This section summarises the key
environmental outcomes arising from the assessments completed in this EIA
Report for the LNG terminal at
The summary of each of the components is
structured as follows:
·
Key
Sensitive Receivers;
·
Key
Environmental Problems Avoided/ Environmental Outcomes;
·
Assessment
Methodology and Criteria;
·
Construction
Impacts;
·
Operational
Impacts;
·
Key
Mitigation Measures;
·
Residual
Impacts; and
·
Compliance
with the guidelines and criteria of the Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance - Technical Memorandum (EIAO-TM).
Table
15.1 presents a summary
of the findings of the assessment of impacts to air quality as a result of the
construction and operation of the LNG terminal and its associated facilities (subsea pipeline and utilities) at
Table 15.1 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 identified as the
Staff Quarters of Shek Pik
Prison (A1), which is approximately 6.4 km away from the site boundary. ·
The nearest ASR to the Gas Receiving
Station is the |
|
Key Environmental Issues Avoided /
Environmental Outcomes |
·
Air sensitive receivers have been
avoided by choosing a remote location for the LNG terminal and an offshore
pipeline route to BPPS (base case) which will avoid ASRs during its
construction phase. |
|
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 submerged combustion vaporiser (SCVs), LNG carrier generators and gas turbines were
continuous. ·
The total emission rates indicated that
NO2 is the critical air pollutant in this Study; therefore,
isopleths of predicted maximum hourly, daily average and annual average
concentrations of NO2 at 1.5 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
dust nuisance from dust generating activities and gaseous emission from
construction plant during construction of the LNG terminal have been
considered. · The
dust and gaseous emissions from the construction activities were found to be minimal
and an impact on air quality at the ASR is not anticipated. |
|
Key Operational 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 LNG terminal to reduce the potential fugitive
dust emissions and also gaseous emission from construction plant. Operational Phase: ·
No exceedance
of the AQO criteria is anticipated at the ASRs and therefore no mitigation
measures are required. |
|
Residual Impacts |
Construction Phase: · With
the implementation of the recommended dust control measures, no residual
impacts are anticipated. Operational Phase: · No
adverse residual operational 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. |
Table
15.2 presents a summary
of the findings of the assessment of impacts to ambient noise as a result of
the construction and operation of the LNG terminal and its associated
facilities (subsea pipeline and utilities) at
Table 15.2 Summary
of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes - Noise
|
- NOISE - |
|
|
Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) |
·
The nearest NSR is identified as the
Staff Quarters of the Shek Pik
Prison on Lantau Island (N1) which is located
approximately 6.4 km away from the site.
According to the Concept Plan for Lantau
prepared by Lantau Development Task Force, there
are no planned or committed uses within 7km from the site. |
|
Key Environmental Problems Avoided /
Environmental Outcomes |
·
NSRs have
been avoided by choosing a remote location for the LNG terminal and an
offshore pipeline route to BPPS which will avoid NSRs
during its construction phase. |
|
Assessment Methodology and Criteria |
Construction
Phase: ·
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. ·
The construction noise assessment for
construction works carried out during restricted hours (e.g. night-time
works) has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the GW-TM. Operational
Phase: ·
The methodology for the noise impact
assessment is in accordance with the procedures outlined in the ISO 9613(2)
and IND-TM, which is issued under the NCO and the EIAO-TM. ·
Assessment results have been predicted in
a conservative approach without other attenuations due to foliage of trees
and shrubs, ground effects and buildings in which the equipment is
placed. In addition, the corrections
of tonality, impulsiveness and intermittency, if any, have been omitted from
the assessment due to the large separation between the equipment and the NSRs. |
|
Key Construction Impacts |
Normal Working
Hours: ·
The unmitigated construction noise levels
at the NSR N1 have been predicted and are in the range of 20 – 70 dB(A),
which are below the daytime construction noise criterion of 75 dB(A)
throughout the construction period. Restricted Hours: ·
The installation of the water main and
electric cable will not be carried out during the restricted hours close to
the landing point and on land at Shek Pik, and the predicted noise levels for other
construction activities are within the ANLs
stipulated in GW-TM throughout the restricted hours. |
|
Key Operational Impacts |
·
The most conservative case noise levels
at the NSR N1 during the operational phase of the LNG terminal have been
predicted to be 29 dB(A) which is below the ANLs
stipulated in the IND-TM during both daytime and night-time period. |
|
Key Mitigation Measures |
Construction Phase: ·
The predicted noise levels are low and
below the daytime and night time criteria as a result of the considerable
separation distance between the NSR and the Project. Mitigation measures are not required. Operational Phase: ·
The predicted noise levels are below the
daytime and night time criteria as a result of the considerable separation
distance between the NSR and the Project. Mitigation measures are not required. |
|
Residual Impacts |
·
No adverse residual construction or
operational 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. |
Table
15.3 presents a summary
of the findings of the assessment of impacts to water quality as a result of
the construction and operation of the LNG terminal and its associated
facilities (subsea pipeline and utilities) at
Table 15.3 Summary
of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Water Quality
|
- WATER QUALITY- |
|
|
Sensitive Receivers (SRs) |
The following Sensitive Receivers
have been identified: Fisheries Resources: ·
Fisheries Spawning/Nursery Grounds:
Spawning/Nursery Grounds in South Lantau, Spawning Ground in ·
Artificial Reef Deployment
Area: Sha
Chau and Lung Kwu Chau, ·
Fish Fry Habitat: Pak Tso Wan; ·
Fish Culture Zone: Cheung Sha
Wan FCZ, Ma Wan; and ·
Oyster Production Area: Pak Nai. Marine Ecological Resources: ·
Seagrass
Beds: Pak Nai,
·
·
Potential Marine Parks: Fan Lau, ·
Intertidal
Mudflats: Pak Nai,
Yi O, Shui Hau Wan; ·
Mangroves: Pak Nai, ·
Horseshoe Crab Nursery
Grounds: Pak Nai,
Sham Wat Wan, Tai O, Yi O, Sha
Lo Wan, Tong Fuk Miu Wan,
·
Protection Zone: Chinese White Dolphin Protection Zone
in Mainland Waters; ·
Subtidal
Hard Bottom Habitat (coral): South of ·
Marine Mammal Habitats in SW, W and
NW Lantau. Water Quality: ·
Gazetted Beaches: ·
Non-gazetted Beaches: Lung Kwu Sheung Tan, Lung Kwu Tan, Fan
Lau Sai Wan, Fan Lau Tung Wan, Tsin
Yue Wan; and ·
Seawater Intakes: Black Point Power Station, Castle Peak
Power Station, Tuen Mun
Area 38, Tuen Mun
Flushing Water, Airport, Pumping Station at Tai Kwai
Wan. |
|
Key Environmental Issues Avoided /
Environmental Outcomes |
·
Potential layouts were examined on the
basis of their potential environmental impacts. The adopted modified layout ([1]) has
reduced the reclamation to approximately 0.6 ha (from 13 ha of the base case
design adopted in Pre-EIA studies).
