13                                        Summary of Environmental Outcomes

13.1                                  Introduction

This section summarises the key environmental outcomes arising from the assessments completed in this EIA Report for the proposed Gas Receiving Stations (GRSs) at the Black Point Power Station (BPPS) and submarine gas pipelines connected to BPPS.  For each of the environmental components assessed, a summary of key environmental sensitive receivers is completed, together with an overview of the key potential environmental impacts and key mitigation measures, highlighting their benefits where necessary.

The summary of each of the components is structured as follows:

·           List of sensitive receivers;

·           Key Environmental Problems Avoided / Environmental Outcomes;

·           Assessment Methodology and Criteria;

·           Construction Impacts;

·           Operation Impacts;

·           Key Mitigation Measures;

·           Residual Impacts; and

·           Compliance with the guidelines and criteria of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance - Technical Memorandum (EIAO-TM).

13.2                                  Air Quality

Table 13.1 presents a summary of the findings of the assessment of impacts to air quality as a result of the construction and operation of this Project.  Full details of the assessment and mitigation measures are presented in Section 4 of this EIA Report.

Table 13.1      Summary of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Air Quality

- AIR QUALITY -

Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs)

·        In accordance with the Study Brief, the study area for the air quality assessment is generally defined by a distance of 500 m from the boundary of the Project site.  Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs) were identified in accordance with the criteria in EIAO-TM Annex 12.

·        The nearest ASR is the Administration Building at Black Point Power Station (~ 360 m).

Key Environmental Issues Avoided / Environmental Outcomes

·        Air sensitive receivers have been avoided by choosing a remote location for the GRSs and a route to BPPS for the offshore pipelines that avoids ASRs.

Assessment Methodology and Criteria

·        An air dispersion model, Industrial Source Complex (ISCST3), recommended in the EPD’s Guideline of Choice of Models and Model Parameter, was employed to predict the air quality impacts.  The “rural” dispersion mode was used in the model run.  In addition, the local terrain has also been incorporated into the model to account for terrain-induced impacts to dispersion.

·        A highly conservative approach was adopted during the air quality impact assessment modelling exercise by assuming that the emissions from the gas heaters were continuous.

·        Isopleths of predicted maximum hourly, daily average and annual average concentrations of NO2 at 1.5 m, 5 m and 10 m above ground level were plotted, taking the background concentrations into consideration for comparison with the relevant criteria.

Key Construction Impacts

·        Potential nuisance from dust generating activities and gaseous emission from construction plant during construction of the GRSs have been assessed and were found to be minimal.  Impact on air quality at the ASR is not anticipated.

Key Operation Impacts

·        The emission of key pollutants at all identified ASRs are well within the respective AQO criteria, even allowing for the very conservative assumptions used for the project-related emissions.

Key Mitigation Measures

Construction Phase:

·        Dust control measures stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation will be implemented during the construction of the GRSs to control the potential fugitive dust emissions.

·        Site practices such as regular maintenance and checking of the diesel powered mechanical equipment will be adopted to avoid any black smoke emissions and to minimize gaseous emissions.

Operation Phase:

·        No exceedance of the NO2 and CO criteria is anticipated at the ASRs and therefore no mitigation measures are required.

Residual Impacts

Construction Phase:

·        With the implementation of the recommended dust and gaseous emissions control measures, no residual impacts are anticipated.

Operation Phase:

·        No adverse residual operation air quality impact is anticipated.

Compliance with EIAO-TM

·        The assessment and the impacts are acceptable and in compliance with the EIAO-TM Annexes 4 and 12 and applicable assessment standards/ criteria.

 

13.3                                  Noise

Table 13.2 presents a summary of the findings of the assessment of impacts to ambient noise as a result of the construction and operation of this Project.  Full details of the noise assessment are presented in Section 5 of this EIA Report.

Table 13.2      Summary of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes - Noise

- NOISE -

Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs)

·        In accordance with the Study Brief, the Study Area for the noise assessment includes all areas within 300 m from the Project Boundary. 

·        No existing Noise Sensitive Receiver (NSR) as per the criteria in EIAO-TM Annex 13 has been identified within the Study Area, and no planned NSR has been identified within 2 km from the Project Site. 

