on

the mentioned R&D. A number of polymer based “slippery” and sloughing action antifoulants

are available.

Globally this is an active R&D area and some promise is held by natural repellents of fouling

organisms. Shading and regular net changes are a simple and environmentally safe strategy

to combat fouling. Rotational air drying of nets in-situ is an effective method of fouling control

and likely to be the method of choice.

Mooring Maintenance Mooring maintenance and integrity checks will be undertaken as part of programmed

maintenance schedules. This is critical activity to ensure that stock are not lost and

equipment damaged.

Net Maintenance Nets will be cleaned regularly to ensure good flows and promote the health of farmed stock.

Rotational air drying of nets in-situ is an effective method on fouling control and likely to be

the method of choice. The nets are small and can be easily changed by a two person team.

Heavily fouled nets will be transported in waterproof containers to land sites for cleaning and

storage. Cleaning will involve weathering followed by final cleaning with high pressure

water. The use of chemical cleaning agents will be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

Cleaning effluent will be collected and incinerated where possible.

3.6.3.7 Operations Base The OB houses all land-based support facilities for the lobster grow-out, including feed

stores, administration, cleaning/maintenance, etc., including housing units set to cater for

180 staff within the Phase 1 area.

Processing of the lobster will entail chilling and packing of live or frozen product.

A sewage treatment plant will be built with a capacity of 26,000 PE which will cater for the

Operations Base and the toilets on the PUs.

The required water demand for iLAP is estimated to be 1MLD potable water. There will be no

water treatment plant but there will be a seawater filtration plant which comprises of sand

filters, UV and ozone treatment.

A seawater intake will be constructed on the Operations Base, connected to a seawater

holding pond. The seawater is required for the holding tanks to temporarily store juvenile

lobsters as they arrive in Semporna from the hatchery in Kudat.

An incinerator will also be construction on the Operations Base site; primarily to cater for

disposal of biological wastes, such as dead lobsters. The Proponent will comply with all

regulations and Best Available Technologies for the on-site incinerator as required by the

Department of Environment.

3.6.3.8 Vessels Anticipated marine vessels around the iLAP during operations are outlined in Table 3.13.

More units will be required at start up than these ratios.

Project Description

3-41

Table 3.13 Expected operational vessels.

Description Type Units Total at full production

Small service vessels outboard powered (4-stroke) vessels

4 m outboard powered (4-stroke) vessels.

Beam 1.8m

1 per 10 – 20 PUs 2,200 – 4,300

Feed/ harvest barge, also used for maintenance activity

15 – 20 m flat bottom barges with lifting gear – powered by diesel inboard jet unit.

Beam 6m

1 per 200 PUs 215

Other vessels for Managers and supervisors to travel and inspect operations.

8 m outboard powered 4-stroke.

Beam 3.2m

1 per 100 PUs 430

Security vessels 7 m outboard powered 4 stroke

Beam 3.0m

1 per 1000 PUs 86

3.6.3.9 Wastes Inventory Categories of wastes from the PUs include:

Operational debris

Human waste

Bio-fouling material

Mortalities

Lobster feed and faeces,

Harvest wastes

Chemical and hazardous materials

Operational Debris Categories of wastes from the PUs include:

Operational debris

Human waste

Bio-fouling material

Mortalities

Lobster feed and faeces,

Harvest wastes

Chemical and hazardous materials

Operational Debris Waste material generated on a day-to-day basis by the operations of the PUs and includes

items such as feed bags, pallets, etc.

These will be collected and daily taken to the OB for recycling or disposal. Feed bags and

plastics are recycled, pallets are re-used and waste is disposed in authorised land fill.

Human Waste There will be one operational base per PU which will be equipped with a chemical toilet with

wastes taken to central disposal point (septic bio-system) as required.

3-42 62800860-RPT-02

Bio-fouling Material Biological materials can be assumed at a dry weight of approximately 2 kg per cage per 3

months /7/. These wastes are added to mortality sileage for recycling as fertiliser and other

by-products.

Mortalities Mortality may average 0.1% per day over the 18 month growout period. Most of this

mortality will be in the earlier stages so the biomass is not as significant as the percentage

indicates. At final production of 18,000TPA estimates of annual mortality biomass is in the

range of 1-2T per day (365 - 730TPA). This assumes that by number the mortalities equate

to 10% of the equivalent harvest size biomass and is a very approximate estimate but it

indicates the magnitude of this waste.

Fish Feed and Faeces Feeding will be carefully managed by experienced hand feeders. Managers will monitor

usage and determine if feed conversion ratios (FCRs) achieved are within acceptable ranges

at least on a weekly basis. Feed wastage has been estimated at 5 % or approximately

2,700T with production of 18,000T of lobsters at an FCR of 3 /8/. Feed is the most significant

cost in the farming operation and careful management is required to reduce any wastage

and ensure profitability. This profit incentive limits waste and ensures minimal environmental

loadings from wasted feeds.

Harvest Wastes Given most product will not be processed and will be shipped live or whole chilled or frozen,

processing wastes will be minimal. Should value add options at later stages include fresh

and frozen tails approximately 50% of these live weight volumes would be wastes for

ensilage and by-product production.

Chemical and Hazardous Materials All chemicals and hazardous wastes will be stored and disposed of according to DOE

regulations and aquaculture best practice guidelines.

3.6.3.10 Operational Workforce The total number of workforce within the iLAP project during the operations phase is 20,000

workers as shown in Table 3.14.

Table 3.14 Breakdown of the semiskilled workers during the operations phase.

Activity Number of Workers

Contract farmer/SME entrepreneur 6,000

Farm Assistants 12,000

Harvesters/Logistic Workers 700

Technicians 600

Supporting roles such as cage production and maintenance 700

Total 20,000

3.6.3.11 Water Usage for Operations Stage At full operations, water consumption can be estimated at 1.9 million litres per day as shown

in Table 3.15.

Project Description

3-43

Table 3.15 Approximate water usage during the iLAP Operational Stage.

PHASE Workforce Duration Water Consumption l/day

TOTAL DEMAND

Months @ 95/cap M3

Phase 1 5,800 36 551,000 595,080

Project Overall 20,000 144 1,900,000 8,208,000

TOTAL 2,451,000 8,803,080

3.6.4 Decommissioning

In the event that farms or individual PUs need to be decommissioned, the PUs can be towed

by barges for re-deployment at another site or dismantling for parts and recyclables. Nets

are easily removed and recycled at the end of their useful life. Anchors are retrieved by the

work barges with lifting gear and can be returned to shore for recycling or redeployment.

Water usage estimated during decommissioning is shown in Table 3.16.

Table 3.16 Approximate water usage during the decommissioning stage.

PHASE Workforce Duration Water Consumption l/day

TOTAL DEMAND

Months @ 95/cap M3

DECOMMISSIONING

Production Units 100 12 9,500 3,420

Operations Base 80 12 7,600 2,736

TOTAL 17,100 6,156

3.7 Project Status

The Project is currently in the early stages of detailed design. Engineering surveys and

studies have been carried out and the boundaries/ alignment of the key Project components

have been finalised as presented in this SEIA.

The development plan for the site has been submitted to the Semporna District Council for

approval (see Appendix B, Project Information). Further approvals that will be sought as the

Project progress include approval of the road and bridge alignment by the Public Works

Department (JKR) and an Occupation Permit from the Forestry Department for the access

road to traverse the Mangrove Forest Reserve at Tg. Kapor and in the southern part of P.

Bait for the bridge land fall area.

With respect to the land ownership of the Project site, the land title for the sea space of

9,300 ha and the Operations Base on P. Bait amounting to 55.23 ha, has been alienated to

Inno Fisheries Sdn. Bhd., a subsidiary of Yayasan Sabah, see Appendix B.

3-44 62800860-RPT-02

Inno Fisheries Sdn. Bhd. is in the process of obtaining the land title for the sea space of

2,471 acres for the jetty, see Appendix B for land application.

The bridge sea space and the 0.5 m access road will remain as State land as these

components are being built as public infrastructure and will be handed over to the relevant

government agency upon completion of construction. Overall approval for this infrastructure

has been given by the PEMANDU Economic Council, see Appendix B, Project Information.

The Project has been granted conditional approval by the Economic Council chaired by the

Prime Minister pending the National Key Economic Areas (NKEA) Grant /9/ conceptual

design quantum approval.

The Proponent is currently negotiating with the Sabah Forestry Department to obtain the

occupational permit in order to construct the access road through the Mangrove Forest

Reserve at Tg. Kapor and the bridge land fall area on P Bait. A site survey has been carried

out together with the Sabah Forestry Department and follow up correspondence is being

issued (latest Reference Letter: JPHTN/FRM 100-27/08/27/26, Appendix B, Project

Information).

3.8 Development Schedule

Figure 3.25 shows the more detailed development schedule for the main project components

based on the NKEA submitted construction work schedule (refer to Appendix B). Key

milestones include:

Earthworks on P. Bait will commence in July 2015.

The estimated construction period for the site clearing & earthworks at P. Bait is four

months. The site clearing & earthwork shall be done in a single phase.

The building work for the Operations Base will only begin in February 2016 while road

construction will begin in 2015 as an immediate continuation to the earthwork activities.

Construction for Production Units will also commence in June 2015.

Project Description

3-45

Figure 3.25 Project development schedule

24

68

1012

24

68

1012

24

68

1012

24

68

1012

24

68

1012

24

68

1012

24

68

1012

1.0Co

nstru

ction

Work

1.1Sit

e Clea

ring &

Earth

work

1.2Pil

ing W

ork

1.3Bu

ilding

Work

1.3.1

Juven

ile Ce

nter &

Ancill

ary Bu

ilding

sJuv

enile

Cente

r

1.3.2

Admi

nistra

tion &

Supp

ort Fa

cilitie

sA &

S Fac

ilities

A & S F

acilit

ies

1.3.3

Staff &

Work

ers Qu

arters

Quart

ers

1.3.4

Speci

alised

Equip

ments

(i.e.

Holdi

ng ta

nks, e

tc)Fa

brica

tion

Instal

lation

1.3.5

Colle

ction

Cente

r & Pa

ckagin

gCo

llecti

on Ce

nter

1.4Ma

rine I

nfrast

ructur

e

1.4.1

Main

Seaw

ater In

take

1.4.2

Seaw

ater H

olding

Pond

Retic

ulatio

n & PH

Holdi

ng Po

ndRe

ticula

tion

1.4.3

Opera

tiona

l Base

Jetty

& Slip

way

Jetty

& Slip

way

1.5Lo

cal La

nd In

frastr

uctur

e (Wi

thin S

ite Bo

unda

ry)

1.5.1

Civil I

nfrast

ructur

e

1.5.2

M & E

Infra

struct

ure

1.6Ex

terna

l Infra

struc

ture (

Outsi

de Bo

unda

ry)

1.6.1

Main

Acces

s Roa

d

1.6.2

Utilit

ies Su

pply M

ain (P

ower,

Wate

r & Te

lecom

)Po

wer M

ain

1.6.3

Bridg

e

2.0Po

st De

velop

ment

2.1Te

sting

& Co

mmiss

ioning

and C

FO

2.2Sta

rt-Up

2.3De

fect L

iabilit

y Peri

odQu

arters

3.0Se

a Cag

es

3.1Ph

ase 1

50,00

0 Cag

es

3.2Ph

ase 2

170,0

00 Ca

ges

3.3Ph

ase 3

320,0

00 Ca

ges

No.

Descr

iption

2014

2015

2016

Quart

ers

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2017

Description of Existing Environment

4-1

4 Description of Existing Environment

4.1 Introduction

This section provides background information on the existing environment around the Project

Site and highlights the key sensitive environmental receptors. The information is based on

baseline surveys and secondary information from literature and other reports in the area.

Details of the methods and results of the baseline surveys are given in Appendix C, D, E, G,

H and I.

The Project is located at Pulau Timbun Mata, Semporna in the Southern part of Darvel Bay.

An overview of the regional geographic setting is given in Figure 4.1. Darvel Bay is a large V-

shaped embayment with a length of approximately 80 km and a width across from Pulau

Bum Bum of approximately 50 km. The central parts of Darvel Bay are relatively deep and

the area includes extensive coral habitats and a shoreline fringed by thick mangrove

swamps interspersed by numerous river mouths and small outlets. The dynamics of the

coastal morphology here is limited due to the combination of weak currents and benign wave

conditions.

4-2 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.1 The Project site within Darvel Bay showing key geographic features referred to in the following sections.

4.2 Physical Environment

4.2.1 Bathymetry

The bathymetry in Figure 4.2 shows the relatively shallow areas around Pulau Timbun Mata

which support coral, mangrove habitats and intertidal/subtidal mud and sand habitats. A

rapid progression to the deeper water channels (>10m) which are the focus for the iLAP is

also seen. Further to the north the bathymetry between P. Adal and the Islands in the Tun

Sakaran Marine Park increases rapidly to depths of greater than 30 meters out to more than

90 m in Darvel Bay.

Description of Existing Environment

4-3

Figure 4.2 Bathymetry showing the relatively shallow areas around Pulau Timbun Mata which support coral and mangrove habitats and the rapid progression to deeper water channels (>10m) which are the focus for the iLAP.

4.2.2 Meteorology

Sabah’s overall climate characteristics can be described as uniform in temperature, receiving

a considerable amount of rainfall and high humidity of over 70 percent throughout the year,

which is typical of equatorial climates in the South-East Asia region. In Sabah’s southeast

region, including Darvel Bay, rainfall is more uniform throughout the year although it is noted

that the months of February to April are slightly drier than the rest.

On inter-annual time-scales, the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) influences the climate

in South China Sea, Sulu Sea and Sulawesi Sea in many different ways, although the Sulu

Sea and Sulawesi Sea regions are located within a zone with a weaker correlation to ENSO.

La Niña has an opposite effect whereby the strong trade winds produce a more intense

summer monsoon causing more rainfall especially in areas of Eastern China, Thailand, and

the South China Sea. Also, during La Niña events, rainfall increases slightly in the Sulu Sea.

The two strongest ENSO of the last century occurred in 1982-83 and 1997-98, which was

characterised by dry periods in Sabah. The frequency of the occurrence of La Niña is much

less than that of El Niño, with La Niña events from the past 20 years occurring in 1988-89

and 1998 - 2000.

Typhoons are more common in the more northerly latitudes of the South China Sea, but due

to weaker Coriolis forces closer to the equator, the Sabah region experiences comparatively

weaker and less frequent typhoon occurrences. Nevertheless, coupled with strong

monsoonal winds, low latitude typhoons can generate extreme near-shore weather

conditions with heavy rainfall on the islands and mainland. This was seen during the

typhoons Greg (1996) and Hilda (1999) both passing across the northern part of the Sabah

state which brought along heavy rainfall.

There is no meteorological station in the vicinity of the project area and the description below

is primarily based on regional data.

4.2.2.1 Wind Darvel Bay is a semi-enclosed bay with its open boundary facing the Sulawesi Sea. The

overall wind conditions in the Sulawesi Sea are dominated by the strong and persistent

4-4 62800860-RPT-02

surface winds which occur during the monsoonal periods, during typhoon events and during

combinations of tropical cyclones and monsoons. No wind records are available in the Lahad

Datu region, with the nearest local wind station with historical records located at Tawau

Airport. However, due to different topographical conditions with direct exposure to southerly

winds, it is not representative for the wind conditions within Darvel Bay. With a lack of local

wind data, the Global Forecasting System (GFS) wind data and the global numerical weather

forecast model run by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA) have

been applied for both regional and local numerical models utilised in this study.

As shown in Figure 4.3, in the Sulawesi Sea the prevailing wind direction during the

Northeast (NE) monsoon is NNE and typically occurs during the months of November

through to March. GFS wind data also illustrate the distinct difference in prevailing direction

based on seasonal monsoonal differences in Darvel Bay as shown in Figure 4.4 below.

During the NE monsoons, the offshore winds relatively consistently range between 4-8 m/s

for long periods of time. The slightly shorter Southwest (SW) Monsoon from mid-May to late

October typically results in weaker and more variable offshore winds from the SSW.

However, although offshore winds during the SW monsoon are slightly weaker, the Sabah

coastline in the Sulawesi Sea is more exposed to more southerly winds; therefore the SW

monsoon tends to create the most severe wave conditions here. The two transitional periods

in between the NE and SW monsoons which occur in April and October are known as inter-

monsoon or transitional periods. These periods are exposed to lighter and weaker winds.

It is important to note that the monsoon winds are generally not as strong as those during the

passage of ‘storm’ systems, but during the height of the monsoon, particularly over areas of

open sea, the winds are relatively consistent for long periods of time. This is reflected in the

wave climate, the surface currents and variations in the mean sea level due to very large-

scale wind set up.

Figure 4.3 A comparison of annual wind roses for 2012 surface winds for the Sula Sea region, Sulawesi Sea region and Darvel Bay (data obtained from NOAA Global Forecast System).

Description of Existing Environment

4-5

October 2012 representing inter monsoon period

December 2012 representing NE Monsoon period August 2012 representing SW Monsoon period

Figure 4.4 Monthly wind roses for the two monsoon periods and the transition period in Darvel Bay (data obtained from NOAA Global Forecast System)

A local-scale weather phenomenon known as the land-sea breeze cycle also plays an

important role in the region. Diurnal differential heating and cooling processes between land

and sea causes local wind patterns along the coastal area to vary significantly on a daily

basis. During daytime, the more rapid heating of the land mass causes an afternoon inflow of

air and the afternoon sea breezes to dominate. Whilst during the night, overnight cooling of

the land mass leads to a reversal of circulation and causes early morning breezes flowing

outwards from the land to dominate. This effect can continue into the morning hours.

4.2.2.2 Air Temperature and Precipitation The closest meteorological station to the study site is 75 km away at Tawau on the coast to

the southwest. Average annual monthly air temperatures and rainfall are shown below in

Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6. It can be seen that temperatures vary by less than two degrees

throughout the entire year. In contrast, rainfall shows a distinct dry season over the period of

the SE monsoon, with a progressive increase to a peak in July/August during the NE

Monsoon /1/.

4-6 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.5 Average monthly air temperature for Tawau (Source: Meteorological Department, Sabah /1/)

Figure 4.6 Average monthly rainfall data for Tawau (Sources Meteorological Department, Sabah /1/).

4.2.2.3 Solar Radiation The other critical meteorological parameter when considering environmental responses to

nutrient and sediment disturbances in the marine environment is light. To date, none of

these types of data have been collected. In order to assess the likely season variability, it is

reasonable to consider solar radiation as a key surrogate in terms of incoming light. The

only solar radiation data available in Sabah is for Kota Kinabalu (Figure 4.7). It is evident

that there is a slight rise over the first part of the year when Kota Kinabalu also has its lowest

rainfall. The significance of this is that this is a period of likely reduced cloud cover.

25.4

25.6

25.8

26

26.2

26.4

26.6

26.8

27

27.2

27.4

Me

an T

erm

pe

ratu

re (

°C)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Me

an R

ain

fall

(mm

/mo

nth

)

Description of Existing Environment

4-7

Figure 4.7 Monthly average daily radiation for Kota Kinabalu (Source: Meteorological Department, Sabah /1/).

4.2.3 Currents

In the southeast region of Sabah, facing the Sulawesi Sea, the net currents for the three

climatic seasons are considerable weaker than those in South China Sea and Sulu Sea.

During the NE monsoon, smaller south-westerly net currents are seen travelling along the

southeast region whilst weaker north-easterly net currents are observed offshore off the

entrance of Darvel Bay (and Cowie Bay) during inter monsoon and SW monsoon.

Net current is one of the key parameters which determine sediment transport patterns as it

influences erosion and deposition processes significantly. Low speeds are observed around

the islands located along Sabah’s southwest and west region closer to the coastline as well

as the islands situated within the inner Darvel Bay. In shallow water near the islands and

where the tidal flow is limited, the wind-generated current can under certain conditions

contribute to the net current flow.

In a regional analysis of typical wind driven current patterns associated with the tide for the

NE, inter monsoon and SW monsoon for year 2008 the highest currents are seen to occur

along the Sibutu Passage which connects the Sulu Sea and Sulawesi Sea. The maximum

current speeds here can reach up to 2.5 m/s. In contrast, the maximum current speeds in the

study area measured by the two instruments deployed from August 23 to September 11,

2013 rarely exceed 0.3 m/s for ADCP 1 which was deployed north-west of Pulau Timbun

Mata, and 0.2 m/s for ADCP 2 which was deployed in the channel between Pulau Timbun

Mata and Pulau Bait. At both sites currents during neap tide did not exceed 0.1 m/s (Figure

4.8).

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Ave

rage

Dai

ly R

adia

tio

n (

Wh

r/m

2 )

4-8 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.8 Time series plots of current speed measured at two sites within the study area over a 14 day tidal period from neaps to springs.

These results are reflected in the spatial distribution of currents within the study site as

predicted by the modelling results as discussed below (further details of the modelling

studies carried out are given in Appendix E.

Tidal Variation The model results show clearly the different patterns of water movement within the study site

under flood and ebb tides as illustrated in Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10 for a NE monsoon

scenario. Under a flooding tide water moves from both directions (East and West) into the

channel between the mainland and Pulau Timbun Mata and the channel between Pulau and

Pulau Bait. At the same time water is moving westward around the north-east side of Pulau

Timbun Mata from offshore. During the ebb tide the pattern is reversed with water flowing

out of the mainland – Pulau Timbun Mata channel in both directions including seawards

through the channel between Pulau Timbun Mata and Pulau Bait. At the same time water is

now moving eastward around the north-east side of Pulau Timbun Mata and offshore.

Overall current velocities are not high although there are several notable points in the

mainland-Pulau Timbun Mata channel where they exceed 0.5 m/s during both flood and ebb

tides (Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.10). Conversely there are areas around Pulau Timbun Mata -

Pulau Bait channel where water movement is consistently low and these areas can be

considered potential deposition areas (sediments will accumulate) with potentially poor

flushing. One notable difference between the two tidal phases is the greatly increased water

speed under an ebbing tide in the areas immediately East of the Pulau Timbun Mata - Pulau

Bait channel implying good flushing and dispersion seawards of suspended material from

this area relative to other areas.

Description of Existing Environment

4-9

Figure 4.9 Current patterns during a flooding mid tide for the NE monsoon scenario.

Figure 4.10 Current patterns during an ebbing mid tide for the NW monsoon scenario

Seasonal Comparisons Although there are seasonal differences in winds with respect to both prevailing direction and

strength, this is not reflected in the predicted current speed and direction as illustrated in

Figure 4.11 and Figure 4.12 below. The only discernible difference is a slight increase in

current speeds of approximately 0.05 m/s overall during the NW season. The explanation

for this is that at a regional scale, tide is more important than wind in forcing water

movement.

4-10 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.11 Current patterns during a ebbing mid tide for the NE monsoon scenario

Figure 4.12 Current patterns during an ebbing mid tide for a SW monsoon scenario

The combined effects of seasonal and tidal influences on water movement for the study area

has been summarised below using both the maximum and the average current speeds in the

vicinity of Pulau Timbun Mata over the period of July to December 2013 in Figure 4.13 and

Figure 4.14 respectively.

Description of Existing Environment

4-11

Figure 4.13 Maximum current speed in the vicinity of Pulau Timbun Mata between July and December 2013.

Figure 4.14 Average current speed in the vicinity of Pulau Timbun Mata between July and December 2013.

4.2.4 Tides

The tidal regime for the southeast Sabah marine and coastal region are largely associated

with the propagations of the tides from the Pacific Ocean, as they are elsewhere on the East

coast, in addition to the tidal frequency, the wave lengths, the geographical location and

seabed topography. Semi-diurnal (twice daily) tides dominate in the Sulawesi Sea and the

tidal amplitude increases significantly as the tidal wave approaches the coastal shelf.

4-12 62800860-RPT-02

Tidal elevations in Darvel Bay, including the proposed site, are mixed semi-diurnal (i.e. the

tide peaks twice in one day but at different heights) with a maximum tidal range of

approximately two (2) meters (Figure 4.15).

The water level conditions for Semporna station based on Malaysian Tide Tables Year 2013

are shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Water level conditions for Semporna station (Source: Malaysian tide Tables, Volume 2, 2013)

Condition Tidal Levels (m Chart Datum)

Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) 2.55

Mean High Water Spring (MHWS) 2.04

Mean High Water Neap (MHWN) 1.38

Mean Sea Level (MSL) 1.17

Mean Low Water Neap (MLWN) 0.95

Mean Low Water Spring (MLWS) 0.29

Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) 0.00

Figure 4.15 Time series of the tidal cycles at Kunak and Semporna hydrographic stations over a fourteen-day period in August 2013

Description of Existing Environment

4-13

4.2.5 Waves

The wave propagation at a regional scale is a response to the monsoonal surface winds as

governed by the wind strength and duration of exposure, the bathymetry, the coastal

features and the fetch distances over the open sea. Waves in the region are distinguished as

being of two sorts – sea waves and swell. Sea waves are locally generated and of high

frequency (short period). Their size and frequency can change rapidly in response to

changes in wind speed and direction. Swell waves are generated from wind events occurring

at much greater distances such as typhoons and storm events and have longer periods than

the sea waves. They are generally uniform in appearance and can be differentiated by a

longer wave period and lower amplitude than sea waves.

Consistent with the description above of the wind fields prevailing in the region, the islands

and coastlines facing the Sulawesi Sea, especially those located further inside of Darvel

Bay, are generally sheltered from North-easterly waves generated during the NE monsoon.

The southeast coast along the Sulawesi Sea is more exposed to waves generated by the

SW monsoon. During this time, the longer swell wave from the offshore will penetrate into

respective bays combined with the shorter squalls generated across them. The longer swell

occurs more frequently during the SW monsoon, however for the inner Darvel Bay, wave

energy is generally very low partly due to the fetch distance into Darvel Bay and the

sheltering from the string of islands and reefs between Semporna and Zamboanga to the

east.

At certain times of the year, the wave conditions may be influenced by high swells despite

the calm weather. Such swell occurrences are important in considering design wave

conditions for coastal and offshore structures in the region including sea cages, and

operating conditions.

To determine the wave conditions within Darvel Bay and in the vicinity of Pulau Timbun Mata

a 2D spectral wind-wave model covering the South China Sea, Sulu Sea and Sulawesi Sea

has been setup and run for a simulation period of 5 years (see Appendix E for a full technical

description of this work).

In order to capture the generation of wind and swell penetrating Darvel Bay two (2) model

domains have been used:

A regional model covering the South China Sea, Sulu and Sulawesi Sea with a depth-

adaptive mesh that is relatively coarse in deep water, but finer in coastal waters and

along in between the string of islands and coral reefs forming the Sulu Archipelago, and

A local model for Darvel Bay with a spatial resolution of about 1,215 m for the outer and

deeper part of the bay and resolution increasing to 400 m at water depths of 60 m. At the

north of Pulau Timbun Mata, the spatial resolution is increased to 200m.

Examples of instantaneous wave fields for significant wave heights1 simulated by the wave

model during NE and SW monsoon period are shown in Figure 4.16 and Figure 4.17. The

figures show that the largest waves are found at the eastern end of Darvel Bay, where fetch

is greatest. As waves propagate within the Bay, and towards Pulau Timbun Mata, wave

height and consequently wave energy decreases.

1 The significant wave height is the average height for the highest one-third of waves in the data record from the

model output

4-14 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.16 Example of predicted wave height and direction during the NE monsoon.

Figure 4.17 Example of predicted wave height and direction during the SW monsoon.

The average and maximum significant wave heights calculated for a 5 year modelling period

(from 2008-2012) are shown in Figure 4.18 and Figure 4.19 respectively.

It can be seen that average significant wave heights north of Timbun Mata are between 0.05

and 0.2 meters, with larger waves predicted towards the northeast. Maximum significant

Description of Existing Environment

4-15

wave heights near the northeast of Timbun Mata are predicted to reach values close to 1.0

meters in height. The relatively low wave heights predicted by the model are not surprising

given the sheltered location of the site (island and reefs shelter much of the study area from

predominant wind directions) and the limited potential fetch.

Figure 4.18 Average significant wave height in the vicinity of Pulau Timbun Mata.

Figure 4.19 Maximum significant wave height in the vicinity of Pulau Timbun Mata.

4-16 62800860-RPT-02

4.2.6 Coastal Geomorphology

Excluding the western tip of the island, which is relatively low and has areas of mangrove

along the shoreline, Pulau Timbun Mata has steep hills, which along the northern coast

extend right to the beach. Most of the northern shoreline has narrow, rocky beaches with

fringing coral reefs, but there are several more sheltered bays with wider coral flats and

sandy pocket beaches; see for instance Photo 4.1, as well as mangrove lined bays.

From a morphological point of view, the mobile sections of coastline are mainly pocket

beaches, which are generally well protected by the presence of coral reefs and/or mangrove

forests. In this context, it is important to note that natural protection is provided by coral

reefs. Some of the exposed shorelines may be eroding, but due to the rocky character and

the protection provided by the coral reefs, the erosion is very slow.

The south-western coastline of Pulau Timbun Mata is obviously less exposed to waves than

the northern coast, and there are small areas of mangroves established along the southern

coastline. Apart from this, the coastal features of the southern side of Pulau Timbun Mata

are very similar to the northern side with steep hills extending down to narrow beaches

flanked by fringing coral reefs.

Photo 4.1 Example of a small pocket beach on Pulau Batik with Pulau Timbun Mata in the background.

4.2.7 Marine Sediments

The type and nature of the marine sediments in the Darvel Bay area reflect their origin, being

both marine and terrestrial, as well as their topographic location and the degree of exposure

to energy regimes that can lead to deposition and / or resorting and suspension as a result of

waves and currents. Terrestrial origins can be local (from within the region) such as silt and

sands carried out by riverine outflow (Figure 4.24) or from sources farther afield and

transported over geological time scales. Marine derived sediments are usually the result of

biogeochemical processes leading the characteristic “coral reef” debris found on reef flats

Description of Existing Environment

4-17

and beaches through to fine muds and silts derived from a combination of terrestrial sources

and biological material deposition from the remnants of both pelagic and benthic organisms.

Marine sediments are a critical element in all benthic habitats and are often characterised by

a combination of physical and geochemical attributes including size and composition, the

amount of organic material, and the associated nutrient characteristics for nitrogen and

phosphorus.

To obtain an understanding of the range of sediment types within the project area and their

nutrient characteristics to facilitate the calibration of the ecological model, surface sediment

samples were collected from eight sites across a range of water depths for analysis of Total

Organic Carbon (TOC) and nutrients, Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus. Further details

of the survey are provided in Appendix C.

Marine sediments in shallow (< 30 m depth), nearshore and intertidal environments are

characterised by Total Organic Carbon (TOC) concentrations ranging from 1 – 10 %. In the

results we can see this full range from the organic rich mud at site SS7 (7.4%) which is a

tidal internode with very low water movement and potentially high organic input from the

adjacent mangrove systems, to the very low value of 0.4 %.at SS4 – a deeper site in the

channel adjacent coral reefs with well sorted sediments as a result of high currents (Figure

4.20).

Figure 4.20 Sediment total organic carbon (percent).

4-18 62800860-RPT-02

In contrast to the TOC values the Total Kjedahl Nitrogen (TKN) concentrations show a

slightly different pattern (Figure 4.21), with the highest TKN concentrations occurring on the

northwestern zone of P. Timbun Mata, which are potentially under the influence of land

based runoff from the Kunak and Silam areas. Nitrogen transformations and the resultant

residual concentrations in sediments are largely a product of bacterial processes and is not

necessarily related to the net amount of organic material nor the amount of total phosphorus.

The values overall though are consistent with values found elsewhere for tropical systems.

Figure 4.21 Sediment TKN.

The total phosphorus concentrations (Figure 4.22) show two distinct spatial groupings, the

most definite being the very low values all being in the channel between the mainland and P.

Timbun Mata. Unlike nitrogen, phosphorus sequestration in sediments is a chemical process

with no bacterial involvement at all. In high organic muds where oxygen reduction is

common, phosphorus will not concentrate as it is readily released as part of the anaerobic

Fe-S-P (iron-sulphur-phosphorus) cycle. In more oxygenated sediments, phosphorus is

sequestered and may progressively be buried.

Description of Existing Environment

4-19

Figure 4.22 Sediment TP concentrations.

4.2.8 Noise and Air Quality

Noise and air quality are two important considerations in the Project development, in

particular during the construction phase as a result of impacts or perceived impacts on

adjacent communities, and in case of noise also on certain wildlife. Air quality may also be

an issue with respect to dust and chemicals for people, and their food crops, as well as

natural vegetation if loadings are severe enough. An understanding of the existing air quality

and noise levels at sensitive receptors is needed in order to assess the likely impacts.

Sampling works on ambient air quality and noise was carried out from September 26 to

September 30, 2013 at eight (8) selected sensitive receptors areas that may be affected by

the construction and/or operation of the project, i.e. village areas as shown in Figure 4.23.

Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) was measured over 24 hours at each site using a

Dustrak Aerosol Monitor. TSP is a measure of solids and liquid particles in the atmosphere

including dust, smoke, mists, fumes and spray generated by construction works such as

earthworks, vehicular exhaust emission and other airborne particulates, and encompasses

suspended particles of 10 - 100,000 µg/m3.

4-20 62800860-RPT-02

Noise was sampled with an Extech Data Logger Noise Meter over 24 hours at each site.

Further details of the air and noise surveys are provided in Appendix C.

Figure 4.23 Air and noise quality sampling stations used to obtain baseline data

Description of Existing Environment

4-21

Photo 4.2 Air quality and noise sampling at Site AN3 (Kg. Melantah).

4.2.8.1 Total Suspended Particulates Table 4.2 shows the results of the TSP sampling. The results obtained indicate that average

TSP for all stations is below the Malaysian Ambient Air Quality Guidelines.

Table 4.2 TSP results (24-hr average) in µg/m3.

Stations Average Total Suspended Particulate (TSP), µg/m

3

Malaysian Ambient Air Quality Guidelines (µg/m

3)

AN1 (Kg. Tandoan)

29

260 (24 hour)

AN2 (Kg. Bait) 37

AN3 (Kg. Melantah)

28

AN4 (Kg. Silawa) 37

AN5 (Kg. Limau Limau)

36

AN6 (Kg. Parang Tengah)

21

AN7 (Kg. Tanjung Kapor)

44

AN8 (Kg. Pababag)

40

4-22 62800860-RPT-02

4.2.8.2 Ambient Noise Applying the Malaysian Ambient Air Quality guidelines to the results showed that some of the

sampling stations showed average noise level that slightly exceeded the limit (±4 dB(A)) for

Low Density Residential Areas, Institutional and Worship Areas (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3 Noise survey results.

Station LAeq dB(A) Limit dB(A)

L10 L90 Max dB(A)

Kg. Tandoan

Day: 54.28 50 70.72 43.70 83.70

Night: 39.01 40 46.92 33.50 64.8

Kg. Bait

Day: 45.51 50 50.30 40.50 64.2

Night: 45.30 40 57.11 39.90 77.1

Kg. Melantah Day: 42.16 50 51.16 35.94 79.60

Night: 36.14 40 39.52 31.80 73.70

Kg. Silawa Day: 44.12 50 52.50 37.90 67.1

Night: 42.89 40 54.20 36.70 74.3

Kg. Limau-Limau Day: 50.69 50 57.70 44.70 84.3

Night: 42.85 40 49.92 36.70 76.9

Kg. Parang Tengah Day: 49.67 50 61.60 41.90 80.8

Night: 38.68 40 43.92 35.50 64

Kg. Tanjung Kapor Day: 49.94 50 56.20 45.04 73.9

Night: 44.24 40 51.50 39.70 79.8

Kg. Pababag Day: 51.55 50 58.90 45.10 84

Night: 38.06 40 48.44 33.00 65.5

NOTE 1: The day time LAeq is the equivalent A-weighted sound level for the day time period of 7.00 am to 10.00

pm and the night time LAeq is the equivalent A-weighted sound level for the night time period of 10.00 pm to 7.00

am

NOTE 2: L10 is the noise level exceeded for 10% of the measurement duration, thus representing peak noise. L90

is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often used to represent the background sound level; this

excludes high-localised sound levels.

4.3 Hydrology and Riverine Discharges

There are no large rivers draining into Darvel Bay. The largest river discharging into southern

part of the Bay is Sg. Tingkayu, around 20 km North of Kunak, with a catchment area of 691

km2 (Figure 4.24). Directly adjacent to the Project site there are four main rivers which

discharge into the Project area (Figure 4.25):

Sg. Sipit Lahunai

Sg. Sipit

Sg. Segarong

Sg. Pegagau

Description of Existing Environment

4-23

Three of the rivers, Sg. Sipit Lahunai, Sg. Sipit and Sg. Segarong, area within the Segarong

Catchment, with an area totalling 329 km2, while Sg Pegagau is within the Pegagau Water

Catchment covering an area of 311 km2.

Figure 4.24 River catchments in the Darvel Bay region.

4-24 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.25 River catchments along Pulau Timbun Mata.

4.3.1 River Water Quality

Sediment plumes generated by sediment laden outflow of rivers pose a significant risk to the

marine environments and the surrounding islands in Sabah. The amount of suspended

sediment entering the sea varies considerably in term of volumes and rates and from rivers

to rivers depending on their catchments’ characteristics.

Agricultural development along the rivers and coastlines in Darvel Bay has generated

greater runoff, which contributes to higher sediment concentrations in the marine

environment compared to pristine conditions. The nearshore areas around some of the

larger rivers have become extremely murky /2/, see Photo 4.3, in particular around Sg

Tingkayu. The nutrient and pollutant loading to the bay is also expected to have increased

significantly as a result of the use of fertilisers and pesticides in the plantations /2/.

Catchment runoff and water quality modelling studies carried out for the development of the

Marine Area Spatial Plan (MASP) for this project have shown that the river mouths Sg.

Segarong, Sg. Tingkayu and Sg. Pegagau around the study area have high pollutant loads

during all seasons. Low concentrations of dissolved oxygen for example (less than 5 mg/l)

were observed at the river mouths of Sg. Pegagau and Sg. Tingkayu during the southwest

and inter monsoon periods.

Description of Existing Environment

4-25

The modelling studies show that under normal conditions (normal flow and calm weather),

discharges from these rivers generally move longshore following the direction of the current

rather than spreading offshore to the islands in Darvel Bay such as P. Tabawan and P. Batik

Kulambu North of P. Timbun Mata.

However, during extreme flow condition or storm events, the plumes can spread to Pulau

Timbun Mata, including its Northwest shorelines, and Pulau Bait.

Photo 4.3 Aquaculture along the river and sediment plume discharged into Darvel Bay (from Sabah Shoreline Management Plan, Baseline Report /2/.

Water quality surveys carried out for the present SEIA (refer to Appendix B) indicated that

the higher sediment loading comes from the smaller river of Sg. Sipit Magai (40 mg/l, see

Figure 4.26). Suspended sediment (SS) concentrations offshore of the Sipit catchment were

above 50 mg/l. Extended sampling on four separate occasions was carried out at the mouths

of Sg. Sipit and Sg. Pegagau. SS concentrations at Sipit river mouth ranged from 6 mg/l to

11 mg/l with even lower concentrations recorded at Pegagau, ranging from 3 mg/l to a

maximum of 5 mg/l.

The surveys showed that nutrient concentrations (ammoniacal nitrogen) fluctuate over time,

with lows of 0.02 mg/l at Sg. Sipit and Pegagau, to maximums of 0.27 mg/l and 0.20 mg/l at

Sg. Sipit and Pegagau respectively. As expected, higher concentrations are observed in the

nearshore areas adjacent to river mouths (Figure 4.27). The National Water Quality

Standards for Malaysia limit for ammoniacal nitrogen is 0.3 mg/l for Class II A and B waters

(for fisheries and recreational uses).

4-26 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.26 TSS concentrations during the water quality survey for this SEIA conducted in October 2013.

Description of Existing Environment

4-27

Figure 4.27 Ammoniacal nitrogen concentrations during the survey in October 2013. All values were below 0.3 mg/l, the Class II A/B limit under the Malaysian National Water Quality Standards.

4.4 Marine Water Quality

Darvel Bay has areas of very clear and clean water /2/. The water quality around Timbun

Mata in general is also very good. Pristine waters are found in particular along the northern,

exposed shoreline, see example in Photo 4.4.

4-28 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 4.4 Pristine, aquamarine waters on the northern shores of P. Timbun Mata.

The southern shorelines of P. Timbun Mata and around P. Bait are subject to occasional

periods of high suspended sediments from riverine plumes during high flow conditions and

the waters are visibly more turbid, see Photo 4.5. However, as shown in Figure 4.26 above

the suspended sediment concentrations around P. Selangan, Pababag and P. Bait were all

below 5 mg/l at the time of sampling in October 2013. High SS concentrations of above 50

mg/l were only observed immediately off the Sipit catchment as mentioned above.

Nutrient levels are also generally low; this is supported by the survey which show

ammoniacal nitrogen and nitrate values well within the Class IIA / B National Water Quality

Standards for Malaysia (Figure 4.27).

Description of Existing Environment

4-29

Photo 4.5 Turbid waters in the shallow areas southwest of P. Bait.

4.5 Biological-Ecological Environment

4.5.1 Regional Setting

4.5.1.1 Coral Triangle The project site is located within the Coral Triangle, an area spanning 5.7 million km

2 of

ocean and archipelagos from the Philippines in the North, to the East coast of Borneo,

across Eastern Indonesia, and New Guinea Island including Timor-Leste and the Solomon

Islands to the West (Figure 4.28).

The Coral Triangle is recognised as the epi-centre of marine biodiversity, providing

resources which millions of people depend on for their livelihood, income, food security and

hence a global priority for conservation. It has the maximum recorded coral diversity in the

world; 500 of the world’s 793 species of reef-building corals. By comparison, the Great

Barrier Reef lies in the area where coral diversity ranges from 300-399 coral species.

At the centre of the Coral Triangle is the Sulu-Sulawesi Marine Ecoregion (SSME), a large

640,000 km2 marine ecosystem composed of two large seas, the Sulu and Sulawesi

(Celebes) Seas and smaller inland seas in the Philippines, which is the world's most

biologically diverse marine environment. In Sabah, the area included in the SSME lies within

the East coast waters from part of Kudat district in the North to Tawau in the South.

Particularly important parts of the CTI are the SSME 1: Marudu Bay (Kudat, Kota Marudu

and Pitas); SSME 2: Sandakan, Kinabatangan and Beluran, and SSME 3: Tawau, Lahad

Datu, Semporna and Kunak. The SSME supports diverse and ecologically important coastal

and marine habitats, ranging from extensive mangroves to coral reefs and seagrass beds.

4-30 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.28 The iLAP project location within the Coral Triangle. The solid line is the biological species maximum while the dotted line is the border of the Coral Triangle Initiative Countries.

4.5.1.2 Darvel Bay The project site lies in the Southern part of Darvel Bay. The coastline in Darvel Bay is

primarily mangrove with some built up areas; and most of these mangroves are gazetted

mangrove forest reserves (Class V). The mangroves are dominated by Rhizophora, Mixed

mangrove and Bruguiera parviflora communities /2/.

Many of the islands within Darvel Bay are gazetted as virgin jungle reserve (Class VI),

although there has been obvious encroachment on these areas for settlements, for

agriculture and other activities.

Reef conditions in Darvel Bay have been reported from various surveys as good to

extremely good. In 1998, an extensive survey - Expedisi Galaxea ’98 - of the Darvel Bay

marine habitats was carried out by Universiti Malaysia Sabah /3/. The Sabah Shoreline

Management Plan (2005) found that the reefs in the Bay were in the range of fair to good

quality overall /2/.

Subsequently, in 2008 and 2009, WWF Malaysia Semporna PCA team covered surveys at

35 sites within 64 transects all over Semporna. Within this study, depending on the sites, the

corals range from poor to good with certain sites facing severe human impacts and some

less /6/.

Another biodiversity and coral reef health study was carried out in 2010 by marine biologists

from Malaysia, Netherlands and the USA onboard MV Celebes Explorer. The organizers

were WWF Malaysia, University Malaysia Sabah, University Malaya and the Netherlands

Centre for Biodiversity (NCB) Naturalis. The state of the reef was considered worrisome as

only 5 stations out of 109 (5%) were found to be Excellent and 23% of Good status. The rest

were classified as Fair to Poor quality reefs /4/.

4.5.1.3 Tun Sakaran Marine Park The Project is located approximately 600 m from the Tun Sakaran Marine Park (at its

nearest, measured using Esri® ArcMap™ Measure Tool). The Tun Sakaran Park is a state

park managed by the Sabah Parks Board. The Park encompasses eight islands over an

area of 350 km2. Almost half of this area (163 km

2), is covered with reefs which extend from

sea level to about 20 m depth in the Western areas of the Park and more than 50 m depth in

the eastern areas.

iLAP Project Area

Description of Existing Environment

4-31

The Park is an area of extremely high marine biodiversity. Some key figures on species

richness include /5/:

255 species of coral

544 species of reef fish

240 species of marine invertebrates

6 species seagrass (including Cymodocea rotundata, Enhalus acoroides & Halophila

ovalis)

7 species of Giant Clam (Tridacna gigas, Tridacna derasa, Tridacna maxima, Tridacna

crocea,Tridacna squamosa, Hippopus porcellanus, Hippopus hippopus)

The reefs surrounding the islands in the Tun Sakaran Marine Park range from poor to good

condition. P. Mantabuan, located northeast of the marine park, recorded poor to fair reefs

condition. Similar corals qualities are documented for reefs along northeast to east of P.

Bodgaya, south to west of P. Boheydulang and south of P. Sibuan. The southwest reefs of

P. Sebangkat and Northern reef of P. Maiga have good condition of coral reefs even with low

nutrient level recorded in P. Maiga. Reefs fringing further East of P. Selakan and Eastern

side of P. Tetagan, both have fair coral condition despite recorded silt presence in P.

Tetagan /6/.

The Park is home to a population of around 2,000 people, most of whom are fishermen and

seaweed farmers who depend on harvesting and fishing of marine resources to meet their

everyday needs. To balance social and conservation needs, the Park is divided into the

following management zones /5/:

No take zones

General use zones

Preservation zones

4.5.1.4 Study Area The iLAP project surrounds the waters of P. Bait, P. Timbun Mata and its satellite islands to

the North, including P. Batik and P. Batik Kulambu.

These islands are mainly steep and forested, with shorelines comprising rocky headlands

and sandy beaches. Mangrove areas also line the sheltered bays on and between the

islands. All islands are fringed by extensive coral reefs, see Photo 4.6 and Figure 4.29.

There appears to be only small fishing communities on the islands, and apart from the

smaller cleared and cultivated areas, the islands generally appear pristine.

4-32 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 4.6 Pulau Batik (foreground) and Pulau Timbun Mata (background) with fringing coral reefs.

4.5.2 Critical Marine Habitats

4.5.2.1 Coral Reefs Coral reefs within the study area as shown in Figure 4.29 below encompass an area of

79.1398 km2 (7913.984 ha) km

2. These reef areas have been delineated using satellite

imagery, side scan sonar surveys and dive survey transects as documented in Appendix C.

Description of Existing Environment

4-33

Figure 4.29 Coral reefs around Pulau Timbun Mata.

4-34 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 4.7 Reefs off the North West coast of Pulau. Timbun Mata.

Live Coral Cover The coral reef surveys conducted for this SEIA (Appendix C) have shown a large area

covered with coral of good quality. A total of 50 sites were surveyed in detail with 43.5 km

covered by RACE surveys (Rapid Assessment of Coral Ecosystem). Most of the seabed

shallower than 15 m to the north of Timbun Mata is coral reef. In places where the reef

topography is steep the corals extend down to the bottom of the slope. Most reefs however

terminate in sand at a depth of 15-20 m.

Table 4.4 shows the classification of the reefs based on live coral cover. While the sea bed

cover varies with the amount of blast fishing and other variables, there is at least 50% live

seabed at all the offshore reef sites to the north of Timbun Mata. In many places, the living

reef cover exceeded 80% and was very biodiverse with a wide range of different species

(see Appendix C and also the 2012 Semporna Marine Ecological Expedition /6/). The living

reef typically extends from the low tide level to the sandy sea floor at 20 or 30 m depth.

Coral reefs off the southeast coast are in good to fair condition dependant on location

relative to wave action and proximity to villages.

Table 4.4 Coral reef type, health and dominant species around P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait.

Area Reef type Number of sites

% live seabed

Dominant coral species

Exposure

Pulau Bait channel

Lagoonal fringing reef 7 41.3 Porites, Favia, Favites, Fungia

Sheltered

N Timbun Mata Fringing reef 30 62.1 Mixed North-exposed

Description of Existing Environment

4-35

Area Reef type Number of sites

% live seabed

Dominant coral species

Exposure

N Timbun Mata Nearshore Patch reefs 8 60.25 Porites, Favia, Favites, Fungia

Semi-sheltered

NW Timbun Mata Continental Patch reefs

5 78.6 Acropora, Porites North exposed

The maximum depth of the corals was typically 25-30m in exposed sites and < 10m in

sheltered sites. Most of the seabed shallower than 15m to the North of Timbun Mata is a

coral reef. In places where the reef topography is steep, the corals extend down to the

bottom of the slope. Most reefs however terminate in sand at a depth of 15-20m.

Live coral cover around P. Batik situated directly North of P. Timbun Mata is also good,

ranging from 53% (shallow) to 69% (deep) but it is in fair condition at P. Batik Kulambu,

ranging from 45.6% (shallow) to 48.1% (deep) /6/. The reefs situated off the North of P.

Balusuan and West of P. Batik Kulambu are also in fair condition /6/.

Reefs along the north to eastern coasts of P. Bait are relatively limited in vertical extent by

the turbidity but are in fair to good quality with live coral cover between 49% to 58% /6/. P.

Silawa located off the Northern tip of P. Bait (the two islands are separated by less than 50

m), has reef flats with sparse seagrass fringing the entire island that extend several hundred

meters seaward in certain places. However, poor coral reefs with live coral below 26% are

recorded /17/. P. Larapan also has a reef system that extends several hundred meters

offshore. The quality of the reefs at the Eastern end of Timbun Mata reflect the poor water

circulation and the proximity to turbid water from the mangrove areas, sections of reef away

from shore are in good condition while nearshore reefs are depauperate and limited in extent

/6/.

4-36 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.30 Coral distribution and live coral cover in the study area.

Description of Existing Environment

4-37

Photo 4.8 The reefs which have not been blasted are very diverse with a very wide range of coral species.

The reefs around the Project site are relatively remote and there are limited patrols by

Immigration, Police or Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA). Many of the local

4-38 62800860-RPT-02

villagers are undocumented and have no paperwork (see Section 4.6 for further details).

With no right of residence, few fishers have any aspiration beyond what they can catch

today. The quality of the reef next year is of little relevance since they live with the fear of

being moved on. As a consequence of the fishers’ transitory existence, destructive fishing

techniques are common. It is likely that every turtle encountered in shallow water is killed

and eaten; and fish bombing, cyanide poisoning and other destructive fishing techniques are

a significant threat. Blast fishing is widespread and there is a clear gradient of blast fishing

from high close to the villages to low at the reefs further from the villages. The sea bed cover

varies with the amount of blast fishing and other variables, with obvious bomb damage

observed in many areas as shown in Figure 4.31. No evidence was seen for cyanide fishing

during the SEIA reef surveys – possibly because the reefs no longer have any fish of any

size large enough to justify the effort.

Some reefs have been reduced to rubble with very low fish and coral diversity and

abundance however most reefs are patchy with blast damage confined to the shallower

reefs. Reefs at 10-15m depth are relatively intact with high coral cover and diversity.

Description of Existing Environment

4-39

Figure 4.31 Percentage of the reef area covered with living coral and sponges. Sites with many visible blast fishing craters are also indicated.

4-40 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 4.9 Blast fishing damage was common in the surveyed area, blasts were heard on every day of survey with a maximum of 3 blasts per hour. No fresh blast sites were found, most reef areas between 5 & 15m had clearly been blasted multiple times and the seabed reduced to rubble. Actual craters from individual blasts are visible in the bottom two photos.

Description of Existing Environment

4-41

Coral species diversity Coral species diversity was studied at a representative number of sites within the study area

using a coral species count technique that has been used on other reefs in the Semporna

District and elsewhere /7/. The maximum number of hard coral species seen per hour during

the surveys was 135 at site 130 (Pulau Batik Kulambu, see Figure 4.32).

This compares very well with other diverse sites

within the Semporna area, which is a

documented epicentre of biodiversity /8/. The

best sites (Batu Rua Reef and Richard’s reef) for

coral species richness in Semporna had just

over 150 species seen in one hour. The

maximum number of coral species in this area of

the coral triangle is between 400 and 450

species in all reef environments. The global

highest coral species richness is in Indonesian Papua with 574 hard coral species and

individual reefs supporting 280 species ha－1 /9/.

Figure 4.32 Coral diversity (number of coral species observed per hour) around the project area and in the Semporna region (from previous studies, included for comparative purposes).

“The high coral species diversity is

remarkable, and to date, Semporna

holds the record for the highest

species richness of Fungiidae, which

surpasses records from other areas in

the Coral Triangle.”

- Waheed and Hoeksema, 2012 /8/.

4-42 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 4.10 Reef diversity: A – Diadema long spine sea urchins on a rubble reef area provide the only shelter for schools of small fish. B – Sponge and soft corals were commonly seen as first colonisers of blasted areas. C – Giant basket sponge. D – a lost fishing net being colonised by crinoids and sponges. E - Fish schools were uncommon, these yellow tail fusiliers were seen mostly on the outer reefs away from villages. F – A fish pot being colonised by red and blue sponges. Lost fishpots which continue to kill fish but are not recovered are a major threat to the reef fish stocks

4.5.2.2 Seagrass Seagrass areas are limited to around P. Bait and in very sparse patches around P. Timbun

Mata (Photo 4.11, Photo 4.12 and Photo 4.13). Species observed during the current SEIA

surveys include Enhalus acoroides, Thalassia hemprichii and Halodule sp. The seagrass

cover in the seagrass beds is approximately 30% to 50% of the substrate. The seagrass

areas are naturally limited by sediment composition, wave action and other environmental

variables to a small area of the SEIA site.

A 2011 seagrass assessment for Semporna /10/ included surveys off the eastern tip of

Timbun Mata and around P. Larapan. The survey found low cover with an average of only

A B

C D

E F

Description of Existing Environment

4-43

3%. In the upper sub-tidal zone at or just below the low tide level on spring tides (i.e. around

Chart Datum), the seagrass species recorded were Halodule uninervis (dominant species),

Cymodocea rotundata, Halophila ovalis and Thalassia hemprichii. At the east end of Pulau

Bait, several species form small mixed species patches with almost 100% seabed cover for

small areas. In deeper water, at 0-2 m below chart datum or low tide-Springs, the broad leaf

seagrass Enhalus acoroides was the dominant species occurring in small dense patches

(<0.25m2 patches) with patch densities rarely exceeding two patches per 10 m

2.

Figure 4.33 Locations of observed seagrass around P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait.

4-44 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 4.11 Seagrass Enhalus acoroides.

Photo 4.12 Seagrass Thalassia hemprichii.

Description of Existing Environment

4-45

Photo 4.13 Subtidal seagrass and coral communities at Northeast P. Bait.

4.5.2.3 Mangroves The mangroves around the islands within the SEIA are mostly of the fringe type with limited

width due to the rapidly shelving shoreline. The island of Pulau Bait is a raised fossil coral

reef and the mangrove is limited to a narrow band around the shoreline. The mangrove

forest areas on P. Timbun Mata are larger with more extensive mangrove areas established

in the island’s deep bays, being over 500 m width from shoreline fringe to interior.

The mean diameter at breast height (DBH) at disturbed mangrove areas close to Kg.

Tanjung Kapor ranges from 5-20 cm. The dominant species along the riverbanks is

4-46 62800860-RPT-02

Rhizophora apiculata, while the back mangroves (landward) are a mixed mangrove

community which include Ceriops tagal and Lumnitzera littorea.

Photo 4.14 Mangroves at Kg. Tg. Kapor (Class V Mangrove Forest Reserve).

Photo 4.15 Back mangrove; Ceriops tagal at Tg Kapor

Description of Existing Environment

4-47

Photo 4.16 Back mangrove; Lumnitzera littorea at Tg. Kapor.

Mangroves at the proposed bridge location are classified as Mangrove Forest Reserve Class

V (Photo 4.17). The dominant mangrove species at P. Bait bridge location is Rhizophora

spp. With average canopy height of 15-17m. The total Forest Reserve Area on P. Bait

calculated was 310.57 ha and total mangrove on P. Bait is 324.19 ha.

The dominant mangrove species on P. Bait jetty area is Rhizophora spp with an average

canopy height of 7 m (Photo 4.18). The mangrove within this location is not classified as part

of the Class V Forest Reserve area.

4-48 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 4.17 Class V Mangrove Forest Reserve along P. Bait; at proposed bridge location.

Photo 4.18 Mangroves along P. Bait; at proposed jetty.

The DBH of undisturbed mangrove on Timbun Mata was 20-45 cm. The tree density varied

from 300 per ha to over 700 per ha. The maximum densities were found close to the

shoreline while the interior areas had larger trees with a reduction in tree density and an

increase in biodiversity. The mangroves on Pulau Bait were generally smaller than the trees

on P. Timbun Mata.

Description of Existing Environment

4-49

Most of the forests are fringing mangroves with only a few deep bays having tree

communities more commonly associated with interior forest type (Photo 4.19 and Photo

4.20). There are riverine mangroves nearby but none within the SEIA area. The most

common mangrove species seen at all the mangrove sites were Acanthus illicifolius,

Avicennia alba, Bruguiera parviflora, Excoecaria agallocha, Rhizophora apiculata,

Rhizophora mucronata, Rhizophora stylosa, Nypa fruticans, Sonneratia caseolaris and

Xylocarpus granatum. Nypa was common at the rear of the mangrove on soils that are rarely

immersed. Nypa was rare on Pulau Bait because of the geomorphology of the island.