·
The relocation of the jetty to the
south east has also meant that dredging volumes are reduced to approximately
1.32 Mm3 ([2])
from > 5 Mm3 at the terminal thus avoiding extensive impacts to
water quality surrounding ·
Less marine mud has to be dredged
and disposed offsite, therefore, reducing impacts to water quality. ·
Impacts to water quality have been
reduced by the adoption of optimal techniques during the installation of some
sections of the pipeline,
water main and cable. |
|
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 proposed LNG
terminal and associated facilities have been assessed using computational
modelling. ·
The simulation of operational
impacts on water quality has also been studied by means of computational
modelling. The models have been
used to simulate the effects of cooled water discharges on temperature and
water quality (due to antifoulants). ·
Analysis of EPD routine water
quality data from the years of 1998 to 2006 has been undertaken to determine
the allowable increase in suspended solids concentrations. |
|
Key Construction Impacts |
·
Suspended
Sediments (SS): The majority of SS elevations in water have been
predicted to remain within relatively close proximity to the dredging or
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.
Some mitigation measures, in the form of silt curtains, have been
proposed at specific sensitive receivers to limit dispersion of SS. ·
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. ·
Hydrotest Water:
Should hydrotest water, from tanks and
the gas pipeline, be discharged in the vicinity of ·
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 Operational Impacts |
·
Hydrodynamics: The terminal footprint is relatively
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. ·
Suspended
Sediments: Maintenance
dredging requirement is expected to be required once every ten years and will
be restricted to specific small areas.
Although increases in suspended solids in the water column may occur,
these would be expected to be compliant with applicable standards, hence, any
associated impacts are expected to be of a relatively low scale, temporary
and localised to the works area. ·
Cooled
Water Discharge: There are no water quality
sensitive receivers in the immediate vicinity of the proposed discharge
point. The results of the
modelling exercise indicate that the dispersion of cooled water is rapid and
not expected to cause an unacceptable impact. ·
Residual
Chlorine Dispersion: Due to the low total residual
chlorine concentration at the outfall (0.3 mg L-1), the small
extent of the area affected (calculated through computational modelling) and
the fact that no sensitive receivers would be affected, no unacceptable
impacts from residual chlorine discharge to water quality are expected to
occur. ·
Other
Discharges: On-site
wastewater discharges, vessel discharges, accidental spill of fuel or LNG,
contaminated site run-off are not predicted to cause unacceptable impacts to
the water quality sensitive receivers.
In the event of a spillage, contingency actions will be enforced to
control the spill. |
|
Key Mitigation Measures |
The water quality
modelling works have indicated that the works can proceed at the recommended
working rates without causing unacceptable impacts to water quality sensitive
receivers. In instances where
there are exceedances of the applicable standards,
they have been predicted to be transient and therefore not of concern. Unacceptable impacts to water quality
sensitive receivers have largely been avoided through the adoption of the
following measures: ·
Siting: A number of locations were studied for
the LNG terminal and the associated pipeline, water main and cable routes, with
the principal aim of avoiding direct impacts to sensitive receivers. ·
Reduction in Indirect Impacts: The
LNG terminal and the associated pipeline, water main and cable routes 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 and jetting operations will not cause unacceptable impacts to the
receiving water quality. ·
Silt Curtains:
At a couple of specific sensitive
receivers the adoption of silt curtains during dredging/jetting will limit
the dispersion of suspended sediment.
With this measure in place impacts are predicted to be acceptable. Aside from these
pro-active measures that have been adopted, a number of operational constraints
and good site practice measures for dredging and construction run-off are
also recommended. |
|
Residual Impacts |
·
No unacceptable residual impacts have
been predicted to occur during the construction phase. Given the immediate dilution of the
cooled water discharges from the terminal outfall and that the limited volume
of sewage generated would be treated on site before being discharged in
accordance with the EPD’s required standards,
residual environmental impacts during the operation phase are not expected |
|
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. |
Table
15.4 presents a summary
of the findings of the assessment of impacts to waste management as a result of
the construction and operation of the LNG terminal and its associated
facilities (subsea pipeline and utilities) at
Table 15.4 Summary
of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Waste Management
|
-
WASTE MANAGEMENT - |
|
|
Assessment
Methodology and Criteria |
The potential environmental impacts
associated with the handling and disposal of waste arising from the
construction and operation of the LNG terminal at ·
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
Environmental Problems Avoided / Environmental Outcomes |
·
Potential layouts were examined
on the basis of their potential environmental impacts. The relocation of the jetty to the south
east has reduced the dredging volumes to approximately 1.32 Mm3 ([3]) from > 5 Mm3 at the
terminal. This has brought about
an overall reduction of waste (in the form of marine sediments) in comparison
with the Pre-EIA Study layout and Project Profile layout. |
|
Key
Construction Impacts |
The key potential impacts during the construction phase are related to
wastes generated from site clearance, site formation, blasting, dredging,
reclamation, seawall construction, filling and concreting. ·
It is estimated that a total of
approximate 3.89 Mm3 ([4]) of
marine sediment will be dredged for the whole project (terminal, submarine
pipeline, watermain and cable). It is estimated that about 60% of the
sediments are uncontaminated.
