Comparative Environmental Assessment of
Alternative Sites
A1 Methodology
A1.1
The
evaluation procedure involves the comparison of each site against basic
environmental criteria. The broad
methodology is as follows:
¨ develop a set of main criteria for the sites to be compared against;
¨ score each site against the criteria using a grading scale;
¨ assign weightings to the criteria within each set based on the relative importance of the criteria and weight the sets of main criteria relative to each other;
¨ calculate the weighted score for each site for each set of criteria, as follows:
Weighting Average Score of Sitei = Ws x å (Sic x Wc)
where: Ws = weight of particular set of criteria.
Sic = score of sitei against a particular criterion; and
Wc = weight of a particular criterion within the criteria set.
¨ calculate the overall weighted score for each site as follows:
Overall Weighted Scope of Sitei = å (Weighted Score of Sitei)
¨ compare the weighted average for each site and rank accordingly.
A1.2
As required
in the Study Brief, Section 3.3.1.2, alternatives which avoid or minimise
impacts on the Marine Park and Chinese White Dolphin habitat have been
considered and have been factored into this assessment.
A2 Grading Scale
A2.1
The
criteria for each of the sites will be assigned with one of the following
grading scale scores based upon a low best impacts scale:
Low Impacts Best: Very Low = 1.0 High Score Best
Low = 0.75
Medium = 0.50
High = 0.25
Very High = 0.00
A3 Comparison Criteria
A3.1
Background
A3.1.1 In order to provide a reasonable
assessment of the sites enabling the
comparison and ranking of
sites, the criteria sets for the evaluation were divided
into construction and operational phases and grouped under the following major
headings, noting that cultural heritage and risk factors are relevant to only
the construction and operational phases respectively, for all sites, except for
Tsing Yi, where construction phase risk is relevant (see A3.2.14).
Construction Phase: |
Operational Phase |
¨ air quality; |
¨ air quality; |
¨ noise; |
¨ noise; |
¨ water quality; |
¨ water quality; |
¨ ecology; |
¨ ecology; |
¨ landscape and visual; |
¨ risk; and |
¨ cultural heritage; and |
¨ landscape and visual. |
¨ risk (Tsing Yi site only). |
|
A3.1.2
Each
heading was sub-divided into a number of definable items (criterion)
which each site could be scored against.
The items identified for assessment under each category are detailed
below. Each criterion was
assigned a ‘weighting proportion’ (Wc) which denotes the
relative percentage of the item as a fraction of the weighting value for the
set of criteria as a whole (Ws).
A3.2 Construction Phase Criteria
Air Quality
A3.2.1
The
construction phase air quality criterion used in the evaluation of the sites is
detailed in Table A1 below:
Table A1: Construction
Air Quality Criterion
Air Quality Criterion |
Scoring Principle |
Weighting Proportion (Wc) |
Construction Air Quality Impacts |
Sites which produce lower construction air quality impacts will be
scored higher |
100% |
A3.2.2
Potential
construction air quality impacts will be in the form of dust impacts associated
with the formation of any required reclamation, and works for the construction
of the facility and infrastructure.
The assessment will include dust blown from open areas of the site to
any adjacent air sensitive receivers.
Noise
A3.2.3
The
construction phase noise criteria used in the evaluation of the sites are
detailed in Table A2 below:
Table A2: Construction
Phase Noise Criteria
Noise Criteria |
Scoring Principle |
Weighting Proportion (Wc) |
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
Sites which produce lower above ground noise impacts will be scored
higher |
20% |
Underwater
Noise
Impacts |
Sites which produce lower underwater noise impacts will be scored
higher |
80% |
A3.2.4
Above
ground noise will be largely associated with the construction of a reclamation,
if required, and the tank farm and associated infrastructure at
all sites. Underwater noise may
occur as a result of reclamation formation, jetty and pipeline construction and
the key sensitive receivers for underwater noise are the Chinese White Dolphins
(North Lantau Waters) and, seasonally in south Lantau waters, the Finless
Porpoises (South Lantau Waters).
Given the sensitivity of these receivers to underwater noise, this
category has been weighted much higher than the above ground noise category because
NSRs are distant from all sites and
noise can be mitigated
through selection of construction methods and equipment which has
deemed it less significant.
Water
Quality
A3.2.5
The
construction phase water quality criterion used in the evaluation of the sites
is detailed in Table A3 below:
Table A3: Construction Phase Water Quality Criterion
Water Quality Criterion |
Scoring Principle |
Weighting Proportion (Wc) |
Water Quality Impacts |
Sites which produce lower water quality impacts will be scored higher |
100% |
A3.2.6
Potential
construction water quality impacts are associated with dredging for any
required reclamation and approach channels and the placing of sand where
required. Water quality impacts could be potentially widespread due to pipeline
dredging and impacts on water quality objectives could occur in the short
term. Hydraulic changes associated
with newly formed reclamation and the jetty are considered to be associated
with the operational phase and thus are not included in this criterion.
Ecology
A3.2.7
The
construction phase ecology criteria used in the evaluation of the sits are
detailed in Table A4 below:
Table A4: Construction
Phase Ecology Criteria
Ecology Criteria |
Scoring Principle |
Weighting Proportion (Wc) |
Marine Fauna Impacts |
Sites which produce the least impacts on marine ecology will be
scored higher |
65% |
Designated Sensitive Ecological Receivers (incl. Marine Park, SSSI) |
Sites which produce lower impacts on designated ecological receivers
will be scored higher |
35% |
A3.2.8
Construction
activities including formation of the reclamation for a number of the sites and
the construction of the jetty and the pipeline for all sites could cause
deterioration in water quality which could have potential effects on marine
ecology in the short term, including the Chinese White Dolphins, finless
porpoises, fisheries and benthic species.
There would possibly also be for both permanent
and temporary habitat losses and thus this category has been allotted a
relatively high weighting. The Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park was
designated in November 1996 with the aim of maintaining and enhancing the area,
to control development activities and maintain the well-being of and minimise
disturbance to the Chinese White Dolphins. Marine Parks are also shortly to
be gazetted surrounding the Soko islands and encompassing western Lantau. There
are also a number of other sensitive areas in the location of some of
these sites, including gazetted beaches and SSSI’s. The weighting of this category is relatively high to reflect
the importance of minimising impacts on these current or future designated areas.
A3.2.9
Potential
impacts on the Chinese White Dolphins and Finless Porpoises from submarine
noise could also occur. As such
potential impacts are considered under the noise criteria set and to avoid
double counting, such impacts are not considered separately here.
Landscape and Visual
A3.2.10 The construction phase landscape and
visual criteria used in the evaluation of the sites are detailed in Table A5
below:
Table A5: Construction
Phase Landscape and Visual Criteria
Landscape and Visual Criteria |
Scoring Principle |
Weighting Proportion (Wc) |
Baseline Landscape Resources |
Sites which produce the least impacts on landscape resource will be
scored higher |
40% |
Visual Impacts |
Sites which produce lower visual impacts will be scored higher |
60% |
A3.2.11 The potential impacts are based upon the
nature and quality of the surrounding landscape resources and its sensitivity
to changes together with the numbers of viewers, their frequency and duration
of viewing. Given the nature of
the proposed facility, disturbances to the landscape elements may in some cases be significant and changes to visual quality may also be relatively
high due to permanent intrusion of built elements for the PAFF. Visual impacts have been afforded a
slightly higher weighting.
