This
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report has been produced in accordance
with the requirements of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-324/2019) for the
Establishment of Fish Culture Zone at Wong Chuk Kok Hoi and the Technical
Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (TM-EIAO).
Potential
environmental impacts that have been assessed for the Project include the
following aspects and are summarised in the sections below.
§ Water
quality;
§ Marine
ecology;
§ Fisheries;
§ Waste
management;
§ Visual;
§ Noise;
and
§ Cultural
heritage.
The
summaries of environmental impacts are structured as follows for each of the
technical assessment completed under this EIA study:
§ Sensitive
receivers / assessment points;
§ Assessment
Methodology and Criteria;
§ Key
Construction Impacts;
§ Key
Operation Impacts;
§ Key
Mitigation Measures;
§ Residual
Impacts; and
§ Compliance
with the guidelines and criteria of the EIAO-TM.
Table 12.1
presents a
summary of the key findings of the assessment of potential impacts to water
quality as a result of the construction and operation
of this Project. Full details of the
assessment and mitigation measures are presented in Section 3 of this EIA
Report.
Table 12.1 Summary of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Water
Quality
|
Item |
Description |
|
Water Sensitive Receivers (WSRs) |
WSRs were identified under this Project, covering: n Recreational areas, such as secondary contact recreation subzones of WCZs; n Marine Parks and Artificial Reef deployed within; n Existing FCZs, proposed FCZs and spawning ground and
nursery area of fisheries resources; n Ecological habitats for marine organisms including coral and benthic
communities, and Finless Porpoise at / near the Project site; n Intertidal area; n Site of Special Scientific Interest; and n Non-gazetted beaches. |
|
Assessment Methodology and Criteria |
n The potential impacts due to the construction and
operation of the Project were assessed following the EIAO-TM Annex 6
guidelines and the impacts evaluated based on the criteria in EIAO-TM
Annex 14. Water quality impacts on
WSRs were evaluated according to the Water Quality Objective (WQO) criteria
of the corresponding WCZ, additional suspended solids criterion for coral in
the Tolo Harbour and Channel WCZ and chlorophyll-a
criterion for FCZs in the Mirs Bay WCZ. n Construction phase of this Project will only
involve towing; on-site assemble and anchorage of fish raft. The corresponding impacts were assessed
qualitatively. n Impacts due to increase pollution load from
mariculture activities at the Project site at Wong Chuk Kok Hoi were assessed
quantitatively using Delft3D suite of model.
First, the carrying capacity of the Project site at Wong Chuk Kok Hoi
was estimated following methodology by Wong
et. al. 2012. Project WATERMAN - Carrying Capacity of Fish Culture Zones
in Hong Kong. Then the corresponding
pollution load from the Project site based on the derived carrying capacity,
as well as all the pollution load of fish culture zones were estimated based
on the updated methodology established by Wong
et. al. 2012. This stream of pollution
load, together with other sources of pollutants in HK and the Guangdong side
of the Mirs Bay, were than taken
into account in the Delft3D WAQ modelling simulation to predict the
change in water quality at water sensitive receivers. n The predicted water quality was then assessed
against the relevant criteria of WQOs and / or specific water quality
criterion for mariculture for compliance. |
|
Key Construction Impacts |
Impacts during
construction phase of the Project is expected to be very limited. Limited and localised elevation of
suspended solids from anchoring activities will have transient impact on the
water quality because suspended sediment will settle shortly close to the
anchor. The Project site is deep
enough so propeller wash would not be a concern. Construction phase would likely involve the
use of modular form and pretreated materials so
onsite works and use of chemicals would be minimal. This also means there would not be
significant presence of workforce onsite.