About 24% of the sediments (which passed the biological screening)
will be disposed of at open sea dedicated site. The remaining 16% of the sediments may
have to be disposed of at a confined marine disposal site. ·
Due to limited space on site, all the
excavated rock generated from the site formation works will be disposed off
site at quarries, at fill banks, or used by other concurrent projects. ·
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
Operational Impacts |
·
Small amounts of industrial waste,
chemical waste, sewage and general refuse will be produced during the
operational phase of the LNG terminal.
The potential environmental impacts associated with the storage,
handling, collection, transport and disposal of these will meet the criteria
specified in the EIAO-TM, thus no
unacceptable operational waste management impact is anticipated. |
|
Key
Mitigation Measures |
·
A number of mitigation measures 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 the proposed LNG terminal. |
|
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 the LNG terminal. |
|
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. |
Table
15.5 presents a summary
of the findings of the assessment of impacts to terrestrial ecology as a result
of the construction and operation of the LNG terminal and its associated
facilities at
Table 15.5 Summary
of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Terrestrial Ecology
|
- TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY - |
|
|
Flora and Fauna of Ecological Interest |
Many of
the habitats on ·
A protected and rare orchid: the Golden Eulophia Eupholia flava. ·
Eleven bird species of conservation
interest. ·
An uncommon reptile, the Plumbeous Water Snake, was recorded in the drainage
channel of the disturbed area.
The protected reptile Common Rat Snake Ptyas mucosus was recorded in the abandoned
wet agricultural land located at the southeast of the island. ·
Three uncommon dragonfly species and,
fifteen uncommon and two rare butterfly species were recorded. Shek Pik: ·
A protected plant species Pavetta hongkongensis
was found within the Study Area at Shek Pik during the survey. ·
One locally protected bat species
Japanese Pipistrelle Pipistrellus abramus was
recorded within the Study Area. ·
Eight bird species of conservation
interest. ·
An endemic and protected amphibian
species, the Romer’s Tree Frog Philautus romeri was heard at the plantation
during a night survey at Shek Pik. ·
Four uncommon butterfly species were
recorded within the Study Area. |
|
Key Environmental Issues Avoided /
Environmental Outcomes |
·
Disturbance to terrestrial ecological
resources of acknowledged conservation significance (i.e. parks, natural
reserves, etc.) has been avoided as a result of the site/route selection
process of the LNG terminal. ·
Potential layouts were examined on the
basis of their potential environmental impacts. The selected layout has reduced the
area of terrestrial habitat impacted by the footprint of the LNG terminal. |
|
Assessment Methodology and Criteria |
·
Following a literature review of available
ecological information characterising the Study Area, surveys were conducted
to update and field check the validity of the information gathered in the
review and to fill information gaps.
The baseline surveys covered a period of 10 months during both dry and
wet seasons for ·
All habitats were surveyed for
vegetation, mammals, birds, herpetofauna and
aquatic fauna. ·
The potential impacts due to the
construction and operation of the proposed LNG terminal were assessed following
the EIAO-TM Annex 16 guidelines and the impacts evaluated based on the
criteria in EIAO-TM Annex 8. |
|
Key Construction Impacts |
·
Permanent loss of secondary woodland
(approximately 0.2 ha), plantation (approximately 2.8 ha), shrubland (approximately 7.3 ha), abandoned wet
agricultural land (approximately 0.5 ha), grassland (approximately 1.8 ha),
and disturbed area (approximately 5.3 ha) due to the construction of the LNG
terminal platform. ·
Need to transplant floral species (Golden
Eulophia) of conservation interest. ·
Temporarily loss of approximately 0.5 ha
of plantation, approximately 1.0 ha of shrubland
and approximately 0.3 ha of disturbed area. ·
Potential loss of foraging and feeding
ground of the associated wildlife. Shek Pik: ·
Permanent loss of plantation
(approximately 0.004 ha) and developed area (approximately 0.02 ha) due to
the installation of the water tank (Option 1). ·
Permanent loss of developed area
(approximately 0.01 ha) due to the installation of the water tank (Option 2). ·
Temporary loss of developed area
(approximately 0.1 ha), due to the trenching work for the installation of
electricity cable. ·
Temporary loss of developed area
(approximately 0.02 ha), due to the trenching work for the installation of
water main. ·
Potential loss of foraging and feeding
ground of the associated wildlife. |
|
Key Operational
Impacts |
·
Given the generally low level of human
activity required to operate the terminal it is not expected that operational
phase impacts will occur. ·
In the unlikely event of leakage of LNG,
the fire prevention system will be implemented, and consequently impacts to
the terrestrial ecological resources through the spread of fire will be
prevented. Shek Pik: ·
No impacts are expected to arise from the
operation of the water main or electricity cable at Shek
Pik. |
|
Key Mitigation Measures |
·
The general policy for mitigation of
significant ecological impacts has been addressed on the basis of Annex 16 of the EIAO-TM. · Avoidance: Disturbance to terrestrial ecological
resources of acknowledged conservation significance has been avoided as a
result of the site selection process of the LNG terminal and by focussing the
