Report

10 Marine Ecology Impact

10.1 Legislation and Standards

10.1.1 Local

10.1.1.1 The HKSAR ordinances and regulations relevant to ecological assessment of this Project include the following:

(1) Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap. 96A) and its subsidiary legislation, the Forestry Regulation;

(2) Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170);

(3) Country Parks Ordinance (Cap. 208) and its subsidiary legislation;

(4) Marine Parks Ordinance (Cap. 476);

(5) Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance ("the EIAO", Cap. 499) and the associated EIAO-TM; and

(6) Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586) and its subsidiary legislation.

10.1.1.2 This assessment also makes reference to the following guidelines and standards as well as international conventions:

(1) Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) Chapter 10, "Conservation";

(2) PELB Technical Circular 1/97 / Works Branch Technical Circular 4/97, "Guidelines for Implementing the Policy on Off-site Ecological Mitigation Measures";

(3) EIAO Guidance Note No. 6/2002 - Some Observations on Ecological Assessment from the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance Perspective;

(4) EIAO Guidance Note No. 7/2002 – Ecological Baseline Survey for Ecological Assessment;

(5) EIAO Guidance Note No. 10/2004 – Methodologies for Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecological Baseline Surveys; and

(6) EIAO Guidance Note 11/2004 “Methodologies for Marine Ecological Baseline Surveys”.

10.1.2 Local

Regional and International

10.1.2.1 This assessment also makes reference to the following Mainland legislation:

(1) List of State Protected Wild Animals, promulgated by the State Council國家重點保護野生動物名錄.

10.1.2.2 Other international conventions and guidelines that are relevant to this study include the following:

(2) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora ("CITES"). This Convention regulates international trade in animal and plant species considered to be at risk from such trade. Depending on the degree of threat posed by international trade, CITES classifies endangered species of animals and plants into three Appendices. Appendix I includes highly endangered species threatened with extinction. Commercial trade in specimens of these species is prohibited. Appendix II includes species which are not presently threatened with extinction but may become so unless trade is controlled. Their trade is allowed but subject to licensing controls. Appendix III species are species identified by any Party to CITES as requiring cooperation in controlling their trade. Their trade is subject to permits or certificates of origin. Hong Kong's obligations under this Convention are enforced via the Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586).

(3) IUCN - The World Conservation Union maintains, through its Species Survival Commission, a “Redlist” of globally threatened species of wild plants and animals (see http://www.iucnredlist.org/static/introduction). The Redlist is considered the authoritative publication to classify species into nine groups as Extinct (EX) - No individuals remaining; Extinct in the Wild (EW) - Known only to survive in captivity, or as a naturalized population outside its historic range; Critically Endangered (CR) - Extremely high risk of extinction in the wild; Endangered (EN) - Very high risk of extinction in the wild; Vulnerable (VU) - High risk of extinction in the wild; Near Threatened (NT) - Likely to become endangered in the near future; Least Concern (LC) - Lowest risk. Does not qualify for a more at risk category. Widespread and abundant taxa are included in this category; Data Deficient (DD) - Not enough data to make an assessment of its risk of extinction; Not Evaluated (NE) - Has not yet been evaluated against the criteria.

(4) United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which requires parties to regulate or manage biological resources important for the conservation of biological diversity, to promote the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural surroundings; and

(5) Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (the "Ramsar Convention"), which requires parties to conserve and make wise use of wetlands, particularly those supporting waterfowl populations. The PRC ratified the Ramsar Convention on 31st July 1992, and various wetlands have since been listed as wetlands of international importance (i.e. Ramsar sites). One of these, Mai Po Marshes and Inner Deep Bay Ramsar site in Hong Kong SAR, was listed on 4 September 1995.

10.1.2.3 Relevant existing ecological studies will be thoroughly reviewed, including EIA- Further Development of Tseung Kwan O Feasibility Study (EIA-111/2005). Species groups of concern were identified based on background information on the study areas, field survey results, and consultation with relevant government authorities. Desk-top study and field survey results produced a complete picture of the ecology of the study area.

10.2 Methodology for Baseline Establishment

10.2.1 Assessment Area

10.2.1.1 The marine ecological assessment area includes the following three Water Control Zones (WCZ) within HKSAR (see Drawing no. 209506/EIA/MEC/001) as well as any areas likely to be impacted by the Project:

· the Junk Bay Water Control Zone;

· the Eastern Buffer Water Control Zone; and

· the Victoria Harbour Water Control Zone.

10.2.2 Ecological Sensitive Receivers

Recognized Sites of Conservation Importance

10.2.2.1 There were no recognised sites of conservation importance, including existing, gazetted or proposed marine park or marine reserve, inside the Marine Ecological Assessment Area.

Important Habitats

10.2.2.2 Special attention was given to sites/habitats of conservation importance, such as:

· Coral communities (including all hard corals, octocorals and black corals)

· Marine benthic communities

· Intertidal habitats

Species of Conservation Importance

10.2.2.3 Species of conservation importance were also covered by the assessment, including:

· Philippine Neon Goby Stiphodon atropurpureum

· Amphioxus Branchiostoma belcheri

10.2.3 Collection and Review of Relevant Information

10.2.3.1 Relevant literatures/publications on the ecological information of the marine and fisheries study area (i.e. the Junk Bay, the eastern buffer and the Victoria Harbour Water Control Zones) and nearby areas were reviewed. Findings of relevant studies/surveys were reviewed, including:

· Baseline survey information conducted in EIA study- Further Development of Tseung Kwan O Feasibility Study

· Feasibility Study on the Alternative Alignment for the Western Coast Road, Tseung Kwan O

· Harbour Area Treatment Scheme

· Southeast New Territories Landfill Extension

· Kai Tak Development

· Consultancy Study on Marine Benthic Communities in Hong Kong (CCPC 2002)

· Field Guide to Hard Corals of Hong Kong (Chan et al. 2005)

10.2.3.2 After reviewing the collected information, information gap for the assessment was identified and collect necessary data by field surveys to facilitate impact assessment of the EIA. For all ecological field works to be undertaken for the EIA, Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) was consulted to agree the details of the surveys.

