APPENDIX 1

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISONS OF ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS

Table A12.3

Comparison of KCRC GazettedCentral Alignment and River Beas Route in terms of Ecological Impacts

and Mitigation requirements

	~~KCRC~~ ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment	River Beas Route	Comments
Direct permanent habitat loss	0.009ha occupied by viaduct piers.	0.005ha occupied by viaduct piers.	Both alignments entirely on viaduct in Long Valley.
Habitat types	Wet agriculture, inactive agriculture and marsh. The latter is the only area of marsh within the Long Valley area, which due to its semi-natural state has higher value for birds, especially Greater Painted-snipe.	Wet agriculture and inactive agriculture	Ecological value of wet agriculture and inactive agriculture similar for both Options. Both Options have limited impact on isolated fishponds west of the MDC (slightly greater impact for River Beas Route), however this is considered of limited importance compared to impacts in Long Valley proper.
Habitat naturalness	Largely anthropogenic habitats, but with area of semi-natural marsh (though this can be easily recreated)	Entirely anthropogenic.
Habitat diversity	Higher due to presence of semi-natural marsh.	Lower due to lack of semi-natural areas.
Habitat rarity	Wet agriculture and inactive agriculture are both scarce habitats in Hong Kong. Freshwater marsh is now a rare habitat type in Hong Kong.	Wet agriculture and inactive agriculture are both scarce habitats in Hong Kong.	Freshwater marsh only impacted in ~~KCRC AlignmentGazetted~~Central Alignment .
Recreatability	Readily recreated.	Readily recreated.
Bird Species of Conservation Importance	~~KCRC~~ ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment has higher impacts for: Japanese Yellow Bunting Red-billed Starling Black-winged Stilt Pheasant-tailed Jacana Watercock Chestnut Bittern Common Snipe Pintail Snipe Swinhoe's Snipe	River Beas Route has higher impacts for: Chinese Pond Heron Little Egret	Impacts on other species do not differ between Options (see Table A3).
Other taxa	None identified in the EIA as being of Conservation Imp ortance.	None identified in the EIA as being of Conservation Importance.
Nursery / breeding grounds	Greater impact on species breeding within the area, in particular Greater Painted Snipe through impact on area of marsh. Lower impact is likely for Chinese Pond Herons from the Ho Sheung Egretry due to greater distance from egretry and less partitioning of foraging areas.	Lower impact on species breeding within the area, in particular Greater Painted Snipe, through absence of impact on area of marsh. Higher impact is likely for Chinese Pond Herons from the Ho Sheung Egretry due to shorter distance from egretry and less partitioning of foraging areas.
Fragmentation and ecological linkage	Divides Long Valley into two sections, the area north of the Spurline being 23.0ha, and that south of it 11.8ha. Both areas are of sufficient size to retain much of the current ecological function, although with a corridor of reduced densities along the alignment. Although the southern section will be partitioned from Chinese Pond Herons from Ho Sheung Heung Egretry foraging at Long Valley, the northern section remains unaffected.	Also divides Long Valley into two sections. However, the relative sizes are very different with one very large contiguous section of 31.5ha, and a much smaller one of 1.0ha. This smaller area becomes extremely isolated, with very little linkage with the rest of Long Valley. As such this area will likely suffer high reductions in the densities of most Species of Conservation Importance. This option, being closer to Ho Sheung Egretry results in a greater part of Long Valley being partitioned. While Chinese Pond Herons may fly over the railway to reach Long Valley some birds may be deterred, effectively reducing densities of foraging ardeids during the breeding season. This 1.0ha area would also require mitigation.	Long Valley is now a relatively isolated unit due to the channelisation of the Rivers Beas and Sutlej and the existing East Rail line although there is linkage with the Ho Sheung Egretry. Effects on foraging by Chinese Pond Herons from Ho Sheung Heung Egretry are difficult to predict.
Cumulative impacts	Higher as this option creates a new disturbance corridor, which although bordered at least in part by village area, passes through currently undisturbed areas.	Lower as the alignment follows, at various points, East Rail, the channelised River Beas and River Sutlej, and the proposed Fanling Bypass.
Potential ecological value of impacted areas	Higher as further from current disturbance corridors caused by the channelised Rivers Beas and Sutlej and the proposed Fanling Bypass.	Lower as closer to current disturbance corridors caused by the channelised Rivers Beas and Sutlej and the proposed Fanling Bypass