development in previously disturbed areas. The routing of the cryogenic pipeline
has also been aligned to avoid disturbance to the central areas of · Minimisation: The impacts on ecological resources
due to the construction and operation of the LNG terminal are generally expected
to be low and acceptable. The
following conservation measures to reduce disturbance to surrounding habitats
will be also taken: -
Vegetation Loss: The Golden Eulophia
(9 individuals) recorded within the Project Area will be transplanted to a
similar habitat, i.e., shrubland with open canopy
and south facing, which can be found in the southern part of South Soko. -
Appropriate Construction Practice: Erect fences along the boundary of the
works area before the commencement of works to prevent vehicle movements, and
encroachment of personnel, onto adjacent areas; regularly check the work site
boundaries to ensure that they are not breached and that damage does not
occur to surrounding areas and reinstate temporarily affected areas. · Compensation: The Project will provide compensatory
planting of approximately 0.2 ha of secondary woodland, 1.9 ha of shrubland and 1.3 ha of grassland. |
|
Residual Impacts |
·
Approximately 2.8 ha of plantation, 5.4
ha of shrubland, 0.5 ha of abandoned wet agricultural
land, 0.5 ha of grassland and 5.4 ha of disturbed area will be lost. The affected areas are considered to
be generally low quality habitats. ·
No adverse residual impact due to the
construction and operation of the LNG terminal is expected at South Soko after the implementation of the proposed mitigation
measures including provision of approximately 0.2 ha of compensatory tree
planting, approximately 1.9 ha of shrub planting, 1.3 ha of grass planting
and transplantation of individuals of the Golden Eulophia. Shek Pik: ·
Approximately 0.04 ha of developed area
will be lost. The affected areas
are considered to be low/negligible quality habitat. ·
No adverse residual impact due to the
construction of electricity cable circuit and water main is expected. |
|
Compliance with EIAO-TM |
·
The assessment and the impacts are
acceptable and in compliance with the EIAO-TM
Annexes 8 and 16 and applicable
assessment standards/criteria. |
Table
15.6 presents a summary of
the findings of the assessment of impacts to marine ecology as a result of the
construction and operation of the LNG terminal and its associated facilities (subsea pipeline and utilities) at
As discussed in Section 2, following discussions with NGO groups and feedback from
various Government departments concerning findings of the Marine Ecology
assessment presented in Section 9,
CAPCO re-examined the layout of the site to determine whether the amount of
reclamation could be reduced further in the eastern
·
By
removing the jetty in Tung Wan marine vessels during construction and operation
of the terminal needed to access the site in Sai Wan
during periods of adverse weather.
This resulted in reduction in dredging in Tung Wan but a slight increase
in dredging in Sai Wan to allow for access by
construction barges.
·
The
northern coastline in Tung Wan did not require reclamation by relocating the
Control Room, Maintenance Workshop and Administration building. The relocation resulted in a reduction
in coastline loss but necessitated additional excavation into the
hillside. The excavation works were
not expected to cause unacceptable impacts to terrestrial ecology as they would
take place in areas of low to moderate ecological value shrubland. No rare or protected fauna or flora have
been recorded in this area.
·
The
changes above necessitated a minor relocation of facilities within the existing
footprint of the site in order to comply with the safety codes for the terminal
design. No significant changes in
environmental (eg air, noise, waste, landscape
visual) or risk issues arose from these changes.
·
The
net reduction in dredging volumes from the above changes was 60,000 m3
resulting in a overall dredging volume of 3.89 Mm3 for the
·
The
net reduction in reclamation arising from the above changes was 1.1 ha
resulting in a overall reclamation area of 0.6 ha.
·
The net
reduction in natural coastline loss was 150 m resulting in a overall loss of
natural coastline of 300 m.
·
The
additional excavation volume produced by the slope cutting works was 60,000 m3
of soil and 240,000 m3 of rock.
·
The
overall Project Area was reduced from 38.6 ha to 36.5 ha as a result of the
layout modification.
The discussion above has indicated that
significant reduction in reclamation area and natural coastline loss have been
achieved through the adoption of the modified layout. This is particularly significant in
reducing the severity of any potential impacts to the reported habitat of
amphioxus (Branchiostoma belcheri).
Table 15.6 Summary
of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Marine Ecology
|
- MARINE ECOLOGY - |
|
|
Marine Ecology Sensitive Receivers |
The marine environment around the The following ecological sensitive
receivers were identified: ·
Habitats of the Indo-pacific
Humpback Dolphin and Finless Porpoise. ·
Marine Parks: Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau; ·
Proposed Marine Parks: ·
Intertidal
Mudflats: Pak Nai,
Tai O, Yi O, Shui Hau
Wan; ·
Seagrass
Beds: Pak Nai,
·
Mangroves: Pak Nai, ·
Horseshoe Crab Nursery
Grounds: Pak Nai,
Sham Wat Wan, Tai O, Yi O, Sha
Lo Wan, Tong Fuk Miu Wan,
·
Protection Zone: Chinese White Dolphin Protection Zone
in Mainland Waters. |
|
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 LNG terminal and the pipeline. ·
Potential layouts were examined on
the basis of their potential environmental impacts. The adopted modified layout has
reduced the reclamation to approximately 0.6 ha (from 13 ha of the base case
design adopted in Pre-EIA studies).