Any sewage / wastewater generated should be collected by the
associated transportation / work boats for disposal at appropriate facilities
on land. |
|
Key
Operation Impacts |
n Water quality
simulation indicated that the predicted change in water quality due to the
mariculture operation at the estimated carrying capacity of the Project site
would be limited. No additional
exceedance of WQO was predicted at any water sensitive receivers. n Low dissolved
oxygen level was predicted at the Project Site under the baseline
scenario. To remediate the potential
reduction in dissolved oxygen level at the Project Site as
a result of project operation, the model has taken into account
mariculturists’ response to low dissolved oxygen in the wet season period in
form of aeration at individual mariculture operation. Modelling result indicated the provision of
aeration at the months when dissolved oxygen levels were predicted to be the
lowest would allow 10th-percentile dissolved oxygen level remain similar to the baseline levels and avoid any aggravation
of baseline non-compliance. |
|
Key
Mitigation Measures |
Construction: n Any sewage /
wastewater generated should be collected at the transportation / work
vessel(s) for disposal at appropriate facilities on land. Operation: The following precautionary
measures should be implemented to minimise water quality impact from the
proposed mariculture operation at the Project site: n Standing stock should not exceed 755.2 ton at any
given time. AFCD will ensure the production scale of the Project site will not
exceed the maximum standing stock level by controlling the mariculture
production scale permitted under individual license. n AFCD and mariculturists should be aware of
potential occurrence of low dissolved oxygen at the Project Site by
self-monitoring and the mariculturists will apply suitable control measures (e.g. aeration) as necessary. n In case of potential circumstances (e.g. red tide event, outbreak of fish disease), the
licensees will review the need of fish raft relocation and propose the fish
raft relocation plan as necessary for agreement with AFCD. n Only pellet feed or alternative feed with better
feed conversion ratio will be permitted within the proposed FCZ. n No chemically-laden
solution from culture gears disinfection should be discharged into the sea. n Onsite storage of chemicals should be controlled
and minimised as practicable. Excess
chemicals as well chemical waste generated should be removed from the site at
appropriate facilities or by licensed contractor as soon as possible. n Fuel storage onsite should be minimised, and if
needed, be located at sheltered and secure location. n Littering of the sea should be prohibited. |
|
Residual
Impacts |
Construction: n No marine
work or other major source of pollution is expected from the construction
phase of the Project. No unacceptable
construction phase water quality impact is expected. Operation: n Modelling
results indicated no additional exceedance or aggravation of existing
condition would be expected from the operation phase of the Project with
suitable control measure (e.g. aeration) in place as
necessary. No unacceptable operation phase water quality impact is expected. |
|
Compliance
with EIAO-TM |
The
assessment and the potential impacts are in compliance with
the EIAO-TM Annexes 6 and 14 and applicable assessment standards
/ criteria. |
Table 12.2
presents a summary of the key findings of the assessment of potential impacts
to marine ecology 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
12.2 Summary of Environmental
Assessment and Outcomes – Marine Ecology
|
Item |
Description |
|
Marine Ecological Sensitive Receivers |
In accordance with the Study Brief Section 3.4.4.2
of the Project, the marine ecological sensitive receivers were identified and
detailed in Section 4. n The Assessment Area is the same as the
water quality impact assessment, which covers the Mirs
Bay Water Control Zone (WCZ) and the Tolo Harbour and Channel WCZ. n Known marine ecological important habitats
and species in the vicinity of the Project within the Assessment Areas
include existing Country Parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI),
Special Area, existing marine parks, mangroves, coral communities, marine
benthos of conservation interest, and ecological important species including
Amphioxus and White-bellied Sea Eagle. |
|
Assessment Methodology and Criteria |
n A literature review was supplemented by a
programme of field surveys that covered subtidal (benthic and coral)
communities. n 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 |
n Impacts from temporary habitat disturbance (~35
ha) and underwater sound from marine construction activities and marine
vessels on marine ecology and marine parks is considered minor and
