Agreement No. CE 35/2006(CE)
Kai Tak Development
Engineering Study
cum Design and Construction of
Advance Works
– Investigation, Design and
Construction
Dredging Works for Proposed
Cruise Terminal at Kai Tak
Environmental Impact
Assessment Report
Executive Summary
Contents
1.3 Potential consequences
without the Project
2............ PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
3............ CONSIDERATION
OF ALTERNATIVES
3.5 Dredging
Method, Dredging Rates and Staged Dredging Requirements.
4............ KEY FINDINGS
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
4.4 Waste
Management Implications
4.5 Impact on
Culture Heritage
4.8 Environmental
Monitoring and Audit
Lists of Tables
Table 2.1 Dredging Programme
Table 3.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts
Associated with the Project
Lists of Figures
Figure 1.1 General Layout of
Proposed Cruise Terminal Berths
Figure 1.2 Proposed Medium Term
Arrangement for Cruise Terminal
Figure 1.3 Proposed Longer Term
Arrangement for Cruise Terminal
Figure 1.4 Staged
Dredging Requirements for the Cruise Terminal Lists of Tables
General
1.1.1
The former
1.1.2
In 2002, the Chief Executive in Council approved
the Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plans (No. S/K19/3 and S/K21/3) to provide the
statutory framework to proceed with the South East Kowloon Development at the
former
1.1.3
Development of the cruise terminal at Kai Tak
would require dredging at the existing seawall at the southern tip of the
former
Phasing of Development
1.1.4
It is planned to implement the cruise terminal
in two phases. Phase I Berth (the
southern portion) of
Manoeuvring Area
1.1.5 Provision is required for manoeuvring area of adequate depth for cruise vessels manoeuvring onto and off the berths. The layout and dimensions of the manoeuvring area are shown in Figure 1.4 and have been confirmed by detailed engineering assessment, to be adequate for safe manoeuvring of cruise vessels.
Dredged Depths
1.1.6 For overall cost effectiveness, initial navigation dredging for the operations of Phase I and Phase II Berths should allow for dredging to -12mCD. The area alongside of the berth structure is to be dredged to provide a depth alongside of -13mCD to allow for possible future deepening of the manoeuvring area if future new vessels entail such water depth.
1.2.1
The Government aims to develop
1.2.2
One of the key considerations for locating the
New Cruise Terminal at Kai Tak is that it is the only site within the
1.2.3
Upon completion of the New Cruise Terminal,
together with the existing cruise terminal in Tsim Sha Tsui,
1.3
Potential consequences without the
Project
1.3.1 The proposed dredging works are essential for construction and operation of the proposed cruise terminal at Kai Tak to provide the space needed for safe manoeuvring of cruise vessels clear of the fairway and cruise berth. Without the proposed dredging works, the safety of the cruise vessels’ manoeuvring will be in question.
2.1.1 The scope of the Project comprises:
· dredging
of marine sediment of about
· Removal
of existing seawall of about
2.1.2
The Project is a Designated Project in
accordance with Item C.12 of Part I, Schedule 2 of the EIAO, which specifies an
“a dredging operation exceeding
2.1.3 It is planned to implement the proposed dredging in two stages. The staged dredging requirements for the cruise terminal are shown in Figure 1.4. The breakdown of the dredging volumes is given in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Volume
of Dredging
Stages (Figure 1.4) |
Volume of
Dredging (m3) |
|
From Existing
Seabed in the Harbour Area |
From Existing Seawall |
|
Stage 1
Dredging Total: |
700,000
(1) |
322,300 |
Stage 2
Dredging Total: |
680,000 |
- |
Total
(Stage 1 + Stage 2): |
1,380,000 |
322,300 |
Note 1: The
total volume of 700,000 m3 includes the dredged material of 20,000 m3
to be generated from removal of the abandoned KTR outfall as shown in Figure
1.4.
3.1.1
Adequate water depth, turning basin and landside
developable space are the three key requirements in determining the location of
cruise terminal. The proposed location at the runway tip would be best able to
meet the above requirements when compared to the rest of Kai Tak. The PODP has
proposed two-alongside berths configuration comprising a continuous
3.1.2
An alternative location for the cruise terminal
at
3.2.1 The proposed size and configuration of the manoeuvring area is based on the minimum extent required for safe manoeuvring of cruise vessels as determined by the real time vessel simulation in order to minimize the associated waste generation as well as the direct disturbance to marine ecological and fisheries resources.