Rhizophora apiculata was dominant at the seaward margins except for small patches/

breaks in the seaward forest line by the presence of cliffs or small rivers. At the breaks

created by the forest gaps the soil was sandier and these areas were dominated by

Avicennia spp & Sonneratia caseolaris with occasional Bruguiera spp at the landward side of

the gap.

Away from the shoreline and deeper into the forest the shade tolerant B. parviflora and B.

cylindrica increased.

The mainland shoreline adjacent to the project site is predominantly comprised of medium

dense low lying mangroves, which fringe the coastline along the inter-tidal area. More

extensive mangrove areas are associated with the rivers Sg. Sipit, Sipit- Lahunai and Sg.

Pegagau, see Figure 4.34. These areas are all gazetted mangrove forest reserves,

however, due to the high population in this region, many mangrove areas along the coast

have been disturbed due to clearing for housing, jetties, etc. In addition, aquaculture

development has been carried out in the Forest Reserves near Kunak in the northwest and

along the southern parts of Sg. Pegagau /11/.

4-50 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.34 Mangrove areas and mangrove forest reserves around the Project site.

Description of Existing Environment

4-51

Photo 4.19 Healthy mangroves fringing the shoreline at Tg. Timbun Mata (October 2013).

Photo 4.20 Rhizophora spp. is the dominant mangrove species within the study area (October

2013).

4-52 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 4.21 Rhizophora spp. established on sandy substrate at P. Timbun Mata.

4.5.3 Marine Species

4.5.3.1 Species of Conservation Significance Among the endangered species reported by villagers are the giant grouper, giant clams,

Napolean Wrasse (Humphead Wrasse), sea turtles, and seahorses.

During the field surveys, occasional dolphins and sea turtles were sighted within the sea.

However, no sea turtles were observed nesting on the beach during the field survey.

Sharks and Rays Sharks and rays were reported by the villagers to be present in the study area. Semporna

region is known to host 63 species of sharks and 68 species of rays. Sharks species

includes whale sharks, thresher sharks, nurse sharks, scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna

lewini) sharks, white tipped sharks and black tipped sharks /12/.

It is noted that whale sharks follow the movement of krill and are seasonal migratory species.

It has been reported that whale sharks use Semporna waters as a migratory route. Although

no field observations of whale sharks were recorded for this SEIA, the local villagers

reported their presence in the area around P. Timbun Mata, including in the Tandoan Strait.

Whale sharks have also been spotted at P. Sibuan in 2009, the closest Tun Sakaran Marine

Park island to iLAP at approximately 5.6 km from the nearest iLAP boundary /13/.

Dugong It was reported by villagers that dugongs were historically sighted in the area, however, have

not been seen for quite some time. No dugong sightings were recorded during the field

surveys for this SEIA.

Dugong sightings were reported by villagers during the socio-economic survey. However,

upon following up with photographic verification, one of the enumerators discovered that the

respondents were in fact referring to otters. Because photographic verification was not

Description of Existing Environment

4-53

consistently conducted by all enumerators, the locations of dugong and otter sightings

cannot be distinguished from each other.

Dolphins Sightings of dolphins were recorded within the project area over the course of the marine

field surveys carried out in November 2013 (Photo 4.22). Most abundant cetaceans recorded

within Sabah and Sarawak waters are the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin, spinner dolphins

and pantropical spotted dolphins/14, 15/.

Villagers’ reported dolphin sightings (picture within the field survey showed the image of the

Indo Pacific Hump-Backed Dolphin) are reported to occur in the Semporna region are shown

in Figure 4.35. It is noted that these reported locations must not be taken as definitive as

firstly the recollections of the villagers will not always be accurate, but secondly they also

display the respondents’ location bias (many records are clustered in front of villages).

However, the data do serve to illustrate that dolphins frequent the waters of the Tandoan

Straits (between P. Timbun Mata and the mainland) and are also regularly spotted along the

eastern part of the iLAP.

Based on the incidental field observations and information from local villagers, it can be

concluded that the general area is regularly used by dolphins for feeding habitat.

Photo 4.22 Dolphins sighted during the field surveys

4-54 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.35 Dolphin sighting locations as reported by local villagers.

Sea Turtles The two sea turtles common to Semporna waters are the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)

and the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). The Olive Ridley and Leatherback turtles

have been recorded to be occasionally present in the area /16/.

Records of nesting have been reported by local villagers however, there were no pits or

tracks from turtles on any beaches on P. Timbun Mata. Turtle beaches were surveyed by

Tropical Research and Conservation Centre (TRACC) on an ad hoc basis during the coral

reef and mangrove fieldwork in October and November 2013.

Although the field surveys were conducted outside of the known turtle nesting season, the

pits from nesting can be seen for several years. There were no turtle nests from 2013

observed and subsequent surveys of beaches in June 2014 confirmed that no tracks or body

pits were visible (Refer to Appendix C, Section 4).

During the SEIA coral and seagrass surveys, no encounters with sea turtles were recorded,

nor were any turtle grazing patches observed in the seagrass beds. However, one incidental

sighting of a sea turtle was recorded during the water quality survey along P. Timbun Mata

and another around the corals of Tg. Kapor.

Description of Existing Environment

4-55

It was very surprising that so few turtles were seen and that no evidence of turtle feeding on

the seagrass blades was observed. Turtles are abundant in other areas of Semporna but

scarce in this area even though the appropriate food was abundant. The density of sea

turtles encountered outside the project area (for example, around P. Pom-Pom with a

minimum of 10 turtles per 500 m survey) were many more than sea turtles within the project

area. This could be due to the illegal fishing of sea turtles within the SEIA area (current or in

the past). At Pulau Bum Bum for example, which is not far from the project site, sea turtles

were found disembowelled by poachers and their organs harvested in March 2014.

Other threats to sea turtles in the area include floating rubbish, especially plastic bags which

hawksbills tend to mistake as jellyfish; poaching; boat propellers; and unsustainable fishing

methods (e.g. trawling and fish bombing).

Otters Otters are found in the mainland mangrove forests. The Hairy-nosed Otter (Lutra

sumatrana), Smooth Otter (Lutra perspicillata) and Oriental Small-clawed Otter (Aonyx

cinerea) are protected species under the Sabah Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997

Schedule 2: Protected Species of Animals and Plants-Limited Hunting and Collection under

License and therefore should not be harmed unless with a licence to hunt and collect.

However, otters are considered a pest as they steal fish from fish cages. Most villagers have

had to fence the perimeter of their cages. The Short Clawed Otter (Aonyx cinerea) was

sighted at Tg. Kapor mangrove area during the SEIA wildlife survey.

All the Malaysian species of otter are potential predators of lobsters and fish but because of

historical hunting they are nocturnal, very shy and rarely seen. The Asian Short Claw otter

(size of a cat) rarely hunts on the shore and prefers rivers and freshwater environments.

Both the larger species: the smooth and the hairy nose species (size of a medium sized dog)

are common on shores of many types and have been seen up to several kilometers offshore

feeding on submerged reefs. Otters have a strong family group and exhibit considerable

learned behaviour that they pass on between family members (Hazel Oakley, 2014 via Email

Communication).

Giant Clams (Tridacna sp. & Hippopus sp.) There are seven species of Giant Clams found within Semporna waters. The biggest of them

all is Tridacna gigas. Other species includes Tridacna derasa, Tridacna squamosa, Tridacna

gigas, Tridacna maxima, Tridacna crocea, Hippopus hippopus and Hippopus porcellanus. At

Bohey Dulang, within the Tun Sakaran Marine Park, there is a giant clam breeding centre

which works with the local communities to grow giant clams for commercial purposes /17/.

During the field surveys, several Tridacna species including Tridacna maxima were

recorded, see example in Photo 4.23.

4-56 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 4.23 Tridacna maxima found on the reefs of P. Timbun Mata.

4.5.3.2 Reef Fish Despite the high coral cover and diversity of the reefs, a surprisingly low fish diversity and

abundance was observed during the surveys. A fall in coral abundance from blast fishing

decreases fish abundance and biodiversity /18, 19/ but the very low fish numbers cannot be

explained by blast damage alone. It is most probably related to the widespread use of fish

pots. At some sites more than five fish pots /100m were recorded. There were very few fish

of commercial size at any site. Maximum fish numbers were recorded close to the existing

lobster trial farm on Pulau Bait. This is probably a result of the reluctance of fishermen to

fish close to the farm plus an increase in food supply.

Regardless of the reef quality and rugosity, there were very few fish or edible invertebrates

on any reefs; no lobsters were seen at any site or on the RACE surveys, there were very few

giant clams and no other large molluscs were seen, while sea cucumbers and octopus were

rare. The fish fauna over the whole area was depauperate and very small with few fish over

20 cm. The RACE surveys recorded less than 100 fish over 20cm in total.

The high coral cover and the low fish numbers lead to the conclusion that heavy overfishing

not environmental degradation has reduced fish numbers.

The coral reefs within P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait are important larval fish areas. These

small nursery fish/larval fish were abundant and settling along all the shallow reefs. Schools

of yellow fin fusiliers were also spotted.

Description of Existing Environment

4-57

Photo 4.24 The reefs within the study area have few predators and larval fish were abundant. The fishing pressure is high since few adult fish were seen (© Steve Oakley)

The northwest part of P. Timbun Mata is colonised by macroalgal beds over what was

previously reef as shown in Figure 4.36 and Photo 4.25.

4-58 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.36 Macroalgae (brown seaweed) beds covering the reef flats in the area indicated by the red box.

Description of Existing Environment

4-59

Photo 4.25 Macroalgae were very abundant on reefs to the NE of the P. Timbun Mata. There is clearly a source of nutrients nearby which is causing eutrophication and reef community changes from coral dominated to macro algae dominated.

Fish fauna was also investigated by WWF-Malaysia, Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS),

Universiti Malaya (UM) and the Netherlands Centre for Biodiversity (NCB) Naturalis in 2010.

This study recorded 10 families of fishes in the waters of Pulau Timbun Mata and Pulau Bait

(refer App C Baseline); most of the fish were Pomacentridae, followed by Labridae and

Gobiidae /6/.

4.5.3.3 Plankton Communities Surveys for the present SEIA study found a total of 39 species of phytoplankton from 27

stations around P. Timbun Mata. The phytoplankton was strongly dominated by

cyanobacteria, followed by diatoms and dinoflagellates. The average density of

phytoplankton was 38,755 cells/l. Phytoplankton abundance (cells/l) was higher (25,000-

50,000 cells/L) within the northwestern Timbun Mata waters while lower concentrations

(<10,000 cells/L) were recorded in the channel between P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait (refer to

Appendix C).

A total of 23 taxa of zooplankton were identified within the study area. The zooplankton is

dominated by arthropods, primarily copepods and crustacean larvae. Planktonic copepods

are major food organisms for small fish, whales, seabirds and other crustaceans.

The average density of zooplankton around Timbun Mata was calculated to be 25,107

individuals/l.

Harmful Algal Blooms The East coast of Sabah to date has had no records of harmful algal blooms in contrast to

the West coast of Sabah. However, small concentrations of Pyrodinium bahamense var.

compressum and eight other potential HAB species have been recorded on the East coast,

4-60 62800860-RPT-02

namely Ceratium furca, C. fusus, C. tripos, Dinophysis caudata, Pseudo-nitzchia sp,

Chaetoceros sp., Prorocentrum sigmoides and P. micans /20/.

Five HAB species were recorded during the survey, albeit in low numbers of less than 30

cells/ml – Pseudo-nitzchia sp., Dinophysis sp., Prorocentrum sp, Anabaena sp and

Alexandrium sp. The latter two have not been previously recorded on the East coast of

Sabah. Alexandrium sp. dominated overall as shown in Figure 4.37.

Figure 4.37 Relative density of HAB species found during the survey.

4.5.3.4 Benthic Communities Sediment sampling undertaken around the project area revealed low macrobenthic

abundance, dominated by Annelids. Densities were highest at the station off Sg. Sipit

rivermouth (Figure 4.38). The benthos at this location (Station MB8) was dominated by

molluscs. Please refer to Appendix C for a list of family/species discovered within the study

area.

Description of Existing Environment

4-61

Figure 4.38 Benthos composition and density within the project area.

4.5.4 Terrestrial Habitat

4.5.4.1 Terrestrial Vegetation The entire island of P. Timbun Mata is a Class I Protection forest reserve comprised of

Upland and Lowland Mixed Dipterocarp Forest, Lowland Freshwater Swamp forest,

Secondary Forest and some Mangrove /11/. Apart from smaller areas of grass-land and

cultivation, in particular on the South coast, the island is generally covered in dense forest

(Figure 4.39).

4-62 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.39 Vegetation within Timbun Mata and surrounding islands

The Lowland Mixed Dipterocarp Forest (MDF) on P. Timbun Mata is Type A dipterocarp

forest, which is characterised by the dominance of Parashorea malaanonan, where it is

locally gregarious on steep slopes with S. guiso, Cynometra elmeri, Pterocymbium tinctorum

and Pterospermum stapfianum (the two latter seral species suggesting frequent windfalls).

On less steep slopes, though still the predominant species, P. malaanonan is found in

association with Rubroshorea species S. johorensis, S. leprosula, S. smithiana, and S. ovalis

and, infrequently D. lanceolata and D. caudiferus /21/.

The central and northeast parts of the FR are mainly made up of secondary forest. There are

also newer areas in the South coast that are cleared by illegal settlers using fire (Photo

4.26).

P. Batik is under Class VI Virgin Jungle Reserve (JVR). Despite this designation, there are

also populated areas especially along the shoreline and patches of cleared area and visible

topsoil was observed at Northeast of P. Batik (Photo 4.27). Meanwhile, P. Batik Kulambu

and P. Batik Kulambu 2 are gazetted Class IV Amenity Forest Reserve, which permits

recreational activities. A patch of cleared area was also noted at southwest P. Batik

Kulambu 2 (Photo 4.27). However, there are no recorded establishments or tourism facilities

at these islands.

Description of Existing Environment

4-63

Photo 4.26 Illegal clearing on P. Timbun Mata Protection Forest Reserve and in the mangrove fringe

Photo 4.27 Cleared area southwest of P. Batik Kulambu 2 (Left); Topsoil visible along P. Batik’s northeast (Right).

Cultivated land (see Photo 4.28) has replaced the original terrestrial vegetation covering P.

Bait, except along the southern coast and other patches covered with mangrove which is

protected under Class V Mangrove Forest Reserve. The crops include old coconut

plantations, small-scale oil palm plantations and mixed crops such as banana and tapioca

(Manihot esculenta).

There is a small hill on Pulau Bait which is secondary forest. The hill has rocky outcrops and

hence the vegetation is limited.

In addition to crops and secondary forest, there are also barren or cleared areas and

grassland, colonized by lalang and other shrubs (Photo 4.28).

4-64 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 4.28 Typical vegetation found on P. Bait.

Tg Kapor On the mainland at Tg. Kapor, hinterland of the mangroves, the natural vegetation has been

cleared to make way for villages and associated cultivated lands. There are areas of old

coconut plantation, oil palm, fruit orchards with some belukar (secondary scrub vegetation),

see Photo 4.29.

Herbaceous and Sparse Dwarf Bush Hill Forest/

Herbaceous Sparse Dwarf Bush

Horticulture

Description of Existing Environment

4-65

Photo 4.29 Vegetation classes within Tg. Kapor.

4.5.4.2 Terrestrial Wildlife Pelagic and coastal birds use the island for nesting, feeding and breeding ground. There has

not been any concrete research on the species of birds available within the site. Timbun

Mata is known for its deer, monkeys, wild boar and bat populations /22/. Wild boar and long-

tailed macaque were observed at P. Bait during wildlife survey. At Tanjung Kapor, Short

Clawed Otter, monitor lizard, and long tail macaques were observed.

During the field surveys, seagulls and ospreys were the birds on migratory pathways.

Villagers have also seen lesser frigate birds and seagulls.

Herbaceous/ Sparse Bush Herbaceous and Sparse Bush

Secondary Forest/

Woodland

4-66 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 4.30 Osprey perching on a branch (© Steve Oakley)

Proboscis monkeys have been sighted along the Semporna mainland coast opposite P.

Timbun Mata during the SEIA marine surveys. Proboscis monkeys are classified as Totally

Protected under Sabah Wildlife Enactment 1997 Schedule 2: Protected Species of Animals

and Plants- Limited Hunting and Collection Under License Part 1 and Endangered under the

IUCN Red list of Threatened Species.

During DHI Wildlife Survey, four species that were identified as dominant species within the

site; Short-clawed Otter (Aonyx cinerea) Long tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis) Monitor

lizard (Lacerta varius) and Wild Boar (Sus scrofa). All dominant species are either classified

as least concern or not listed in IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013 except for one

species; Short-clawed Otter (Aonyx cinerea) which classified as vulnerable.

During the socioeconomic surveys, the villagers have seen crocodiles, snakes, wild boar,

wild chicken, wild deer and proboscis monkeys within the area.

4.6 Socio-economics

The Project lies within the District of Semporna, with Semporna being the main town in the

district. Tawau city is located approximately 90 km from Semporna and is the third most

populated city after Kota Kinabalu and Sandakan. The nearest international airport is located

in Tawau.

This region is well known for its tourism activities due to its rich marine biodiversity, in

particular the world renowned P. Sipadan Park. The other key economic sector is fisheries,

including capture fisheries and aquaculture.

Description of Existing Environment

4-67

A key social issue in the east coast region of Sabah, including the study area, is a large

population of undocumented people, primarily of Bajau Laut ethnicity. This issue has far

reaching implications, shaping many aspects of the environmental and socioeconomic

setting in the region, including for example issues such as unsustainable fishing and coral

reef protection; water pollution; education; security; and availability of labour pool.

This section provides an overview of the population, economic activities and land and sea-

uses pertinent to the study area to provide the social context for evaluating the impacts of

the Project on the human environment. This is based on existing data and studies such as

census data and published and grey literature on the socio-cultural context of the area,

supplemented by a detailed socioeconomic survey carried out in the study area which is

outlined in the following section and described in further detail in Appendix G.

4.6.1 Data Basis

The description of the socio-economic environment in the study area is based on

Department of Statistics Census data /23/ and primary survey data.

The Department of Statistics provide district-level data on population and demographics;

while data was also extracted by the Department for the study area (census block area) as

shown in Figure 4.40. The statistics data was further extracted by islands, for P. Timbun

Mata and P. Bait.

4-68 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.40 Census block area used during the application of data from the Statistics Department (indicated in yellow rectangle).

Description of Existing Environment

4-69

4.6.1.1 Socio-economic Survey Methodology A brief summary of the socio-economic survey approach is provided here in order to provide

background to the results presented in the subsequent sections. For further detail, refer to

Appendix G.

Study Area and Sample Size A total of 25 villages were surveyed with survey coverage as indicated in Figure 4.40. These

villages are grouped in zones according to the location of the villages with respect to the

project site as described in Table 4.5 and indicated in Figure 4.41.

The survey exercise was conducted from 28 October 2014 to 02 November 2013 and

sampled 592 households, which represents approximately 7% of the population above 20

years old; see Table 4.6. Male respondents represent about 4% of the study area male

population while, female respondents represent about 3% (Table 4.6).

Table 4.5 Zoning of villages within the study area

Village zone Villages Coverage extend

Zone 1 Kg. Pangi – Kg. Tg. Keramat Villages located on the mainland from the western boundary of the study area up to Sg. Segarong

Zone 2 Kg.Lihak – Kg. Tg. Kapor Mainland coastal villages from Sg. Segarong up to Tg. Kapor

Zone 3 Kg. Larapan – Kg. Tanduan Villages around the islands of P. Timbun Mata, P. Pababag, P. Bait, P. Larapan, P. Silawa, P. Selangan

Table 4.6 Number of respondents according to village

Village zone Surveyed villages Number of respondents

Male Female Total

Lihak – Lihak – Tg. Kapor

Kg. Tanjung Kapor 16 9 25

Kg. Bakong-Bakong 30 30 60

Kg. Sg. Bawang 11 4 15

Kg. Lihak Lihak 17 20 37

Kg. Selangan 2 0 2

Kg. Siaban 18 8 26

Kg. Batu Batu 11 10 21

Kg. Tampi Kapor 12 6 18

Kg. Galam Galam 3 0 3

Larapan - Tanduan Kg. Larapan 39 16 55

Kg. Tanduan 15 9 24

Kg. Silawa 14 7 21

Kg. Sumandeh 24 9 33

4-70 62800860-RPT-02

Village zone Surveyed villages Number of respondents

Male Female Total

Kg. Melantah 6 6 12

Kg. Pababag 6 6 12

Kg. Bakong Silawa 8 4 12

Kg. Limau Limau 14 3 17

Kg. Bait 24 8 32

Kg. Lingit-Lingitan 6 2 8

Pangi – Tg. Keramat Kg. Pangi Hujung 13 12 25

Kg. Pangi 6 7 13

Kg. Sappang 23 21 44

Kg. Pangi Tengah 19 19 38

Kg. Gading Gading 14 4 18

Kg. Tanjung Keramat

14 7 21

Total 365 227 592

Survey Methods The survey was conducted using structured interview for most of the respondents, while

focus group meetings were conducted at villages with a Bajau Laut ethnic majority, due to

local enumerators’ strong prejudice towards the Bajau Laut community. Focus group

sessions were conducted at Kg. Ligit-Ligitan and Kg. Tanjung Kapor, addressing specific

issues such as seaweed farming associated with the Bajau Laut communities.

Eight post-graduate enumerators from UMS, and twelve local enumerators were engaged to

conduct the face to face interviews using pre-prepared questionnaires. Purposive

convenience sampling was utilised in the selection of respondents though there are

instances where respondents were attained where a large crowd of curious villagers turned

up at the Ketua Kampung house during the briefing of the survey purpose.

Description of Existing Environment

4-71

Figure 4.41 Location of villages

4-72 62800860-RPT-02

4.6.2 Settlements

Figure 4.41 shows the settlements found within five (5) kilometre radius from the proposed

development area.

P. Bait has a total five (5) villages with basic amenities such as school, prayer house, jetties

and sundry shops (Photo 4.31 to Photo 4.35). One of the villages in P. Bait has a population

of approximately 500 people. Government funded houses were also constructed to support

the villagers in P. Bait.

Photo 4.31 Kg. Tg. Kapor

Description of Existing Environment

4-73

Photo 4.32 Kg. Tg. Kapor jetty.

Photo 4.33 Kg. Parang Tengah located on northwest side of P. Timbun Mata.

4-74 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 4.34 Kg. Pangi Hujung, on the mainland west of P. Timbun Mata.

Photo 4.35 Bajau Laut settlement on P. Timbun Mata.

Description of Existing Environment

4-75

4.6.3 Demographic Profile

Semporna District with a land area size of approximately 7,224 km2 is surrounded by a large

number of islands. Based on the Population and Housing Census of Malaysia (2010), the

population of Semporna District stands at 133,164. Apart from the main population centre of

Semporna Township and other kampungs on the mainland and the islands where agriculture

is important, there are numerous fishing communities living in houses on stilts along the

smaller islands, sandbars and over coral reefs.

Focusing on the SEIA study area, the population in 2010 was 17,572 for the study area

(census block area) shown in Figure 4.40, with a total of 2,589 households and 2,777 living

quarters (refer to Table 4.7). The average household size in the study area is 7 people.

The population of P. Bait and P. Timbun Mata is 1,740 and 377 respectively /23/. The

population in the study area constitutes 13% of the total population of the Semporna district

(Table 4.8). The number of households in P. Bait and P. Timbun Mata is 215 and 71,

respectively.

Table 4.7 Total population by sex, household and living quarters in Study area /23/

Area Population Number of Households

Living quarters

Total Male Female

Study area 17,572 8,968 (51%)

8,604 (49%)

2,589 2,777

Table 4.8 Total population by sex, households and living (Pulau Timbun Mata & Pulau Bait) /23/

Area Population Number of Households

Living quarters

Total Male Female

P. Bait 1,740 889 851 215 211

P. Timbun Mata 377 203 174 71 76

4.6.3.1 Household Size The information on household size in the study area is based on the information provided by

the socioeconomic survey respondents. The majority of respondents (46%) indicated a

family size of six to ten people per household as shown in Table 4.9. This is quite consistent

with 2010 National census which state Sabah’s average household size is 5.88 persons.

Table 4.9 Household size according to village zones

Number of Family Members

Number of respondents

Total Pangi - Tg.

Keramat Lihak – Tg.

Kapor Larapan - Tanduan

1 – 5 55

34.0 %

55

37.9%

90

31.6%

200

33.8%

6 – 10 91

56.2%

56

38.6%

125

43.9%

272

45.9%

4-76 62800860-RPT-02

Number of Family Members

Number of respondents

Total Pangi - Tg.

Keramat Lihak – Tg.

Kapor Larapan - Tanduan

11 – 15 12

7.4%

24

16.6%

49

17.2%

85

14.4%

16 – 20 3

1.9%

6

4.1%

9

3.2%

18

3.0%

21 – 25 0

0.0%

3

2.1%

7

2.5%

10

1.7%

26 – 30 1

0.6%

1

0.7%

0

0.0%

2

0.3%

31 – 35 0

0.0%

0

0.0%

5

1.8%

5

0.8%

Total 162

100.0%

145

100.0%

285

100.0%

592

100.0%

4.6.3.2 Age Structure The 2010 census data indicates a young demographic profile with around 39% of the total

population in the study area being below 15 years of age, while those above 54 years of age

constitute 6% of the total population. The population between 15 – 54 years of age, which

represents the working age group, constitute about 55% (Figure 4.42). The considerably

high percentage of young people in the project area indicates low out-migration of the people

from the area. Contributing factors may be related to low education level and skills.

A similar pattern is seen at the project site, i.e., P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait, where the

majority of the population in the two islands are below 15 years of age followed by the 25 –

54 year age group (Figure 4.43).

Figure 4.42 Distribution of the population according to age group in the study area

39% (6,892)

22% (3,858)

33% (5,828)

3% (519)

3% (505)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

0-14 15-24 25-54 55-64 65 years andover

Pe

rce

nta

ge (

%)

Age group

Description of Existing Environment

4-77

Figure 4.43 Distribution of the population according to age group (Project site).

4.6.3.3 Gender Ratio Table 4.10 shows that the male and female ratio from the study area is 1: 0.95. The male

and female in the study area are represented in the socio economic survey about 4.1% and

2.6%, respectively.

Table 4.10 Representation of Male-Female, Households and Living Quarters in Project Site- Semporna, Sabah, Malaysia, 2010 compared to number of respondents

Population Male % Female % Ratio

Project area

17,572 8,968 51.0 8,604 49.0 1:0.95

Field survey

592 365

(4.07%)

62.0 227

(2.6%)

38.0 1:0.62

4.6.3.4 Ethnic Composition and Citizenship The Bajau people are the largest ethnic group within Semporna. Based on the census data,

the Bajau also form the largest ethnic group in the project area (54%) followed by Other

Bumiputera (7%), see Table 4.11 /23/. The two islands where the aquaculture operation will

take place namely P. Bait and P. Timbun Mata are almost exclusively Bajau (98%, see Table

4.12). The Bajau, Suluk-Tausug and Bajau Laut ethnic groups are both found in the

Southern Philippines and the coastal areas of Semporna, Lahad Datu and Kunak. This is

due to the historically porous border and the short distance between two countries.

705

344

559

57 75

146 81

135

10 5 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0-14 15-24 25-54 55-64 65 years andover

No

. of

ind

ivid

ual

s

Age group

P. Bait P. Timbun Mata

4-78 62800860-RPT-02

Table 4.11 Ethnic composition and citizenship in the project site in 2010 as sourced from Population and Housing Census of Malaysia for the study area.

Ethnic group Count Proportion (%)

Citizen/ Non-Citizen

Melayu 97 11,168 (63.5%)

KadazanDusun 66

Bajau 9,459

Murut -

Other Bumiputera 1,273

Chinese 22

Indian -

Lain-lain 251

Non – citizen 6,404 6,404 (36.4%)

Total 17,572 17,572

Table 4.12 Total population by ethnic group, for P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait, Semporna. Source: Department of Statistics.

Ethnic group Count Citizen/ Non-Citizen

P. Bait P. Timbun Mata

Melayu - - 1,740 (86%)

Kadazan Dusun - 2

Bajau 1,423 288

Murut - -

Other Bumiputera 57 57

Chinese - 2

Indian - -

Lain-lain - 1

Non – citizen 260 27 287

Total 1,740 377

A significant portion (36%) of the people from the project area and its impact zones are non-

citizens (Table 4.11). During the field survey, the respondents self-identified by race and

ethnicity rather than citizenship.

Almost all (95.1%) of the respondents belong to the Bajau ethnic group, constituting more

than 90%, while the rest belong to Suluk (4.1%), Bugis (0.3%) and Tidong (0.5%) (Table

4.13). It is common for villages to have more than one ethnic group living in the same village,

though the Bajaus in the project area seem to portray a sense of exclusiveness where they

Description of Existing Environment

4-79

consider themselves superior to other ethnic group especially the Bajau Laut that are

normally associated with the general Bajau group. The tendency of one ethnic group to

disassociate from other groups may be related to way of livelihood, distribution or

competition in economic position.

Sea-faring Bajau Laut (Sama Dilaut) are nomadic and maintain very traditional lifestyles

living either in temporary shacks or in their boats (lepa). The Bajau have a more diversified

subsistence economy than the Bajau Laut, and engage in small scale agriculture, fishing and

small scale businesses to provide for basic domestic needs /24/.

Table 4.13 Respondents’ ethnicity (number of respondents)

Respondent’s ethnicity

Villages Zone

Total Pangi – Tg. Keramat

Lihak – Tg. Kapor

Larapan – Tanduan

Bajau 149

92.0%

140

96.6%

274

96.1%

563

95.1%

Suluk 12

7.4%

1

0.7%

11

3.9%

24

4.1%

Bugis 1

0.6%

1

0.7%

0

0.0%

2

0.3%

Tidong 0

0.0%

3

2.1%

0

0.0%

3

0.5%

Total 162

100.0%

145

100.0%

285

100.0%

592

100.0%

As highlighted in the thesis of Helen Brundt /25/, a researcher of Semporna socioeconomics,

the majority of the Bajau Laut people are stateless people belonging to neither Philippines

nor Malaysia. The Bajau Laut came into Sabah in the 1970’s fleeing civil war in the Southern

Philippines. This combined with the nomadic lifestyle of the Bajau Laut, prevented many of

the Bajau Laut children from being registered as Malaysian Citizens. Yet these stateless and

undocumented people consider no place but Sabah as their home /25/.

4.6.3.5 Education and Literacy Rate The level of education among survey respondents is significantly low. About a third of

respondents (34.8%) and 43% of women respondents have no formal schooling experience.

Another quarter has only primary level schooling experience. Though 36.4% managed to

continue their studies at secondary level, only 1% attained a tertiary education. Female

respondents have significantly lower education levels.

Literacy rates among respondents stood at 73.5%. This is about 20% lower than national

level at 93%. The literacy rate of male respondents is approximately 10% higher at 77.3%

compared to only 67.4% for female respondents.

As expected, the literacy rate among younger respondents (below 40 years) is better at over

80% compared to those above 40. However, the fact that 16.4% of respondents 20 years

old and below are illiterate is alarming.

4-80 62800860-RPT-02

4.6.4 Occupation and Source of Livelihood / Income

More than half of the respondents (53%) are involved in water-based occupations such as

fisherman, boatman and seaweed farming. As shown in Figure 4.44, overall the respondents

indicated that fishing is the most important occupation (59%). This is followed by farming at

29% which could be higher if oil palm and rubber smallholders (2%) are also included in this

occupation sector. Fishing activities and fishing grounds are discussed in further detail in

Section 4.6.5 below.

Women are equally involved in productive tasks, with most of them contributing in the home-

based sector such as fish processing (sorting, salted fish etc.) and small-scale businesses.

As the discussion on occupation also takes into account views of respondents on their fellow

villagers, these respondents estimated that there are about 1.5% of the villagers involved in

seaweed farming, concentrated in the waters around Pulau Ligit-Ligitan where the Farmers’

Association of Semporna works with locals for seaweed cultivation as well as in the more

suitable areas for seaweed cultivation which are located outside the project area. Other

reported occupations include construction and factory workers and small-scale business.

About 6% of the respondents are un-employed.

Figure 4.44 Overall results on occupation of the respondents

As mentioned above, the majority of the respondents reported fisheries activities as

important source of livelihood. The households were also interviewed on their source of

income with results showing that 34% of their income comes from fishery which correlates

with the important occupations discussed above. Income from farming contributes about

20% followed by small-scale business and odd-jobs in construction constituting 6% and 5%,

respectively. Other incomes include the following:

Smallholder (oil palm / rubber) (4%)

Remittance (3%)

Seaweed farming (2%)

Government service (1%)

Transportation (1%)

Factory worker (1%)

6%

59%

29%

No work

Fishermen

Housewife

Farmer

Smallholder (oilpalm/rubber)

Small-scale business

Seaweed farmer

Construction worker

Factory worker

Description of Existing Environment

4-81

Head of village (1%)

Chef (1%)

Handicraft (less than 1%)

Figure 4.45 Sources of income reported by the survey respondents.

Fishing is seen as the most important source of livelihood (69.5%) for those who live on

islands such as Pulau Bait, Larapan and Timbun Mata as well for those living along the coast

between Kg. Pangi to Kg. Keramat (60.5%). Fishing however was reported as secondary for

the Lihak-lihak - Tanjung Kapor zone where agricultural activities are more important

(56.6%) as a source of income. About 65% of the respondents engage in fishing, and 50%

sell their catch for income (Table 4.14). These percentages indicate that fishing is indeed a

very important income generation activities for community in the project site. Among the

reported problems faced by the fishermen are lack of equipment to conduct fisheries

activities, weather, sea robbery and limited depth of water in the study area.

Table 4.14 Percentage of fish sold for income

Percentage of fish sold for income

Number of respondents

Percentage (%)

0% (own use) 93 15.7

10 – 100% 294 49.7

Not relevant 205 34.6

Total 592 100.0

Farming related activities are more important in Zone 2 (Lihak-lihak – Tanjung Kapor) and

Zone 3 (Larapan- Tanduan) with about 69% and 46% respectively of respondents involved in

farming activities (Table 4.15). Only about 27% of Zone 1 respondents are involved in

farming. Field observation shows that farming in Lihak-lihak- Tanjung Kapor is closely

associated with cash crop faming, particularly oil palm, while in the island communities

4-82 62800860-RPT-02

farming is mostly for subsistence with varieties of vegetables including tapioca being

cultivated.

Table 4.15 Respondents involved in farming against village zone

Village zone Villages Percentage (%)

Zone 1 Kg. Pangi – Kg. Tg. Keramat 27.2

Zone 2 Kg.Lihak – Kg. Tg. Kapor 69.0

Zone 3 Kg. Larapan – Kg. Tanduan 45.6

Photo 4.36 to Photo 4.39 shows some of the occupations and source of livelihood / income

reported by the respondents in the study area.

Photo 4.36 Women also engage in productive tasks although they may not be reported as such.

Description of Existing Environment

4-83

Photo 4.37 Fish processed and being dried for subsequent sale.

Photo 4.38 A seaweed farmer tending his lines at Kg Ligit-Ligitan

4-84 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 4.39 Boat making at Kg. Sumandeh

Youth Interest in Traditional Fishing About 40% of the respondents believe that the youth are still interested in traditional fishing.

Another 35% respondents believed that the youth are no longer interested in traditional

fishing, however, they are of the opinion that this way of fishing will still remain an important

income generating activity due to the fact that majority of the youth in the study area have

low education level and skills leaving them with limited choice of work not to mention that

presently there is lack of economic opportunities in the district.

The survey showed that about 26% of the youth’s occupation in the study area is fishing.

Nonetheless, indications are that the younger generation are increasingly looking for

livelihood opportunities that bring a more stable and better income compared to traditional

fishing as a means to improve standard of living for the individual as well as the household.

Table 4.16 Youth interest in traditional fishing

Response Number of respondents Percentage (%)

Yes 233 39.4

No 206 34.8

Not sure 153 25.8

Total 592 100.0

Description of Existing Environment

4-85

4.6.5 Fisheries

Fisheries activities in Sabah can be categorised as traditional and commercial fisheries.

Traditional fishing gears, usually operating from small artisanal fishing boats, includes hook

and line, traps and spears while commercial gears include purse seiners and driftnets/27/.

Commercial fishing is not widely carried out near the islands of P. Timbun Mata or P. Bait

due to shallow waters; however small amounts do occur around Semporna /28/ using large

vessels for live reef fish trade and fish landing for commercially valued fish such as tuna /26/.

Gears involved in commercial fisheries include gill nets, seine nets and trawls which are

normally mechanically operated on boats /27/.

Photo 4.40 Fishing trawlers moving towards the eastern channel about 2 nm from P. Timbun Mata (Kasi, 2013)

The majority of the fisher population in the Semporna islands are involved in traditional or

reef fisheries. Collection of fisheries resources by hand /27/ or through the method of

gleaning in shallow water also occurs. Fishermen who adopt traditional fishing methods

depend on their catch for personal consumption or sale. For example, most of the Bajau and

Suluk people living on the islands in Semporna harvest marine resources for personal

consumption, making them part-time fishermen /27/.

Semporna is also well known to be the centre for fishing and fish trading activities which

relies on the catch of seine fishers and to some extent traditional fishers /27/. Fishers from

the nearby islands are mostly traditional fishers who use hook and line, gillnets, traps and

spears as their fishing gear /28/. Among the catch landed in Semporna are groupers, coral

trouts, rabbitfishes and other reef fishes which are caught in the south of Darvel Bay, Ligitan

reefs and other reef areas of surrounding islands /27/ (Photo 5.6). However, due to over

exploitation and to some extent destructive fishing such as fish bombing, the fish population

has declined /28/. Other than fish, marine products such as seagrass, seaweed,

echinoderms and molluscs /28/ are also collected especially through the method of gleaning.

These are done mostly by women during low tide. Live reef fish trade also occurs in this

region as reef fishes can be seen in holding pens in restaurant and sometime in resorts on

the mainland as tourist attraction (Photo 5.7).

4-86 62800860-RPT-02

4.6.5.1 Local Fishing Grounds The preferred fishing grounds around the project area as reported by the socioeconomic

survey respondents are shown in Figure 4.46. These areas include all fishing grounds

irrespective of type of fishing gear or catch. Waters to the east of P. Timbun Mata, around P.

Selangan, P. Larapan and P. Sebangkat and in between Kg. Tg. Keramat and P. Timbun

Mata appear to be preferred fishing grounds based on the number of respondents; likely due

to higher catch.

Figure 4.46 Preferred fishing grounds within the project area

Description of Existing Environment

4-87

Photo 4.41 Artisanal fishing (laying fish pots) around P. Timbun Mata.

Photo 4.42 Fish pots are a common fishing method in the area (Photo credit: Dr. Paul Porodong)

4-88 62800860-RPT-02

4.6.6 Mariculture

As recently as November 2012, a Sabah Seaweed Cluster Project has been launched in

Semporna town to become part of a high-impact sector by 2020. It is based on the plans for

the National Key Economic Area (NKEA) project, whereby Semporna has been recognised

as a national seaweed producing district. To further solidify the intention, the government

has also allocated RM46 million to Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) to implement a

seaweed mini estate project and RM8.3 million to approximately 300 participants of the

seaweed cluster project under the Agriculture Department. The project helmed by UMS will

cover up to eleven (11) groups in Semporna, Kunak, Lahad Datu and Tawau and under

Agriculture Department, the cluster project will support up to four (4) groups /29/.

Mariculture activities such as pearl farming, seaweed farming, fish cage culture and Darden

Lobster Trial Farm can be found in the SEIA study area (Figure 4.47). Pearl culturing

undertaken by Meiko Pearl Co. is established at P. Timbun Mata and P. Silumpat /30/.

Seaweed cultivation is concentrated around southwest of P. Timbun Mata, West and

southeast of P. Pababag as well as waters surrounding P. Selakan. Suitable sites have also

been identified by Fisheries Development Authority of Malaysia (LKIM) at the Northeast of P.

Timbun Mata (3,000 acres), South and East of P. Pababag (2,500 acres) as well as waters

surrounding P. Silawa and southwest of P. Larapan (Figure 4.48) /31/.

Figure 4.47 Mariculture activities in the vicinity of the Project.

Description of Existing Environment

4-89

Figure 4.48 Potential seaweed culture areas as planned by LKIM /31/

4-90 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 4.43 Seaweed farming (Photo credit: Dr. Paul Porodong)

4.6.6.1 Artificial Reef An artificial reef project (Figure 4.49) has been proposed to Department of Fisheries at Kg.

Pababag, Semporna which will be carried out in 2014 under the leadership of Mr. Jameri

Abd. Sarah, planned Chairman of AJK Tukun Tiruan Kg. Pababag. It will be a joint effort

between five fishing villages which involve 300 fishermen. The planned artificial reef will be

located 1.30 km from Kg. Pababag and 0.65 km from the shoreline.

Description of Existing Environment

4-91

Figure 4.49 Location of the proposed artificial reef.

4.6.7 Sites of Socio-cultural Significance

Most villages have their own burial grounds nearby their respective settlements. On P. Bait,

it has been reported that burial grounds can be found adjacent to Kg. Melantah. At Tg.

Kapor, burial grounds are scattered next to village houses (Figure 4.50, Photo 4.44 and

Photo 4.45). No other cultural or historical landmarks were reported during socio economic

survey.

4-92 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.50 Burial grounds within the study area.

Description of Existing Environment

4-93

Photo 4.44 Burial grounds at Tg. Kapor behind village houses.

Photo 4.45 Burial ground at Tg. Kapor next to a village house.

4-94 62800860-RPT-02

4.6.8 Tourism

The tourism industry in Semporna has taken off since the 1990s and remains the focus point

of economic development in the district. The main attraction is dive tourism due to the

region’s rich marine biodiversity, in particular, the internationally renowned Sipadan Island.

The island was gazetted a Marine Park in 2004, together with the Tun Sakaran Marine Park.

Numerous dive resorts have established on the islands, in particular southeast of Semporna,

to cater for the tourists (Figure 4.51). There are a number of resorts in Semporna town,

however the majority of tourists only pass through the town and stay in the dive resorts on

the islands.

There is currently no tourism infrastructure available on P. Timbun Mata, P. Bait or

surrounding islands. There are however diving tours available for the island.

Figure 4.51 Hotels/ resorts in islands of Semporna.

Most scuba diving activities take place in Sipadan, Mabul and other islands in the area.

As shown in Figure 4.52, the Semporna Islands Project (1998-2001) prepared a zoning plan

for the Semporna Islands Park based on features of interest identified in the islands (Table

4.17). The management plan for the study was approved prior to the park being established

in June 2004.

Description of Existing Environment

4-95

Table 4.17 Reef features and planned sea-based activities within the Tun Sakaran Park under the Semporna Islands Project (1998-2001)

Island location Reef features of interest

Lagoon reefs Moderately attractive. Sheltered, safe conditions. Some unusual species and growth forms present.

Bodgaya outer reef North side reef moderately attractive, with mainly robust growth forms. Lower slopes and deep cliffs of particular interest.

Boheydulang outer reef Moderately attractive, with mainly robust growth forms.

Southern rim reef Moderately attractive, with mixture of growth forms.

Sebangkat-Selakan reef Moderately attractive with the most interesting sites on the West and North side.

Maiga reef Moderately attractive with the most interesting sites on the North and East side

Sibuan reef Many attractive areas, often with clear water

Church reef Many attractive areas, often with clear water.

Mantabuan reef Many attractive areas, often with clear water.

Mantabuan bank reef Many attractive areas, often with clear water.

Kapikan reef Many attractive areas, often with clear water.

Sebangkat Seaweed farming

Selakan Seaweed farming, Giant clam farm

Figure 4.52 Zoning plan proposed for the Semporna Islands Park during the Semporna Islands Project (1998-2001)

4-96 62800860-RPT-02

4.7 Land use

The overview of land use on Pulau Timbun Mata, Pulau Bait and Tanjung Kapor is shown in

Figure 4.53. Current land use is mainly rural with low density of development and economic

activities which includes residential areas, forest reserve and small scale agriculture areas.

Pulau Timbun Mata is gazetted as forest reserve under Class I (Protection) and Class V

(Mangrove), whilst only the mangrove forest area at Pulau Bait is gazetted as forest reserve.

No other government gazetted landuses are known in the surrounding area.

There are more villages at Pulau Bait compared to Pulau Timbun Mata, given Pulau Timbun

Mata is a restricted area for development due to its Class I Forest Reserve status. There are

several primary schools within the vicinity of project area; SK Pulau Bait, SK Pulau Larapan,

SK Pulau Pababag and SK Pulau Larapan to accommodate students from the nearby

islands. As most villages are located along the shoreline and the main mode of

transportation for the locals is small boat, there is no paved road on the islands to connect

one village to another.

Twenty-six villagers from P. Bait have filed land applications with the Department of Land

and Survey for the area within the Operations Base. They have also cultivated the land with

mixed horticulture such as oil palm, tapioca and coconut.

Kg. Tanjung Kapor is home to both stilt housing as well as houses on land. There is a fish

landing and fish market site at the village. The mangroves growing on either side of Kg.

Tanjung Kapor are classified as Mangrove Forest Reserve Class V.

Description of Existing Environment

4-97

Figure 4.53 Overview of land use at project area.

4-98 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.54 Cadastral parcels on P. Bait

Description of Existing Environment

4-99

Figure 4.55 Cadastral parcels on mainland Tg. Kapor.

4.8 Maritime Uses

This section discusses maritime (sea-spaces) uses, including commercial shipping and local

transport. Fishing grounds and aquaculture areas have been discussed separately in

Section 4.6.6.

The current marine traffic comprises fishing boats, bagangs, small passenger boats, cargo

vessels, barges, and tug boats operating at Kunak and Semporna.

Fishing boats and bagangs form the bulk of the marine traffic with more than 40% and 21%

respectively of the overall traffic in the study area.

The dimensions of the vessels are shown in Table 4.18 below.

4-100 62800860-RPT-02

Table 4.18 Dimensions of vessels

Types of Vessel Dimensions

LOA (m) Draft (m) Beam (m) DWT GRT

Fishing Boat 18 3 8 100 25

Bagang 20 1 20 20 15

Tourist / Passenger Boat

30 2 6 100 25

Cargo Vessel 60 5 20 8000 2000

Oil Barge 35 3 20 1500 600

Tug 18 3 10 250 100

4.8.1 Commercial Shipping

The total number of vessel calls at Kunak Port (2009 – 2012) is shown in Table 4.19 below.

For year 2012, the total number of vessel calls at Kunak Port is 215.

Table 4.19 Vessel Calls at Kunak Port by Type (2009-2012) at Wharf (Source: SPSB)

Type of Vessel at wharf

LOA (m) No. of Calls per year

2009 2010 2011 2012

Local Craft 46-117 95 114 92 68

Tanker 58-195 139 120 136 133

Dry Bulk 79-105 - 1 9 14

TOTAL 234 235 237 215

The total number of vessel calls at Lahad Datu Port (2009 – 2012) is shown in Table 4.20

below. For year 2012, the total number of vessel calls at Lahad Datu Port is 541 at wharf.

Table 4.20 Vessel Calls at Lahad Datu Port by Type (2009-2012) at Wharf (Source: SPSB)

Type of Vessel at wharf

LOA (m) No. of Calls per year

2009 2010 2011 2012

Conventional 66-107 35 45 44 42

Dry Bulk 91-190 130 174 137 142

Local Craft 21-72 60 109 106 108

Palletised 65-128 13 9 7 7

Tanker 67-149 294 267 260 232

Container 161-170 9 - - 10

TOTAL 541 604 554 541

Description of Existing Environment

4-101

The total number of vessel calls at Lahad Datu Port (2009 – 2012) is shown in Table 4.21

below. For year 2012, the total number of vessel calls at Lahad Datu Port is 519 at anchor.

Table 4.21 Statistics of Vessel Calls at Lahad Datu Port (2009-2012) at Anchor (Source: SPSB)

Type of Vessel at wharf

LOA (m) No. of Calls per year

2009 2010 2011 2012

Conventional 61-189 50 65 49 29

Dry Bulk 66-185 11 15 18 14

Local Craft 24-98 291 262 270 354

Tanker 58-183 116 116 99 122

TOTAL 468 458 436 519

According to Jabatan Laut Malaysia, no marine accidents have occurred near/around Pulau

Timbun Mata, Semporna since 2009.

4.8.2 Local Transport

The main routes used by local villagers (fishing vessels and local passenger boats) and

other small coastal vessels are shown in Figure 4.56 below and appear to be clear of the

proposed Aquaculture Zone at the northern portion. However, the route from Semporna will

impact on the eastern boundary of the project Aquaculture Zone indicated in the figure.

Local villagers who were interviewed as part of the socioeconomic survey for this SEIA were

also asked to indicate their top three navigation routes around P. Timbun Mata. Most of the

local traffic is concentrated in the channel between the mainland and P. Timbun Mata, and

West of P. Timbun Mata (Figure 4.57).

4-102 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 4.56 Common local fishing craft routes (Extract from chart MAL 8503).

Description of Existing Environment

4-103

Figure 4.57 Navigation routes indicated by survey respondents. Numbers indicate the number of respondents.

4-104 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 4.46 A typical small boat ferrying people to and from their villages on the islands.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-1

5 Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5.1 Introduction

This section describes the impact prediction and evaluation carried out for the identified key

environmental issues per the scoping exercise as described in the TOR and taking into

account inputs and comments from the EPD TOR review panel. These issues are listed in

Table 5.1 below. This section focuses on the impacts and their significance, while the next

sections focus on mitigation and monitoring measures (Sections 6 and 7 respectively).

Table 5.1 Key impacts as identified in the TOR

Pri

ori

ty I

ss

ue

s

Marine water and sediment quality

Impacts from release and deposition of nutrients/ organic matter from lobster secretion, excretion (faeces) and feed wastes during operations. This may also have residual impacts during abandonment. Nutrient releases are the key issue of concern, however, other water quality impacts such as oil spills and leaks, application of anti-foulants on cages, suspended sediments released from cage cleaning are also issues to note

Solid wastes

A large amount of solid wastes may be generated from cage maintenance (e.g. discarded nets, etc.), biological wastes, machinery servicing and from domestic workers areas at the operational base if not appropriately managed.

Loss of mangrove

Mangrove areas within the Mangrove Forest Reserve at Tg. Kapor and mangroves on P. Bait will be affected due to the jetty /operations base and bridge footprint.

Fauna impacts

Terrestrial and marine wildlife may be subject to increased hunting/ harvesting pressure by farm workers targeting endangered or locally rare species such as giant clams, sea cucumber, etc. This is an issue of concern primarily during operations but may also occur to a limited extent during construction.

Socio-cultural conflicts

Concentration of workers in Semporna due to the project may result in over-stretched public amenities, for example, water supply.

Impact on tourism

The presence of the project may conflict with existing and future potential nature tourism activities around P. Timbun Mata; i.e. diving. On the other hand, entrepreneurs could also turn this situation into a positive tourism opportunity by involving farm visits as part of tours.

Iss

ue

s o

f N

ote

Sewage and waste water discharges

Discharges, in particular from the operations base and workers quarters on the production units may result in water quality impacts that affect the marine environment.

Noise Noise from marine and land traffic at jetty/ bridge, operations base and production units (including underwater noise impacts) during construction may affect terrestrial and marine fauna and local communities nearby.

Lighting Lighting over the large area of the farm during operations and construction may cause impacts to marine fauna as well as navigation impacts.

5-2 62800860-RPT-02

Hydrodynamics and morphological impacts

The effects of the following on local current patterns and potential subsequent morphological impacts:

Cage structures – the presence of the cages in the water will cause drag and alter the local current patterns around the cages. Given the proposed 320,064 cages, this may cumulatively have a significant impact.

Effect of jetty/ bridge structures to a lesser extent

Land and maritime use conflicts

Potential land and sea space use conflicts with local communities, including:

Loss of fishing grounds

Impact on navigational routes

Other aquaculture developments

Marine traffic and navigation impacts

Physical obstruction from cages, bridge and jetties during operations

Increased traffic during operations (for feeding, maintenance)

Increased construction traffic

Employment and entrepreneurial opportunities

Potential beneficial impact

Skill training and mechanisms to ensure local communities benefit.

Indirect employment from economic spinoff of the iLAP.

Rem

ain

ing

Is

su

es

Removal of seabed habitat

Within anchoring and mooring areas of the cages

Within bridge and jetty pile footprints

Aesthetic impacts

Visual impact of farm/ cages, in particular during project operations

Air quality Impacts during construction

Suspended sediments

Impact of releases to the marine environment during piling for the bridge and jetty construction

Introduction of diseases / foreign strains

Potential introduction and spread of diseases from the farmed animals to wild populations during operations

Food security No trash fish will be used on the farms; commercial pellets will be used to feed the lobsters and hence no food security issues arise from the use of trash fish.

iLAP workers may forage for seafood in and around the proposed farming area which may reduce availability for local communities.

Land traffic impacts during construction

Increased vehicular traffic may cause some impact to local communities on the mainland.

Soil erosion and runoff

Effects of sediments generated from land based construction activities, i.e. earthworks for access road and operations base on P. Bait on water quality and marine habitats.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-3

5.2 Summary of Impacts

5.2.1 Impact Significance

A summary of the evaluated impacts described in this section is given in Table 5.2 below.

Table 5.2 Summary of evaluated impacts and impact significance.

Impact Score Impact Significance

1 Impact of farming (cages) on water quality -C Moderate negative impact

2 Impact of cage cleaning on water quality -B Minor negative impact

3 Impacts on water quality during earthworks

-A Slight Negative impact

4 Impacts on water quality during marine construction works

-B Minor Negative impact

5 Particulate matter and Organic Carbon during operations (sedimentation and sediment enrichment)

-A Slight Negative impact

6 Heavy metals and other pollutants (sedimentation and sediment enrichment)

-A Slight negative impact

7 Hydrodynamics and morphological impacts from cages

-B Minor Negative impact

8 Hydrodynamics and morphological impacts due to jetty and bridge

-A Slight negative impact

9 Solid Wastes during construction and operations

-D Significant negative impact

11 Sewage and domestic waste water discharges

-B Minor Negative impact

12 Construction noise -A Slight negative impact

13 Air Quality -A Slight negative impact

15 Impacts to coral reefs due to nutrient discharges from cages

-C Moderate negative impact

16 Impacts to corals from anchoring and mooring

-A Slight negative impact

17 Impact to corals from bridge and jetty footprint

-A Slight negative impact

18 Impacts on seagrass due to operational water quality

-A Slight negative impact

19 Impacts to benthos from cage deposition -A Slight negative impact

20 Loss of mangrove due to project footprint -A Slight negative impact

21 Impacts on mangrove due to nutrient loading from cages.

N No Change

5-4 62800860-RPT-02

Impact Score Impact Significance

22 Impacts on mangrove due to sedimentation

-A Slight Negative Impact

23 Farm workers and wildlife interactions -C Moderate Negative Impact

23 Impacts on fish fauna +C Moderate positive Impact

24 Habitat Exclusion impacts on megafauna -B Moderate negative impact

25 Vessel strikes and Noise impact on megafauna- Operational Phase

-D Significant Negative Impact

26 Construction noise impacts on megafauna -A Slight negative impact

27 Lethal entanglement of megafauna during operational phase

-C Minor negative impact

28 Biosecurity risk -C Moderate negative impact

29 Impacts on terrestrial flora -A Slight negative impact

30 Impacts on terrestrial fauna -C Moderate negative impact

31 Aesthetic impacts -C Moderate negative impact

32 Project impacts on tourism -C Moderate negative impact

33 Project impacts on fishing +D Significant positive impact

34 Impact of PUs (cages) on navigation -B Minor negative impact

35 Impact of bridge and jetty on navigation -A Slight negative impact

36 Impact on public security +D Significant positive impact

37 Impacts on land use and ownership -A Slight negative impact

38 Employment opportunities +D Significant positive impact

39 Business opportunities +E Major positive impact

40 Impact on pearl and seaweed farming N No change

41 Demographic impacts -C Moderate Negative impact

42 Pressure on public amenities -C Moderate negative impact

14 Water Demand -C Moderate negative impact

43 Impacts on public health and nuisance during construction

-B Minor negative impact

44 Impact on food security +D Significant positive impact

45 Wider socioeconomic impact +D Significant positive Impact

46 Project Abandonment -B Minor Negative Impact

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-5

5.2.2 Zone of Impact

The predicted zones of impact (i.e. spatial areas affected by a particular issue) are described

in Section 5.4, Section 5.5 and Section 5.7 and illustrated Figure 5.1 below.

Table 5.3 Outline of affected areas (zones of impact) for each identified impact.

No. Zone of Impacts Location Distance from Project Predicted Impacts

1 Water quality impacts (Nutrient Releases from Cages)

North of P. Timbun Mata

Up to approximately 650 m north of iLAP; between 0-1.3 km northeast of iLAP and between 168 m and 394 m southeast of iLAP.

Based on the threshold of 0.015 mg/l ammonium concentration as a minor impact; the zone of minor impact may extend to corals along the north-eastern side of Pulau Timbun Mata.

2. Phytoplankton Impacts (potential algal bloom)

Channel between P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait

Waters between Kg. Parang Tengah (east of P. Timbun Mata) and iLAP area.

Based on the threshold of 0.01 mg/ l as minor impacts; the zone of minor impact is limited to the waters between Kg. Parang Tengah (east of P. Timbun Mata) and iLAP.