Cultural Heritage
A3.2.12 The construction phase cultural heritage
criteria used in the evaluation of the sites are detailed in Table A6 below:
Table A6: Construction Phase Cultural Heritage Criteria
Cultural Heritage Criteria |
Scoring Principle |
Weighting Proportion (Wc) |
Terrestrial Cultural Heritage Impacts |
Sites which produce the least impacts on terrestrial cultural
heritage will be scored higher |
20% |
Marine Archaeological Impacts |
Sites which produce lower impacts on marine archaeology will be
scored higher |
80% |
A3.2.13 Construction of the PAFF in all cases will
be on formed land, which will have no terrestrial cultural heritage
importance, although indirect effects on any designated archaeological sites or
historic structures will need to be assessed. Due to the extent of proposed marine works and the
associated potential for direct impacts on marine archaeological resources, a
higher significance has been placed on the second category, as reflected by its
relative weighting.
Risk
A3.2.14 The construction phase risk criterion
that will be used in the evaluation of Sites is detailed in Table A7 below:
Table
A7: Construction
Phase Risk Criterion
Risk Criterion |
Scoring Principle |
Weighting Proportion (WC) |
Hazard to Life |
Sites which
affect the least number of people will be scored higher |
100% |
A3.2.15 Construction of the jetty and subsea
pipelines at PAFF will (at Tsing Yi only) be in close proximity to DG vessels
en route to, manoeuvring or berthed at adjacent PHI facilities. Accordingly, there is a potential
hazard to life through errant movements of construction equipment during the
construction of the Jetty at Tsing Yi.
A3.3 Operational Phase Criteria
Air Quality
A3.3.1
The
operational phase air quality criterion used in the evaluation of the sites is
detailed in Table A8 below:
Table A8: Operational
Phase Air Quality Criterion
Air Quality Criterion |
Scoring Principle |
Weighting Proportion (Wc) |
Operational Air Quality Impacts |
Sites which produce lower operational air quality impacts will be
scored higher |
100% |
A3.3.2
Potential
operational impacts will relate to fugitive emissions from the plant and the
vessels delivering the fuel to the PAFF.
While these impacts will be for the duration of the facility operation,
significant impacts are not expected.
Noise
A3.3.3
The
operational phase noise criteria used in the evaluation of the sites are
detailed in Table A9 below:
Table A9: Operational
Phase Noise Criteria
Noise Criteria |
Scoring Principle |
Weighting Proportion (Wc) |
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
Sites which produce lower above ground noise impacts will be scored
higher |
30% |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
Sites which produce lower underwater noise impacts will be scored
higher |
70% |
A3.3.4
Above
ground noise during the operational phase will result from the general
operation of the plant including berthing and maintenance activities. Overall, noise levels are not expected
to be significant. Underwater
noise during the operational phase will may occur as a result of vessel
movement and berthing and the key sensitive receivers for underwater noise are
the Chinese White Dolphins and the Finless Porpoises. Given their sensitivity to
underwater noise and the difficulty in mitigating these potential impacts, this
category has been weighted much higher than the above ground noise category.
Water Quality
A3.3.5
The
operational phase water quality criterion used in the
evaluation of the sites are detailed in Table A10 below:
Table A10: Operational Phase Water Quality Criterion
Water Quality Criterion |
Scoring Principle |
Weighting Proportion (Wc) |
Water Quality Impacts |
Sites which produce lower water quality impacts will be scored higher |
100% |
A3.3.6
Potential
water quality impacts during the operational phase could result from the
changes in sea bed conditions resulting from the need to create suitable vessel
access to the berth, including both approach channel and turning basin at the
jetty, and the associated potential long term impacts on marine fauna. Hydraulic changes may occur because of newly formed land for sites where reclamation is
required, and around the jetty, which could cause local
scour/sedimentation. The potential
impacts are expected to be localised but as hydraulic changes may lead to the requirement for localised dredging, this factor has also been included
in this criteria. The facility will operate a zero discharge policy
for the jetty and any land based discharges will be controlled via a license
under the Water Pollution Control Ordinance. Based upon this, water quality impacts from polluted discharges
are not predicted to be significant.
Ecology
A3.3.7
The
operational phase ecology criterion that will be used in the evaluation of the
sites is detailed in Table A11 below:
Table A11: Operational
Phase Ecology Criterion
Ecology Criterion |
Scoring Principle |
Weighting Proportion (Wc) |
Marine Fauna Impacts |
Sites which produce less impacts on marine ecology will be scored
higher |
100% |
A3.3.8
Potential
impacts on marine fauna could occur as a result of changes in water
quality as a result of maintenance dredging. Other potential operational ecological
impacts are limited to collision risks of vessels with Chinese White Dolphins
or Finless Porpoises. While the
increased traffic associated with the operation of the facility, initially up to 2 vessel movements per week, will not be significant in terms of collision risk,
the sensitivity of this sensitive receiver warrants that this be taken into
account.
A3.3.9
Key
potential ecological impacts during the operational stage will be associated
with any accidental oil spillage at the jetty and resulting from any damage to
the tanks or pipeline. These factors are dealt with under the risk category and
to avoid double counting are not considered separately here. Also, underwater
noise impacts on the Chinese White Dolphins or Finless Porpoises could occur
but such potential impacts are considered under the noise criteria and not
considered separately here.
Risk
A3.3.10 The operational phase risk criteria that
will be used in the evaluation of the sites are detailed in Table A12 below:
Table A12: Operational
Phase Risk Criteria
Risk Criteria |
Scoring Principle |
Weighting Proportion (Wc) |
Hazard to Life |
Sites which affect the least number of people will be scored higher |
55% |
Environmental Risk |
Sites which produce lower environmental risk will be scored higher |
45% |
A3.3.11 Environmental risk relates to impacts
resulting on the environment, particularly water quality and
ecology, from an accident at the fuel facility, be it a spill or fire. The environmental impacts of a fuel
spill are particularly key and an assessment of the effects has been included
in this category. Hazard to life
relates to the potential for loss of life in the event of such
an accident. In both cases,
mitigation and contingency plans can be prepared and implemented to reduce the
levels of risk to within acceptable risk levels. However, the hazard to life
category is weighted higher to reflect the significance of a loss of life.
Landscape and Visual
A3.3.12 The operational phase landscape and
visual criteria that will be used in the evaluation of the sites are detailed
in Table A13 below:
Table A13: Operational Phase Landscape and Visual Criteria
Landscape and Visual Criteria |
Scoring Principle |
Weighting Proportion (Wc) |
Baseline Landscape Resources |
Sites which produce the least impacts on landscape resource will be
scored higher |
40% |
Visual Impacts |
Sites which produce lower visual impacts will be scored higher |
60% |
A3.3.13 The potential impacts will be based upon
the nature and quality of the surrounding landscape resources and their sensitivity
to changes and the numbers of viewers, their frequency and duration of viewing.
Given the nature of the proposed facility, disturbances to the landscape
elements may in some cases be significant and changes to
visual quality may also be relatively high due to permanent
intrusion of built elements for the PAFF. Visual impacts have been afforded a
slightly higher weighting.
A3.4 Weighting Criteria
A3.4.1
For the
comparison of each of the PAFF sites, a weighting set has been defined which
best represents a reasonable and balanced basis for a fair and
objective environmental comparative assessment of these sites and has been
formulated to allow a purely environmental comparison of each site option
with the others.