Direct mortality	Most species using Long Valley not considered vulnerable to collision impacts.	As ~~KCRC~~ ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment .
Direct avoidance due to physical effects of structure	Smaller area affected but value of that area higher due to impacts on area of semi-natural marsh.	Higher area affected due to wider gap between lines and fragmentation of small area north of alignment, however, value of impacted area lower.	Methodological difficulty in comparing lesser impacts on a greater area and greater impacts on a smaller area.
Area avoided	Direct loss 0.85ha (under viaduct) and indirect loss of 0.85ha (reduced use due to disturbance for most disturbance sensitive species.	Direct loss of 0.45ha and indirect loss of 1.4ha (between viaducts) and 0.45ha (from disturbance impacts north and south of the viaducts), for most disturbance sensitive species. Impact to the small area north of the viaducts and to three meander areas amounts to 1.4ha.	The split in the viaduct for River Beas Route will create a larger area of impact than ~~KCRC~~ ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment.
Direct avoidance due to Construction Impacts	Higher impact on semi-natural marsh, and in particular to Greater Painted-snipe. Lower impact on egrets from Ho Sheung Heung Egretry.	No impact on areas of semi-natural marsh. Higher impact on egrets from Ho Sheung Egretry.	Assessment based on the assumption that construction works associated with channelisation of the Rivers Beas and Sutlej will be completed prior to commencement of construction of Spur Line.
Impact on mitigation areas for other projects.	No adverse impacts, opportunity to enhance three mitigation areas of MDC by turning these into permanent wetlands.	Direct impacts on three of the River Beas compensation meanders. Mitigating for this is potentially impossible given constraints on mitigating away from resumption area, which would be required to ensure mitigation areas are not within zone of disturbance.
Requirement for temporary or advance habitat creation as mitigation during construction period	Temporary marsh required to compensate for disturbance impacts to species using the marsh, especially Greater Painted-snipe, during construction period.	No temporary mitigation area requirement as habitat continuity not disrupted.	Temporary marsh area of 1.83ha proposed under ~~KCRC~~ ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment.
Permanent requirement for wetland habitat provision / enhancement to compensate for impacts.	Provision of 1.7ha of wetland habitat required, of which at least 0.85ha must be outside area affected by disturbance. To satisfy this requirement proposed marshland habitat of 2.4ha along the line of the viaduct and 1.4ha of enhanced meanders alongside the River Beas to be provided.	In order to completely mitigate for impacts due to River Beas Route, provision of 3.7ha of wetland required of which 2.8ha must be outside area affected by disturbance. An area of approximately 2ha would be available along the line of the viaducts, depending upon the area to be resumed. If meanders are available, these areas can be used as mitigation for impacts within the disturbance area. Due to restrictions on the resumption of private land for ecological mitigation, not land has been identified at this stage for off-site mitigation.	For River Beas Route there is a potential mitigation area along the viaduct (including the meanders area alongside the River Beas). Exact area available would depend on the area to be resumed but would extend from approximately 1.9ha (if only the viaducts' shadow and a 10m wide strip each side of the viaduct were resumed) to 2.6ha (if the area between the two viaducts was also resumed).
Predicted effectiveness of proposed mitigation areas / management implications	Shape of area under viaduct not ideal as it will be difficult to manage and is vulnerable to disturbance from use of surrounding land. Proposed enhanced meanders, however, benefit from remoteness from the viaduct.	Resumption area to be determined. Huge differences in potential effectiveness of options, with the least desirable being two narrow strips being used for mitigation areas. All potential mitigation areas will suffer to some degree from avoidance impacts.	Full comparison not possible unless the area to be resumed is established. Two separate strips (under River Beas Route) is least desirable option whereas if the area between the viaducts were resumed then the shape of the area would be preferable to ~~KCRC~~ ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment - albeit all would suffer from disturbance impacts.