acceptable, therefore the implementation of mitigation measures is not
required. |
|
Key
Operation Impacts |
n Impacts from changes in marine habitats
(<35 ha), temporary relocation of rafts under typhoons or algal blooms,
underwater sound from daily operations and marine vessels, changes in water
quality parameters during fish farm operation and potential introduction of invasive
species on marine ecology and marine parks is considered to
be minor and acceptable. n Water quality impacts arising from the
operation of fish farms will be reduced through implementation of the
recommended water quality mitigation measures. n The operation measures and practices
presented in Appendix 2A
would prevent the potential introduction of invasive species. |
|
Key
Mitigation Measures |
The
mitigation measures designed to mitigate impacts to water quality during
construction and operation and through proper fish farm management are
expected to mitigate impacts to marine ecological resources. |
|
Residual
Impacts |
The following
residual ecological impacts have been identified: n <35 ha of marine ecological habitat will
be affected during operation of the FCZ. While the design of fish farm will
only occupy a section of the water column and a small area of seabed, with
the small extent of affected habitat and the overall low marine ecological
value in the context of surrounding similar habitat, the impact due to the
change in marine habitat is considered to be of
minor significance and acceptable. Furthermore, with the implementation of
the proposed mitigation measures, the potential impact on marine ecological
resources will be further minimised. No
unacceptable residual marine ecological impacts during the construction and
operation of the Project are therefore anticipated. n In addition, the fish farm structures,
which would provide artificial substrates for forming habitat and shelter for
juveniles or adult fisheries, would provide positive effects on marine
ecological resources within and adjacent to the Project Site. |
|
Compliance
with EIAO-TM |
The
assessment and the potential impacts are in compliance with
the EIAO-TM Annexes 8 and 16 and applicable assessment standards
/ criteria. |
Table 12.3
presents a
summary of the key findings of the assessment of potential impacts to fisheries
as a result of the construction and operation of this
Project. Full details of the assessment
and mitigation measures are presented in Section 5 of this EIA Report.
Table
12.3 Summary of Environmental
Assessment and Outcomes – Fisheries
|
Item |
Description |
|
Fisheries Sensitive Receivers |
The identified fisheries sensitive receivers are: n Recognised
spawning ground and nursery area of commercial fisheries resources in
northeastern waters located within the Project site; n FCZ at Wong Wan and other FCZs (located at
~0.8 km and >5 km by sea distance respectively from Project site); n Yan Chau Tong Marine Park and ARs deployed
within; and n Hoi Ha Wan Marine Park and ARs deployed
within. |
|
Assessment Methodology and Criteria |
A literature review was conducted to establish the
fisheries importance of the area surrounding the 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 |
n Temporary disturbance to fisheries habitat
and loss of access to fishing grounds within an area of ~35 ha at the Project
site is considered to be minor and acceptable given
the small size of the affected areas and the majority of
fisheries resources found in and around the vicinity of the Project site are
of low commercial value. n The impact from
the construction works on fishing activity is of temporary nature. Furthermore, although part of the project
site is located in an area with high level of
fishing activities, the loss of access to fishing ground is considered to be
small compared to the availability of fishing grounds elsewhere in northeastern Hong Kong waters available for fishing
activities. Overall, the impacts on
fishing activity are of minor significance and no unacceptable impacts are
expected. n Due to the presence of low to high
background levels of underwater sound in the vicinity of the Project site,
unacceptable impacts on fisheries due to the generation of underwater sound
from increased marine traffic during FCZ construction is not expected. |
|
Key
Operation Impacts |
n Changes in
fisheries habitat and loss of access to fishing grounds will not fully occupy
all of the Project area with the estimated affected
area 35 ha. The impact on fisheries
resources and fisheries habitat is
considered to be minor and acceptable given the small size
of the affected areas and the majority of fisheries resources found in
and around the vicinity of the Project site are of low commercial value. n Relocation of fish rafts / cages would
occur only temporarily and corresponding impacts would
be similar to the construction phase.