Table A14: Construction
Weighting Criteria
Criteria Group |
Balanced Weighting Set (Ws) (relative importance) |
Air Quality |
10 |
Noise |
15 |
Water Quality |
20 |
Ecology |
30 |
Landscape and Visual |
15 |
Cultural Heritage |
10 |
TOTAL |
100 |
Risk (Tsing Yi) |
35 |
TOTAL |
135 |
A3.4.2
The
rationale for assigning these weightings for the construction phase is as
follows:
¨ potential air quality impacts can be mitigated and in view of the quite large distance to the closest sensitive receivers during the construction phase this category has been assigned a relatively low weighting;
¨ as with air, potential above ground noise impacts during construction can be mitigated to acceptable levels. However, given the sensitivity of the Chinese White Dolphins and Finless Porpoises to underwater noise and the potential effects on its echolocation, this category has been allotted a higher weighting than air quality impacts;
¨ potential impacts on water quality will be direct and, while largely reversible, could be widespread during the construction phase and could affect the Water Quality Objectives in the short term. Thus this criteria has been assigned a relatively high weighting;
¨ in respect of ecology, there is potential for impacts on fauna, habitats and ecosystems which are sensitive to change. Some permanent impacts may also occur and based upon this, the highest weighting has been assigned;
¨ in respect of landscape and visual, most of the options are in locations which are already highly disturbed and have been subject to previous development. However, the number of visual receivers is in general high and they are of mixed sensitivity. Based upon this, a moderate weighting has been assigned to this category; and
¨ direct marine archaeological impacts are possible most of the area within which potential sites have been considered have been highly disturbed by development, fill and borrow areas, maintenance dredging and the like. Based upon this and the fact that mitigation can be applied in the form of rescue excavation if required, a low weighting has been given to this criterion.
¨ risk is assigned the same relative weighting as adopted in the Operational phase for the same reason. However, during construction, risk only affects Tsing Yi.
A3.4.3
The
weighting criteria for the operational phase is summarised in Table A15 below:
Table A15: Operational
Weighting Criteria
Criteria Group |
Balanced Weighting Set (Ws) (Percentage relative importance) |
Air Quality |
5 |
Noise |
10 |
Water Quality |
15 |
Ecology |
20 |
Risk |
35 |
Landscape and Visual |
15 |
TOTALS |
100% |
A3.4.4
The
rationale for assigning these weightings for the operations phase is as
follows:
¨ potential operational air quality impacts associated with fugitive emissions are expected to be small and can be mitigated through proper plant and operational design and operational procedures. Based upon this, this category has been assigned a low weighting;
¨ above ground noise impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels. However, given the sensitivity of the Chinese White Dolphins and Finless Porpoises to underwater noise and the effects on its echolocation, this category has been allotted a higher weighting than air quality impacts;
¨ potential operational water quality impacts will be direct and while largely localised will be long term. To reflect this, a moderate weighting has been assigned;
¨ potential ecological impacts are associated with the deterioration of water quality as a result of maintenance dredging and impacts will be long term and could effect a number of sensitive marine fauna. Based upon this, a relatively high weighting has been assigned;
¨ careful design and the implementation of operating procedures and processes can reduce the levels of risk associated with such a facility to within the required safety margins. However, based upon the high profile nature of risks to the public and environment and the fact that this is a key issue for the operation of such a facility, the highest weighting has been allotted;
¨ in respect of landscape and visual, potential impacts will be long term and difficult to mitigate given the nature of the facility. A number of mixed sensitivity sensitive receivers may have views of some of the sites. However, in a number of cases the sites are in locations which are already highly disturbed and have been subject to previous development. Based upon this, a moderate weighting has been assigned to this category.
A4.1 Introduction
A4.1.1
Grading
scale ratings and associated numerical scores have been assigned to each of the
assessment criteria in accordance with the grading categories detailed in
Section A3. The numerical scores enable, after summation, the sites to be
ranked in order of preference, enabling an overall qualitative selection
of the ‘best’ option to be made on purely environmental grounds.
A4.1.2
The summary
tables in Sections A4.2 and A4.3 provide detail on the rationale behind how
score allocations for the construction and operational phases were derived
respectively. An overall summary
of the site evaluation and ranking is presented in Table A32 for the
construction phase and Table A33 for the operational phase.
A4.2 Construction Phase Criteria
A4.2.1
Summary and
justifications for each site are provided in Tables A16 to A23.
Table
A16 Site 1 - Bluff
Point
Description
of Site
¨ Existing Water Depth: 10 metres (Dredging Required)
¨ Access Channel: 3500 metres (Dredging Required)
¨ Turning Basin: size approx 1100m X 500m wide (Dredging Required)
¨ Volume of Capital Dredging: 7.7 million m3 approx.
¨ Reclamation for tank farm: Approx 2.7 million m3
¨ Pristine seabed area affected: 143 Ha
¨ New Pipeline: 5km (Twin Subsea pipelines)
Construction
Phase Criterion |
Score |
Justification |
Air Quality |
||
Construction Air Quality Impacts |
L |
Reclamation required, sand backfill
has potential for dust generation, however site is remote from ASR's. |
Noise |
||
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
L |
Significant impacts are unlikely
and there are no nearby NSR's.
Any significant noise can be avoided by mitigation measures. |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
L |
Dolphin monitoring records show
that adjacent waters are used by CWD's and there is some potential for noise
impact. |
Water Quality |
||
Water Quality Impacts |
L |
Reclamation required along with
substantial capital dredging to form the access channel and turning basin,
although the requirement is less than for Sham Wat. Sediment losses will however be localised and water
quality impacts are therefore not judged to be very significant. |
Ecology |
||
Marine Faunal Impacts |
H |
The need for reclamation, access
channel and turning basin means there is significant potential for permanent
habitat loss of benthic fauna, along with associated secondary impacts. Less extensive requirements than at
Sham Wat. |
Designated Sensitive Ecological
Receivers |
M |
The San Tau SSSI has the potential
to be affected by the works with its seagrass beds and species of conservation
interest as does the adjacent North Lantau coastline, which has ecological
value, in particular the mangroves at Tai O. Waters off western Lantau are shortly to be gazetted as a
Marine Park. |
Landscape and Visual |
||
Landscape Resource |
M |
Requires new land adjacent to the
relatively undeveloped North Lantau coastline and existing land use of nearby
land is incompatible. |
Visual Impacts |
H |
Significant disturbance to the
existing visual context, including visitors to the adjacent part of North
Lantau. |
Cultural Heritage |
||
Terrestrial Cultural Heritage |
VL |
Will be on reclaimed land with no
terrestrial archaeological sites suffering any disturbance. |
Marine Archaeology |
H |
Potential for the proposed
reclamation area, access channel, turning basin and pipeline alignment to
disturb previously undisturbed areas of high archaeological potential. |
Risk |
||
Construction Stage Risk |
VL |
Insignificant construction phase
risk. |
Table
A17 Site 2 - East
of Soko Islands
Description
of Site
¨ Existing Water Depth: 10 metres (Dredging Required)
¨ Access Channel: 3500 metres (Dredging Required)
¨ Turning Basin: size approx. 1100m X 500m wide (Dredging Required)
¨ Volume of capital Dredging: 7.7 million m3 approx.
¨ Reclamation for tank farm: Approx 2.7 million m3
¨ Pristine seabed area affected 133 Ha (plus pipeline 57 maximum Ha, if not in bored tunnel)
¨ New pipeline 14km Bored Tunnel, 27 km twin subsea pipelines
Construction
Phase Criterion |
Score |
Justification |
Air Quality |
|
|
Construction Air Quality Impacts |
L |
Reclamation and associated work has
potential for dust generation, however site is remote from ASR's. |
Noise |
|
|
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
VL |
No nearby NSR's. |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
H |
Chinese White Dolphins are seasonal
visitors to the Soko Islands and Finless porpoises are also commonly sighted
in adjacent waters particularly in winter and spring. |
Water Quality |
|
|
Water Quality Impacts |
M |
The potential requirement for
reclamation along with capital dredging for access channel/turning basin
means that there is potential for some, albeit short-term, water quality
impacts from sediment loss to suspension. This area is less influenced by Pearl River sediment
budgets that some North Lantau Waters sites and a higher score reflects this. |
Ecology |
|
|
Marine Faunal Impacts |
VH |
The need for reclamation, capital
dredging and pipeline would lead to potential for permanent habitat loss with
secondary, albeit minor, impacts or fish and other supported communities in
the Soko Islands and SW Lantau area. |
Designated Sensitive Ecological
Receivers |
H |
The proposal to designate Southwest
Lantau and Soko Islands as two Marine Parks is at an advanced stage, with
designation expected in 2002. |
Landscape and Visual |
|
|
Landscape Resource |
M |
Requires development and new land
in an area previously undisturbed.