3 Sedimentation and Sediment Enrichment (Benthic impacts)

Aquaculture zone (waters of P. Timbun Mata)

Approximately 100 m from each PU, depending on location

Accumulation of organic

materials occurs primarily

under the farms, however,

are spread up to around 100

m from the PU. Such

sedimentation and sediment

enrichment can affect

benthic habitats such as

corals and seagrass.

Comparing the potential

impact area (i.e.

sedimentation above a

threshold of (>0.75

kg/m2/day, slight impact with

highest recorded impact

value at 3.0 kg/m2/day)

against the distribution of

corals and seagrass; it is

predicted that coral reefs in

the east and north east of P.

Timbun Mata will be

negatively affected within

slight impact category.

4. Cage impacts on Hydrodynamics

Aquaculture zone (waters of P. Timbun Mata)

Decrease in mean current speeds will impact up to 500 m beyond the project site, depending on the size and location of cages.

Minor negative impact

5-6 62800860-RPT-02

No. Zone of Impacts Location Distance from Project Predicted Impacts

5. Bridge impacts on hydrodynamics & morphology

Bridge layout at Tg. Kapor

Current speeds are reduced in a small area of mangroves at Tg. Kapor.

Sedimentation may potentially occur.

Slight negative impact; the rate of sedimentation is unlikely to be severe. Mangroves in their natural state thrive in accretionary environments and themselves contribute to the process.

6. Jetty impacts on hydrodynamics and morphology

Jetty on P. Bait - No Change

7. Noise Impacts –Operations Base

P. Bait 600 m from Operations Base, including:

SK P. Bait ~ 150 m from OB

Kg. Bait and Kg. Limau-Limau ~ 500 m from OB.

Predicted Maximum sound levels of 80 dB(A) at SK Bait above Permissible maximum Lmax50

Slight negative Impact

8. Noise Impacts – Bridge

P. Bait and Tg. Kapor

600 m from the Bridge Predicted Maximum sound levels of 62 dB(A) at SK Bait above; Permissible maximum Lmax50-Lmax90

Slight negative impact.

Noise Impacts-Jetty

P. Bait 200 m from the Jetty All within permissible levels of Permissible maximum Lmax50-Lmax90

Slight Negative Impact

9. Noise Impacts – Access Roads

Tg Kapor 200 m from the access road

All within permissible levels; Permissible maximum Lmax50-Lmax90

Slight negative Impact

10. Water quality impacts on Coral – ammonium concentration

127 ha of dense coral patches and 1,145 ha of sparse coral -fringing corals around P. Timbun Mata and P Bait.

Between 100 to 800 m of the project site with more concentration around the surrounding Northwest of the Production Units

Slight negative Impact to the corals within the minor impact zone of 15 µg/l to 30 µg/l

11 Sedimentation Impact from Earthworks on corals

Patches of dense coral cover (>50% live coral)

700m east to bridge landing area and strip of coral parallel to the mangrove at Tg Kapor.

Overlapping 0.03 ha coral patches within the jetty.

30-800 m west of the bridge landing area on P. Bait.

Slight negative impact

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-7

No. Zone of Impacts Location Distance from Project Predicted Impacts

12. Water quality impacts on seagrass- ammonium concentrations

Seagrass patches in the waters of P. Bait and P. Timbun Mata

Overlapping seagrass patches or along the border of the iLAP production zone.

Minor impact zone of 15 µg/l to 30 µg/l

Slight negative impact.

13. Direct Mangrove Loss

Mangrove areas within Tg. Kapor and P. Bait

Within the project footprint

Direct loss of 13.9 ha of mangroves, of which 7.9 ha is Mangrove Forest Reserve– Slight Negative Impact.

14. Vegetation Loss Vegetation on P. Bait

Within project footprint Minor impact, affecting mostly horticulture, hill and woodland covering an area of 50 ha.

15. Wildlife-Habitat Fragmentation

Mangrove in between access road/bridge and Tg. Kapor

Adjacent to bridge. Creation of 8.5 ha fragment of mangrove between Kg. Tg Kapor and the proposed road/ bridge– Moderate Negative Impact.

16. Fishing Activities Frequently visited fishing grounds within the aquaculture zone

Within project – primarily in the southeast.

Displacement of fishing grounds due to the aquaculture zone; however, fish will be attracted to the iLAP area with spill over to surroundings. – Moderate Negative Impact

17. Navigation for fishermen and public - PU

iLAP aquaculture zone

Within Project footprint Obstruction of navigation routes – Minor Negative impact

18. Navigation for fishermen and public – Jetty & Bridge

P. Bait and Tg. Kapor

Within Project footprint Slight negative impact within jetty and bridge area.

5-8 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 5.1 Zones of impact – all Project components.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-9

Figure 5.2 Zones of impact around P. Bait and Tg. Kapor.

5-10 62800860-RPT-02

5.3 Impact Evaluation Methodology

The Rapid Impact Assessment Matrix (RIAM), which considers the importance, magnitude or

severity, permanence, reversibility and cumulative effect for each potential environmental

impact is utilised for the assessment. This approach is similar to the EPD matrix, however,

with the addition of a magnitude criterion, which defines the scale or severity of the benefit or

dis-benefit of an impact. The RIAM is utilised as it provides a transparent method for

determining the overall impact significance of the proposal.

5.3.1.1 Evaluation Criteria The RIAM framework structures the assessment on five criteria which are grouped into two

categories as detailed below.

Group A Criteria There are two criteria within Group A:

A1: Importance of the condition, which is assessed against the spatial boundaries, or

human interests it will affect (Table 5.4); and

A2: Magnitude, which is defined as a measure of the scale or severity of benefits/dis-

benefit of an impact (Table 5.5).

Table 5.4 Importance of the condition – scoring, generic and project-specific definitions.

Score Definition Project-Specific Description

4 Important to national/international interests Malaysia as a whole and a cross-border effects to Philippines and Indonesia/ Coral Triangle

3 Important to State / national interests Tun Sakaran Marine Park/ Semporna district / Sabah / Malaysia

Effects government or other external stakeholders or other commercial sectors (e.g. tourism).

2 Important to areas immediately outside the local condition

Southern Darvel Bay/ adjacent mainland shorelines

Impacts extend to mainland villages adjacent to study area.

1 Important only to the local condition Pulau Timbun Mata and Pulau Bait and waters within Project site; Tg. Kapor area.

Impact will affect individuals and households in the study area.

0 No importance No importance/ not relevant

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-11

Table 5.5 Magnitude of the impact

Score Definition

+3 Major positive benefit (These impacts would be considered by society as constituting a major/ important, and usually result in severe or very severe effects – or, alternatively, beneficial or very beneficial ones)

+2 Significant improvement in status quo (These impacts are real, and would be viewed by society as constituting a fairly important change to the social environment)

+1 Improvement in status quo (These impacts have little real effect or not substantial, and would be viewed by society as constituting a fairly unimportant change to the social environment)

0 No change/status quo

-1 Negative change to status quo

-2 Significant negative dis-benefit or change

-3 Major dis-benefit or change

Group B Criteria Group B criteria are:

Permanence (B1)

This defines whether a condition is temporary or permanent and should be seen only as a

measure of the temporal status of the condition.

Reversibility (B2)

This defines whether the condition can be changed and is a measure of the control over the

effect of the condition. It should not be confused or equated with permanence.

Cumulativity (B3)

This is a measure of whether the effect will have a single direct impact or whether there will

be a cumulative effect over time, or a synergistic effect with other conditions.

The scale of each Group B criterion is shown in Table 5.6 below.

Table 5.6 Scale for Group B criteria.

Score Permanence (B1) Reversibility (B2) Cumulativity (B3)

1 No change/Not applicable

2 Temporary Reversible Non-cumulative/Single

3 Permanent Irreversible Cumulative/Synergistic

5.3.1.2 Score and Range System For each potential impact/ issue, an environmental score (ES) is calculated based on the

following formula:

ES = A1*A2 (B1+B2+B3)

5-12 62800860-RPT-02

The ES scores are then banded together into ranges as detailed in Table 5.7. The range

values span from major positive impact +E to major negative impacts -E.

Table 5.7 Range bands used for RIAM

RIAM Environmental Score (ES) Range Value (RV) Description of RV

72 to 108 E Major positive impact

36 to 71 D Significant positive impact

19 to 35 C Moderate positive impact

10 to 18 B Minor positive impact

1 to 9 A Slight positive impact

0 N No change/Status quo/Not applicable

-1 to -9 -A Slight negative impact

-10 to -18 -B Minor negative impact

-19 to -35 -C Moderate negative impact

-36 to -71 -D Significant negative impact

-72 to -108 -E Major negative impact

5.4 Impacts to the Physical Environment

Impacts to the physical environment include water quality, sediment, hydrodynamic impacts,

air and noise. The scoping exercise as summarised in Section 5.1 above has focused the

assessment on the following priority issues, issues of note and remaining issues for the

physical environment:

Priority Issues

Marine water and sediment quality.

Impacts from release and deposition of nutrients/ organic matter from lobster secretion, excretion (faeces) and feed wastes during operations. This may also have residual impacts during abandonment. Nutrient releases are the key issue of concern, however, other water quality impacts such as oil spills and leaks, application of anti-foulants on cages, suspended sediments released from cage cleaning are also issues to note

Solid wastes

A large amount of solid wastes may be generated from cage maintenance (e.g. discarded nets, etc.), biological wastes, machinery servicing and from domestic workers areas at the operational base.

Issues of Note

Sewage and waste water discharges

Discharges, in particular from the operations base and workers quarters on the production units may result in water quality impacts that affect the marine environment.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-13

Hydrodynamics and morphological impacts

The effects of the following on local current patterns and potentially subsequent morphological impacts:

Cage structures – the presence of the cages in the water will cause drag and alter the local current patterns around the cages. Given the proposed 320,000 cages, this may cumulatively have a significant impact.

Effect of jetty/ bridge structures to a lesser extent

Noise Noise from marine and land traffic at jetty/ bridge, operations base and production units (including underwater noise impacts) during construction may affect terrestrial and marine fauna and local communities nearby.

Remaining Issues

Air quality Impacts during construction

Suspended sediments

Impact of releases to the marine environment during piling for the bridge and jetty construction

Soil erosion and runoff

Effects of sediments generated from land based construction activities, i.e. earthworks for access road and operations base on P. Bait on water quality and marine habitats

5.4.1 Water Quality during Operations

The potential impacts of the proposed project in terms of water and sediment quality will

come from a number of sources during both the development phase of the project and the

operation phase. The key identified source of impact is nutrient releases from the cages;

detailed numerical modelling has been carried out to evaluate this priority issue as described

in Section 5.4.1.1 below. Water quality impacts arising from in-situ cage cleaning has also

been assessed in Section 5.4.1.2. Owing to the large number of cages, this has the potential

to be a large source of pollution; however, it is more readily controlled through appropriate

management practices compared to releases from the cages.

5.4.1.1 Nutrient Releases from Cages

Impact Prediction Methodology There are two main types of aquaculture related waste products created by the lobster

farming production units:

Particulate organic material in the form of lobster faeces and uneaten feed

Dissolved metabolic wastes from the lobsters, of which the predominant is nitrogen in

the form of ammonium.

The potential impacts on the surrounding water body sediments and habitats resulting from

these two sources of waste have been assessed by using the MIKE by DHI ECO Lab

simulation tool. ECO Lab is a generic tool for implementing aquatic ecosystem models that

are dynamically coupled to hydrodynamic models and can be used to simulate

environmental conditions such as water quality, eutrophication, toxic chemicals, heavy

metals contamination, and many other factors. The ECO Lab module simulates biochemical

processes and ecological interactions of different state variables as illustrated schematically

in Figure 5.3 below. The model used here focuses on nitrogen processes in the water

column, as ammonium is the primary soluble waste released directly from the cages into the

water column.

5-14 62800860-RPT-02

At low ambient concentrations, experimental evidence points to an enhanced effect of

ammonium availability on coral growth, but at higher concentrations it is considered toxic.

Note also that ammonium can also be rapidly taken up by benthic algae and phytoplankton

and lead to blooms of both. As a result, the other principal model output assessed within this

Section is chlorophyll a concentrations as a measure of phytoplankton biomass. The impacts

of the solids released from the cages are assessed in Section 5.4.3. Further details on the

model processes and assumptions are given in Appendix E.

Figure 5.3 A schematic of the main processes included in the ECO Lab model template used in the present study

As outlined in Section 3, the overall aquaculture area is divided into a number of production

zones (see Figure 5.4). The allocation of production across these zones within the iLAP is

shown in Table 5.8. The underlying assumption is that areas of low current flow will have

lower carrying capacities, and therefore stocking densities, than areas of stronger current

flow. Generally, areas of greater flow can assimilate and disperse farm wastes more easily

than areas of less current flow resulting in a higher capacity to grow lobsters sustainably (i.e.

before nutrients reach levels to impact on the surrounding environment e.g. corals or the

lobsters themselves).

Given the size of the project and the potential number of cages involved (320,000), it is

impossible to include each individual cage in the model. To facilitate the modelling process,

the total production of 18,000 tonnes was broken down into 300 blocks of cages

representing 60 tonnes of lobster production in each. Each of the “sources” indicated in

Figure 5.4 represents one cage block, i.e. 60 tonnes of lobster production.

To then investigate the likely impacts from the farming of up to a maximum of 18,000 tonnes

of lobster within the iLAP, a number of modelling scenarios were run where the locations of

the 300 blocks of cages was varied. This was done to obtain an optimised development

proposal across the previously defined production zones for the iLAP. The scenarios were

based on the need to meet the production goal and the necessity to avoid adverse impacts

on marine habitats, in particular corals.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-15

To model the nitrogen load from the cages, the following assumptions were used:

70% of the nitrogen in the feed to the animals is released into the water as ammonium.

Published literature indicates a range of 50 – 70% and the upper limit was used to

represent the worst-case scenario /1/.

Feed conversion ratio (FCR) nitrogen of 3:1 /2/. This includes uneaten feed and is

considered a conservative estimate.

Loading into the sediments was included as a mineralisation rate of 85% (i.e. 85% of the

nutrients in the seabed would be re-mineralised back into the water and available for

uptake by phytoplankton).

Details of the modelling studies that have been carried out are provided in Appendix E.

Figure 5.4 Production zones within the iLAP and the sources entered in the model for modelling impacts.

5-16 62800860-RPT-02

Table 5.8 Allocation of production across the proposed iLAP zones in the proposed project

Description/ Zones LF1 LF2 LF3 LF4 LF5 LF6 LF7 LF8 Total

Area (Ha) 2,552 1,501 431 1,583 2,376 242 206 409 9,300

Production (tons) 4,500 3,000 2,400 1,200 6,000 240 240 420 18,000

Nutrient Thresholds Given that the Malaysian Marine Water Quality Standards do not specify any guidelines for

ammonium nitrogen, a detailed literature review has been carried out to determine the

threshold limits against which to evaluate the predicted increases in nutrients. Three

thresholds of ammonium nitrogen have been proposed for the most sensitive receptor, coral

reefs. Impacts to other communities such as seagrass or benthic infauna are hence

assumed to have a higher tolerance threshold to ammonium than coral reefs. This literature

review is appended (Appendix D) as this underpins the impact assessment on the marine

environment. The impacts on phytoplankton are assessed separately below

These thresholds as outlined in Table 5.9 below refer to long term (6-month) mean

concentrations of ammonium.

Table 5.9 Impact severity thresholds of ammonium nitrogen on marine habitats (see Appendix D).

Impact Concentration (mg/l)

Description

Minor 0.015 Impacts to corals may occur; e.g. some change in coral species, reduction of growth rates.

Low likelihood of permanent phase shift in substrate type.

Moderate 0.030 Moderate impacts such as change in coral species type, reduction in coral cover

Major 0.045 High likelihood of a phase shift to algal dominated community.

Predicted Excess Ammonium Concentrations The one-month mean concentrations for the inter-monsoon, Northeast (NE) and Southwest

(SW) monsoon periods are shown in Figure 5.5. This indicates that slight increases in

ammonium (0.005 to 0.015 mg/l) will affect a relatively large area, including the Tun Sakaran

Marine Park. However, at these concentrations, no real effect on water quality is expected.

Figure 5.5 also illustrates that:

No impacts to the Tanduan Straits (between the mainland and P. Timbun Mata) are

predicted. This area currently experiences occasional spikes in nutrients from land-

based runoff, primarily from Sg. Sipit and its tributaries. However, chlorophyll-a levels

are expected to increase due to nutrients being converted to phytoplankton (represented

by chlorophyll-a in the model and advected into the Tanduan Straits).

Higher ammonium levels concentrate in the northwestern part of the iLAP (Zone LF1 and

LF5). This reflects the high production in this area (10,500 tonnes for LF 1 and 5

combined) compared to 240 to 3,000 tonnes elsewhere.

Higher dispersion (flushing) and lower ammonium concentrations occur during SW

monsoon conditions compared to intermonsoon and NE monsoon climatic conditions.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-17

Figure 5.5 Mean excess ammonium (concentrations above existing) over 1 month during NE, SW and Inter monsoon periods. Black cross-hatched areas represent coral reefs.

5-18 62800860-RPT-02

For the purpose of impact evaluation with respect to the thresholds identified in Table 5.9

above, the mean ammonium concentrations over a six month period for all climatic scenarios

have been extracted as shown in Figure 5.6. This figure shows that:

No major or moderate impacts are predicted at any location.

A potentially a minor impact to corals along the north-eastern side of Pulau Timbun Mata

is predicted.

Further discussion of the impacts of these predicted nutrient increases on marine habitats

and communities is given in Section 5.5.1.

Figure 5.6 Mean excess ammonium concentration for 18,000 tons of production over a 6 month modelling period. Black cross-hatched areas represent coral reefs.

Phytoplankton Concentration Thresholds Nutrients are also critical to the growth of phytoplankton; both ammonium and nitrate, if

available in excess, and suitable environmental conditions prevail, can lead to blooms of

phytoplankton. Such blooms are “episodic” in nature and can rapidly appear in periods of

days but may last between weeks and months. In some circumstances these blooms of

phytoplankton can be species that are acutely hazardous to other marine species due to

their toxicity and such blooms are referred to Hazardous Algal Blooms (HABs). Globally

there has been seen to be an increase in HABs worldwide and as such these organisms

pose a serious threat to aquaculture operations where they occur.

When algal blooms collapse they also form a threat to marine life as a result of the rapid

deoxygenation of the water column as aerobic bacteria consume the available oxygen in

break downing the algal material. Note that algal blooms are frequently entirely natural

phenomena as a result of oceanographic processes leading to nutrient enrichment in coastal

waters.

Normally measured chlorophyll a, as the concentration of photosynthetic material,

phytoplankton concentrations in marine systems can vary between less than 0.1 ug/L to

greater than 20- or 30 ug/L under bloom conditions.

To date there have been no biological oceanographic studies undertaken for the region or for

that matter the entire Sulawesi Sea. Hence the amount of phytoplankton biomass

(Chlorophyll a) data available for the Darvel Bay region and the iLAP is limited to those data

sets collected for the preparation of this SEIA. A more comprehensive collection was

undertaken in the first survey campaign (27 sites) whereas the other three campaigns

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-19

concentrated around the LF4 region and the National Park boundary, with a total of six sites

sampled (Figure 5.7).

Figure 5.7 Samples sites for the four water quality sampling campaigns. Note that in the first campaign a total of 27 sites were sampled. In the subsequent three campaigns there were only 6 sites sampled (marked with the yellow rings).

Chlorophyll a concentrations from the sampling are shown in Figure 5.8, from which

variations in concentrations both between sites and sample dates can be observed. Most

notable is the much higher concentrations at all sites except the two national park sites on

the last date (Campaign 4). Interestingly one of the Marine Park sites (Site 12) had a

comparatively high value compared to all the other sites during Campaign 3. The

occurrence of high chlorophyll concentrations in the vicinity of Site 12 can be seen in one of

two satellite images shown in Figure 5.9. The images were abstracted from Jones 2002 /4/

and illustrate the variable nature of phytoplankton concentrations within the regional

Sulawesi Sea area as well as Darvel Bay.

5-20 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 5.8 A comparison of chlorophyll a values at the six sites sampled on four occasions in October and November 2013.

Figure 5.9 Comparison of two satellite images processed to show chlorophyll concentrations. The red circles show the Darvel Bay area where the red spots show very high concentrations of chlorophyll indicating possible algal blooms. The black denotes land or cloud cover (images are a subset of images published by Jones, 2002 & Cummings et al. 2007 /3, 4/.

An abridged set of descriptive statistics for the four campaigns is given in Table 5.10 and the

means and standard errors for the means are plotted in Figure 5.10. With exception of

Campaign 3, the ranges are large; however, it is likely there is no significant difference

between the sample sets assuming the error rule of Cummings et al 2007 /3/.

Algal blooms can occur over periods of days (3-5 days) through to weeks or on some

occasions months if the conditions are suitable. As a result, they are hard to monitor and

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

WQ2 WQ4 WQ5 WQ11 WQ12 WQ14

Ch

loro

ph

yll

-a,

µg

/l

Campaign 1 Campaign 2 Campaign 3 Campaign 4

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-21

predict. The data sets obtained as part of the SEIA study are too small to apply standard

tests as it is not possible at this time to separate naturally occurring changes in

phytoplankton from the proposed operations induced changes, nor the risk of HABs in the

region. In short, it is not possible to derive a reliable measure of a suitable set of values to

use as a threshold for assessing impacts at this stage.

Table 5.10 Descriptive statistics for Chl-a for the four sampling campaigns.

Sample Set

Date Count Mean Mean Standard Error

Minimum Measure of a suitable maximum

CO1 2013/10/03 27 1.4 0.4 0.1 6.6

CO1a 2013/10/03 6 1.1 0.8 0.1 4.9

CO 2 2013/10/28 6 1.5 0.9 0.1 5.6

CO 3 2013/11/11 6 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.6

CO 4 2013/11/28 6 3.0 1.1 0.1 6.2

Note CO1a is the subset of samples collected at the same sites as the subsequent sampling campaigns.

Figure 5.10 Means and standard errors for the means (bars) for the four campaigns. Note site CO1a is the same as CO1 but the data are from the subset of sample sites for the other three campaigns allowing a direct comparison across the four sample periods.

Figure 5.11 shows the modelling results for a predicted increase in chlorophyll results over

the model baseline value of 1.3 ug/L. It can be seen that it is only in the region of LF4 that

higher than background values are predicted and these do not exceed 10-12 ug/l. Should

such values occur they would constitute a 100 percent increase in values measured during

the four limited measurement campaigns undertaken so far, but consistent with the high

values seen in the satellite imagery of Jones 2002 (Figure 5.9). However, to define what is

normally expected and therefore a reasonable threshold, there is the need to obtain higher

frequency data to take into account the very variable nature of phytoplankton concentrations

normally to be expected.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

CO1 CO1a CO 2 CO 3 CO 4

Ch

rop

hyll

a u

g/L

Sample periods

5-22 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 5.11 Mean predicted increases in chlorophyll-a concentration over a background value of 0.0013 mg/L (1.3 µg/L) for 18,000 tons of production over a 6 month modelling period.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Project area / Tun Sakaran Marine Park (3)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1) – minor impacts are predicted

Permanence: Permanent (3) as long as the farm is in operation

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Cumulative (3)

Impact Significance: ES=-24, Moderate Negative Impact (-C).

5.4.1.2 Cage Cleaning In all marine environments, cages and particularly the nets acquire significant biofouling from

algae and surface-settling organisms such as barnacles and oysters. In tropical

environments this growth is rapid and extensive. The volume of dry organics from fouling is

estimated to be 2 kg per cage for about 3 months. Hence, during full production, volumes

may reach up to few thousand tonnes per year.

While the lobsters may consume some of this material, this growth can be significant and

can lead to substantial drag on the cages and other structures, and reduced current flows

within the cages. In addition, the cage floor accumulates uneaten food and moulted shells.

Cage cleaning is therefore a necessary and on-going, regular process.

In the proposed development, nets will be routinely cleaned during production by rotational

air drying at the individual production units as a part of day to day operations. This will be

done regularly to ensure good flows and promote the health of farmed stock and is achieved

by stock transfer to an adjacent cage and the used net suspended out of the water for

drying. The organic material from the nets is lost back to the water column. Until the first set

of production units are established the cleaning regimes cannot be determined and nor can

the amount of organic material be more accurately estimated.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-23

At the end of a production phase (where nets are changed to a larger size or all lobster are

harvested, cleaning will involve weathering (no chemicals wherever possible) followed by

final cleaning at the Operations Base with high pressure hose if required, with all cleaning

taking place at the farm as well as the Operations Base after a full harvest cycle. Cleaning

effluent and incorporated bio-solids will be collected and incinerated where possible.

Based on such management practices, the releases to the environment can be kept to a

minimum, despite the volume of cages operating in the area at any one time.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to the local condition (P. Timbun Mata, P. Bait and waters within AIZ) (1)

Magnitude: Negative change (-2)

Permanence: Permanent (3) – as long as the Project is operational.

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-12, Minor Negative (-B).

5.4.2 Water Quality during Construction

Both land-based and marine-based construction works can negatively impact the

surrounding water quality. A significant source of water pollution during the earthworks

phase is suspended sediments.

The proposed activities during these phases have been reviewed as described in Chapter 3.

The activities that may affect water quality are summarised in Table 5.11 below.

Table 5.11 Sources of water quality pollution during construction phase

Activity/Event Pollutant emissions

Clearing and earthworks, in particular in-filling of the mangrove areas around the Operations Base, bridge and access road.

Suspended sediments

Operations Base building construction involving construction machinery and marine vessels

Suspended sediments

Sewage

Oil and grease leakage

Marine construction (bridge and jetty) involving construction machinery and marine vessels

Suspended sediments

Oil and grease leakage

Road Works Suspended sediments

Impacts from sewage are discussed in Section 5.4.6; as such this section focuses primarily

on soil erosion and sedimentation, oil and grease impacts and others.

5.4.2.1 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation during Earthworks Soil erosion, loss and sedimentation are potentially significant impacts of the earthworks

related to the operations base (OB) on P. Bait. The earthworks for Operations Base Phase 1

is estimated is balanced with approximately 307,450 m3 cut and fill respectively.

5-24 62800860-RPT-02

In contrast, the construction of the access road connecting from the main road to the bridge

is only 550 m in length over flat terrain. Hence the soil loss with appropriate controls is likely

to be minimal, in particular given the expected short duration of the works.

The land fall area for the bridge will involve clearing and earthworks within mangrove areas;

this will need to be carefully managed to minimise soil runoff into the marine waters.

Detailed geotechnical / soil investigation works have yet to be commissioned as part of the

engineering studies, however, preliminary observations indicate that P. Bait is predominantly

sandy with a very flat and featureless topography, with the exception of the hillock, which

has scattered rocky outcrops where vegetation cover is limited.

It is expected that all of the cut material will be used for fill, both on P. Bait with any excess to

be placed on the access road and bridge construction on the mainland at Tg. Kapor. The soil

investigations will determine whether this material can be used for the other project

construction components such as the access road and bridge construction; it is otherwise

expected that the material can be used for fill material in other construction sites around

Semporna.

The sandy soils of P. Bait will have low erodibility compared to soils with high clay content

(as grain size particles are large) Thus, with the application of mitigation measures, the

magnitude of the impact is expected to be low. An ESCP has been prepared for the area as

outlined in Section 6.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to the local condition (P. Bait, Tg. Kapor and surrounding waters, 1)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Temporary (2)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-6, Slight Negative Impact (-A).

5.4.2.2 Water Quality Impacts during Marine Construction Works The marine bridge and jetty construction works can negatively impact the water quality of the

nearshore waters through for example sediment spill from piling for the bridge and jetty piers,

and oil spills and/or leakage from marine construction machinery and transportation vessels

(piling barges, transport barges, support vessels, tug boats). Given the early stages of

project design, the contractors and the type of number of construction machinery have not

been defined. At this stage, no dredging is expected, hence the source of sediment spill is

limited to the displaced material from the piling and bridge piers.

It is expected that with the implementation of best management practices and standard

operating procedures, the impact to the water quality can be minimal.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-25

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important to areas immediately outside the local condition - southern Darvel bay and adjacent mainland shorelines, e.g. in the case of oil spills (2).

Magnitude: Negative change (-1);

Permanence: Temporary (2)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Cumulative (3)

Impact Significance: ES=-14, Minor Negative Impact (-B).

5.4.3 Sedimentation and Sediment Enrichment from PUs

Particulate waste products from sea cage aquaculture are moved through the nets and

dispersed “downstream” by currents and deposited on to the seafloor where they can be

subsequently resuspended and further dispersed by current action. The extent of

accumulation or dispersion depends on the current velocities of the area of deposition.

To predict the potential impacts from sedimentation of unconsumed lobster feed and faecal

waste from future aquaculture farming in and around Pulau Timbun Mata, numerical

modelling was carried out utilising the hydrodynamic model set up for the area coupled with

the MIKE3 FM Mud Transport module (MT) (see Appendix E). The MIKE 3 FM Mud

Transport module describes the erosion, transport and deposition of fine and cohesive

sediments under the forcing action of waves and currents. The deposition modelling using

MT was carried out using the same model domain, mesh and bathymetry as the local

hydrodynamic model. All of this work is described in detail in Appendix E.

A number of assumptions have been used in the modelling to determine the potential

volumes of lobster faeces released to the marine environment. These assumptions are:

A Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) for the calculation of feed excreted by the lobster of 3.0

was adopted and can be considered a worst case in terms of feed input into the farming

leases.

A feed waste percentage of 5%, that is, the amount of feed not consumed by the lobster.

The volume of feed converted to faeces was estimated as 20% /5/

The ratio of organic carbon to total feed was assumed to be 31% /6/.

The same feed schedule and feed volumes were assumed for all seasons and the

depositional model was run for a period of 12 months.

No allowance was made for wild fish consumption of lost particulate material from the

cages.

Given the large number of proposed cages i.e. 320,000, it was not possible to model each

individual cage. The hydrodynamic results were reviewed to understand where there might

be differences in deposition as seabed deposition is controlled by the current speed and the

water depth of the site.

Based on this review, four zones were selected to model representative farm sites based on

coherent location, hydrodynamics and water depth (given the lack of wave energy, waves

were not considered a factor in determining the final fate of farm waste deposition). These

four sites as shown in Figure 5.12 are:

Northwestern Pulau Timbun Mata (low energy environment 0-3 cm/s)

Northeast Pulau Timbun Mata (surrounded by corals, moderate current flows 0-7 cm/s/

shallow water <20m)

Northwest Pulau Timbun Mata (exposed to waves and moderate current flows 0-9 cm/s/

deeper water ~30m)

5-26 62800860-RPT-02

Near the main channel between Pulau Timbun Mata and Pulau Bait (stronger current

flows 0-30 cm/s)

Figure 5.12 Location of the representative sites used to model potential impacts from sedimentation of lobster feed and waste and the estimate of deposition on the seabed. The extent of predicted sediment deposition is shown for each farm for comparative purposes.

Each of the four farm sites modelled was assumed to have 200 tons of lobsters in 95 cages.

Using an FCR of 3.0, 600 tons of feed will be needed to grow 200 tons of lobster per year.

This results in 120,000 kg of faeces per farm per year (600 x 20% conversion to faeces).

Each cage was assumed to be squared shaped with a diameter of 25 m and 5 m deep. The

in-cage stocking density was approximately 3.4 kg/m2, which lies within the 3-5 kg/m

2

proposed stocking range. Such tonnage and cage size is considered to represent the largest

farm to ever eventuate in the iLAP hence it can be considered to be modelling a worst case

scenario in terms of deposition (large volume of lobsters in one farm). Currently the project

proponent’s existing plan is to have much smaller farms as described in Section 3.

5.4.3.1 Particulate Matter and Organic Carbon The results of the modelling are shown in Figure 5.13. It is seen that the material from the

cages is deposited beyond the actual cage footprint. Because of the very weak currents

however around Farms 1, & 2, most of the farm wastes are observed to fall directly under or

near the cages whereas at farm locations 3 & 4 the waste is more widely spread and can be

observed some distance from the farm due to the stronger flow.

Perhaps the one exception to what is described above is that at the North-western side of

Farm 2, were wastes were observed to accumulate to levels that may have an adverse

impact just outside a proposed 100 m buffer zone around each farm (See Figure 5.13). In

this particular instance the bathymetry shows a depression at this location causing sediment

to accumulate here through gravity (i.e. down slope). Coral reefs are generally located up

slope in shallower water and are unlikely to be affected.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-27

Figure 5.13 Model results for a one year deposition of cage-derived waste to the sediment at the four cage farm locations.

In order to obtain a measure of the extent of the associated impact a sediment loading

threshold can be applied. Sedimentation impact thresholds have been developed for both

corals and infauna but as the thresholds for corals are more conservative, these have been

applied here as seen in Table 5.12.

Figure 5.14 shows that yearly sedimentation rates outside a proposed farm buffer zone of

100 m are generally far below the threshold for the zone of influence (>0.75 kg/m2/day).

Accordingly, no impacts on corals from increased sedimentation are expected in the

production zone or in the study area if a buffer of 100 m is applied.

Table 5.12 Sedimentation intensity thresholds selected for model interrogation/23/

Severity of effect Threshold

No impact <0.75 kg/m2/yr

Slight impact >0.75-3.0 kg/m2/yr

Major impact >3.0 kg/m2/yr

5-28 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 5.14 Larger scale copies of the modelling results showing the position of a blue line which delineates the area of a threshold of 0.75kg/m

2/yr (no impact) and red line delineates the

area of 3.0 kg/ m2/yr (seen only at Farm 2). The black box indicates a 100 m buffer zone

placed around each set of cages.

These modelling results are most relevant to the placement of farms on the “inner”

boundaries of the iLAP zone that are closest to sensitive habitats such as corals, noting that

the iLAP boundary has been delineated with a buffer of 50 m from sensitive habitats. For

farms in the body of the production zone water depth (>10m deep) a maximum PU density is

3 per hectare resulting in a low cumulative impact on the sediments and the water column.

Any impact will be further mitigated by the adoption of best practice movement of farms on a

rotational basis to “rest” the sediments directly below the cages.

Organic Carbon

Organic enrichment of the seabed from cage aquaculture is a process that with time results

in changes of the benthic habitat characteristics in terms of particle size and sediment

oxygenation levels. Such changes in habitat characteristics will impact the species

composition and dominance relations in the infauna and may have direct adverse impacts on

adjacent corals and seagrasses. At the same time it has been noted these benthic changes

can lead to increases in some species of fish and benthic invertebrates within the

depositional footprint. Further details are given in the assessment of impacts on benthic

habitats in Section 5.5.1.

The most important component of particulate wastes derived from aquaculture operations is

organic carbon, which comprises 31 % of the deposited material. This organic carbon is

incorporated into the benthic environment and becomes a food source for benthic organisms

and bacteria. If waste accumulation is high, bacterial activity will increase accordingly. In fine

sediments, where pore water flushing and oxygen exchange with the overlying water column

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-29

is low relative to the rate of sediment loading, the bacterial oxygen consumption may exceed

replenishment rates and lead to oxygen-depleted sediments.

Under these conditions, methane and sulphide may be released from the sediments as a

result of an increase in either methanogenic or sulphur reducing bacteria (off-gassing). Both

gasses are toxic to aquatic organisms (including the lobster). This detrimental effect to

animal health is also exacerbated where aquaculture operations occur in shallow waters;

however, the siting of the farming in areas with water depth greater than 7-10 m is expected

to mitigate any such effect as indicated in the modelling results.

The thresholds for organic carbon input to the sediments have been derived from literature

and are shown in Table 5.13. Thresholds are deemed to be the most conservative observed

in the literature as summarised by a review of the impacts of organic material on seabed

habitats by Hargrave, 2008 & 2010 /7, 8/.

Table 5.13 Thresholds for organic input to the sediment (Hargrave 2008 & 2010 /7, 8/).

Impact Threshold Chemical remediation (fallow) time (recoverable within 5 years)

No impact 1-36 gC/m2/y (0.001-0.036 kg) N/A

Minor impact 36-730 gC/m2/y (0.036-0.730 kg) 2.7 (Yes)

Major impact >730 gC/m2/y (>0.730 kg) >5.0 (No)

As seen in Figure 5.15, most of the predicted organic deposition at farm site 1 is largely

restricted to beneath the farm cages. This is due to low dispersion as a result of slow current

speeds. Away from the cages, depositional levels are generally much lower than those

expected to cause adverse impacts to seabed habitats. As observed in the total

sedimentation plots, farm site two has some deposition to the northwest of the cages but

higher levels are all restricted to within 50 m of the cages. Model results indicate there will be

little or no impact outside of a buffer zone of approximately 100 m around the cages.

As with the total sedimentation predictions at farm locations 2, 3 & 4, the organic carbon

waste is more widely spread, and can be observed some distance from the farm due to the

stronger water movement. However, it is predicted at very low values which are considered

to pose no threat to any coral habitats in the vicinity assuming a buffer of 100 m is applied.

5-30 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 5.15 Model results for a one year deposition of cage-derived organic carbon to the sediment at four representative cage farm locations. Blue line represents the threshold of 0.036 kg/m

2/yr TOC (no

impact), while red line (seen only at Farm 2) represents the threshold of 0.730kg/m2/yr (minor) and the

black box represents a 100 m buffer around the cages.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to the local condition (P. Timbun Mata, P. Bait and waters within AIZ) (1)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Permanent, as long as the Project is operational (3)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Cumulative (3)

Impact Significance: ES=-8, Slight negative change/ impact (-A)

5.4.3.2 Heavy Metals and Other Pollutants Heavy metals are often observed at higher than background levels in sediments beneath

aquaculture production areas /9/. These sediments are normally enriched with metals

derived from either paints used to reduce bio-fouling (often with a high percentage of copper)

that are sprayed onto cage netting or from feeds. The project proponent has no plans to use

any anti-fouling agents on its cages and will use rotational air drying in situ methods to clean

the nets.

Modern dry pellet feed has limited quantities of metals that are either added intentionally as

part of the animals’ diet and/or undesirable substances that are present in feed or feed

materials. Other pollutants relate to pharmaceutical products that may be utilised to control

bacterial outbreaks or parasites. Generally these will be applied in very small quantities and

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-31

many have a finite lifespan in marine waters or sediments (i.e. formalin). Based on the

deposition modelling discussed in the preceding section, the settling of metals and other

pollutants with the cage particulates is predicted to be limited to within approximately 50 m

on average of the PUs, and hence zone of impact is expected to be limited to the iLAP area

itself.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to the local condition (P. Timbun Mata, P. Bait and waters within AIZ) (1)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Permanent, as long as the Project is operational (3)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Cumulative (3),

Impact Significance: ES=-8, Slight negative change/ impact (-A)

5.4.4 Hydrodynamics and Coastal Morphology

The installation of any structures within the water column can have an effect on current

speeds and directions and wave patterns in the surrounding areas, which in turn may result

in changes to patterns of erosion and deposition on the seabed or adjacent shorelines. This

section describes the impact of both the production units (lobster cages) in the water

(Section 5.4.4.1) as well as the impacts of the fixed marine infrastructure, namely the

proposed bridge and jetty (Section 5.4.4.2).

5.4.4.1 PUs (Cages) Water movement is one of the key factors in determining the accumulation of sediment and

nutrients in and around an aquaculture operation. Water masses entering and leaving the

farm govern the extent of impacts of the lobster farm on the environment and the

ecosystems therein (e.g. nutrient and sediment deposition impacts outlined above).

Understanding the hydrodynamic interaction with the farm is therefore a key to

understanding the potential ecological effects of individual farms.

Cages, nets and moorings are expected to have an impact on current speed and current

direction. Numerical modelling was utilised to determine the effects of the cages on the

hydrodynamics. The approach as outlined in Section 5.4.3 above for the modelling of

sedimentation from the cages was used, whereby four farms in four representative

hydrodynamic regimes over the iLAP were modelled.

Current direction, modelled over a 6 month period, was predominantly from east to west in

the iLAP. Examples of instantaneous current speed reduction and increase during flood and

ebb tide are presented in Figure 5.16 and Figure 5.17. It can be seen that cages aligned

against the flow show a reduction in flow speed before and after each farm (blue), while

there is an increase in flow speed around the edges of the farm (orange and red). While a

large area is impacted both up and down stream, the magnitude of this impact is only a

reduction of a few millimetres in speed, with larger speed reductions being much more

localised to the area a few farm widths/lengths distance away from the farm.

5-32 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 5.16 Difference in mean current speed across four farm sites in and around Pulau Timbun Mata between existing conditions and with the four farms (Flood tide).

Figure 5.17 Difference in mean current speed across four farm sites in and around Pulau Timbun Mata between existing conditions and with the four farms (ebb tide).

The results indicate that due to the large number of cages proposed in the iLAP there will be

a reduction in flow across much of the study area. This may be up to a few centimetres per

second once all the cages are in place given that the modelled cages holding 200 tonnes of

production already show a clear decrease in flow of a few millimetres. Studies undertaken on

similar sized structures such as mussel and salmon farms have observed similar flow

responses i.e. Plew et al., 2005 /10/ and Plew et al. 2009 /11/. The farms modelled in this

example are up to 600 m in length and changes were observed some distance away. Further

downstream of the farms, flow will return to pre-farm current speeds and direction after

approximately 5-10 farm lengths i.e. if the farm is 50 meters long, current speed and

direction are likely to be close to pre-farm conditions approximately 250-500 meters

downstream.

While there will be a strong local impact on current flow and direction, potential impacts to

coastal sedimentation and general regional current patterns seem unlikely given the location

and general lack of existing energy within much of the site. The western and northern areas

of Pulau Timbun Mata for instance have existing mean currents speeds of 1-5 cm/s and

maximums of less than 10 cm/s which result in little or no existing coastal sediment

transportation due to currents or waves/12, 13, 14/. Negative impacts on the mangroves that

fringe much of Pulau Timbun Mata are hence not expected as these are already low energy

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-33

depositional environments where sediments are generally sourced from the small

catchments behind each mangrove fringe.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to areas immediately outside the local condition (2)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Permanent, as long as project is operational (3)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-14, Minor Negative Impact (-B).

5.4.4.2 Bridge and Jetty Structures Bridge and jetty piers can have morphological effects on the seabed and shorelines by

changing the hydrodynamic conditions around the structures, resulting in areas of scour

(erosion) and deposition (accretion). To develop an indication of the potential impacts, an

assessment has been carried out using numerical modelling for the bridge and jetty.

Changes to Current Conditions Changes to current conditions in the vicinity of the bridge and jetty have been modelled for

the existing condition and post-development (i.e. with the bridge and jetty in place) for three

seasonal scenarios. The full results can be referred to in Appendix E.

Bridge

Figure 5.18 shows the predicted differences in mean and maximum current speeds after

completion of the bridge compared to the existing (baseline) condition during the NE

monsoon period (other seasons are presented in Appendix E). The following key findings are

highlighted:

The proposed bridge will result in primarily decreases in current speeds in areas along

the channel and around the causeway area at Tg. Kapor (presently mangrove).

Reductions in maximum current speeds are in the order of 1-4 cm/s in the channel and

up to 12 cm/s around the causeway.

Mean reductions are in the order of 1 cm/s within the main channel and up to 3 cm/s

around the causeway.

There are a few areas where maximum current speed was predicted to increase and

these tend to range from <6-8 cm/s near the causeway and <1cm/s in the main channel

and mean increases (if any) of <1 cm/s near the causeway.

There are several locations where there is also a slight increase of 1-2 cm/s along the

main channel and the northern and eastern side of the causeway.

5-34 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 5.18 Difference in mean (top) and maximum (bottom) current speed after bridge construction compared to baseline conditions during NE monsoon conditions.

Jetty

Figure 5.19 shows the predicted differences in mean and maximum current speeds after

completion of the jetty compared to the existing (baseline) condition for the NE monsoon

season. As shown in the figure, the proposed jetty will result in no changes to the current

speeds around the jetty site.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-35

Figure 5.19 Difference in mean (top) and maximum (bottom) current speed after jetty construction compared to baseline conditions during NE monsoon conditions.

Morphological Impacts Coastal impacts generally occurs due to structures blocking the littoral transport or changes

in the wave exposure affecting the local sediment transport capacity as described above.

At the site the coastline consists of reef flats and mangrove. Hence, the jetty and bridge will

not lead to any blockage of littoral transport.

Sedimentation may potentially occur around the causeway structure at Tg. Kapor as a

response to the reduction in current speeds.

5-36 62800860-RPT-02

The rate of sedimentation is difficult to predict, but based on the magnitude of the changes

(reduction in maximum current speeds of up to only around 0.1 m/s, the magnitude of

sedimentation is likely to be minor. In the case of Tg. Kapor, the zone of potential

sedimentation will occur in a mangrove area, which is a habitat well accustomed to

accretionary processes.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to the local condition (Tg. Kapor) (1)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1), minor changes predicted at Tg. Kapor.

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Irreversible (3)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-8, Slight Negative Impact (-A).

5.4.5 Solid Wastes

The generation and management of solid waste through recycling and/or disposal are key

aspects in all phases of the proposed project. In common with all major projects, the Project

has the potential to generate significant quantities of waste material during both the

construction and operations stage. These wastes will require appropriate handling, storage,

treatment, transportation and disposal. These activities will potentially impact the nearby

communities as well as the waste management authorities and industries whose capacity

will be required.

5.4.5.1 Waste Streams Sources of solid wastes over the various components of the project during construction are

summarised below in Table 5.14. The total construction workforce is estimated at around

650 persons for all construction components.

Table 5.14 Sources and estimated amounts of solid wastes during the construction phase.

Source Type of Waste Rate AMOUNT

volume/mass

Vegetation clearing - mangroves; other

Organic Mangroves:

4.03 kg/m2 1

Estimated area of 13 ha affected.

Mangroves:

527,930 kg (527 T)

Oil Palm Plantation Oil Palm Trunks 75.5 tonne/hectare (dry matter) /15/

671,950 kg

(671.95 T)

Oil Palm Fronds 14.4 tonnes/hectare (dry matter) /15/

128,160 kg

(128.16 T)

1 Based on biomass estimates for Semporna mangrove survey stations - DHI 2005. Sabah Shoreline Management

Plan.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-37

Source Type of Waste Rate AMOUNT

volume/mass

Coconut Plantation Coconut trunks Estimate of 60 tonne/hectare

961,200 kg

(961.20 T)

Discarded construction material

Metal, timber, concrete

21.2 kg/ m2.2

Estimated 6 ha built up area

1,271,788 kg

(1,271 T)

Machinery servicing Machine parts; oil/fuel filters; discarded oil

Not available Minimal to moderate

Domestic household Food packaging, water bottles; cans; organic waste

0.68 kg/capita/day3

~ 650 workers total

442 kg/day

Sludge and Sewage solids

Solids from grey and black water waste

0.53 l/capita/day3 345 l/day

During operations, the dominant wastes would be from the marine activities. A study on

salmon farming in Scotland found that plastics (primarily from feed bags) and fish mortalities

were the two most dominant waste streams (around 35% each) /16/. Timber, paper and

cardboard, and steel were each estimated at 8%, domestic wastes as 4% and special waste

as 1%. Plastics included feed bags, cages, nets and feed pipes, whilst steel was mostly

cages and walkways. In the present case, the cages and walkways are planned to be made

of wood. This same Scottish study provided ratios of tonnes of waste per tonne of

production; many of these figures have been used for this study, based on the proposed

18,000 tonnes production as shown in Table 5.15.

Table 5.15 Sources of solid wastes during the operational stage.

Component Source Type of Waste Rate AMOUNT

volume/

mass per production cycle.

PU, Routine Wastes

General wastes (skipped wastes)

Plastics, timber, paper, cardboard, rope, nets and polystyrene.

0.023 T / T production /16/.

@ 18,000 T

414 T

Lobster mortalities Organic 0.015 T/ T production /16/

270 T

Feed bags Plastics 0.003 T/ T production /16/

54 T

2 USEPA, 2003, Estimating Building-related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts.

3 UNEP 2004. State of Waste Management in Southeast Asia. URL:

http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/spc/State_of_waste_Management/index.asp

5-38 62800860-RPT-02

Component Source Type of Waste Rate AMOUNT

volume/

mass per production cycle.

Special wastes Waste oils, oil filters, batteries and fluorescent tubes

0.001 T/ T production /16/

18 T

PUs, Non-routine Wastes

Major mortality events (once-off incidents e.g. disease outbreak)

Organic 0.008 T/ tonne production

*fish farming figure, Scotland. May be difficult to extrapolate here.

144 T

Cages and other operational maintenance

Wood; plastics 0.004 T/ tonne production

72

Nets Synthetics 0.003 T/ tonne production

54

Floats Plastic/ polystyrene 0.001 T/ tonne production

18

Unconsumed feed in cages and faeces

Organic 600 T of feed / yr -feed waste 5%

30 T/ yr

Lobster faeces Organic 600 T of feed / yr - faeces 20%

120 T/ yr

Machinery servicing – vehicles, boat motors, gardening equipment

Machinery parts; oil/fuel filters; discarded oil

Not available High

Domestic household Food packaging, water bottles; cans; organic waste

0.68

kg/capita/day4

~ 20,000 workers at full production

13,600 kg/day

Sludge and Sewage solids

Solids from grey and black water waste

0.53 l/capita/day

3

7,950 l/day

4 UNEP 2004. State of Waste Management in Southeast Asia. URL:

http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/spc/State_of_waste_Management/index.asp

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-39

5.4.5.2 Waste Management

The management of wastes is subject to local authority regulations and the Federal

Environmental Quality Act regulations, the latter primarily targeted at hazardous or

scheduled wastes. Many of the environmental risks associated with waste management will

be controlled through the adoption of procedures in compliance with the existing regulations.

Based on correspondence with the Semporna District Council (May 2014), there is currently

a temporary landfill for the district but it is projected to reach capacity in the near future

(within approximately 6 months). However, during the meeting with the District Officer (May

21, 2014, refer to Appendix I) it was highlighted that the District Council is working to obtain

more landfill areas to solve this issue. The Proponent is already communicating with the

Semporna District Council on the future project requirements and as such this Project will be

taken into account in the Council’s planning.

In addition, ‘special’ wastes generated (not for land fill disposal, e.g. waste oils, oil filters,

batteries and fluorescent tubes) are estimated at around 18 T per production cycle at full

capacity. Assuming this will comprise scheduled wastes, the Proponent will have to dispose

of these through contractors licensed by the DOE. There is currently no scheduled wastes

disposal facility in Sabah, and all wastes are transported by the licensed contractors to

scheduled waste disposal, recycling and recovery plants in Peninsular Malaysia.

With increasing demand, the establishment of such a facility in Sabah is currently being

explored, however there is no indication of when this will materialise. It could probably be

expected that options for Sabah-based storage, recycling and recovery plants will be

established in Sabah within the next 10 – 15 years.

Lobster mortalities and other biomass wastes also contribute significantly to the waste

stream. However, the Proponent will dispose of these wastes within the Project area with an

on-site incinerator and hence there are no impacts on waste management beyond the

Project site.

5.4.5.3 Impact Evaluation

Importance: Semporna district (3)

Magnitude: Significant negative change (-2)

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-42, Significant Negative Impact (-D).

5.4.6 Sewage and Waste Water Discharges

Domestic wastewater generation is commonly expressed as a percentage of the total water

consumption rate. This typically depends on water supply service level, climate and water

availability. In moderate climates and in industrialising countries, 75 per cent of consumed

tap water typically ends up as sewage /17/. A daily water consumption of 65-125 l/day/cap

for developing regions has been estimated by Veenstra et al. 1997 /17/. Using a

consumption figure of 95 l/cap/day and the estimates of the workforce for the various

stages of the proposed project, total volumes of grey and black waste have been calculated

and are given in Table 5.16.

5-40 62800860-RPT-02

If untreated, the discharge of sewage into the marine environment could affect hygienic

water quality as well as the introduction of nutrients into the waters, potentially leading to

eutrophication and sediment deposition issues.

During the construction phase, a workforce of around 650 persons is estimated. These

workers will be housed on-site on P. Bait. Any discharge of untreated sewage will contribute

to water pollution and hence the use of a sewage treatment plant (STP) will be required. The

project proponent has committed to an STP with a capacity of 26,000 PE.

During the operational phase, a workforce of around 20,000 persons is expected at full

production. Sewage and domestic wastewater will also be generated on the PUs over water.

Each PU will be equipped with a toilet and the wastes will be transported and treated at the

STP on P. Bait.

The STP will be built on the Operations Base and sewage will be treated in accordance to

the requirements of the Environmental Quality (Sewage) Regulations, 2009 (Standard A)

prior to discharge.

With all sewage being channelled to the STP at the Operations Base during the operation

stage, the impact on water quality will be negligible.

Table 5.16 Estimates of domestic waste water loads over the duration of the project /17/.

Project Component/ Phase

Workforce Wastes Type and Amount (L/day)

Grey Black

CONSTRUCTION

Operational base 100 2,375 7,125

Bridge 300 7,125 21,375

Jetty 150 3,563 10,688

Production units 50 1,188 3,563

OPERATIONS

Phase 1 5,800 137,750 413,250

Project Overall 20,000 475,000 1,425,000

DECOMMISSIONING

Production units 100 1,188 3,563

Operational Base 80 1,900 5,700

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important to areas immediately outside the local condition - southern Darvel bay and adjacent mainland shorelines (2)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-14, Minor Negative Impact (-B).

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-41

5.4.7 Noise

This section focuses on noise impacts during construction as the scoping exercise

determined negligible noise impacts during operations. General operational noise is however

assessed as impacts to the marine environment in Section 5.5.

The assessment of noise impacts on the human environment from the construction activities

in this section is based on:

Baseline survey of noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the project site

Existing landuse and sensitive receptors in the project site surroundings

Existing data on construction equipment sound emissions

Calculations of noise attenuation with distance (Appendix C, Baseline)

Construction activities will inevitably cause increases in environmental noise levels around

the proposed development. The main sources of noise would be from the land and marine

construction works including earthworks and the loading and unloading of engineering

equipment and materials.

5.4.7.1 Sensitive receptors As discussed in Section 4, eight (8) sensitive receptors areas have been identified within 5

km radius of the Project. Villages or sensitive receptors such as schools located less than 1

km from the project boundary are Kg. Limau-Limau, Kg. Bait, and SK Pulau Bait on Bait

island and Kg. Tanjung Kapor, and SK. Tanjung Kapor on the mainland side.

5.4.7.2 Noise sources The total construction period for the Project is estimated to be approximately 4.5 years.

Starting from site clearing to bridge construction, working hours are assumed to be from 7

am – 7 pm.

Table 5.17 lists the typical magnitude of noise generated by construction equipment. These

reference values of noise emission from the construction equipment may be conservative, as

the actual noise levels on equipment vary, with newer equipment often being manufactured

with up-to-date noise control technology, which may considerably reduce the noise

emissions.

Table 5.17 Typical Noise Level from Construction Equipment /18, 19/.

Type of equipment

Typical sound level at Operator

(dB(A) at 15m)

Average Range

Earth Moving:

Front End Loader 88 85-91

Back Hoe 86.5 79-89

Bull Dozer 96 89-103

Excavator 87 80-94

Roller 90 79-93

Scraper 96 84-102

Grader <85

5-42 62800860-RPT-02

Type of equipment

Typical sound level at Operator

(dB(A) at 15m)

Average Range

Paver 101 100-102

Material Handling:

Asphalt Plant 90.5 85-96

Concrete Mixer <85

Concrete Pump <85

Crane 100 97-102

Power Units:

Generators <85

Compressors <85

Impact

Pile Driver 98 82-105

Pneumatic Breaker 106 94-111

Other Equipment:

Water Truck 89 85-93

Dump Truck <85

Power Saw 88.5 78-95

The anticipated machinery and number of units for the construction stage are listed Table

5.18

Table 5.18 Type of equipment and number of units assumed for construction works

Activity Equipment No. (Assumed)

Earthworks Excavators

10 Ton Dump Trucks

Bulldozers

Dynamic Compactors

Chainsaw

6

3

1

1

1

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-43

Activity Equipment No. (Assumed)

Marine Works such as jetty and bridge

Crane

Pile Driver

Drill Machine

Truck

Generator

Grader

Concrete Mixer

Concrete Pump

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Road Works Excavator

10 Ton Dump Trucks

Bulldozers

Dynamic Compactor

Grader

Paver

Pneumatic Roller

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

5.4.7.3 Existing Noise Levels and Guidelines As discussed in Section 4, the average noise levels within the 1 km of the project site are

48.7 dB(A) day time and 44.1 dB(A) at night.

Based on DOE Noise Guideline Schedule 6 (Table 5.19), the maximum permissible ninetieth

percentile (L90) noise level for daytime at residential areas is 60 dB(A), with a permissible

maximum noise level (Lmax) of 90 dB(A).

Table 5.19 Maximum permissible sound level (Percentile LN and LMAX) of construction, maintenance and demolition work by receiving land use /20/

Receiving Landuse Category

Noise Parameter

Day Time 7.00 am – 7.00 pm

Evening 7.00 pm – 10.00 pm

Night Time 10.00 pm – 7.00 am

Residential (Note 2**)

L90

L10

Lmax

60 dBA

75 dBA

90 dBA (**50)

55 dBA

70 dBA

85 dBA (**50)

*(Note 1)

*

**(40 dBA)

Commercial (Note 2**) L90

L10

65 dBA

75 dBA

60 dBA

70 dBA

NA

NA

Industrial L90

L10

70 dBA

80 dBA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Source: The Planning Guidelines for Environmental Noise Limits and Control, 2007. Notes: *1 At these times the maximum permissible levels are stipulated in the Schedule 1 for the respective residential

density type shall apply. This may mean that no noisy construction work can take place during these hours. **2 A reduction of these levels in the vicinity of certain institutions such as schools, hospitals, mosque and noise

sensitive premises (apartments, residential dwellings, hotel) may be exercised by the local authority or Department of Environment. Where the affected premises are noise sensitive, the limits of the schedule I shall apply.