·
The relocation of the jetty to the
south east has also meant that dredging volumes are reduced to approximately
1.32 Mm3 from > 5 Mm3 at the terminal thus avoiding
extensive impacts to the marine ecology of ·
Layout refinements have reduced the
length of natural coastline affected by the development to approximately 300
m. ·
Impacts to marine ecology have been
reduced through the adoption of dredging during the installation of the pipeline,
and jetting during installation of the water main and cable. A ‘Non-conventional’ jetting machine
will be utilised, as it does not use air to assist with discharge of the
sediment. 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 intensive field surveys that have covered for intertidal and subtidal benthic
assemblages, as well as marine mammals (land and vessel based surveys). ·
The survey programme covered 2004 -
2006 and all seasons. The survey
programme represented the most intensive series of ecological studies ever
conducted on the marine environment at the ·
The potential impacts due to the
construction and operation of the proposed LNG terminal 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, disturbances to
benthic habitats in the turning circle and approach channel, or through
temporary changes to key water quality parameters, as a result of the
dredging, reclamation and installation of the gas pipeline and submarine
utilities. Organisms of
ecological interest (i.e. colonies of False Pillow coral, Pseudosiderastrea tayami on
the south coast of ·
Impacts arising from the proposed
dredging or 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 Operational
Impacts |
·
Potential operational phase impacts to
marine ecological resources, as well as impacts to marine mammals, may arise
form the discharge of cooled water (reduction of ambient temperature and
discharge of antifoulants), impingement and
entrainment of marine life within the cooling system. ·
Operational phase adverse impacts to
marine ecological resources are not expected to occur. Unacceptable impacts from discharges
of cooled water and antifoulants are not
anticipated to occur, as they will be localised to the direct vicinity of the
outfall and will remain predominantly in the bed layer away from sensitive
receivers. |
|
Key Mitigation and Precautionary Measures Key Mitigation and Precautionary Measures
(cont’d) |
·
Impacts have largely been avoided during
the construction and operation of the · Avoid Direct and Reduce Indirect Impacts
to Ecologically Sensitive Habitats: The site for the South Soko LNG terminal has been selected based on a review of
alternative locations and has avoided the majority of key habitats for the
Indo-pacific Humpback Dolphin (including Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau Marine Park, Peaked Hill Island, West Lantau) and Finless Porpoise (South Lantau
and Po Toi Islands), and areas of high marine
mammal sighting density. The
terminal location has been selected on previously disturbed areas (former
Detention Centre lined with an artificial shoreline) and a small reclamation
(0.6 ha) confined to Sai Wan to avoid direct
impacts to ecologically sensitive habitats. The jetty is also located in an area
of low sightings of marine mammals.
The dispersion of sediment from dredging and filling does not affect
the receivers at levels of concern. · Pipeline Alignment: A number of alternative pipeline
routes were studied and the preferred alignment avoids direct impacts to
ecologically sensitive habitats within the Sha Chau and · Installation Equipment: The use of dredgers along the route
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 will help avoid impacts to sensitive ecological receivers, such as
marine mammals. Additionally the
deployment of silt curtains at specific locations will further reduce the
dispersion of sediment.
Percussive piling works in the marine environment will be conducted
inside bubble jackets, so as to reduce underwater sound transmissions. · Adoption of Acceptable Construction Rates: The modelling work has demonstrated
that the selected working rates for dredging and jetting works will not cause
unacceptable impacts to the receiving water quality. Consequently, unacceptable indirect
impacts to marine ecological resources have been avoided. ·
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 the reduction of the impacts to water quality to
acceptable levels (compliance with Water Quality Objectives - WQOs). ·
Additional (precautionary) measures have
been identified to assist the protection of marine mammals including
exclusion zones around the marine works areas during marine percussive piling
for the jetty and during the grab dredging works for gas pipeline
installation in North West Lantau waters. ·
Marine percussive pile driving works will
only take place during daylight operations and be scheduled to take place
outside of the peak calving period of the Finless Porpoise, ie not during November through January. ·
Dredging for the turning circle and
approach channel have been scheduled to take place outside of the peak
calving period of the Finless Porpoise, ie not
during November through January. ·
Dredging works for the submarine gas
pipeline have been scheduled to take place outside of the peak calving period
of the Indo-pacific Humpback Dolphin, ie not during
March through August. |
|
Residual Impacts |
The following residual ecological impacts
have been identified: ·
The loss of approximately 560 m of
artificial shoreline/intertidal habitat,
approximately 265 m of natural rocky shore/natural subtidal
habitat and approximately 35 m of sandy shore which are of low to medium
ecological value. The residual
impact is considered to be acceptable, as the loss of these habitats will be
compensated by the provision of 0.6 km of sloping rubble mound/rock or
concrete armour seawalls that have been demonstrated to become recolonised by assemblages of a similar nature after
construction. ·
The loss of approximately 0.6 ha of subtidal soft bottom assemblages within the reclamation
site. The residual impact is
considered to be acceptable as a result of previous reclamation works and is
small in size. ·
Maintenance dredging of specific areas of
the approach channel and turning is expected to be required once every 10
years. Since impact to water
quality is expected to be compliant with current WQO standards, the residual
impact associated with maintenance dredging is considered to be acceptable. |
|
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. |
Table
15.7 presents a summary
of the findings of the assessment of impacts to fisheries as a result of the
construction and operation of the LNG terminal and its associated facilities (subsea pipeline and utilities) at
Table 15.7 Summary
of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Fisheries
- FISHERIES - |
|
|
Fisheries
Sensitive Receivers |
·
Nursery areas of commercial
fisheries resources in south Lantau; ·
Spawning grounds of commercial
fisheries resources in north and south Lantau; and ·
Artificial reefs in the |
|
Key Environmental
Issues Avoided/ Environmental
Outcomes |
·
Potential layouts were examined
on the basis of their potential
environmental impacts. The
adopted modified layout has allowed to reduce the reclamation to
approximately 0.6 ha (from 13 ha of the base case design adopted in Pre-EIA
studies). ·
The relocation of the
jetty to the south east has also meant that dredging volumes at the terminal
are reduced to approximately 1.32 Mm3, thus reducing extensive
potential impacts to the fisheries resources of ·
The submarine utilities 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
South Soko LNG terminal. ·
In addition to the desktop
literature review, an extensive 9 month Ichthyoplankton
and Fish Post-Larvae Survey, covering wet and dry seasons, was conducted to
determine the sensitivity of the fisheries resources potentially impacted by
the construction and operation of the LNG terminal and associated
facilities. To this aim, abundance,
composition and spatial distribution of the early life stages of the fish was
assessed at a total of 20 sampling locations in W, SW and S Lantau as well as ·
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 |
·
Potential construction phase impacts to
fisheries may arise from the permanent loss of marine habitat due to reclamation,
disturbances to benthic habitats in the turning basin and approach channel,
or through changes to key water quality parameters, as a result of the marine
works (dredging, reclamation, watermain/pipeline/cable
installation). ·
Impacts arising from the proposed
dredging or jetting works are predicted to be largely confined to the
specific works areas and the predicted elevations in suspended sediment
concentrations are not predicted to cause large areal
exceedances of the assessment criterion. ·
Adverse impacts to water quality are not
predicted and neither are consequential impacts to any fishing grounds or
species of importance to the fishery. |
|
Key Operational Impacts |
·
Potential key operational phase impacts
to fisheries resources may arise form the discharge of cooled water
(reduction of ambient temperature and discharge of antifoulants),
impingement and entrainment of fish and fish eggs within the cooling system. ·
Significant operational phase impacts
to fisheries resources and fishing operations are not expected to occur. Entrainment of fisheries resources
will be reduced through the appropriate design of the intake screens. Unacceptable impacts from discharges
of cooled water are not anticipated to occur as the effects from these
discharges will be localised to the lower layers of the water column in
direct vicinity of the outfall.