The value of the 'natural' landscape resource will be elevated when
the Marine Park is designated. |
Visual Impacts |
M |
The existing visual context is
undisturbed and pristine, which would be impacted significantly if a PAFF
developed here. |
|
|
|
Cultural Heritage |
|
|
Terrestrial Cultural Heritage |
VL |
No terrestrial archaeological sites
would be disturbed. |
Marine Archaeology |
H |
High potential for disturbance of
previously undisturbed areas of the seabed with high marine archaeology
potential. |
Risk |
|
|
Construction Stage Risk |
VL |
Negligible construction phase risk
expected. |
Table
A18 Site 3 - Kau
Yi Chau
Description of Site
¨ Existing Water Depth: 10 metres (Dredging Required)
¨ Access Channel: 1500metres (Dredging Required)
¨ Turning Basin: size approx. 1100m X 500m wide (Dredging Required)
¨ Volume of Capital Dredging: 6.2 million m3 approx
¨ Reclamation for tank farm: Approx 2.7 million m3
¨ Pristine seabed area affected: 100 Ha
¨ New pipeline 16km (Bored tunnel)
Construction
Phase Criterion |
Score |
Justification |
Air Quality |
||
Construction Air Quality Impacts |
L |
Reclamation and associated work has
potential for dust generation, however site is remote from ASR's. |
Noise |
||
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
VL |
No nearby NSR's. |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
L |
Chinese White Dolphin/Finless
Porpoise sitings in the area are rare but of significance. |
Water Quality |
||
Water Quality Impacts |
M |
Reclamation would be required along
with capital dredging for access channel/turning basin. Sediment losses to suspension would
however be localised. |
Ecology |
||
Marine Faunal Impacts |
M |
The need for reclamation and
capital dredging would lead to potential for permanent habitat loss for
benthic fauna along with associated secondary impacts. |
Designated Sensitive Ecological
Receivers |
M |
Impacts on designated marine ecological
receivers is expected to be
significant, since there is potential for impacts in nearby fish culture
zones. |
Landscape and Visual |
||
Landscape Resource |
M |
Requires development and new land
in a relatively undisturbed area within view of West Hong Kong Island and the
harbour and extensive ferry traffic. |
Visual Impacts |
M |
Disturbance to existing visual
context of area, highly visible from West HK Island and ferry passengers. |
Cultural Heritage |
||
Terrestrial Cultural Heritage |
VL |
No terrestrial archaeological sites
will be disturbed. |
Marine Archaeology |
M |
Some potential for disturbance to
previously undisturbed areas of the seabed with high archaeological
potential. |
Risk |
||
Construction Stage Risk |
VL |
Negligible construction phase risk
expected. |
Table
A19 Site 4 - Sham
Shui Kok
Description
of Site
¨ Existing Water Depth: 10 metres (Dredging Required)
¨ Access Channel: 3000 metres (Dredging Required)
¨ Turning Basin: size approx. 1100m X 500m wide (Dredging Required)
¨ Volume of Capital Dredging: 6.7 million m3 approx.
¨ Reclamation for tank farm: Approx 2.2 million m3
¨ Pristine seabed area affected 133 Ha
¨ New Pipeline: 7km Twin Subsea Pipelines
Construction
Phase Criterion |
Score |
Justification |
Air Quality |
||
Construction Air Quality Impacts |
M |
Reclamation required, sand backfill
has potential for dust generation, however site is remote from ASR's,
supplementary tanks may be constructed when planned residential developments
go ahead in the future. |
Noise |
||
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
M |
While significant impacts are
unlikely and can be avoided through mitigation, the close proximity of future
NSR's to future works means some potential impacts. |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
L |
Dolphin monitoring records show
that adjacent waters do not have a high density of Chinese White Dolphin sightings. |
Water Quality |
||
Water Quality Impacts |
M |
Reclamation required and
significant capital dredging to form the access channel and turning
basin. Sediment losses to
suspension will however be localised and water quality impacts are therefore
only given a 'low' score. |
Ecology |
||
Marine Faunal Impacts |
H |
Based on the need for the
reclamation, turning basin and access channel there is quite significant
potential for permanent habitat loss of benthic fauna along with secondary
impacts. |
Designated Sensitive Ecological
Receivers |
M |
The San Tau SSSI has the potential
to be affected by the pipeline construction with its seagrass beds, and
species of conservation interest, as does Tai Ho Bay which also has a
mangrove stand and is an SSSI. However, the scale of impacts would not be
very significant. |
Landscape and Visual |
||
Landscape Resource |
M |
Requires new land adjacent to and
in view of the North Lantau highway and Airport Express, but in an area with
existing industrial usage. This
site falls within the proposed waterfront promenade and next to proposed
mixed development. |
Visual Impacts |
H |
There will be disturbance to the
existing visual context, including North Lantau Country Park visitors, users
of the North Lantau Highway and Airport Express and future nearby residents
and promenaders. |
Cultural Heritage |
||
Terrestrial Cultural Heritage |
VL |
Will be on reclaimed land with no
archaeological sites nearby. |
Marine Archaeology |
H |
Potential for the proposed
reclaimed area, access channel turning basin and pipeline alignment to
disturb previously undisturbed areas of high archaeological potential. |
Risk |
||
Construction Stage Risk |
VL |
Insignificant construction phase
risk. |
Table
A20 Site 5 - Sham
Wat
Description
of Site
¨ Existing Water Depth: 5 metres (Dredging Required)
¨ Access Channel: 6000 metres (Dredging Required)
¨ Turning Basin: size approx. 1100m X 500m wide (Dredging Required)
¨ Volume of Capital Dredging: 15.45 million m3 approx.
¨ Reclamation for tank farm: approx. 2.2 million m3
¨ Pristine seabed area affected 193 Ha
¨ New Pipeline: 2.5km (Twin Subsea Pipelines)
Construction
Phase Criterion |
Score |
Justification |
Air Quality |
||
Construction Air Quality Impacts |
L |
Reclamation required, sand backfill
has potential for dust generation, however site is remote from ASR's. |
Noise |
||
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
L |
Significant impacts are unlikely
and there are no nearby NSR's.