10.2.4 Marine Ecological Field Survey

Survey programme

10.2.4.1 Ecological surveys were designed and conducted to fill in data gap identified from reviewed literature. The field survey programme included intertidal survey, dive survey, marine benthic survey and fish survey, and covered a period of approximately 7 months, from June to December 2009. Standard survey techniques were used as described below:

Dive Survey

10.2.4.2 Dive surveys for corals and other hard substrate marine organisms were conducted in August to October 2009. The methodology used in the present survey followed those adopted in the AFCD 2001-2002 territory-wide dive survey (AFCD 2004). The dive surveys focused on shallow coastal waters within the extent of Survey Area, i.e. mainly artificial coastlines in and near the Project Site (there were no natural coastlines in the vicinity).

10.2.4.3 Spot reconnaissance dives were conducted in August and September 2009 along the bridge alignment and along the coastline near the bridge landing point (See the blue line in Drawing no. 209506/EIA/MEC/002a). The purpose of the field surveys is to verify and update the information gaps in the literature and thus the focus of the survey should be on the direct impact areas, and fulfil the requirements in the Study Brief to cover corals colonies along the eastern cost of Junk Bay. Therefore the reconnaissance dives were to check the presence and locations of major coral communities (including all hard corals, octocorals and black corals) and other marine organisms with conservation importance within the areas potentially subject to direct impacts. The subtidal hard substrata (i.e. hard substratum seabed, intertidal rocky area) within the spot-check dive survey areas were surveyed, and any presence of coral communities including hard corals (order Scleractinia), octocorals (sub-class Octocorallia) and black corals (order Antipatharia) were recorded. For each spot-check dive, information recorded included the depth; the substrata of seabed; and the visibility. Areas with corals were located and suitable locations to carry out the REA surveys were determined. Besides the biota, the habitat types present within the areas and their approximate proportions/distributions were also recorded. Representative photographs of any important ecological habitat and coral species were taken.

10.2.4.4 Corals were recorded during the Spot-check Dives, and a semi-quantitative Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) was recommended. The REA survey was conducted in October 2009 at two locations on the coastlines of eastern Junk Bay where corals had been identified during the spot reconnaissance dives (including the alignment landing point). The planned REA transect locations are shown in Drawing no. 209506/EIA/MEC/002a. The starting points of the REA transects were determined on site in accordance with the site conditions and underwater visibility. The REA survey was performed along 100m underwater transects parallel to the coastlines. Perpendicular transects would not be required as the focal area is a section of vertical seawall. The benthic cover, taxon abundance and ecological attributes of the transects were recorded in a swathe of 2m wide, 1m either side of the transects (subject to the underwater visibility), following the REA technique. The exact locations and routes of the REA transects were recorded on site by GPS and map. Photos of REA locations and underwater photos along the transects and of the surveyed areas were taken during the REA dive surveys.

10.2.4.5 The purposes of the REA survey are to semi-quantitatively record the habitat types and ecological values of the area by SCUBA diving and the application of Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) approach. The REA approach (see Annex 1 in Appendix 10.1 for details) aims at collecting data on the type of substrate and the abundance of marine organisms in particular the occurrence of corals and the extent of the coral distribution from the coastline, for ranking the ecological values. Other parameters recorded during the surveys included site condition (e.g. observations regarding the degree of exposure of the sites to wave action), species list of corals and other marine organisms, coral colony number, coral sizes, coral health status, and translocation feasibility of corals. The conservation status (including local, regional and international, such as China Redlist and IUCN Redlist) of the recorded biota was also provided.

10.2.4.6 Further to the above dive survey performed in 2009 for the present EIA study, a verification dive survey was also conducted in early 2013, to check and verify if there have been any changes in the baseline conditions of the coral communities previously surveyed.

Intertidal Survey

10.2.4.7 Intertidal surveys for epifauna communities were conducted coastlines within Junk Bay in particular the eastern shore where direct impacts from the Project are anticipated as well as nearby coastlines (see Drawing no. 209506/EIA/MEC/002b), covering both artificial coastlines and/or natural (if any) as well as hard and/or soft (if any) shore habitats, during both wet and dry seasons (August and November 2009). All intertidal surveys were conducted during suitable ebbing tides. In each location, horizontal transects (at least 50m in length) at three tidal levels (High, Middle and Low) were established. There were ten 0.5m x 0.5m quadrats on each transect. For hard shores, the epifauna in each quadrat were identified and their numbers/coverage percentages were recorded. For the soft shores, in addition to the epifauna, the infauna within the top 5cm sediment inside the quadrat as well as from one core (10cm diameter x 20cm depth) collected inside the quadrat would also be identified and recorded. Species and abundance of biota in quadrats were reported. Diversity index, evenness index and other statistical analyses should be provided for evaluating and ranking the ecological values.

10.2.4.8 In addition to the above quantitative surveys, suitable qualitative or walk-through surveys were also conducted in the Survey Area to facilitate the smooth implementation of the ecological survey and to help audit the survey findings (June 2009). Undertaking an initial observation along the shore, for example, could find out the species present and their occurrence and hence facilitate the determination of representative sites for conducting more detailed quantitative surveys. A walk-through survey along the transect during or after a quantitative sampling event could also help assess whether the sampling exercise has collected representative data (e.g. the number and type of species encountered) and whether the sampling effort is deemed adequate. Effort spent in such qualitative surveys, such as number of surveyors involved and time spent should be recorded and provided in the report as appropriate. Photos of the recorded species were taken where possible. The conservation status including local, regional and international, such as China Redlist and IUCN Redlist of the recorded biota were recorded.

10.2.4.9 Further to the above intertidal survey performed in 2009 for the present EIA study, a verification intertidal walk-through survey was also conducted in early 2013, to check and verify if there have been any changes in the general environments and intertidal communities in intertidal habitats.

Fish Survey

10.2.4.10 Philippine Neon Goby Stiphodon atropurpureum is a key issue in ecology of the present EIA as stipulated in the EIA study brief. This species inhabits lower to middle section of small to medium-sized streams close to the sea. It is also known that most species of this genus are diadromous. Adults live and breed (in the wet season) in pure freshwater sections of coastal streams, but the larvae would drift downstream into the sea, and remain close to the breeding streams and feed around the estuaries, before they reach juvenile stage and travel upstream to return the pure freshwater sections. While the intertidal survey and the benthic grab survey would provide information on the potential habitats and habitat use of this species, in addition to the survey required in the EIA Study Brief, a fish survey was conducted during wet season to strength the baseline data.