3.3.1 The programme for Stage 1 dredging is governed by the required commissioning date of the first berth. Thus, dredging required for operation of the first berth has to be carried out during the period from later half of 2008 to 2011 as the first stage in order to meet the commissioning programme for the first berth. Due to the site constraints, dredging for the second berth would need to be carried out at a later stage after decommissioning of the existing submarine gas pipelines. The actual program for Stage 2 dredging would also depend on the future demand for the cruise terminal. The current tentative programme is to commence the Stage 2 dredging in 2013 for completion in 2014 for the purpose of this EIA. The selected time horizon is the earliest possible timing for Stage 2 dredging. Our modelling assessment for Stage 2 dredging has included the impacts of all possible concurrent marine works anticipated in or beyond 2012 except for the maintenance dredging described in Section 3.3.2. Maintenance dredging will not be carried out concurrently with the Stage 2 capital dredging. Therefore, no alternative programme has been considered for the capital dredging. Based on the water quality model predictions provided in the EIA report, no unacceptable water quality impacts are expected under the assumed programme for capital dredging with implementation of all the recommended mitigation measures.
3.3.2 The duration of maintenance dredging would be less than 6 months for each berth. Alternative programme for the maintenance dredging to be carried out in either dry or wet seasons has been considered under the water quality impact assessment. Based on the model predictions, maintenance dredging in wet season would contribute larger water quality impact and is therefore not preferred. It is recommended in this EIA that the maintenance dredging should not be programmed in wet seasons (April to September) to avoid the potential water quality impacts.
3.4.1 Closed grab dredgers are considered as the most suitable dredgers for small volumes and contaminated mud. It is feasible to use small trailer suction dredgers yet these will give less control over handling of contaminated mud and produce more marine sediment by volume (due to high water content) when compared with grab dredging. Larger equipment as adopted for major reclamation projects such as the Penny’s Bay reclamation and the Container Terminals in Kwai Chung has been considered. However, given that dredging is not on the critical path of the construction programme of the cruise terminal, it is suggested that closed grab dredgers being the most cost effective construction method with the least environmental impact shall be adopted for the dredging works for the cruise terminal.
3.5
Dredging Method, Dredging Rates and
Staged Dredging Requirements
3.5.1
The capital dredging works will be carried out
in two stages, in the areas as indicated in Figure 1.4. The total volume of capital
dredging is estimated as
3.5.2
The total volume of maintenance dredging is
estimated as
3.5.3 The dredging locations, rates, timing and phased implementation have been analyzed and confirmed by the technical assessments performed under this EIA to be environmentally acceptable. In particular, modelling assessment has been carried out under this EIA to assess the water quality impacts of undertaking the dredging in either the dry or wet season and concluded that the proposed dredging rates, locations and timing would not cause any unacceptable water quality and marine ecological impact, provided that all the mitigation measures recommended under this EIA are properly implemented.
3.6.1 Dredging of existing seawall would be required for berth construction. The cruise terminal berth structure would need to be constructed within the land limits as a measure to protect and preserve the Harbour. Preliminary schemes for six types of berth structures have been developed and reviewed including:
Option 1 – Piled Quay Deck;
Option 2 – Precast Reinforced Concrete Caisson;
Option 3 – Precast Concrete Blockwork Seawall;
Option 4 – Bored Pile Retaining Wall with Anchor;
Option 5 – Precast Reinforced Concrete
Option 6 – Sheet Pile Cofferdam Wall
3.6.2 After reviewing all the factors, Options 4, 5 and 6 are not recommended based on engineering considerations. Amongst the three short listed options, the piled quay deck (Option 1) would require the least amount of dredging at the existing seawall during construction. For the purpose of this EIA, however, Options 2 and 3 are assumed to be adopted to allow flexibility for the future in recognition that the cruise terminal developer may choose an alternative to the quay deck structure. In environmental terms the main difference between Options 1, 2, and 3 is the volume of dredging from the existing seawall. It should be noted that the volume of dredging from the existing seawall is significantly less in the case of Option 1, therefore the allowance for Options 2 and 3 in this EIA represents a worst case assumption
4.1.1
Dredging activities are marine based activities
and negligible dust impacts on nearby air sensitive receivers (ASRs) would be
expected. Referring to the marine
site investigation results, the acid volatile sulphide (AVS) levels measured in
all the sediment samples collected from the dredging area of the proposed
cruise terminal were below the detection limit of 1 mg/kg. In general, high AVS concentrations in
sediment indicate that odorous hydrogen sulphide gas is likely to be generated
from the sediment. These AVS levels
are far below the AVS levels of the odour remediated sediments collected from
4.2.1
This EIA has predicted the construction noise
impacts of the Project during normal daytime working hours, taking into account
other concurrent projects within a
4.2.2 Assessment on noise impact from maintenance dredging was also conducted. Results indicated that the predicted noise at the nearest NSRs would comply with the construction noise criterion of 75 dB(A).