5-44 62800860-RPT-02

3. In the event that the existing sound level (L90) without construction, maintenance and demolition works is higher than the L90 limit of the above schedule, the higher measured ambient L90 sound level shall prevail. In this case, the maximum permissible L10 sound level shall not exceed the Ambient L90 level + 10 dBA, or the above Schedule L10 whichever is the higher.

4. NA = Not Applicable.

5.4.7.4 Predicted Noise Levels Noise prediction has been based on simple noise attenuation calculations based on typical

earthworks and construction equipment (Table 5.17) and assumed number of machinery

mobilised for each project component (Table 5.18). To assess the noise levels generated

during construction works, the project has been divided into three (3) major construction

components: earthworks; marine works such as jetty and bridge; and the access road works.

The noise levels for each of these construction packages are assessed separately as the

number and type of equipment utilised may differ between the components and the

sequence of construction will not be carried out simultaneously.

The expected maximum noise levels at the sensitive areas are as shown in Figure 5.20 to

Figure 5.22. It is noted that these predictions are conservative, worst-case scenarios

assuming that all the given equipment are operating at the boundary of the project site at the

same time and does not take account of noise attenuating or dampening from topography,

vegetation or other characteristics of the project site.

Figure 5.20 shows the predicted noise contours from earthworks activities at the Operations

Base. The predicted noise level at the nearest sensitive receptor, SK Pulau Bait at a

distance of 200 m is 80 dB(A); see also Table 5.20. Villages such as Kg. Bait at

approximately 610 m east and Kg. Limau-Limau at 500 m west of the operation base are

predicted to be exposed to maximum sound levels of 69 dB(A).

The predicted noise contours for the marine construction works (bridge and jetty

construction) are shown in Figure 5.21. The noise impact from jetty construction is negligible

because the nearest sensitive receptor is located 1 km south of the jetty boundary with

predicted noise levels of 48 – 49 dB(A).

Noise impact from bridge construction affects a wider area due to the span of the bridge that

extends up to approximately 1.2 km. The nearest sensitive receptor at P. Bait is SK Pulau

Bait, located approximately 310 m from the bridge. The predicted maximum sound level at

the school is 62 dB(A). Meanwhile, the noise predictions from the bridge construction on the

mainland showed that the nearest sensitive receptor, Kg. Tanjung Kapor, at approximately

500 m from the project area is potentially exposed to sound levels of 54 dB(A).

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-45

Figure 5.20 Predicted noise contours from OB construction works.

Table 5.20 Estimated maximum noise level at sensitive receptors during construction works

Construction

Component Sensitive Receptor

Distance from

Project

Boundary (m)

Day Predicted

Maximum

Construction

Noise (dBA)

Existing

L90

Permissible

maximum

Lmax

Earthworks (Operation base at P. Bait)

Kg. Limau-Limau 500 44.7 90 69

Kg. Bait 610 40.5 90 67

Kg. Tanjung Kapor

1,500 45.0 90 58

SK. Pulau Bait 200 - 50 80

SK. Tanjung Kapor

2,500 - 50 48

Marine Works (Jetty)

Kg. Limau-Limau 1,700 44.7 90 41

Kg. Bait 1,300 40.5 90 45

5-46 62800860-RPT-02

Construction

Component Sensitive Receptor

Distance from

Project

Boundary (m)

Day Predicted

Maximum

Construction

Noise (dBA)

Existing

L90

Permissible

maximum

Lmax

Kg. Tanjung Kapor

2,700 45.0 90 31

SK. Pulau Bait 1,000 - 50 48

SK. Tanjung Kapor

3,600 - 50 22

Marine Works (Bridge)

Kg. Limau-Limau 810 44.7 90 50

Kg. Bait 630 40.5 90 52

Kg. Tanjung Kapor

470 45.0 90 54

SK. Pulau Bait 310 - 50 62

SK. Tanjung Kapor

1,200 - 50 46

Road Works (Mainland)

Kg. Limau-Limau 1,400 44.7 90 33

Kg. Bait 1,500 40.5 90 32

Kg. Tanjung Kapor

350 45.0 90 52

SK. Pulau Bait 1,600 - 50 31

SK. Tanjung Kapor

600 - 50 41

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-47

Figure 5.21 Predicted noise contours from marine construction works.

The noise impact from access road works are confined to the mainland. Figure 5.22 shows

the predicted noise contours of the road works activities. At approximately 350 m west of the

road boundary, Kg. Tanjung Kapor is the nearest sensitive receptor to be affected by the

road construction, and is predicted to be exposed to maximum noise levels of 52 dB(A).

Meanwhile, SK Tanjung Kapor located approximately 500 m southeast of the road boundary

is predicted to be exposed to maximum noise levels of 41 dB(A), which is within permissible

limits.

5-48 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 5.22 Predicted noise contours from road construction activities.

Table 5.20 shows the predicted maximum noise at the five nearest sensitive receptors

comprising three (3) villages and two (2) schools. In summary, the predicted maximum

noise levels exceed permissible levels only at SK. Pulau Bait during earthworks and bridge

construction, where the predicted maximum noise level is 80 dB(A).

The predicted maximum noise level at the other schools are below the permissible maximum

for school areas of 50 dB(A). The high noise is due to the close proximity of the school to the

construction area. However, it should be noted that the predicted noise levels are based on

the worst case scenario without any control measures and assuming all the equipment as

listed in Table 5.18 will be operating at the boundary of the Project area at the same time.

In practice, this will not be the case and furthermore the duration of construction works in

close proximity to the school will be short given the larger part of the OB area and Phase 1

construction is situated at the northern part of the island.

Lower noise levels can also be expected when mitigating measures are in place.

Furthermore, the topography, landscape, seascapes and vegetation surrounding the project

site will also act as a natural barrier to attenuate noise.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-49

With proper implementation of mitigation measures and strict adherence to construction

schedule, the noise impact at villages located within 1 km from the project site and SK Pulau

Bait can be minimised during the earthworks, bridge construction and road works.

5.4.7.5 Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to the local condition (P. Bait and Tg. Kapor) (1).

Magnitude: Negative change (-1); only villages within 1 km from project site and schools such as SK. P. Bait and SK Tg. Kapor are predicted to be temporarily exposed to maximum noise beyond permissible levels.

Permanence: Temporary (2)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-6, Slight Negative Impact (-A).

5.4.8 Air Quality

Construction activities will generate dust and potentially affect the air quality around the

Project. The main sources of airborne dust are earthworks, vegetation clearing or topsoil

stripping. In order to assess the impact of airborne dusts to the area, eight (8) sensitive

receptors comprising of villages at various location and distances from the proposed site

were identified for total suspended particulates (TSP) analysis.

Analysis showed that average baseline TSP level at the sensitive receptors ranged from 21

to 44 µg/m3 and is well below the Malaysian Ambient Air Quality Guidelines of 260 µg/m

3

(Figure 5.23). The prevailing wind direction during NE monsoon is NNE direction and during

SW monsoon, wind flow predominantly from southerly direction. Based on the wind data

2012, airborne dust may affect Kg. Limau-Limau when construction activities for OB

component are carried out during NE monsoon period. Meanwhile, the road works at the

mainland can affect Kg. Bait when activities are carried out during SW monsoon.

It is noted that the spread of airborne dusts to the nearby sensitive receptors due to

construction activities are very much dependent on the wind direction, topography,

vegetation or other characteristics of the project site. For example, P. Bait has quite flat

topography, so theoretically dust impacts can spread to other villages further away on the

island if not controlled. However, with proper implementation of mitigation measures, the

dust impact to these villages can be minimised.

5-50 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 5.23 Prevailing wind direction in relation to the airborne dust impact.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to the local condition (Kg. Bait and Kg. Limau-Limau) (1).

Magnitude: Negative change (-1); only villages nearby the project site such as Kg. Bait and Kg. Limau-Limau.

Permanence: Temporary (2)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-6, Slight Negative Impact (-A).

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-51

5.5 Impacts to Biological Environment

The scoping exercise as summarised in Section 5.1 above has focused the assessment on

the following priority issues and remaining issues with respect to the biological / ecological

environment:

Priority Issues

Marine water and sediment quality.

Impacts from release and deposition of nutrients/ organic matter from lobster secretion, excretion (faeces) and feed wastes during operations may affect coral reefs, seagrass and benthic infauna.

Loss of mangrove

Mangrove areas within the Mangrove Forest Reserve at Tg. Kapor and mangroves on P. Bait will be affected due to the jetty / bridge and Operations Base footprint.

Fauna impacts

Terrestrial and marine wildlife may be subject to increased hunting/ harvesting pressure by farm workers targeting endangered or locally rare species such as giant clams, sea cucumber, etc. Primarily during operations but may also occur to a limited extent during construction.

Remaining Issues

Removal of seabed habitat

Within anchoring and mooring areas of the cages

Within bridge and jetty pile footprints

Introduction of diseases / foreign strains

Potential introduction and spread of diseases from the farmed animals to wild populations during operations

An outline of the components of the biological environment and potential impacts addressed

in this Section is given in Table 5.21 and are evaluated in detail in the following subsections.

The key identified receptors are benthic habitats and communities, which encompass coral

reefs, seagrass beds and benthic infauna; mangrove communities; marine fauna, including

fish fauna as well as marine megafauna (reptiles, mammals and sharks); and finally,

terrestrial flora and fauna.

Table 5.21 Summary of marine ecology components and sources of impacts.

Sources of Impact Biological component

Benthic Habitats (coral, seagrass and infauna)

Mangrove

Marine Fauna (fish fauna, marine megafauna)

Terrestrial Flora and Fauna

Habitat loss/modification

Water quality / eutrophication

Sedimentation

5-52 62800860-RPT-02

Sources of Impact Biological component

Benthic Habitats (coral, seagrass and infauna)

Mangrove

Marine Fauna (fish fauna, marine megafauna)

Terrestrial Flora and Fauna

Lighting

Noise (including underwater noise)

Entanglement, boat strike

Oil Spill and other water quality pollutants

5.5.1 Impact on Benthic Habitats

Impacts to coral reefs, seagrass and benthic in-fauna are discussed in this section. Site

selection and spatial planning exercises have been undertaken as part of the project

development, so that direct impacts from cage farms (PUs) on sensitive benthic habitats

such as coral reefs and seagrass beds are minimised. Figure 5.24 shows the location of the

farming area and the observed coral reef and seagrass areas.

The priority issues with respect to the marine benthic environment are marine water quality

and sedimentation impacts; and potential impacts from improper waste disposal during

operations, e.g. discarded nets, biological wastes, spent oils and other chemicals, and

domestic wastes. Issues of note that may also impact the marine benthic environment

include sewage and waste water discharges, and the impacts of noise.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-53

Figure 5.24 iLAP farming area, coral reefs and seagrass habitats.

5.5.1.1 Coral Reefs

Changes in Nutrient Levels during Operational Stage There will be an increase in nutrient levels in and around the PUs due to the release of

uneaten lobster feed and waste from faeces during operations. Discharges from the

operations base will also be a source of some inputs, however, wastewater will be treated to

Standard A effluent prior to discharge and the estimated volumes are small in comparison to

the direct inputs from the marine operations (PUs).

There is a significant body of literature on the effect of inorganic nutrients on corals. The

effect depends heavily on the species of coral, and the dose and the duration of exposure to

nutrients. Indirect effects may impart sub-lethal effects including epiphytic algal growth /21,

22/, reduced or increased productivity and/or interruption of coral reproductive processes

/23, 22, 24/. Nutrients may inhibit the recovery of corals following perturbation, leading to

greater susceptibility to heat induced bleaching (various references, cited in Oceanica

Consulting, 2013 /25/). Under worst-case conditions, prolonged exposure to nutrients may

lead to a catastrophic phase shift from coral to macroalgal dominated ecosystems (various

references, cited in /25/).

5-54 62800860-RPT-02

An increase in nutrient loads may also impact corals indirectly through increased

phytoplankton growth leading to an attenuation of light levels. Under these circumstances

the coral zooxanthellae are prevented from producing food through photosynthesis leading

to zooxanthellae “expulsion” and coral bleaching. In a similar way, light attenuation can also

impact other primary producers including seagrasses and macro algae.

On the other hand, corals have also been reported to flourish when exposed to fish farm

effluents, exhibiting faster growth, enhanced reproductive fecundity and high survivorship

/25/, likely due to the demonstrated positive growth relationship between coral zooxanthellae

and nutrient availability /26, 27/.

Despite the significant research into the effect of nutrients on corals, there is no consensus

on threshold limits before significant adverse impacts to corals can be realised. Much of the

research focus has been on coral and algae competition dynamics, attempting to determine

the threshold of elevated nutrient exposure at which a phase shift from coral to algal-

dominated communities occur; however there is much debate as to whether nutrient

exposure is in fact the driving factor or whether grazing (on algae) is the primary

determinant.

As outlined in Appendix D (literature review of thresholds and responses), there are a range

of thresholds proposed in the literature. Recognising that there remains a host of unknowns

with respect to the Project site (long term water quality data, algae-grazer relationships, etc.),

three thresholds have been selected from the range of values given in the literature as

outlined above in section 5.4.1.1 (Table 5.22). These take the lower of the reported levels as

a Minor impact (15 µg/L), and at the other end of the scale, one of the higher values

(although not the highest reported threshold) as Major impact. These thresholds are used

for the purpose of this impact assessment, but should only be viewed as a starting point for

environmental management of the site during project implementation - it is strongly

recommended that further monitoring of both water quality and coral reefs is carried out on a

long term basis to refine these thresholds and the management of the iLAP is adapted in

response to the findings of the monitoring (see Section 7 outlining the recommended

monitoring requirements).

Table 5.22 Impact severity thresholds of ammonium nitrogen on marine habitats.

Impact Concentration (µg/l)

Description

Minor 15 Impacts to corals may occur; e.g. some change in coral species, reduction of growth rates.

Low likelihood of permanent phase shift in substrate type.

Moderate 30 Moderate impacts such as change in coral species type, reduction in coral cover

Major 45 High likelihood of a phase shift to algal dominated community.

Based on the ECO Lab modelling described in Section 5.4.1, above a spatially integrated

distribution of the maximum extent of possible Minor Impact severity over the three seasons

for the iLAP is shown in Figure 5.25. Only minor impacts have been predicted; no moderate

or major impacts are predicted in any areas.

It can be seen in Figure 5.23 that the zone of minor impacts affects some areas of LF 8, 4, 6,

2 and 5; these amount to a minor impact on:

Approximately 127 ha of dense coral, or 20% of coral reefs within the study area.

Approximately 1,145 ha of sparse coral, or 16% of corals within the study area.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-55

In addition, the zone of minor impact potentially encroaches upon the Tun Sakaran Marine

Park boundary adjacent to the northeastern part of the iLAP. However, no coral reef areas

are found in this zone.

Given the very conservative assumptions made in setting up the model, the impact is not

expected to severe. The actual frequency and severity of this level of encroachment cannot

be more fully defined at this time but as discussed in the Mitigation section (Section 6), an

adaptive monitoring and active management approach is proposed.

The predicted increase in nutrients could also be a factor in increasing the likelihood of algal

blooms occurring. The blooms could result in a reduction of sunlight, inhibiting

photosynthesis by the coral zooxanthellae and in the worst case resulting in coral bleaching.

The chlorophyll modelling indicated that potential increases in phytoplankton may occur

around P. Bait and P. Selangan, i.e. around the southern areas of the Project site, where

primarily sparse corals are present.

Figure 5.25 Zone of Minor water quality impact and coral areas.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important to State interests owing to potential impact to Tun Sakaran Marine Park (3)

Magnitude: Minor negative change (-1);

5-56 62800860-RPT-02

Permanence: Permanent (3), as long as the project is in operation.

Reversibility: In practice, any realised impacts to such a large area would be irreversible (3),

Cumulative impact: Cumulative (3)

Impact Significance: ES=-27, Moderate Negative Impact (-C).

Damage from Cage Anchors, Ropes and Debris during Construction Cage anchors and ropes can represent a significant potential threat to corals if the cages,

ropes or anchors are inadvertently placed within coral reef areas. Anchors can drag in

extreme weather events which can cause corals to become dislodged.

In addition to the mooring and anchor installation, if the cages are placed above/nearby the

coral reef areas, debris like wood planks and other construction material may fall into the sea

by accident or by negligence on the part of the construction workers and cause physical

damage to the corals.

Based on the indicative mooring designs outlined in Section 3.5.2.3, the distance of the

anchors from the cages may range from 9.5 m to 168 m within the project area, depending

on water depth (based on a ratio of 3:1 for mooring line length to water depth).

Therefore in some areas, the buffer zone of 50 m from the edge of the iLAP boundary to the

nearest coral reef is not sufficient to avoid direct anchoring impacts on the reefs. In these

areas, the cages must be setback from the iLAP boundary to ensure that the footprint (i.e.

including the mooring lines and anchors) remain within the Project boundary.

Areas of live coral within Zones LF 6 and 7 which are within sparse coral areas may be

damaged by mooring lines and anchors if the micro-scale live coral distribution is not

accounted for prior to placement.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to the local condition; i.e. the cage and anchor footprints (1).

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-7, Slight Negative Impact (-A).

Impacts to Coral due to Earthworks and Marine Construction Along the proposed jetty, live coral cover is estimated at around 5% of the substrate (Photo

5.1). Sparse coral cover (20-50% live coral) was only found at the proposed jetty head area.

The types of corals along the Bait side are massive corals.

Patches of corals are found between 30 m to 850 m west of the bridge at the bridge landing

site at P. Bait.

No live corals were observed around the bridge landing area at Tg. Kapor. However, dense

coral cover patches (>50% live coral) was found approximately 700 m to the east of the

bridge landing area (Figure 5.26).

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-57

Photo 5.1 Scattered corals found along the proposed jetty area.

5-58 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 5.26 Fringing reefs in the vicinity of the proposed bridge and jetty.

The proposed bridge will have a working corridor of 100 m, although the dimensions of the

piers at the end of the bridge are 2 m x 11 m, with 40 m spacing along the bridge alignment.

Hence the actual permanent, direct impact footprint is low, although the construction works

with the anchoring of barges, propeller wash impacts, etc. will likely have a higher zone of

impact, albeit temporary.

Due to the mangrove reclamation along the coastal sections of the Operations Base and

bridge land fall area, increased suspended sediments and sedimentation may impact the

corals adversely. As the infilling works will be carried out from land using dry earth fill (as

opposed to hydraulic marine fill), sediment spill and runoff can be largely controlled.

Upon completion of the bridge, it is very likely that the piers in the shallower areas with lower

current speeds will be colonised with coral and other invertebrate species, as the structures

provide a suitable substrate for larvae to settle. Field observations would suggest that the

establishment of new communities will occur on these structures.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-59

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to the local condition (small areas of coral at P. Bait and Tg. Kapor) (1)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Irreversible (3)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-8, Slight Negative Impact (-A).

5.5.1.2 Seagrass Negative effects of aquaculture on seagrass beds have been documented elsewhere, with

lower shoot productivity, standing crop and leaf sizes in impacted seagrass areas adjacent to

fish farms compared with control patches /28/. Organic enrichment leading to increased

nutrient supply in the water has been linked to impacts such as overgrazing, shading of

seagrass leaves by excessive growth of epiphytic algae resulting in reduced photosynthesis

and overall decline /29,30/, as well as decreased levels of phytoplankton production through

reduced light transmission through the water column /31/. Similar effects are observed

through increased levels of turbidity as well /32/. All of these situations can lead to the death

of seagrass through a reduction in available light.

The associated organic enrichment in sediments is also of a concern, as effects are shown

to persist beyond the cessation of the cage farming /33/. In addition, there is evidence for

the distribution of corals and seagrass in coral reef systems being controlled in part by

grazers such as some fish species and sea urchins /33/, and as a result, changes in

conditions for these species can also have an effect. It is not possible though with the data to

hand to assess the level of impact such changes might have.

Given that the bulk of seagrasses occurring in the vicinity of the iLAP are on or outside of the

boundary (Figure 5.24), they are sparse in nature and there is to be a 50 m buffer put in

place it is unlikely that there will be any significant impact on seagrass. The exception to this

would be an area identified during field surveys within LF 6. These seagrass areas may be

directly affected if care is not taken to site the cages directly over the habitat; however as

tropical seagrasses can be very transient, further monitoring is needed to establish the

temporal and spatial extent of this area.

Based on the same thresholds identified for coral reef habitats, affected seagrass areas will

be exposed to only minor impacts due to nutrient enrichment (Figure 5.27).

Seagrass (Enhalus acoroides and Thalassia hemprichii) and seaweed were also observed

within and around the proposed jetty area on P. Bait. However, the percentage cover is

estimated at only 5% of the substrate. These sparse seagrass areas will be affected by the

jetty construction and OB earthworks if soil erosion and runoff is not controlled.

5-60 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 5.27 Impact severity of ammonium nitrogen exposure within seagrass areas.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to the local condition (waters off P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait, 1)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1) – minor impacts due to nutrient exposure during operations and suspended solids/ sedimentation during construction.

Permanence: Permanent (3) in the case of nutrients during operations

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-7, Slight Negative Impact (-A).

5.5.1.3 Benthic In-fauna Generally all water deeper than 25 m within the proposed iLAP is dominated by mud and

sand (with no corals). Benthic communities in these areas are dominated by Annelida and

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-61

closely followed by Arthropoda as well as a mixture of Mollusca, Echinodermata and

Nematoda.

Sea-cage aquaculture has the potential to impact the sediment when organic wastes settle

beneath, or in close proximity to the sea-cages /34, 35/. Deposition of organic material from

sea-cages may impact infauna communities through burial or alteration of the preferred

substrate condition, i.e. change in mean particle size, percent carbon, nutrient fluxes or

indirectly through the interruption of filter feeding processes.

A moderate input of organic matter in general increases the abundance and diversity of the

benthic fauna through the increased food supply; however, as the organic load rises,

diversity declines and the benthos becomes increasingly dominated by a small number of

opportunistic species (usually polychaetes). Where pollution is severe and anoxic

conditionst67u develop, even these species decline /36/.

Sedimentation due to the settling of cage wastes has been predicted through numerical

modelling as described in Section 5.4.3. Most of the farm wastes are predicted to settle

directly under or near the cages in the northern areas of the iLAP, while along the northeast

and eastern areas the wastes spread more widely due to stronger current flows. Overall, the

area of impact (sedimentation >0.75 kg/m2/yr) lies within approximately 50 m of the PU

footprint. Based on this impact zone (PU footprint plus 50 m buffer), an estimated 8,820 ha

of benthic habitat will be affected. The anticipated effects will include changes in particle size

and sediment oxygenation levels, which are driven largely by organic carbon inputs from the

farm as oxygen depletion may occur due to increased biological oxygen demand during the

bacterial breakdown of the organic matter. Modelling of organic carbon deposition (Section

5.4.3.1) indicates only minor impacts outside of the farm footprints, although the depositional

zones are predicted to extend out to several hundreds of metres away from the cages in

places, depending on the localised bathymetry and hydrodynamic conditions.

Hypoxia may cause local extinction of benthic populations /37/, reduced growth rates of

benthic fauna /38, 39/) and changes in benthic communities /40,41,42/. Changes in

communities are typically driven by the sensitivities of infauna, with rare and more sensitive

species disappearing first. More resilient species such as several species of polychaete are

known to be resistant to hypoxic or near-hypoxic conditions /40,43/. Larger, active fauna with

high respiratory demands will be the most affected by oxygen depletion.

Apart from organic enrichment, other pollutants such as heavy metals may also change the

abundance and composition of the benthic fauna. Increased concentrations of heavy metals,

in particular copper and zinc, may result from the fish feed and antifoulant paints used on the

cages and nets.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to the local condition (waters within iLAP) (1)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1), minor impacts are predicted.

Permanence: Permanent as long as project is in operation (3)

Reversibility: Reversible (2); sediment can recover following cessation of farming

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-7, Slight Negative Impact (-A).

5.5.2 Impacts on Mangrove

Fringing mangroves occur along the mainland around Tg. Kapor, on P. Bait and in

embayments around P. Timbun Mata. The affected mangroves on the southern side of P.

5-62 62800860-RPT-02

Bait and at Tg. Kapor are gazetted mangrove forest reserves (Semporna Mangrove Forest

Reserve Class V). The dominant species of mangroves are Rhizophora sp. These mangrove

species are listed as Least Concern under the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

There are two main potential sources of impacts to mangroves: direct mangrove loss due to

the project footprint, incurred during the construction phase; and impacts due to organic

nutrient loading from the aquaculture operations. In addition, the impacts of the embankment

construction for the access road to the bridge is also predicted to result in reduced current

speeds resulting in potential sedimentation in the areas immediately around the road. This is

also evaluated in this section.

5.5.2.1 Mangrove Loss due to Project Footprint The Project will result in the direct loss of mangroves at Tg. Kapor and along the shoreline of

P. Bait due to the footprint of the access road, bridge and Operations Base. The loss of

vegetation may also have a direct impact upon the marine fauna and avifauna that inhabit

the mangrove areas.

The total mangrove area within a 3 km radius from the project area is approximately 662

hectares. The total mangrove area on P. Bait is quite significant, at 319 ha. The typical

conditions of the mangrove in the affected areas are shown in the photographs below.

Photo 5.2 Mangrove fringe between Kg. Limau-Limau and Kg. Bait on P. Bait.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-63

Photo 5.3 Mangroves within the proposed Operations Base area.

The total direct loss of mangrove due to the project footprint (operation base, proposed road

and bridge) is approximately 13.9 hectares, which represents only 2.1% of the total

mangrove area within the study area (3 km radius from the Project, see Figure 5.28, Table

5.23 and Table 5.24).

The dominant mangrove species within these direct impact areas are Rhizophora spp. The

mangroves are predominantly medium-dense and low-lying, and fringe the coastline along

the inter-tidal area. The trees are generally in good condition.

Overall, the direct loss in mangroves is considered to be minor given that the area lost

represents only approximately 2% of mangrove area within 3 km radius of the Project as

shown in Table 5.24. In addition, it is noted that the calculated area includes the access

road, the bridge, jetty, operations base and additional 50 m on each side of the access road,

which is only needed during construction where it intersects with mangroves. The areas

immediately adjacent to the road shoulder and drain, i.e. 50 m either side of the road, can be

replanted upon the completion of construction.

5-64 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 5.28 Direct mangrove loss due to the Project.

Table 5.23 Total area of mangrove affected by the project footprint.

Project Component Affected Area (ha) Loss as percentage of mangrove within surrounding area (3 km of Project)

Bridge 1.2 ha 0.18%

Operation Base 6.0 ha 0.9%

Road 6.7 ha 1.01%

Total 13.9 ha 2.09%

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-65

Table 5.24 Total area of mangrove affected by location.

Area of Direct Loss

Total Affected Mangrove Area (ha)*

Affected Mangrove Forest Reserve Area (ha)

Percentage of mangrove (%) within surrounding area

Pulau Bait 7.2 ha 1.2 3.2 % loss of P. Bait mangrove area within 3 km of the Project

Tg. Kapor 6.7 ha 6.7 1.5 % loss of fringing mangrove along the mainland within 3 km of the Project

Total 13.9 ha 7.9 Loss of 2.09 % of mangrove area within 3 km radius

* Including Mangrove Forest Reserve

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to the local condition (P. Bait and Tg. Kapor, 1)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Irreversible (3) (although 50 m on either side of the access road and bridge corridor can be replanted).

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-8, Slight Negative Impact (-A)

5.5.2.2 Impacts from Organic Nutrient Loading Impacts from nutrient loading from the farm operations are not likely to affect the relatively

small areas of fringing mangroves in the embayments of P. Timbun Mata. Mangroves

produce large quantities of organic material and are hence tolerant to natural high organic

loads as well as additional loading from aquaculture /44/.

Nutrient modelling encompassing feed waste, nutrient excretion and secretion from the

lobsters indicate that loads are diluted and dispersed by the tidal currents and wave action

and are not predicted to affect the shorelines, including the mangrove shorelines, of P.

Timbun Mata. This is also due in large to the farm optimisation where by the farming zones

are in general located at a minimum of 200 m distance from the island’s shorelines to avoid

fringing coral reefs.

Any accumulation of lobster derived organic matter is thus predicted to be below natural

rates of accumulation and no impact to the mangrove forests on P. Timbun Mata or Bait is

expected.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to the local condition (P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait (1))

Magnitude: No change (0)

Permanence: No change (0)

Reversibility: No change (0)

Cumulative impact: No change (0)

5-66 62800860-RPT-02

Impact Significance: ES=0, No Change (N)

5.5.2.3 Impacts from Sedimentation Sediment from catchment erosion enters mangrove ecosystems through run-off and

transportation in riverine water columns. Mangrove aerial root systems baffle currents,

exerting friction on the water column, inducing complex patterns of jets, eddies and stagnant

water. The latter encourages sedimentation (primarily of flocculated clay particles, as

discussed by Furukawa et al., 1997 /45/), while dense below ground root systems bind and

stabilise the sediment /46/.

Mangroves are thus able to withstand gradual sediment accumulation, as this is part of their

natural, dynamic state. However, steep increases in suspended sediment loads and the

natural or anthropogenic dumping of material can bury pneumatophores reducing their ability

to supply oxygen to the root system. This will not affect the Rhizophora species which are

predominant at the site owing to their stilt root architecture (as opposed to pneumatophores

or knee roots).

Sedimentation in the mangrove areas can occur during construction due to uncontrolled soil

erosion and runoff from the construction areas; in this case, primarily from the land-based

earthworks. Sediment release from the piling activity for the bridge and jetty on the other

hand is expected to be very limited. Given that the sediments from the earthworks can be

controlled through the ECSP (see Section 5.4.2.1 above and mitigation measures in Section

6), combined with the low sensitivity of Rhizophora spp. to sedimentation; the impacts during

construction are expected to be negligible and are hence not discussed further in this

section.

Of a more permanent concern is the long-term sedimentation that may be induced due to the

project footprint; in particular the construction of the access road to the bridge through the

mangroves at Tg. Kapor, which effectively creates a causeway through the intertidal

mangroves. As outlined in Section 5.4.4.2 above, reduced current speeds are predicted

around the causeway area, which may result in sedimentation over the long term. Figure

5.29 shows the potential zone of impact due to sedimentation, based on the predicted zone

of current speed reduction.

The sedimentation as a result of the access road footprint is expected to be gradual and

hence no mortalities of the mangrove already established are anticipated based on the

tolerance of the mangrove to sedimentation (see Table 5.25). Over the long term, sediment

accumulation may result in changes in tidal inundation; i.e. when the sediment has accreted

to a higher topographic level beyond the reach of a given tidal height. This in turn can cause

a change in species composition as seedlings associated with the back mangroves are more

likely to establish in the accretionary zones. Currently there is little zonation observed, with

Rhizophora species occurring throughout the profile, however, Lumnitzera littorea, Ceriops

tagal, B. parviflora, and B. cylindrica are observed primarily in the back mangrove.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-67

Figure 5.29 Indicative zone of impact for potential sedimentation around road/bridge at Tg. Kapor.

Table 5.25 Observed /estimated tolerances for sedimentation based on literature review for the dominant mangrove species observed around the Project site.

Species/location Sedimentation Tolerance

Rhizophora apiculata Burial of >8 cm increased mortality of seedlings at a rate of 3% per cm of sediment deposited.

Seedlings cannot tolerate sudden events of high (>4 cm) sediment accretion

Rhizophora mucronata Though survival was not consistently affected by sediment burial seedlings receiving 32 cm of sediment had the highest mortality 70%

Impact Evaluation

Spatial magnitude of effect:

Within project boundary (1)

Severity of effect: Minor impact (-1) as sedimentation is only likely to affect seedlings; mature mangrove trees unlikely to suffer any

5-68 62800860-RPT-02

adverse impact.

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Irreversible (3)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2).

Overall Impact Significance:

ES=-8, Slight Negative Impact (-A) as the effect is of minor

severity and restricted to within the project site.

5.5.3 Impacts on Marine Fauna

5.5.3.1 Farm Workers and Wildlife Interactions Adverse outcomes for wildlife can result from hunting by workers for food or due to the

desire to protect the farm from predators or other pests. Farm workers may harvest/fish

endangered species present within the study area during their spare time (for example, Giant

Clams, Napolean Wrasse, sharks and rays). If uncontrolled, the sheer number of workers at

the Project’s full operating capacity would mean that even occasional hunting by the workers

could result in significant impacts on the wildlife.

Otters that have been observed around the Study area can become pests; leading some

contract farmers or farm employees to harm these creatures. Crocodiles and monitor lizards

would possibly be occasional visitors as they are attracted to and will eat the abundant fish

predicted to be present in the area. It is likely that sea snakes may be occasional visitors to

the cages; found resting on cages. They feed mostly on eels but are not known to eat

lobsters.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Coral Triangle Initiative (4) – Endangered wildlife

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Permanent (3), during operations

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-28, Moderate Negative Impact (-C)

5.5.3.2 Fish Fauna Most fish species will feed on wastes released from the cages. There is a large body of

literature (for fish cage farming) which shows that farms attract a significant number of

pelagic and demersal fish species /47, 48, 50/. Large predatory species may also be

attracted. The PUs will effectively create a significant habitat for a range of fish and function

like FADs (Fish Aggregating Devices) primarily due to increased food availability, but also

due to exclusion of fishing and in particular destructive fishing methods.

Mediterranean sea cage fish farms were found to attract wild fish assemblages that had up

to 30 different species, with estimated aggregation biomasses ranging between 10 to 40 T

/49/. Similarly large aggregations have been documented in Greece and the Canary Islands

(cited in /50/).

These effects, combined with the protection afforded by the project to the marine

environment within and immediately around the site from fishing pressure (legal and illegal

fishing methods) will result in a net positive benefit to the region in terms of fish stocks.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-69

In the present case, there is synergy with the iLAP and the Tun Sakaran Marine Park. The

iLAP can contribute to the enhancement of fisheries, which may reduce fishing pressure

within the Park and allow biodiversity protection objectives to take precedence.

The consumption of the available food from the cages by wild fish could also influence the

dynamics of nutrient flows. Two experiments that excluded fish from beneath farms shows

that wild fish consumed between 40 – 80% of the total sedimenting nutrients (cited in /50/).

It is recommended that monitoring of fish assemblages around the farm is carried out during

operations; in order to balance or maximise the ability of wild fish to act as assimilators of the

nutrient inputs of the farm and reduce the benthic impact, while at the same allowing the

local fishing communities to benefit from the improved fish stocks.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important to areas immediately outside the local condition - southern Darvel bay and adjacent mainland shorelines (2).

Magnitude: Significant positive change (+2), given the low abundance of fish currently observed around the site

Permanence: Permanent (3), as long as the Project is operational

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Cumulative (3)

Impact Significance: ES=32, Moderate Positive Impact (+C).

5.5.3.3 Marine Megafauna Marine mammals such as dolphins, sharks, rays and whale sharks have been observed or

reported within the study area, and reported in the wider Semporna region. Marine reptiles

such as turtles are common /51/.

Cases of interactions between cetaceans and fish cage farms have been documented

elsewhere in the world, and have been primarily negative, including lethal entanglements,

habitat exclusion, disturbance or direct injury from vessels (ship strike and underwater noise)

and illegal shooting /70/. On the other hand, positive interactions such as the anticipated

increase in prey near the farms will also occur, namely fish aggregation around the cages

attracted by waste feed. Localised increases in fish abundance have been demonstrated for

coastal fish farms (see section above), which in turn may attract dolphins to the area.

These potential effects are discussed in the following subsections, drawing particular

attention to the marine megafauna found in the study region.

Habitat Exclusion during PU Operations In terms of marine megafauna, the iLAP site and its surrounds is regularly visited by

dolphins. As there is a lack of long-term data on dolphins and the environmental conditions

governing their distribution, it is not clear how critical the value of the project area is to the

dolphins in terms of habitat requirements and availability elsewhere. It is noted that the more

unique habitat (in the sense it is not found in other areas in the vicinity of the Project) of the

Tandoan Straits between the mainland and P. Timbun Mata is not affected by the iLAP. This

sheltered strait encompasses the mainland coastline which is fringed with mangrove with

several river mouths draining into the area which may afford habitat for the Irrawaddy dolphin

in particular. The iLAP aquaculture zone lies mainly in the open waters off fringing coral

reefs; this habitat type is found abundantly in Semporna and Darvel Bay region, including

within the protected Tun Sakaran Marine Park.

5-70 62800860-RPT-02

Small cetaceans and sea turtles can still enter the iLAP aquaculture zone and swim between

PUs. This has frequently been observed in other fish farms around the world, including

reports of dolphins feeding, mating and playing within aquaculture farms in Australia /70, 52/.

Conversely, a study of the ranging patterns of bottlenose dolphins in Western Australia

showed that the use of the farm area was reduced after the farm was in place /52/.

In summary, habitat exclusion will occur through the presence of the cages in the water

space which can affect dolphins negatively, but it is not likely to cause any significant

impacts such as effects on population viability given the vast available habitat areas nearby,

including the Tun Sakaran Marine Park.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important to Southern Darvel Bay area (2)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Permanent, for duration of operations (3)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-14, Minor Negative Impact (-B)

Vessel Disturbance (Strikes and Noise) during Operational Stage Marine mega fauna and marine reptiles such as sea turtles are all susceptible to vessel

strikes. Sea turtles surface to air to breathe and are hence prone to boat propeller strikes as

evidenced by the mortality cases observed at the Tunku Abdul Rahman Marine Park in Kota

Kinabalu (personal observation).

Boat speed also affects the severity of collision impacts with marine megafauna. Whales

struck by vessels travelling at 13-15 knots or faster are more prone to cause severe injury or

mortality within the animals /70/.

Underwater noise is an important issue as many marine mammals use sound as a primary

means for underwater communication and sensing. The soundscapes of the ocean is hence

an important aspect of marine mammal habitat, and natural and anthropogenic sounds

influence the location choice and behaviours of these marine fauna.

Increased underwater noise within the iLAP can be expected during operations, primarily

owing to the increased vessel activity due to service boats, feed vessels, barges etc. which

at full production is estimated to be in the thousands (see Section 3.6.3.7). Given the number

of these, the small vessels are likely to be significant local sound sources.

No acoustic deterrent or harassment devices will be utilised at the farm and hence no noise

impacts will arise from this source.

Marine megafauna sensitive to sound that were observed or are reported to be present in

the Project area are dolphins. Dolphins are dependent on sound to understand the

conditions of their surroundings and their acoustically sensitive ears are vulnerable to noise

disturbances or disruption of communication signals, with impacts including displacement,

avoidance, increased dive time and shortened surface intervals and changes in underwater

acoustic behaviours /53, 54, 55, 56, 57/.

The underwater hearing range for dolphins has been recorded to be between 75 Hz to 150

Hz /58/. The zone of responsiveness predicts over what ranges animals are likely to react to

boat noise; this reaction threshold may depend on a variety of factors including the noise

level emissions, the bandwidth and the amount of ambient (background) noise, past

experience (habituation). For marine mammals, a broadband sound pressure level of 120

dB per 1 µPa is used as a threshold of responsiveness /59/.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-71

Sea turtles on the other hand lack external ears /60/. The anatomy of the hearing apparatus

is such that sea turtles can hear low frequency sounds whilst underwater and very little

sound above water /61/. Vibrations, however, can be conducted through the bones of the

carapace to reach the middle ear. This would further enhance their response to low

frequency sounds whilst underwater /61/. It has been found that juvenile green turtles have

a slightly broader hearing range (100-800 Hz; best sensitivity 600-700 Hz) than sub-adults

(range 100-500 Hz) /60/.

Studies of noise levels from small powerboats document peak spectral density levels in the

350-1,200 Hz band of 145-150 dB re 1 µPa2/Hz @ 1m /62/. A study by Jensen et al /63/

found that small vessels travelling at 5 knots in shallow water can reduce the communication

range of bottlenose dolphins within 50 m by 26%. Increased cavitation noise (noise arising

from air bubbles forming and collapsing on the edge of fast-moving propeller blades) at

higher speeds was found to drastically increase the impact on the communication range.

Hence the noise from small vessels can significantly mask acoustic communication in

delphinids and contribute to negative impacts on animal well-being and fitness. Vessels

moving at < 2.5 knots on the other hand did not significantly increase ambient noise levels

within bottlenose dolphin frequencies.

In terms of risk of boat strike, fast travelling vessels give a small amount of time for dolphins

to flee as an avoidance response and they also produce more noise thereby causing more

acoustic disturbance for dolphins. In some cases, small vessels travelling at fast speed are

only detected by the animals when the vessels are in close range thereby causing a startle

reaction /64/. Hence, slower boats are more preferred to protect the mammals.

Overall, since the dolphins within iLAP are transient, the impacts will probably be moderate

as they will move to other more favourable areas to avoid vessel and noise disturbance. The

higher frequency noise emitted from smaller vessels also do not travel as far as low

frequency sound e.g. from larger ships. It is possible however that underwater noise from

marine traffic could affect the western TSMP area which lies approximately 600 m away from

the iLAP (nearest point). Appropriate mitigation will be needed such as imposing vessel

speed limits, using quieter vessels, and as the iLAP progresses to full production, continually

revising work methods to improve efficiency and reduce operational marine traffic.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important to regional conservation interests (4)

Magnitude: Significant negative change (-2) at full operations;

Permanence: Permanent, for duration of project (2)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-48, Significant Negative Impact (-D).

Disturbance during Construction Stage During construction, there will be minimal impact to megafauna from vessels as the number

of vessels used will be less than 50 vessels at the height of construction and used for

transportation of construction material and workers.

No heavy duty construction work within the PUs leading to loud noises is anticipated.

However, construction of the jetty and bridge will involve piling which may result in

disturbance to the marine fauna. Impacts include physical injury such as hearing loss, or

behavioural impacts and masking of communication. However, research has also shown that

there is some level of tolerance by marine mammals to human-generated noise. Stationary

sources have less effect on whales and dolphins than mobile sources, and avoidance

responses occur when noise levels are well above ambient sound levels. Some marine

5-72 62800860-RPT-02

mammals appear to ignore or tolerate continuous sound at levels above 120 dB for a few

hours /65/. Avoidance commences when received levels start to exceed 120 dB, and most

marine mammals would leave an area with over 140 dB continuous or long term impulsive

sound.

Pile driving source levels are among the highest of marine construction activities and has

been recorded to produce sound levels of between 220 – 257 dB re 1 µPa in the 19 - -20kHz

band /66/. There is however limited knowledge of the effects of pile driving noise on marine

life, although lethal injury in fish has been documented. Marine mammal noise exposure

criteria have been developed elsewhere, where injury (namely the onset of a permanent

threshold shift) is SPLPk>230 dB re 1 µPa and ELS > 198 dB re 1 µPas (M-weighted). This

type of injury however normally only arises when the animal is exposed to these high sound

levels without an escape option. Under normal circumstances, it is unlikely that an animal

would remain in close range for the duration of driving an entire pile.

Piling sound emissions close to the pile contain high frequency sounds that are quickly

attenuated with distance in water. The zone of influence of underwater noise depends on

water depth, the type of piling equipment used, and the substrate in the work area. Hence

noise predictions from other studies cannot be directly used but remain useful for

comparison. Measurements of piling operations at Swanson Dock in the Port of Melbourne

for instance determined a zone of influence of 350 m radius from piling operations, where a

reduction of 8.4 dB per doubling of distance from the sound source was observed /67/.

Sound attenuation in shallow water is higher compared to deep water, i.e. if a pile is in

contact with a smaller water depth then the sound emissions underwater will be reduced.

Hence the zone of impact for the bridge construction is likely to travel along the deeper strait

but attenuate in the shallower Tandoan strait to the west. To the east, sound will be

attenuated/ blocked by the reefs along the P. Bait and will not be expected to affect marine

fauna beyond the Bait strait and in the TSMP.

Jetty piling will occur at its deepest in around -10 m water depth, however, most of the trestle

length is along a reef flat at depths of approximately 2 m MSL till -10 m MSL. Again, based

on measurements elsewhere, an indicative zone of impact is 350 m from the jetty. Figure

5.30 shows the area surrounding the bridge and jetty where temporary avoidance by whales,

dolphins or turtles are expected during construction.

Even if any marine mammals or turtles were present in this zone of influence at the start of

piling, they would be started and move from the immediate area; no harm to the fauna is

expected from the sound emissions from piling, even at close range. This type of response

can also be avoided by simple observation before starting piling or by using a ‘soft start’ to

piling. No long term detrimental effects are hence anticipated.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-73

Figure 5.30 Indicative zone of underwater noise impact from piling at bridge and jetty sites.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to the local condition (P. P. Bait and Tg. Kapor (1)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Temporary (2)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-6, Slight Negative Impact (-A)

Lethal Entanglement during Operational Stage The entanglement of sea turtles and dolphins in fishing gear is well documented around the

world; however, entanglement in marine cage farms is less commonly reported. These have

been mostly reported in Australia (bottlenose and shot-beaked common dolphins) /68/. The

risk of entanglement by large cetaceans (such as whale shark) appears to be lower based

on reported cases in the literature, with the species most likely to be affected including

5-74 62800860-RPT-02

smaller dolphins /70/. These reported cases were entanglement in predator nets rather than

the cage nets themselves. On the whole, entanglement is not considered a major issue for

marine megafauna compared to other potential impacts of aquaculture /69/.

The authors of one study recommended a reduction in the mesh size of predator nets to less

than 8 cm and to reduce the food waste and therefore the food source for other fish in the

area /68/. Entanglements were found to occur in the anti-predator nets with mesh sizes

greater than 6 cm /70/.

In addition, some of the reported entanglements are thought to have occurred where the

anti-predator nets were not enclosed at the bottom, allowing dolphins to become trapped

between the nets and fish pens. Mega nets encompassing several production units are

more effective compared to single nets per production unit in reducing entanglement. Nets

which are not well maintained with large holes can also cause the dolphins and sea turtles to

get trapped.

In the case of Semporna, dolphins and turtles are the most common marine megafauna

sighted and appropriate measures need to be taken to avoid injury or death due to

entanglement. It is worth noting that the project proponent has been operating experimental

sea cages in the area for more than two years and has never observed any interaction

between turtles/dolphins and nets.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Regional conservation interests - Tun Sakaran Marine Park/Coral Triangle Initiative (4)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Permanent (3) as long as the Project is operational.

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-28, Moderate Negative Impact (-C)

5.5.3.4 Biosecurity Risk There is a concern relating to genetic contamination of the local lobster stocks with the

escape of any farmed lobster stocks. The hatchery reared lobster may be bred (selective

breeding) for traits that may not be optimal for survival in the wild, which may threaten the

viability of wild populations by inter-breeding should lobsters escape.

While it is possible that lobsters may escape very occasionally the farmers will be extremely

vigilant to prevent such occurrences because they would cause significant financial loss.

Additionally the hatchery will breed from local stocks so the genetic makeup of the farmed

stock will be based on the natural local populations and therefore will exhibit no genetic

diversity that is not already present in the local population. Even after many generations of

selective breeding it is highly unlikely that the genetic makeup will diverge significantly to

cause an issue should wild and farmed stock interbreed following an isolated escape event.

A biosecurity risk exists with the import of wild juveniles from Indonesia. These stocks could

harbour disease or exotic marine pests. Good inspection and short quarantine like

conditions on delivery will ensure that these biosecurity risks are minimised and adequately

controlled. With the move to the use of entirely hatchery bred stock these biosecurity risks

will be eliminated.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-75

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Darvel Bay / Sabah (3)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Irreversible (3)

Cumulative impact: Cumulative (3)

Impact Significance: ES=-27, Moderate Negative Impact (-C).

5.5.4 Impact on Terrestrial Flora and Fauna

5.5.4.1 Flora The key source of impact to the terrestrial environment will be the construction of the

Operations Base on P. Bait. No impacts to the terrestrial environment P. Timbun Mata are

anticipated. Mangrove loss at Tg. Kapor has been addressed in Section 5.6.2.

The vegetation communities on P. Bait are highly disturbed, as the island has long been

inhabited and utilised for subsistence crops and horticulture, and more recently for oil palm

small holdings. There are five vegetation types represented on Bait as shown in Figure 5.31

and these correspond to faunal habitat types. The intertidal and coastline habitats are

primarily mangrove, which are discussed in Section 5.5.2. These intertidal areas provide a

different fauna assemblage including the Proboscis Monkey which was reported by villages

(see further discussion in the following section).

The Operations Base will cause the loss of two types of natural vegetation on Pulau Bait

which are Woodland and Forest. Approximately 11 ha of Forest vegetation and 2 ha of

Woodland vegetation will be lost (Table 5.26). None of the vegetation found during the

surveys included any species of conservation significance.

The access road along Tg. Kapor will cause vegetation loss of 1 ha of herbaceous

vegetation (grassland).

Within the horticulture area on P. Bait, vegetation loss includes a mixed horticulture area of

approximately 37 ha comprising coconut plantations, tapioca (Manihot esculenta), palm oil

plantations and banana plantation. The main crop planted within the Operations Base area is

coconut.

5-76 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 5.31 Vegetation loss within the Operations Base, bridge and access road.

Table 5.26 Summary of vegetation loss and percentage loss of existing area on P. Bait.

Vegetation Type Area on OB (hectare)

Area on P. Bait (hectare)

Percentage of area loss on P. Bait (%)

Forest 10.55 14.97 70.5

Woodland 2.38 2.38 100

Mixed horticulture 37.10 739.79 5.01

Grassland - 99.69 -

Total 50.03 856.83 5.84

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-77

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to the local condition (P. Bait and Tg. Kapor) (1)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Irreversible (3)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-8, Slight Negative Impact (-A).

5.5.4.2 Fauna Based on the desktop assessment and field surveys, two fauna species of conservation

significance are considered likely to occur in the project area. Proboscis monkeys, Nasalis

larvatus, and Oriental Small-clawed Otter are reported by the villagers to migrate along the

mangroves of the mainland Tg. Kapor. The proboscis is an endangered species under the

IUCN Red list of Threatened Species while listed as Totally Protected under the Sabah

Wildlife Conservation Enactment 1997 and is dependent on the mangrove habitat. The

Oriental Small Clawed Otter is listed as protected species under the Sabah Wildlife

Conservation Enactment 1997 but hunting and collection is allowed with license from the

Sabah Wildlife Department. Globally, the otter is listed as Vulnerable under the IUCN Red

List of Threatened Species.

The loss of mangrove habitat in the Tg. Kapor area due to the project as assessed above in

section 5.5.2.1 amounts to 13.9 ha, which is a small fraction (~2%) of the fringing mangroves

within the Project’s vicinity (3 km radius). Although it is a small area, the access road and

bridge corridor does however dissect the fringing mangrove, creating additional habitat

fragmentation in the area around Kg. Tg. Kapor. Between the village and the proposed road/

bridge, a small fragment of mangrove area of 8.5 ha will be created, which is cut-off from the

rest of the mangrove fringe, see Figure 5.32. To the east of the Project, the mangrove fringe

(Forest Reserve) extends undisturbed for over 5 km up to Kg. Senang Hati. Towards the

west, mangrove disturbance is minimal, and the fringing mangrove extends unbroken down

to the Pegagau and Lihak-Lihak riverine mangrove forest reserve areas.

Proboscis viewing river cruises are conducted along Sg. Lihak Lihak. Apart from the

proboscis monkeys, fruit bats, crocodiles and fireflies are also listed among the attractions in

this area.

5-78 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 5.32 Mangrove fragment between Kg. Tg. Kapor and the proposed access road and bridge.

Given the extensive remaining protected mangrove areas in the region (Class V Mangrove

Forest Reserve), the relatively small loss of mangrove in the project footprint is unlikely to

result in any impacts to wildlife habitat and food sources. The nearby the village of Tg. Kapor

is also an existing source of disturbance, such that wildlife are more likely to range in the

areas further away from the project area under existing conditions.

It is recommended that consultation with the Wildlife Department is carried out prior to

construction start and any observed proboscis monkeys or other wildlife are to be relocated

to the mangrove forest reserve area to the west of Kg. Tg. Kapor if they appear to be in

danger or affected by the construction of the access road and bridge.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important to Semporna district/ Sabah (3), owing to conservation status of the Proboscis Monkey, which is reported in the mangrove fringes along the mainland.

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Irreversible (3)

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-79

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-24, Moderate Negative Impact (-C). Although the loss of faunal

habitat is almost negligible, this impact significance result reflects the potential effect on the endangered flagship species, the proboscis monkey.

5.6 Stakeholder Engagement

Community and stakeholder engagement was carried out through two focus group

discussions as well as throughout interview surveys as described in Section 4. Table 5.27

shows the consultation activities conducted by the Consultant.

Table 5.27 Summary of engagement exercise activities conducted in 2013

No. Date Stakeholders Consultation activities

1. 28 Oct – 2 Nov 25 villages within the project area

Socio economic survey conducted through questionnaire

2. 19-26 Nov Private sector and community-level persons who hold key leadership positions from Kg. Sumandeh, Kg. Tg. Kapur, Kg. Tanduan and Kg. Bait

Soliciting an open and engaging response from the key people of selected villages and seaweed farming operators’ representative.

3. 15-21 Dec Bajau Laut community from Kg. Tg. Kapur, Kg. Sumandeh

Separate focus group discussions with the Bajau Laut community from Kg. Tg. Kapur and Kg. Sumandeh

Results and analysis of the engagement exercise from some of the communities in the iLAP

region including review of various documents are discussed below. As introduced in Section

4, for the purpose of this report, villages are divided into three zones according to locality of

the villages namely northwest of project site on the mainland (Pangi – Tg Keramat),

southeast of project site on the mainland (Lihak-Lihak – Tg. Kapur) and islands (Larapan,

Tanduan, etc).

5.6.1 Project Awareness

None of the respondents had any knowledge or awareness of the project prior to the socio-

economic surveys. The project has been publicised at a National level through media reports

on the project launching in Kuala Lumpur involving the Prime Minister’s office. However, the

press reports are only accessible to the general public with internet and newspaper access,

which is not generally the case for the local population around the islands. A brief

introduction to the project was therefore given by the Consultant or in some cases, a

representative of the Proponent.

5.6.2 Project Acceptance

In general, the respondents are in favour of the project development mainly due to expected

benefits from increased income and improvement of infrastructure in their respective village.

Industry leaders and village heads consulted about the project highlighted that employment

opportunities should prioritise the local Semporna people; however, they recognised that

workers from outside Semporna (Malaysian) and foreigners (Non-Malaysian) may need to be

5-80 62800860-RPT-02

sourced given the number of jobs required. Specifically with reference to the Bajau Laut, the

Non-Bajau Laut community leaders are amenable to the project hiring members of these

communities as there is a very localised acceptance of the co-existence and mutual

cooperation with Bajau Laut people who have been visitors to the communities in the region

for several generations. Most of the seaweeds operators also rely on Bajau Laut workers for

seaweed farming.

5.6.3 Perceived Issues and Impacts on Human Environment

Overall, more than half of the respondents of the interview survey, about 57%, consider the

project as positive where the respondents expected the project to contribute in increased

income and infrastructure development (Table 5.28). A large number of respondents (42.6%)

however are unable to relate to the project, meaning they are not able to identify any

potential benefits or disbenefits. Less than 1 percent of respondents do not see the project

having any benefit to them at all.

Table 5.28 Perceived benefit of project to local community

Village Zone Benefit of the project Total

Not sure Increase in income

Development of

infrastructure

No benefit

Pangi – Tg. Keramat

66

(40.7%)

76

(46.9%)

19

(11.7%)

1

(0.6%)

162

Lihak-Lihak – Tg. Kapur

52

(35.9%)

81

(55.9%)

10

(6.9%)

2

(1.4%)

145

Larapan – Tanduan

134

(47.0%)

119

(41.8%)

32

(11.2%)

0

(0%)

285

Total 252

(42.6%)

276

(46.6%)

61

(10.3%)

3

(0.5%)

592

Other expected benefits from the project implementation as reported during the various

consultations with stakeholders in the area include:

Possibility of enhancing safety and security in Semporna District in particular to business

establishments off the mainland such as the pearl farms;

Opportunity to tap into alternative sources of livelihood besides increasing livelihood

opportunities to the communities. The prospect of participating in the lobster farming is

viewed as a better alternative to fishing given the risk associated with piracy and hold-

ups being at sea;

Improvement of basic social services like clean water supply, sanitation, health services,

electricity and education for the children for their respective communities. There is a high

expectation that the project will have the spill-over effects in improving the delivery of

basic government services in the villages;

Incentive to attract local Semporna residents who have left the district to look for jobs

elsewhere, including Peninsular Malaysia, to return

Referring to the socioeconomic survey results, cross tabulation of project benefit against

gender showed that the majority of the respondents - about 48% of males and 45% of

females - expect an increase in income as a benefit of the project (Table 5.29). However,

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-81

almost half (47.6%) of women were not sure what benefits the project could have due to a

lack of project information.

Table 5.29 Perceived benefit of project to local community according to gender

Gender Benefit of project to local community Total

Not sure Increase of income

Development of infrastructure

No benefit

Male 144

(39.5%)

175

(47.9%)

44

(12.1%)

2

(0.5%)

365

(100.0%)

Female 108

(47.6%)

101

(44.5%)

17

(7.5%)

1

(0.4%)

227

(100.0%)

Total 252

(42.6%)

276

(46.6%)

61

(10.3%)

3

(0.5%)

592

(100.0)

The village decision making structure as discussed in Section 4 shows that women play

secondary roles in the society. While recognition of the local political structure is critical to

maintain, it is important that this project also act as an enabler for women to better contribute

in their family as well as in society. The Project Proponent should investigate means to

engage women and housewives in particular while at the same time acknowledging their

roles as primary caregivers for their families.