Table A2~~2.5~~

Comparison of ~~KCRC~~ ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment and River Beas Route in terms of Noise Impacts

and Mitigation requirements

	~~KCRC~~ ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment	River Beas Route	Comments
Closest NSRs within Long Valley area	NSR 13 and NSR14.	NSR 1 and NSR4 (se Figure A1)	NSRs for River Beas Route are further from the railway alignment than NSRs for ~~KCRC~~ ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment.
Noise level (L_eq30mins) at NSR during early hours (critical morning hours)	NSR13: 46.8 to 48.8 NSR14: 45.3 to 46.5	NSR1: 47.3 NSR4: 50.5	High level at NSR4 for River Beas Route is due to the presence of points and crossings close to this NSR. Mitigation of the air-borne noise from this source will be required by installing a noise barrier or enclosure along a 100m length of the railway at this point.
Required mitigation for noise impacts within Long Valley.	No mitigation required for air-borne noise.	A noise barrier or enclosure to cover the points and crossings will be required close to NSR4.

Species	Sensitivity to disturbance	Overall impact of disturbance from ~~KCRC~~ ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment	Overall impact of disturbance from River Beas Route	Comments
Japanese Yellow Bunting	Small	Slightly higher as closer to core area	Slightly lower as further from core area	Largely opportunistic in selection of foraging areas, although generally prefers less disturbed areas
Red-billed Starling	Small-medium	Slightly higher as closer to core area	Slightly lower as further from core area	Largely opportunistic in selection of foraging areas, although generally prefers less disturbed areas
Black-winged Stilt	Medium-large	Slightly higher as closer to core area, but scope for additional habitat provision through off-site compensation	Slightly lower as further from core area	Largely opportunistic in selection of foraging areas, although generally prefers less disturbed areas
Chinese Pond Heron	Medium	Although closer to core area, this is outweighed by the greater distance from Ho Sheung Egretry. Also, scope for additional habitat provision through off-site compensation	Higher as closer to Ho Sheung Egretry
Great Egret	Large	Insignificant	Insignificant	Only recorded within Long valley area in low numbers. Some scope for additional habitat provision through off-site compensation
Little Egret	Medium-large	Higher as closer to core area, but scope for additional habitat provision through off-site compensation	Lower as further from core area, but full mitigation not possible
Greater Painted Snipe	Moderate	Higher due to impacts on area of semi-natural marsh, but full mitigation possible through provision of off-site compensation	Low due to lack of direct impacts on area of semi-natural marsh, full mitigation for any impacts may be difficult
Northern Hobby	Large	Insignificant	Insignificant	Only recorded within Long valley area in low numbers
Pheasant-tailed Jacana	Medium-large	Higher as closer to core area, but full mitigation possible through provision of off-site compensation	Lower as further from core, but full mitigation for all impacts may be difficult
Watercock	Medium	Higher as closer to core area, but full mitigation possible through provision of off-site compensation	Lower as further from core, but full mitigation for all impacts may be difficult
Bluethroat	Small	Higher as closer to core area, but full mitigation possible through provision of off-site compensation	Lower as further from core, but full mitigation for any impacts may be difficult
Chestnut Bittern	Small	Higher as closer to core area, but full mitigation possible through provision of off-site compensation	Lower as further from core, but full mitigation for all impacts may be difficult
Common Snipe	Medium	Higher as closer to core area, but full mitigation possible through provision of off-site compensation	Lower as further from core, but full mitigation for all impacts may be difficult
Common Stonechat	Small	Impacts broadly similar	Impacts broadly similar
Japanese Quail	Medium-low	Impacts broadly similar	Impacts broadly similar
Pallas’s Grasshopper Warbler	Very small	Impacts broadly similar	Impacts broadly similar
Pintail Snipe	Medium	Higher as closer to core area, but full mitigation possible through provision of off-site compensation	Lower as further from core, but full mitigation for all impacts may be difficult
Richard’s Pipit	Small	Impacts broadly similar	Impacts broadly similar
Swinhoe’s Snipe	Medium	Higher as closer to core area, but full mitigation possible through provision of off-site compensation	Lower as further from core, but full mitigation for all impacts may be difficult
Zitting Cisticola	Small	Impacts broadly similar	Impacts broadly similar