Key Environmental Problems Avoided / Environmental Outcomes

·        NSRs have been avoided by choosing a remote location for the GRSs and an offshore pipeline route to BPPS which will avoid NSRs during its construction phase.

Assessment Methodology and Criteria

·        The methodology for the noise impact assessment is in accordance with the procedures outlined in the GW-TM, which is issued under the NCO and the EIAO-TM.

·        Using a conservative approach, each work activity has been assumed to operate simultaneously.  Based on the construction programme, cumulative noise impact throughout the construction phase has been assessed.

Key Construction Impacts

·        Findings of the detailed desktop review indicate that no NSRs were identified within the Study Area.  Further quantitative assessment for predicting construction noise levels at NSRs was therefore not undertaken.

Key Operation Impacts

·        There will be no significant plant emitting noise in the GRSs, hence significant noise associated with the operation of this Project is not anticipated.

Key Mitigation Measures

·        No unacceptable potential noise impact is anticipated and thus mitigation measures are not required for the construction and operation phases.

Residual Impacts

·        No adverse residual construction or operation noise impact is anticipated.

Compliance with EIAO-TM

·        The assessment and the impacts are acceptable and in compliance with the EIAO-TM Annexes 5 and 13 and applicable assessment standards and criteria.

 

13.4                                  Water

Table 13.3 presents a summary of the findings of the assessment of impacts to water quality as a result of the construction and operation of this Project.  Full details of the assessment are presented in Section 6 of this EIA Report.

Table 13.3      Summary of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Water Quality

- WATER QUALITY -

Sensitive Receivers (SRs)

The following Sensitive Receivers have been identified (values in brackets indicate approximate distance from Project):

Fisheries Resources:

·        Oyster production area at Deep Bay (~ 4 km)

·        Recognised spawning grounds of commercial fisheries resources in north Lantau (> 4.5 km);

·        Artificial Reef Deployment Area at Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau (> 7.5 km);

Marine Ecological Resources:

·        Mangroves: Sheung Pak Nai, Ngau Hom Shek (> 5 km);

·        Marine Park: Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau (~ 3 km);

·        Intertidal Mudflats: Ha Pak Nai (~ 2.5 km);

·        Seagrass Beds: Ha Pak Nai, Pak Nai (> 3 km);

·        Horseshoe Crab Nursery Grounds: Ha Pak Nai, Pak Nai, Sheung Pak Nai and Ngau Hom Shek (> 3 km);

Water Quality:

·        Non-gazetted Beaches: Lung Kwu Sheung Tan, Lung Kwu Tan (> 2 km);

·        Secondary Contact Recreation Subzone: NW WCZ

·        Seawater Intakes: Black Point Power Station, Castle Peak Power Station, Tuen Mun Area 38, Shiu Wing Steel Mill (> 1 km).

Key Environmental Issues Avoided / Environmental Outcomes

·        Disturbance to sensitive receivers has been avoided as a result of the site/ route selection process of the GRS reclamation and pipelines.

·        Potential project layouts, construction design and methods were examined on the basis of their potential environmental impacts.  The adopted layout has reduced the reclamation to approximately 0.5 ha. 

·        Impacts to water quality have been reduced by the adoption of optimal installation techniques for all sections of the pipelines.

·        The amount of material to be dredged and hence disposed of has been reduced by optimising project design and phasing, thereby reducing impacts to water quality during dredging and disposal operations.

Assessment Methodology and Criteria

·        The potential impacts due to the construction and operation of the Project and associated developments were assessed following the EIAO-TM Annex 6 guidelines and the impacts evaluated based on the criteria in EIAO-TM Annex 14.

·        Impacts due to the dispersion of fine sediment in suspension during the construction of the GRS reclamation and submarine pipelines have been assessed using computational modelling (Delft3D-FLOW and Delft3D-WAQ models).

·        The simulation of operation impacts on water quality has also been studied by means of computational modelling.  The models have been used to simulate the effects of the physical presence of the reclamation of hydrodynamic regime, flushing and sedimentation patterns, and water quality changes.

·        Analysis of EPD routine water quality data from the years of 1998 to 2007 has been undertaken to determine the allowable increase in suspended solids concentrations.

Key Construction Impacts

The water quality modelling works have indicated that the construction works (i.e. dredging, jetting and backfilling) can proceed at the recommended working rates without causing unacceptable impacts to water quality sensitive receivers. 