Compliance with the relevant discharge standards to control water
quality impacts to within acceptable levels is also expected to control
impacts to fisheries resources. |
|
Key Mitigation Measures |
·
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. The
main works have been designed to control water quality impacts to within
acceptable levels and hence are also expected to control impacts to fisheries
resources. No fisheries-specific
mitigation measures are required during construction. ·
Compliance with the relevant discharge
standards to control water quality impacts to within acceptable levels is
expected to control impacts to fisheries resources during the operational
phase. Furthermore, entrainment
of fisheries resources will be reduced through the appropriate design of the
intake screens on the seawater intake.
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 0.6 ha of seabed associated with the LNG terminal reclamation. ·
The limited habitat loss, the
small-scale nature of fishing operations and the potential environmental
benefits of the seawall combine to reduce the magnitude of this residual
impact to within acceptable levels. |
|
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. |
15.9
Landscape and Visual
Impact
Table
15.8 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 the LNG terminal
and its associated facilities at
Table 15.8 Summary
of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Landscape & Visual
- LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL - |
|
|
Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSRs), Landscape Resources (LRs)
and Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) |
·
·
Villages (VSR 1, 5, 13 and 14); views
from Tai Long Wan Tsuen, Pui
O, the Chi Ma Wan Peninsula and Shek Kwu Chau. ·
Road Network (VSR 2 and 8); these include
views seen by visitors and the local community when traversing along roads. ·
Ocean viewpoints (VSR 9, 10 and 11);
these include views seen by people on ferries and local boats. ·
Secondary woodland (LR1), plantation
(LR2), shrubland (LR3), backshore shrubland (LR4), grassland (LR5), abandoned wet and dry
agricultural land (LR6), disturbed area (LR7), abandoned reservoir (LR8),
rocky shoreline (LR9), sandy beaches (LR10), Artificial shore (LR11) and Tin Hau Temple (LR12) ·
Island landscape (LCA1), abandoned
institutional landscape (LCA2), offshore waters landscape (LCA3), inshore
waters landscape (LCA4) |
|
Key Environmental Problems Avoided |
·
Sensitive VSRs
have been avoided by choosing a remote location for the LNG terminal. ·
Potential
layouts were examined on the basis of their potential environmental
impacts. In the selected layout,
the positioning of the tanks has resulted in an improvement in visual impacts
with respect to the Pre-EIA and the Project Profile layouts. ·
Landscape
impacts have been reduced through sighting of the majority of terminal’s
facilities on previously disturbed landscape resources. |
|
Assessment Methodology and Criteria |
·
The methodology of the LVIA is based on Annexes 10 and 18 in the EIAO-TM under
the EIA Ordinance and associated
Guidance Notes. ·
The landscape assessment considers 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 examines the impact
of the proposed development on the existing views and the visual amenity,
particularly from the Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSR) within the viewshed. ·
In order to illustrate the visual impacts
of the proposed LNG terminal, 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 Outcomes |
The proposed terminal will only be visible from a limited
number of locations, and these impacts will only be significant at close
proximity to the ·
As the Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSRs) within this distance are located in ocean areas, or
from other islands in the Soko chain, the impact is
greatly reduced as all visitors will experience this impact from marine
vessels, or when visiting the ·
The siting of
the LNG terminal will have an overall modeerate
negative impact on the existing Landscape Character of South Soko Island, and to a lesser extent, the ·
The LNG terminal will have the potential to
result in: significant landscape impacts on sandy beaches and the Tin Hau Temple; moderate- significant landscape impacts on
secondary woodland; moderate impacts on rocky shoreline, plantation,
grassland, disturbed area and artificial shore; slight-moderate impacts on shrubland; slight impacts on abandoned wet and dry
agricultural land; and, negligible impacts on backshore shrubland
and the abandoned reservoir. ·
There will be moderate to significant
impacts on the existing Landscape Character of the |
|
Key Mitigation Measures |
The analysis has shown that 10 of the 15 VSRs selected for analysis, will experience a negligible
visual impact. However for the VSRs that may experience an impact, the following Visual
Mitigation Measures (VMMs) are proposed: ·
VMM 1
Design of Structures:
Where possible, built structures should utilise appropriate designs to
complement the surrounding landscape.