4.3.1
The water quality impact during the proposed
dredging works has been assessed by mathematical modelling. Suspended solids are identified as the
most critical water quality parameter during the dredging operations. The worst-case scenarios for the
dredging works have been assessed and it is predicted that potential water
quality impacts could occur at the flushing water intakes along the waterfront
of the
4.4
Waste Management Implications
4.4.1
The total volume of dredged sediment generated
from the dredging of the seabed to provide the manoeuvring basin for the cruise
terminal is estimated to be approximately
4.4.2
The total volume of dredged sediment generated
from maintenance dredging during operational phase is estimated to be
approximately
4.4.3
The total volume of C&D material generated
from the removal of the existing seawall by dredging for the berth structure
construction is estimated to be approximately
4.4.4
It is assumed all the C&D material generated from the Project
would require off-site disposal.
Seawall construction relies very heavily on the grading of materials. If the
materials are not graded properly then there is the risk that the reclamation
will wash out through the seawall and the seawall will collapse. Whilst the
as-built drawings of the existing runway seawalls and reclamations have been
obtained they do not give any information as to the grading of the existing
materials. As such it is not possible with the information available to make
any accurate assessment as to which materials may be suitable for reuse. As
such a conservative estimate has been made for the purpose of the EIA. Nevertheless,
the contractor for capital dredging should investigate the potential for
reusing the C&D materials on site. If practical, the C&D material
generated from the Project should be sorted and any unsuitable material removed
to achieve the correct grading for seawall construction.
4.4.5 Mitigation measures are recommended in this EIA to minimise potential environmental impacts associated with handling and disposal of different wastes arising from the Project. Provided that the recommended mitigation measures are properly followed, adverse environmental impacts would not be expected from the capital and maintenance dredging.
4.5
Impact on Cultural Heritage
4.5.1 A Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI) has been conducted to identify any marine archaeological remains within the proposed dredging area for construction of the new cruise terminal at Kai Tak. The 2007 MAI did not locate any archaeological resources but it established that it is possible that archaeological material could be deeply buried within the sub-seabed sediments, which may be adversely affected by the proposed dredging.
4.5.2 Due to the depth of proposed dredging and the fact that the archaeological potential of the area cannot be completely ruled out, the need of precautionary measures during dredging is required. Guidelines for a Monitoring Brief have been prepared in consultation with the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO).
4.5.3 The heritage significance of the remaining seawall structure is assessed to be low. Yet, the dredging activities of the proposed cruise terminal should ensure that disturbance to the existing seawall masonry outside the Project boundary should be avoided as far as practicable.
4.6.1 Literature reviews of existing information with supplement findings from recent field surveys indicated that identified marine habitats within the Project area are of generally very low ecological value. There are no ecological sensitive receivers, such as Site of Specific Scientific Interests (SSSIs) and marine parks and / or reserves and other areas of ecological importance or conservation interest, in and within the immediate vicinity of the Project area.