·        Suspended Solids (SS): The majority of SS elevations in water have been predicted to remain within relatively close proximity to the dredging and jetting works and, as such, the majority of sediment has been predicted to settle within relatively close proximity to the works areas.  Thus, no unacceptable impacts are expected to be posed by the works.  Results of modelling works also indicated that pipeline installation works in Mainland waters are not expected to cause unacceptable impacts to sensitive receivers in Hong Kong.

·        Water Quality (Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients, and Heavy Metals): The dispersion of sediment due to dredging / jetting operations is not expected to impact the general water quality of the receiving waters.  Effects will be transient, localised in extent, of small magnitude and compliant with applicable standards.  Thus, no unacceptable impacts are expected to be posed by the works.

·        Other Discharges: Wastewater discharges, land based construction activities, vessel discharges and contaminants are not predicted to cause unacceptable impacts to the water quality sensitive receivers.

Key Operation Impacts

·        Hydrodynamics: The reclamation footprint is very small and as such, adverse impacts to hydrodynamics were demonstrated as not to occur.  No adverse impacts to water quality as a result of these minor changes in hydrodynamics were predicted.

·        Deep Bay Flushing and Sedimentation Pattern: The reclamation footprint is very small and adverse impacts were demonstrated as not to occur.

Key Mitigation Measures

·        Siting: The GRS reclamation and submarine pipelines are sited with the principal aim of avoiding direct impacts to sensitive receivers.

·        Reduction in Indirect Impacts: The GRS reclamation and submarine pipelines are located at distances from water quality sensitive receivers where the dispersion of sediments from the construction works does not affect the receivers at levels of concern (as defined by the WQO and tolerance criterion).

·        Adoption of Acceptable Construction Rates: The modelling work has demonstrated that the selected working rates for the dredging/ jetting operations will not cause unacceptable impacts to the receiving water quality.

Aside from these pro-active measures that have been adopted, a number of operational constraints and standard site practice measures for dredging/ jetting and construction activities are also recommended.

Residual Impacts

·        No unacceptable residual impacts have been predicted to occur during the construction phase and operation phase.

Compliance with EIAO-TM

·        The assessment and the impacts are acceptable and in compliance with the EIAO-TM Annexes 6 and 14 and applicable assessment standards/criteria.

 

13.5                                  Waste Management

Table 13.4 presents a summary of the findings of the assessment of impacts to waste management as a result of the construction and operation of this Project.  The details of the assessment are presented in full in Section 7 of this EIA Report.

Table 13.4      Summary of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Waste Management

- WASTE MANAGEMENT -

Key Environmental Problems Avoided / Environmental Outcomes

·        Potential project layouts, construction design and methods, use of jetting and phasing of dredging, were examined on the basis of their potential environmental impacts.  The preferred alternatives have led to the reduction in the amount of dredged material expected to be produced and, therefore, have brought about an overall reduction in waste management impacts.

Assessment Methodology and Criteria

The potential environmental impacts associated with the handling and disposal of waste arising from the construction and operation of this Project are assessed in accordance with the criteria presented in Annexes 7 and 15 of the EIAO-TM:

·        Estimation of the types and quantities of the wastes to be generated;

·        Assessment of the secondary environmental impacts due to the management of waste with respect to potential hazards, air and odour emissions, noise, wastewater discharges and traffic; and

·        Assessment of the potential impacts on the capacity of waste collection, transfer and disposal facilities.

Key Construction Impacts

The key potential impacts during the construction phase are related to wastes generated from dredging, reclamation, seawall construction, filling and concreting.

·        It is noted that the First Phase Construction is expected to generate about 0.253 Mm3 (bulk volume) of contaminated marine sediments for off-site disposal.  For the Second Phase it is estimated that in total approximately 0.409 Mm3 (bulk volume) of contaminated marine sediment from the construction of the reclamation and submarine gas pipelines will require off site disposal.

·        Other wastes produced during the construction phase are of small quantity and will be disposed of accordingly to their nature and relevant regulations, avoiding any potential adverse impact.

Key Operation Impacts

·        Small amount of industrial waste and chemical waste will be produced during the operation phase.  The potential environmental impacts associated with waste storage, handling, collection, transport and disposal will meet the criteria specified in the EIAO-TM, thus no unacceptable operational waste management impact is anticipated.