Any significant noise can be avoided by mitigation measures. |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
L |
Dolphin monitoring records show
that adjacent waters are used by CWD's and there is some potential for noise
impact. |
Water Quality |
||
Water Quality Impacts |
M |
Reclamation required along with
significant capital dredging to form the access channel and turning
basin. Sediment losses will
however be localised and water quality impacts are therefore judged to be of
only moderate significance. |
Ecology |
||
Marine Faunal Impacts |
VH |
The need for reclamation and a
substantial access channel and turning basin means there is significant
potential for permanent habitat loss of benthic fauna, along with associated
secondary impacts. |
Designated Sensitive Ecological
Receivers |
M |
The San Tau SSSI has the potential
to be affected by the works with its seagrass beds and species of
conservation interest as does the adjacent North Lantau coastline which has
ecological value. Sham Wat
itself also has mangroves. |
Landscape and Visual |
||
Landscape Resource |
M |
Requires new land adjacent to the
relatively undeveloped North Lantau coastline and existing land use of nearby
land is incompatible. |
Visual Impacts |
H |
Significant disturbance to the
existing visual context, including visitors to this part of North Lantau. |
Cultural Heritage |
||
Terrestrial Cultural Heritage |
VL |
Will be on reclaimed land with no
terrestrial archaeological sites suffering any disturbance. |
Marine Archaeology |
H |
Potential for the proposed
reclamation area, access channel, turning basin and pipeline alignment to
disturb previously undisturbed areas of high marine archaeological potential. |
Risk |
||
Construction Stage Risk |
VL |
Insignificant construction phase
risk. |
Table
A21 Site 6 - Tsing
Yi
Description
of Site
¨ Existing Water Depth: 20 metres
¨ No Access Channel or Manoeuvring Basin are required
¨ No reclamation required
¨ Pristine seabed area affected by pipeline: 40Ha (if pipeline is all subsea)
¨ New Pipeline 18km (Bored Tunnel or twin subsea / land pipeline)
Construction
Phase Criterion |
Score |
Justification |
Air Quality |
||
Construction Air Quality Impacts |
VL |
No reclamation required, remote
from ASR's and residential. |
Noise |
||
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
VL |
No nearby NSR's. |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
VL |
No nearby underwater NSR's. |
Water Quality |
|
|
Water Quality Impacts |
VL |
No reclamation, deep water access. |
Ecology |
||
Marine Faunal Impacts |
L |
Limited additional impacts expected
on already highly disturbed area. |
Designated Sensitive Ecological
Receivers |
VL |
No nearby sensitive ecological
receivers. |
Landscape and Visual |
||
Landscape Resource |
L |
In an area with extensive existing
(and similar) industrial use. |
Visual Impacts |
L |
Limited disturbance to the existing
visual context of South Tsing Yi
Island. |
Cultural Heritage |
||
Terrestrial Cultural Heritage |
VL |
Adjacent land areas already
developed with similar industry and land use, no undisturbed archaeological
sites nearby. |
Marine Archaeology |
VL |
Required construction work unlikely
to disturb previously undisturbed areas of high archaeological potential. |
Risk |
||
Construction Stage Risk |
H |
Construction undertaken in close
proximity to DG vessels manoeuvring and berthing at adjacent PHI facilities. |
Table
A22 Site 7 - Tuen
Mun Area 38
Description
of Site
¨ Existing Water Depth: 18 metres
¨ No Access Channel or Manoeuvring Basin are required
¨ No reclamation required
¨ Pristine seabed area affected by pipeline: less than 10Ha
¨ New Pipeline 5km (Twin Subsea Pipelines)
Construction Phase
Criterion |
Score |
Justification |
Air Quality |
||
Construction Air Quality Impacts |
VL |
No reclamation required; distant
air sensitive receivers, therefore no dust nuisance, AQO's not expected to be
impacted and effective mitigation measures possible. |
Noise |
||
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
VL |
No nearby NSR's. |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
H |
Site adjacent to waters abundant
with Chinese White Dolphins; construction noise may result in need for
mitigation measures; but area already subject to high noise levels from existing
marine traffic. |
Water Quality |
||
Water Quality Impacts |
VL |
No reclamation or capital/dredging
required, no significant impacts on WQO's expected from pipeline
installation; high natural SS levels in area. |
Ecology |
||
Marine Faunal Impacts |
L |
Impacts largely related to any water quality deterioration
arising from construction, but marine fauna already adapted to relatively
high SS levels of the area. |
Designated Sensitive Ecological
Receivers |
VL |
Although the site is relatively
close to the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park, the potential for
impacts on species of conservation interest (including dolphins) is not
considered significant. |
Landscape and Visual |
||
Landscape Resource |
L |
Located on already reclaimed land
designated for industrial use, in an area of generally low landscape quality. |
Visual Impacts |
L |
There will be some disturbance to
the existing visual context, but this will be minor. |
Cultural Heritage |
||
Terrestrial Cultural Heritage |
VL |
On already formed land with no
archaeological sites nearby. |
Marine Archaeology |
L |
Potential for the pipeline
alignments to pass through undisturbed areas of high archaeological potential
exists, But over a relative by short length. |
Risk |
||
Construction Stage Risk |
VL |
Negligible construction phase risk
expected. |
Table A23 Site 8 - Tuen Mun West
Description
of Site
¨ Existing Water Depth 10: metres (Dredging Required)
¨ Access Channel: None
¨ Turning Basin: size approx. 1100m X 500m wide (Dredging Required)
¨ Volume of Capital Dredging: 5.45 million m3 approx.
¨ Reclamation for tank farm: Approx 2.7 million m3
¨ Pristine seabed area affected: 92 Ha
¨ New Pipeline: 9km (Twin Subsea Pipelines)
Other Factors
Dredging for pipeline will have an impact on the cooling water for Castle Peak power station. The subsea pipelines will also need to avoid the sewer outfall from Lung Kwu Sheung Tan.
Construction
Phase Criterion |
Score |
Justification |
Air Quality |
|
|
Construction Air Quality Impacts |
M |
Reclamation required, sand backfill
has potential for dust generation, however site is some distance from nearby
village ASR's. Effective
mitigation measures possible. |
Noise |
|
|
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
M |
Significant impacts are unlikely,
however, village NSR's are quite distant. Significant noise can be avoided by mitigation measures. |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
H |
Site adjacent to waters abundant
with CWD's; construction noise may result in need for mitigation measures,
although underwater noise already high in the area from existing marine
traffic. |
Water Quality |
|
|
Water Quality Impacts |
M |
Reclamation required along with
significant capital dredging to form the access channel and turning
basin. Sediment losses will
however be localised and water quality impacts are therefore not judged
significant. |
Ecology |
|
|
Marine Faunal Impacts |
H |
The need for reclamation, an access
channel and turning basin means there is significant potential for permanent
habitat loss of benthic fauna, along with associated secondary impacts. |
Designated Sensitive Ecological
Receivers |
M |
The Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau
Marine Park is relatively close, although there is only modest potential for
impacts on species of conservation interest. |
|
|
|
Landscape and Visual |
|
|
Landscape Resource |
M |
Requires new land in as yet
undeveloped bay area, although some nearby land uses are compatible. (e.g.
Black Point Power Station) |
Visual Impacts |
M |
Some disturbance to the existing
visual context. |
Cultural Heritage |
|
|
Terrestrial Cultural Heritage |
VL |
Will be on reclaimed land with no
terrestrial archaeological sites suffering any disturbance. |
Marine Archaeology |
H |
Requirement for seabed disturbance
is high, with attendant high potential to disturb previously undisturbed
areas of high archaeological potential. |
Risk |
|
|
Construction Stage Risk |
VL |
Insignificant construction phase
risk. |
A4.3 Operational Phase Criteria
A4.3.1 Summary and justifications for each site are provided in Tables A24 to A31.