The impact is considered to be minor and
unacceptable impacts on fisheries resources and habitats are not
expected. n Due to the presence of the low to high background
levels of underwater sound in the vicinity of the Project site, unacceptable
impacts due to the generation of underwater sound from increased marine
traffic during fish farm operation is not expected. n Unacceptable impacts at all fisheries
sensitive receivers due to changes in water quality from fish farm operation
is not expected. n The implementation of good mariculture
practices and measures presented in Appendix 2A, such as fish health surveillance program
would reduce the outbreak of fish disease, unacceptable impacts on fisheries
are expected to be minor. |
|
Key
Mitigation Measures |
The
mitigation measures designed to mitigate impacts to water quality during
construction and operation with proper fish farm management designated to
mitigate marine ecological impacts are expected to mitigate impacts to
fisheries resources. |
|
Residual
Impacts |
n 35 ha of fisheries habitat and fishing
grounds will be affected during operation of the FCZ. While the design of fish farm will only
occupy a section of the water column and a small area of seabed. With the
small extent of affected area and the overall low commercial value of
fisheries resources, the impact due to the change in fisheries habitat and
loss of access to fishing grounds is considered to be
of minor and acceptable. Furthermore, with the implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures, the potential impact on fisheries will be further minimised. No
unacceptable residual fisheries impacts during the
construction and operation of the Project are therefore anticipated. n In addition, the establishment of the
proposed FCZ would have positive effects on fisheries resources. While the proposed FCZ would provide more
fisheries resources to the local and global fisheries market, the fish farm
structures would also provide artificial substrates, which could form habitat
and shelter for juveniles or adult fisheries resources. Besides, the reduced
fishing pressure may also have potential positive effect on fisheries resources
within and adjacent to the Project site. |
|
Compliance
with EIAO-TM |
The
assessment and the potential impacts are in compliance with
the EIAO-TM Annexes 9 and 17 and applicable assessment standards
/ criteria. |
Table 12.4
presents a summary of the key findings of the assessment of the waste
management implications associated with the construction and operation of this
Project. Full details of the assessment
and mitigation measures are presented in Section 6 of this EIA Report.
Table 12.4 Summary of Environmental
Assessment and Outcomes – Waste
|
Item |
Description |
|
Assessment Methodology and Criteria |
The study methodology follows the criteria and
guidelines as stated in Annexes 7
and 15 of the EIAO-TM and the Requirements stated in Appendix E of the Study Brief. |
|
Key Construction Impacts |
General refuse will be produced by contractor(s) and
floating refuse may be trapped on the surface of the anchored fish cages,
fish rafts and vessels within the Project site during the construction
phase. Unacceptable waste management
impact arising from construction of the Project is not anticipated. |
|
Key
Operation Impacts |
Operation
waste are mainly comprised of organic waste,
chemical waste, general refuse and floating refuse from site operation. Operation impacts are expected to be
acceptable with the adoption of appropriate mitigation measures. |
|
Key
Mitigation Measures |
§ Nomination
of approved personnel (e.g. environmental officer of
the contractor(s), representative of the project proponent) to be responsible
for good site practices, arrangements for collection and effective disposal
to an appropriate facility of all wastes generated at the site. § Training
of site personnel in proper waste management and handling procedures by AFCD.
§ Provision
of sufficient waste disposal points and regular collection for disposal. § Appropriate
measures to reduce windblown / floating litter and dust during transportation
of waste by transporting wastes in enclosed containers. § A
recording system (e.g. log book for mariculture
operation) for the amount of wastes generated, recycled and disposed of and
the disposal sites for checking by AFCD. § Prior
to the commencement construction phase and operation phase, training should
be provided to contractor(s) and all staff working at the Project site
respectively. § Proper
collection, storage and disposal of solid wastes, chemical wastes and organic
wastes shall be carried out under the relevant Ordinances. § To
avoid entrapment of floating refuse within the Project site, fish cages /
rafts and vessels should be properly designed to avoid or minimise any
trapped or accumulated refuse. § Use
of good quality feed, i.e. pellet feed, to reduce
uneaten feed wastage. § The
fish farmers will keep detailed operational records to allow more accurate
estimation of fish feed input and to minimise unnecessary wastage of feeds. § The
uneaten feeds should be cleaned up immediately to minimise leaching to the
adjacent water. |
|
Residual
Impacts |
No
adverse residual impacts are expected. |
|
Compliance
with EIAO-TM |
The assessment
and the potential impacts are in compliance with the
EIAO-TM Annexes 7 and 15 and applicable assessment standards
/ criteria. |
Table 12.5
presents a
summary of the key findings of the assessment of potential visual impact as a result of the construction and operation of the
Project. Full details of the assessment
and mitigation measures are presented in Section 7 of this EIA Report.