10.2.4.11 To address the special concern on the previously recorded fish of conservation interest, namely the Grassy Puffer Fish (Takifugu niphobles) and Philippine Neon Goby (Stiphodon atropurpureus), surveys on the fish communities were conducted along the coastline of the eastern Junk Bay (see Drawing no. 209506/EIA/MEC/002b). Fish survey techniques including direct field observation, active searching, fish cage-trapping and gill netting were employed to examine the diversity and abundance of fish species in the site. Special attention was paid to the possible occurrence of Grassy Puffer Fish and Philippine Neon Goby, or other species of conservation interest (if any).

10.2.4.12 The fish survey focused on searching for any potential habitats for the juvenile and adult stages of fish species of conservation interest, such as Philippine Neon Goby Stiphodon atropurpureum and Grassy Puffer Fish or any other notable fish species, mainly freshwater courses inside and near the Project Site (mainly the eastern shore of inner Junk Bay where the Cross Bay Link alignment goes through). If freshwater courses are identified during the survey, further surveys on adults and juveniles of fish species of conservation interest in the watercourses, as well as larvae of fish species of conservation interest in estuaries, would be conducted during both wet and dry seasons, to verify the habitat use of fish species inside and in the vicinity of the Project Site. The further survey, if required, would be conducted by active searching and direct observations at watercourses and water course outlets, and cage-trapping or net casting (subject to the site conditions) with particular attention on the presence of any fish species of conservation interest, such as Philippine Neon Goby Stiphodon atropurpureum and Grassy Puffer Fish or any other notable fish fauna. Boulders in the stream will be overturned to locate fish species beneath. Hand net will be used to collect organisms. All encountered fish species will be identified and recorded.

10.2.4.13 Samples from subtidal and estuary habitats were collected by fish cage-trapping and fish gill-netting to obtain quantitative data on fish abundance at 5 sampling points (G1 to G5, as shown in Figure 5). The mesh size of fish cage and gill-net were both smaller than 30 mm. At each sampling location, five fish cages were deployed to subtidal habitat for 2 hours, whilst 3 replicates of fish gill-netting were undertaken. All fish sampled were quantified and identified to the lowest taxonomic level whenever possible, and then returned to their natural habitat after identification works. Representative photograph of fish identified were taken.

Marine grab sample

10.2.4.14 Marine grab samplings on soft substrate seabed for benthic communities were conducted at 5 locations along the bridge alignment and one additional location on each side of the bridge alignment (see Drawing no. 209506/EIA/MEC/002b) during both wet season and dry season (July 2009 and December 2009), with particular attention on the presence of any amphioxus or any other notable marine benthos. Three grab sample replicas of 0.1m2 were collected in each of the sampling stations by van Veen Grab (or other sampling devices with equivalent surface area coverage). Collected samples were sieved by 0.5mm mesh-size sieve and then preserved in 5% buffered seawater formalin. Organisms inside the samples were sorted from the sediments by staining with Rose Bengal and then identified to the lowest practicable taxonomic level. Species composition, abundance and biomass were reported. Diversity index, evenness index and Abundance/Biomass Comparison (ABC) plots were provided for evaluating and ranking the ecological values. The conservation status including local, regional and international, such as China Redlist and IUCN Redlist of the recorded biota were recorded.

10.3 Ecological Baseline Conditions

10.3.1 Habitats

10.3.1.1 While the marine ecological assessment area covers 3 WCZs, the areas in the vicinity of the CBL alignment are considered more relevant with the impact assessment, and thus the habitat map would cover 500m distance from the CBL alignment (see Drawing no. 209506/EIA/MEC/003). As the Project includes construction of the marine section of CBL (in viaduct bridge form) across Junk Bay and its landing section at the artificial seawall at the eastern shore of Junk Bay, both marine waters and land areas are present in the vicinity of its alignment. But it should be noted that the construction works for the CBL would only be conducted in marine waters and the seawalls, and thus the impact assessment in later sections would concentrate on marine ecology only.

10.3.1.2 For the areas within a 500m distance from the CBL alignment, the majority of habitats are marine waters in Junk Bay and the developed areas/restored landfills on the eastern shore of Junk Bay. In their interfaces, there are intertidal habitats.

Table 10.1 Habitat types in the vicinity (500m distance) of the CBL alignment

Habitat types	Area (ha)/Length (m)
Marine waters	166 ha
Vertical Seawalls	929m
Sloping Seawalls	875m
Natural Coastlines	633m
Developed Areas/Restored Landfills	127 ha

10.3.2 Corals

10.3.2.1 Several dive surveys were previously conducted for EIA studies inside Junk Bay (covering the study area of Area 131, Tai Miu Wan and Fat Tong Chau), and hard and soft coral colonies were recorded during at least two dive surveys.

10.3.2.2 Most corals were found at the western coast of Junk Bay. None of the corals (both hard and soft corals) is considered rare. Examples of the recorded corals include Faviid corals, Goniopora spp., Tubastrea spp., Gorgonians and Dendronephthys spp.

10.3.2.3 Dive surveys within the footprint of the proposed WCR reclamation area in Chiu Keng Wan coastline as well as a 100m section of coastline to the south of the proposed reclamation was performed under the EIA Study for Further Development of TKO. Dive survey results revealed that most of the Chiu Keng Wan coast supported a low cover (in general about 1% cover) of octocorals (soft coral, seawhips and seafans) and a sparse cover (<1% cover) of hard corals. At the south of the dive survey area at the margin of the southernmost edge of the proposed reclamation area it was estimated that patches of octocoral reached up to about 10% cover. Results indicated that the Chiu Keng Wan coast supports a sparse cover of hard corals of species that are common and widespread across Hong Kong as well as patches of low to moderate cover of common and widespread soft and gorgonian corals.

10.3.2.4 Dive surveys were also conducted at Chiu Keng Wan for the TKO-LT Tunnel EIA study. Hard corals, gorgonians, soft corals, black corals and sea pen were recorded but all are commonly found in Hong Kong waters except three locally uncommon hard coral species, i.e. Favia helianthoides, Montipora mollis, and Coscinaraea sp.

10.3.2.5 In recent years soft and hard corals were also recorded in Victoria Harbour during survey for the Harbour Area Treatment scheme. They are potentially subject to indirect impacts from the proposed project.