Table A24 Site 1 - Bluff Point
Description
of Operational Aspects
¨ Volume of Maintenance dredging every 3 to 4 years: 0.5 million m3
¨ Area of seabed affected by maintenance dredging: 50Ha
¨ Continued regular barging of fuel is required to Sha Chau to keep fuel in the pipeline fresh
¨ Sensitive receivers: Close proximity to the sensitive (unspoilt) North Lantau Coastline
¨ Nearby population: None
Operation Phase
Criterion |
Score |
Justification |
Air
Quality |
||
Operation Air Quality Impacts |
VL |
Impacts of fugitive emissions
during handling and storage of fuel and vessel delivery emissions are
expected to be negligible for the duration of the life of the facility and within
AQO's. |
Noise |
||
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
VL |
Above ground noise generation is
expected to be infrequent and insignificant given the low number of berthing
requirements. |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
L |
Underwater noise associated with
PAFF activity and vessel deliveries will not be significant, but quiet
existing background noise levels means there is potential for some impact. |
Water Quality |
||
Water Quality Impacts |
M |
Intermittent requirement for access
channel/ turning basin maintenance dredging, resulting in periodic localised
elevations in suspended solids. |
Ecology |
||
Marine Faunal Impacts |
L |
Intermittent maintenance dredging may result in on-going
disturbance to the sea bed as well as potential impacts to fisheries and
coral resources and the San Tau SSSI, as well as mangroves at Tai O. Overall, impacts will not be
significant. In addition, SW
Lantau may shortly be designated as a Marine Park, with greater importance
attached to minimising any disturbance to the area. |
Risk |
||
Hazard to Life |
VL |
Hazards to life posed by the jetty
tank farm and pipeline are considered limited. No nearby populations present here. |
Environmental Risk |
M |
The risks of significant fuel
spillage is very low, but in the very unlikely event of a spill incident
nearby, sensitive ecological resources may be adversely impacted. Potential designation of SW Lantau as
a Marine Park enhance the value of the local ecological resources. |
Landscape & Visual |
||
Landscape Resource |
H |
The PAFF facility and vessel
movements will impact the local landscape context given the pristine nature
of the adjacent coastline and local environment and Country Park and future
Marine Park Designation. |
Visual Impacts |
H |
Potential for significant impact on
the visual quality of the area given the undeveloped nature of the adjacent
coastline. |
Table A25 Site 2 - East of Soko
Islands
Description of Operational
Aspects
¨ Volume of Maintenance dredging every 3 to 4 years: 0.5 million m3
¨ Area of seabed affected by maintenance dredging: 50Ha
¨ Continued regular barging of fuel is required to Sha Chau to keep fuel in the pipeline fresh
¨ Maintenance of Bored Tunnel is required (if Bored Tunnel is used)
¨ Sensitive receivers: close proximity to the proposed Marine Park
¨ Nearby population: None
Operation Phase
Criterion |
Score |
Justification |
Air Quality |
||
Operation Air Quality Impacts |
VL |
Impacts of fugitive emissions
during handling and storage of fuel and vessel delivery emissions are
expected to be negligible for the duration of the life of the facility and
within AQO's. |
Noise |
||
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
VL |
Above ground noise generation is
expected to be infrequent and insignificant given the low number of berthing
requirements. |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
VL |
Underwater noise associated with
PAFF activity and vessels is unlikely to be discernible above background due
to existing levels of marine traffic (e.g. Macau Ferries). |
Water Quality |
||
Water Quality Impacts |
M |
There will be an intermittent
requirement for access channel and turning basin maintenance dredging
resulting in periodic localised elevations in suspended solids. |
Ecology |
||
Marine Faunal Impacts |
VH |
Intermittent maintenance dredging may result in ongoing
disturbance to the sea bed as well as associated secondary ecological
impacts. The value of the
ecological resource will be elevated when the Soko Islands Marine Park is
designated. |
Risk |
||
Hazard to Life |
VL |
Hazards to life not significant
given remoteness of location. |
Environmental Risk |
H |
The risks of significant fuel
spillage is very low, but in the very unlikely event of a spill incident
nearby sensitive ecological resources may be adversely impacted. |
Landscape & Visual |
||
Landscape Resource |
M |
The PAFF facility and vessel
movements will impact the local landscape context given the undeveloped
nature of the adjacent coastline.
Potential designation of marine waters around the Soko Islands as a
Marine Park will increase the value of the natural environment. |
Visual Impacts |
M |
Potential for significant impact on
the visual quality of the area given the undeveloped nature of the adjacent
coastline. Potential designation
of marine waters around the Soko Islands as a Marine Park will increase the
value of the natural environment. |
Table A26 Site 3 - Kau Yi Chau
Description
of Operational Aspects
¨ Volume of Maintenance dredging every 3 to 4 years: 0.5 million m3
¨ Area of seabed affected by maintenance dredging: 50Ha
¨ Continued regular barging of fuel is required to Sha Chau to keep fuel in the pipeline fresh
¨ Maintenance of Bored Tunnel is required
¨ Sensitive receivers: Kau Yi Chau Island and, more remotely, Disneyland
¨ Nearby population: None
Operation Phase
Criterion |
Score |
Justification |
Air Quality |
||
Operation Air Quality Impacts |
VL |
Impacts of fugitive emissions
during handling and storage of fuel and vessel delivery emissions are expected
to be negligible for the duration of the life of the facility and within
AQO's. |
Noise |
||
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
VL |
No nearby NSR's. |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
L |
Underwater noise associated with
PAFF activity and vessel deliveries will not be significant, but a generally
quieter existing background noise levels means there is potential for minor
impacts to Chinese White Dolphins/finless porpoises. |
Water Quality |
||
Water Quality Impacts |
M |
There will be an intermittent
requirement for access channel and turning basin maintenance dredging
resulting in periodic localised elevations in suspended solids. |
Ecology |
||
Marine Faunal Impacts |
L |
Intermittent requirement for maintenance dredging may
result in on-going disturbance to the sea-bed. |
Risk |
||
Hazard to Life |
VL |
Hazards to life not significant
given remoteness of location. |
Environmental Risk |
L |
The risks of significant fuel
spillage is very low, but in the very unlikely event of a spill incident
nearby, sensitive ecological resources may be adversely impacted. |
Landscape & Visual |
||
Landscape Resource |
L |
Visible from west Hong Kong Island,
harbour traffic and ferries with some impact on local landscape context. |
Visual Impacts |
L |
Some intrusion into current visual
context, but visual impact less than during construction. |
Table A27 Site 4 - Sham Shui Kok
Description
of Operational Aspects
¨ Volume of Maintenance dredging every 3 to 4 years: 0.5 million m3
¨ Area of seabed affected by maintenance dredging: 50Ha
¨ Continued regular barging of fuel is required to Sha Chau to keep fuel in the pipeline fresh
¨ Sensitive receivers: Users of airport Express and Lantau Highway, Residents at nearby proposed development
¨ Nearby population: Future residents, at a distance of about 1km
Operation Phase Criterion |
Score |
Justification |
Air Quality |
||
Operation Air Quality Impacts |
L |
Impacts of fugitive emissions
during handling and storage of fuel and vessel delivery emissions are
expected to be negligible for the duration of the life of the facility and
within AQO's. Because of future
planned nearby residential development, the potential exists for some minor
odour nuisance in the future. |
Noise |
||
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
L |
Above ground noise generation is
expected to be infrequent and insignificant given the low number of berthing
requirements. Because of future
planned nearby residential development, the potential exists for some minor
disturbance in the future. |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
L |
Underwater noise associated with
PAFF activity and vessel deliveries will not be significant, but low existing background noise levels
means there is potential for minor impact. |
Water Quality |
||
Water Quality Impacts |
M |
There will be an intermittent
requirement for access channel and turning basin maintenance dredging
resulting in periodic localised elevations in suspended solids. |
Ecology |
||
Marine Faunal Impacts |
L |
Intermittent maintenance dredging may result in on-going
disturbance to the sea bed as well as potential impacts to fisheries and
coral resources and the San Tau SSSI, as well as Tai Ho Bay which has a
mangrove stand and is an SSSI.