Table
12.5 Summary of Environmental
Assessment and Outcomes – Visual Impact
|
Item |
Description |
|
Visual Sensitive Receivers (VSRs) |
A total of three VSR groups have been
identified. They included
recreational, occupational and travelling
users. Four viewpoints have been
selected to assess the visual impacts. |
|
Assessment Methodology and Criteria |
n
The
methodology of the visual impact assessment was based on Annexes 10 and 18 in
the EIAO-TM under the EIA Ordinance and associated Guidance Notes. n
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. n
In order to illustrate the visual impacts of the proposed
Project structures, 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 Construction Impacts |
Visual impacts during construction of the Project
are considered acceptable with mitigation. |
|
Key
Operation Impacts |
Operational
impacts are expected to be acceptable and arise from the operation of the new
structures of the Project site.
Night-time lighting for night-time navigation and glare impact is
considered acceptable. |
|
Key
Mitigation Measures |
n
Pre-construction
and construction period for the Project site should be reduced as far as
practical to lower visual impact. n
The new
structures will be designed in accordance with relevant marine safety
standards and regulations. Sensitive architectural design will be considered
where practicable. This should take into account
material texture, colour, finishes to structures to ensure the fish rafts /
cages blend into the existing context, cause least disturbance to the
existing seascape, and are the most visually appealing. n
After
operation, the open water occupied by the Project site will be reinstated to
their former state. n Light intensity and beam directional angle should
be controlled at the Project site at the design stage to reduce light
pollution and glare (e.g. hooded lights, specific
directional focus, etc.). |
|
Residual
Impacts |
No
significant adverse visual impacts are expected. |
|
Compliance
with EIAO-TM |
The
assessment and the potential impacts are in compliance with
the EIAO-TM Annexes 10 and 18 and applicable assessment standards
/ criteria. |
Table 12.6
presents a
summary of the key findings of the assessment of potential impacts to ambient
noise level as a result of the construction and
operation of this Project. Full details
of the assessment and mitigation measures are presented in Section 8 of this EIA
Report.
Table 12.6 Summary of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Noise
|
Item |
Description |
|
Noise
Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) |
In
accordance with Section 3.4.8.2 and Clauses
2.2.1(a) and 3.2.1(a) in Appendix G of the Study Brief, the Assessment
Area for the noise impact assessment covers areas within 300 m of the Project
boundary. Two NSRs for country park were identified within the Assessment Area. A total of three NSRs were identified and
are illustrated in Figure 8.1. Other NSR are located at more than 700 m
from the Project boundary. |
|
Assessment
Methodology and Criteria |
The methodology for the noise impact assessment is in accordance with
Clause 3.4.8 of the Study Brief and
the procedures outlined in the GW-TM,
which is issued under the Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) and the EIAO-TM. |
|
Key
Construction Impacts |
Two NSRs for Country Park are identified within the Assessment Area, however, specific noise
limit for Country Parks is not available from the relevant legislation and
guidelines, including EIAO-TM and GW-TM.
The Country Parks only consist of limited transient hikers, and the
nearest designated campsite is more than 4 km away from the Project Site. No
adverse construction noise impact is anticipated. |
|
Key
Operation Impacts |
In view of
the insignificant noise impact arising from the operation of the Project, no
adverse noise impact associated with the operation of the Project is
anticipated. |
|
Key
Mitigation Measures |
In view
of the insignificant noise impact arising from the proposed Project,
mitigation measures are therefore not required for both construction and
operation phases. Good construction site
practice and noise management could be considered to reduce the noise impact
from the construction activities as follows: § Only well-maintained plant will be operated on-site
and plant will be serviced regularly during the construction phase; § Silencers or mufflers on construction equipment will be utilised
and will be properly maintained during the construction phase; § Mobile plant, if any, will be sited as far away from NSRs as possible; § Machines and plant that may be in intermittent use will be shut
down between work periods or will be throttled down to a minimum; § Plants known to emit noise strongly in one direction will,
wherever possible, be orientated so that the noise is directed away from the
nearby NSRs; and § Other structures will be effectively utilised, wherever
practicable, in screening noise from on-site construction activities. |
|
Residual
Impacts |
No
adverse residual impact is anticipated. |
|
Compliance
with EIAO-TM |
The
assessment and the potential impacts are in compliance with
the EIAO-TM Annexes 5 and 13 and applicable assessment
standards / criteria. |
Table 12.7
presents a summary of the key findings of the
assessment of potential impacts to cultural heritage as a
result of the construction and operation of this Project. Full details of the assessment and mitigation
measures are presented in Section 9 of this EIA Report.