10.3.2.6 In light of this, it was decided further ecological surveys were needed. In the present EIA study, a total of 5 species of corals (two species of hermatypic hard corals, one species of ahermatypic cup coral, one species of soft coral, and one species of gorgonian) and 13 species of other marine organisms were recorded during the dive survey. The recorded corals included hard corals and octocorals, but no black coral was found. All recorded hard coral species were either common (Oulastrea crispata and Tubastrea sp.), or dominant (Porites lutea) in Hong Kong waters, and the Soft coral Dendronephthya sp. and the Gorgonian Echinomuricea sp. was also common in Hong Kong. There was no species of conservation importance found during the dive survey.

10.3.2.7 Spot check dive survey was performed in various locations. Based upon the findings from spot dive survey, 2 REA transects of 100m length were laid within the study area, one covered the Project Site (the vertical seawall at the CBL landing point) and the other one covered a section of sloping seawall nearby. On these REA transects, the abundance of coral colonies was low. No rare or uncommon coral species was recorded on these REA transects. All these coral colonies were difficult to translocate with the substrate, as the boulders on the sloping seawalls and the blocks of the vertical seawalls were all of large sizes. Details on the methodology, location, results and discussion are provided in Appendix 10.1.

10.3.2.8 The results of the verification survey in early 2013 revealed that there was no obvious change in the baseline conditions of those coral communities. The detailed results of the verification dive survey are presented in Appendix 10.5.

10.3.3 Intertidal habitats

10.3.3.1 There are some natural coastlines between Lei Yue Mun and TKO town centre. Only a limited extent of natural intertidal habitats could still be found in the vicinity of TKO due to the rapid development in the recent years.

10.3.3.2 The rocky shore habitat at Chiu Keng Wan was surveyed under the EIA study of Further Development of TKO in the wet season of 2004. Rocky shore fauna along the Chiu Keng Wan coast comprised species typical of other semi-exposed rocky shores of eastern Hong Kong waters and followed typical vertical zonation patterns mediated by tidal exposure. On the high shore, fauna was dominated by Littorinid snails, while seaslaters, Ligia exotica were also present but very infrequent along the coast. At the mid-shore, assemblages were dominated by the limpet Cellana toreuma, and barnacles Tetraclita spp. and Common Top Shell Monodonata labio. On the low shore, rock oysters Saccostrea cucullata and mussels Sepifera virigatus dominated. Also occasionally seen close to the water’s edge was the Common Rock Crab, Grapsus albolineatus.

10.3.3.3 The coastlines including rocky shore, sandy shores and artificial seawalls at Chiu Ken Wan were surveyed in wet and dry seasons in 2009 for the TKO-LT Tunnel EIA study. A total 67 taxa were recorded. The most frequently recorded species included Rock Oyster Saccostrea cucullata, Littorinid snails, Limpets, Barnacles, Sea Anemone, crabs and algae. All the recorded organisms were common and widespread in intertidal environment in Hong Kong.

10.3.3.4 In the present EIA study, a total of 17 taxa were recorded during the wet and dry season intertidal survey (including walk-through surveys and transect surveys). During the quantitative transect survey, a total of 10 taxa were recorded. The most frequently recorded species included littorinid snails Echinolittorina malaccana and Echinolittorina radiata, Rock Oyster Saccostrea cucullata, and Barnacle. All recorded taxa were common intertidal organisms in Hong Kong. No species of conservation importance was found and none of the species are listed in the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2009). Details on the methodology, location, results and discussion are provided in Appendix 10.2.

10.3.3.5 The results of the verification survey revealed that there was no obvious change in the coastline environment and the intertidal species occurred. The detailed results of the verification intertidal walk-through survey are presented in Appendix 10.5.

10.3.4 Benthic communities

10.3.4.1 During a territorial-wide benthic fauna survey conducted for AFCD, amphioxus Branchiostoma belcheri, which is a living fossil and the only benthic species considered of conservation concern in Hong Kong. This species is only recorded in limited locations in Hong Kong, mostly in Sai Kung and Port Shelter, but was also recorded in sampling stations in Tathong Channel near Junk Bay.

10.3.4.2 A benthic grab survey was conducted along the north west coast of Junk Bay (Chiu Keng Wan) under the EIA study of Further Development of TKO in 2004. In total, more than 600 infaunal individuals were enumerated from 15 grab samples, each of 0.1m². Overall, the benthos was numerically dominated by the polychaetes (83.1%). The remaining portion comprised crustaceans (10.4%), sipunculids (2.5%), molluscs (1.7%), nermerteans (1.3%), phoronids (0.5%), echinoderms (0.2%), actinians (0.2%) and chordates (0.2%). 51 species of benthic fauna were found in the samples. In terms of diversity, the sampled benthic community off Chiu Keng Wan was considered to be of moderate diversity (average H’ = 2.49) in comparison to other benthic communities in Hong Kong. The survey results indicated that the soft substrata seabed off Chiu Keng Wan supported a disturbed benthic community of moderate diversity and of low abundance. No species of conservation interest were identified.

10.3.4.3 Benthic surveys were conducted for the on-going LT Tunnel EIA study at Chiu Keng Wan in wet and dry seasons of 2009. Three replicates from each of the four sampling stations were collected in each survey. A total of 94 and 149 specimens were collected in wet season and dry season respectively. 54 taxa were recorded, with the polychaetes dominated (35 species) followed by Crustaceans (over 11 species). The biodiversity of the benthic community in the survey area was between Eastern and Southern Waters and Deep Bay group, while the species evenness was higher than other areas in Hong Kong. These results indicated that the benthic community in the survey area was generally healthy and comparable to clean water bodies in Hong Kong.

10.3.4.4 In the present EIA study, benthic grab surveys were conducted at sampling stations along the proposed CBL alignment and in the nearby coastal waters. A total of 177 and 243 benthic organisms were recorded in the wet and dry season survey respectively. No species of conservation importance was found during the survey and none of the species are listed in the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2008). Details on the methodology, location, results and discussion are provided in Appendix 10.3.

10.3.5 Fish communities

10.3.5.1 The catadromous Philippine Neon Goby Stiphodon atropurpureum is an uncommon fish species in Hong Kong. It is only recorded in a few streams in North-East of New Territories and on Lantau Island. Catadromous fish would need to migrate between freshwater stream and the sea to complete their life cycle. To protect this species, it is important to maintain the access from their habitat to the sea.