4.6.2
Marine habitats within the Kai Tak area include
soft bottom seabed, artificial seawalls, subtidal habitats and feeding ground
of waterbirds. All the identified
habitats are considered as generally very low of ecological value due to their
highly artificial and disturbed nature. Species diversity and abundance in
these habitats were low and no rare or restricted species was recorded. The species of conservation interest
recorded within the Project area only include a single species of common hard
coral (Oulastrea crispate) (but all colonies found are small
in size, sparsely distributed and in very low coverage) and few species
of waterbirds such as Little Egret and Great Egret. All these species of conservation
interest recorded within the Project area are common and widespread in other
4.6.3
Direct and indirect ecological impacts arising
from the Project were identified and evaluated. The Project would result in the
temporary loss of approximately 57 hectares of soft bottom benthic and subtidal
habitats and about
4.6.4 Other indirect impacts arising from the Project would be temporary and minimised with implementation of proper mitigation measures. Overall, no significant and unacceptable ecological impact on marine resource was anticipated from the Project.
4.7.1
Literature reviews of existing information
indicated that identified fishing area in
4.7.2 Direct and indirect impacts on fisheries resources arising from the Project were identified and evaluated. The Project will result in the temporary loss of approximately 57 hectares of fishing area. In view of the small size of affected area, temporary and insignificant loss of fisheries production and low impact on fishing activities, fisheries impacts due to direct loss of fishing area within the dredging area is considered as minor and acceptable.
4.7.3 Indirect impacts of change of water quality arising from the Project would be temporary and insignificant based on the predictions from water quality modelling. Mitigation measures suggested in the water quality assessment to control water quality would serve also to protect fisheries resources from indirect impacts. No significant adverse impact on fisheries resources would be expected from the Project and therefore no necessary fisheries-specific mitigation measures would be required.
4.8
Environmental Monitoring and Audit
4.8.1 Environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) requirements for the Project have been specified in an EM&A Manual. The EM&A Manual contains details of proposed baseline and compliance monitoring programmes, implementation schedule of the environmental protection / mitigation measures, EM&A reporting procedures and complaint handling procedures.
4.9.1
The major environmentally sensitive areas that
are potentially affected by the Project include planned developments on the
former
Table 3.1 Summary
of Environmental Impacts Associated with the Project
Sensitive
Receivers / Assessment Points |
Impact
Prediction Results |
Relevant
Standards / Criteria |
Extents
of Exceedances |
Impact
Avoidance Measures / Mitigation Measures |
Residual
Impacts (After Implementation of Mitigation Measures) |
|
Air Quality Impact |
|
|
|
|
||
Planned
developments on the former airport runway including: ·
Residential Development ·
Planned Hotel ·
Landscape Deck at Cruise Terminal ·
Planned |
Dredging activities are
marine based activities and negligible dust impacts on nearby ASRs would be
expected. Referring to the marine
site investigation results, the AVS levels measured in all the sediment
samples collected from the dredging area of the proposed cruise terminal were
below the detection limit of 1 mg/kg.
In general, high AVS concentrations in sediment indicate that odorous
hydrogen sulphide gas is likely to be generated from the sediment. These AVS levels are far below the AVS
levels of the odour remediated sediments collected from |
l
The EIAO-TM stipulates that the hourly TSP level
should not exceed l
In accordance with the EIAO-TM, odour impact
predicted at an air sensitive receiver should meet 5 odour units based on an
averaging time of 5 seconds. l
|
Not applicable |
Construction Dust Negligible dust impacts would be expected from
dredging activities. In order to
further ensure compliance with the AQOs at the ASRs, requirements of the Air
Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation, where relevant, shall be
adhered to during the construction period. Odour Impact from Capital Dredging and Maintenance
Dredging No adverse odour impact is
expected from the Project. However as a precautionary measure to minimize the
potential odour emissions during dredging operation, if any, the dredged
sediment placed on barge should be properly covered during its transportation
to the mud dumping pits as far as practicable to minimise the exposed area
and hence the potential odour emissions during transportation of the dredged
sediment. |
None |
|
Noise Impact |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planned
residential developments on the former airport runway. |
l
This assessment has predicted the construction noise
impacts of the Project during normal daytime working hours, taking into
account other concurrent projects within a l
Assessment on noise impact from maintenance dredging
was also conducted. Results
indicated that the predicted noise at the nearest NSRs would comply with the
construction noise criterion. |
l