Table 5.30 shows that the older respondents seem to have clearer expectations of the

project’s effect compared to younger ones. For example, almost 60% of respondents below

20 are not sure of project effects compared to only 37% for the 31-40 age-group, 32.3% for

the 41-50 age group and only 27% for 51-60 age groups. All groups perceived job

opportunities as the most important effect to their households.

Table 5.30 Perceived household effect according to respondents’ age

Age category

Project effect to household Total

Not sure Provides job

opportunity

Development in general

Tourism attraction

Downstream industries

< 20 36

(59.0%)

21

(34.4%)

4

(6.6%)

0

(0.0%)

0

(0.0%)

61

(100%)

21 – 30 63

(44.4%)

69

(48.6%)

7

(4.9%)

2

(1.4%)

1

(0.7%)

142

(100%)

31 – 40 54

(37.0%)

81

(55.5%)

8

(5.5%)

1

(0.7%)

2

(1.4%)

146

(100%)

41 – 50 43

32.3%)

85

(63.9%)

5

(3.8%)

0

(0.0%)

0

(0.0%)

133

(100%)

51 – 60 19

(27.1%)

45

(64.3%)

6

(8.6%)

0

(0.0%)

0

(0.0%)

70

(100%)

60 > 17

(42.5%)

20

(50.0%)

2

(5.0%)

0

(0.0%)

1

(2.5%)

40

(100%)

5-82 62800860-RPT-02

Age category

Project effect to household Total

Not sure Provides job

opportunity

Development in general

Tourism attraction

Downstream industries

Total 232 (42.5%)

321

(54.2%)

32

(5.4%)

3

(0.5%)

4

(0.7%)

592

(100%)

Most occupation categories perceived that the project would affect them positively with the

exception of unemployed/retired, housewife and seaweed farmer groups. Note that the

seaweed farmers may see this project as competing for water space, though 58% of them

are not sure of the project effect. As shown in Table 5.31, about half (51%) of the housewife

respondents are not sure of the project benefit to them though 42.5% expect better income.

A high percentage of government servants, smallholders and fishermen however, expect

positive benefits from the project.

Table 5.31 Perceived project benefit according to respondents’ occupation

Occupation

Project benefit to local community Total

Not sure Increase of income

Development of structure

No benefit

Unemployed/retired 29

(52.7%)

17

(30.9%)

9

(16.4%)

0

(0.0%)

55

(100%)

Fishermen 72

(37.3%)

102

(52.8%)

19

(9.8%)

0

(0.0%)

193

(100%)

Housewife 82

(51.2%)

68

(42.5%)

10

(6.2%)

0

(0.0%)

160

(100%)

Farmer 39

(41.9%)

39

(41.9%)

12

(12.9%)

3

(3.2%)

93

(100%)

Smallholder (Oil palm/rubber)

1

(6.7%)

11

(73.3%)

3

(20.0%)

0

(0.0%)

15

(100%)

Small-scale business 9

(40.9%)

11

(50.0%)

2

(9.1%)

0

(0.0%)

22

(100%)

Seaweed farmer 7

(58.3%)

5

(41.7%)

0

(0.0%)

0

(0.0%)

12

(100%)

Government employee 2

(18.2%)

8

(72.7%)

1

(9.1%)

0

(0.0%)

11

(100%)

Labourers 6

(40.0%)

7

(46.7%)

2

(13.3%)

0

(0.0%)

15

(100%)

Miscellaneous 5

(31.2%)

8

(50.0%)

3

(18.8%)

0

(0.0%)

16

(16%)

Total 252

(42.6%)

276

(46.6%)

61

(10.3%)

3

(0.5%)

592

(100%)

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-83

Among the key perceived disbenefits or concerns raised by the respondents and

stakeholders are:

1 Failed promises and eventual diminishment of representation for locals

A number of community leaders have had the experience where government or private

initiatives have engaged with them initially, but upon implementation, the promises (e.g.

of employment or representation) have not been met. They are hence apprehensive of

the same thing happening with this Project.

2 Reduction of access for local people to traditionally accessible productive areas.

The lobster cages may deprive local fishermen access to traditional fishing grounds

where they have freely accessed since the time of their forefathers. Concerns arise from

possible diminution of sources of livelihood should there be no clear concrete social

safety net set up to augment loss of livelihood from these traditional fishing areas.

3 Encroachment of Customary Land Rights in Pulau Bait

The proposed operation base will nullify 26 land applicants on the same site. This is

viewed as major loss of economic opportunity for these affected applicants.

4 Preference to use outsiders rather than the locals

Based on experiences with the tourism and pearl farm industries established in the area,

some community leaders report that there is a preference by the tourism and pearl farm

industries to use outsiders rather than locals for employment, in particular in the context

of logistics services such as boats and accompaniments service.

The most critical group that need to be addressed are fisherman, seaweed farmers and their

respective spouses (housewives). The project will affect these groups directly in the form of

sea-space competition (fishing grounds and seaweed farming areas). This is analysed and

assessed in Section 5.7.3 (fishing) and Section 5.7.5.3 (seaweed and pearl farms).

A specific program to engage these two groups as the Project moves forward will help to

address their concerns and preserve or improve on their well-being. This project is expected

to have very active participation from local community. Thus it is critical to ensure that they

understand how the project may impact them and benefit them in the long run as well as in

the short term. A better picture of the Project operation mechanism (in particular with respect

to the Contract Farming model), the administrative structure and scale of the projects will

enable the local community to have better understanding of the project’s objectives as well

as roles expected from them.

5.7 Impacts to the Human Environment

5.7.1 Aesthetics

Impacts to aesthetics (visual impacts) arise from the visual intrusion of the cage facilities and

associated buildings. The lobster cage farms in their present design, with wooden 5 by 5 m

cages, and Production Units (PUs) comprising 15 cages and one workers’ base for every 15

cages will have a low visual intrusion upon the aesthetics of the seascapes around P.

Timbun Mata. The wooden materials can be considered more ‘natural’ compared to steel

and plastic, and the cages will have a low profile of up to 75 cm above the surface of the

water. The main source of visual intrusion would be the workers’ bases on each PU. Photo

5.6 and Photo 5.7 show examples of grow out cages for fish farms around Sabah.

The visual impact of sea cage farming in general is low. However, taking into account the

vast area involved for the present project against the backdrop of the unspoilt seascapes at

P. Timbun Mata (especially on the northern shorelines) the overall visual profile of the

Project may be considered significant.

5-84 62800860-RPT-02

While not diametrically incompatible with the ‘natural’ aesthetics, there will still be an effect

on the tourists’ expectations when visiting the Semporna coastal areas, which are largely

based on the promise of extensive, uninterrupted ocean and island views (Photo 5.4 and

Photo 5.5). Although there is currently little tourism development around P. Timbun Mata,

the area remains an important potential economic asset due to its excellent water quality,

beaches and coral reefs.

Photo 5.4 Current seascape in the channel in between P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait.

Photo 5.5 Seascape around P. Timbun Mata.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-85

Photo 5.6 Example of grow out cages with a working space; side view (DHI, 2013).

Photo 5.7 Lobster grow out cages at Darden Pilot Farm at P. Bait

As the Project incrementally expands to full capacity, it is recommended that larger cage

sizes or more cages per production unit are explored, to minimise the number of workers’

bases needed (presently one per 15 cages).

5-86 62800860-RPT-02

5.7.1.1 Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important to areas immediately outside the local condition (2); note that this refers to the spatial scale of aesthetic impact. Impacts to tourism are evaluated separately in the following section.

Magnitude: Significant negative change (-2);

Permanence: Permanent, as long as the project is in operations (3)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-28, Moderate Negative Impact (-C).

5.7.2 Tourism

There is currently little tourism activity on P. Bait or P. Timbun Mata. While dive tour

operators do market diving around Timbun Mata, it is more of a side destination rather than a

main attraction. No facilities are available on these islands. The tourism potential of P

Timbun Mata is however high due to the coral reefs, white sandy beaches and unspoilt

environment, particularly on its northern shorelines.

No major negative impacts on coral reef habitats are predicted around Timbun Mata due to

the farm operations, and in fact the presence of the farm can be expected to increase

surveillance and reduce destructive fishing on the reefs resulting in a net positive impact.

The main impact is then due to potential exclusion of access to the beaches or dive sites, as

well as the potential reduction in the ‘wilderness’ experience due to the visual intrusion of the

cage farms, which is evaluated as a Moderate Negative impact (see preceding Section

5.7.1).

5.7.2.1 Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important to State interests (3).

Magnitude: Negative change (-1) – taking into account minimal existing tourism activity and availability of other similar sites in the region. Note that potential positive benefits may accrue if niche aquaculture tourism is promoted; this is proposed in the mitigation measures in Section 6.

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-21, Moderate Negative Impact (-C).

5.7.3 Access to Sea Space

5.7.3.1 Fishing The presence of the lobster cages will result in the loss of fishing grounds and pose an

obstruction to fishing boats navigating along the coast and fishing activities which are

presently dominated by net fishing, traps and fish bombing.

Directly affected stakeholders are the fishermen and conductors of passenger boats. About

34.3% of the respondents consider fishing as their main income or equivalent to

approximately 900 persons from the total population of the project area. Fishermen from

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-87

within the project site (P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait) are expected to be the most impacted

due to their proximity to the project area (Figure 5.33).

As mentioned in Section 4.8.3, the fishermen are reported to concentrate their fishing

activities in waters less than 3 nautical miles (5 km) from the mainland shoreline, and going

further afield to southeast shown in Figure 5.33. Several traditional fishing grounds are

reported to be located within the Tun Sakaran Marine Park. Fishermen are allowed to fish

with legal fishing methods within the Marine Park as certain sections of the park are a no

take zone but it is only a small percentage.

As shown in Figure 5.33 below, the socioeconomic survey respondents report a wide

distribution of fishing grounds in the area; however, the most favourable fishing grounds (as

determined by a higher number of respondents reporting to fish at that location) lie just at the

boundary or outside of the iLAP aquaculture zone. As illustrated in the figure, some of the

more popular fishing grounds are outside the iLAP boundary. These fishing grounds will

remain accessible for local fishermen.

Figure 5.33 Reported fishing grounds with respect to the project area

5-88 62800860-RPT-02

It is expected that once the sea cages are deployed and lobster farming is in operation, wild

fish will be attracted to their immediate surrounds owing to the increase in food sources (see

Section 5.5.3.2 above). This is turn is likely to attract fishermen.

As outlined in Section 5.5.3.2, monitoring has to be carried out to ensure that the fish farm

does not act as an ‘ecological trap’ and still contribute to overfishing in the region /50/. This

arises because overfishing may not be immediately obvious as it is not reflected in catch per

unit effort (CPUE) estimates, since the attractive nature of the farm to wild fish may ensure

that more fish will arrive to replace those caught. Allowing targeting of particular fish species

which are not currently over-exploited in selected areas and with careful monitoring would

permit the sustainable exploitation of fish aggregations at the iLAP (i.e. without increasing

total overall catch).

The fishermen will also benefit through having these readily available fishing grounds as they

can spend less time searching for fish (reducing boat/ fuel costs) and potentially have a

greater consistency in catch.

Hence it is expected that the fishermen currently fishing within the Tun Sakaran Marine Park

will shift their fishing activity to nearby the iLAP due to the fish aggregating effects of the

PUs. Some of these fishermen will probably be employed by iLAP. Thus the expectation is

that the fishing pressure within the Marine Park will be reduced.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Tun Sakaran Marine Park/ Semporna district (3)

Magnitude: Significant positive change (+2)

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Reversible (2); cages can be moved to other areas

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=+42, Significant Negative Impact (+D).

5.7.3.2 Local Navigation

Aquaculture Zone (PUs) There is considerable marine traffic activity at the peripherals of the project area with a

frequency of 136 transits per year for tug/barges on the coastal route to Kunak (Figure 5.34).

Traffic routes used by local craft such as fishing vessels and local passenger boats from

Kunak and Semporna Ports also showed that the common routes used are outside the

project area.

Commercial marine traffic will therefore not be affected by the Project in terms of obstruction

by the cages nor any interaction with the anticipated number of farm operations vessels

(although a large number are expected; these will be navigating within the project site only).

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-89

Figure 5.34 Marine traffic activity at the peripherals of the project area.

5-90 62800860-RPT-02

The lobster cages will however, obstruct navigation for fishermen and public along the

traditional boat routes, which are concentrated along Terusan Tandoan between P. Timbun

Mata and the mainland, and in the channel between Bait and Timbun Mata (Figure 5.36).

A considerable width of access should be allowed within the PUs to allow boats to pass

through the navigation channel. Although the detailed layout of the cages will be further

planned and developed pending details on the contract farm sizes and other factors; based

on the planned PU densities, the recommended minimum safe width for iLAP internal

navigation channels between PUs is 60 m. This is considered sufficient for the type of local

fishing and transport vessels currently utilised by the local population.

In addition, increased marine traffic may result in a corresponding increase in accident risk,

such as vessel collisions. An estimated total of 1,197 – 2,103 vessels will be required for the

operational activities of the farm although these vessels are not expected to be plying the

project area simultaneously (see Table 5.32). With the introduction of this volume of marine

traffic due to the Project the risk of collisions and groundings of local craft in particular

villagers fishing boats could be significant.

Specific navigation zones will be identified and demarcated with navigational markers in

order to separate local traffic and Project service vessel traffic.

Table 5.32 Estimated number of operational vessels

Type Number of units

4 m outboard powered (4-stroke) vessels. 907 – 1,813

15 – 20 m flat bottom barges with lifting gear – powered by diesel inboard jet unit. 91

8m outboard powered 4-stroke. 181

7m outboard powered 4 stroke 18

Total 1,197 – 2,103

Docking areas for the bigger operational vessels, e.g. feed barges will be at the jetty at the

OB, while the smaller service vessels would normally be docked at the PUs, which is not

expected to affect the existing docking areas utilised by the locals. Similarly, the proposed

jetty on P. Bait will not affect the existing navigation route used by the local community given

that the jetty configuration is not within the route.

Jetty and Bridge A large number of marine vessels will be utilised during the operational phase, hence it is

important to provide reasonable navigational clearance to current and prospective navigation

on the waterway. Current users of the waterway between P. Bait and the mainland are the

villagers commuting from P. Pababag to Tg. Kapur with moderate vessel transits. Based on

the traffic survey conducted by KASI, the biggest vessel sighted in the general Project area

is an oil barge being towed by a tug. The dimension of the observed vessels are shown in

Table 5.33 below.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-91

Table 5.33 Types of vessels observed around P. Timbun Mata

Type of Vessel Dimensions

LOA (m) Draft (m) Beam (m) DWT

Fishing Boat 18 3 8 100

Bagang 20 1 20 20

Tourist / Passenger Boat 30 2 6 100

Cargo Vessel 60 5 20 8000

Oil Barge 35 3 20 1500

Tug 18 3 10 250

The present bridge design concept has an 80 m clearance between piers at the centre, with

a height of 15 m from the water level to the road level, see Figure 5.35. Navigation clearance

at the proposed bridge should be able to accommodate a tug and barge listed in Table 5.33.

It is however recommended that a Marine Traffic Risk Assessment is conducted once the

detailed design is available for approval by Ports and Harbours Department Sabah.

Figure 5.35 Bridge section at apex.

5-92 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 5.36 Navigation routes indicated by survey respondents. Trip numbers indicate the number of respondents reporting a particular route.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-93

Impact Evaluation

PUs

Importance: Important only to the local condition (waters within AIZ (1))

Magnitude: Significant negative change (-2); disrupting existing navigation channels

Permanence: Permanent (3) as long as the Project is in operation.

Reversibility: Reversible (2) - cages can be moved

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-14, Minor Negative Impact (-B).

Jetty and Bridge

Importance: Important only to the local condition (P. Bait, 1)

lMagnitude: Slight negative change (-1); negligible disruption expected.

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Irreversible (3)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=-8, Slight Negative Impact (-A).

5.7.3.3 Security Security in the Semporna region has been an issue since the kidnapping of tourists by the

Philippines’ Abu Sayyaf extremists in the early 2000’s. Security was beefed up with

increased patrols and the establishment of military outposts on many of the islands.

However, the 2013 invasion of Kg. Tanduo in Lahad Datu by a group of Sulu militants

exposed the ineffectiveness of these efforts. This invasion led to the establishment of the

Eastern Sabah Security Command (ESSCOM) covering the area from Kudat to Tawau in

March 2013.

Later events have shown that despite the ESSCOM, both the state and federal governments

are again facing the heat over security conditions on the Eastern seaboard of Sabah. The

latest in a recent string of incursions include two separate kidnappings of Chinese nationals

and a high-seas robbery by pirates in the Lahad Datu and Semporna Districts in April and

May 2014.

Foreign office travel advice centres have increased the alert on travelling to the East coast of

Sabah and these are expected to affect the cautious rebound in tourism arrivals in the district

since the Sulu Invasion of 2013.

Less often publicised is the impact of these incidents on the local communities and

fishermen who have to face the threat of piracy or kidnapping each time they venture out to

sea. Consultations with local community leaders in December 2013 indicated that the spate

of criminal incidents (referring to the November 2013 murder and kidnapping on P. Pom Pom

and the kidnapping of fishermen off Semporna in August 2013) served to limit the

opportunities for fishermen who used to stay off the islands for 1-2 days but now go back

right away to their communities after a few hours for fear being victimised at sea. One local

industry leader (Seaweed Association) estimated a reduction in fish catch for the local

fishermen of as much as 70% for this reason.

5-94 62800860-RPT-02

Against this backdrop of security in Semporna, many of the local people and community

leaders see the project as having a strong potential to improve security in the region.

The Project Proponent will need to work closely with ESSCOM in planning and implementing

its internal security arrangements, and it is considered likely that the manpower and

technology for acquiring information and intelligence to detect breaches in security on the

part of the government will be stepped up in parallel with the implementation of this project to

the benefit of the wider community.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important to the district (3)

Magnitude: Significant improvement (+2)

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2),

Impact Significance: ES=42, Significant Positive Impact (+D).

5.7.4 Impact on Land Use and Ownership

No alienated land titles are affected by the Operational Base and bridge footprint on P. Bait

and Tg. Kapor. However, villagers have previously filed 26 land applications within the

Operational Base site, where some villagers have already planted the land with cash crops

in particular oil palm (Figure 5.38). For Tg. Kapor, the proposed access road will not

intersect any private land title.

The possibility of disputes arising from customary land claims is therefore expected due to

the outstanding land applications in P. Bait. These claims will need to be channelled through

the District Office and Land Office of Semporna to resolve. It is expected that there will be

claimants for compensation for the loss of crops which will be dealt through the proper

channels; i.e. Sabah Land and Survey Department and Sabah Agriculture Department will

normally conduct a joint survey to assess the compensation value of the property. Based on

this value, the complainants will be compensated as long as they can show proof of

agricultural development.

However, if further disgruntlement arises, the villagers are advised to register their

complaints to the District Office of Semporna.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-95

Figure 5.37 Land titles on P. Bait

5-96 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 5.38 Vegetation map shows most of P. Bait has been developed for horticulture.

As shown in Figure 5.39, the access road does not overlap with any privately owned land

titles. An Occupational Permit from the Forestry Department is under application for the

access road area through the Mangrove Forest Reserve.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-97

Figure 5.39 Cadastral boundaries at Tanjung Kapor

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important only to the local condition (1)

Magnitude: Negative change to status quo (-1); Only a limited number of individuals are affected.

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Irreversible (3)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2),

Impact Significance: ES=-8, Slight Negative Impact (-A).

5.7.5 Impact on Local Businesses and Employment

5.7.5.1 Employment Based on the 2010 census, the working age population for the study area is 9,686 (Table

5.34) with the non-citizens constituting 36.4% of the population in the study area (Table

4.12). The project will be able to tap workforce from this productive age population although

5-98 62800860-RPT-02

it does not necessarily translate into willingness to work for the project. Assuming that

population within the age group of 20-39 years old who have high interest and more open to

new opportunities (as many young people will do) to work/participate in the project, there are

about 3,359 potential workforce available and willing to work for the project (excluding the

non-citizen populace in the study area).

Table 5.35 shows that the estimated available workforce from Semporna is about 26,578

(citizens).

Table 5.34 Projected potential workforce in study area and Semporna

Age group Productive age

Study Area Semporna

15 – 19 2,327 16,908

20 – 24 1,531 11,417

25 – 29 1,638 11,095

30 – 34 1,148 7,698

35 – 39 964 7,759

40 – 44 911 6,457

45 -49 665 5,216

50 – 54 502 4,546

Total 9,686 71,096

Note: Highlighted box indicate available workforce that are potentially suited and interested to work for

the project

Table 5.35 Potential available workforce willing to work for the project (Project site and Semporna)

Locality Population (Age group 20 – 39)

Total Citizen Non-citizen

Project site 5,281 3,359 1,922

Semporna 37,969 26,578 11,391

Construction activities will create a number of temporary employment opportunities. The

magnitude of this impact will depend on the number of construction workers to be employed,

either by the Project Proponent or by their contractors. Sourcing of construction workers from

the local labour pool is likely to be limited to unskilled workers due to the technical nature of

the work to be undertaken. This could have some economic benefits for surrounding

communities, although only of a temporary nature. The construction period of the Operations

Base and bridge is expected to last up to 52 months (~ four years, while the construction and

installation process of the lobster cages will extend up to around three to four years.

It is estimated that a workforce of between 640 to 750 workers will be required for the built

development construction, while works related to the lobster cages will require a workforce of

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-99

around 900 -1,000 people (see also Section 3). A total of between 2,000 – 4,000 people will

benefit from the employment opportunity created during the construction phase.

At full operation, iLAP will employ over 20,000 people on a full time basis. On Pulau Bait,

accommodation will be provided for 180 staff within the Operations Base. It is expected that

the property development market will see the opportunities to develop the surrounding areas

to meet the housing demand created by iLAP. This will create indirect employment

opportunities and other economic spinoff.

The local people in the project area may not have the work skills or competencies necessary

to run the full operation of iLAP. Whether the benefits of these employment opportunities will

accrue to surrounding communities will depend on whether those positions will be filled by

local residents. There is acceptance especially at the community/fishermen’s level that their

competency in terms of lobster farming may be insufficient. However, they have expressed

their openness for training and adapting to new techniques required for the job scope. As it is

now, fisher folks know that lobster is a prime commodity but they do not necessarily know

the details of a more organized farming activity.

The project proponent will prioritise hiring locals from the project area and its impact zone,

and is planning training schemes to address the lack of skills.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important to State Interests (3)

Magnitude: Major Positive benefits (+3);

Permanence: Permanent (3), as long as the Project is operational.

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=+63, Significant Positive Impact (+D).

5.7.5.2 Business Opportunities The development will not only create job opportunities and new business prospects for the

local populace but will also bring more people to Semporna. Job opportunities are expected

to extend to neighbouring districts as well as other parts of Sabah to meet the demands of

20,000- strong labour pool. There is a high possibility that this economic magnet will attract a

significant number of foreign labour in which case the project proponent and contractors are

obliged to observe Sabah’s immigration laws.

The duration of the overall development activity and the size of the workforce for the project

will mean substantial opportunity for economic development in the project area as demand

for goods and services increases with population. Key areas identified to benefit most from

this influx of workers include the hospitality industry, retail, recreation and small businesses

willing to meet the needs of this demographic. It is anticipated that the local populace would

get involved mostly in the informal sector such as food caterers, boat operators, lodging,

transportation service and so forth. In addition, demand for medium to small scale

restaurants and retail stores to cater for the workers may increase as well.

Nearby villages in particular Kg. P. Bait and Kg. Tg. Kapor are expected to benefit from

these various entrepreneurial opportunities.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important to State Interest (3)

Magnitude: Major benefit (+3)

Permanence: Permanent (3)

5-100 62800860-RPT-02

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Cumulative (3)

Impact Significance: ES=+72, Major Positive Impact (+E).

5.7.5.3 Seaweed and Pearl farms There are several mariculture activities currently being carried out around the project area.

Figure 5.40 shows that at least one pearl farm and seaweed culture operations located at the

boundary of the aquaculture zone while several activities are found within 5 km from the

project site.

Persatuan Peladang is currently running seaweed farms in Ligit Ligitan which involves 20-25

farmers. The farmers originate from different villages; Tg. Kapor, Tandoan, Ligit Ligitan etc.

Persatuan Peladang also has 150 acres of TOL (Temporary Occupational License)

seaspace at P. Matapahi which will be located immediately adjacent to the iLAP aquaculture

zone (Refer to Annex G). This TOL has a future expansion plan which also looks into the

possibilities of a small scale resort. This application has been endorsed by A.M. Ibnu Hj. A.K.

Baba, Land Revenue Assistant Collector and Mohammad Rizal Socradji, Department of

Fisheries.

It is anticipated that existing mariculture activities will still operate from their location and the

iLAP will not prevent these existing mariculture from continued operations, however any

plans for future expansion beyond their current licensed areas may be curtailed due to lack

of available sea space.

However, the seaweed operators are mainly confined to shallow waters which are not

suitable for lobster farming. There is hence no direct competition for sea space. However the

main concerns for these mariculture activities are water quality and cumulative impacts from

multiple other use demands.

The water quality during operational phase results shows no increase/decrease in nutrients

(ammonium) at the pearl farm locations. Meanwhile, the seaweed farms adjacent/on the

border of iLAP will experience a slight increase 0.005-0.010 mg/l of ammonium (please refer

to Section 5.5.1). Seaweeds are predicted to flourish with the slight increase in nutrients.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-101

Figure 5.40 Pearl and seaweed mariculture within the impact zone based on site surveys.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important to areas immediately outside the iLAP (2)

Magnitude: No change / neutral (0)

Permanence: No change (0)

Reversibility: No change (0)

Cumulative impact: No change (0)

Impact Significance: ES=0, No Change.

5.7.6 Demographic Impacts

The demographic impacts of the project refer to changes to population in the region and

distribution of for example, male vs female, citizens vs. non-citizens or changes in ethnic

composition.

5-102 62800860-RPT-02

The demographic character of the study area is likely to experience major changes as a

result of the project construction and operations, while at a regional level these changes are

likely to be more limited. The anticipated influx of workers during the construction phase is

expected to affect only the population structure given the selective nature of migration which

is often dominated by adult males. The construction activity will affect the sex ratio of

communities for the period the activity is taking place.

A major influx of workers is during the operational phase with an anticipated 20,000 strong

operational workforce. All workers are required to be properly documented. The population

projection at the project site at peak demand is outlined in Table 5.36 and Table 5.37.

In order to meet this requirement, the workforce needs to be sourced from neighbouring

towns such as Kunak, Lahad Datu and Tawau. In particular during the initial construction

stage, more workers from the Project area, Semporna and Kunak are expected as they have

easier access to the site. During full scale production it could be expected that at least one

member from each family from the project site will work directly or indirectly with the project.

Table 5.36 Projected peak demand for workforce during construction phase

Component Estimated workforce

Bridge 250-300

Jetty 120 -150

Operations Base (buildings and infrastructure) 270 - 300

Production units (cages) 900 – 1,000

Total 1,540 – 1,750

Table 5.37 Anticipated peak workforce during operational phase

Activity Number of Workers

Contract farmer/SME entrepreneur 6,000

Farm Assistants 12,000

Harvesters/Logistic Workers 700

Technicians 600

Supporting roles such as cage production and maintenance 700

Total 20,000

Expansion of production and economic spin offs from this project will create more jobs. With

provision of training, short courses, etc., it is expected that there will be more participation

from people from other parts of Sabah.

Family and household characteristics in the study area are not expected to noticeably

change as a direct result of the project during construction. A temporary contractor workforce

would see an increase in male populations and increase in number of families.

Given that the construction workforce will likely include non-local employees, these

outsourced manpower will be housed at the temporary workers quarters within the

Operations Base site on P. Bait (see Section 3). The quarters will be subject to local

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-103

authorities’ regulations. The workers’ quarters will be demolished after construction has been

completed.

Although sited in a designated workers’ camp, it is possible that conflicts might arise

between the newcomers and local residents (primarily Kg. Tg. Kapor and Kg. Bait). One

possible reason for such conflict would be the perception among locals that the outsiders are

taking up jobs that could have gone to unemployed members of the local community.

Results of the socio economic survey carried out for this study showed that most of the

respondents are expecting job opportunities from the development.

An influx of construction workers and job seekers might be accompanied by an increase in

social nuisance such as increase in noise, traffic jams and parking problems. The impact of

this is likely to be minor provided proper mitigation measures are in place.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important to Semporna District Interests (3)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Permanent (3), beyond this iLAP project

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Cumulative (3)

Impact Significance: ES=-24, Moderate Negative Impact (-C).

5.7.7 Pressure on Basic Amenities

The project will have an impact on the lives of those people who live in close proximity to the

project, particularly as it affects local amenities and social services such as road, electricity,

healthcare, schools etc. The project is likely to result in increased usage of these amenities.

Infrastructure surrounding the area that would be affected by the project includes the existing

access point to the project (i.e. the existing Jalan Tg. Kapor from the main road (SA51) to

Kg. Tg. Kapor) that may not be able to cope with future traffic. It is noted however that the

Proponent plans to upgrade the road to Tg. Kapor in the future. The potential nuisance from

increased traffic along this road is also somewhat balanced by the provision of the bridge,

which is a major benefit to the population on P. Bait.

The Project workforce will rely on local health services when they are in the area, which will

have an impact to the demand for healthcare. Any increase in population (resident or

transient) should encourage further government investment in health care resources in the

study area, in particular through the provision of more general practitioners. Only about

13.5% of the respondents have access to health facilities in their village, where of all 25

surveyed villages, only Kg. Tg. Kapur and Kg. P. Bait have a health facility (sufficient for the

needs of the village only). The nearest hospital is located in Semporna Town with a distance

of 10 - 20 km from the villages in the study area depending on the locality of the village.

5.7.7.1 Impact Evaluation

Importance: Semporna district (3)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2),

5-104 62800860-RPT-02

Impact Significance: ES=-21, Moderate Negative Impact (-C).

5.7.8 Water Demand

In terms of water demand, at full operations, water consumption is estimated at 1.9 million

litres per day (MLD), see Table 5.38. Based on the expected uptake of workers from the

local population, the Project Proponent estimates actual water demand at 1 MLD. This

places a large demand on the already stretched supply by the Water Department in

Semporna; however, this water supply will be supplemented by a tube well on site. The

Semporna Water Treatment Plant currently supplies 27 MLD whereas the current estimated

domestic water demand for Semporna is estimated to be 45 MLD, indicating a serious water

shortage in the district.

The Water Treatment Plant will be upgraded in 2015 with an additional 6 MLD. There is also

a proposal in development to build a new water treatment plant with the proposed capacity of

45 MLD with a daily operational capacity of 30 MLD per day. However, there is no

confirmation of commencement dates at the time of writing.

During the Semporna District Action Task Force Meeting on May 21, 2014, the District

Officer of Semporna, YBrs. Dr. Chacho Haji Bulah informed that a special taskforce together

with the Water Department will be established to address the water shortage needs of the

District including the upcoming projects such as iLAP. Hence this Project will give the local

authorities the added impetus or opportunity to ensure that the provision of amenities such

as electricity and water are sufficient both for this Project and also to stay ahead of demand

from the local population.

A permit will be applied to the Department of Environment (Federal) for freshwater usage

within Operations Base in compliance to the DOE Industrial Regulations (more than 60 m3).

Table 5.38 Estimated water demand over the project lifecycle.

PHASE Workforce Duration Water Consumption l/day

TOTAL DEMAND

Months @ 95/cap M3

CONSTRUCTION

Operational base, bridge and jetty

300 for bridge 12 28,500 10,260

150 for jetty 8 14,250 3,420

100 for OB 6 9,500 1,710

Production units 50 12 4,750 1,710

TOTAL 57,000 17,100

OPERATIONS

Phase 1 5,800 36 551,000 595,080

Project Overall 20,000 144 1,900,000 8,208,000

TOTAL 2,451,000 8,803,080

DECOMMISSIONING

Production Units 100 12 9,500 3,420

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-105

PHASE Workforce Duration Water Consumption l/day

TOTAL DEMAND

Months @ 95/cap M3

Operations Base 80 12 7,600 2,736

TOTAL 17,100 6,156

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Semporna district (3)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2),

Impact Significance: ES=-21, Moderate Negative Impact (-C).

5.7.9 Public Health and Well Being

Potential impacts on public health resulting from aspects associated with the project

development include nuisance from airborne dust, noise pollution, presence of workforce,

sanitation, increased incidence of mosquito borne diseases, odour and potential

contamination from inappropriate disposal of wastes.

Construction noise has been assessed as a slight negative impact in Section 5.4.7 with the

main affected areas the villages adjacent to the proposed site. It is recognised that there are

also potential health aspects associated with inhalation of airborne dust. The risks are

related to a range of factors such as concentration, particle size and exposure duration. Dust

emissions during construction will be localised and temporary, and given the distance of

construction activities from nearest residences and the standard controls in place, impacts

on public health will be negligible. The levels were assessed taking into account the distance

to the nearest residential areas and results showed that residential places located at less

than 500 m from the construction activities may be exposed to moderate dust pollution.

Ponded water established for construction and improper housekeeping may provide habitat

for the breeding of mosquitoes. Public health concerns are mostly on mosquito borne

disease vectors given the ability to transmit diseases to humans through bites and bring up

the danger of spreading contagious diseases. An increase in mosquito borne diseases may

result in increased pressure on health services. Precautions against infectious diseases

must be carefully taken to protect the workers’ health and local population nearby.

Incorrect or lack of liquid and solid waste management will potentially increase pressure to

the surrounding environment, health and amenity of people and land uses. There is already

low hygiene and sanitation awareness within the community in the area with houses poorly

equipped with proper sanitation facilities. Site observations also revealed that the water

village households dump garbage directly outside the house, evident from the garbage piles

trapped underneath the stilt houses. The impacts of solid and liquid waste including

wastewater from the Project have been assessed in Sections 5.4.5 and 5.4.6, respectively.

Unpleasant odours could be produced from the lobster feed within the Operations Base if not

adequately packaged and stored. Unpleasant odours could also be produced where the

dead lobsters are stored before they are disposed of.

5-106 62800860-RPT-02

The nearest distance of the feed storage to the village is approximately 0.7 km. With

appropriate management measures of feed and wastes, little impact is expected.

5.7.9.1 Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important to areas immediately outside the project area (2)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1);

Permanence: Temporary (2)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2),

Impact Significance: ES=-12, Minor Negative Impact (-B).

5.7.10 Food Security

The use of trash fish for lobster feed was assessed as a potentially significant issue during

the scoping exercise and highlighted by members of the TOR review panel as it could

contribute to overfishing, unsustainable fishing methods such as trawling in the nearshore

areas, and food security issues as ‘trash’ fish, which is a food source for the local

communities in Semporna, is diverted to feed lobsters.

The Project Proponent however commits to avoid using trash fish for feed. As described in

Section 3, pelleted feed will be used to feed the lobsters. The feed will be based on soy

products to minimise animal proteins and research is ongoing to develop the optimum

formulation. Based on this operational practice, the impact on food security in the region is

neutral.

However, when considering that the iLAP is likely to increase wild fish stocks in the area

(see Section 5.5.3.2), and the employment opportunities offered by the Project that would

potentially divert fishers using unsustainable fishing methods from continuing such practices,

the net effect on food security in the region is positive.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Important to regional interests (3).

Magnitude: Significant positive benefit (+2)

Permanence: Permanent (3), as long as the Project is operational

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

Impact Significance: ES=42, Significant Positive Impact (+D)

5.7.11 Wider Socioeconomic Impact

As mentioned above, the community in the surroundings of the project will benefit both

directly and indirectly from increased economic opportunities created from the project.

Contract growing arrangements on a community-to-community basis is one of the economic

activities that the project aims to create where the local people are encouraged to

participate. However, spin-off opportunities can arise from diverse project needs, such as net

repair, food supply for the workers, waste reuse and recycling processes, etc. The foreign

direct investment poured into iLAP will be a catalyst for Sabah’s economic growth in line with

Sabah’s aim to be a major hub for the aquaculture industry.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

5-107

Through an efficiently facilitated process of consultation, the communities can weigh in on a

range of iLAP’s operations based on their local capacities. This may be similar to

arrangement of consignment that will match communities with the work that needs to be

done. The community approach builds upon the concept of shared accountability where the

successes are celebrated wholesale, and individual failures are compensated by a

communal commitment to deliver.

Mechanisms for partnership with the locals through incentives in the form of training

schemes will also be provided to help build local capacity to complement the demands of the

iLAP operation.

Site observations revealed that villagers from P. Bait commute by boat to other villages or

the mainland. The bridge construction on P. Bait is not expected to affect these boat

operators businesses since it is more convenient for P. Bait residents to use boats to go to

Semporna Town. However, the opportunity to offer land-based transportation services from

P. Bait will be opened up with the development of the bridge.

On the other hand, the increase in economic activities may result in a corresponding

increase in cost of living such as price of goods, rentals, transportation and other services.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Semporna district / Sabah (3)

Magnitude: Significant positive change (+2)

Permanence: Permanent (3)

Reversibility: Irreversible (3)

Cumulative impact: Cumulative (3)

Impact Significance: ES=54, Significant Positive Impact (+D).

5.7.12 Project Abandonment

In the event of project abandonment, the empowerment as a result of the project

implementation in the form of employment, contracts, etc. would be lost. Those working for

the project will be left jobless and small business operators providing services to the workers

may no longer be able to sustain themselves given the expected out-migration from the site.

In addition, given the magnitude of the project, the project not only attracts large population

of workers but also possible social services which will develop the community. If the project

faces abandonment the expected benefits may be forfeited. The loss of employment,

business income, etc. may be exacerbated if the community not only loses its present

economic base from the project, but also the capacity to return to its former economic base

of fishing due to disruption of sea space (for example if the sea space still occupied by

lobster cages due to downsizing in phases). Appropriate decommissioning planning will

need to be included in the iLAP management.

Impact Evaluation

Importance: Semporna district (3)

Magnitude: Negative change (-1)

Permanence: Temporary (2)

Reversibility: Reversible (2)

Cumulative impact: Non-cumulative (2)

5-108 62800860-RPT-02

Impact Significance: ES = -18, Minor Negative Impact (-B).

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-1

6 Recommended Mitigation Measures

6.1 Introduction

This section describes the mitigation measures recommended for the identified

environmental impacts that have been evaluated in Section 5.

Many of the potential environmental issues are effectively addressed through other

regulatory and policy mechanisms (specific regulations, codes of practice governed by other

authorities). This SEIA focuses on the more local and site specific issues which are not

addressed through these more general mechanisms; however, a list of the regulations and

codes of practice that will apply overall to the proposed project are listed in Section 6.5.

Most of the potentially major negative impacts to corals, water quality, etc. have been

avoided through appropriate project planning and the siting of PUs. Note also that the

growth of a food product such as lobsters requires particular attention to be paid to animal

husbandry, feed quality, and probably more importantly, a very high level of ambient water

quality to ensure rapid growth and avoidance of disease. All of these production factors

contribute to the underlying need by the Proponent to ensure ambient water quality and the

associated regional environmental processes are maintained at as pristine a condition as is

possible. In other words, the Project objectives and environmental protection objectives

dovetail and there is a high degree of self-interest on the part of the Proponent in self-

regulating to ensure conservation objectives.

The envisaged mechanisms for the Proponent to implement the required environmental

management measures are presented in this section (Section 6.2), while the recommended

mitigation measures are described in Section 6.3.

According to EPD guidelines, additional mitigation measures that should be implemented

even though they are directed towards addressing adverse environmental impacts of minor

significance should also be discussed; these are presented in Section 6.4. This includes

standard best practice measures, for example to minimise noise and dust nuisance, that are

applicable at any construction site. Mitigation measures considered for a particular issue but

which have ultimately not been recommended for this particular Project are also discussed.

Other applicable regulations and guidelines are discussed in Section 6.5.

6.2 Implementation Mechanisms

Darden, a key partner in LATSB and the “end user” of the product, has a Corporate Citizen

Social Responsibility policy and program designed to ensure the company is a reliable,

solutions-oriented corporate citizen. They recognize that a broad array of stakeholders

expect Darden to create social value by contributing to economic development, investing in

local communities, supporting their employees and ensuring the fair treatment of workers

throughout their supply chain. These stakeholders look to Darden to address within the

context of their business global environmental challenges ranging from declining ocean

health and habitat loss to water scarcity and climate change.

Within this broad mantle of Citizenship function Darden include the Darden Foundation, a

Sustainability approach to product acquisition and a Diversity Outreach program. They have

a two-year reporting cycle on this and the latest report can be seen at

www.darden.com/sustainability/downloads/2013-gri-update.pdf

6-2 62800860-RPT-02

Under the heading of Seafood Stewardship it is a requirement that all of Darden’s

aquaculture products be certified to, or be in the process of achieving certification to, Global

Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) standards, as they become available for the species.

6.2.1 GAA Compliance

It is the Proponent’s intention to seek GAA Compliance as soon as 100% hatchery

production of lobsters is achieved. As a result, all activities audited under the GAA Best

Aquaculture Practice (BAP) Facility Certification will be managed accordingly (to ensure that

the BAP procedural, performance, documentation and reporting requirements are being

met). Prior to achieving full GAA Compliance, the GAA audit requirements will still be used

to benchmark relevant aspects of the operations. The key BAPs under the GAA audit

certification covers aspects such as health, safety and employee welfare, product handling,

water quality control and monitoring, sediment quality control and monitoring, etc. and will

strengthen the implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in this section. Further

details of the audit items are given in Appendix D.

6.2.2 Collective Management Agreement

The model for the iLAP is to include a range of operators, from individual Contract Farmers

to SMEs. Farming practices, from feed to waste management, disease control, etc. need to

be synchronised across all the operators to ensure compliance to both GAA BAP and the

environmental management measures (mitigation and monitoring) recommended in this

SEIA.

To address this, the Proponent will establish a Collective Management Agreement for the

iLAP, termed the iLAP Collective Management Agreement (iCMA). The iCMA will outline the

standard operating procedures (SOPs) to be implemented by all operators within the iLAP

and will constitute an agreement between the operators and the Proponent to undertake

these SOPs and also to adopt the organisational framework for monitoring, reporting and

updating of the SOPs to ensure adaptive management occurs as part of a process of

continuous improvements. A draft iCMA is outlined in Appendix F.

6.2.3 iCMA Implementation and Organisation

6.2.3.1 Regulatory Authorities The iCMA is essentially self-regulating, with oversight and reporting to an Environmental

Steering Committee established by the DoF for the express purpose of overseeing the

iLAP. This recommendation is based on the stakeholder mapping exercise carried out as

outlined below.

Stakeholder Mapping A stakeholder mapping exercise was carried out in order to assess the best implementation

mechanism for oversight of the environmental performance of the iLAP during the operations

stage, see Figure 6.1. Key stakeholders are the Fisheries Department (DoF), EPD and DID

(Water Resources). Owing to the proximity of the iLAP to the Tun Sakaran Marine Park

(TSMP), Sabah Parks should also be closely involved in the monitoring and adaptive

management of the iLAP.

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-3

Figure 6.1 Broad regulatory stakeholders for aquaculture.

6.2.3.2 iCMA Organisation The iCMA will be implemented through a CEO Committee, tasked with executive decisions

relating to the iCMA. The CEO committee is in turn advised by the iCMA Management Group

(iCMAMG). Mechanisms for enforcement of the SOPs will be developed and determined by

the iCMAMG.

The Proponent shall appoint an iCMA Management Officer responsible for the day to day

operations of the iCMA. The Management Group is supported by a number of Working

Groups, including, but not necessarily limited to the following:

Lobster Health Working Group, tasked with developing, implementing, monitoring and

auditing lobster health management practices throughout the iLAP.

Environmental Working Group, tasked with developing, implementing and adapting

environmental objectives, compliance.

Community Working Group, tasked with developing community CSR initiatives, farmer

extension programmes.

An overview of the iCMA organisation is given in Figure 6.2. The roles and responsibilities of

the various iCMA parties are further elaborated in Appendix F, however, the key elements

are summarised in the below subsections and Table 6.1.

LOBSTER PRODUCTION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION /

CONSERVATION

EPD, Sabah Parks,

Sabah Biodiversity Centre

FISHERIES / AQUACULTURE

MANAGEMENT

Fisheries Department

WATER MANAGEMENT

DOE, EPD, DID

QUARANTINE & TRANSLOCATION Fisheries Department

MARINE & COASTAL PLANNING Town & Regional Planning

Department,(ICZM), DID, EPD,

Fisheries Department (AIZ)

TENURE TO STATE LAND &

WATERS Lands & Surveys Department

LAND USE PLANNING Town & Regional Planning,

Semporna District Council

PUBLIC HEALTH

Health Department, Fisheries

Department (Public Safety Program)

6-4 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 6.2 iCMA organisation chart.

Table 6.1 iCMA Organisational roles and responsibilities

Committee / Group/ Position

Members / Qualifications Role

Environmental Steering Committee

Fisheries Department (Chair)

EPD

DID

DOE

Sabah Parks

Head of the CEO Committee

WWF

Oversees the management of iLAP as the highest management decision maker.

Oversight of iLAP operations in connection with other activities and receptors in the region

Endorsement of water quality, benthos etc. trigger limits, guidelines and standards

Review of EMMP and annual reports from iCMA CEO Committee.

CEO Committee

ENVIRONMENTAL STEERING

COMMITTEE

Department of Fisheries (Chair)

EPD, DID, DOE, Sabah Parks, WWF,

Head CEO Committee

Lobster Health Working

Group Environmental Working

Group Community Working Group

iCMA Management Group

(iCMAMG)

iCMA Management Officer

Environmental Officer Community Engagement

Officer

iCMA Extension Officer

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-5

Committee / Group/ Position

Members / Qualifications Role

CEO Committee The Chair, being ex-officio (with no voting rights) appointed by LATSB; and

The CEOs (or one other nominee of each Party) of each of the major Parties to this iCMA (i.e. operators).

“Major Parties” will be determined by LATSB based on production volume. This membership will be limited by LATSB in number to facilitate functionality.

Voting rights may be equal or proportional to production tonnages – to be decided by iCMA.

Responsible for decisions regarding changes and amendments to the iCMCA

Reports to the Environmental Steering Committee on management options and provides details as required by the Environmental Steering Committee on the ongoing operational, environmental and community impact status.

iCMA Management Group

(iCMAMG)

Appointed by the CEO Committee:

Chair – appointed by LATSB

Technical representative and alternate nominated by each major pary

An operations representative and alternate

A lobster health representative and alternate nominated by each major party

The iCMA Management Officer (observer)

Refers recommendations to the CEO committee:

Reviews environmental, lobster health and other data collected to provide adaptive management recommendations (e.g. to more closely monitor specific issues before parameters reach guideline limit and trigger levels) to the CEO committee.

Review licence conditions and management controls that may be proposed by DoF, discuss acceptable outcomes with DoF and refer recommendations to the CEO Committee.

Review activities and compliance required by the iCMA

Provide advice and recommendations to the CEO Committee on risk mitigation, changes and amendments; and

Provde advice and guidance to the iCMA Management Officer who collects data, collates and prepares reports for the consideration of the iCMAMG.

iCMA Management Officer

Manager appointed by LATSB Responsible for day to day operations of the iCMA

6-6 62800860-RPT-02

Committee / Group/ Position

Members / Qualifications Role

Lobster Health Working Group

Each major Party’s lobster health representative

The LHWG will consider and act on all lobster health matters and advise the iCMA-MG:

Review all lobster health data

Prepare an annual lobster health report

Review and revise all lobster husbandry and security protocols

Set indicators or triggers

Environmental Working Group

Suitably qualified and experienced nominee from each major party.

Review all environmental data and the LHWG

Prepare an annual environmental status report, for distribution to each iCMA party.

Prepare annual environmental management report for submission to the Environmental Steering Committee.

Review and revise all environmental monitoring protocols at least annually.

iCMA Environmental Officer

Suitably qualified and experienced site environmental officer.

Carries out day to day duties related to environmental management of the iLAP.

Reports to the Environmental Working Group

Community Working Group

District Officer (Chair)

iCMA Community Liason Officer

iCMA Extension Officer

Village Heads/ Pengerusi JKKK

Fisheries Department

Represents the interests of the local communities, a platform for consultation and information sharing; implementing community education and awareness programmes, as well as specific aquaculture programmes.

Community Engagement Officer

Suitably qualified and experienced community engagement officer

Adviser and ‘middleman’ operating between the iCMAMG and the communities in the Project Area.

Advocates for the communities.

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-7

Committee / Group/ Position

Members / Qualifications Role

iCMA Extension Officer Suitably qualified and experienced aquaculture extension officer

Adviser and ‘middleman’ operating between the iCMAMG and the contract farming families.

Consultant and advocate for the contract farmers.

Keeps in close contact with the iCMA Management Officer and the various technical working groups.

Disseminates and provides training in updates of farm practices in accordance with the iCMA and up to date technologies and research recommendations.

6.3 Mitigation Measures

6.3.1 Water and Sediment Quality Impacts from PUs

6.3.1.1 Issue

Water Quality A consequence of the operations will be the release of nutrients (ammonium) that can cause

stress to local fish populations and have adverse impacts to sensitive seabed receptors such

as corals and seagrass. The impact of nutrients from the proposed lobster farming on water

quality has been assessed as a Moderate Negative impact overall, with much of the impacts

occurring along the north-eastern side of Pulau Timbun Mata in waters greater than 30

meters deep.

In addition, some impact is possible from algal blooms (predicted through modelled

chlorophyll-a concentrations). Algal blooms are naturally occurring but this may be

exacerbated by increased nutrient releases from the PUs.

Much of the modelling work leading up to the SEIA focused on locating areas which are

generally considered to be good farming areas, i.e. deep water and some flushing, which

has subsequently reduced the potential adverse impact of nutrient release. However, in

applying the modelling approach, a lack of background baseline nutrient information for the

calibration and validation of the model has meant the deployment of PUs as proposed here

is very conservative. This and the need to ensure that the above impacts are avoided or

minimised requires a greater amount of data, as there is at present not enough to

understand and determine the natural variability of the surrounding water bodies.

Understanding this variability is important as it helps regulators to set threshold or trigger

levels for various water quality parameters such as ammonium, nitrate and Chlorophyll-a.

This information is also very useful in calibrating the water quality model. Limited water

quality sampling was undertaken for this SEIA, but to improve the robustness of the model it

needs to be collected for periods of time longer than the duration of an SEIA study.

By understanding the natural variability of the system (even if it is currently altered by

catchment change), regulators and industry (iCMA members/ Project Proponent) are more

6-8 62800860-RPT-02

able to ascertain what is responsible for observed and future changes in water quality i.e.

flooding of rivers causing large spikes of nutrients inside the iLAP area.

Sediment Quality Particulate waste in the form of faeces and uneaten feed from sea cage aquaculture will be

dispersed “downstream” by currents and deposited on to the seafloor where they can be

resuspended and re-deposited by wave or current action. As for the nutrient dispersion

described above, the extent of accumulation or dispersion of the particulate matter also

depends on the current velocities of the area, with areas of general low flow having higher

more localised deposition than areas of high flow where deposition can occur some distance

from the farm but generally at much lower concentrations.

The modelling exercise carried out for the impact assessment focused on four representative

hydrodynamic zones, given that the exact layout of the PUs is presently unknown.

The actual deposition by the PUs therefore will need to be monitored and verified during the

operation stage. As the data come to hand revised modelling undertaken to more accurately

determine PU placements to avoid environmental damage and optimise production.

6.3.1.2 Mitigation

(i) Production Limits and Stocking Densities Interim stocking limit guidelines (ISLG) have been developed in this SEIA as listed in Table

6.2 below. Note that production in LF6 has been removed due to environmental

considerations which are further discussed in Section 6.3.3.

Table 6.2 Interim Stocking Limit Guidelines

Farming Area

Area (ha)

Production (T)

Total Production (T/ha)

LF1 2,552 4,580 1.795

LF2 1,501 3,000 1.999

LF3 431 2,480 5.754

LF4 1,583 1,200 0.758

LF5 2,376 6,080 2.559

LF6 244 0 0

LF7 206 240 1.165

LF8 409 420 1.027

These shall serve as initial management limits (i.e. licence conditions for all operators within

the iLAP) to maintain water quality impacts to acceptable levels and shall be incorporated in

the iCMA.

However, as outlined above, the ISLGs will be developed over time and refined through the

Adaptive Management Process with further environmental monitoring as outlined in the

subsequent mitigation measures listed below.

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-9

(ii) Adaptive Management based on Water Quality Monitoring and Trigger Limits An on-going water quality monitoring programme will be carried out throughout operations

and the monitoring data will be reviewed against Trigger Limits to determine management

actions. If it is shown that Trigger Limits are exceeded due to the lobster farming,

management intervention and remedial action such as biomass redistribution, destocking

or reduced juvenile stocking will be required.

Details are outlined in the following:

Water Quality Monitoring Programme

The monitoring requirements are as summarised below; further details are given in Section

7:

Frequency: Weekly to monthly

Parameters:

- Ammonia in surface and bottom waters

- Nitrate in surface and bottom water.

- Chlorophyll-a profiles (at three points in the water column).

- DO profiles in the water column (in-situ measurements).

Defining Trigger Limits

An extended baseline water quality monitoring programme is proposed, with re-modelling

(recalibration) of nutrient and sedimentation impacts of the farming carried out. It is

suggested that rolling (rolling monthly) annual medians and trigger percentiles are derived on

a broad scale basis (that is treating the iLAP as one or perhaps two entities before

production begins and then each LF zone as a separate entity with its own monitoring

programme) and employing 3-5 sampling sites within each area to provide the data.

Interim Trigger Limits will be derived from two years of monitoring data while actual Trigger

Limits for the operations stage will be derived another two years of monitoring data (total four

years) overall and the refined numerical model (see Figure 6.3). It is noted that the Trigger

Limits may need to be reevaluated in the future in the event of major catchment changes on

the mainland.

It is suggested to use the 80th percentile as the Trigger Limit values for each of the three

nutrient-related water quality parameters and the 20th percentile for DO.

Figure 6.3 Summary of the long term water quality monitoring required in determining the final Trigger Limits for water quality parameters within iLAP.

With respect to algal bloom occurrences and HABs, a historical assessment shall be carried

out using satellite imagery in addition to monitoring to develop an understanding of natural

Set Interim Water Quality Guidelines &

Trigger Values

24 months monitoring

(NH4, NO3, Chl-a and DO, phytoplankton-

HAB)

Rerun Model-Compare Interim Trigger Values

Additional 24 months monitoring

Model recalibrated and Trigger Values derived

Environmental Steering Committee

responsible for implementation and

Management changes

6-10 62800860-RPT-02

variability with which to confirm a suitable thresholds and a risk-based approach to managing

a HABs incident within the ILAP.

Adaptive Management

Regional, rolling monthly annual medians (annual medians which roll monthly) of the

monitoring data will be the primary basis of water quality management and performance

review. Three stages of review corresponding to different levels of change are proposed for

operations activated management responses (see Table 6.3 and Figure 6.4). If the

attribution study shows that farming is the cause, management intervention and remedial

action will be necessary. If triggers are exceeded in the interim or the longer term and the

exceedance is attributable to farming activity, biomass redistribution, destocking or

reduced juvenile stocking will be required by the CEO Committee.

All monitoring and adaptive management requirements will be enshrined within the iLAP

Collective Management Agreement (iCMA) Environmental Monitoring and Management Plan

(EMMP) described in Section 7. The iCMA will manage monitoring and assessments of

performance against water quality guidelines and triggers. Should changes in management

practice be required they will be implemented through the iCMA with oversight by DoF as

outlined in Section 6.2.3.

Table 6.3 Water quality monitoring thresholds and management responses.

Stage Description Management Response

1 Regional monthly median is less than 20/80

th

percentile but approaching it.

NO ACTION except to increase sampling period or add further stations to better understand the processes

2 Regional annual median approaches or reaches the 20/80

th percentile

The project proponent will need to commission expert review of the monitoring data, the monitoring strategy and numerical modelling as part of a report to government, industry and other stakeholders. Review by iCMA CEO Committee to make management recommendations and endorsed by the Environmental Steering Committee.

3 Regional annual monthly median exceeds the 20/80

th percentile

iCMA CEO Committee to commission a study of the cause of change (attribution study). CEO Committee to arrange a formal expert report to government, industry and stakeholders and endorsement by the Environmental Steering Committee.

Figure 6.4 Management responses to levels of changes within the monitored water quality of iLAP.

Regional monthly median:

approaching

20/80th percentile

Increase sampling period

Add additional WQ Stations

Regional Annual Median

approaching 20/80th percentile

Commission Expert Review

Reviewed by iCMA on management decisions

Regional Monthly Median:

> 20/80th percentile

Study of Cause of Change

Formal Expert Report

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-11

(iii) Sediment Monitoring Annual video surveys of sediments and sediment sampling located 100 m from major PU

mooring footprints to be carried out to visually monitor the conditions on the seabed. This

will be followed up benthic sampling if significant effects are determined. Further details are

given in Section 7. If negative impacts are detected then cages may be repositioned or

lobster stocking density reduced.

Sediment deposition and source monitoring on adjacent sensitive habitats will be undertaken

and the results be part of the annual monitoring assessment and reporting process (see

Section 7).

(iv) Fallowing It is recommended that fallowing be applied to the production units to allow dispersion and

nutrient recovery period of the said area. Fallowing involves a period where no production

activities are carried out. The duration will depend on the location, how heavy the harvest

was within the units and the level of actual deposition. As a rule of thumb, a three-month

duration would normally be sufficient. Implementation of the fallowing should be included and

enforced in the iCMA.

6.3.1.3 Summary 1. Determine trigger limits for water quality through 48 months of water quality monitoring

within the iLAP.