10.3.5.2 Fish species of conservation interest, i.e. Grassy Puffer Fish Takifugu niphobles, and Neon Goby Stiphodon atropurpureus were previously recorded in TKO area by other previous studies. The construction of the proposed CBL might involve coastal construction works and might affect these fish species.

10.3.5.3 During the EIA study for Further Development of TKO, fish communities along the Chiu Keng Wan coast were reported. Fish recorded included the goby Bathygobius fusca, Doublebar cardinalfish Apogon pseudotaeniatus, juvenile grey mullet Mugil cephalus, Rockfish Sebasticus marmoratus, Russell’s snapper Lutjanus russellii, White-spotted Rabbit fish Siganus canaliculatus, Chinese damselfish Neopomacentrus bankieri, Japanese seaperch Lateolabrix japonicus, Red Drum Sciaenops ocellatus, and the Grassy Puffer fish (also known as the Starry or Snowy Puffer) Takifugu niphobles. Takifugu niphobles is listed as ‘data deficient’ in the IUCN red list of threatened species. Listing of taxa in this category indicates that more information is required and acknowledges the possibility that future research will show that threatened classification is appropriate. As an intertidal spawner, Takifugu niphobles gathers at the water edge at dusk at the full or new moon when tidal heights are at their highest and strands in rock pools to spawn.

10.3.5.4 Fish surveys were performed in the coastal waters of Chiu Keng Wan in 2009 for the on-going LT Tunnel EIA study. A total of 12 fish species were recorded, mostly from coastal subtidal and intertidal areas while none from freshwater streams or estuarine areas. All species recorded are locally common and widespread in Hong Kong including Siganus canaliculatus, and Bathygobius fuscus.

10.3.5.5 In the present EIA study, fish surveys were performed to investigate the fish communities in the area. During the fish survey, the coastlines in the area were searched for stream courses and the nearby coastal waters were surveyed by baited traps and gill nets. A low diversity of fauna was recorded during the present fish survey in shallow waters. The two species of fish of concern were not recorded in the present study. No species of conservation importance was recorded during the survey. Details on the methodology, location, results and discussion are provided in Appendix 10.4.

10.4 Evaluation of Ecological Importance of Habitats and Species

10.4.1 Habitats

10.4.1.1 The ecological importance of different parts of the assessment areas are evaluated based primarily on the criteria set forth in Table 2, Annex 8 of the EIAO-TM:

(1) naturalness;

(2) size;

(3) diversity;

(4) rarity;

(5) re-creatability;

(6) fragmentation;

(7) ecological linkage;

(8) potential value;

(9) nursery/breeding ground;

(10) age; and

(11) abundance/richness of wildlife.

Table 10.2 Ecological value of different habitats within 500m from CBL


Criteria	Marine waters	Development Areas/Restored Landfills	Hard shore - Artificial seawalls	Hard shore - Rocky shore
Naturalness	Natural	Artificial	Artificial	Basically natural.
Size	166 ha	127ha	About 1.8 km	About 600m
Diversity	Low	Low	Low	Low
Rarity	Common habitat in Hong Kong	Common habitat in Hong Kong	Common habitat in Hong Kong	Common habitat in Hong Kong
Re-creatability	Not re-creatable.	Readily creatable	Readily creatable	Not re-creatable.
Fragmentation	Unfragmented.	Unfragmented.	Unfragmented.	Unfragmented.
Ecological linkage	Generally linked with the open sea.	No linkage is observed	Generally linked with the open sea.	Generally linked with the open sea.
Potential value	Low	Low	Low	Low.
Nursery/breeding ground	Potentially marine fauna breeding and/or spawning ground	No special nursery/breeding ground function observed	No special nursery/breeding ground function observed	No special nursery/breeding ground function observed
Age	N/A	Less than 30yrs.	N/A	N/A
Abundance/Richness of wildlife	Low	Low	Low	Low
Overall Ecological value	Low	Low	Low	Low

10.4.2 Species

General

10.4.2.1 In accordance with Table 3, Annex 8 of the EIAO-TM, the ecological value of species was assessed in terms of:

· Protection status,

· Species distribution, and

· Rarity.

10.4.2.2 Established coral communities of any size are regarded as important habitat types in Hong Kong as defined in Annex 8 of EIAO-TM.

10.4.2.3 Other than corals, there was no other species of conservation importance for the Project.

Table 10.3 Fauna Species of Conservation Importance

Species	Protection Status	Species Distribution	Rarity	Remarks
*Oulastrea crispate* *Porites lutea* *Tubastrea* sp.	Cap 586	On vertical seawall at the CBL landing area	Common and widespread in Hong Kong	Low coverage
*Dendronephthya* sp. *Echinomuricea* sp.	NA	On vertical seawall at the CBL landing area	Common and widespread in Hong Kong	Low coverage
*Coral communities within Junk Bay*	Cap 586	Mainly western coast of Junk Bay	Common and widespread in Hong Kong	Low coverage

10.5 Assessment Methodology

10.5.1 Identification of Impacts

10.5.1.1 The ecological impact assessment is aimed to protect, maintain and rehabilitate the natural environment.

10.5.1.2 The ecological impact assessment included:

(1) identification and quantification of any direct/indirect and on-site/off-site ecological impacts to foraging areas, breeding grounds, reduced survival of adult or juvenile wildlife;

(2) identification of parameters (e.g. water quality parameters) including any potential toxic contaminants released from the dredged sediment;

(3) evaluation of the identified impacts, caused by the construction and operation of the Project, such as habitat loss, water quality deterioration, underwater noise, bioaccumulation, marine collision, chemical spillage and disturbance;

(4) recommendations for mitigation measures; and

(5) review of the need for monitoring and to propose a monitoring and audit programme if needed.

10.5.1.3 The ecological impact assessment followed the criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing ecological impact as stated in Annexes 8 and 16 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM).

10.5.1.4 Potential aquatic and terrestrial and marine ecological impacts arising from the Project, including construction phase and operation phase, would be identified. Predicted impacts would be quantified as far as possible and evaluated with reference to the criteria in Annexes 8 and 16 of the EIAO-TM. Where significant negative impacts are predicted, based upon the priority of “avoid, minimize, and compensate”, the strategy followed the approaches as: the feasibility of modifications to the design, consideration of alternate sites or options, special controls on construction methods and schedule, or compensatory habitat creation or enhancement. The acceptability of residual impacts following mitigation was assessed. Finally, the assessment evaluated the need for ecological monitoring and audit, and prescribed in detail any required EM&A programme in accord with the Study Brief.