Materials and finishes will also be considered during detailed design. ·
VMM 2
Colours: Colours for
the terminal can be used to complement the surrounding area. Lighter colours such as shades of
light grey and light brown may be utilised where technically feasible to
reduce the visibility of the terminal. ·
VMM 3
Plantings: Appropriate
new plantings will be installed where appropriate, to integrate the new
structures into the surrounding landscape. ·
To reduce the potential impacts on the
existing Landscape Resources and provide a potential enhancement of the
existing landscape quality, Landscape Mitigation Measures (LMM) are proposed
and will be installed progressively throughout the construction of the LNG
terminal in accordance with future Landscape Specification and relevant best practice
guidelines: ·
LMM 1 –
Cultivation of areas compacted during construction. Areas
compacted during the construction phase that are not required during the
operation phase, are to be cultivated to a depth of up to 300mm in accordance
with the future Landscape Specification. ·
LMM 2 – Soil
stabilisation and planting. During the
design phase, a soil stabilisation and embankment planting strategy will be
developed to ensure that land affected by slope excavation can be
replanted. Soil preparation and
the selection and provision of suitable growing medium is to be completed in
accordance with the relevant best practice guidelines. ·
LMM 3 – Tree
and shrub planting. Planting of
trees and shrubs is to be carried out in accordance with the Landscape
Details and the relevant best practice guidelines. Plant species and densities are to be
provided in future detailed design documents and are to be selected so as to
achieve a finished landscape that matches the surrounding equivalent
landscape. ·
LMM4 –
Utilising natural rock for reclamation. The reclamation areas shall utilise natural rocks for the engineered
sea-walls. ·
LMM5 – Natural accretion of sand. It is anticipated that sand will naturally
form at the base of the new sea walls creating a beach area similar to the
existing beach. This process is dependent on natural forces, but is likely to
occur within ten years. It must be noted that this is a natural process and
is out of the control of the project proponent. ·
LMM6 – Cut Stabilisation. Areas of cut to be stabilised for
operational requirements. Materials and finishes of stabilisation to be
selected to complement the surrounding landscape where this is technically
feasible. This includes the addition of pigments and aggregates in the
finished slope that complement the existing geology of the area. ·
LMM7 – Bench
Plantings. Cut Slopes to have benches
created to allow for plantings. Plantings will include Shrubs and climbers to
minimise the visual impact of the slope and mitigate impact on vegetation. ·
LMM8 - Relocation. Landscape
Resources of value to be re-located where practically feasible. ·
LMM9 –
Landscape Berm/Planter 2 metre high landscape berm/planter is to be
constructed. Fast growing indigenous tree species to be installed to help
screen the tanks and reduce the scale of the development. ·
LMM10 – New
Access Construction of a new pier to
allow public access to the southern area of the site. ·
LMM11 – Early
Planting Works. Where technically feasible, new
plantings are to be installed as early as possible during the construction works.
·
LMM12 – Site
hoardings to be compatible with the surrounding environment. Where possible site hoardings to be coloured to complement
the surrounding areas. Colours such as green and light brown are recommended.
|
|
Residual Impacts |
No significant adverse residual impacts
have been identified: ·
Compensatory planting of indigenous
species will mitigate the effects of the development on the many of the
landscape resources. The effects on the rocky shoreline can be partially
mitigated by the use of natural rock in the reclamation areas. Relocation
will fully mitigate the impact on ·
Visually the mainland-based viewing
locations are located on the periphery of the viewshed,
from which the proposed development will be, at worst, a minor change to the
view. Most land-based viewing
locations will be too far removed from the proposed LNG terminal to even be
aware of the change. All
land-based viewing locations would also require days of exceptionally clear
visibility to discern any change. ·
The Landscape and Visual Mitigation
Measures proposed will help to mitigate the impacts on the Landscape
Character Areas. Overall the residual impacts on the LCA’s
are assessed as moderate. ·
Potential night time glow and visibility
of maritime and aviation lighting may be visible on clear nights from land
based and ocean based viewing locations, however given the lighting already
in existence on North Soko, the many other night
lighting sources as well as lighting associated with shipping and maritime
uses, the additional night lighting of South Soko
LNG terminal is considered acceptable. |
|
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. |
Table
15.9 presents a summary
of the findings of the assessment of impacts to cultural heritage as a result
of the construction and operation of the LNG terminal and its associated
facilities (subsea pipeline and utilities) at
Table 15.9 Summary
of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Cultural Heritage
|
- CULTURAL
HERITAGE - |
|
|
Sensitive
Receivers |
The
following terrestrial cultural heritage resources have been identified: Shek Pik: ·
The Shek Pik Rock Carving Declared Monument; ·
An abandoned ·
The Shek Pik Tung Wan archaeological site (including Site F). ·
·
27 ·
Eight earth shrines; and ·
The Tai A Chau
archaeological site with six distinct archaeological deposit areas (namely
Sites A to E, and G - Site F being at Shek Pik). |
|
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 LNG terminal reducing the impact on
cultural heritage sites present on ·
The routings of the cable and watermain have avoided the heritage/archaeological sites
at Shek Pik. |
|
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-126/2005. ·
The baseline study included a
desktop literature review and intensive field surveys, namely: Historical Buildings and Features
Survey (including grave, shrine and tablet survey), Terrestrial
Archaeological Survey and a Marine Archaeological Investigation. |
|
Key Impacts |
·
The landtake for the LNG terminal will cause direct impacts
to: ·
The Tai A Chau Tin
Hau Temple; ·
21 graves and one
associated tablet; ·
7 earth shrines;
and ·
Part of the Tai A
Chau archaeological site. ·
Archaeological surveys
undertaken within the Project Area indicate that five archaeological deposit
areas (Sites A to D and G) lie within the entire Tai A Chau
archaeological site. Site E, with
three discrete archaeological deposit areas, is outside the Tai A Chau archaeological site. ·
The surveys
revealed that many of the sites, A-E in particular, have been disturbed to
varying degrees in the past due to natural erosion or the construction and
demolition of the Detention Centre. ·
The other areas
of the Tai A Chau archaeological site falling
within the surveyed area are considered to have negligible archaeological
potential. ·
In terms of
potential impacts on Tai A Chau archaeological
deposits, all sites except Site G are expected to be impacted to some degree. ·
Six potential
shipwrecks were identified within the Study Area, five of which are motorized
sampan or work boat and are considered of no archaeological value. The sixth, has been confirmed to no
longer exist within the proposed pipeline route. Thus, no impacts to marine
archaeological resources are expected.