The NCO provides the statutory framework for noise
control of construction work other than percussive piling using powered
mechanical equipment (PME) between the hours of 1900 and 0700 hours or at any
time on Sundays and general holiday (that is, restricted hours). Noise control on construction
activities taking place at other times is subject to the Criteria for
Evaluating Noise Impact stated in Table 1B of Annex |
Not applicable |
Good site practices to
ameliorate the construction noise impact: ·
Only well-maintained plant should be operated
on-site and plant should be serviced regularly during the construction
program. ·
Mobile plant, if any, should be sited as far away from
nearby NSRs as possible. ·
Machines and plant (such as trucks) that may be in
intermittent use should be shut down between works periods or should be
throttled down to a minimum. ·
Plant known to emit noise strongly in one direction
should, wherever possible, be orientated so that the noise is directed away
from nearby NSRs. ·
Material stockpiles and other structures should be
effectively utilised, wherever practicable, in screening noise from on-site
construction activities. |
None |
|
Water Quality Impact |
|
|
|
|
||
Seawater intakes along the
waterfront of |
The model results indicate
exceedances of WSD water quality (SS) criterion at 6 flushing water intakes
along the water front of |
l
WSD flushing water quality intake criterion for SS:
< 10 mg/l l
Target water quality objectives at coral sites for
SS elevations: < 30 % of the
background ambient levels l
Sedimentation rate at corals: < |
Full compliance would be
achieved with implementation of all the recommended mitigation measures |
l
Use of closed grab dredger during maintenance and
capital dredging l
deployment of silt curtains at appropriate dredging
areas, and installation of silt screens at selected seawater intakes during
capital dredging l
Avoid maintenance dredging in wet season (April to
September). |
None |
|
Waste Management
Implications |
|
|
|
|
||
Water quality,
air, and noise sensitive receivers at or near the Project site, the waste
transportation routes and the waste disposal site. |
Main waste: dredged marine sediment with a total volume of
approximately Of the sediment to be generated from capital dredging, approximately Sediment to be generated from maintenance dredging will be tested in
accordance with the ETWB TCW No. 34/2002 Other wastes: Chemical waste from plant and equipment maintenance during capital and
maintenance dredging; and C&D material (of about |
l
Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354) l
Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation
(Cap. 354C) l
Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28) l
Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap.
132) - Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances Regulation l
Annexes 7 & 15 of EIAO TM l
Waste Disposal (Charges for Disposal of Construction
Waste) Regulation (Cap. 354N) |
Not applicable |
l
Contaminated dredged sediment (Category M and H)
would require either Type 1 =- Open Sea Disposal (Dedicated Sites) or Type 2 -
Confined Marine Disposal at contaminated mud pit allocated by MFC. l
Category L sediment is suitable for Type 1 - Open
Sea Disposal at gazetted marine disposal ground allocated by MFC. l
Mitigation measures and good site practices
recommended in the EIA report on waste management should be incorporated into
the contract document to control potential environmental impact from handling
of the identified wastes arising from the Project |
None |
|
Impact on Cultural
Heritage |
|
|
||||
Archaeological resources
within the Project site boundary |
The MAI did not locate any
marine archaeological remains within the Project site boundary and concluded
no further MAI is necessary. Direct impact to the seawall
masonry is expected. However, the section of affected seawall within the
project boundary has been established to have low cultural heritage value. |
l
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) l
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO)
(Cap. 499, S.16) l
Technical Memorandum on the Environmental Impact
Assessment Process (EIAO-TM) l
Guidance Notes on Assessment of Impact on Sites of
Cultural Heritage in Environmental Impact Assessment Studies (GN-CH) l
l
Marine Archaeological Investigation Guidelines. |
Not applicable |
l
It is recommended that the dredging contractor
should monitor the dredge spoils. A procedure for briefing the dredging
contractors about the possible presence of marine archaeological resources during
dredging and a procedure for handling them have been developed in
consultation with the AMO, to ensure compliance with the AMO standards and
protection of any archaeological resources at the proposed dredging site l
The heritage significance of the remaining seawall
structure is assessed to be low.
Yet, the dredging activities of the proposed cruise terminal should
ensure that disturbance to the existing seawall masonry outside the Project
boundary should be avoided as far as practicable. |
None |
|
Marine Ecological
Impact |
|
|
|
|
||
Ecological resources at and
near the Project site |
l
Direct impacts to the marine ecological resources
would include temporary loss of approximately 57 hectares of soft bottom and
subtidal habitat and about l
Indirect impacts on the marine ecology would be
associated with changes of water quality due to dredging activities.