10.5.2 Criteria to Evaluate Impacts

10.5.2.1 The significance of ecological impacts was evaluated based primarily on the criteria set forth in Table 1, Annex 8 of the EIAO-TM:

(1) habitat quality;

(2) species affected;

(3) size/abundance of habitats/organisms affected;

(4) duration of impacts;

(5) reversibility of impacts; and

(6) magnitude of environmental changes.

10.5.2.2 The determination of the above first 3 items, namely "habitat quality", "species affected" and "size/abundance of habitats/organisms affected", made reference to the baseline conditions. "Duration of impacts" and "reversibility of impacts" are closely related to the nature of the impacts. Usually construction disturbance such as noise is regarded as a short-term impact. Temporary occupation of natural habitats can be reversible. In contrast, the occupation of space by the development itself is a permanent and irreversible impact. "Magnitude of environmental change" is determined by the scale of the projects, i.e. the extent of the works area and/or the degree of changes of the ambient environment. The abundance and/or distribution of the same kind of habitat in Hong Kong, or individuals of the same species, are also considered.

10.5.2.3 Impacts are generally ranked as "minor", "moderate" or "severe", although in a few cases a ranking of "insignificant" (less than "minor") may be given. The ranking of a given impact varies, based on the criteria listed above. Wherever possible, significance of impacts is quantified to allow ready appreciation of relative significance. Quantification is straight forward for certain types of impact, particularly habitat loss (usually measured in hectares).

10.5.2.4 Quantification of levels of ecological impact requires the application of professional judgement and value judgements, as noted in paragraph 5.3.1, Annex 16 of the EIAO-TM. Such judgements are often not amenable to quantification.

10.5.2.5 Nearby projects are assessed for potential cumulative impacts with the present project. The study team liaised with Mainland and Macao authorities, consultants of relevant feasibility studies, relevant departments/offices, and private and public organisations to address interfacing issues and cumulative environmental impacts.

10.5.3 Identification of Sensitive Receivers

10.5.3.1 Sensitive receivers of impacts are defined for this report as 1) species of conservation importance whose local, regional, or global populations would be expected to show the effects of reduced survivorship or productivity caused by the project. This implies that project-induced losses are predicted to exceed the range of fluctuation attributable to natural population variation; and 2) important habitats identified during the ecological baseline study to be within the study area, and have the potential to be affected indirectly by the project, for example, through deterioration of water quality. Such impact would normally be evaluated by the predicted magnitude of changes, e.g. extent of increase in suspended solids or other contaminants at the sensitive receivers.

10.5.4 Recommendation of Mitigation Measures

10.5.4.1 Impacts are assessed in the absence of mitigation. Efforts are made to identify feasible and practicable mitigation measures to reduce the severity of any significant negative impacts to acceptable levels. For the purposes of this EIA, "significant" is used to refer to impacts requiring mitigation and is applied to "moderate" and "severe" impacts, while "minor" and "insignificant” impacts do not require mitigation. Where significant negative impacts are predicted from the Project, mitigation responses are developed to “Avoid, Minimize and Compensate” for impacts in that order of priority. As stipulated in EIAO-TM, the study team, in consultation with the client, resolved impacts by first determining the feasibility to avoid impacts (modifications to project design, consideration of alternate sites or alignments). The second priority was to minimise impacts (refining the bridge design or alignment, special controls on construction methods and schedule). The third priority was to design measures to compensate for impacts (compensatory habitat creation or enhancement). Mitigation measures are provided in the ecological assessment to address the potential impacts identified. These measures are described in terms of their scope, programme, feasibility and financial implications during the construction and operation of the project. The acceptability of residual impacts following mitigation is assessed. Finally, the assessment evaluates the need for ecological monitoring and audit, and prescribes in detail any required EM&A programme in accord with the Study Brief.

10.5.4.2 Finally, the assessment concludes whether the mitigation measures envisaged could bring secondary impacts of the project and control them to within acceptable bounds. The acceptability of the overall residual ecological impacts is determined. Besides adverse impacts, potential benefits of the Project are also considered in the EIA.

10.6 Impact Identification and Evaluation

10.6.1 Construction Phase – Direct Impacts

Marine Habitat Loss (Soft substrate seabed and marine waters loss during construction)

10.6.1.1 The marine section of the CBL refers to the viaduct from the TKO-LT Tunnel to the shoreline of eastern Junk Bay. This section of viaduct is completely on open sea area and about 1.1km in length. No terrestrial or intertidal habitat will be affected by this section.

10.6.1.2 Furthermore, the dive survey and grab survey confirmed that the seabed in the open sea area is of soft substrate. Therefore no direct impact on coral communities on shallow subtidal hard substrate will be resulted from the open sea part of CBL.

10.6.1.3 The marine section CBL will be a viaduct supported by piers. Some physical loss of marine habitat (seabed and water column) will result from construction works at each location where piers are installed to support the bridge deck. The CBL marine section would be around 1.1km in length. There will be 12 pier sites, with the span ranging from 75m to 200m. At each pier site one single pier would be constructed for a y-shape column, to support the bridge deck.

10.6.1.4 At each pier site, piles would be bored through the seabed sediment to reach a solid (rock) substrate. Atop a concrete pile cap will be constructed (all pile caps would be above the seabed surface) to support the bridge pier. Each pile cap would be approximately 190 m²in size.

10.6.1.5 The size of the pile caps would be assumed as seabed loss in this assessment as a worst case; the actual footprint on the seabed will be piles supporting the piles above the seabed. The seabed area potentially lost at each pier location would be approximately 190 m². The total seabed loss due to the project footprint in the marine section of CBL would therefore be 12 piers x 190 m² = 2,280 m², i.e. 0.228 ha or less than 0.3 ha.

10.6.1.6 In addition to the loss of the seabed and water column due to the project footprint (these losses will become permanent habitat loss after completion of construction), works areas in each pier site will cause additional temporary loss of seabed and water column habitat.

10.6.1.7 To provide access for construction equipment and labour each pier construction site would include an area of works area which could be considered as temporary marine habitat loss: (i) 5m from the outer perimeter of the piers as a disturbance perimeter for coffer dam construction and silt curtain deployment. Thus the size of each pier construction site would be approximately (10.3+5+5 = 20.3m) x (18.4 +5+5 = 28.4m) = 576m². Of this pier-site works area, the area of temporary habitat loss would be 576 – 190 = 386m². The CBL marine section temporary marine habitat loss would be 12 pier sites x 386m² = 4,632m², i.e. 0.46 ha or less than 0.5ha.