Key Mitigation Measures

·        A Waste Management Plan will be devised which incorporates mitigation measures that have been proposed to avoid or reduce potential adverse environmental impacts associated with handling, collection and disposal of waste arising from the construction and operation of this Project.

Residual Impacts

·        With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, in particular the establishment and implementation of the Waste Management Plan, no adverse residual impacts are anticipated from the construction and operation of this Project.

Compliance with EIAO-TM

·        The assessment and the impacts are acceptable and in compliance with the EIAO-TM Annexes 7 and 15 and applicable assessment standards/criteria.

 

13.6                                  Marine Ecology

Table 13.5 presents a summary of the findings of the assessment of impacts to marine ecology as a result of the construction and operation of this Project.  The details of the assessment are presented in full in Section 8 of this EIA Report.

 

Table 13.5      Summary of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Marine Ecology

- MARINE ECOLOGY -

Marine Ecology Sensitive Receivers

The following marine ecological sensitive receivers were identified (values in brackets indicate approximate distance from Project):

·          Seagrass Beds: Pak Nai, Ha Pak Nai (> 3 km);

·          Marine Parks: Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau (~ 3 km);

·          Intertidal Mudflats: Ha Pak Nai (~ 2.5 km);

·          Mangroves: Sheung Pak Nai, Ngau Hom Shek (> 5 km);

·          Horseshoe Crab Nursery Grounds: Ha Pak Nai, Pak Nai, Sheung Pak Nai, Ngau Hom Shek (> 3 km)

Key Environmental Problems Avoided/

Environmental Outcomes

·        Disturbance to marine ecologically sensitive habitats has been avoided as a result of the site/route selection process of the GRS reclamation and pipelines.

·        Potential project layouts, construction design and methods were examined on the basis of their potential environmental impacts.  The adopted layout has reduced the reclamation to approximately 0.5 ha with no loss of natural coastline.

·        Impacts to marine ecology have been reduced through the adoption of optimal installation techniques for the pipelines.  This results in less adverse effect on the water quality of the surrounding areas and thus to the marine ecosystems. 

Assessment Methodology and Criteria

·        A literature review was supplemented by a programme of field surveys that covered intertidal and subtidal assemblages.  Additional comprehensive review of marine mammals was also conducted.

·        The potential impacts due to the construction and operation of the proposed Project were assessed following the EIAO-TM Annex 16 guidelines and the impacts evaluated based on criteria in EIAO-TM Annex 8 and Guidance Notes.

Key Construction Impacts

·        Potential construction phase impacts to marine ecological resources, as well as impacts to marine mammals, may arise from the permanent loss of habitat due to reclamation and disturbances to benthic habitats in the pipeline corridor and reclamation works area as a result of the dredging, jetting, reclamation and installation of the gas pipelines.

·        Water quality impacts arising from the proposed dredging/ jetting works will be compliant with assessment criteria, transient and confined to the works areas and, therefore will not give rise to adverse impacts to marine ecological resources or marine mammals.

Key Operation Impacts

·        Unacceptable operation phase impacts to marine ecological resources, as well as impacts to marine mammals, are not expected to arise from the physical presence of the reclamation on hydrodynamic regime, flushing and sedimentation patterns, and water quality changes.

Key Mitigation and Precautionary Measures

·        Avoid Direct and Reduce Indirect Impacts to Ecologically Sensitive Habitats: The site for the GRS reclamation has been selected based on a review of alternative locations and has avoided natural coastline, key habitats for the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (e.g. Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park) and areas of high marine mammal sighting density.  The location of the reclamation at BPPS has a low sighting density of marine mammals.   The dispersion of sediment from dredging/ jetting and backfilling does not affect the receivers at levels of concern.

·        Pipeline Alignment: The alignment chosen for the pipelines is at a sufficient distance from key ecological sensitive habitats, such as the Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park, so that the transient elevation of suspended sediment concentrations from the installation works is not expected to result in unacceptable impacts to sensitive receivers.

·        Installation Equipment: The use of optimal techniques during the installation of the pipelines will reduce the severity of perturbations to water quality and hence allow compliance with the impact assessment criteria at sensitive receivers.  The careful selection of installation equipment and optimisation of works schedule will help avoid impacts to sensitive ecological receivers, such as marine mammals.