2. Three stage management response to the water quality trigger limits are recommended

based on rolling monthly and annual medians 20/80th percentile:

a. Stage 1: Monthly median approaching the 20/80th percentile - Increase in

sampling effort to verify trend

b. Stage 2: Annual median approaching the 20/80th percentile - Commission expert

review and a review by CEO Committee to formulate management actions

c. Stage 3: Monthly median equal to or exceeds the 20/80th percentile - Study of

the cause of changes and a formal expert report to stakeholders.

3. iCMA to include the above monitoring and adaptive management requirements.

4. Algal bloom occurrences and specifically HABs to be assessed historically using satellite

imagery and monitored to develop an understanding of natural variability with which to

confirm a suitable thresholds and a risk-based approach to managing a HABs incident

within the ILAP.

5. Bottom substrate video surveys and benthic sampling if required; management

responses including repositioning cages or reducing stocking density if negative impacts

identified.

6. Monitoring of impacts on sensitive habitats and reference sites

7. Implement fallowing

6.3.2 Other Water Quality Impacts

6.3.2.1 Heavy metals and other Pollutants

Issue Heavy metals are often observed at higher than background levels in sediments beneath

aquaculture production areas /1/. These sediments are normally enriched with metals

6-12 62800860-RPT-02

derived from either paints used to reduce bio-fouling (often with a high percentage of copper)

that are sprayed onto cage netting or from feeds. The project proponent has no plans to use

anti-fouling agents on its cages and will use rotational air drying in situ methods to clean the

bio-fouling.

In regard to metals in the feeds, modern dry pellets do have limited quantities of metals that

can be added intentionally as part of the animals’ diet and/or occur naturally in feed

ingredient raw materials. Other pollutants relate to pharmaceutical products that may be

utilised to control pathogens or parasites.

Moreover, the GAA BAP certification requirements include the need to show that …”the

applicant [has] conducted an assessment of the watershed surrounding the applicant to

identify any potential watershed contamination risks. This includes monitoring any changes

to land use practices over time. Potential watershed contamination risks may involve such

things as pesticides, PCBs and heavy metals introduced from nearby industrial or

agricultural operations” (see also Appendix F).

Mitigation Routine lobster health testing including metals will be part of the operations SOPs with

respect to product quality assurance. Note that the GAA BAP Certification requires

testing of feeds to show they do not contain unsafe levels of contaminants (Appendix F).

Air dry cage nets on a regular basis and avoid use of antifouling agents wherever

possible.

Only use tested and approved dry feed or moist pellets with good formulations promoting

digestion and preventing leaching and use approved pharmaceutical products that have

limited lifespan in marine waters or sediments (i.e. formalin). They will only be applied

under the supervision of a registered veterinarian and according to BAP principles. Even

so, regular chemical testing of these feeds for only authorised metals, unsafe levels of

contaminants as well as antibiotics or chemicals that are prohibited will be undertaken

(GAA BAP Certification requirement 13.2 &13.6 – Appendix F).

Testing for metals in the sediment monitoring programme will be undertaken to establish

background levels, as metals in marine environments are frequently derived from the

surrounding catchments depending on the geology; and to ascertain any contribution

from farming operations. By comparing the chemical ratios in the feeds being used with

the sediment monitoring results a measure of contamination can be obtained.

Undertake an annual regional assessment of the watershed surrounding the iLAP to

identify any potential watershed contamination risks (GAA BAP Certification requirement

13.1 – Appendix F).

Summary

1 Routine lobster heath testing including for contaminants will be undertaken

2 Air dry nets regularly

3 Avoid use of antifoulants

4 Regularly test feed for unsafe levels of metals, antibiotics or prohibited chemicals

5 Monitor the chemical composition of sediments

6 Assess catchment pollutants annually

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-13

6.3.2.2 Control of Soil Erosion and Sedimentation during Construction

Issue Rainfall on bare surfaces of the site will erode the unprotected or disturbed soil especially

during the earthworks stage. This will contribute to an increase of suspended solids in the

water if such runoff is not managed, which could affect areas of live coral found on the reefs

fringing Tg. Kapor and P. Bait. However, this impact is expected to be short term and limited

to the initial stage of construction phase involving earthworks.

Mitigation An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) has been carried out and submitted to the

Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID) for approval (see Appendix J). The ESCP aims

to prevent erosion and minimise the adverse effects of off-site sediment transport and is a

regulatory requirement by DID. The ESCP focuses on the earthworks for the Operations

Base as the major area of earthworks. Nevertheless, an ESCP encompassing the access

road and bridge construction areas at Tg. Kapor will be developed according to DID

requirements and submitted for their approval prior to the start of construction.

ESCP requirements are to be included in all subcontractor’s contracts and the

implementation monitored. This will be included as part of the Environmental Compliance

Reports to EPD.

Access Road at Tg. Kapor

The ESCP should capture the following at a minimum:

Vegetation Stabilisation – applicable to all embankment areas along the access road.

Will include seeding, planting and mulching.

Silt fence/ curtain – along the toe of the embankment along the access road (see Figure

6.5).

6-14 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 6.5 Recommended locations of silt curtain.

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-15

Photo 6.1 Example of silt curtain along mangrove area.

Operations Base

The ESCP for the OB encompasses the following:

Vegetation Stabilisation

Diversion of Runoff

Sediment Traps

Sediment Basin

Washing Bay

Vegetative Stabilisation

Surface stabilisation using vegetation can often dissipate the energy of falling raindrops by

providing effective canopies against direct contact of the raindrops with the ground surface

and thereby reducing detachment of the soil particles and consequent runoff into waterways.

Vegetative stabilisation approaches are practicable and shall be made immediately

applicable to all cut earth slopes at the OB over the course of construction, in particular in

areas of the OB earmarked for future development. Examples of vegetation stabilisation

methods include seeding, planting and mulching.

Diversion of runoff

Diversion of runoff method is applied to divert runoff from around the disturbed areas and to

direct runoff into the sediment traps or basins. Temporary earth drains of 900 mm width will

be constructed along the boundary line and several other locations on the development site,

and connected to a sedimentation basin (see Figure 6.6). Maintenance of these earth drains

shall be in accordance with the Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in the ESCP,

Appendix J.

Sediment trapping

Sediment traps, a sediment basin and silt fences/ curtains will be utilised to control soil runoff

and sedimentation. A system of sediment traps and a sediment basin will be connected to

6-16 62800860-RPT-02

the temporary earth drains at the OB area as shown in Figure 6.6 and also Appendix J. The

sediment basin dimension are as follows:

Top: Width = 32 m; Length = 112 m

Bottom: Width = 25.2 m; Length = 105.2 m.

A silt fence/curtain is mostly installed to create a barrier to settle the soil particles and

thereby reduce the amount of soil leaving the disturbed areas. Silt curtains are to be used

along the shoreline off the northern portion of the OB construction on P. Bait, along the

bridge and access road construction areas within all zones of tidal influence (Figure 6.5).

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-17

Figure 6.6 Erosion and sediment control measures on P. Bait.

6-18 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 6.7 Details of the temporary silt trap (see also Appendix J).

Summary 1 Stabilise all embankment areas along the access road with vegetation.

2 Establish silt fences/curtains

3 Establish temporary earth drain network around the OB

4 Establish sediment traps and a sediment basins

5 ESCP for the access road and bridge construction area at Tg. Kapor to be prepared and

submitted to DID.

6 ESCP requirements shall be included in all subcontractor’s contracts and the

implementation monitored. This will be included as part of the Environmental

Compliance Reports to the EPD (see Section 7).

6.3.3 Coral Reef Impacts

6.3.3.1 Issues Impacts to corals are predicted due to several project components or activities:

Elevated nutrients and deposition from cages – minor impacts are predicted to affect:

- 127 ha of dense coral

- 1,145 ha of sparse coral.

Potential impacts on live corals due to anchoring and mooring. It is anticipated that there

will be some direct effect on areas of sparse corals in particular within Production zones

LF6 and LF7 resulting from mooring lines and anchors within the PU footprint.

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-19

Loss of scattered live corals (5% cover) at jetty and bridge areas at Tg. Kapor and P.

Bait.

6.3.3.2 Mitigation

(i) Buffer Zone of 100 m from Coral Modelling results indicate that most waste is either deposited directly beneath the cages at

low energy sites or disturbed across a wide area due to stronger water movement. In both

instances it is predicted that there will be little or no adverse impact to any coral habitats

more than 100 m away from the cage edge. Subsequently the model results suggest that to

mitigate potential impacts to corals and other sensitive seabed habitats a 100 m buffer

should be applied between any farm development and the coral reefs.

The Project boundary includes a buffer of 50m, and it is recommended that the production

cages are not positioned within 50 m of the site boundary giving a total of 100 m minimum

buffer zone around the reefs as shown in Figure 6.8.

For LF7 production zone to the south of P. Timbun Mata, small coral patches with sparse

coral cover occur at widely separated intervals. It may not be possible to position all cages in

these zones with a 100 m buffer from the nearest small coral patch. If the coral patches are

smaller than 1m2 in area or have less than 20% coral cover then the recommended

mitigation measure is to move the corals and associated non-mobile benthic fauna to a new

reef site at a similar depth.

6-20 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 6.8 Recommended 100 m buffer zone from live coral areas.

(ii) Exclusion of Zone LF6 The field study results show that the patches of coral reef in LF6 are quite extensive with

good live coral cover (Figure 6.8 and Figure 6.9). With the implementation of a 100 m buffer

zone, there would not be any appreciable area for lobster cage establishment. Hence LF6

shall not be used for commercial production but is rather recommended to be utilised as low

impact development or as a control site.

The production tonnage of LF6 has been shifted to carefully selected LF Zones as shown in

Table 6.4 and the Interim Stocking Limit Guidelines (ISLGs) in Table 6.5.

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-21

Figure 6.9 Removal of LF6 to preserve the live coral area.

Table 6.4 Redistributed production tonnages and cages.

Farming Area

Area (ha) Production (T) Total No. Cages*

Initial Revised Initial Revised

LF1 2,552 4,500 4,580 80,000 81,422

LF2 1,501 3,000 3,000 53,000 53,000

LF3 431 2,400 2,480 42,600 44,022

LF4 1,583 1,200 1,200 21,800 21,800

LF5 2,376 6,000 6,080 106,666 108,088

LF6 244 240 0 4,266 0

LF7 206 240 240 4,266 4,266

LF8 409 420 420 7,466 7,466

Total 9,300 18,000 18,000 320,064 320,064

6-22 62800860-RPT-02

Table 6.5 Revised production per hectare to be used for Interim stocking limit guidelines.

Farming Area

Area (ha)

Production (T)

Total Production /ha

LF1 2552 4580 1.795

LF2 1501 3000 1.999

LF3 431 2480 5.754

LF4 1583 1200 0.758

LF5 2376 6080 2.559

LF6 244 0 0

LF7 206 240 1.165

LF8 409 420 1.027

(iii) Micro-scale PU Layout Optimisation PU design optimisation and deployment at a local scale needs to be carried out to ensure

that no cages are established over any areas of live coral reefs. This should be verified by

diver inspection and /or photographic evidence of seabed conditions of the PUs prior to their

deployment.

Production in farming zones LF7 is low, at 240T per annum, given its location to nearby

reefs. Farming in these zones will be limited to R&D type activities, rather than commercial-

scale production in the first instance while more detailed data are gathered on PU effects,

coral and seagrass distributions and PU design is progressively refined.

(iv) Accurate Deployment of Anchors and Mooring Lines Accurate deployment of moorings, engineered to adequate size for forces to prevent any

movement of mooring blocks over time, will mitigate disturbance to the seabed. There is only

minor disturbance to the seabed at deployment and this is mitigated by good procedures

which minimise dragging.

The iCMA will ensure proper deployment, operation and maintenance of anchors and

moorings.

(v) Coral Rehabilitation Natural colonisation of corals on the bridge and jetty piers is expected, and hence no active

replanting is considered necessary, given the low coral cover in this area.

It is recommended that coral rehabilitation initially focuses on the offset of the permanent

loss of 7.5 ha of mangrove, given the lack of suitable sites in the vicinity of the iLAP for

mangrove replanting.

It is difficult to determine the ecologically equivalent area of coral to be rehabilitated to offset

the permanent loss of 7.5 ha of mangrove (does not include the temporary construction

access area). There are a number of methods used in legislation around the world to

determine the extent and value of an offset, but the GAA BMP requirement is if a net loss of

wetland habitat occurs on an applicant’s property, the compensatory mitigation required shall

be restoration of an area three times as large or by an equivalent donation to restoration

projects.

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-23

Following these guidelines, an area of 23 ha of reef would need to be replanted to offset the

mangrove area lost by development activity. Monitoring of the coral reefs will be required to

detect any realised impacts to the corals north of P. Timbun Mata during operations in these

areas. The coral rehabilitation efforts will then need to expand to compensate for any

additional realised impacts in these areas.

It is proposed coral rehabilitation focuses on the dead (bombed) areas of reef around P.

Timbun Mata, in particular around the northern side; and potentially within the Tun Sakaran

Marine Park. Suitable methods and resources for coral planting are already in use by

TRACC and Sabah Parks within the Semporna area. While sessile reef species are

routinely planted to rehabilitate areas, these are mostly from a few coral families. For the

large area to be replanted, a coral nursery will need to be developed so that broodstock and

juvenile corals can be grown in controlled conditions. These broodstock can then be

harvested at a sustainable rate of less than 10% tissue removal per year to produce more

colonies by fragmentation (asexual reproduction).

Maintenance of natural biodiversity in the replanted reef is very important and fragmentation

is not suitable for all species. There is also a large number of species which cannot be

easily propagated by simple fragmentation, for some species the best technique is collection

of coral larvae and rearing juveniles after sexual reproduction. For some coral species

common on the reefs of Semporna, the best method of artificial reproduction is not yet

known. The development of techniques for propagation of a number of coral species to

improve the biodiversity of replanted reefs would make several suitable research topics

(Masters/ PhD) and thus also presents an opportunity for implementation through an

educational element of the Corporate Social Responsibility Programme by the Project

Proponent1. Alternatively, the work could be undertaken by an expert resulting in a report

and recommendations to Government and the proponent over a shorter time period.

(vi) Coral Monitoring Due to the uncertainties in the impact prediction as outlined in (i) above, a biannual

monitoring programme using permanent video and photographic transects as well as growth

rate and community change monitoring for corals within the farming areas is required.

Specific monitoring programmes are described in Section 7.

It is recommended that biannual monitoring of the nearest coral reefs to the iLAP that fall

within the boundary of the Marine Park starts as soon as possible and continues regardless

of which LF zone is farmed first.

6.3.3.3 Summary 1. A 100m buffer is to be applied to all farms, by this we mean there can be no corals (coral

patches > 1 m2) within a 100 m of any lobster cage

2. If the coral patches are smaller than 1m2 in area or have less than 20% coral cover then

the recommended mitigation measure is to move the corals and associated non-mobile

benthic fauna to a new reef site at a similar depth.

3. Cages will not be established over areas of live corals or seagrass; this shall be

supported by photographic evidence of seabed conditions under the PUs prior to their

deployment.

1 This and several other aspects of the proposed mitigation and monitoring would make the basis for suitable post

graduate studies within the context of the proposed CSR program. The creation of an Environmental Education Center on P. Bait could be the focus for such research projects as there will be the need to support the monitoring program with suitable laboratory and field operations facilities and such facilities can be expanded to accommodate research, training and education capability for the Operation as well as a broader CSR function.

6-24 62800860-RPT-02

4. Removal of LF6 from production zone and redistribution of production tonnage.

5. “Soft start’ at production zone LF7 – to restrict to R&D and other operational activities to

be undertaken by the Proponent only until PU design is refined.

6. Annual video surveys of sediments located 100m from major PU mooring footprints.

This will be followed up benthic sampling if significant effects are determined.

7. Monitoring of sediments and coral habitats in the Marine Park nearby the iLAP

8. Rehabilitation of coral reefs by replanting coral over an area of (7.5 ha x 3 ~ 23 ha) in

reefs around the study area as an offset of the permanent loss of 13.9 ha of mangrove.

9. Monitoring of coral impacts during operations; see section 7.

10. Compensatory rehabilitation of additional coral reef areas based on realised impacts

identified from (9)

6.3.4 Mangrove Impacts

6.3.4.1 Issue The loss of mangroves to the project footprint is an impact that cannot be mitigated should

the project proceed. This affects:

7.2 ha of mangrove on P. Bait due to the bridge and OB footprint. 1.2 ha of this is Class

V Mangrove Forest Reserve

6.7 ha of mangrove on Tg. Kapor due to the access road and bridge. All of this

mangrove area is Class V Mangrove Forest Reserve.

The total affected mangrove area is 13.9 ha, while the affected area of Mangrove Forest

Reserve is 7.9 ha. Permanent loss of mangrove is approximately 7.5 ha as 6.4 ha will be

replanted (within the temporary construction ROW areas).

6.3.4.2 Mitigation The recommended mitigation measures include the following:

1 Replanting of mangroves in the construction access areas which are no longer needed

for project operations Replanting of mangroves in this sort of situation is a well-

established technique and can use naturally occurring mangrove seedlings.

2 Alternatively, donate to the Department of Forestry’s funds to be used for mangrove

conservation. The donation would be based on payment for ecosystem services as

valued by the Forestry Department.

3 Working area to be clearly demarcated to avoid accidental encroachment of mangroves

outside the project site.

4 Mangrove biomass removal will be carried out according to Forestry Department

requirements

5 Rehabilitation of damaged coral reefs around P. Timbun Mata (see Section 6.3.1

above).

(i) Mangrove Replanting The access road is 28 m width and bridge is only 11 m width; however, for construction

access, a width of 50 m is on each side of the road and bridge landing area is required.

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-25

Upon completion of construction, these temporary working areas can be replanted with

mangroves (~6.4 ha).

Note that the GAA BMP requirement is that the restored vegetation be “healthy, viable and

appropriately diverse” (Audit question 4.4). Monitoring of the rehabilitated areas is therefore

a necessity and is proposed as part of an annual monitoring assessment and reporting

process (see Section 7).

Figure 6.10 Temporary construction Right of Way (ROW) areas to be replanted with mangrove.

Some rehabilitation of soil, e.g. due to compaction by machinery, and hydrological conditions

(e.g. if embankments and other soil erosion control measures have been constructed) will be

required as may works such as temporary fencing to ensure sediment stabilisation during the

reestablishment phase.

The Proponent should ensure that the Contractor includes provisions for the site closure

requirements by including this requirement in the tender specifications.

(ii) Demarcation of Work Area The 100m construction ROW should be surveyed and the boundaries demarcated by

boundary posts at sufficient intervals to ensure workers do not inadvertently clear or

encroach upon the adjacent mangrove areas, including the Forest Reserve, see example in

Photo 6.2.

6-26 62800860-RPT-02

Photo 6.2 Example demarcation of working areas to prevent encroachment.

Any inadvertent encroachment and clearing within the Forest Reserve (i.e. outside the

Project boundary) shall also be replanted by the Project Proponent.

Naturally available propagules from native mangrove vegetation adjacent to the cleared area

should be used as the main source of seedlings. The preferred species for replanting will be

the dominant species observed in the area immediately adjacent to the area to be replanted.

A mix of species is recommended rather than a monoculture of Rhizophora spp.

(iii) Gazettement of 7.5 ha of Class V Mangrove Forest Reserve In keeping with policy to maintain net protected area in Sabah it is recommended that the

Forestry Department gazette an additional 7.5 ha of mangrove area elsewhere in Sabah as

Class V Mangrove Forest Reserve. This may not necessarily be an area within or around

the Project site or even in Semporna District, but could be any location in Sabah where

mangroves are currently at risk of development pressure (for example non-gazetted

mangrove areas in Pitas/ Bengkoka).

It is recommended that the Project Proponent consult the Sabah Forestry Department to

further consider this idea and provide assistance for any initial studies required to identify

such an area.

6.3.4.3 Summary

1. Replanting of mangroves in temporary construction areas.

2. Demarcation of work area to avoid inadvertent encroachment into adjacent mangrove areas.

3. Coral Rehabilitation as an environmental offset, see Section 6.3.6 below.

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-27

4. Gazettal of 7.5 ha of Class V Mangrove Forest Reserve elsewhere in Sabah by Sabah

Forestry Department.

6.3.5 Biosecurity

6.3.5.1 Issue Potential introduction and spread of diseases from the farmed animals to wild populations

during farming operations. In addition, the development of antibiotic resistant strains in the

hatchery which could then be brought into the farm. Note that Section 15 of the GAA BAP

Certification deals with Disease Control.

6.3.5.2 Mitigation Inspection and testing (as specified within the Lobster Health Management Plan

(LHMP)) of incoming stock both from overseas and from the hatchery.

Certification by company health technicians and registered veterinarians of all stock to

be clear of pathogens (iCMA LHMP) before they are transferred to the AIZ for farming.

BAP (GAA Best Aquaculture Practice) management of stocks to prevent stress and

promote good fish health.

Education of staff for vigilance to fish health issues and procedures to follow (SOP’s and

iCMA LHMP) in the event of issues.

Routine lobster health monitoring program (iCMA LHMP). This will also include a wild

population monitoring and heath check program.

6.3.5.3 Summary

1. Inspection and testing as per the Lobster Health Management Plan.

2. Training and certification of relevant employees.

3. Awareness across all staff through induction and on-going training.

4. Location and monitoring of a wild lobster population within iLAP

6.3.6 Hydrodynamic Impacts of PUs

6.3.6.1 Issue Cages, nets and moorings are expected to have an impact on current speed and current

direction. The predicted modelled impacts to hydrological conditions in and around the cages

is expected to be a large (>30%) reduction in flow, in the direction the current is going both

in-front and behind the cages. Along the sides of the cages the flow is predicted to increase,

while underneath the cage there will be a slight reduction in flow. Flow will also tend to

circulate more behind the cage.

6.3.6.2 Mitigation At a regional scale (i.e. kilometres), to reduce the likely impact by the cages, nets and

moorings on current speed and direction, gaps between farms (comprising one or more PUs)

large enough to allow the flow patterns to recover or at least partially recover are required.

Such gaps should be in the order of 100 m or more for small farms i.e. 15-30 cages while

larger farms (100 cages or more) should have gaps of between 100-500 m depending on the

size of the farm. It is noted that provision of navigation channels for local boats is also

required; hence these gaps could be designed to serve more than one purpose.

6-28 62800860-RPT-02

In addition, in extreme cases, perhaps in shallow sites, there might be small areas of minor

scour (erosion) and deposition or accretion in and around the mooring lines. The exact

effects depend on the PU configuration, the depth and the current flow at the specific site

and hence monitoring is required to ensure stability of the PUs and anchors.

At a local scale (tens of meters) altered current flow will be significant within the wider area

but farmers will optimise PU design to encourage flows through their cages to promote good

growing conditions for stock.

During Phase 1 of operations, additional measurements and modelling will be undertaken

around PU clusters to refine the optimisation of the longer-term development in Phase 2.

The locations of all PUs will then be adjusted accordingly at the planning stage pre

deployment.

6.3.6.3 Summary 1. Suitable gaps between farms will be included in the layout of the farms to ensure

minimal disruption of flow

2. Such gaps will be in the order of 100 m or more for small farms i.e. 15-30 cages while

larger farms (100 cages or more) will have gaps of between 100-500 m

3. Additional measurements and modelling will be undertaken around PU clusters to refine

the optimisation of the longer-term development in Phase 2

6.3.7 Navigation Impacts

Mitigation measures addressing the key issues identified for the iLAP construction and

operations are outlined here. Additional details on standard regulations that also need to be

complied with are outlined in Section 6.5.3.

6.3.7.1 Construction Phase Impacts

Issue Marine traffic accidents and navigational hazards as a result of the marine construction

activities are not considered a major risk. Even so, active management the construction

vessels as well as fishing and other local vessels is required.

Mitigation The following standard safety precautions should be implemented:

Installation and use of proper lighting on the vessels

Installation of navigational lights and beacons around the marine working area.

The floodlights used during construction and post-construction phase could significantly

impair the effectiveness of AtoNs that utilise light signals. Floodlights should be pointed

downwards so as to not obscure visibility during night navigation.

Proponent through the Marine Department to provide a notice to all vessel owners and

operators advising the commencement of the construction operations and the expected

duration of the operations.

Appropriate communication channels with the Marine Department and MMEA shall be

established

Placement of a public notice by the Project Proponent prior to commencement of the

operation, through fisheries associations.

All construction vessels shall comply with all navigation restrictions that may be placed

by the relevant authorities from time to time

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-29

6.3.7.2 Operational Impacts

Issue The presence of the PUs will restrict navigation routes, in particular around the southern part

of the iLAP where numerous villages are concentrated on the mainland and on the islands.

Navigation routes connecting the villages on P. Bait, Pababag, Silawa and Larapan to Kg.

Tandoan and Sirongol on Timbun Mata are commonly used and cut through the iLAP.

The proposed lobster cages will pose a significant navigational risk to vessel keels and

propulsion unless clearly marked by boom and warning flags during daytime hours and

warning lights at night.

Mitigation

Navigation Lanes

Aggregations of PUs have to allow free access for vessels with clearly marked navigation

lanes. Based on the PIANC Guidelines for channel width and traffic separation, for vessels

with beam less than 30 m, the clearance between the passing vessels is set as at a

minimum of 30 m. Using the beam of the largest vessel, in this case the feed/ harvest barge

with a beam of 6 m, the minimum safe width is thus 55.2 m (see Figure 6.11). This figure has

been rounded up to 60 m for ease of implementation on the ground and to provide additional

buffer.

Figure 6.11 Internal channel width calculation

Between all farms there will be a minimum buffer of 100 m (see Section 6.3.6 above) which

will also provide the 60 metre navigation channels between PUs or groups of PUs. The

positioning of the channels will be identified along principle routes of travel, noting that

indiscriminate travel between PUs will be discouraged in the interests of simplifying security

arrangements for protection of the stock, as well as the local community.

Consultation with the local communities is required prior to finalising the PUs and navigation

channel layouts, which will be carried out prior to the establishment of cages within each

production zone.

The navigation routes shall be clearly marked according to local regulations as outlined in

Section 6.5.3. The routes will also need to be publicised locally and added to National

hydrographic charts.

Vessel Speed Limits

Given the large number of operational craft associated with the Project, and in the interests

of safety as well to protect turtles and marine mammals, speed limits for all craft will also be

agreed in consultation with Ports and Harbours Department, Marine Department and

Wildlife/ Fisheries Departments to be applied within the iLAP. An interim speed limit of 13

knots to address impacts to marine megafauna is proposed (see Section 6.3.9.3).

Where B=6, Clearance = 30 m

= 3 + 9.6 + 30 + 9.6 + 3

= 55.2 m minimum safe width for internal navigation channels

PU PU Barge (1.6B) Barge (1.6B)

Channel Boundary Channel Boundary

Separation Distance

(min 30 m)

6-30 62800860-RPT-02

PU marking and lighting

The proposed lobster cages will be clearly marked by boom and warning flags during

daytime hours and warning lights at night.

However, any floodlights would have to be pointed downwards so as to not obscure visibility

during night navigation.

6.3.7.3 Summary 1 Principal navigation routes through the iLAP of 60 m width will be provided for all

(public) vessels

2 The exact location of these routes will be identified in consultation local communities.

2. These routes will be clearly marked according to local regulations and publicised.

3. Speed limits will be agreed and applied to all craft within the iLAP, limit of 13 knots is

currently proposed.

4. Floodlights during construction and operations should be angled down to avoid prevent

impacts to visibility for other vessels.

5. Installation and use of proper lighting on vessels (construction and operations)

6. Installation and use of navigational lights and beacons around marine working area

during construction

7. Installation and use of boom and warning flags and warning lights on PUs during

operations.

6.3.8 Impacts of Bridge and Jetty on Morphology

6.3.8.1 Issue The bridge will result in primarily decreases in current speeds in areas along the channel and

around the causeway area at Tg. Kapor (presently mangrove). Reductions in maximum

current speeds are in the order of 1-4 cm/s in the channel and up to 12 cm/s around the

causeway. Mean reductions are in the order if 1 cm/s within the main channel and up to 3

cm/s around the causeway. There are a few areas where maximum current speed was

predicted to increase and these tend to range from <6-8 cm/s near the causeway and

<1cm/s in the main channel and mean increases (if any) of <1 cm/s near the causeway.

There are several locations where there is also a slight increase of 1-2 cm/s along the main

channel and the northern and eastern side of the causeway. The increases in current speeds

are very minor, however there is a slight possibility that it could result in erosion along the

shoreline on P. Bait.

6.3.8.2 Mitigation Owing to the predicted negligible to minor impact, no mitigation measures are considered

necessary.

6.3.8.3 Summary No mitigation required.

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-31

6.3.9 Marine and Terrestrial Fauna

6.3.9.1 Habitat Fragmentation

Issue The construction of the access road and bridge on the mainland at Tg. Kapor creates a

fragment of mangrove which can obstruct the movement of proboscis monkeys through the

mangroves along the coastline.

Mitigation It is recommended that consultation with the Wildlife Department is carried out prior to

construction start and any observed proboscis monkeys or other wildlife are to be relocated

to the mangrove forest reserve area to the west of Kg. Tg. Kapor if they appear to be in

danger or affected by the construction of the access road and bridge.

6.3.9.2 Farm Workers and Wildlife Interaction

Issue Adverse impacts to megafauna may arise if the large iLAP workforce engage in hunting or

harvesting of marine fauna, such as giant clams, sea cucumber, etc. Another potential issue

is that some species will prey on the lobster, becoming pests to the farmers as they destroy

nets, cause stress to the lobsters or sometimes cause mass escapes if the net damage is

significant. This may lead some contract farmers or farm employees to resort to harassment

or killing these predators, such as otters, monitoring lizards or even crocodiles.

Mitigation iCMA outlining the correct procedure for interactions with wildlife and endangered

species and management. Otters are likely to be the main wildlife interaction and

procedures will be included in the SOPs

Employment contracts that specifically forbid harvesting or hunting of local wildlife will be

used.

Employees of the project area shall be educated on the legal and conservation issues

(do’s and don’ts) relating to harvesting endangered Wildlife within the area.

Introduction of a company policy (enforced through the relevant iCMA) that no species

on the IUCN red list is consumed by any company personnel. Company policy will

closely follow the Marine seafood Council or WWF guidelines for sustainable seafood.

i.e. no consumption of turtles, shark fins, giant clams or other endangered species.

Wildlife Education Campaign will be implemented

Cages and all works areas will be kept clean to minimise attraction to crocodiles, monitor

lizards and other potential pests/ dangerous animals.

Careful monitoring of otter visits to cages and use of scaring technologies. (see ongoing

monitoring section)

6.3.9.3 Marine Megafauna

Issues There are a number of sources of impacts to marine fauna that may arise due to the iLAP

that require mitigation.

6-32 62800860-RPT-02

Habitat exclusion owing to PU footprints. This refers to the physical footprint of the

cages, which will exclude marine fauna from that water space. Smaller cetaceans and

sea turtles will not be excluded and hence this primarily affects larger fauna such as

whale sharks, and to a lesser extent, dolphins. This has been assessed as a Minor

negative impact, for which no mitigation is available.

Marine traffic impacts during operations (underwater noise and vessel strikes) has been

assessed as a Significant negative impact, owing to the large number of vessels

anticipated during operations.

Underwater noise disturbance during constructions – localised Slight negative impact,

nonetheless should be mitigated.

Entanglement in PUs. Marine megafauna such as dolphins or turtles may become

entangled in the cage nets. This has been assessed as a Moderate negative impact.

Mitigation Mitigation measures available to reduce impacts of marine traffic and net entanglement are

listed below:

Implement speed restrictions on all project vessels (less than 13 knots) within the iLAP

during construction and operations - slow vessels are unlikely to cause injury or death if

any impact occurs, while at the same time reducing noise emissions.

Careful planning of vessel lanes (iCMA); this will need to occur in consultation with the

Marine Department and Ports and Harbours Department as also outlined in Section

6.3.7.

iCMA will specify equipment type and use to prevent entanglement:

- Avoid use of predator nets, or if necessary, deploy high tension nets.

- Monofilament nylon nets (gill or trammel nets) should not be used

- Removal of unused pens or non-functioning nets from the farm to reduce

entanglement risk

iCMA will detail procedure for wildlife interactions including recording of sightings and

interactions, including notification to the Fisheries Department and Wildlife Department

of any entanglement, collision, injury or death to any sea turtle, marine mammals or

sharks.

Measures related to underwater noise primarily from the bridge and jetty construction (piling

in particular):

To prevent a startle response at the start of piling in water deeper than 3m, observations

should be made of an area approximately 350 m radius around the pile before start on

any day or after an extended time when piling has stopped. If any dolphin, whale or

turtle is observed in the area then piling should be delayed until they leave of their own

accord. These observations must be undertaken by a suitably trained crew member for

at least 10 minutes before the commencement of piling.

In waters less than 3 m, the same observations should be made, but restricted to an

area approximately 150 m radius around the pile.

Soft start procedures – piling must be initiated at soft taps start level (i.e. low energy

levels of less than 50% of full hammer weight for at least the first five impacts) before

building up to full impact force.

The Proponent / contractor is to keep a log of visual observations during pre-startup and

operations.

6.3.9.4 Summary 1 Proponent/ Contractor to consult Wildlife Department prior to construction start and

relocate any proboscis monkeys from the construction site at Tg. Kapor if at risk of

harm;

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-33

2 iCMA to outline the correct procedure for interactions with wildlife and endangered

species and management.

3 Utilise employment contracts that specifically forbid harvesting or hunting of local

wildlife.

4 Employees of the project area shall be educated on the legal and conservation issues

(do’s and don’ts) relating to harvesting endangered Wildlife within the area.

5 Introduce a company policy (enforced through the relevant iCMA) that no species on the

IUCN red list is consumed by any company personnel.

6 Cages and all works areas will be kept clean to minimise attraction to crocodiles,

monitor lizards and other potential pests/ dangerous animals.

7 Monitor otter visits to cages

8 Implement speed limit of 13 knots for all project vessels (less than 13 knots)

9 Marine traffic to follow identified vessel lanes

10 iCMA will specify cage equipment type and use to prevent entanglement

11 Start piling only if no megafauna observed within 350 m radius form the pile for waters

greater than 3 m depth.

12 Start piling only if no megafauna observed within 150 m radius from the pile for waters

less than 3 m.

13 Employ soft-start piling for marine works

14 The Proponent / contractor is to keep a log of visual marine megafauna observations

during pre-startup and operations.

6.3.10 Waste Management

6.3.10.1 Construction Waste

Issue Among the construction waste will be plant biomass from agriculture crops, mangrove,

secondary vegetation, and discarded construction material and machinery servicing.

Mitigation Biowaste from plant matter will be mulched and used as soil conditioner in the

reestablishment of disturbed areas. However, for agriculture crops within the area, disposal

of the biowaste will be in accordance to negotiations with Agriculture Department/crop

owners.

The disposal of mangrove biomass will be carried out in accordance to the needs of the

Sabah Forestry Department will be consulted in particular to extract any useable mangrove

biomass.

All other solid waste generated on site will be collected and stored in rubbish bags before

transported for disposal at the Municipal Land fill area.

No open burning is allowed anywhere within the project boundary.

The Project Proponent shall include waste management requirements in the tender

specifications and contract documents to ensure that they are incorporated into the project.

Darden have as part of their Corporate Citizen programme a goal of zero waste to landfill.

Several provisions are relevant to the project’s overall waste reduction performance:

6-34 62800860-RPT-02

Specify a minimum waste and debris diversion criteria – e.g. “divert from landfill disposal

a minimum of 50% of the non-hazardous construction waste generated at the job site”.

Incentives may further be added to reward the Contractor(s), e.g. options in the bid

schedule for each of several ranges of diversion rates.

Require that the Contractor(s) submit a construction waste management plan. This will

include:

- Name of individuals responsible for waste prevention and management

- Actions that will be taken to reduce solid waste generation

- Description of the regular meetings to address waste management

- Description of the specific approaches to be used in recycling/ reuse

- Waste characterisation, estimated material types and quantities.

- Identification of local and regional re-use programmes

- List specific waste materials to be salvaged and recycled

- Estimated percentage of waste diverted by this Plan

- Recycling activities to be used.

- Description of methods to protect materials designated for reuse or recycling from

contamination.

- Description of the means for collection and transportation of the recycle and

salvaged materials.

- Identification of materials which cannot be recycled or reused.

- Identification of land fill site to be used

The contractors shall identify in their tender documents ways to remove wastes from the

waste stream by diverting the materials to be reused or recycled. Many opportunities exist

for the beneficial reduction and recovery of materials that would otherwise be destined for

disposal as waste.

The contractor shall be required to document their actual waste diversion performance

throughout the project (progress reporting procedures to be incorporated in the EMMP, see

Section 7).

It is intended that the Project Proponent will facilitate or promote localised recycling or reuse

programmes involving the local community.

6.3.10.2 Sewage and Water Treatment

Issue Workers at the PU’s and the OB will generate sewage wastes

Mitigation Measures Wastewater refers to blackwater and greywater generated by workers on site. Temporary

toilets with septic tanks will be constructed to serve workers on site. Oil waste from

machineries will be collected and stored at least 50 m from the nearest water mark. It can be

reused as a degreasing agent for smaller tools.

Wastewater treatment facilities shall be provided for workers on site and these facilities

should be maintained regularly to avoid leakage.

Toilets with septic tanks and portable toilets shall be provided in adequate numbers and

locations at the OB site office and work areas

Periodically maintain and de-sludge septic tanks and portable toilets

A sewage treatment plant (STP) will be constructed at the OB and workers quarters on

the production units will be required to dispose sewage wastes at the central STP.

The sewage treatment plant shall be adequately designed to cater for the needs of the

expected workforce (26,000 PE) and treated sewage shall comply with Standard A of the

Environmental Quality (Sewage) Regulation 2009.

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-35

Periodic monitoring of the effluent quality shall be carried out to verify compliance as will

monitoring of the ocean outfall and surrounding waters.

The STP/WTP will require that the Proponent submit a Written Notification or Permission to

Construct to the Department of Environment (DOE), i.e. for the “discharge or release or

permit the discharge of sewage onto or into any soil, or into any inland waters or Malaysian

waters or

“carry out on any land any facility or building that may result in a new source of leachate or

release as specified under the “Environmental Quality (Control of Pollution from Solid Waste

Transfer Station and Landfill) Regulations, 2009”

During the operational phase, the sewage treatment plant (STP) will treat sewage to

Standard A effluent quality /2/ before discharge to the sea. The sewage treatment plant

location and water treatment system location on the Operations Base is shown in Section 3,

Figure 3.12.

Discharge water from the Operation should be monitored for compliance with the

Environmental Quality (Sewage and Industrial Effluent) Regulations 2009.

6.3.10.3 Operation Solid Wastes

Issue Wastes generation during the operational phase has been evaluated as a potentially

Significant Negative Impact as the capacity of the Semporna District Council‘s municipal

waste landfill is very limited.

Mitigation In the short-term, the planned new land-fills by the Semporna District Council may be able to

cater for the initial operations, however towards full production, the Project Proponent will

need to develop a dedicated land fill area for operational wastes. This will be developed in

consultation with the District Council and after monitoring of actual waste production at the

site during the early phases of operations.

On the OB, the solid waste collection area should be located at least 50 m from the water

line and no wastes should be buried on site. A recycling centre should be setup for

recyclable wastes like plastic bottles, aluminium, tins and papers and sent to the nearest

recycling centre.

Unfortunately, there is currently no recycling centre in Semporna, only aluminium is recycled.

It is suggested that the project proponent works with the District council, government

departments, NGO's and others to develop a suitable recycling centre. This recycling could

be developed as part of the Proponent’s Corporate Social Responsibility program.

6.3.10.4 Organic waste from Lobster Mortalities in cages and during packaging

Issue Mortality may average 0.1% per day over the 18 month growout period. Most of this

mortality will be in the earlier stages so the biomass is not as significant as the percentage

indicates. At final production of 18,000TPA estimates of annual mortality biomass is in the

range of 1-2T per day (365 - 730TPA). Burial of the lobster mortalities on P. Bait should not

be permitted owing to the porous soil and potential for groundwater and marine water

contamination.

Mitigation There are several options for the disposal and recycling of mortality wastes.

6-36 62800860-RPT-02

Mortalities will be incinerated in the short term. This is an effective method of disposal and

the ash can be used as a fertiliser for local crops

Ensilage of mortalities and wastes from net cleaning is the best long term option for disposal

and recycling organic wastes. The resultant slurry is an excellent fertiliser. This method is

used in many aquaculture operations around the world and in many cases the final product

can be utilised as a replacement for protein meals in stock foods /3,4,5/.

6.3.10.5 Cages, Feed Bags and Redundant Equipment

Issue Redundant aquaculture equipment and Feed Bags

Mitigation Cages, tanks and redundant aquaculture equipment will be reused and recycled wherever

possible. Much of the equipment can be used by the local community for horticultural and

agricultural activity. Wood may be re-used by the local communities for fencing, farm animal

cages, etc. and hence should be donated where in sufficiently good condition. Nets are

useful in bird exclusion from horticultural activity. Cage materials are useful in local

constructions and floats have many uses from compost bins, rafts, outdoor furniture,

culverts/drainage, sewage treatment systems, water storage tanks to swings in children’s

playgrounds. The plastic from floats is also fully recyclable and it may be that the project

attracts a local business that manufactures and recycles floats.

Reduction in the amount of feed bags will be considered by utilising bulk delivery from

containers. This will be a practical method with the scale of the iLAP.

The potential of feed bags for recycling is low, due to oils and odour, and many re-

processing companies have been reluctant to take used aquaculture plastics /6/. There is

however a good opportunity to recycle these through use in the local community. Feed bags

have 101 uses in domestic situations especially in agricultural and horticulture activities.

They are used for shade, ground cover to reduce weeds and reduce evaporation and for

transporting seeds and stocks to and from farms. The Proponent will explore through

advertisement and networks through the community to identify local communities or

businesses that may be interested in re-using feed bags.

In the later stages of the project it is likely that feeds will be delivered to PU’s in rigid plastic

containers in bulk (500-1,000 kg). These containers will be returned to the feed supplier,

washed and reused.

6.3.10.6 Oily Waste for Construction & Operational Phase

Issue A large amount of construction machinery and large number of marine vessels (including

more than several hundred small boats with outboard engines) will be used during the

construction and operation phase. Especially on marine vessels such as barges and boats,

as well as any generators and other machinery on the PUs, there is a risk of accidental

leakage of oil and grease in the water, especially during transfer of fuel, oils and chemicals

during distribution.

Mitigation Standard precautions concerning discharge of pollutants from the project site should be

implemented according to existing DOE guidelines, to comply with the Malaysian water

quality standards. At a minimum, the following recommendations will be followed:

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-37

Discharge of oily wastewater from sea vehicles’ engine room should be channelled into

the oil separator. The waste oil should then be stored in slop tanks and managed as

schedule waste according to Environmental Quality (Scheduled Wastes) Regulations,

2005 (Amendment) 2007.

Spill kits will be on hand at the PUs and on board barges to handle local spills.

Any temporary on-site diesel storage areas will be located at least 50m away from the

waterfront to prevent accidental spillage into the marine environment and fully bunded. The

storage tank should be contained in an impervious containment, with a capacity of 110% of

the storage volume.

Any used oil and oily wastes from machinery during the construction and operational phases,

are categorised as scheduled waste under the Environmental Quality (Scheduled Wastes)

Regulations, 2005 and will thus be handled, stored and disposed of accordingly i.e. to the

requirements under this regulation, see DOE guidelines on disposal of scheduled wastes /7/.

The relevant guidelines in the present case include Guidelines on the management and

disposal of used lubricating oils, spent coolant, and waste oily water. Disposal of the oily

waste should be at a DOE licensed third party recycling facilities.

The iLAP should adopt Shell Oil’s pollution avoidance technology for boats for sensitive

environments. Shell has a strategy with strict checks and application of appropriate boat

moorings, hose conditions and rigging, which are meant to trap accidental oil spills in drip

trays or on the boat deck. Emergency procedures are also listed within the Standard

Operating Procedures. Thus for iLAP, mitigation should be to capture all oil and

petrochemicals from the boats and ongoing monitoring of pollution control monitoring sites

close to supply base and areas with heavy boat traffic recommended /8/.

6.3.10.7 Summary: 1 Biowaste will be reused on site

2 Disposal of mangrove biomass must be carried out in accordance to the requirements

of the Sabah Forestry Department.

3 Solid wastes to be collected and stored in proper containers before disposal at the

Municipal Land fill

4 No open burning is permitted

5 Temporary toilets with septic tanks are to be provided on site; over-water toilets

discharging directly into the marine environment are not permitted.

6 Oily wastes shall be collected and stored appropriately at least 50 m from the nearest

shoreline.

7 Solid waste collection area to be established at a location at least 50 m from any

riverbanks.

8 No burial of solid wastes permitted on site; wastes shall be disposed of at the District

Landfill and long term solution explored with local authorities for dedicated land fill

9 A separate collection area for recyclable materials for disposal at a recycling centre will

be provided.

10 Rubbish traps at discharge outlets at the Project site will be constructed and

maintained. Collected wastes will be consolidated at the solid waste collection area in

(1) and disposed of at the District Council Landfill as outlined in (2).

11 Educate workers on importance of proper waste management.

12 Wastewater treatment facilities to be established on site.

13 No dumping of sewage sludge and other biowaste is permitted within any waterways or

reserves. Sludge shall be treated (dried) and re-used offsite as fertiliser.

6-38 62800860-RPT-02

6.3.11 Socioeconomic Impacts

This section recommends mitigation measures for the significant social impacts identified in

Section 5. The purpose of the mitigation measures are to:

Maximise potential positive social impacts;

Avoid significant adverse impacts

Minimise significant adverse impacts where they cannot be avoided

Propose community offsets/compensation for significant impacts that cannot be reduced

to an acceptable level.

In general, the mitigation measures focus on communicating project activities, reducing the

risk of accidents, maximising local employment and provision of compensation for residual

impacts. Table 6.6 outlines the proposed mitigation measures which are discussed further

below. Note that Sections 2 and 3 of the GAA BAP certification cover at total of 36 individual

requirements with respect to Community Relations, Worker Safety, and Employee relations –

see Appendix F.

Table 6.6 Proposed mitigation of social impacts.

Potential Social Impact

Recommended mitigation measures

Community Perceptions, Expectations and Concerns

Expectations and concerns

An iLAP Community Working Group comprising villagers’ representatives (Ketua Kampung and/or Pengerusi JKKK), the District Officer and the Proponent will be formed prior to the Project implementation in order to receive, discuss and evaluate expectations, grievances and decide on and delegate action items.

The lead agency for the working group would be the District Office and

chaired by the District Officer (DO). In particular, the level of representation of the villagers throughout the project implementation shall be kept high through the continued existence of this working group from construction through to operations. During the operations phase, the iCMA will be a part of the Community Working Group.

Project updates should be communicated regularly to the general community through this Working Group.

Environmental Compliance Reports and monitoring results should be presented to this Community Working Group by the Environmental consultants and feedback to be collected and recorded.

Crime and other Anti-social behaviour

The Proponent and its contractors shall not tolerate any anti-social behaviour (drugs, nuisance behaviour, petty crime, vandalism, etc.) amongst its workforce and shall have mitigation measures in place including:

Dismissal and disciplinary actions for anti-social behaviour;

Close liaison with the community working group, police and other stakeholders to monitor and manage anti-social behaviour.

Economic and Material Wellbeing

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-39

Potential Social Impact

Recommended mitigation measures

Employment and business opportunities

The Proponent and its contractors shall prioritise local employment, (i.e. from Semporna District) in recruitment wherever possible or at least from other parts of Sabah.

For any contractual jobs, in particular class-F contractors (bumiputera contractors), the locals should be given priority over others. This includes operational contracts such as landscaping, office cleaning, repair works, etc.

The Project Proponent will liaise with the Ministry of Human Resources, Malaysia with respect to workers that need to be sourced from other parts of the country

Where employment of foreign labour is unavoidable, documentation of compliance with the Immigration and Labour rules and regulations of Malaysia must be provided.

Human Resource Development

Vocational and skill training and entrepreneurship courses will be promoted among the local community by the Project Proponent through a local (Semporna) institution - collaboration with Semporna Community College could be considered - and government agencies to enable them to be competitive in securing employment and business opportunities related to the proposed project;

At a higher technical level, those local youths who have the potential to succeed and to learn will be encouraged and assisted through scholarships to acquire higher qualifications so that they can become, for example, marine scientists or technicians to work in the iLAP. These will be identified through the Community Working Group established for the Project.

To provide training to the communities, for example in aquaculture to carry out farming outside the iLAP (i.e. village industries).

Income Minimum salary paid for employment with the Project as approved by the government

Increased demand for services

Communicate workforce numbers to Semporna District Council and service providers in advance to ensure adequate facilities for the workforce in terms of facilities and amenities.

Impacts on fishing The Proponent will continually disseminate information on the Project construction work and implementation schedule through the Community Working Group so that the fishermen in particular are made aware of working areas and exclusion zones.

The fishermen who are qualified and interested to change occupation will be given employment priority at the iLAP.

Providing training, certification and employment or contract farming opportunities to local fishermen will be a priority to enable access to alternative sources of income, both within the iLAP and outside.

The above would require a coordinated approach involving the local fishermen, representative bodies and the relevant Government agencies. The collaborative efforts will be led by DO through the iLAP Community Working Group.

Loss of Cash Crops on P. Bait

Compensation to be arranged for through the District Office and Department of Agriculture

6-40 62800860-RPT-02

Potential Social Impact

Recommended mitigation measures

Impacts on tourism The potential to carry out niche tourism around the lobster farm and seafood restaurants and the coral rehabilitation sites will likely need some stimulus to get going, given the limited capacity of the local communities to start up such ventures on their own. The tourism industry in Semporna in particular is seen to benefit outsiders/ foreigners rather than the local Sempornans and hence it is crucial to ensure participation across the community.

Schemes such as funds for training and / or micro-financing will be considered for development as part of the Proponent’s Corporate Social responsibility programme.

Impacts on pearl and seaweed farms

Impacts to the existing pearl and seaweed farms are anticipated to be minimal if any and no mitigation is therefore required

Community Values and Lifestyle

Changes in demography

The Proponent and their contractors shall prioritise local employment in recruitment wherever possible to minimise the influx of non-locals

Health and Social Wellbeing

Road safety Drivers of heavy vehicles carrying building materials to/from the project site will be reminded/made aware of the danger they pose to other road users when travelling along the existing road to Tg. Kapor through a programme of driver education. Repeated failures to comply will lead to disciplinary action.

Appropriate signage will be implement along the state road and junctions to access the project site so that other road users are aware of the potential hazards from heavy vehicles during the construction period, especially at the entry/exit points to/from the project site

At peak periods of heavy vehicle traffic coinciding with school hours, the Proponent/ Contractor shall provide traffic wardens at each of the five schools along Jalan Tg. Kapor (SK Tg. Kapor, SMK Bugaya II, SRK Bugaya, SMK Bugaya I and SMK Panglima Abdullah).

Refer to Section 6.3.11.7 and 6.4.1

Marine safety Establishment of appropriate marine exclusion zones and other measures such as navigational markers, see Section 6.3.7 Navigation Impacts

Air and Noise Measures to reduce dust and noise pollution during the construction phase as described in Section 6.4.1

Construction works at the jetty during the night time may be permitted if required, as no impacts are anticipated to any nearby communities. However, the local community will still be forewarned and informed of the proposed schedule and duration of the works.

Other health All workers will undergo health screening for communicable diseases as per regulations, prior to being located at the project site.

All unused building materials will be cleared so as not to mar the existing surroundings and also to prevent from becoming breeding grounds for mosquitoes and rodents and hence preventing the vector-borne diseases from occurring

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-41

6.3.11.1 iLAP Community Working Group The iLAP Community Working Group will be established prior to Project implementation in

order to receive, discuss and evaluate expectations, grievances and decide on and delegate

action items; thus ensuring that the level of representation of the villagers throughout the

project implementation shall be kept high. The key objectives of the working group are:

To act as a formal channel to update stakeholders regularly and dissemination of

information to relevant stakeholders

To provide a platform for villagers, project proponent and government agencies to

discuss and make decisions in regards to iLAP related public interests; healthcare,

schools, training and education etc.

To relay the results from the Environmental Compliance Reports (ECR) during

construction as well as monitoring results throughout the operational stage of the iLAP.

To act as the highest decision-making body to settle any disputes or grievances related

to iLAP

The formation of the iLAP Community Working Group will be arranged through the District

Office and will comprise as the core group as also outlined in Table 6.1 in Section 6.2.3

above:

the District Officer (chair);

Ketua Kampung (village heads) and/or Pengerusi JKKK as villagers’ representatives,

Proponent

- iCMA Management Officer

- Community Liaison Officer

- Extension Officer

The final composition of the WG will be decided upon by the core group outlined above and

may be extended to include representatives from governmental agencies (such as Fisheries

Department representing interests of the fishers), or Marine Department for example.

6.3.11.2 Human Resource Development

Issue The potential benefit of employment and entrepreneurial opportunities offered by the iLAP

may be restricted by the lack of education and skill levels available within the local

population.

Mitigation Training and skills development programmes will be developed and offered to the local

community. These education and skills development programmes will be two pronged; the

first aimed at developing human resources for the iLAP; and the second to facilitate

development of alternative livelihoods for the benefit of the general community.

At the outset, an open line of communication needs to be established with the local

communities through the iCMA Community Working group to familiarise the local

communities on the labour and skills requirements in the iLAP. Good village leadership will

help.

Courses related to lobster farming designed for the contract farmers involved with the iLAP

will be organised by the proponent and will be the main form of training provided. This will

encompass financial management training which includes project costing, projection of

production and how to manage their finances.

As part of LATSB’s corporate social responsibility (CSR), scholarships will be provided for at

least two villagers from each iLAP impacted area annually or otherwise depending on the

duration of the course, which includes tuition fees, living and accommodation costs. These

programmes are suggested to run for a period of five years.

6-42 62800860-RPT-02

In addition, the Proponent will consider providing start-up loans on a community or group

basis to initially augment the transition to lobster farming work.

Ongoing training and skills improvement will be carried out through the farm Extension

Officer Programme, where the Extension officer(s) will be the hands-on point of contact for

the farmers, ensuring implementation of required SOPs and relaying and constantly updating

the farmers on the latest best practices; while in turn ensuring that any practical

implementation issues and problems experienced on the ground are also relayed back to the

Management Group and R&D arm for further refining.

Microcredit financing assistance will be arranged with government cooperatives such as Ko-

Nelayan, TEKUN, Amanah Ikhtiar and Koperasi Pembangunan Desa (Sabah) or through

organisations like Persatuan Peladang to help setup the villagers for the contract farming.

These government-initiated agencies have good track records in managing, monitoring and

evaluating participants.

Junior aquaculture programs will also be created which teaches the youth in surrounding

villages’ aquaculture trade and related new skills.

To sustain the training and human resource development in the longer term, aquaculture

curriculum could be co-developed with existing learning institutions such as Community

College Semporna for certificate and diploma level, and Universiti Malaysia Sabah for

degree and above.

6.3.11.3 Competition for Sea Space

Issue The aquaculture zone in the iLAP encompasses a total area of 9,300 ha and the physical

footprint of the cages, mooring lines and anchors will exclude fishermen and local

communities who utilise the sea space for fishing and navigation. This will result in a

decrease in income or food supplementation from fishing due to the reduction in the area of

fishing grounds available.

Mitigation Local villagers will be permitted to fish within iLAP’s navigation channels and outside the

boundaries of iLAP PUs in areas designated by the Proponent based on the iCMA and final

PU configuration. Active consultations must be conducted with the affected villagers through

the Community Working Group to inform the fishing communities on do’s and don’ts with the

establishment of iLAP.

Among the do’s and don’ts would include more detailed education and awareness on fishing

which includes use of legal fishing techniques vs unsustainable methods.

Public engagement will be carried out to inform the fishermen about work stages and any

restrictions on fishing activity for safety considerations during construction through the iLAP

Community Working Group.

The loss of fishing grounds within the iLAP will be mitigated by the provision of wider

employment choices and opportunities for entrepreneurship during the construction and the

operational phases in combination with the active education programmes outlined in Section

6.3.11.2 above. The loss of available fishing area is also mitigated by the anticipated

increase in fish around the iLAP (see Section 5.5.3.2), which is expected to increase catch

per unit effort for the fishermen.

Monitoring of the fisheries resource is required and is explained in more detail in Section 7.

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-43

6.3.11.4 Tourism

Issue Due to iLAP, there is an opportunity lost for expansion of nature tourism within the iLAP

area. While the presence of the aquaculture farm will not preclude any development on P.

Timbun Mata or its shoreline, the aesthetic impact of the cages will reduce the tourism

potential. On the other hand, the lobster farm as the first of its kind in the world also

provides an opportunity for aquaculture / seafood tourism in the region.

Mitigation The potential for a niche tourist industry based on farm tours and seafood restaurants

centred on the lobster production would need some policy and targeted stimulus in order to

be realised. The region could be promoted by Sabah Tourism as the lobster capital of

Malaysia with a range of promotions and activities to attract tourists, diversifying from the

existing dive and island tourism industry established in Semporna. The Proponent should

present and explore such opportunities together with the Tourism Board and part of the

community education funding could be channelled towards training in the tourism and

hospitality line.

6.3.11.5 Compensation of Affected Crop Owners

Issue Agricultural crops planted by the local villages such as oil palm, coconut and tapioca will be

affected by the Operations Base development on P. Bait.

Mitigation Crop owners affected by the construction of operation base and bridge will be compensated

for the crops affected through proper channels such as District Office and Department of

Agriculture.