10.6.1.8 The marine section of CBL would have small area of soft substrate seabed and marine waters loss (less than 0.3ha of permanent loss due to the footprint, and at any given time would not exceed 1ha). The results from the various previous studies and sampling in the present EIA study indicated that the ecological values of the benthic communities on soft substrate seabed inside Junk Bay waters are similar, at low value. The marine habitat loss from the marine section of CBL is of small area and is scattered, thus the impact is considered as insignificant.

Marine Habitat Loss (Loss of Artificial Seawalls during construction)

10.6.1.9 After landing, CBL alignment will go alongside a section of 450m vertical artificial seawall on the eastern shore of Junk Bay in viaduct form or at-grade road form. It has been confirmed that on the vertical seawalls no direct encroachment will be caused by the viaduct and no improvement is needed for supporting the CBL, thus there will be no direct impact or loss on the intertidal fauna and the corals colonising the vertical seawalls.

10.6.1.10 No direct impact on the intertidal habitat or the corals would be expected on the vertical seawalls, and no mitigation is required.

Disturbance to benthic communities in the works areas

10.6.1.11 The areas of temporary marine habitat loss quantified above would not be occupied by the bridge structure after completion of construction. However, at these locations the seabed would be disturbed during construction and this could adversely affect benthic fauna.

10.6.1.12 Benthic communities are resilient to seabed disturbances. Whilst dredging destroys or degrades benthic habitats, recovery of benthos within several years, even months, after substrate disturbance is evident from many studies. Sampling station from previous marine borrow area (e.g. Station 24), showed relatively high species richness, numbers of individuals and biomass in the study commissioned by AFCD (CCPC 2002). This recovery is attributed to the rapid recolonisation of the disturbed area by nearby dominant and/or opportunistic benthic species. Because benthic communities are capable of quickly recovering after physical disturbance, this potential impact is considered insignificant in the present Project.

10.6.2 Construction Phase – Indirect Impacts

Marine Water Quality Deterioration

10.6.2.1 Large-scale dredging and filling works associated with reclamation are the major sources of water quality impacts in most marine projects. For the CBL however, there would be no reclamation and no dredging and thus significant water quality impacts have been avoided. Other activities/sources that may arise potential water quality impacts during the construction phase of the Project include:

(1) Pile excavation within cofferdam at pier construction sites; and

(2) Construction site runoff.

10.6.2.2 During pier construction works, the seabed sediment will be disturbed and sediment plume might form and release into the nearby waters. If the sediment plumes reach ecological sensitive receivers, there might be sedimentation and increase of suspended solid in these receivers, and/or reduction of DO due to the release of SS.

10.6.2.3 It is anticipated that the water quality impacts due to excavation works for CBL would be limited as the limited scale of the works for the Project (only 12 pier sites) and that no dredging will be carried out. In addition, pile excavation would be carried out within cofferdam using a closed-grab and silt curtain will be in place before the cofferdam is formed by sheet piling. The measures would effectively prevent any significant deterioration of water quality.

10.6.2.4 In the present EIA study, the water quality assessment considered both CBL project and the TKO-LT Tunnel project, which are connecting with each other, and the overlapping construction programme involving simultaneous marine works. Due to the nature of the marine works (TKO-LT Tunnel would involve reclamation), the two worst case scenarios were selected in the modelling (see Section 8.5.3.6) with major marine works of TKO-LT Tunnel (i.e. TKO-LT Tunnel reclamation only, as non-dredged method will be adopted in TKO-LT Tunnel). The marine works for TKO-LT Tunnel were considered the major contributing source of suspended solid.

10.6.2.5 The water quality assessment considered 16 water quality sensitive receivers (WSRs) relevant with marine ecology, including 13 for corals and 3 for amphioxus, representing records of coral communities and amphioxus. The modelling results showed that during the construction phase, none of these ecologically relevant WSRs would be adversely affected by suspended solid in both wet and dry season, including those closer to the Project Site such as CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4 and CC13) (see Table 8.19 and 8.20).

10.6.2.6 Besides SS, the WSRs on the western coast of Junk Bay (i.e. CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4 and CC13, closer to the TKO-LT Tunnel reclamation site) would also be subject to sedimentation (see Table 8.21, the predicted maximum daily sedimentation rates at major ecological sensitive receivers). It shows that the predicted rates at all these five receivers are much lower than the criterion of 100 g/m²/day. Again, the major contribution of the sedimentation would be the other concurrent projects as Scenario 1a only showed very minor sedimentation. As the WSRs in Junk Bay would not exceed the criterion, other WSRs outside Junk Bay including the location with previous amphioxus in Tathong Channel (AM1) will not be impacted by sedimentation.

10.6.2.7 The oxygen depletion exerted by the SS elevation is calculated and presented in Table 8-22. It is anticipated that the oxygen depletion at most WSR including the five receivers for corals within Junk Bay will be less than 0.02 mg/L, which is less a detection limit of 0.1 mg/L. Thus the DO depletion of all sensitive receivers will be same as prevailing conditions.

10.6.2.8 Contaminants and nutrients might be released to the water column when sediment is contaminated and disturbed by marine construction works. Therefore, elutriate tests were conducted for CBL and TKO-LT Tunnel projects (see Section 8.6.1.10 to Section 8.6.1.15). All the calculated concentrations of heavy metals, metalloid, TIN and UIA comply with the proposed criteria. Thus, adverse impacts due to release of contaminants on WSRs is not anticipated. As supported by the results from water quality modelling, the water quality impact on the hard and soft corals near the CBL alignment and other coral communities within Junk Bay is ranked as Minor.

10.6.2.9 Potential impacts to aquatic habitats and associated fauna from sedimentation due to surface runoff may also arise during the construction phase. Similarly in the case of dredging, elevated suspended solids levels caused by site runoff could increase the suspended solid load in the water bodies and could decrease dissolved oxygen levels. This may affect the survivorship of aquatic fauna, e.g. larvae of amphibian and dragonfly, or intertidal fauna. The result could be a temporary reduction in abundance of aquatic or intertidal life. However as there was only limited land-based construction works on eastern Junk Bay shore which lacks of aquatic/intertidal/subtidal habitats of ecological value, the potential impact from runoff to aquatic or marine communities would be insignificant.