·        Adoption of Acceptable Working Rates: The modelling work has demonstrated that the selected working rates for dredging/ jetting works will not cause unacceptable impacts to the receiving water quality.  Consequently, unacceptable indirect impacts to marine ecological resources have been avoided.

The mitigation measures designed to mitigate impacts to water quality to acceptable levels (compliance with assessment criteria) are also expected to mitigate impacts to marine ecological resources.

Key Mitigation and Precautionary Measures (cont’d)

·        Specific mitigation measures have been designed to reduce impacts to the population of marine mammals which include restrictions on vessel speed, the use of pre-defined and regular routes by construction traffic, and adoption of marine mammal exclusion zones around the marine works areas during the dredging / jetting works.

Residual Impacts

The following residual ecological impacts have been identified:

·        The loss of approximately 100 m of artificial shoreline which is of low ecological value.  The residual impact is considered to be acceptable, as the loss of these habitats will be compensated by the provision of 200 m of seawalls that are expected to become recolonised by intertidal and subtidal assemblages of a similar nature after construction.

·        The permanent loss of approximately 0.5 ha of subtidal soft bottom assemblages within the reclamation site.  The residual impact is considered to be acceptable as the habitat is of low ecological concern and very small in size in the context of surrounding similar habitat.

·        The loss of about 0.5 ha of marine waters within the reclamation site which may serve as marine mammal habitats.  The residual impact is considered to be acceptable since the habitat which would be lost is not considered as key marine mammal habitat and with relatively low dolphin densities.

·        Approximately 16.5 ha of benthic habitats along the pipeline route and reclamation works area will be lost during dredging/ jetting, but similar subtidal benthos will recolonise over time.  The residual impacts are considered to be acceptable as the habitats are of low ecological value and because infaunal organisms and epibenthic fauna are expected to recolonise the sediments after the pipelines have been laid.

Compliance with EIAO-TM

·        The assessment and the residual impacts are acceptable and in compliance with the EIAO-TM Annexes 8 and 16 and applicable assessment standards/criteria.

 

13.7                                  Fisheries

Table 13.6 presents a summary of the findings of the assessment of impacts to fisheries as a result of the construction and operation of this Project.  The details of the assessment are presented in full in Section 9 of this EIA Report.

Table 13.6      Summary of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Fisheries

- FISHERIES -

Fisheries Sensitive Receivers

·        Recognised spawning grounds of commercial fisheries resources in north Lantau (> 4.5 km);

·        Artificial reefs in the Sha Chau & Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park (> 7.5 km);

·        Oyster production area at Deep Bay (~ 4 km).

Key Environmental Issues Avoided/

Environmental Outcomes

·        Potential project layouts, construction design and methods were examined on the basis of their potential environmental impacts.  The adopted layout has reduced the reclamation to approximately 0.5 ha.

·        The submarine pipelines will be buried in the seabed and protected.  The protection measures will be either flush with, or below, the existing seabed level.  This will avoid interference with fishing operations.

Assessment Methodology and Criteria

·        A literature review was conducted to establish the fisheries importance of the area surrounding the proposed Project.

·        The potential impacts due to the construction and operation of the Project and associated developments were assessed following the EIAO-TM Annex 17 guidelines and the impacts evaluated based on the criteria in EIAO-TM Annex 9.

Key Construction Impacts

·        The permanent loss of about 0.5 ha of marine habitat due to reclamation and temporary disturbances to about 16.5 ha benthic habitats within the pipeline corridor and reclamation works area are not expected to be unacceptable given the small size and low fisheries importance of the areas affected.

·        Increase in underwater sound caused by minor increase in marine traffic is not anticipated to result in unacceptable impacts to fisheries resources.

·        Water quality impacts arising from the proposed dredging/ jetting or backfilling works are predicted to be largely confined to the specific works areas and the predicted elevations in suspended sediment concentrations are predicted to comply with relevant assessment criteria.  Consequential impacts to any fishing grounds or species of importance to the fishery are therefore not anticipated.

Key Operation Impacts

·        Unacceptable operation phase impacts to fisheries resources and fishing operations are not expected to occur.  The permanent loss of about 0.5 ha of fishing ground is not considered to be significant as the area is of small size and low fisheries importance.