6.3.11.6 Ongoing Engagement and Community Consultation

Issue Virtually all of the proposed mitigation and management measures targeted to address the

socioeconomic impacts of the iLAP rely upon a good mutual relationship between the iLAP

and the local communities. Ongoing community engagement is also critical to ensure that

any social issues that have not been identified in this SEIA process that emerge during the

project implementation are detected at an early stage so that remediative action can be

taken.

Mitigation Ongoing engagement with the community throughout the construction period shall be carried

out for the purpose of monitoring the impacts of construction on cultural health, in particular

any impacts on water quality, ecology and sites of value. The on-site Environmental Officer

appointed by the Proponent shall be the main point of contact on site, and records shall be

kept of all consultations, complaints, investigations and follow up actions carried out. Key

issues and outcomes will be incorporated and audited by the EMMP consultant, see Section

7.

A model integrating conservation and biodiversity should be incorporated into iLAP’s

operations to promote sustainability of the project. Reducing the stress on Semporna’s seas

by shifting livelihood opportunities from fishing towards lobster farming can be employed for

iLAP by providing employment through contracting entire villages in the myriad of economic

activities necessary to directly and indirectly support the project.

6-44 62800860-RPT-02

Additional recommendations are:

Substantial opportunities to level off expectations between the project and the

surrounding communities will be commenced as soon as key approvals are received e.g.

project presentations with specific group formations such as fishermen association, and

farmers’ associations.

Initiate small programmes involving the local communities even before the iLAP

becomes fully operational e.g. community-centred services and work for specific tasks.

An assessment of local mechanisms for partnership while helping build local capacity

(training, community organisation, etc.) to complement the demands of the iLAP

operation will be a critical element in formulating the projects Corporate Social

Responsibility programme

The stakeholder engagement plan will also include setup of an employment register for

locals seeking work to ensure that locals with the relevant skills and experience are offered

first right of refusal of employment opportunities arising from the project. This shall be part of

a comprehensive database system to be set up by the project proponent in consultation with

the local authorities, containing necessary information from every village in the Project area.

6.3.11.7 Public Health and Safety

Issue Public health, safety and general well-being may be affected by a number of issues

including:

Increased exposure to a range of infectious diseases from migrant workers.

Increase of waterborne diseases such as cholera and diarrhoea;

Increased road traffic risks due to heavy vehicles plying Jalan Tg. Kapor towards the

construction site;

Increased marine traffic risks due to presence of marine construction vessels, machinery

and marine transportation of construction materials.

Noise disturbance affecting well-being.

Dust and other air quality pollution affecting public health.

Mitigation The Occupational Health and Safety Officer will train workers in H&S procedures and the

iCMAMG and project proponent will provide SOPs relating to safe procedures in all activities

undertaken.

Health screening will be mandatory when employing foreign workers as per existing

regulations. Regular medical check-up for all employees during operational phase will be

undertaken with education in personal health care and management of infectious diseases.

As part of the Proponent’s CSR initiatives, the support of community sanitation by building

latrines and bins for waste disposal shall be considered.

In addition, potential impacts associated with exposure to nuisance insects will be managed

through standard procedures that include:

To schedule and plan earthworks to avoid water ponding on the construction site

Reducing unnecessary ponded water within its area of influence through good

housekeeping

Appropriate larval and adult mosquito control measures will be implemented, if required

Training and awareness programs will be held for employees and contractors.

To address road safety:

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-45

Drivers of heavy vehicles carrying building materials to/from the project site will be

reminded/made aware of the danger they pose to other road users when travelling along

the existing road to Tg. Kapor through a programme of driver education. Repeated

failures to comply will lead to disciplinary action.

Appropriate signage will be implement along the state road and junctions to access the

project site so that other road users are aware of the potential hazards from heavy

vehicles during the construction period, especially at the entry/exit points to/from the

project site

Avoid heavy vehicle transport along Jalan Tg. Kapor at school drop-off and pick-up

hours of 6:30 to 7:30 a.m.; 12:00 to 1:30 pm and between 5:00 to 6 pm.

At peak construction periods where heavy vehicle traffic during the above hours are

unavoidable, the Proponent/ Contractor shall provide traffic wardens at each of the three

schools along Jalan Tg. Kapor.

Other general measures relating to road traffic are outlined in Section 6.4.1; mitigation of

marine traffic risks in Section 6.3.7; and air and noise reduction in Section 6.4.1.

6.3.11.8 Odour during Operations

Issue Unpleasant odours could be produced from within the iLAP aquaculture zone and

Operations Base due to:

Odour from feed

Odour from nets

Odour from dead lobster waste

Mitigation Feeds stored chilled and securely at the OB with minimal odour to local residents.

Nets will emit minimal odour at sea and will mostly be cleaned in-situ. They will be air dried

before coming to the OB for cleaning before storage between production runs.

Dead lobster waste will be collected into sealed watertight bins and transported to the OB for

disposal by incineration.

6.3.11.9 Socioeconomic Summary 1 The Project Proponent shall compensate the crop owners affected by the OB on P. Bait.

2 Communication with the local community on realised impacts and grievances shall be

ongoing through the Community Engagement Officer. The issues will be brought

forward to the iLAP Community Working Group and the iCMA Management Group.

3 The Proponent shall ensure local communities have access to fisheries areas outside of

the active working areas and within iLAP navigation channels and the buffer zones

adjacent to the site.

4 The Proponent shall prioritise the employment of local villagers from the immediate

vicinity of the Project, followed by residents of Pitas district and the rest of Sabah during

both construction and operations.

5 The Proponent shall repair any damages to public roads caused by construction activity

in consultation with Jabatan Kerja Raya.

6 Construction vehicles shall adhere to legal speed limits on all public roads.

7 Proponent shall erect appropriate warning signs for the public at the site ingress to warn

of large and heavy vehicle movement.

6-46 62800860-RPT-02

8 Proponent shall provide traffic wardens at the three schools during school drop-off and

pick-up periods during periods of high heavy vehicle traffic along the road.

9 Any road safety incidents or near-misses involving the construction vehicles must be

reported to the Environmental Officer and appropriate measures taken to address the

causes of such incidents.

10 iLAP Community Working Group will be the central stakeholder especially community

review and decision making process for any upcoming impacts/issues, mitigation and

monitoring.

6.3.12 Water and Electricity Demand

Issue Current supply in Semporna is inadequate for iLAP needs.

Mitigation The project proponent will conduct negotiations with the Semporna Water Department and

SESB to achieve sufficient potable water and electrical needs for iLAP construction and

operational stages. Forward planning of demand over construction/production phases and

supply options are being assessed and acted upon.

As the Operations Base will require more than 60 m3 of freshwater, a permit will be applied

for by the project proponent at a later stage and compliance to the DOE Industrial

Regulations.

Alternative water supply techniques like rainwater harvesting will be implemented. Non

potable water will be recycled on site whenever possible.

The project proponent will also be installing transformers and generator sets within key areas

of the Operations Base. Three sets have been proposed with the size and capacity between

500KVA – 750 KVA.

Sustainable usage/demand management of these resources will be included within

Employee Induction and Ongoing Education.

6.3.13 Abandonment or Decommissioning

Issue The scoping exercise identified the following potential significant issues that may occur

during project abandonment or decommissioning. These issues relate primarily to residual

issues of operational impacts continuing upon abandonment or decommissioning of the

project after farming has commenced, namely:

1 Socioeconomic and cultural impacts if the large worker population are left jobless

upon Project abandonment, particularly if the majority are not local to the area.

2 Residual impacts to water quality and seabed from nutrient and organic matter

enrichment

3 Residual heavy metal pollution in water and sediments and impacts on marine flora

and fauna

4 Residual effects due to introduction of diseases during operations

5 Other potential significant impacts are:

6 Impacts of improper removal or disposal of farm structures and other solid wastes

upon Project abandonment on public health and aesthetics, navigation safety, terrestrial

and marine habitats and organisms and hydrodynamics.

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-47

7 Sewage and domestic waste water discharges from OB and workers quarters on

PUs post-operations, depending on usage (e.g. if taken over by squatters upon

abandonment).

8 Solid waste impacts on public health if OB is used (e.g. squatters) but not maintained

upon project abandonment.

Mitigation Mitigation measures for the residual effects of nutrients, sediment enrichment and residual

heavy metal pollution have been previously outlined in the relevant sections for each issue

above. These are measures to minimise the effects of water and sediment pollution and are

not specific to the abandonment stage.

The other potential impacts outlined above can be mitigated with an appropriate site closure

plan, enshrined within the iCMA. The key elements are outlined below:

Waste removal (removal of PU’s and moorings and disposal and recycling of

equipment).

Personnel and asset management plan

These activities should be enshrined in the iCMA and signatories need to pledge compliance

to these remediation measures should operations cease.

A key mechanism to ensure proper mitigation could be a bond held by the iCMA for use only

in abandonment removals and mitigations.

6.4 Additional Mitigation Measures

This section describes the additional mitigation measures which may include measures that:

a should be implemented, even though they are directed towards addressing adverse

environmental impacts of minor significance;

b have been analysed and assessed, but for some reasons, (e.g. not cost-effective), were

considered inappropriate to implement; or

c are indirectly linked to the development project, (e.g. rehabilitation efforts in adjacent

areas).

6.4.1 Recommended Mitigation Measures

Standard best practice measures that are recommended are listed in Table 6.7.

6-48 62800860-RPT-02

Table 6.7 Additional Mitigation measures

Impact Issue Mitigation Measures

Dust

(Minor Adverse)

Airborne dust due earthworks prior to landscaping the site, where there is bare surfaces and potential for fugitive dust to affect the villages.

All loaded vehicles going to and leaving the construction site will be adequately covered to prevent spillage of materials from the vehicle during transport.

Washing bays will be constructed at key locations on the OB worksite to wash off mud adhering to the tyres for all vehicles exiting the site. The washing facility will include a sump for collection of wash water, settling basin and sediment disposal.

At Tg. Kapor, the access road connects directly onto the existing Kg. Tg. Kapor road, with limited space for setting up a washing facility without affecting nearby villages. If it is not possible to establish a washing bay at this site, other measures such as manual washing of the tires at the exit point should be carried out.

Regular wetting of unsealed access roads and internal roads within the project site particularly during dry and windy weather conditions.

Soils scattered onto roads will be removed immediately either manually or washed by water jets.

Regular maintenance of vehicles and machinery to reduce their emissions of smoke and soot into the atmosphere.

Open burning of cleared vegetation or construction debris is strictly prohibited.

Speed limits of 30 km/hr will be imposed on all vehicles on unpaved roads within the Project Site to prevent dust turbulence.

Stabilisation of access points and haul roads: Key access points and haul roads within the site will be stabilised by gravel surfacing.

Inspection will be carried out monthly and after each rainfall event, and gravel material replaced when surface voids are visible.

Public road at Tg. Kapor in the vicinity of the access road junction will be regularly cleaned/ washed of mud or other debris

Re-vegetate cleared areas and slopes as soon as possible

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-49

Impact Issue Mitigation Measures

Noise (Slight negative impact)

Noise level increase due to construction activities affecting villages such as of Kg. Bait, Kg. Limau-Limau and Kg. Tanjong Kapor.

Note that mitigation measures for underwater noise has been described separately in Section 6.3.9.3.

Working hours is limited to daytime (7 am to 7 pm);

Construction works at the jetty during night time may be permitted if required however, local community should still be forewarned and informed of the proposed schedule and duration of the works.

Selection of quieter running equipment;

All vehicles and machinery will be properly serviced and maintained to ensure good working condition, thereby reducing the possible noise emission;

Construction vehicles must comply with the noise control requirements of the Environmental Quality (Motor Vehicle Noise) Regulations 1987. The maximum sound level permitted for trucks transporting goods or materials is 88 dB(A);

Suitable noise absorbent materials should be installed on machinery that produces high noise levels. Machinery emitting high noise shall be sited within an enclosure to reduce noise impact

Traffic and transportation

Increased traffic in the local areas causing congestion or increased risk of accidents and road degradation.

Local roads to Tg. Kapor are to be kept in good condition and maintenance requirements arranged with local authorities.

Ensure trucks not overloaded with construction materials that might damage the road surface. The contractor will be held responsible and bear the costs of repairing any damages on public roads and will consult Jabatan Kerja Raya before commencing any repair work.

Truck and lorry drivers will be advised to keep the legal speed limit of their vehicles and the construction materials loaded on them are properly covered with canvas. Any spillage on the road will be cleaned up or cleared by the contractor.

Appropriate warning signs for the public will be erected near the construction site access point to warn of large vehicles slowing down to turn off or into the public road.

Avoid heavy vehicle transport along Jalan Tg. Kapor at school drop-off and pick-up hours of 6:30 to 7:30 a.m.; 12:00 to 1:30 pm and between 5:00 to 6 pm.

At peak construction periods where heavy vehicle traffic during the above hours are unavoidable, the Proponent/ Contractor shall provide traffic wardens at each of the three schools along Jalan Tg. Kapor

Any road safety incidents or near-misses involving any construction or earth moving vehicles working at the project site will be monitored by the Site Environmental Officer and appropriate measures taken to address the causes of such incidents.

6-50 62800860-RPT-02

6.4.2 Other Available Measures Not Recommended

Per EPD guidelines, other mitigation measures that have been considered, but not

eventually recommended following their evaluation are listed in this section.

These include:

Creation of artificial reefs in the area as alternative fishing grounds to compensate loss

of fishing area within the iLAP. This was not recommended as it is not a cost effective

means of increasing the fisheries resource for the local communities. Rather it is

considered that the money is better spent investing in education and training for the local

communities for example in aquaculture, such that they are enabled to carry out their

own small-scale farming, e.g. of fish cages, etc.

Mussel farming in the areas of the Tanduan Strait was also considered as an alternative

source of income for any displaced fishermen as well as creation of training schools

which will provide alternative aquaculture training such as mussels; however, this is not

ultimately recommended as the area is not an ideal location for successful farming due

to its shallow depths and seasonal exposure to higher sediment and nutrient loads from

the hinterland (Sg. Sipit and tributaries) as well as the time needed to obtain Return of

Investment.

Replanting of mangroves in the area to compensate for permanent loss of mangrove –

no suitable place for mangrove replanting is available in the immediate vicinity of the

project site; however, sites further afield (elsewhere in Sabah) may be considered in

further consultation with the Forestry Department as listed in Section 6.3.4. At this point

however, it is recommended that compensatory mitigation measures focus on the corals

damaged by fish bombing around P. Timbun Mata.

Creation of a tagal system within specified areas of the iLAP for fishing villages.

However in the end, this was not included as it is likely to cause issues with further

restrictions of seaspace which is currently free access to the fishermen.

6.5 Applicable Regulations and Guidelines

The Proponent will comply with all relevant regulations and guidelines in Sabah relating to

the iLAP prior to construction or operations, whichever is applicable. Some of the key

requirements are outlined in the following subsections.

6.5.1 Aquaculture Operations

The Fisheries Act No. 317 (1985)/ Fisheries (Marine Culture System) Regulations 1990 is a

federal governing legislation which encompasses marine fisheries and aquaculture to be a

federal concern. The Director General of Fisheries, head of the Fisheries Department has

the authority over the development of marine and inland farming with consultations with

Sabah State government.

The procedure to engage in marine aquaculture is established by the Fisheries (Marine

Culture Systems) Regulations (1990). As mentioned above, issues relating to inland

aquaculture pertain to the States' regulatory power.

Pursuant to the 1990 Regulations, marine aquaculture is subject to a double authorization

system: a permit to set up the facilities, and a licence for their operation.

The whole procedure is managed by the Director-General of Fisheries.

A permit may only be issued if, after the Director-General’s investigation, the site’s location

does not appear to affect the development of fisheries. The content of the consequent

application for the operation licence is determined by the Director-General. An inspection is

carried out to check compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The general

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-51

terms and conditions of permits and licences are found in the Schedules to the Regulations.

Additional terms and conditions may be specifically established by the Director-General.

Since the Regulation does not specify any duration, licences are possibly continuing.

However, a licence may be cancelled if the farm is found not compliant with the terms and

conditions, during an official inspection.

Under the Fisheries Act, the import and export of live fish to and from Malaysia, as well as

the transfer of live fish from East to West Malaysia or vice versa, and the transport among

Eastern states, are subject to the granting of a permit from the Director-General of Fisheries.

Terms and conditions, which are defined at the Director-General's discretion, shall aim at

ensuring food safety and disease control, and at avoiding the release of non-indigenous

species into the environment.

6.5.2 Waste Management

In general the management of wastes falls under the Federal Environmental Quality Act and

its various regulations, administered by the Department of Environment (DOE). Wastes

generated from the site during construction and operations will include solid wastes, oily

wastes which are scheduled waste, and sewage, while during operations additional waste

streams include management of lobster mortalities. The regulatory requirements for these

wastes are described in this section.

6.5.2.1 General Wastes Under the Environmental Quality Act, a licence is required for the discharge of waste matter

in marine and inland waters, above the threshold set by the Minister.

The Operations Base will have a waste water treatment system, compacter waste bin,

sewerage treatment plant and waste water treatment system (Refer to Figure 3.12).

Regulation 4 of the Environmental Quality (Sewage) Regulations, 2009 stipulates that written

notification to the Department of Environment is required for any new source of sewage

discharge prior to discharge or release of sewage onto or into any soil, or inland waters or

Malaysian waters. The regulation further stipulates under Regulation 9 and 10, that monthly

monitoring of parameters specified in the Second Schedule is to be carried out at the

sewage discharge point /9/.

Sewage sludge generated from the sewage treatment system shall be disposed of at an

approved treatment plant or dump site. In the latter case, an application for a written

permission from DOE shall be undertaken prior to disposing the sludge onto or into any soil

or surface of any land.

6.5.2.2 Incinerator The Operations Base includes an incinerator to manage biomass disposal (lobster

mortalities).

Under the Environmental Quality (Clean Air) Regulations 2014, waste incinerators of any

size fall under the First schedule of the regulations whereby it is subject to comply with the

best available techniques economically achievable (BAT).

Under the Regulations, the establishment of an incinerator, as a new source of emission,

requires prior written approval from the Director-General of DOE not less than 30 days

before construction. Details of the incinerator including drawings, method of charging and

control equipment, and design parameters will need to be provided.

6-52 62800860-RPT-02

6.5.2.3 Scheduled Wastes Under the Environmental Quality Act (Scheduled Wastes) Regulations 2005 (Amendment)

2007, there are 77 types of scheduled wastes listed in the First Schedule, divided into 5

categories, namely:

i. SW 1 - Metal and metal-bearing wastes (10 types of scheduled wastes);

ii. SW 2 - Wastes containing principally inorganic constituents which may contain metals and organic materials (7 types of scheduled wastes);

iii. SW 3 - Wastes containing principally organic constituents which may contain metals and inorganic materials (27 types of scheduled wastes);

iv. SW 4 - Wastes which may contain either inorganic or organic constituents (32 types of scheduled wastes)

v. SW 5 - Other wastes (1 type of scheduled waste)

Scheduled wastes can be stored, recovered or treated within the premises of the iLAP (i.e.

Operations Base). Such activities do not require licensing by the Department of

Environment. However, the Proponent shall ensure that generated SW are properly stored,

treated on-site, recovered on-site for material or product from such SW or delivered to and

received at prescribed premises for treatment, disposal or recovery of material or product

from SW.

Scheduled wastes generated on site may be stored for 180 days or less after its generation

provided that the quantity of scheduled wastes accumulated on site does not exceed 20

metric tonnes. However, waste generators may apply to the Director General in writing to

store more than 20 metric tonnes of scheduled wastes.

The Proponent shall ensure that SW that are subject to movement or transfer be packaged,

labelled and transported in accordance with the guidelines prescribed by DOE, i.e. stored in

containers which are compatible with the SW to be stored, durable and which are able to

prevent spillage or leakage of the SW into the environment. The SW shall be labelled

according to requirements, and an inventory of all wastes generated shall be kept for a

period of up to three years in accordance with the 5th Schedule.

6.5.3 Marine Navigation

There are five governmental agencies sharing the responsibility of ensuring the safety and

security of port operations in Sabah as shown in Figure 6.12. Existing requirements relating

to marine navigation safety under these various agencies are outlined below:

Recommended Mitigation

Measures

6-53

Figure 6.12 Governmental Agencies Responsible for Ensuring the Safety and Security of Port Operations at Kunak and Semporna

Night time navigation compliance to COLREGS

The proposed iLAP project should comply with the requirements of the Marine

Department in terms of placement of the appropriate aids to navigation which should be

in compliance of IALA guidelines. The boundaries of the iLAP project which interact

closely or may have impact on the traditional and the safe routes of marine traffic will

need to comply with the requirements of the Convention on the International Regulations

for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS). The following Figure 6.13 indicates

the recommended manoeuvring room to be considered for the iLAP boundary.

Figure 6.13 Extract from COLREGS 10h), 10j) MANOEUVRING ROOM (See Marine Navigation Study report, Appendix H).

Siting and installation of navigational safety marine buoys, beacons, signage, life

jackets, life buoys & lighting

Should it be necessary to site and install aids to navigation, it is required to inform the

Marine Department who will then define the specification of the particular navigational

aid. Cardinal Marks and Special Marks should be based on IALA Maritime Buoyage

System.

Marine safety and environmental requirements for fuel transportation, storage and

bunkering activities as well as contingency plans

Ministry of

Transport

Ministry of

Infrastructure

Development Sabah

Prime Minister’s

Department

Marine

Department

(Jabatan Laut)

Sabah

Ports and

Harbours

Department

Sabah

Sabah Ports

Authority

Malaysian

Maritime

Enforcement

Agency

6-54 62800860-RPT-02

Currently there are no legislation with regards to the fuel transportation, storage and

bunkering activities. However, a license will be required and can be given by the Ministry

of Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism for bunkering activities which is

consider a normal port activity.

Marine Traffic Risk Assessment (MTRA)

An MTRA will need to be conducted on the proposed bridge once the detailed design is

available for approval by Ports and Harbours Department, Sabah

In terms of communication and reporting requirements for pollution, spillage or accident

incidents at sea, current applicable legislation pertaining to the proposed project area (Kunak

and Semporna) are listed as follows:-

The Merchant Shipping Ordinance, No.11 of 1960

Port and Harbour Enactment, 2002

Collision Regulations, 1972

MARPOL 1978

Sabah Port Authority Enactment, 1981

Sabah Port (Privatisation) Enactment, 1998

Land Ordinance

Enakmen/Akta Perlindungan Alam Sekitar

According to Malaysian Shipping Notice published by Marine Department Malaysia, oil

tankers of 150 gross tonnage and above and ships other than an oil tanker of 400 gross

tonnage and above shall be provided with an approved shipboard oil pollution emergency

plan (SOPEP).

Ships of 150 gross tonnage and above certified to carry Noxious Liquid Substances in bulk

shall be provided with an approved a shipboard marine pollution emergency plan (SMPEP)

for Noxious Liquid Substances (Source: Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) –

Reg 37, Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 and Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plan

(SMPEP) – Reg 17, Annex II of MARPOL 73/78). It is noted that no transport of noxious

liquid substances are expected during construction or operations.

Monitoring Programme

7-1

7 Monitoring Programme

7.1 Introduction

A comprehensive environmental monitoring and management plan (EMMP) has been

developed to ensure the sustainable operations of the iLAP. The EMMP described in this

section is an integral part of this SEIA and establishes a strategy for how environmental

issues will be managed throughout the stages of development - the EMMP provides a

framework specification upon which the Project Proponent will set the environmental control

requirements for the project through its tender contract documentation for the construction

phase, and provides a structured adaptive management approach for the ongoing

assessment and management of production operations within the iLAP aquaculture zone

and the OB, including interactions with local community and wildlife.

7.1.1 Purpose of EMMP

The EMMP is a programme designed to facilitate the Proponent’s obligation to meet the

requirements of applicable environmental legislation, relevant authorities’ regulations and

conditions, and achieve best practice environmental management for the Project. It contains

a written description of proposed measures to be implemented in order to achieve and

maintain acceptable levels of environmental impact. Broadly, the objectives of the EMMP

are to:

Provide practical and achievable plans for the management of the project such that

environmental requirements are complied with, by providing for the monitoring and

control of the predicted impacts;

Provide the Proponent and the regulatory authorities with a framework to confirm

compliance with environmental policies and requirements; and

Provide the community and other stakeholders with evidence of the management of the

project in an environmentally acceptable manner.

7.1.2 Structure of the EMMP

The EMMP has been structured to address the major issues associated with the project

development. The EMMP encompasses environmental monitoring and management for two

main development stages, namely the construction stage as described in Section 3.6.2 and

the operations stage as described in Section 3.6.3.

For each issue, the EMMP discusses the key environmental issues to be addressed, and for

each issue outlines the requirements for: i) ensuring compliance with the recommended

mitigation measures; and ii) the proposed monitoring programme for both construction and

operational stages.

7.1.3 Definitions

For the purpose of this EMMP, the Construction Phase refers to the following initial project

activities on site:

Earthworks

Construction of OB Phase 1 and jetty

Construction of access road and bridge

Construction and installation of PUs for Phase 1 (~50,000 cages, ~3000 T production).

7-2 62800860-RPT-02

Phase 1 construction is planned to start in 2105 with completion targeted in 2019. Phase 1

grow out production (the start of the Operational Stage) is targeted to be achieved in 2020.

With Phase 2 expected to commence in 2020 and the final Phase 3 from 2024 to 2030, it is

anticipated that as and when further development of the OB is planned; a scoping exercise

will be carried out to determine the requirements of EPD/ DOE. If necessary, an Addendum

or Supplementary EIA to the present SEIA will be prepared.

In terms of the expansion of the PUs in Phases 2 and 3 it is intended that a comprehensive

audit and review of the operations will be carried out by the Proponent prior to the start of

each subsequent phase for submission to EPD and DoF. These phases are defined by the

production volume as described in Table 3.8 (Section 3). Details on the planned operations,

production and locations of the upcoming phase will be provided at that time.

7.2 Organisation and Responsibilities

The environmental management and monitoring programme will be implemented and

managed by the Proponent throughout the Project lifecycle. However, the EMMP line of

reporting will differ during construction and operations.

During the construction stage, Environmental Compliance Reports (ECR) are to be

submitted to the Environment Protection Department (EPD) on a tri-monthly basis to

demonstrate compliance with the Environmental Approval Conditions issued by EPD upon

approval of the SEIA. These in practice are generally related to control over construction

activities or fixed project details (such as Project area, concept, etc.).

Upon commissioning of the lobster growout, it is proposed that oversight of the operations,

including review of the EMMP, is handed over to the Environmental Steering Committee

chaired by the DoF (see Section 6.2.3).

One implication of this is that there is no direct legal instrument to enforce compliance with

the environmental management measures outlined in this SEIA during the operational stage.

However, the Proponent has a high degree of self-interest in maintaining clean waters (given

the sensitivity of the lobster to grow-out conditions), and as introduced in Section 6, will apply

a collective management model (iCMA) to ensure that the various operators within the iLAP

comply with the required operational practices to maintain water quality, minimise

sedimentation and other potential environmental issues arising from operations.

In addition, the GAA Best Aquaculture Practice (BAP) certification will require audits which

will serve as an external check on compliance with the iCMA. These audits will commence

after a suitable GAA BAP roll out plan of 5-10 years. The iCMA will include a detailed and

prescriptive EMMP which mirrors that set out in this SEIA and will include a comprehensive

range of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to ensure that BAPs are implemented in all

aspects of operations.

The EMMP will cover all regulatory and adaptive management requirements. It will be

further developed through discussions and agreements with Environmental Steering

Committee which includes stakeholders such as EPD/ DoF and will continually be reviewed

and updated to ensure that it addresses the major objective of ongoing sustainable

operations and management.

The EMMP will be managed by the iCMA Management Group (iCMAMG). This group will be

responsible for all monitoring and reporting of results to the iCMA CEO Committee and

Environmental Steering Committee. The iCMA will encompass the guidelines, limits and

triggers proposed in this SEIA and it will continually review guidelines, limits and triggers in

consultation with stakeholders to ensure the best environmental management of the iLAP.

The Draft Collective Management Agreement is given in Appendix F.

Monitoring Programme

7-3

While the iCMAMG will manage iLAP operations to agreed guidelines, triggers and limits, the

Environmental Steering Committee will closely monitor performance and may decide in

consultation with the environmental consultant and other experts which may be appointed, to

manage specific issues more closely before parameters reach guideline, trigger or limit

levels. This two tiered, proactive approach to the adaptive management of the iLAP will

further assist insuring long term sustainable development.

A summary of the personnel, groups and agencies involved in the environmental

management of the iLAP during both construction and operational stages is given in Table

7.1.

Table 7.1 Environmental management organisation and responsibilities.

Agency / Designation

Role

Project Proponent / iCMA Management Group

It is the Project Proponent’s responsibility to ensure that the Contractor(s) adopt all mitigation measures and monitoring programmes required. The Proponent shall also provide sufficient staffing and resources for the implementation of all environmental management measures, including appointment of a site Management Officer, Environmental Officer, onsite Community Engagement Officer and an Environmental Consultant to carry out the EMP and prepare and submit the necessary documentation to EPD.

As described in Section 6.2.3, the iCMAMG is to be established prior to the start of lobster farming operations, and all environmental management measures relating to operations will be implemented by the Proponent through the iCMAMG and the iCMA Management Officer.

The iCMAMG will submit annual reporting to the Environmental Steering Committee as well as reporting prior to the opening of each LF zone or significant increase in production.

iCMA Management Officer

This officer will be appointed by the project proponent (iCMAMG) and will coordinate all the operations as well as participate in all meetings with CEO Committee.

During construction the MO will oversee the project and ensure sufficient emphasis is laid on environmental standards, including ensuring action is taken against contractors if in breach of environmental management requirements.

CEO Committee Develops management recommendations based on advice from the iCMA Management Group and communicates this to the Environmental Steering Committee.

Environment Protection Department

The EPD will be the main regulator ensuring compliance with the SEIA recommendations / SEIA Environmental Approval Conditions during the construction up to full implementation of Phase 1 lobster production.

The Proponent through an Environmental Consultant registered with EPD will submit regular Environmental Compliance Reports (ECR) to EPD.

Sabah Department of Fisheries

The DoF will be the main regulator and enforcer of the technical operational monitoring and requirements and will also be the chair of the Environmental Steering Committee.

The DoF is also a core participant in the iCMA Community Working Group in its capacity to represent the interests of fishermen.

Environmental Steering Committee

This committee will be chaired by the Department of Fisheries and will oversee the operations to ensure sustainable development of the iLAP. The Environmental Steering Committee shall be established prior to the start of lobster farming in Phase 1.

7-4 62800860-RPT-02

Agency / Designation

Role

iLAP Community Working Group (iCWG)

The iCWG shall be established in prior to the start of construction. The functions of the iCWG as outlined in Section 6.2.3 are summarised as follows:

Information dissemination / project awareness raising to the local communities

To provide a platform for villagers, project proponent and government agencies to discuss and make decisions in regards to iLAP-related public interests; healthcare, schools, training and education etc.

A decision making body to settle any disputes or grievances related to the iLAP.

Project Contractor (Construction)

Contractually responsible for complying with monitoring, environmental mitigation measures and legal requirements during the construction period.

Contract Farmers/ SMEs / Corporate farmers engaged in lobster production (Operations)

The Contract Farmers and other parties operating within the iLAP are required to sign the iLAP Collective Management Agreement (iCMA). As such they are contractually responsible for complying with the SOPs and other environmental management measures stipulated therein.

These parties are represented in the iCMAMG and CEO Committee (the latter in the case of the major parties).

On-site Environmental Officer

Appointed by Project Proponent or, during the construction phase, the Contractor. The Environmental Officer shall identify and address environmental management and compliance aspects of the site, including company operations or specific groups of PU’s during operations. Responsibilities include among others:

Carry out required daily site inspections

Comply with monitoring requirements as set out in the EMP

Comply with mitigation as may be required by the Environmental Steering Committee, SEIA or regulators

Participate in delivery of worker induction and on-going educational programmes

Participate in delivery of Corporate Social Responsibility Programmes

Note: It is anticipated that one or two Environmental Technical Officers will be appointed to support field work and associated sample preparation etc.

Occupational Health and Safety Officer

Appointed by Project Proponent. The Occupational Health and Safety Officer will:

Monitor the increase of quality of life among the iLAP employees

Health monitoring of iLAP workers

Other health and safety enforcement and monitoring

On-site Veterinarian

Oversees the lobster health operational issues as well as the contingency planning when a wildlife accident occurs.

Monitoring Programme

7-5

Agency / Designation

Role

On-site Community Engagement Officer

The Community Engagement Officer shall identify and address community related issues and grievances from workers from company operations or specific groups of PU’s and villagers within the iLAP and areas related to iLAP during construction and operational phases.

Responsibilities include:

Visit Ketua Kampungs within the impacted areas as identified in the social surveys at least once a month.

To obtain employment and unemployment, businesses established statistics from the villages every month.

To prepare data for EMP Consultant’s usage for EMP Compliance Report and data analysis for presentation to Environmental Steering Committee and Community Working Group.

To record and investigate any benefits, grievances and issues related to iLAP

Fish catch monitoring at Tg. Kapor wet market and other wet markets within the Semporna social survey zone

Participate in delivery of worker induction and on-going educational programmes

Participate in delivery of Corporate Social Responsibility Programmes

Note: It is anticipated that at least two Community Engagement Assistants will be appointed to support field work and record maintenance etc.

Environmental Consultant

Independent Environmental consultant appointed by the Proponent:

Carry out environmental monitoring as required under the Environmental Approval Conditions

Advise iCMAMG, project proponent, contractor and iCWG on impact mitigation requirements should residual impacts be identified

Submit Environmental Compliance Reports to EPD and other reports as required to the Environmental Steering Committee, iCMAMG and DoF and DOE for relevant matters

7.3 Monitoring Overview

7.3.1 Baseline Monitoring of Ambient Conditions

One implication of the planned initiation of production at the outset of project implementation

is that pre-production environmental management planning and the associated monitoring

needs to be started as soon as possible in order to obtain the necessary 24 months of pre-

production water quality data for setting thresholds as described in Section 6. It is anticipated

the number of PUs will be progressively increased over time and will initially be located in

specific areas and at low PU/area densities. As a result, the 24 month data collection period

is considered adequate in providing a suitable baseline. Even so, the final drafting and

acceptance of the iCMA and the associated EMMP is a priority and it is anticipated that this

will be complete within several months of the SEIA Approval being issued.

Meteorological data A meteorological station at the OB for wind speed and direction, daily rainfall, air

temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure and PAR will be established as soon as

feasible. The station will be at a standard 10 m height and clear of any buildings for a radius

of 100 m. The jetty will be considered as a potential long terms site for this station.

7-6 62800860-RPT-02

7.3.2 Monitoring Summary

Table 7.2 summarises the monitoring activities proposed in this section. Activities

implemented during construction phase will be reported in the compliance report by the

EMMP Consultant who will supply the information to the iCMAMG. The iCMAMG will also

report to the iCWG, while the ECR will be submitted to EPD as outlined above.

Meanwhile monitoring for the operations will be done in phases depending on the PU

construction timeline by the iCMAMG. The DoF will be the main technical aquaculture

regulatory body and will enforce regulations as required on the iCMA. The iCMAMG will

report to the iCWG as well.

Table 7.2 Summary of monitoring programmes over the Project life cycle.

EMMP Component Construction Operations

Water Quality Compliance and residual impact monitoring programme focusing on Tg. Kapor and P. Bait areas

8 stations

monthly frequency

Seven parameters: TSS, O&G, Faecal coliforms, DO, turbidity, temperature & salinity.

Long-term water quality monitoring programme to establish trigger values for operations to be initiated.

Residual impact monitoring programme to be implemented in stages based on commissioning of each production zone.

Adaptive management to be based on Trigger levels identified from the extended baseline monitoring.

Up to 33+18 stations

Monthly frequency (biannual for phytoplankton)

Nutrients, chlorophyll-a, PAR, turbidity and other physical parameters, including phytoplankton monitoring.

Sediment Enrichment

NA Visual sediment surveys, grab sampling and benthic infauna surveys

12 stations per LF zone.

Monthly for the first year, then annual

Visual (video) survey and sediment chemistry.

Coral Reef Compliance monitoring:

Layout showing deployed cages

Photographs and verification of coral rehabilitation

Residual impact monitoring:

21 transects.

Baseline and biannually during operations (phased monitoring according to lobster production zone).

Monitoring Programme

7-7

EMMP Component Construction Operations

Mangrove Compliance monitoring:

Demarcation of construction ROW

Replanting of temporary work areas

Residual impact monitoring:

Biannual 8 monitoring stations (incl. 2 control)

Monitoring growth rate/ survival of 100 young trees of 3 different species.

Residual impact monitoring:

Biannual surveys

Permanent transects to be established at the closest mangrove to the first major PU in each production zone.

Minimum one (1) station per production zone.

Two reference stations overall

Parameters:

- Growth rate / survival of

100 trees

- Mangrove biodiversity

and species composition

in three 20 X 5 m

transects.

Seagrass NA Residual impact monitoring:

Annual monitoring at 11 stations

Three 50 m X 1 m transects

Noise Compliance monitoring at construction start and when necessary

Impact monitoring:

Five (5) stations

Quarterly

24-hour sound levels

NA

Air Quality Daily compliance monitoring by EO

Impact monitoring:

5 stations

Quarterly

24-hr TSP

NA

Waste Management Compliance monitoring to include

Daily onsite observations on housekeeping by EO

Waste diversion reporting

Compliance monitoring to include waste diversion reporting.

7-8 62800860-RPT-02

EMMP Component Construction Operations

Maritime Safety Compliance monitoring ongoing by EO on:

Installation of navigational lights and beacons

Notification to fishermen

Impact Monitoring to record and report any incidents or near misses.

Compliance monitoring to include regular site inspections / audits

Impact Monitoring to record and report any incidents or near misses.

Land Traffic and Public Road Quality

Compliance monitoring and records of public complaints.

NA

Social Impact Compliance monitoring:

Employment and training records

In-migration status through Ketua Kampungs/ JKKK

Health records

Residual impact monitoring :

Monthly fish landing surveys at Tg. Kapor fish market

Annual social surveys

Compliance monitoring:

Employment and training records

In-migration status through Ketua Kampungs/ JKKK

Health records

Residual impact monitoring :

Monthly fish landing surveys at Tg. Kapor fish market

Social surveys annually for first two years upon start of each operational phase.

7.4 Water Quality

7.4.1 Management Objective

During Construction: To ensure that water quality in areas surrounding the earthworks

(OB, access road) and marine construction sites (jetty and bridge) is not unduly affected by

soil erosion, sediment plumes, oil and grease, waste water discharges from the earthworks,

piling and other construction operations.

During Operations: To ensure what water quality in and around the lobster growout cages

is not adversely impacted by the farming activity, and remain within the defined thresholds.

7.4.2 Quality Objectives

During Construction: Total Suspended Sediments (TSS) within 100 m of work areas – 50 mg/l.

Faecal coliforms < 100 MPN/100 ml.

Oil and Grease < 2 mg/l

Dissolved oxygen (DO) (> 5 mg/l)

Turbidity (NTU) – less than double the baseline within Appendix C

During Operations: Ammonia – 80

th percentile of baseline

Nitrate – 80th percentile of baseline

Chlorophyll-a – 80th percentile of baseline

Monitoring Programme

7-9

Dissolved oxygen – 20th percentile of baseline

7.4.3 Mitigation Measures:

Construction Soil erosion and sedimentation control:

- Silt curtain along mangrove reclamation areas at OB and jetty construction areas.

- Silt traps at two locations at the OB

- Stabilisation of embankments with vegetation;

- Revegetation of exposed surfaces

- Limit work area for access road and bridge to 100 m corridor (50 m on either side

of centre line)

Provision of portable composting toilets / septic tanks in working areas

Oils and other Scheduled Wastes

- All scheduled wastes including oily wastes are handled as per DOE guidelines on

scheduled waste management1 - sealed, correctly labelled prior to collection /

removal by licensed contractors

- Only essential maintenance to be undertaken on-site.

- Contain all wastes and oil spillages and implement appropriate storage and

disposal practices

Operations Adaptive management based on monitoring against quality objectives.

7.4.4 Compliance Monitoring

7.4.4.1 Construction Stage Compliance monitoring activities for the control of soil erosion and sedimentation during the

earthworks and marine infrastructure construction phase are outlined in Table 7.3 below.

Table 7.3 Compliance monitoring activities for water quality management.

Required activity/ mitigation measure

Monitoring Requirements Frequency

Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (ESCP)

Construction of silt traps Verification of construction of silt traps with photographs and GPS location

Maintenance log including photographs of their condition.

Monthly by EO for the photographs showing the ponds condition.

Maintenance log to be included when necessary

1 Environmental Quality (Scheduled Wastes) (Amendment) Regulations 2007, P. U. (A) 158

7-10 62800860-RPT-02

Required activity/ mitigation measure

Monitoring Requirements Frequency

Re-vegetation of embankments and other bare surfaces

Verification of erosion and deterioration control and rehabilitation (vegetative and physical) particularly along cut slopes and other exposed areas sensitive to erosion risk

Photographic evidence and GPS locations are to be catalogued within the Compliance reports.

Weekly by EO during construction

Compliance audit by EMP consultant tri-monthly during construction

Inspection and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures

Sedimentation status of the drains, channels, culverts, sediment traps and basins

Corrective measures where required

Layout maps, photographic evidence and GPS locations are to be catalogued within the Compliance reports.

Daily monitoring by EO;

Tri-monthly compliance audit by EMP consultant

Contractor to keep a log of regular inspection and any maintenance events, including photographs with a date stamp

Weekly and after major rainfall events by EO

Waste Management

Proper management of oil, chemicals or other scheduled wastes from construction vessels, site offices and workers’ quarters.

Layout plan and photographs of the oily waste temporary storage area(s) and garbage disposal site at the OB

At construction start and as required; by EO

Site inspection Weekly by EO;

Tri-monthly by EMP Consultant.

Log of scheduled waste disposal As required by Contractor

Adequate and well-maintained sanitary provisions for on-site workers quarters and offices.

Layout plan and photographs of the sewage facility at construction site

At construction start and as required by EO

Site inspection Daily by EO;

Tri-monthly by EMP Consultant.

Discharge of oily wastewater from sea vehicles’ engine rooms should be channelled into an oil separator. The waste oil should then be stored in slop tanks and managed as scheduled waste.

Requirement to be included in tender

documents.

Contractors to keep a log of scheduled waste disposal

Pre-construction.

As required.

Any temporary onsite diesel storage areas should be located at least 30m away from the shoreline to prevent accidental spillage into the marine environment.

Layout plan and photographs of storage

areas.

At construction start and

as required by EO

Site inspection Weekly by EO; Tri-

monthly by EMP

Consultant.

Monitoring Programme

7-11

The inspection log for each sediment control device shall include:

Inspection date;

Condition report;

Maintenance actions required; and

Date of maintenance work

7.4.4.2 Operations Stage Compliance monitoring / audit items that will need to be verified and reported to the iCMA

CEO Committee and the Environmental Steering Committee include the following:

7.4.5 Water Quality Monitoring Programme

7.4.5.1 Construction

Frequency Monthly

Stations Eight monitoring stations around Tg. Kapor and P. Bait, inclusive of two reference stations

are proposed to monitor the actual runoff and increase of suspended sediments as shown in

Figure 7.1.

7-12 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 7.1 Marine water quality stations.

Table 7.4 Construction water quality monitoring station coordinates (in BRSO, m)

Station Easting Northing Description

M1 979772.754 503533.616

M2 981944.536 503446.745 At the proposed bridge area near Kg. Tg. Kapor

M3 983204.169 503359.874 Near small-scale seaweed farm and healthy coral area

M4 982639.506 504532.636 In front of Kg. Bait

M5 982943.555 506226.625 Near a fish cage farm

M6 981640.486 505618.250 At the proposed jetty area.

M7 * 980684.903 507746.872 As reference site in iLAP

M8* 978860.606 509484.297 As reference site in iLAP

* final location within the production zone subject to change based on finalised PU layout.

Monitoring Programme

7-13

Parameters Parameters to be analysed for all stations at mid-depth include:

Total Suspended sediments,

Oil and Grease

Faecal coliforms

Profiles of the following will be obtained in-situ using a suitable sensor/data logging

instrument at 0.5-1 m intervals depending on water depth:

Dissolved oxygen (DO)

Turbidity (NTU)

Temperature

Salinity

7.4.5.2 Operations Stage

Frequency Monthly during baseline monitoring period (24 months)

Monthly during operations

Biannual phytoplankton monitoring at all monitoring sites

Weekly HAB monitoring at a subset of stations in/ around active LF zones.

When there is an algal bloom, 6-hourly or daily monitoring at the HAB stations.

Stations The monthly water quality monitoring will be carried out throughout the site during the

baseline monitoring period, encompassing 33 stations and 18 control sites (see Figure 7.2

and Table 7.5); with samples taken from 2 m from the surface and 2 m from the seabed.

During operations, monthly water quality monitoring will only take place within the active or

operational LF zones and at all the control stations.

Phytoplankton monitoring will take place biannually at all monitoring sites, while HAB

monitoring will be conducted at four locations (Figure 7.3 and Table 7.6); the site in zone LF3

will be included in the monitoring schedule when production is planned for zones LF3 or LF1.

7-14 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 7.2 Water quality monitoring stations during operations

Monitoring Programme

7-15

Table 7.5 Water quality monitoring station coordinates (in BRSO, m).

No. Station ID Easting Northing No. Station ID Easting Northing

1 LF3_M1 968543.29 525242.143 27 LF4_M6 982272.796 506961.42

2 LF3_M2 970287.923 525317.997 28 LF4_M7 980528.162 505747.762

3 LF3_M3 971956.703 525773.118 29 LF7_M1 982272.796 510829.955

4 LF1_M1 977721.578 526000.679 30 LF7_M2 983107.185 510374.833

5 LF1_M2 976963.042 524559.46 31 LF8_M1 978707.675 509692.15

6 LF1_M3 979921.333 524787.021 32 LF8_M2 979693.772 509085.321

7 LF1_M4 982196.942 524256.046 33 C1 967026.217 524862.875

8 LF1_M5 981286.698 523042.388 34 C2 971501.581 526379.947

9 LF5_M1 985003.526 522359.705 35 C3 975901.091 526910.923

10 LF5_M2 984017.429 521449.462 36 C4 982500.356 525393.85

11 LF5_M3 986293.038 520615.072 37 C5 987203.281 521904.584

12 LF5_M4 988720.353 519553.121 38 C6 983789.868 519553.121

13 LF5_M5 987430.842 518339.463 39 C7 986444.745 517505.074

14 LF2_M1 989327.182 516367.269 40 C8 990692.548 516139.708

15 LF2_M2 989251.329 514395.075 41 C9 990464.987 511816.052

16 LF2_M3 992285.474 516746.537 42 C10 988037.671 510147.272

17 LF2_M4 992361.327 513788.246 43 C11 986217.184 509919.717

18 LF2_M5 988872.061 512650.442 44 C12 985837.916 511740.198

19 LF2_M6 987354.988 511285.077 45 C13 984320.843 510147.272

20 LF6_M1 986444.745 512650.442 46 C14 985003.526 507264.835

21 LF6_M2 987279.135 513257.271 47 C15 982879.624 506506.298

22 LF4_M1 987203.281 509540.443 48 C16 982424.503 509616.297

23 LF4_M2 985989.623 510450.687 49 C17 980224.748 509692.15

24 LF4_M3 984700.111 509464.59 50 C18 978024.993 509464.59

25 LF4_M4 983789.368 508478.493

26 LF4_M5 981362.552 508099.224

7-16 62800860-RPT-02

Figure 7.3 The location of water quality sampling sites for phytoplankton/HAB monitoring are shown as large pink circles overlying the selected site.

Table 7.6 HAB monitoring station coordinates (BRSO, m).

Station Easting Northing

HAB1 968,626.343 525,217.415

HAB2 986,431.899 520,611.111

HAB3 992,350.098 516,740.350

HAB4 983,805.643 508,452.644

Parameters Parameters for laboratory analysis shall include:

Total Kjedahl Nitrogen

Nitrite

Nitrate

Ammonium

Monitoring Programme

7-17

Total Suspended Solids

Chl-a.

Profiles of the following to be obtained in-situ using a suitable sensor/data logging instrument

at 1 m intervals:

Chl-a by fluorescence

Dissolved oxygen (DO)

Turbidity

Temperature

Salinity

In addition to these basic water quality parameters, bi-annual phytoplankton sampling will be

to understand the variability and abundance of species and the possible presence HABs.

More regular HABs monitoring will be undertaken at a subset of sites.

In conjunction with the phytoplankton sampling, the following parameters will also be

measured using a water quality logger with measurements taken every 1.0 m.

Phytoplankton species

Dissolved oxygen (DO)

Turbidity

Temperature

Salinity

Chlorophyll fluorescence

Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR)

7.5 Sediment Enrichment

This section focuses on impact monitoring programme for sediment enrichment during the

lobster farming operations. Compliance monitoring for sediment enrichment relates to best

practice SOPs relating to stocking density, feeding practices etc. which will be continually

updated in the iCMA and are not further discussed here.

7.5.1 Management Objectives

Ensure that the zone of impact due to sedimentation from the cages remains within 100

m from the PUs

Aim to restrict the zone of impact to within 50 m of the cages.

7.5.2 Quality Objectives

No sediment impact beyond 50 m of the cages based on the following criteria for action

levels outside the PUs:

No feed pellets present

Absence of bacterial mats

Redox within baseline / reference values

Total Organic Carbon – Baseline /reference values + 25%

Sulphide - baseline /reference values + 25%

See Section 7.5.3.3, Guideline Impact Criteria for details.

7-18 62800860-RPT-02

7.5.3 Operations Stage Impact Monitoring

Sedimentation and changes in sediment type and organic matter composition can be

detected through a combination of visual monitoring (video transects), sediment sampling

and chemical analysis; and if necessary, sampling and analysis of benthic infauna in and

around major PU mooring footprints.

7.5.3.1 Frequency Sediments should be monitored prior to stocking of lobsters (baseline) once

Monthly for the first 12 months and on an annual basis thereafter

The timing of the annual surveys during operations should coincide with the period of peak

biomass or not more than 30 days after harvest.

7.5.3.2 Stations At least two major PUs shall be monitored within each LF zone. At each PU, monitoring

stations will be positioned as follows:

At a minimum of 2 sites directly beneath the cages

At the edges of the PU

Two transects at (approximately) right angles to each other. Along each transect, drop

camera photographs/ videos at 10 m, 20 m, 50 m and 100 m from the cages.

One transect must be positioned along the direction of the prevailing current and the location

of the other transect will be placed in the opposite direction, i.e. at approximate right angles

or depending on the prevailing current patterns for the PU. This results in a minimum of 12

stations per PU. A schematic of the transects and sampling stations is shown in Figure 7.4.

Figure 7.4 Example of sampling transects through a PU. Not drawn to scale.

Prevailing Current

In cage station

Edge station 10 m

50 m

100 m

50 m 100 m 20 m

Monitoring Programme

7-19

In addition, a reference station must be sited at least 500 m away from the PU in a location

with similar benthic and hydraulic characteristics as the PU location (i.e. two reference

stations per LF).

7.5.3.3 Description At each of the stations shown in Figure 7.4 above, visual observations (using underwater

video camera drop points) and sediment samples will be obtained.

The aim of the video survey is to identify:

Presence of bacterial mats and uneaten food pellets

Presence of farm litter (e.g. feed bags);

Presence of gas bubbles or anoxic areas

Animals visible or evidence of presence (e.g. tubes)

Visible macroalgae

Sediment colour and texture

Sediment samples will be analysed for the following parameters:

Particle size

Redox potential shall be measured on site (at the time of sediment sample collection).

Sulphur content

Total organic carbon (from the sample surface (top 0 – 2 cm).

Guideline Impact Criteria The monitoring findings will be assessed based on the criteria outlined in Table 7.7, subject

to further updates and refinement based the baseline surveys and ongoing monitoring. Two

actionable levels are defined, one for within the PU (i.e. the zone of impact) and will include

the within cage, cage edge and +10 m samples, while the action levels outside the PU will

include the samples along the transect from + 20 m to 100 m. Results averaged within the

LF are to be used.

Given the highly variable nature of the sediments, thresholds for most parameters will be

developed on a site-specific basis after the collection of 12 months of baseline data.

Table 7.7 Guideline sediment quality criteria (subject to revision).

Criteria Action Levels within PU Action Levels outside PU

Visual observation Accumulated feed pellets Feed pellets present

Bacterial mat Extensive mats present (> 50% cover)

Patches present

Redox To be determined from baseline. Baseline / control values

Organic Carbon 100% above baseline / control value (averaged within LF).

Baseline / control values + 25% (averaged within LF).

Sulphur To be determined from baseline Baseline / control values + 25%

Management Response If the visual and sediment analysis indicate potential adverse impacts beyond 50 m of the

PU, further investigations shall be initiated by the iCMAMG and a Benthic Amelioration Plan

shall be submitted to the iCMA CEO Committee and subsequently to the Environmental

7-20 62800860-RPT-02

Steering Committee with the aim of achieving an acceptable benthic standard in the Lobster

Farming Zone as soon as possible.

Recommended management responses within the amelioration plan may include:

Ensure all compliance rules are being adhered to, e.g. cleaning of nets, disposal of

wastes etc.

Repositioning of cages

Reduction of stocking density

7.6 Coral Reefs

The SEIA has tried to predict all potential impacts and mitigate to reduce impacts to the

minimum but it must be recognised that impacts may occur due to changes in operating

procedures, stocking densities or environmental factors. For example in Section 5, Figure

5.25, the nutrient model predicts that at full stocking densities there will be plumes of nutrient

(ammonium) at significant concentrations which may impact on sensitive environments

especially the coral reefs in LF1 and LF2 which are completely surrounded by the lobster

farm. Care will also be needed when LF5 becomes operational since it is very likely that

surface waters will be wind driven across the south edge of the farm area across the shallow

reef and into the lagoon.

The elevated ammonia produced at full stocking density could detrimentally affect the

sensitive reef environment which is only 100 m away from the PU boundary. The coral reef

monitoring is designed as an early warning system using coral reef communities as

biological indicators to detect transitory changes in water quality that may affect the

ecosystem as a whole. At all the sites, permanent monitoring transects and water quality

measurements will be used to determine if the management is successfully protecting the

environment and in the event of an issue the observed change in the baseline data will allow

for a rapid response.

7.6.1 Management Objectives

To avoid direct damage or disturbance to coral reefs due to PU anchoring and mooring,

solid wastes or any other farming related activity.

To avoid impacts on coral reef habitats due to sedimentation or water quality pollution

from the lobster cages.

Successful rehabilitation of coral reefs damaged by blast fishing as a compensatory

mitigation measure for mangrove impacts due to the Operations Base and Project

infrastructure.

7.6.2 Quality Objectives

Coral reef impacts Interim quality objectives are as follows; subject to change pending further baseline and

other investigations:

% live hard coral cover – less than 10% decrease from baseline / reference sites over

the LF zone.

Incidence of coral bleaching – less than 20% increase from baseline / reference sites

over the LF zone.

% macroalgae cover – less than 10% increase from baseline / reference sites over the

LF zone.

Monitoring Programme

7-21

Reef rehabilitation 50% live coral cover over an area of 23 ha.

7.6.3 Mitigation Measures

Key mitigation measures as detailed in Section 6.3.3 (coral reef impacts) are summarised

below:

Buffer zone of 100 m from coral from cages including mooring and anchors

Exclusion of Zone LF6 from commercial production

Micro-scale PU layout optimisation

Accurate deployment of anchors and mooring

Coral rehabilitation

Coral reef monitoring

7.6.4 Compliance Monitoring

Compliance monitoring requirements with respect to coral reefs are outlined in Table 7.8

below.

Table 7.8 Compliance monitoring for protection of coral reefs.

Required activity/ mitigation measures

Monitoring Requirements Frequency Responsibility

100 m buffer from reefs

Layout showing deployed cages and distance from corals.

As required during farming start within each PU

Environmental Officer

Micro scale PU optimisation to ensure cages are not established over live corals or seagrass

Photographic evidence of seabed conditions under the PUs prior to their deployment

As required during farming start within each PU

Environmental Officer

Coral planting

Photographs and GPS verification of coral replanting and progress at reef restoration areas.

Tri-monthly during nursery stage

Bi-annually till 3 years after planting.

Environmental Officer

7.6.5 Impact Monitoring

Reef monitoring is recommended along reefs adjacent to the iLAP aquaculture zone around

P. Timbun Mata and P. Bait to enable the early detection of any unforeseen impacts to the

coral reef ecosystems. This will include monitoring of coral abundance and diversity,

presence of diseases, abundance of macroalgae and fish diversity among others. Once the

presence of an environmental change has been determined then a detailed study can

determine the cause.

7-22 62800860-RPT-02

7.6.5.1 Frequency

Baseline Twice at intervals of more than 6 months prior to lobster cage stocking within each of the

production zones:

Full baseline survey of all sites in 2015 or 2016;

Repeat baseline survey of adjacent reefs 2-6 months before lobster cage stocking in a

production zone (by phases).

Operations 1-month after first lobsters are introduced within each production zone (by phases); and

Biannually thereafter

7.6.5.2 Stations The monitoring programme encompasses twenty-one (21) impact monitoring sites and one

reference station in the Tun Sakaran Marine Park (Figure 7.5).

Coordinates for the start of the coral transects are given in Table 7.9; these are indicative

only as the transects will be established based on conditions at site. The transects will follow

the reef crest at 3-5m and are not necessarily a straight line.

As described above, a full baseline campaign covering all stations will be carried out once.