Overall, impacts will not however be significant. |
Risk, |
||
Hazard to Life |
L |
Hazards to life from the jetty and
pipeline options are considered low with limited risk to life posed to
neighbouring tenants. A slight
hazard is posed to the surrounding populations (e.g. proximity to road and
rail links). |
Environmental Risk |
L |
The risks of significant fuel
spillage is very low, but in the very unlikely event of a spill incident
nearby sensitive ecological resources may be adversely impacted. |
Landscape & Visual |
||
Landscape Resource |
L |
The 6 hectare facility (and vessels
at berth) will have minor impact on the local landscape context given the
'industrial' nature of existing neighbours. |
Visual Impacts |
H |
Has potential for significant
impact on the visual quality of the area, associated largely with the
adjacent transport corridor and future residential development nearby. |
Table A28 Site 5 - Sham Wat
Description
of Operational Aspects
¨ Volume of Maintenance dredging every 3 to 4 years: 1.9 million m3
¨ Area of seabed affected by maintenance dredging: 140Ha
¨ Continued regular barging of fuel is required to Sha Chau to keep fuel in the pipeline fresh
¨ Sensitive receivers: Close proximity to the sensitive (unspoilt) North Lantau Coastline
¨ Nearby population: Local village at Sham Wat
Operation Phase
Criterion |
Score |
Justification |
Air Quality |
||
Operation Air Quality Impacts |
VL |
Impacts of fugitive emissions
during handling and storage of fuel and vessel delivery emissions are expected
to be negligible for the duration of the life of the facility and within
AQO's. |
Noise |
||
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
VL |
Above ground noise generation is
expected to be infrequent and insignificant given the low number of berthing
requirements. |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
M |
Underwater noise associated with
PAFF activity and vessel deliveries will not be significant, but a generally
quieter existing background noise level means there is potential for some
impact given otherwise quiet underwater environment. |
Water Quality |
||
Water Quality Impacts |
M |
There will be an intermittent
requirement for access channel and turning basin maintenance dredging
resulting in periodic localised elevations in suspended solids. The access channel is likely to pass
close to the Western Lantau Waters Marine Park. |
Ecology |
||
Marine Faunal Impacts |
M |
Intermittent maintenance dredging may result in on-going
disturbance to the sea bed as well as potential impacts to fisheries and
coral resources and the San Tau SSSI and the future Marine Park. |
Risk |
||
Hazard to Life |
VL |
Hazards to life posed by the jetty
tank farm and pipeline are considered limited. Very limited nearby residential populations present. |
Environmental Risk |
M |
The risks of significant fuel
spillage is very low, but in the very unlikely event of a spill incident
nearby sensitive ecological resources may be adversely impacted. Potential designation of SW Lantau as
a Marine Park enhances the value of local ecological resources. |
Landscape & Visual |
||
Landscape Resource |
H |
The PAFF facility and vessel
movements will impact the local landscape context given the undeveloped
nature of the adjacent coastline. |
Visual Impacts |
H |
Potential for significant impact on
the visual quality of the area given the undeveloped nature of the adjacent
coastline and the Marine and Country Parks. |
Table A29 Site 6 - Tsing Yi
Description
of Operational Aspects
¨ Volume of Maintenance dredging every 3 to 4 years: None
¨ Area of seabed affected by maintenance dredging: None
¨ Continued regular barging of fuel is required to Sha Chau to keep fuel in the pipeline fresh
¨ Maintenance of Bored Tunnel is required (if bored tunnel option is used)
¨ Sensitive receivers: adjacent to existing PHIS
¨ Nearby populations: workers at nearby PHIS
Operation Phase
Criterion |
Score |
Justification |
Air Quality |
||
Operation Air Quality Impacts |
VL |
Impacts of fugitive emissions
during handling and storage of fuel and vessel delivery emissions are
expected to be negligible for the duration of the life of the facility and
within AQO's. |
Noise |
||
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
VL |
No nearby NSR's. |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
VL |
No nearby underwater NSR's. |
Water Quality |
||
Water Quality Impacts |
VL |
No maintenance dredging required. |
Ecology |
||
Marine Faunal Impacts |
VL |
No maintenance dredging required; area already highly
disturbed. |
Risk |
||
Hazard to Life |
H |
Vessel manoeuvring and berthing
activities will take place in an area already congested with DG vessel
traffic and PHI facility activities. |
Environmental Risk |
L |
Risks of fuel spillage low. |
Landscape & Visual |
||
Landscape Resource |
L |
An area with extensive existing
(and similar) industrial use. |
Visual Impacts |
L |
Development fits into the existing
visual context of the area. |
Table A30 Site 7 - Tuen Mun Area
38
Description
of Operational Aspects
¨ Volume of Maintenance dredging every 3 to 4 years: None
¨ Area of seabed affected by maintenance dredging: None
¨ Continued regular barging of fuel is not required to Sha Chau to keep fuel in the pipeline fresh
¨ Sensitive receivers: adjacent to nearby industrial operations (but remote from Tuen Mun residents)
¨ Nearby population: workers at nearby industrial operations
Operation Phase
Criterion |
Score |
Justification |
Air Quality |
||
Operation Air Quality Impacts |
VL |
Impacts of fugitive emissions during handling and storage of fuel and
vessel delivery emissions are expected to be negligible for the duration of
the life of the facility and within AQO's. |
Noise |
||
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
VL |
Above ground noise generation is expected to be infrequent and
insignificant given the low number of berthing requirements. |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
VL |
Underwater noise associated with PAFF activity and vessels is unlikely
to be discernible above background due to existing marine traffic and
industrial activity in the area. |
Water Quality |
||
Water Quality Impacts |
VL |
No maintenance dredging required. |
Ecology |
||
Marine Faunal Impacts |
VL |
No maintenance dredging
required so negligible impact anticipated. |
Risk |
||
Hazard to Life |
L |
Hazards to life from the jetty and
pipeline options are considered low with limited risk to life posed to
neighbouring tenants. |
Environmental Risk |
L |
The risks of significant fuel
spillage is very low, but in the very unlikely event of a spill incident,
nearby sensitive ecological resources may be adversely impacted. |
Landscape & Visual |
||
Landscape Resource |
VL |
The 6 hectare facility (and vessels
at berth) will have limited impact on the local landscape context given the
'industrial' nature of existing neighbours. |
Visual Impacts |
L |
There will be a minor change to the
visual quality of the area, particularly from view points (including vessels)
to the south. |
Table A31 Site 8 - Tuen Mun West
Description
of Operational Aspects
¨ Volume of Maintenance dredging every 3 to 4 years: 0.25 million m3
¨ Area of seabed affected by maintenance dredging 50Ha
¨ Continued regular barging of fuel is not required to Sha Chau to keep fuel in the pipeline fresh
¨ Sensitive receivers: future adjacent users
¨ Nearby population: None
Operation Phase
Criterion |
Score |
Justification |
Air Quality |
||
Operation Air Quality Impacts |
VL |
Impacts of fugitive emissions
during handling and storage of fuel and vessel delivery emissions are
expected to be negligible for the duration of the life of the facility and
within AQO's. |
Noise |
||
Above Ground Noise Impacts |
VL |
Above ground noise generation is
expected to be infrequent and insignificant given the low number of berthing
requirements. |
Underwater Noise Impacts |
VL |
Underwater noise associated with PAFF activity and vessels is unlikely
to be discernible above background due to existing marine traffic and
industrial activity in the area. |
Water Quality |
||
Water Quality Impacts |
M |
There will be an intermittent requirement for access channel and
turning basin maintenance dredging resulting in periodic localised elevations
in suspended solids. |
Ecology |
||
Marine Faunal Impacts |
M |
Intermittent maintenance
dredging may result in on-going disturbance to the sea-bed, but area subject
to naturally high SS levels. |
Risk |
||
Hazard to Life |
L |
Hazards to life from the jetty and pipeline options are considered low
with negligible risk to life posed to the nearest tenants at Lung Kwu Tan. |
Environmental Risk |
M |
The risks of significant fuel
spillage is very low, but in the very unlikely event of a spill incident
nearby, sensitive ecological resources may be adversely impacted. |
Landscape & Visual |
||
Landscape Resource |
L |
The 6 hectare facility (and vessels
at berth) will have minor impact on the local landscape context given the
'industrial' nature of existing neighbours (e.g. Black Point Power Station). |
Visual Impacts |
L |
There will be a change to the
visual quality of the area, particularly from view points near Lung Kwu Tan
Village. |
A6 Conclusion
A6.1
Of the alternative sites considered it is clear, on
the basis of this qualitative environmental assessment of both construction and
operational phases and of non-environmental factors, that Tuen Mun Area 38 is
preferred on all counts.