·        Secondary impacts to fisheries as a result of the physical presence of the reclamation are not expected to occur.

Key Mitigation Measures

·        The mitigation measures designed to mitigate impacts to water quality to acceptable levels (compliance with assessment criteria) are expected to mitigate impacts to fisheries resources.

·        Construction impacts to fisheries resources and fishing operations have largely been avoided through the planning and design of the marine works; in particular those associated with the backfilling and dredging/ jetting.  No fisheries-specific mitigation measures are required during construction.

·        Unacceptable operation phase impacts are not expected and so no additional fisheries-specific mitigation measures are required during operation.

Residual Impacts

·        The identified residual impact occurring during the construction phase is the permanent loss of approximately 0.5 ha of seabed associated with the GRS reclamation.

·        The magnitude of this residual impact is considered to be within acceptable levels given the small size and low fisheries importance of the area being lost.

Compliance with EIAO-TM

·        The assessment and the impacts are acceptable and in compliance with the EIAO-TM Annexes 9 and 17 and applicable assessment standards/criteria.

 

13.8                                  Landscape & Visual Impact

Table 13.7 presents a summary of the findings of the assessment of impacts to the landscape and visual environment as a result of the construction and operation of this Project.  The details of the assessment are presented in full in Section 10 of this EIA Report.

Table 13.7      Summary of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Landscape & Visual

- LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL -

Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSRs), Landscape Resources (LRs) and Landscape Character Areas (LCAs)

·        Three Recreational VSRs: Recreational Transient Vessels, Hikers to Lookout above BPPS and Hikers to Castle Peak - these include views seen by visitors when passing through the vicinity

·        Four Occupational VSRs: Employees at BPPS, Fishermen, Workers on transient marine vessels and Workers at West New Territories Landfill - these include views seen by workers in the vicinity

·        Seven LRs: Mixed Shrubland, Shrubby Grassland, Bare Rock Slopes, Grassland, Highly Modified Area, Artificial Rocky/ Hard Shoreline and Seascape

·        Three LCAs: Inshore Waters Landscape, Industrial Urban Landscape and Upland and Hillside Landscape

Key Environmental Problems Avoided

·        Sensitive VSRs have been avoided by choosing a remote location for the GRSs.

·        Landscape impacts have been reduced through sighting of the GRSs on previously disturbed landscape resources.

Assessment Methodology and Criteria

·        The methodology of the LVIA was based on Annexes 10 and 18 in the EIAO-TM under the EIA Ordinance and associated Guidance Notes.

·        The landscape assessment considered the impact of the proposed development on the existing landscape and particularly on the landscape character units within 500 m of the development site.

·        The visual assessment examined the impact of the proposed development on the existing views and the visual amenity, particularly from the VSRs within the viewshed.

·        In order to illustrate the visual impacts of the proposed GRSs, photomontages prepared from selected viewpoints compare the existing conditions with the view after construction.  The residual impacts are evaluated qualitatively, in accordance with the requirements of Annex 10 of the EIAO-TM.

Key Impacts

The proposed GRSs will only be visible from a limited number of locations, and these impacts will only be significant at close proximity to the Black Point Power Station.  The analysis has shown that at distances greater than 2.3 km, the GRSs will not have a substantial negative impact on the visual environment.

·        The GRSs are expected to have negligible to moderate landscape impact on the existing LCAs and LRs of the Study Area, as these LCAs and LRs are of low to medium sensitivity to change and the magnitude of change is expected to be negligible to intermediate.

·        The GRSs are expected to have slight visual impacts on the existing VSRs of the Study Area, as these VSRs are of low sensitivity to change and the magnitude of change is expected to be small.

Key Mitigation Measures

The analysis has shown that all seven VSRs selected for analysis will experience a slight visual impact.  The following Visual Mitigation Measures (VMMs) are proposed to reduce the slight impacts identified and improve the overall amenity of the development

·        VM 1: The colours of the proposed GRS should be selected to complement the existing industrial surroundings.

To reduce the potential impacts on the existing LRs and LCAs and provide a potential enhancement of the existing landscape quality, Landscape Mitigation Measures (CM) are proposed in accordance with future Landscape Specification and relevant best practice guidelines:

·        CM1: Site hoardings to be compatible with surrounding landscape.