Table 12.7 Summary of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Cultural
Heritage
|
Item |
Description |
|
Cultural
Heritage Sensitive Receivers |
One
sonar contact A-SC001 that may be of marine archaeological potential
identified at the edge of the Assessment Area. Nevertheless, because of the muddy /
silty seabed, objects such as cannon would sink into the seabed, the sonar
contact is most likely to be modern, recently deposited debris that would not
be of high archaeological potential. |
|
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 Requirements for MAI as stated in Appendix
H of the
Study Brief. |
|
Key
Construction Impacts |
Potential
direct impact on sonar contact A-SC001 that may be of marine archaeological
potential is identified due to tug boat anchoring
and anchoring of fish rafts / cages as the seabed will be disturbed by the
anchoring but confined to a thin vertical surface layer (<0.5 m), and
<2 m horizontally. |
|
Key Operation Impacts |
Potential direct impact on sonar contact
A-SC001 due to relocation of fish cages / rafts that may be of marine
archaeological potential is possible. |
|
Key Mitigation Measures |
A buffer area of 20 m radius from
A-SC001 to avoid any tug boat anchoring, and
anchoring of the fish rafts / cages in the area during construction phase. The locations and relocations of fish rafts/ cages are regulated by the Marine
Fish Culture Ordinance (Cap. 353), and AFCD will ensure the locations of anchoring of vessels and fish
rafts/cages will not be located within the buffer area during
construction phase. AFCD will conduct regular site inspections during operation phase to
check if any seabed disturbance work is conducted in the buffer area. |
|
Residual Impacts |
No adverse residual impacts are
expected. |
|
Compliance with EIAO-TM |
The assessment and the potential impacts
are in compliance with the EIAO-TM Annexes 10 and 19
and applicable assessment standards / criteria. |
A
summary of key assessment assumptions, limitation of assessment methodologies
and related prior agreements with relevant Government Departments is presented
in Table 12.8.
Table 12.8 Key Assessment Assumptions, Limitation of Assessment Methodologies and related Prior Agreement(s) with the
Relevant Authorities
|
Environmental Aspect |
Key Assessment Assumptions |
Limitation of Assessment Methodologies |
Prior Agreement(s) with the Director of Environmental Protection or
other Authorities |
|
Water Quality |
Water quality baseline developed based on
available EPD water quality monitoring data within Assessment Area in 1986-2020. Pollution
loading inventory in Hong Kong was developed based on available planning
data, latest information for sewerage and other infrastructure and followed
the established approach adopted in previous Hong Kong studies. Future
year of 2023 was chosen to develop baseline scenario as the future pollution loading from
the Guangdong Province of China.
Pollution load from the Guangdong Province is expected to decrease
continuously and therefore the estimated loading in 2023 are
assumed for conservative assessment (Section
4 of Appendix 3A referred). Pollution load from mariculture practice was
estimated based on accepted methodology from previous fish culture zone
studies. A conservative feed
conversion ratio of 2 was adopted for estimation of pollution load. |
Potential
change in pollution loading from Guangdong side of Mirs
Bay and potential change in mariculture practice which leads to different
level of pollution loading from fish farms.
Conservative assumptions were adopted to ensure these uncertainties
are properly covered. Modelling exercise simulates only typical
conditions of dry season and wet season, which is generally considered
acceptable. |
In accordance with Clause 3.4.3 and Appendix
B of the Study Brief, a Water Quality Modelling Plan was
submitted for agreement by the Director of EPD.
Agreement was received from EPD on 17 October 2022. |
|
Marine Ecology |
Assessment was conducted based with literature
review supplemented with focussed field surveys within the Assessment Area,
including subtidal (benthic and coral) surveys. |
N/A |
Methodology Paper for
Marine Ecological Survey was submitted to AFCD for agreement prior to the
survey. Agreement was received from AFCD
on 25 September 2020. |
|
Fisheries |
Assessment was conducted based on literature
review of past fisheries studies, AFCD’s Port Survey and recent
fisheries surveys of the approved EIA studies. |
N/A |
Methodology
Paper for Fisheries Impact Assessment was submitted to
AFCD for agreement prior to conducting the literature review.