Table
A32 Summary
of Construction Phase Environmental Comparison
Criteria
|
|
Weighting
|
Site 1 Bluff Point |
Site 2 East of Soko Islands |
Site 3 Kau Yi Chau |
Site 4 Sham Shui Kok |
Site 5 Sham Wat |
Site 6 Tsing Yi |
Site 7 Tuen Mun Area 38 |
Site 8 Tuen Mun West |
Air Quality
Construction Air Quality Impacts |
Max Score Score out of 10 |
10 10.00 |
Low (0.75) 7.50 |
Low (0.75) 7.50 |
Low (0.75) 7.50 |
Medium (0.5) 5.00 |
Low (0.75) 7.50 |
Very low (1.0) 10.00 |
Very low (1.0) 10.00 |
Medium (0.5) 5.00 |
Noise
Above Ground Noise Impacts Underwater Noise Impacts |
Max Score Score out of 15 |
15 3.00 12.00 |
Low (0.75) Low (0.75) 11.25 |
Very low (1.0) High (0.25) 6.00 |
Very low (1.0) Low (0.75) 12.00 |
Medium (0.5) Low (0.75) 10.50 |
Low (0.75) Low (0.75) 11.25 |
Very low (1.0) Very low (1.0) 15.00 |
Very low (1.0) High (0.25) 6.00 |
Medium (0.5) High (0.25) 4.50 |
Water Quality
Water Quality Impacts |
Max Score Score out of 20 |
20 20.00 |
Low (0.75) 15.00 |
Medium (0.5) 10.00 |
Medium (0.5) 10.00 |
Medium (0.5) 10.00 |
Medium (0.5) 10.00 |
Very low (1.0) 20.00 |
Very low (1.0) 20.00 |
10.00 |
Ecology
Marine Faunal Impacts Designated Ecological
Receivers |
Max Score Score out of 30 |
30 19.50 10.50 |
High (0.25) Medium (0.5) 10.13 |
Very high (0) High (0.25) 2.63 |
Medium (0.5) Medium (0.5) 15.00 |
High (0.25) Medium (0.5) 10.13 |
Very high (0) Medium (0.5) 5.25 |
Low (0.75) Very low (1.0) 25.13 |
Low (0.75) Very low (1.0) 25.13 |
High (0.25) Medium (0.5) 10.13 |
Landscape and Visual
Landscape Resource Visual Impacts |
Max Score Score out of 15 |
15 6.00 9.00 |
Medium (0.5) High (0.25) 5.25 |
Medium (0.5) Medium (0.5) 7.50 |
Medium (0.5) Medium (0.5) 7.50 |
Medium (0.5) High (0.25) 5.25 |
Medium (0.5) High (0.25) 5.25 |
Low (0.75) Low (0.75) 11.25 |
Low (0.75) Low (0.75) 11.25 |
Medium (0.5) Medium (0.5) 7.50 |
Cultural Heritage
Terrestrial Cultural
heritage Marine Archaeology |
Max Score Score out of 10 |
10 2.00 8.00 |
Very low (1.0) High (0.25) 4.00 |
Very low (1.0) High (0.25) 4.00 |
Very low (1.0) Medium (0.5) 6.00 |
Very low (1.0) High (0.25) 4.00 |
Very low (1.0) High (0.25) 4.00 |
Very low (1.0) Very low (1.0) 10.00 |
Very low (1.0) Low (0.75) 8.00 |
Very low (1.0) 4.00 |
Risk
Construction Stage Risk |
Max Score Score out of 35 |
35 |
Very low (1.0) 35.00 |
Very low (1.0) 35.00 |
Very low (1.0) 35.00 |
Very low (1.0) 35.00 |
Very low (1.0) 35.00 |
High (0.25) 8.75 |
Very low (1.0) 35.00 |
Very low (1.0) 35.00 |
Maximum
Score Score
(out of 135) |
|
135 |
88.13 |
72.63 |
93.00 |
79.88 |
78.25 |
100.13 |
115.38 |
76.13 |
RANKING |
|
|
4 |
8 |
3 |
5 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
7 |
Table
A33 Summary
of Operational Phase Environmental Comparison
Criteria
|
|
Weighting
|
Site 1 Bluff Point |
Site 2 East of Soko Islands |
Site 3 Kau Yi Chau |
Site 4 Sham Shui Kok |
Site 5 Sham Wat |
Site 6 Tsing Yi |
Site 7 Tuen Mun Area 38 |
Site 8 Tuen Mun West |
Air Quality
Operational Air Quality
Impacts |
Max Score Score out of 5 |
5 5.00 |
Very low (1.0) 5.00 |
Very low (1.0) 5.00 |
Very low (1.0) 5.00 |
Low (0.75) 3.75 |
Very low (1.0) 5.00 |
Very low (1.0) 5.00 |
Very low (1.0) 5.00 |
Very low (1.0) 5.00 |
Noise
Above Ground Nose Impacts Underwater Noise Impacts |
Max Score Score out of 10 |
10 2.00 8.00 |
Very low (1.0) Low (0.75) 8.00 |
Very low (1.0) Very low (1.0) 10.00 |
Very low (1.0) Low (0.75) 8.00 |
Low (0.75) Low (0.75) 7.50 |
Very low (1.0) Medium (0.5) 6.00 |
Very low (1.0) Very low (1.0) 10.00 |
Very low (1.0) Very low (1.0) 10.00 |
Very low (1.0) Very low (1.0) 10.00 |
Water Quality
Water Quality Impacts |
Max Score Score out of 15 |
15 15.00 |
Medium (0.5) 7.5 |
Medium (0.5) 7.5 |
Medium (0.5) 7.5 |
Medium (0.5) 7.5 |
Medium (0.5) 7.50 |
Very low (1.0) 15.00 |
Very low (1.0) 15.00 |
7.5 |
Ecology
Marine Faunal Impacts |
Max Score Score out of 20 |
20 20.50 |
Low (0.75) 15.00 |
Very high (1.0) 20.00 |
Low (0.75) 15.00 |
Low (0.75) 15.00 |
Medium (0.5) 10.00 |
Very low (1.0) 20.00 |
Very low (1.0) 20.00 |
Medium (0.5) 10.00 |
Risk
Hazard to Life Environmental Risk |
Max Score Score out of 35 |
35 19.25 15.75 |
Very low (1.0) Medium (0.5) 27.13 |
Very low (1.0) High (0.25) 23.19 |
Very low (1.0) Low (0.75) 31.06 |
Low (0.75) Low (0.75) 26.25 |
Very low (1.0) Medium (0.5) 27.13 |
High (0.25) Low (0.75) 16.63 |
Low (0.75) Low (0.75) 26.25 |
Low (0.75) Medium (0.5) 22.31 |
Landscape and Visual
Landscape Resource Visual Impacts |
Max Score Score out of 15 |
15 6.00 9.00 |
High (0.25) High (0.25) 3.75 |
Medium (0.5) Medium (0.5) 7.50 |
Low (0.75) Low (0.75) 11.25 |
Low (0.75) High (0.25) 6.75 |
High (0.25) High (0.25) 3.75 |
Low (0.75) Low (0.75) 11.25 |
Very low (1.0) Low (0.75) 12.75 |
Low (0.75) Low (0.75) 11.25 |
Maximum Score (out of 100) |
Max Score |
100 |
66.38 |
73.19 |
77.81 |
66.75 |
59.38 |
77.88 |
89.00 |
66.06 |
RANKING
|
|
|
6 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
8 |
2 |
1 |
7 |