Following this, repeat baseline surveys will be carried out only at stations adjacent to the

production zone where lobster cage stocking is initiated. At least two nearest transects will

be monitored per major PU.

In the early phases of production where farming is limited to a few production zones, an

additional two transects outside of the potential impact zone (i.e. in another lobster farming

zone) will be used as reference sites in addition to the TSMP site (Station T22).

Monitoring Programme

7-23

Figure 7.5 Coral reef monitoring transects.

Table 7.9 Geographic coordinates of coral transect start points (BRSO, m).

Station Start Point

Easting Northing

T1 966155.411 523010.873

T2 968203.977 523693.728

T3 969484.331 526454.436

T4 973837.534 525486.224

T5 975459.316 524718.011

T6 980666.088 524205.87

T7 982287.87 522413.374

T8 976056.814 523096.23

T9 977166.454 522071.947

7-24 62800860-RPT-02

Station Start Point

Easting Northing

T10 982629.298 521389.091

T11 987323.928 517377.316

T12 988348.211 514560.537

T13 985702.147 513365.541

T14 986897.144 512170.544

T15 982970.725 511487.688

T16 982970.725 509183.051

T17 980410.017 509097.694

T18 979300.377 508926.98

T19 982714.654 506366.273

T20 986043.574 509695.193

T21 988689.639 510292.691

T22 994749.981 515243.393

7.6.5.3 Description Live coral cover, species and presence of diseases or other signs of stress will be recorded

along the transects in accordance with the methodology outlined in Appendix C, Section 4 or

equivalent. The abundance and species distribution for fish will be recorded as well as the

distribution and abundance of macroalgae.

During each survey period data loggers for key environmental parameters will be deployed

as follows:

Dissolved oxygen (DO)

Turbidity

Temperature

Salinity

Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR).

The results of the data collected will be analysed for changes in hard coral cover and coral

diseases, macroalgae, fish diversity and abundance and will be compared against the quality

objectives outlined in Section 7.6.2 above.

Management Response If the monitoring detects impacts beyond quality objectives, a detailed study will be designed

and commissioned to determine if the impacts are attributable to the lobster farming activity

and to explore appropriate management responses. These may include:

Repositioning of cages / increasing the buffer zone

Reduction of stocking density

Monitoring Programme

7-25

7.7 Marine Fauna

7.7.1 Management Objectives

To reduce or minimise direct impacts, disturbance or negative interactions with marine

species of conservation significance.

7.7.2 Quality Objectives

Zero turtle, dugong or cetacean mortalities due to boat strike or piling during the

construction works.

Zero turtle, dugong or cetacean mortalities due to boat strike or entanglement in lobster

nets during operations.

Zero harm to fauna of conservational significance through hunting and fishing by iLAP

workers during construction and operations

7.7.3 Mitigation Measures

Key mitigation measures detailed in Section 6.3.9 (Marine and Terrestrial Fauna) are

summarised below:

Awareness raising and induction of workers on SOPs for dealing with marine and

terrestrial wildlife

Utilise employment contracts that specifically prohibit harvesting or hunting of local

wildlife.

Implement speed limit of 13 knots for all vessels

Marine megafauna observations prior to the start of piling for bridge and jetty

Soft-start piling for marine works

Contractors to keep a log of marine megafauna observations during pre-startup and

operations.

7.7.4 Compliance Monitoring

Monitoring of compliance to the above measures are outlined in Table 7.10 below.

7-26 62800860-RPT-02

Table 7.10 Compliance monitoring for protection of marine fauna during construction and operations.

Required activity/ mitigation measures

Monitoring Requirements Frequency Responsibility

Induction of workers relating to SOPs for wildlife interactions and prohibition on collecting or hunting species of conservation significance.

Evidence of induction meetings and awareness campaigns

Upon mobilisation of workforce

Annual updates

Environmental Officer

Marine vessels to observe speed limit of 13 knots throughout the iLAP area.

Evidence of induction meetings and awareness raising

Upon mobilisation of marine vessels

Environmental Officer

Carry out marine megafauna observations and use soft-start for piling at bridge and jetty sites during construction

Log of marine megafauna observations during pre-startup and piling operations

At all times during piling works

Environmental Officer

SOPs relating to wildlife interactions during operations

SOPs to be included in the iCMA EMMP reports

Records of wildlife incidences and management responses to be included in iCMA EMMP reports

Annual Environmental Officer

7.7.5 Impact Monitoring

All marine fauna incidences related to the iLAP construction or operations (injury or mortality

due to boat strike, entanglement or other project causes) and the immediate management

actions taken will be recorded.

It is recommended that wildlife interactions at selected Operational Farms be monitored and

documented with the assistance of the contract farmers while data collection will be compiled

by the EO officer or the EMP Consultant. Wildlife accidents involving workers will need to be

recorded by the Occupational Health and Safety Officer.

SOPs related to marine fauna will be reviewed annually based on the monitoring.

7.8 Mangroves and Mangrove Fauna

7.8.1 Management Objectives

To minimise direct adverse effects on mangrove flora and fauna during construction

works

To restore mangrove areas temporarily affected by construction works.

Monitoring Programme

7-27

To ensure that mangrove habitats are not adversely affected by the lobster farming

operations.

7.8.2 Quality Objectives

Zero encroachment into mangroves beyond the Project area.

Rehabilitated to achieve pre-disturbance mangrove (floristic) diversity in temporary

(construction) ROW areas.

Zero harm to proboscis monkeys throughout the construction period.

No impact to mangroves during operational stage.

7.8.3 Mitigation Measures

Clearly demarcate work areas to avoid encroachment outside the Project area

Replant of mangroves cleared from temporary construction ROW for access road and

bridge upon completion of construction

Consult Wildlife Department to carry out pre-construction surveys of Proboscis monkeys

at Tg. Kapor construction area and relocate if required

Awareness raising and induction of workers on SOPs for dealing with proboscis

monkeys, macaques which are especially common around Kg. Tg. Kapor and other

wildlife.

7.8.4 Compliance Monitoring

Compliance monitoring with respect to mangrove protection measures during the

construction and post-construction period are outlined in Table 7.11 below.

Table 7.11 Compliance monitoring for protection of mangrove flora and fauna.

Required activity/ mitigation measures

Monitoring Requirements

Frequency Responsibility

Demarcation of work areas along access road and bridge ROW within mangroves

Photographs and GPS verification of work area boundary demarcation.

At construction start and tri-monthly inspection during construction

Environmental Officer/ trimonthly audit by EMP consultant.

Restoration of mangrove in access road and bridge work areas upon completion of construction.

Photographs and GPS verification of replanting areas;

Report on number and species of mangroves planted.

Upon initiation of mangrove replanting programme.

Environmental Officer/ close out audit by EMP consultant.

Monitor survival rates until plants are well established (two years).

Tri-monthly for first year

Bi-annually thereafter

Environmental Officer

Consult Wildlife Department for survey and handling of proboscis monkeys at Tg. Kapor prior to site clearing.

Record of consultations, monitoring visits and management actions taken

Prior to site clearing at Tg. Kapor

Environmental Officer.

7-28 62800860-RPT-02

Required activity/ mitigation measures

Monitoring Requirements

Frequency Responsibility

Induction of workers relating to SOPs for wildlife interactions and prohibition on collecting or hunting species of conservation significance.

Evidence of induction meetings and awareness campaigns

Upon mobilisation of workforce

Environmental Officer

7.8.5 Impact Monitoring

Mangrove monitoring programmes will be carried out during both Construction and

Operational Stages as described in the following subsections.

7.8.5.1 During Construction

Frequency Biannually

Stations Permanent transects will be established at several sites around the Operations Base and the

lobster cage areas as detailed below:

a) transect on either side of supply jetty at 100 m distance located on P. Bait,

b) transects on either side of the bridge site at 100 m distance located on P. Bait and Tg

Kapor,

c) transect reference sites on Bait and at Tg. Kapor.

Description At all sites, a selection of 100 young trees of three species will be monitored for growth and

survival.

Monitoring Programme

7-29

Figure 7.6 Mangrove monitoring stations around the Project land-based components during the Construction Stage.

Table 7.12 Mangrove monitoring stations coordinates (BRSO, m).

Station Easting Northing

MG1 982297.858 505714.283

MG2 981544.319 505368.879

MG3 982117.397 504395.408

MG4 981935.304 504277.601

MG5 982348.258 503135.529

MG6 982109.163 503112.085

MG7 983455.224 504894.452

MG8 983825.767 503041.949

7-30 62800860-RPT-02

7.8.5.2 During Operations

Frequency 1 month after the first lobsters are introduced

Annually thereafter

Stations Permanent transects will be established at several sites around the lobster cage areas as

detailed below:

Transects at the closest mangrove to the first major cage farm site in each production

zone.

Transect reference sites (minimum two throughout the iLAP) in a similar environment but

at least 1 km from any iLAP zone of impact.

At least one station per production zone will be monitored.

Description At all sites, a selection of 100 young trees of three species will be monitored for growth and

survival.

The seaward extent of the mangrove, biodiversity and species composition will be monitored

in three 20 m x 5 m transects following the methodology in Appendix C.

7.9 Seagrass Monitoring

7.9.1 Management Objectives

To ensure that seagrass habitats are not adversely affected by potential nutrient elevation or

sedimentation due to the lobster farming.

7.9.2 Quality Objectives

No signs of increased eutrophication (epiphytic algae) or sedimentation

7.9.3 Mitigation Measures

No measures specific to seagrass have been identified; water quality control measures will

ensure minimal adverse impacts to seagrass during operations.

7.9.4 Compliance Monitoring

No compliance monitoring activities specific to seagrass have been identified.

7.9.5 Impact Monitoring

Monitoring of potential unforeseen impacts to seagrass will be carried out during the

construction stage as described in this section.

7.9.5.1 Frequency 1 month after the first lobsters are introduced;

Annually thereafter for each operational LF zone.

Monitoring Programme

7-31

7.9.5.2 Stations Seagrass monitoring is required for operational LF Zones LF2, LF4, LF5, LF7 and LF8.

There is no seagrass close to LF zones LF1 and LF3.

Monitoring station locations are based on existing distribution of seagrass and their location

adjacent to the lobster farming area (see Figure 7.7). One reference station within the TSMP

will be implemented (S11), while another control site is proposed at the northern end of P.

Bait where no Lobster farm impacts are predicted to enable changes in seagrass abundance

due to non-farm effects (pollution, season, global climate change, etc.) to be compared with

sites potentially impacted by lobster production.

Figure 7.7 Seagrass monitoring stations

7-32 62800860-RPT-02

Table 7.13 Seagrass monitoring stations coordinates (BRSO, m).

Station X Y

S1 987429.050 516021.976

S2 987349.675 513053.345

S3 985270.046 512545.344

S4 985174.796 511291.216

S5 982999.917 509449.713

S6 981602.914 509354.462

S7 982523.666 505988.956

S8 985016.046 507274.833

S9 986778.174 509275.087

S10 987952.926 508878.211

S11 995064.941 515244.099

7.9.5.3 Description The extent of the seagrass, biodiversity and species composition will be monitored in three

50m x 1 m transects with photographic quadrats following the methodology in Appendix C.

7.10 Noise

Noise is not a major issue during the operations stage and therefore the noise monitoring

programme outlined here is for the construction stage only.

7.10.1 Management Objective

To reduce or minimise nuisance noise associated with the construction activities on

surrounding villages. Villages or sensitive receptors during the construction phase are Kg.

Limau-Limau, Kg. Bait and SK Pulau Bait on P. Bait and Kg. Tanjung Kapor and SK Tanjung

Kapor on the mainland.

7.10.2 Quality Objectives

The quality objectives for the above receptors are based on the DOE Planning Guidelines for

Environmental Noise Limits and Control, 2007 /1/, see Table 7.15. At the schools, which can

be considered noise sensitive receptors, the limits of Schedule I should apply, which is 50

dBA during the day as shown in Table 7.15.

Monitoring Programme

7-33

Table 7.14 Maximum permissible sound level (Percentile LN and LMAX) of construction, maintenance and demolition work for residential land uses (day-time work permitted only) /1/

Receiving Landuse Category

Noise Parameter

Day Time 7.00 am – 7.00 pm

Evening 7.00 pm – 10.00 pm

Residential*

L90

L10

Lmax

60 dBA

75 dBA

90 dBA

55 dBA

70 dBA

85 dBA

* A reduction of these levels in the vicinity of certain institutions such as schools, hospitals, mosque and noise

sensitive premises (apartments, residential dwellings, hotel) may be exercised by the local authority or Department of Environment. Where the affected premises are noise sensitive, the limits of the schedule I shall apply – see Table 7.15.

3. In the event that the existing sound level (L90) without construction, maintenance and demolition works is higher than the L90 limit of the above schedule, the higher measured ambient L90 sound level shall prevail. In this case, the maximum permissible L10 sound level shall not exceed the Ambient L90 level + 10 dBA, or the above Schedule L10 whichever is the higher.

4. NA = Not Applicable.

Table 7.15 Maximum permissible sound level (LAeq) by receiving land use for planning and new development

Receiving Land Use Category

Day Time

7.00 am - 10.00 pm

Night Time

10.00 pm - 7.00 am

Noise Sensitive Areas, Low Density Residential, Institutional (School, Hospital), Worship Areas.

50 dBA 40 dBA

Suburban Residential (Medium Density) Areas, Public Spaces, Parks, Recreational Areas.

55 dBA 45 dBA

7.10.3 Mitigation Measures

Noise abatement measures as outlined in Section 6 are:

Limit working hours to daytime (7 am to 7 pm) – permitted working hours to be displayed

on signboard showing project information;

Construction works at the jetty during night time may be permitted if required however,

local community to be forewarned and informed of the proposed schedule and duration

of the works.

Selection of quieter running equipment by contractor where available;

All vehicles and machinery to be properly serviced and maintained to ensure good

working condition, thereby reducing the possible noise emissions;

Construction vehicles to comply with the noise control requirements of the Environmental

Quality (Motor Vehicle Noise) Regulations 1987. The maximum sound level permitted for

trucks transporting goods or materials is 88 dB(A); and

Suitable noise absorbent materials should be installed on machinery that produces high

noise levels. Any machinery emitting high noise will be sited within an enclosure to

reduce the noise impact.

Set up a public noise complaint register. The log book will contain the date and time of

complaint, name of complainant and location, the nature of complaint and follow-up

action taken.

7-34 62800860-RPT-02

7.10.4 Compliance Monitoring

Monitoring of compliance to the above measures are outlined in Table 7.16 below.

Table 7.16 Compliance monitoring for noise management during construction

Required activity/ mitigation measures

Monitoring Requirements Frequency

Limit working hours to daytime, with permitted exception of jetty construction works

Permitted working hours to be posted on a signboard at the construction area

Photographic evidence and map showing location of sign posting working hours

At construction start

Local community to be informed of any extended working hours at the jetty location:

- log of community notifications;

Log of iCWG community briefings and any other forms of notification to be kept by the EO for inclusion in Environmental Compliance Reports (ECR)

As required.

Machinery maintenance to reduce noise

Maintenance log to ensure all vehicles and machinery are properly serviced and maintained

When necessary during construction

Installation of enclosures around power generators and other noisy machinery.

Layout plan and photographs of physical noise barriers and equipment enclosures

At construction start and when necessary

Noise Complaint Register. Additional mitigation measures to be implemented where frequent or repeating noise complaints are received.

Noise complaints to be recorded in log book

Complaints to be investigated within 24 hrs following lodgement.

Log book to be included in monitoring report.

Per occurrence

7.10.5 Impact Monitoring

7.10.5.1 Frequency Tri-monthly for the duration of the construction stage.

7.10.5.2 Stations Five monitoring stations at the sensitive receptors near the Project Site are to be

implemented as shown in Figure 7.8, with two stations on the mainland and three stations on

P. Bait. A description of these stations and their coordinates are given in Table 7.17.

Monitoring Programme

7-35

Figure 7.8 EMP Noise and Air Quality Station

Table 7.17 Coordinates of noise monitoring stations (BRSO, m).

Station Easting Northing Description

AN1 982645.716 504626.221 Kg. Bait

AN2 982223.478 504593.742 SK. Pulau Bait

AN3 981281.563 504052.411 Kg. Limau Limau

AN4 981844.547 502872.310 Kg. Tanjung Kapor

AN5 982764.809 502038.660 SK. Tanjung Kapor

7.10.5.3 Description Sound level measurements will be recorded for a minimum of 24 hours at each station. The

following indices will be calculated for comparison against the quality objectives:

LAeq

7-36 62800860-RPT-02

L90

L10

Lmax

If quality objectives are breached, additional mitigation measures will need to be

implemented, for example installation of sound barriers or noise suppression equipment.

7.11 Air Quality

7.11.1 Management Objective

To minimise the fugitive dust and other emissions to the atmosphere produced during

earthworks and other construction works.

7.11.2 Quality Objectives

24 hr average Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) < 260 µg/m3 (Malaysian Guidelines)

No visible dust clouds from the project site or access road.

7.11.3 Mitigation Measures

Good Maintenance: Regular maintenance of engines and equipment properly

maintained in good working order

Watering: Bare surfaces and unsealed roads to be regularly watered till moist,

particularly during dry and windy days.

Speed limit: Vehicle speeds will be limited to 30 km/hr on unpaved roads. Adequate

signage to be erected on site displaying this speed limit.

Covering dust sources: Lorry loads and stockpiles of earth/gravel to be covered with

tarpaulin or other impervious sheets.

Washing Bay: Construction of washing bays on P. Bait worksite and at the exit point of

the access road at Tg. Kapor, if space permits, to wash off mud adhering to the tyres.

The washing facility should include a sump for collection of wash water, settling basin

and sediment disposal.

Open burning prohibited: open burning of cleared vegetation or construction debris is strictly prohibited.

Stabilisation of access points and haul roads: Key access points and haul roads within the site should be stabilised by gravel surfacing to minimise fugitive dust.

Street sweeping/ washing of debris on adjacent public right-of-way at Kg. Tg. Kapor.

7.11.4 Compliance Monitoring

The compliance monitoring for the recommended air emissions abatement measures are

detailed in Table 7.18.

Table 7.18 Air emissions abatement measures and related compliance monitoring during the construction phase.

Required activity Compliance monitoring Frequency

Construction machinery shall be maintained according to national standards for emissions.

Equipment/ vehicle maintenance log to be kept by contractors

As required

Monitoring Programme

7-37

Required activity Compliance monitoring Frequency

Watering of bare surfaces

Site compliance monitoring by EO.

Daily

Stabilisation of access point and main haul roads within site

Layout plan and description of stabilisation works

Monthly

Access point and main haul roads within site to be inspected monthly and maintained as necessary.

Photographic record.

Monthly

Lorries transporting construction materials or cut and fill material shall cover the loads with tarpaulin

Site inspection Daily by EO

Tri-monthly compliance audit by EMP consultant

Wheels of construction vehicles leaving the site shall be clean

Layout plan and photographs of washing bay system

At construction start

Site inspection Monthly

Public complaints As required

No open burning on site Site inspection Daily by EO

Tri-monthly compliance audit by EMP consultant

Public complaints As required

7.11.5 Impact Monitoring

7.11.5.1 Frequency Tri-monthly throughout the construction stage.

7.11.5.2 Stations Air quality monitoring will be undertaken at the same locations as the noise monitoring

outlined in the previous section (see Figure 7.8 and Table 7.17 above).

7.11.5.3 Description Dust (TSP) monitoring averaged over 24 hours and visual observations of dust clouds to be

recorded.

If quality objectives are not met, or public complaints registered, additional measures such

as increased frequency of bare surface wetting, road washing etc. will be implemented.

7.12 Waste Management

7.12.1 Management Objective

To minimise waste disposal through re-use, recycling and reduction of wastes

generated.

7-38 62800860-RPT-02

To ensure best practice management for the handling and storage of all waste materials

from the earthworks and construction to operations.

7.12.2 Quality Objectives

All waste materials are handled and stored in a safe and appropriate manner.

All scheduled wastes are handled as per DOE guidelines on scheduled waste

management2.

Waste reduction and re-use/ recycling goals to be set based on Contractors’ Waste

Management Plans

7.12.3 Mitigation Measures

Waste Reduction

Contractor(s) to submit Waste Management Plan outlining measures to be taken to

reduce, reuse and recycle wastes (waste diversion).

Waste diversion performance shall be documented by the Contractor.

Proponent to facilitate or promote localised recycling or re-use programmes involving the

local community.

Waste Management

Waste Management Plans to be submitted by Contractors as part of tender requirements

Waste diversion performance to be reported by Contractors and iCMAMG

Project Proponent to facilitate or promote localised recycling or reuse programmes

involving the local community

Vegetative wastes to be mulched and reused in re-establishing disturbed areas.

Mangrove biomass disposal to be carried out in accordance with Forestry Department

requirements.

All rubbish is to be stored in bins or other appropriate containers on the marine

construction vessels, and at the construction sites on P. Bait and at Tg. Kapor.

Ensure removal of all rubbish and other waste from marine vessels to an appropriate

temporary waste collection location periodically by transfer arrangement.

Designate areas on-site for the segregation and storage of different wastes in order to

enhance recovery rates of reusable and recyclable maters; all recyclable materials taken

to recycling centres.

Scheduled Wastes

Contain all wastes and implement appropriate storage and disposal practices

All hazardous/oily wastes are retained in secure containers according to DOE guidelines

on the floating construction equipment and removed to a licensed facility for disposal.

All scheduled wastes to be sealed, correctly labelled prior to collection / removal by

licensed contractors.

7.12.4 Compliance Monitoring

Mitigation measures relating to waste management are outlined in Table 7.19, with relevant

compliance monitoring requirements.

2 Environmental Quality (Scheduled Wastes) (Amendment) Regulations 2007, P. U. (A) 158

Monitoring Programme

7-39

Table 7.19 Waste management measures and methods for monitoring compliance.

Required activity Compliance monitoring Frequency

Discharge of floatables, chemicals, or other polluting substances from construction vessels, the construction site offices and workers’ quarters are not allowed; collection of such wastes shall be made on a regular basis and disposal of any scheduled wastes shall follow existing Federal regulations

Layout plan and photographs of the oily waste temporary storage area(s), on-site waste collection and waste sorting areas at construction site

At construction start and as required by EO

Site inspection Daily by EO;

Tri-monthly by EMP Consultant.

Log of scheduled waste disposal As required by Contractors

Adequate containers/bins shall be provided for solid wastes

Layout plan and photographs of the temporary waste collection area(s), and designated areas for waste segregation and sorting (for recycling)

At construction start and as required by EO

Site inspection Daily by EO;

Tri-monthly by EMP Consultant.

Waste Diversion Performance reporting

Contractors shall submit a report on waste diversion (% construction wastes diverted from landfill through minimisation, reuse or recycling) on a quarterly basis

Quarterly by contractor;

To be included in tri-monthly compliance report by EMP Consultant.

Proponent to initiate or facilitate recycling or reuse programmes involving the local community

Status report on community participation in waste reuse and recycling programmes

Quarterly by contractor / EO;

To be included in tri-monthly compliance report by EMP Consultant

7.12.5 Impact Monitoring

No specific waste impact monitoring are proposed; however, it is noted that the benthic

visual monitoring surveys under the cages will document any farm-generated waste matter

on the seabed (see Section 7.5.3).

7.13 Maritime Safety

7.13.1 Management Objective

During Construction: Ensure that the construction works do not unduly interfere with vessel

movements in and around the Project area and to minimise the risk of a collision or other

maritime safety incidents from unauthorised vessels operating too close to the marine

construction equipment and work area.

During Operations: Minimise obstacles to local navigation through the Project aquaculture

zone and manage risks of marine traffic accidents to acceptable levels.

7-40 62800860-RPT-02

7.13.2 Quality Objectives

Any complaints received about navigation safety or access restrictions are addressed

and resolved in consultation with the Marine Department.

Zero marine collisions involving Project vessels within the iLAP.

7.13.3 Mitigation Measures

Proponent to notify all vessel owners and operators of the commencement of the

construction works and the expected duration of the operations through the Marine

Department.

Placement of a public notice by the Project Proponent prior to commencement of the

works, through fisheries associations.

Navigational lights and beacons around the marine working area to be installed and

maintained according to Ports and Harbours Department specifications.

Floodlights used during construction and post-construction phase to be pointed

downwards so as to not obscure visibility during night navigation.

7.13.4 Compliance Monitoring

Table 7.20 outlines the proposed monitoring measures to ensure compliance with the

recommended mitigation measures to reduce maritime safety risks.

Table 7.20 Compliance monitoring measures for maritime safety.

Required Activity Compliance Monitoring Frequency

Installation of navigational lights and beacons around the marine working area

Photographic document of installation and location map.

Log of inspections forwarded to Contract manager for action

At construction start by Contractor

Monthly inspections for effective operation by EO

Notification to all vessel owners and operators advising the commencement of the construction operations

Copy of notice to be included in Environmental Compliance Report.

At construction start and when necessary by Contractor

Reporting tri -monthly by EC

Floodlights during construction to be pointed downwards to maintain visibility during night navigation

Site inspections Monthly by EO

7.13.5 Impact Monitoring

7.13.5.1 During Construction Construction contractor(s) to report any incidents involving Project-related vessels within the

iLAP aquaculture zone, at the jetty or bridge sites to the Project Proponent to take up with

the Marine Department and discuss additional measures to be implemented to improve

maritime safety.

Monitoring Programme

7-41

7.13.5.2 During Operations Record and notify iCMAMG of any collisions or near miss incidents within the iLAP

aquaculture zone or at the Operations Base jetty. Marine traffic and navigation SOPs to be

reviewed to mitigate the identified risks/ causes of the incident.

7.14 Land Traffic and Public Road Quality

7.14.1 Management Objective

To ensure that land traffic volume due to the Project does not overwhelm the existing

land traffic.

To ensure the safety and quality of public roads accessing the project is maintained.

7.14.2 Quality Objectives

No deterioration of public roads (potholes, dirt) attributable to the Project construction.

No harm to the public from Project construction vehicles

7.14.3 Mitigation Measures

Install signboards warning of ongoing development as well as speed limit signage at the

junction of the existing Tg. Kapor road and the Project access road.

Regular maintenance of public access road to reduce risk of accidents

Active control of access and speed during critical construction phases and construction

vehicle movements; avoiding heavy vehicle traffic during school pick-up and drop-off

hours.

Provision of traffic wardens at the three schools along Jalan Tg. Kapor during peak

periods of heavy vehicle traffic (SK Tg. Kapor, SRK Bugaya, and SMK Bugaya I).

7.14.4 Compliance Monitoring

The compliance monitoring for the recommended land traffic mitigation measures are

detailed in Table 7.21.

Table 7.21 Land traffic mitigation measures and related compliance monitoring during the construction phase

Required activity Compliance monitoring Frequency

Access point and main haul roads within site to be inspected monthly and maintained as necessary.

Photographic record

Monthly

Installation of warning and speed limit signage

Photographic record with GPS location Tri-monthly

Heavy vehicle transport along Jalan Tg. Kapor to be avoided during school drop-off/ pick-up hours:

6:30 – 7:30 am

12:00 to 1:30 pm

5:00 to 6:00 pm

Record complaints/ non-compliance from school authorities.

As required.

7-42 62800860-RPT-02

Required activity Compliance monitoring Frequency

Provision of traffic wardens at the schools along Jalan Tg. Kapor during peak construction vehicle traffic

Record of deployment. As required.

7.15 Socio-Economy

7.15.1 Management Objective

To enhance Project benefits to the local communities

To minimise negative social impacts relating to presence of non-local workforce

To ensure safety and health of workers and surrounding communities

7.15.2 Quality Objectives

Maintain overall positive perception of the Project by villagers in the vicinity of the Project

Maintain or improve socioeconomic status of fishermen within Project site.

All staff and workers adhere to health, safety and environment requirements in terms of

general regulations (existing environmental legislation and any other local by-laws) and

project-specific procedures (i.e. mitigation measures outlined in the present SEIA).

Number of participants trained through iLAP’s education and skill training programmes

per year (targets to be determined)

Ratio of local (Semporna, Sabahan, Malaysian) employees (targets to be determined)

Ratio of local (Semporna, Sabahan) Class F contractors (targets to be determined)

7.15.3 Mitigation Measures

A key measure to establish and maintain open dialogue with the local communities

throughout construction and operations is the iLAP Community Working Group (iCWG) as

outlined in Section 6.2.3.2.

Economic Compensation to be arranged for through the District Office and Department of Agriculture

Make use of local workforce, contractors and suppliers (Semporna District, Sabah)

where ever possible

Compliance with Immigration and Labour rules and regulations with respect to foreign

workforce.

Local sourcing of materials, goods and services.

Compensation for loss of agricultural assets

Vocational skill training and entrepreneurship courses in aquaculture, business, and

tourism.

Minimum salary as approved by the government

Fishing and Aquaculture Activity Inform fishermen of work schedules, safety buffer zones and restricted areas before

construction.

Prioritise fishermen in training, certification and employment or contract farming

opportunities.

Monitoring Programme

7-43

Social Impacts Zero tolerance for anti-social behaviour (drugs, nuisance behaviour, petty crime,

vandalism, etc.) amongst the iLAP workforce;

Close liaison with the community working group, police and other stakeholders to

monitor and manage anti-social behaviour.

Health and Well-being Measures relating to land and marine traffic safety, noise and dust nuisance have been

addressed in the respective sections above. Specific mitigation measures include:

All workers will undergo health screening for communicable diseases as per regulations,

prior to being located at the project site.

All unused building materials will be cleared so as not to mar the existing surroundings

and also to prevent from becoming breeding grounds for mosquitoes and rodents and

hence preventing the vector-borne diseases from occurring

Pressure on Local Amenities and Services Communicate workforce numbers to Semporna District Council and service providers in

advance to ensure adequate facilities for the workforce in terms of facilities and

amenities.

Communicate projected demand on electricity, water, waste disposal and other services

to the Semporna District Council in advance to ensure the Project is accounted for in the

planning

7.15.4 Compliance Monitoring

Compliance monitoring for the above mitigation measures are set out in Table 7.22 below.

The iLAP Community Working Group (iCWG) as mentioned in the Section 6.2.3 will be the

focal point for any further mitigation decisions that may arise during the construction period.

Table 7.22 Socio economic compliance monitoring programme

Required Activity Compliance monitoring Frequency

Inform fishermen of work schedules, safety buffer zones and restricted areas before construction and when required (e.g. any change in schedules, activities, etc.)

Schedule and briefing to be included in the ECR report as well as presented to the iCWG.

At construction start/ then quarterly by Project Contractor

Full time community engagement personnel (Community Engagement Officers) to listen, record and investigate any grievances from the general public.

To document public grievance and opinion within the ECR report.

As required.

To keep record of iLAP employees, contractors and suppliers to monitor level of local participation.

Provide statistical data of % local employment. This should include breakdown of job category (e.g. unskilled, skilled labour, management, etc.)

At construction start/ then annually by Project Proponent

Provision of training/ education to locals to increase employability and/or entrepreneurial ability.

Number of Training / education programmes for local community members

Number of local people trained

Annually

7-44 62800860-RPT-02

Required Activity Compliance monitoring Frequency

In-migration status Monitoring of in-migration – e.g. at kampung level (assisted by Ketua Kampungs and JKKK)

Annually

Community Engagement Officer to communicate with Pearl Farm Owner and Seaward Farmers to discuss issues and grievances that may arise from the iLAP

To Submit to iCWG and ECR report

Full time engagement from the construction commencement.

Health monitoring of iLAP workers during induction and ongoing. Notification of Health Department for any notifiable disease.

To keep health records of all employees

Ongoing compilation by iLAP Occupational Health and Safety Officer

7.15.5 Impact Monitoring

iCWG meetings held every two months will be the key mechanism to record, discuss and

resolve issues arising. The following additional monitoring is also recommended as

described in the subsections below:

Fish catch monitoring

Social surveys

7.15.5.1 Fish Catch Monitoring

Frequency Baseline Monitoring: three times a week for two non-consecutive weeks prior to

construction start.

Construction Stage: monthly

Operations Stage: Bi-annually

Stations Tg. Kapor fish market

Description Monitoring the total fish catch and fish diversity at Tg. Kapor fish market. The survey should

be carried out in the early mornings soon after the market open for business.

Fish catch records will provide supplementary data to evaluate any claims by fishermen of

catch reduction.

7.15.5.2 Social Surveys

Frequency Construction Stage: Annually

Operations Stage: Annually for first two years upon start of each operational phase.

Stations A 10% sample of the populace from the following villages:

Monitoring Programme

7-45

All villages on P. Timbun Mata, P. Bait, P. Larapan, P. Pababag, P. Selangan, P. Puno

Puno.

Kg. Tg. Kapor

A 5% sample of the populace from the following mainland villages:

Along shoreline: Kg. Lihak, Kg. Bako, Kg. Siaban, Kg. Lihak-Lihak, Kg. Bakong Bakong

Along Jalan Tg. Kapor: Kg. Sekong Besar, Kg. Bugaya, Kg. Seraya, Kg. Seri Mulur

Description Social surveys carried out by a qualified consultant will be carried out to determine the

following:

Reported quality of life

Changes in demography

Income, sources and trends

Health and well-being.

Project impacts on navigation

Project impacts on fishing grounds and fish catch

Project impacts on cultural / historical properties

Social or cultural problems due to interaction with Project workforce.

Any other sources of dissatisfaction or conflicts as a result of the Project.

This will be carried out through the following means:

Interviews – a series of structured open-ended interviews with selected community

representatives to obtain information/concerns/views.

Questionnaires – a written, structured series of questions issued to a sample of local

people to identify concerns/views/opinions.

References

8-1

8 References

Section 2

/1/ Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. 2009. FAO Fisheries and

Aquaculture Technical Paper 527. Environmental impact assessment and monitoring

in aquaculture: Requirements, practices, effectiveness and improvements.

Section 3

/1/ FAO, 2012. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012. Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations, Rome

/2/ SEDIA. 2013. Sabah Overview. www.sedia.com.my/SDC_EPP/Sabah_Overview.pdf

/3/ DHI, 2012. Hydrodynamic and depositional modelling for the prediction of lobster

aquaculture environmental impact

/4/ Lee, S., Hartstein, N. D., Wong, K. Y. & Jeffs, A. 2012. Assessment of the production

and dispersal of faecal waste from sea-cage aquaculture of spiny lobsters.

/5/ Faiez, S. 2012. Marine Habitat Mapping using Hyper Spectral Imaging Analysis.

Darden Aquaculture Inc.

/6/ Darden Aquafarm Inc.2012. Environmental Scoping Study Final Report.

/7/ Madin, J., Chong, V. C., & Hartstein, N. D. 2010. Effects if water flow velocity and fish

culture on net biofouling in fish cages. Aquaculture Res.41(2010), pp. 602-617

/8/ Cromey C. J, Nickell T. D., Black K. D., 2002. DEPOMOD - modelling the depostion

and biological effects of waste solids from marine cage farms. Aquaculture 214: 211-

239

/9/ National Economic Advisory Council. New Economic Model for Malaysia. Part 1:

Strategic Policy Directions. 209pp.Section 4

Section 4

/1/ Sabah Meteorological Department. In: Climate Part 1. Sabah Town Planning

Department.

http://www.townplanning.sabah.gov.my/iczm/Reports/Coastal%20Profile%20Sabah/ch

03/03-CLIMATEI.htm

/2/ Environment Protection Department. 2005. Sabah Shoreline Management Plan. Vol II

Baseline Report: Cell by Cell Description. Prepared by DHI Water & Environment.

/3/ Ranjith, M. W., De Silva, N., Rahman, R. A, Mustafa, S. & Cabanban, A. S., 1999.

Expedisi Galaxea ’98. Universiti Malaysia Sabah.

8-2 62800860-RPT-02

/4/ K.Kassem, B.Hoeksema, Affendi. YA. (eds) (2012) Semporna Marine Ecological

Expedition. WWF-Malaysia, NCB Naturalis, Universiti Malaysia Sabah. Kota Kinabalu

Malaysia.

/5/ Sabah Parks. 2014. Tun Sakaran Marine Park.

http://www.sabahparks.org.my/eng/tun_sakaran_marine_park/

/6/ K. Kassem, B.Hoeksema, Affendi. YA. (eds). 2012. Semporna Marine Ecological

Expedition. WWF-Malaysia, NCB Naturalis, Universiti Malaysia Sabah. Kota Kinabalu

Malaysia.

/7/ Fabricius KE, Alderslade P (2001) Soft Corals and Sea Fans: A comprehensive guide

to the tropical shallow water genera of the central-West Pacific, the Indian Ocean and

the Red Sea. AIMS, Townsville. 264 pp.

/8/ Waheed, Z. & Hoeksama, B. W. 2012. A tale of two winds: species richness patterns

of reef corals around Semporna peninsula, Malaysia. Marine Biodiversity. Pp. 1-15.

/9/ Veron, J. E. N., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Lenton, T. M., Lough, J. M., Obura, Pearce-

Kelly, P., Sheppard, C. R. C., Spalding, M., Stafford-Smith, M. G. & Rogers, A. D.

2009. The coral reef crisis: The critical importance of <350 ppm CO2.

/10/ Ho, N., Kassem, K. and Ng. Sharon. 2011. Seagrass assessment report of Semporna

Priority Conservation area. Kota Kinabalu. WWF-Malaysia.

/11/ Sabah Forestry Department, 2005. Timbun Mata Forest Reserve.

http://www.sabah.gov.my/htan_caims/Class%20I/A_FR1/timbun_mata.htm

/12/ Scubazoo.2012. Semporna Shark Sanctuary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIdW2A_6gnk

/13/ Oliaroundtheworld.2009. Whale Shark @ Sibuan Island (Borneo, Malaysia)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E33UzmgRaHM

/14/ Jaaman, S.A., Lah-Anyi, Y.U. & Pierce, G.J., 2008. Directed fisheries for dolphins and

dugong in Sabah, East Malaysia: past and present. Borneo Science 23: 1-20.

/15/ Jaaman, S. A. 2004. A Review of Current Knowledge on Marine Mammals in

Malaysia and Adjacent Waters. ASEAN Review of Biodiversity and Environmental

Conservation (ARBEC) Online Journal, September 2004. [Available at:

http://www.arbec.com.my/marinemammal]. Jaaman 2004

/16/ Jolis, G. & Kassem, K. 2011. Marine Turtle Status in Northeast Semporna Priority

Conservation Area. Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia. WWF-Malaysia.

/17/ Sabah Parks. 2014. http://www.sabahparks.org.my/giant-clams-marine-invertebrate-

hatchery

/18/ Pilcher, N., & Oakley, S. (1997). Unsustainable fishing practices: Crisis in coral reef

ecosystems of South-East Asia. Oceanology International 97 Pacific Rim., 1, 77-88.

/19/ Jones, G. P., McCormick, M. I., Srinivasan, M., & Eagle, J. V. (2004). Coral decline

threatens fish biodiversity in marine reserves. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the United States of America, 101(21), 8251-8253.

/20/ Mohammad-Noor, N., Fang Sing, O., Anwar, E.W.E. 2012. Seasonal distribution of

Harmful Algal Bloom Species in East Coast of Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Fisheries

and Aquatic Science.

Website: http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/academicjournals/jfas/0000/42380-42380.pdf

References

8-3

/21/ Sabah Forestry Department. 2005. Conservation Areas Information and Monitoring

System.

Website: http://www.sabah.gov.my/htan_caims/Class%20I/A_FR1/timbun_mata.htm

/22/ Ledesma, C., Lewis, M. & Savage, P. 2003. The Rough Guide to Malaysia, Singapore

and Brunei. pg. 566

/23/ Department of Statistics. Population and Housing Census of Malaysia 2010

/24/ Wod, L. (2001). People, History and Traditions. In Management Plan for the

Semporna Islands Park [Draft:1-2001] Retrieved from

http://www.sempornaislandsproject.com/pages/publications/Part%203%20People.pdf

/25/ Brundt, H. 2013. Thesis’ Stateless Stakeholders: Seen But Not Heard?’. The Case of

the Sama Dilaut in Sabah, Malaysia.

/26/ Ingles, J., Flores, J. & Francisco, E. 2008. Tuna Fishery of Mabul Island, Semporna,

Malaysia. WWF Malaysia, 14pp.

/27/ Daw. T. 2004. Reef fish aggregations in Sabah, East Malaysia. Western Pacific Fisher

Survey Series: Society for the Conservation of Reef Fish Aggregations. Volume 5.

59pp.

/28/ Wood, E. 2001. Use of natural resources in the proposed Semporna Islands Park. The

Semporna Islands Project (1998-2001). 33pp.

/29/ Daily Express Newspaper. November 2012. Seaweed a high-impact sector by 2020,

says Minister.

/30/ Star Magazine. 2008. Starmag Insight. Master of the South Sea pearl.

http://www.edwardkong.com//6_1.php?PHPSESSID=696b1bada71d1cf87437406101

251e0f.

/31/ Dato’ Sheikh Ahmad Sheikh Long, Ketua Pengarah, Ketua Pengarah, Lembaga

Kemajuan Ikan Malaysia. 2004. Cadangan pelaburan dalam bidang perikanan bagi

GLCs.

http://www.epu.gov.my/seminar_bengkel?p_p_id=56_INSTANCE_pwXr&p_p_lifecycle

=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-

4&p_p_col_count=1&page=7

Section 5

/1/ Civera, R. and J. Guillaume 1989. Effect of sodium phytate on growth and tissue

mineralization of Panaeus japonicus and Panaeus vannemei juveniles. Aquaculture

77: 145-156.

/2/ Lee, S.; Hartstein, N.D. and Jeffs, 2014: A.,Modelling carbon deposition and

dissolved nitrogen discharge from tropical spiny lobster sea-cage aquaculture.

/3/ Cumming, F., F. Fidler, and D. L. Vaux. 2007. Error Bars In Experimental Biology.

JCB. 177 (1); pp:7-11

/4/ Jones, I. S. 2002. Primary production in the Sulu Sea. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Earth

Planet. Sci.)111 (3); pp. 209-213

/5/ Lee, S.; Hartstein, N.D. and Jeffs, A. 2014. Modelling carbon deposition and

dissolved nitrogen discharge from tropical spiny lobster sea-cage aquaculture.

8-4 62800860-RPT-02

/6/ Lee, S.; Hartstein, N.D. and Jeffs, A. 2014. Modelling carbon deposition and

dissolved nitrogen discharge from tropical spiny lobster sea-cage aquaculture.

/7/ Hargrave BT, Holmer M, Newcombe CP (2008). Towards a classification of organic

enrichment in marine sediments based on biogeochemical indicators. Marine Pollution

Bulletin 56:810–824

/8/ Hargrave BT (2010). Empirical relationships describing benthic impacts of salmon

aquaculture. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 1:33–46

/9/ Caring for our communities,2012. Metal and biofouling study. DHI Report for Tassal.

Funded by Fisheries Resource Development Council.

/10/ Plew DR, Stevens CL, Spigel RH, Hartstein ND (2005) Hydrodynamic implications of

large offshore mussel farms. IEEE J Oceanic Eng 30; pp:95–108

/11/ Plew DR, Enright MP, Nokes RI, Dumas JK (2009) Effect of mussel bio-pumping on

the drag on and flow around a mussel crop rope. Aquacult Eng 40. pp:55–61

/12/ Komar, P.D. and Miller, M.C., 1973. The threshold of sediment movement under

oscillatory water waves. J. Sediment. Petrol 43. pp: 1101--1110.

/13/ Komar, P. and Miller, M. (1975). ”On the comparison of the threshold of sediment

motion under waves and unidirectional currents with a discussion of the practical

evaluation of the threshold,” J. Sedimentary Petrology, 45(2), 362-367.

/14/ Komar, P.D. and Miller, M.C., 1976. The initiation of oscillatory ripple marks and the

development of plane-bed at high shear stresses under waves. J. Sediment. Petrol 45:

pp. 697--703.

/15/ Beijing Forestry and Parks Department of International Cooperation. 2009. Oil Palm

Biomass. http://www.bfdic.com/en/Features/Features/79.html

/16/ Scottish Aquaculture Research Forum. 2008. Strategic Waste Management and

Minimisation in Aquaculture. Prepared by Thistle Environmental Partnership. Final

Report, June 2008.

/17/ Veenstra S., G.J. Alaerts and M. Bijlsma, (1997) Technology Selection, Chapter 3 of

Water Pollution Control - A Guide to the Use of Water Quality Management Principles

Edited by Richard Helmer and Ivanildo Hespanhol Published on behalf of the United

Nations Environment Programme, the Water Supply & Sanitation Collaborative

Council and the World Health Organization by E. & F. Spon © 1997 WHO/UNEP

/18/ Beaman, A. L. & Jones, R. D., 1977. Noise from Construction & Demolition Sites:

Measured Levels and their Predictions. Construction Industry Research and

Information Association

/19/ WorkSafeBC (the Workers' Compensation Board of BC). Construction Noise.

http://www2.worksafebc.com/pdfs/hearing/ConstructionNoise.pdf

/20/ The Planning Guidelines for Environmental Noise Limits and Control. 2004.

Department of Environment Malaysia.

/21/ Hatcher, BG & AWD Larkum. 1983. An experimental analysis of factors controlling the

standing crop of the epilithic algal community on a coral reef. Journal of Experimental

Marine Biology and Ecology 69: 61-84.

/22/ Harrison, PL and S. Ward. 2001. Elevated levels of nitrogen and phosphorus reduce

fertilisation success of gametes from scleractinian reef corals. Marine Biology 139:

1057-1068.

References

8-5

/23/ Erftemeijer, PLA, Reigl B., Hoeksema, BW, Todd, PA. 2012. Environmental Impacts of

Dredging and other Sediment Disturbances on Corals: A Review. Marine Pollution

Bulletin 64: 1737-1765.

/24/ Koop, K., D Booth, A. Broadbent, J. Brodie, D. bucher, D. Capone, J. Coll, W.

Dennison, M. Erdmann, P. Harrison, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, P. Hutchings, GB Jones,

AWD Larkum, J. O’Neil, A. Steven, E. Tentori, S. Ward, J. Williamson, D Yellowlees.

2001. ENCORE: The effect of nutrient enrichment on coral reefs. Synthesis of results

and Conclusions. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42: 91-120.

/25/ Oceanica Consulting Pty. Ltd. 2013. Kimberley Aquaculture Zone Strategic

Assessment. Cause-Effect Pathways and Impact Thresholds. Prepared for DHI, May

2013.

/26/ Fagoonee, I., HB Wilson, MP Hassell, JR Turner. 1999. The dynamics of

zooxanthellae populations: a long-term study in the field. Science 283: 843-845.

/27/ Stimson, J. 1997. The annual cycle of density of zooxanthellae in the tissues of field

and laboratory-held Pucillopora damicornis (Linnaeus). Journal of Experimental

Marine Biology and Ecology 214: 35-48.

/28/ Rountos, KJ, BJ Peterson, I. Karakassis. 2012. Indirect effects of fish cage

aquaculture on shallow Posidonia aceanica seagrass patches in coastal Greek

waters. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 2: 105 – 115.

/29/ Larkum, AWD, RJ Orth, CM Duarte. 2007. Seagrasses: Biology, Ecology and

Conservation.

/30/ D.I Walker, A.J McComb. Seagrass degradation in Australian coastal waters Marine

Pollution Bulletin, Volume 25, Issues 5–8, 1992, Pages 191-195

/31/ Cambridge M.P., A.W. Chiffings, C. Britton, E. Moore, and A.J. McComb (1986), The

Loss of Seagrass in Cockburn Sound, Western Australia II. Possible Causes of

Seagrass Decline, Aquatic Botany, 24: 269-285

/32/ Paul L.A. Erftemeijer, Roy R. Robin Lewis III. Environmental impacts of dredging on

seagrasses: A review Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 52, Issue 12, December 2006,

Pages 1553-1572

/33/ Carruthers, W. C. Dennison, B. J. Longstaff, M. Waycott, E. G. Abal, L. J. McKenzie

and W. J. Lee Long Bulletin Of Marine Science, 71(3): 1153–1169, 2002 Seagrass

Habitats Of Northeast Australia: Models Of Key Processes And Controls

/34/ Mazzola, A., Mirto, S., Danovaro, R., 1999. Initial fish farm impact on meiofaunal

assemblages in coastal sediments of the western Mediterranean. Mar. Pollution.

Bulletin 38. Pp: 1126-1133

/35/ Carroll, M. C., Cochrane, S., Fieler, R., Velvin, R. & White, P. 2003. Organic

enrichment of sediments from salmon farming in Norway: environmental factors,

management practices and monitoring techniques. Aquaculture 226; pp:165-180

/36/ Mazzola, A., Mirto, S., Danovaro, R., 1999. Initial fish farm impact on meiofaunal

assemblages in coastal sediments of the western Mediterranean. Mar. Pollution.

Bulletin 38. Pp: 1126-1133

/37/ Gaston, G.R. and Edds. K.A. 1994. Long-term study of macrobenthic communities on

the continental shelf off Cameron, Louisiana: effects of brine and hypoxia. Gulf

Research Reports 9(1):57-64.

8-6 62800860-RPT-02

/38/ Forbes, T. L. & Lopez, G. R. 1990. The effect of food concentration, body size and

environmental oxygen tension on the growth of the deposit feeding polychaete,

Capitella species I. Limnol Oceanogr 35; pp:1535-1544.

/39/ Forbes, T. L., Forbes, V. E., Depledge, M. H. 1994. Individual physiological responses

to environmental hypoxia and organic enrichment: implications for early soft bottom

community succession. J. Mar Res. 52; pp:1081-1100.

/40/ Pearson TH, Rosenberg R (1978) Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic

enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev

16:229–311

/41/ Josefson, A. B., & Jensen, J.N. 1992. Growth patterns of Amphiura filiformis support

the hypothesis of organic enrichment in the Skagerrak-Kattegat area. Mar. Biol. 112:

pp. 615-624.

/42/ Stachowitsch, M. 1992. Benthic communities: Eutrophication's "memory mode". In:

Marine Coastal Eutrophication (Eds. R.A. Vollenweider, R. Marchetti & R. Viviani),

Science of the Total Environment, Suppl. 1992: 1017-1028.

/43/ Gray, J. S., 1992. Eutrophication in the sea. In: Columbo, G., Ferrari, I., Ceccherelli, V.

U., Rossi, R. (eds). Marine eutrophication and population dynamics. Olsen & Olsen,

Fredensborg, pp:3-15.

/44/ Burford, M. A., Costanzo, S. D., Dennison, W. C., Jackson, C. J., Jones, A. B.,

McKinnon, A. D., Preston, N. P. and Trott, L. A. 2003. A synthesis of dominant

ecological processes in intensive shrimp ponds and adjacent coastal environments in

NE Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46 (11)

/45/ Furukawa, K., Wolanski, E., Muller, H., 1997. Currents and sediment transport in

mangrove forests. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 44, pp 301-310.

/46/ Bird, E. C. F., 1971. Mangroves as land-builders. The Victorian Naturalist 88, pp 189–

197

/47/ Dempster, T.; Sanchez-Jerez, P.; Bayle-Sempere, J. and Kingsford, M. 2004:

Extensive aggregations of wild fish at coastal sea-cage fish farms. Hydrobiologia

525(1-3): 245–248.

/48/ Machias, A.; Karakassis, I.; Labropoulou, M.; Somarakis, S.; Papadopoulou, K.N. and

Papaconstantinou, C. 2004: Changes in wild fish assemblages after the establishment

Doc # 1318922 Page 23 of a fish farming zone in an oligotrophic marine ecosystem.

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 60(4): 771-779.

/49/ Dempster et al. 2004.

/50/ Dempster, T. & P. Sanchez-Jerez. 2008. Aquaculture and coastal Space management

in Europe: An Ecological Perspective. In: Holmer et al. (Eds) Aquaculture in the

Ecosystem. Chapter 3, Springer .

/51/ K. Kassem, B.Hoeksema, Affendi. YA. (eds). 2012. Semporna Marine Ecological

Expedition. WWF-Malaysia, NCB Naturalis, Universiti Malaysia Sabah. Kota Kinabalu

Malaysia.

/52/ Baker, A.N. 2005. Sensitivity of Marine Mammals found in Northland Waters to

Aquaculture Activities. Report to the Department of Conservation, Northland

Conservancy, New Zealand.

/53/ Reeves, R.R.; Smith, B.D.; Crespo. E.A. and Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. 2003:

Dolphins,Whales and Porpoises: 2002-2010 Conservation Action Plan for the World's

References

8-7

Cetaceans, IUCN/SSC Cetacean Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and

Cambridge, UK: ix + 139.

/54/ Morton, A.B. and Symonds, H.K. 2002: Displacement of Orcinus orca (L.) by high

amplitude sound in British Columbia, Canada. Ices Journal of Marine Science 59: 71-

80.

/55/ Williams, R.; Trites, A.W. and Bain, D.E. 2002: Behavioural responses of killer whales

(Orcinus orca) to whale-watching boats: opportunistic observations and experimental

approaches. Journal of Zoology, London 256: 255-270.

/56/ Richardson, W.J.; Fraker, M.A.; Wursig, B. and Wells, R.S. 1985: Behaviour of

Bowhead Whales Balaena mysticetus summering in the Beaufort Sea: reactions to

industrial activities. Biological Conservation 32: 195-230.

/57/ Foote, A.D.; Osborne, R.W. and Hoelzel, A.R. 2004: Whale-call response to masking

boat noise. Nature 428(29 April 2004): 910.

/58/ Rako, N., Fortuna, C. M., Holcer, D., Mackelworth, P., Nimak-Wood, M., Pleslic, G.,

Sebastianutto, L., Vilibic, I., Wiemann. A. & Picciulin, M. 2013. Leisure boating noise

as a trigger for the displacement of the bottlenose dolphins of the Cres-Losinj

archipelago (northern Adriatic Sea, Croatia). Marine Pollution Bulletin 68; 77-84

/59/ Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, & D.H. Thomson. 1995. Marine

Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

/60/ Ketten, Darlene R. ; Bartol, Soraya M. Functional Measures of Sea Turtle Hearing.

2005. http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-

bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA446809&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

/61/ Ketten, D.R., Fischer, I., Cramer, S., Bartol, S. M. and O’Malley, J (2003) Water, fat

and acoustic impedance: soft tissue adaptation for underwater hearing in turtle sea

birds and marine mammals Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle

Biology and Conservation, Kuala Lumpur.

/62/ Bartlett, M.L. and G.R. Wilson. 2002. Characteristics of small boat signatures. Journal

of the Acoustical Society America 112:2221.

/63/ Jensen, F.H., L. Bejder, M. Wahlberg, N. Aguilar Soto, M. Johnson & P. T. Madsen.

2009. Vessel noise effects on delphinid communication. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 395: 161

– 175.

/64/ Simmonds, M., Dolman, S. & Weilgart. L. 2004. Oceans of noise. WDSC, the Whale

and Dolphin Conservation Society.

/65/ L Huson & Associates Pty Ltd. 2009. Underwater Noise Impact Assessment for the

Gladstone LNG Project. Prepared for URS Australia Pty. Ltd. url:

http://www.santosglng.com/media/pdf41328/U2_Marine%20Noise%20FINAL%20PUB

LIC.pdf

/66/ OSPAR. 2009. Overview of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the

marine environment, VOl. OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine

Environment of the North-East Atlantic (www.ospar.org).

/67/ McCauley, R. 2008. Interim reports from trial pile driving surveys. May 2008

[qtr0809_cmst(2008a).pdf] and July 2008

[www.channelproject.com/global/docs/technical_reports/QRTR0809_CMST_(2008b).p

df]

8-8 62800860-RPT-02

/68/ Kemper, C.M. and Gibbs, S.E. 2001: Dolphin interactions with tuna feedlots at Port

Lincoln, South Australia and recommendations for minimising entanglements. Journal

of Cetacean Research and Management 3(3): 283-292.

/69/ Würsig, B. & G. A. Gailey. 2002. Marine Mammals and Aquaculture: Conflicts and

Potential Resolutions. In: Stickney, R. R. and J.P. McVey. Responsible Marine

Aquaculture. pp 45-59

/70/ Environment Waikato. 2008. Evaluation of the Impacts of Finfish Farming on Marine

Mammals in the Firth of Thames. Environment Waikato Technical Report 2008/27

Section 6

/1/ Caring For Our Communities. 2012. Metal and Biofouling Study. DHI Report For

Tassal. Funded by Australian Fisheries Resource Development Council

/2/ Third Schedule of Environmental Quality (Sewage and Industrial Effluent) Regulations

2000

/3/ Batista, I. 1986. Fish Silage: Preparation and Uses. In: Nutrition in Marine

Aquaculture. Training Session, Lisbon, 20-30 October 1986. Fisheries and

Aquaculture Department, FAO Corporate Document Repository.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/007/s5347e/s5347e08.htm

/4/ Gill, T. A. 2000. Waste from Processing Aquatic Animals and Animal Products:

Implications on Aquatic Animal Pathogen Transfer. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 956.

/5/ Arruda, L. F. de A., Borghesi, R. & Oetterer, M. 2007. Use of fish waste as silage-a

review. Food Science and Technology. Braz. arch. biol. Technol 50 (5).

/6/ Scottish Environment Protection Agency. 2005. Aquaculture Waste Minimisation

Guide. Reduce waste and save money.

/7/ Department of Environment. Guidelines for the Management and Disposal of

Wastes in Downstream Petroleum Industries. Ministry of Science, Technology and

Environment, Malaysia. 1994.

/8/ Shell Global. 2014. Spill prevention and recovery. Shell Commitment and Policy on

HSSE & Social Performance. http://www.shell.com/global/products-services/solutions-

for-businesses/marine-products/hsse/spill-prevention.html

/9/ Environmental Quality (Sewage) Regulations 2009. Section 7

Section 7

/1/ The Planning Guidelines for Environmental Noise Limits and Control. 2004.

Department of Environment Malaysia.