|
|
Key Mitigation
Measures |
·
It is recommended that the Tai A Chau Tin Hau Temple is
relocated to a site with a similar cultural landscape and archaeological
survey be undertaken to confirm if archaeological potential exists at the
site. If archaeological deposits
are identified, appropriate mitigation measures should be provided prior to
relocation. The Study Team in
consultation with the local seafarers and village representatives have
identified a location to the west of Pak Tso
Wan. Prior to relocation, a
photographic and cartographic record will be prepared, in accordance with the
AMO’s requirements. ·
As the seven impacted earth shrines are simple
in structure with little architectural value, they are considered to have low
cultural heritage value.
Relocation of the earth shrines to another location on the ·
21 graves and the associated tablets are
located within/outside the fence line of the Project where impact to them
exist, and need to be relocated.
Most of them are of little heritage value and thus impact to them are
considered acceptable. However, G006, G015, G017 and G019, are dated pre-1950 and of some heritage
value, it is recommended that cartographic and photographic records
be undertaken prior to removal of these four graves
following AMO’s requirements. ·
An Archaeological Action Plan (AAP) following
the Criteria for Cultural Heritage
Impact Assessment as stated in the Study
Brief No. ESB-126/2006 will be prepared detailing the archaeological
actions required to mitigate impacted archaeological deposits (i.e. Site A to
E). The plan will include the
following: a) a detailed plan for rescue
excavation for Sites B to E and impacted area of Site A; b) a detailed plan
for archaeological monitoring (watching brief) at the buffer areas for Sites
A to E; and c) a contingency
plan to address possible arrangement when significant archaeological findings
are unearthed for items (a) and (b). Sufficient
funding, time and personnel will be allowed to implement the plan prior to
construction work commencement.
The AAP will be submitted and agreed with AMO by the project proponent
prior to licence application by a qualified archaeologist. ·
No impacts to marine archaeological
resources have been identified and hence no specific mitigation measures are
necessary. |
|
Residual
Impacts |
·
With the implementation of proposed
mitigation measures, 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. |
15.11
Quantitative Risk
- Marine
Table
15.10 presents a summary
of the findings of the assessment of impacts to quantitative risk as a result of
the marine transit of the LNG carrier to the LNG terminal at
Table 15.10 Summary
of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Quantitative Risk –Marine
QUANTITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT –MARINE - |
|
|
Assessment
Methodology and Criteria |
·
The objective of the MQRA was to calculate
the risks from potential carrier-related incidents to the land-based and
transient marine human populations along the carrier route. ·
The methodology involved four main
components: quantitative risk assessment, release frequency calculation,
consequence assessment, and risk assessment. |
|
Key Environmental
Problems Avoided/ Environmental Outcomes |
·
The location of the |
|
Key Outcomes |
·
The individual risk results for the
transit route to South Soko are acceptable per the individual
risk criteria set out in Annex 4 of
the EIAO-TM, which is a level of 10-5
per year (one in 100,000 years), or less. ·
The societal risk results for the transit
route to |
|
Mitigation Measures |
·
No unacceptable risks are
foreseen as a result of the transit of the LNG carrier to |
|
Compliance with EIAO-TM |
·
The assessment and the impacts
are in compliance with the EIAO-TM Annex 4. |
15.12
Quantitative Risk
- Terminal
Table
15.11 presents a summary
of the findings of the assessment of impacts to quantitative risk as a result of
the construction and operation of the LNG terminal and its associated
facilities (subsea pipeline and utilities) at
Table 15.11 Summary
of Environmental Assessment and Outcomes – Quantitative Risk - Terminal
QUANTITATIVE RISK
ASSESSMENT -TERMINAL |
|
|
Assessment
Methodology and Criteria |
·
The Quantitative Risk Assessment
(QRA) study undertaken for the proposed LNG terminal at South Soko has assessed the risk associated with the terminal
as well as the associated facilities: the subsea
pipeline from ·
The methodology involved five main
components: review of baseline data
(review of LNG terminal 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 Environmental
Issues Avoided |
·
The LNG terminal has been located in a
remote location avoiding populated areas. |
|
Key Outcomes |
LNG
terminal: ·
The results indicate that the societal
and individual risks from the proposed facility are within the Acceptable
Region and comply respectively with Annex
4 of the EIAO-TM. Submarine
Gas Pipeline: ·
The FN curves for all sections of the
pipeline lie within the Acceptable Region. ·
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 Station: ·
The individual risk 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. ·
It can be seen that the societal risk for
the GRS is within the Acceptable Region as per Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM. |
|
Mitigation Measures |
·
No unacceptable risks are foreseen as a
result of the operation of the LNG terminal and submarine gas pipeline. No mitigation measures are thus deemed
necessary. |
|
Compliance with EIAO-TM |
·
The assessment and the impacts are in
compliance with the EIAO-TM Annex 4. |