Agreement was received from AFCD on 25 September 2020. |
|
Waste Management |
Volume of general construction and operational
waste were estimated based on the latest design information available from AFCD at the
time of reporting. |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Visual |
Photomontages were prepared with reference to the
typical fish farm. Colours of fish
farm structures may be subject to change at detailed design stage. |
Assessment of magnitudes of change caused by the
Project works to visual sensitive receivers are inherently subjective. |
N/A |
|
Noise |
The methodology for the noise impact assessment is
in accordance with the procedures outlined in the GW-TM, which is
issued under the NCO. The construction activities and PME inventory of
the Project are based on latest Project design information provided by
project proponent. |
N/A |
In
accordance with Clause 3.4.8 and Appendix G of the Study Brief,
Methodology Paper for Noise Impact Assessment was submitted to EPD for
agreement prior to the assessment.
Agreement was received from EPD on 29 November 2021. |
|
Cultural Heritage |
The Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI) was
conducted based on the literature review of past projects and supplemented by
a marine geophysical survey within the Assessment Area to fill in information
gaps. |
N/A |
N/A |
Viable sites of the Project have been considered
during the Project’s Feasibility Study, based on the environmental benefits and
dis-benefits for the construction and operation of the new FCZs. Various development options are
reviewed and considered in this EIA study. The environmental benefits and
dis-benefits of the development options and alternative mitigation measures are
summarised in Table 12.9. Wong Chuk Kok Hoi is one of the proposed
sites which met the selection criteria for new FCZs and is sited to avoid
encroaching sensitive receivers (e.g. ecologically
important habitats, areas of high
fisheries importance). To further minimise potential impacts, the Project site will adopt
modernized and advanced type of aquaculture technologies and operate within the
maximum standing stock as identified in this EIA study.
Table 12.9 Summary of Environmental
Benefits and Dis-benefits of the Development Options and Alternative Mitigation
Measures Considered for the Project
|
Benefits |
Dis-benefits |
|
|
Project Siting |
||
|
Preferred Option Site
selection of sustainable mariculture with reference to international guidelines,
which include minimum water depth, wave exposure, water quality and the
compatibility with the existing usage and environment |
§ Avoid encroaching into ecological sensitive receivers e.g. marine reserves, coral habitats of high ecological
value and areas of high fisheries importance, thus avoid impacts to marine
ecology and fisheries § Better water flushing rate for mariculture to allow adequate
water dispersion and prevent the build-up of organic content and degradation
of the nearby marine environment.
Consequently, organic content is also not built up on the seabed and
maintenance dredging and sediment removal are therefore not required for FCZ
in deep waters, and the associated water quality impacts and related
ecological and fisheries impacts can be avoided § Remote area at Wong Chuk Kok Hoi minimises impacts on air
quality, noise, and visual sensitive receivers |
§ May pose potential environmental impacts to newly affected
areas. However, careful site selection and fish farm design have been done to
avoid / minimise potential impacts |
|
Alternative Option Expanding
existing FCZs |
§ Limit environmental impacts to areas that are already affected
by existing FCZs |
§ Development constrained by existing marine usage and nearby
ecological sensitive receivers. Water flushing rate is generally lower due to
inshore and shallow waters of the existing FCZs. Impacts to water quality, including
restricted dispersion and accumulation of organic loading due to FCZ
operation, are likely to occur when more mariculture production is necessary
to support the development of mariculture in Hong Kong. § Sediment removal may be required periodically to maintain a suitable
environment for mariculture. The
environmental impacts are likely to be more detrimental for FCZs in inshore
areas with shallow water depths.