·        CM2: Edges of the new reclamation to be constructed to match the existing Rocky Seawall

·        CM3: The tree requiring removal is to be compensated in accordance with relevant government guidelines

Residual Impacts

·        No significant adverse residual impacts have been identified.  The Landscape and Visual Mitigation Measures proposed will help to mitigate the impacts on the LCAs, LRs and VSRs.  Overall the residual impacts are assessed as negligible to slight.

Compliance with EIAO-TM

·        The assessment and the impacts are acceptable with mitigation and in compliance with the EIAO-TM Annexes 10 and 18 and applicable assessment standards/criteria.

 

 

13.9                                  Cultural Heritage

Table 13.8 presents a summary of the findings of the assessment of impacts to cultural heritage as a result of the construction and operation of this Project.  The details of the assessment are presented in full in Section 11 of this EIA Report.

Table 13.8      Summary of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Cultural Heritage

- CULTURAL HERITAGE -

Sensitive Receivers

·        There is no declared/ deemed monument, graded/ recorded heritage resources, Built Heritage or Archaeological Sites located within the proposed land-based Project Area and works areas.  No existing sites of cultural heritage protected under the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance have been identified within the proposed Project Area and works areas.

·        No marine sites of cultural heritage/ archaeological value are present in waters surrounding Black Point and along the proposed pipeline corridor

Key Environmental Issues Avoided/

Environmental Outcomes

·        Potential layouts were examined on the basis of their potential environmental impacts.  The selected layout has reduced the area impacted by the footprint of the Project and hence reduced potential impact on cultural heritage sites.

Assessment Methodology and Criteria

·        The study methodology follows the criteria and guidelines as stated in Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO-TM and the criteria for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) and Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI) as stated EIA Study Brief No. ESB-208/2009.

·        The baseline study included a desktop literature review and a Marine Archaeological Investigation.

Key Impacts

·        Findings of the Marine Archaeological Investigation concluded that no marine sites of cultural heritage/ archaeological value are present in waters surrounding Black Point and along the proposed pipeline corridor.  As such, no impacts to marine archaeological resources are expected. 

Key Mitigation Measures

·        No impacts to marine archaeological resources have been identified and hence no specific mitigation measures are necessary.

Residual Impacts

·        No residual impact is expected.

Compliance with EIAO-TM

·        The assessment and the residual impacts are acceptable and in compliance with the EIAO-TM Annexes 10 and 19 and applicable assessment standards and criteria.

 

 

13.10                              Hazard to Life

Table 13.9 presents a summary of the findings of the assessment of impacts to quantitative risk as a result of the operation of this Project.  The details of the assessment are presented in full in Section 12 of this EIA Report.

Table 13.9      Summary of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Quantitative Risk Assessment

QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT

Key Environmental Issues Avoided

·        The Project has been located in a remote location avoiding populated areas. 

Assessment Methodology and Criteria

·        The Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) study undertaken for this Project has assessed the risk associated with the GRSs as well as the associated submarine gas pipelines from Black Point Power Station (BPPS) to Mainland China.

·        The methodology involved five main components: review of baseline data (review of GRS layout and surrounding population), risk assessment on generic and site specific risks, frequencies and likelihood calculation, consequence assessment and risk assessment.

·        The results from the risk assessment were compared with the HKRG and, mitigation measures identified and assessed where appropriate.

Key Impacts

Submarine Gas Pipelines:

·        The FN curves for all sections of the pipelines lie within the Acceptable Region.

·        Individual risk (IR) for all sections are predicted to be less than the 1 x 10-5 per year as per Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM.

Gas Receiving Stations:

·        It can be seen that the societal risk for the GRSs is within the Acceptable Region as per Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM.

·        The IR is less than 1 x 10-5 per year (i.e. less than one in every 100,000 years) everywhere on site and at the site boundary, and hence meets the requirements of Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM.

Mitigation Measures

·        No unacceptable risks are foreseen as a result of the operation of the GRSs and submarine gas pipelines.  No mitigation measures are thus deemed necessary.

Residual Impacts

·        No residual impact is expected.

Compliance with EIAO-TM

·        The assessment and the impacts are in compliance with the EIAO-TM Annex 4.