Considering that the benthic, intertidal and subtidal communities identified
in the Kai Tak area are of generally very low ecological value and in view of
the temporary nature of such impact, only minor indirect impact on marine
resources is anticipated. l
During the dredging works, increased marine traffic
and noise generated from construction plant could cause disturbance impacts
to the associated wildlife including the waterbirds of conservation interest.
It is expected that displacement of waterbirds to the nearby waters for
roosting and feeding area may occur temporarily but adverse impact is not
anticipated. |
l
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO)
(Cap. 499). l
EIAO Technical Memorandum on EIA Process (EIAO-TM)
Annex 8 and Annex 16 l
EIAO Guidance Note No. 3/2002 l
EIAO Guidance Note No. 6/2002 l
EIAO Guidance Note No. 11/2004 l
Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170) l
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and
Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) l
Town Planning Ordinance (Cap.131) l
The Marine Parks Ordinance (Cap.476) and Subsidiary
Legislation l
The Marine Fish Culture Ordinance (Cap.353) l
The Protection of the Harbour Ordinance (Cap.531) l
The Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap.358) l
International l
The PRC National Protection Lists of Important Wild
Animals and Plants |
Not applicable |
l
Coral translocation of directly affected colonies,
as far as practicable, to avoid and minimize direct loss of this fauna of
conservation interest l
Water quality control measures such as installation
of silt curtains around dredger(s) and use of closed grab dredger to minimise
indirect impact on marine life due to change of water quality. l
Appropriate
good site practices on noise control are recommended to be adopted during the
dredging works to minimise noise disturbance to nearby waterbird population. l
Re-construction of new seawalls to recover loss of artificial intertidal habitats. |
l
Temporary loss of 57 hectares of soft bottom benthic
habitat of very low ecological value. l
Water quality modelling predicted that indirect
impacts on the marine ecology associated with changes of water quality due to
dredging activities within the Project area would be acceptable after
implementation of proper mitigation measures. |
|
Fisheries Impact |
|
|
|
|
||
Fisheries resources at and
near the Project site. |
l
The Project will result in the temporary loss of
about 57 hectares of fishing area.
In view of the small size of affected area, temporary and
insignificant loss of fisheries production and low impact on fishing
activities, fisheries impacts due to direct loss of fishing area within the
dredging area is considered as minor and acceptable. l
Indirect impacts on fisheries resources would be
associated with changes of water quality due to dredging activities. In view
of the temporary and localised nature of such impact, only minor impact on
capture fisheries resources is anticipated. No impact on culture fisheries
resources is anticipated as the nearest FCZs Tung Lung Chau and Ma Wan are
over |
l
EIAO-TM Annex 9 and Annex l
Fisheries Protection Ordinance (Cap. 171) – aims to
promote the conservation fish and other forms of aquatic life within the l
Marine Fish Culture Ordinance (Cap. 353) – regulates
and protects marine fish culture by designating areas of fish culture zone,
granting license, prohibiting unauthorized vessels and any deposition of
chemicals or other substance which are likely to cause injury to fish in a
fish culture zone. The list of
designated fish culture zones was last revised in January 2000. l
The Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap.358) –
aims to control water pollution in the waters of |
Not Applicable |
No necessary
fisheries-specific mitigation measures would be required. |
l
Temporary loss of 57 hectares of fishing area at l
Water quality modelling predicted that indirect
impacts on fisheries resources associated with changes of water quality due
to dredging activities within the Project area would be acceptable after
implementation of proper mitigation measures. |
|
5.1.1 The EIA has determined the likely nature and extent of environmental impacts predicted to arise from the Project. Where necessary and practicable, the EIA has specified mitigation and control measures to reduce the environmental impacts to acceptable levels.
5.1.2 With the recommended mitigation measures applied, the Project would be environmentally acceptable and no unacceptable residual impacts are anticipated. The schedule of implementation of the recommended mitigation measures has been provided in the EIA report. Monitoring requirements have also been specified in a separate EM&A Manual to ensure proper implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.