Alternative mitigation measures such as deployment of silt curtain and
control of dredging rate, etc would be required to minimise the water quality
and marine ecology impact.
|
|
Project
Size / Scale |
||
|
Preferred Option Establishment
of smaller FCZ at different locations |
§ Establishment of smaller FCZs to reduce the organic loading at
individual site, to minimise impact to coral communities and habitat for marine
ecological and fisheries resources. § With sufficient clearance to navigation routes, accidents /
collision of marine vessels with fish farm facilities, and potential risk of
fish escape and introduction of invasive species to the marine environment
can be minimised. |
§ Affect more areas with potential environmental impacts but
better control of impact intensity to within relevant criteria |
|
Alternative Option Establishment
of a single larger FCZ |
§ Limit environmental impacts to single location but with higher
intensity |
§ The pollution loading from mariculture operation will
concentrate in a particular area. The potential impacts to water quality,
marine ecology and fisheries of the surrounding waters are expected to
increase. |
|
Fish
Farm Layout and Design |
||
|
Preferred Option Use of advanced mariculture fish farm designs (e.g. HDPE cages, steel stuss cages) |
§ Durable and weather-resistant material would
less likely to get damaged or repaired and result in less waste generated. § Less susceptible to damage during adverse weather condition,
such as typhoons, and minimise potential risk of fish loss / escape, and
subsequent impact on local ecology and fisheries; and also
minimise impact due to fish cage relocation. § Adequate water flow and dispersion of organic content between
cages / rafts, and along the water column is allowed. Adequate clearance from seabed will also be
maintained. Water quality impacts such
as changes in flow regime and build-up of organic content are minimised. Subsequent ecological and fisheries impacts
in the vicinity and degradation of the nearby marine environment could be
reduced. The need for maintenance dredging and sediment
removal during construction and operation of the Project is also avoided. § Use of green technology and automation could reduce feed wastage
and physical labour,
hence reduce potential disturbance to water quality, ecology and environment
from feed wastage, workforce wastes, vessel trips, etc. |
§ Higher setup cost |
|
Alternative option Use of traditional
fish farm designs (e.g.
made of timber supported by floating units made of empty plastic drums or polystyrofoam floats) |
§ Lower setup cost |
§ Non-weather resistant materials and easy to get damaged or
repaired. More wastes are expected to
be generated. § Susceptible to damage from adverse
weather conditions such as typhoons. Potential
risk of fish loss / escape is higher, and subsequent impact on local ecology
and fisheries; and also impact due to fish cage
relocation would increase. § Potential impact on water flow and dispersion of organic content
between cages / rafts, and along the water column might be present, and
result in the build-up of organic content on seabed. Maintenance dredging and sediment removal may be
required periodically and water quality impacts
would arise. Subsequent
ecological and fisheries impacts in the vicinity and degradation of the
nearby marine environment would also increase. Other mitigation measures will be required
to control and minimise impacts to water quality, such as the use of silt
curtains, closed grab dredger, etc. § Require more labour input and hence increase potential
disturbance to ecology and environment from feed wastage, workforce wastes,
vessel trips, etc. |
|
Construction
Methods and Sequence of Works for the Project |
||
|
Preferred option Fish farm framework are pre-fabricated
off-site, then assemble and anchored on-site |
§ Minimisation of construction duration on-site and hence reducing
the duration when potential impacts to the environment can occur. § No generation of C&D materials on-site and potential water
quality impact from construction site run-off during the construction of the
Project is avoided. The use of silt
curtain and construction boats for silt curtain deployment are therefore not
required, the subsequent impacts to marine and fisheries habitats such as
underwater sound from marine vessels are minimised § Less labour input required on site would result in reduction of waste
generated from human activities |
§ N/A |
|
Alternative option No alternative option applicable as the fish farm
framework used for advanced type of mariculture is large in scale, and could not be constructed from raw materials on
site. |
§ N/A |
§ N/A |
The construction and operation
activities of the proposed Project has been demonstrated in this EIA Report to
comply with the EIAO-TM requirements.
Actual impacts during the construction and operation activities will be
monitored through a detailed Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) programme. Full
details of the EM&A programme are presented in
the EM&A Manual attached to this EIA Report. This programme will
provide management actions and mitigation measures to be employed should
impacts arise, thereby ensuring the environmental acceptability of the
construction and operation activities of this Project.
No
unacceptable residual impacts have been predicted for the construction and
operation activities of this Project. It
must be noted that for each of the components assessed in the EIA Report, the
assessments and the residual impacts have all been shown to be acceptable and
in compliance with the relevant assessment standards/criteria of the EIAO-TM
and the associated Annexes.