Table 2.1 Environmental Comparison of Alternative Jetty Location Options
Environmental
Issue |
Option
1 |
Option
2 – Alternative at north of bay |
Option
3 – Alternative at south of bay at bulkhead (Selected Option) |
Water quality / dredged sediment |
Largest jetty structure and approach channel
would result in highest impact on water quality from marine construction
works including dredging; and greatest volume of dredged sediment requiring
disposal (14,300 m3) |
Smaller
jetty structure with lower impact on water quality. Smaller dredged volume of
6,600 m3 |
Smaller
jetty structure with lower impact on water quality. Smaller dredged volume of 5,550 m3 |
Marine ecology |
Longest
catwalk (about 62 m long and 5m wide, with an area of 310 m2) and
largest approach channel (about 8,300 m2) in the middle of the bay
would result in the highest impact on marine ecological resources within the
Sha Chau & LKC Marine Park, including the important Chinese White
Dolphin. Largest loss of subtidal
habitats |
This location has a natural shoreline, with the highest density of intertidal organisms. Although Option 2 would involve a similar jetty size compared to Option 3, the larger approach channel (3,200m2) and proximity to the shipwreck area which is a favourite site of the Chinese White Dolphin and has soft corals would also make this location less favourable. |
Shorter
catwalk (about 22 m long and 5m wide, with an area of 110 m2) and
smaller approach channel (1,978 m2) with lower impact on marine
ecological resources within the Sha Chau & LKC Marine Park including the
important Chinese White Dolphin Lower
impact than Option 2 as both the shore and backshore habitats have been
previously disturbed |
Terrestrial
ecology |
Limited
impact on terrestrial habitat from construction of short footpath extension
connecting proposed jetty and existing footpath |
High
impact from construction of new access route / footpath on the rugged natural
coastal habitat (longer land route than Option 3) |
Limited impact
from construction of new access route / footpath on coastal / backshore
habitat which has been largely disturbed |
Land archaeology |
Low
impact potential on the LKC Archaeological Site due to shorter length of
footpath |
Higher
impact potential from construction of new access route / footpath (longer
land route than Option 3 and substantial excavation is likely to be required) |
Low
impact potential from construction of new access route / footpath that
follows disturbed land |
Marine archaeology |
Higher
impact potential on the LKC Archaeology Site due to greater disturbance of
seabed area for approach channel (about 8,300 m2) |
Lower
impact potential from smaller disturbance of seabed area for approach channel
(3,200m2) |
Lower
impact potential from smaller disturbance of seabed area for approach channel
(1,978 m2) |
Visual
/ landscape |
Larger jetty structure would result in
greater visual intrusion and landscape loss of natural sea water area. Short footpath
extension would result in limited landscape loss of natural coastal features |
Smaller jetty structure would result in less
visual intrusion and less landscape loss of natural sea water area. Footpath would result in highest landscape
loss of natural rugged coastal features (longer land route than Option 3) |
Smaller jetty structure would result in less
visual intrusion and less landscape loss of natural sea water area. Footpath would result in limited landscape
loss of existing disturbed coastal features |
Cultural
/ Feng Shui |
Preliminary support obtained from local
villagers at Lung Kwu Tan |
Consultation
with local villagers undertaken and support has been obtained |
Consultation with local villagers undertaken
and support has been obtained |