10.6.2.10 There would be wastewater from construction activities, but there are requirements in site practice to ensure the proper collection and treatment of the wastewater. There is also an increased risk of small-scale oil or chemical (construction works solvent) spills from vessels due to the increased number of vessels working in the area. Because of the small volumes of such materials involved, this risk is considered insignificant.

Marine Traffic

10.6.2.11 Increased marine traffic during construction is not a concern for the Project as the Junk Bay area is not within the habitat range of the two resident cetaceans in Hong Kong, i.e. Chinese White Dolphin and Finless Porpoise. This potential impact is considered insignificant.

10.6.3 Operation Phase – Direct Impacts

Permanent Habitat Loss

10.6.3.1 After the construction of the Project, the temporary marine works areas will be self-restored, but the habitats occupied by the Project footprint would be permanently lost. The sizes of the permanent habitat losses have been calculated in the above sections for construction phase, i.e. less than 0.3 ha of seabed.

Marine Habitat Fragmentation

10.6.3.2 This impact is considered insignificant as CBL is in viaduct form and the pier foundations of CBL would only occupy a small proportion of sea area scattered along the bridge alignment. The pier foundations would not obstruct the movement of marine organisms across the bridge alignment as the span ranges from 75m to 200m and therefore would not cause fragmentation effects on them.

10.6.4 Operation Phase – Indirect Impacts

Changes in Hydrological Regime

10.6.4.1 As the marine viaduct of CBL will be a raised structure that would only slightly affect water flow, the bridge should not have any significant effect on the hydrodynamic regime of Junk Bay in general. The water quality of the area should not be significantly affected once construction is completed. The tidal flows simulations have been undertaken in order to obtain results for condition if the CBL and TKO-LT Tunnel had been built (i.e. “with” scenario), and if they were not implemented (i.e. “do-nothing” scenario) (see Section 8.7.1.2). By comparing the results from these simulations, the possible hydrodynamic impacts from CBL and TKO-LT Tunnel were assessed. The graphical presentations for flow velocity vectors and accumulated flows show an insignificant hydrodynamic impact with and without CBL and TKO-LT Tunnel. The water quality modelling results confirm that impact from the changes in hydrological regime due to the presence of CBL is ranked as Insignificant.

10.6.5 Cumulative impacts with other developments

TKO-LT Tunnel

10.6.5.1 The TKO-LT Tunnel project adjoins the CBL project and would involve construction works inside Junk Bay. There would be potential cumulative marine habitat loss and cumulative water quality impacts from this concurrent project.

10.6.5.2 The CBL water quality assessment has considered all concurrent projects, including both CBL project and the TKO-LT Tunnel project, and therefore has already included the cumulative water quality impact from TKO-LT Tunnel project.

10.6.5.3 TKO-LT Tunnel is a separate DP under the EIAO and hence a separate EIA study has been conducted by the project proponent to address all the impacts (including cumulative impacts) during both the construction and operational phases. Cumulative marine habitat loss impacts will thus also be addressed under the TKO-LT Tunnel EIA study.

10.6.5.4 According to the TKO-LT Tunnel EIA study report, direct marine ecological impacts during the construction phase of TKO LT-Tunnel include permanent loss of 3.6ha of seabed and temporary loss of 19ha of seabed. With the small area of seabed loss from CBL (less than 0.3 ha of permanent loss due to the footprint and 9.6 ha of temporary loss during a 9 month construction period), the cumulative marine habitat loss impacts caused by both CBL and TKO-LT Tunnel projects should be acceptable.

10.6.5.5 The water quality assessment undertaken for the CBL considered both CBL project and the TKO-LT Tunnel project, and has thus already considered the cumulative water quality impacts from TKO-LT Tunnel project. Accordingly, no further discussion on the cumulative water quality impacts is provided.

Other concurrent projects

10.6.5.6 Marine works due to Shatin Central Link, CLP Offshore Windfarm, Cruise Terminal, Trunk Road T2, and Submarine Gas Pipeline will be concurrent to the CBL and TKO-LT Tunnel projects.

10.6.5.7 According to the EIA Report for Submarine Gas Pipeline (EIA-182/2010) (Tables 3.20 and 3.21, Appendix B5), the plume envelope of cumulative impact due to Cruise Terminal, Trunk Road T2 and Submarine Gas Pipeline Relocation will not reach these WSRs. Therefore, that exceedance would be likely due to the concurrent marine works of Offshore Windfarm only. The cumulative suspended solid has been taken into account the Windfarm project (see Section 8.6.1.3) and the results are presented in Tables 8.19 to 8.20. A full compliance of SS levels at identified WSRs (including coral sites inside Junk Bay) was predicted due to CBL and TKO-LT Tunnel project and with cumulative projects.

Impact	Receiver	Habitat quality	Species affected	Size-abundance	Duration	Reversibility	Magnitude	Severity	Mitigation
Construction phase
Soft substrate seabed and marine waters loss (Project footprint)	Seabed and Marine waters in Junk Bay	Low	Marine fauna	< 0.3 ha	Turn into permanent loss after completion	Irreversible	Small	Insignificant	No
Temporary soft substrate seabed and marine waters loss (works areas)	Seabed and Marine waters in Junk Bay	Low	Marine fauna	< 0.5 ha	Temporary, only during construction	Reversible	Small	Insignificant	No, benthos able to self-recolonisation
Water quality	Hard and soft corals near CBL alignment and other corals in Junk Bay	Low & low to moderate	Coral communities	Low marine fauna abundance inside Junk Bay	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Minor to insignificant	There would be site practice to protect water quality
Marine traffic	Marine waters in Junk Bay	Low	Marine fauna	Low marine fauna abundance inside Junk Bay	Temporary	Reversible	Small	Insignificant	Not required
Operational phase
Permanent habitat loss	Marine waters in Junk Bay	Low	Marine fauna	<0.3 ha	Permanent	Irreversible	Small	Addressed above	Not required
Habitat fragmentation	Marine waters in Junk Bay	Low	Marine fauna	12 pier sites	Permanent	Irreversible	Small	No	Not required
Changes in hydrological regime	Marine waters in Junk Bay	Low	Marine fauna	12 pier sites	Permanent	Irreversible	Small	Insignificant	Not required