Table A4~~2.6~~

Comparison of KCRC GazettedCentral Alignment and River Beas Route in terms of Cultural Heritage Impacts

and Mitigation requirements

Cultural/ Heritage Resource	~~KCRC~~ ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment				River Beas Route
Cultural/ Heritage Resource	Predicted Impact Const’n Oper’n		Mitigation	Conclusion	Predicted Impact Const’n Oper’n		Mitigation	Conclusion
1 2Ho Sheung Heung Village	None	Minor	· The extension of the existing woodland at the southern end of the village to provide a buffer zone for the village as an historical unit.	· The proposed alignment, at approx. 150 m. distance, is acceptable with appropriate mitigation measures.	Moderate	Moderate	· A buffer zone of 50 metres must be maintained between the village and the alignment. · The extension of the existing woodland at the southern end of the village to provide a buffer zone for the village as an historical unit.	· A landscaped buffer zone is acceptable mitigation.
Hau Kui Shek Ancestral Hall	None	Minor	· Existing structures will partially shield the building from the alignment. · A foliage screen must be planted between the structure and the alignment.	· The proposed alignment, at approx. 150 m distance is acceptable with appropriate mitigation measures.	Moderate	Moderate	· Existing structures will partially shield the building from the alignment. · A buffer zone of 50 metres must be maintained between the structure and the alignment. · The buffer zone must include the planting of trees to provide a foliage screen.	· A landscaped buffer zone is acceptable mitigation.
Sin Wai Nunnery	None	None	· No mitigation measures are necessary as the structure is adequately buffered by existing woodland.	· The proposed alignment located at a distance of approximately 150 m. is acceptable.	Moderate/ Major	Moderate	· Any existing woodland that is affected by the proposed alignment must be replaced after the construction phase. · The alignment must maintain a minimum distance of 50 m. from the nunnery compound	· The maintenance/ replacement of the woodland between the compound and the alignment is acceptable mitigation.
Hung Shing Pui Fung Temple	None	Minor	· The extension of the existing woodland at the southern end of the village to provide a landscaped buffer zone.	· The proposed alignment, at approx. 150 m. distance, is acceptable with appropriate mitigation measures.	Major	Major	· The alignment must maintain a minimum distance of 50 m. from the temple compound. · The existing woodland at the southern end of the village should be extended to provide a landscaped buffer zone.	· A landscaped buffer zone is acceptable mitigation.
Shrine	None	Minor	· The shrine is located next to a car park and road in a low lying area. The extension of the woodland, as mentioned above, will provide adequate screening.	· The proposed alignment, at approx. 150 m. distance, is acceptable with appropriate mitigation measures.	Moderate	Moderate	· The shrine is located next to a car park and road in a low lying area. The extension of the woodland, as mentioned above will provide adequate screening. · The alignment must maintain a minimum distance of 50 m.	· A landscaped buffer zone is acceptable mitigation
Village Houses	None	Minor	· Existing structures will partially shield the buildings from the alignment. · The creation of a wooded buffer zone will provide a sufficient screen for the historical structures.	· The proposed alignment, at approx. 150 m. distance, is acceptable with appropriate mitigation measures.	Moderate	Moderate	· The alignment must maintain a minimum distance of 50 m. · Existing structures will partially shield the buildings from the alignment, · The addition of a foliage screen in open areas between the historical structures and the alignment will provide a sufficient screen for the houses.	· A landscaped buffer zone is acceptable mitigation
Location of archaeological finds	Moderate potential	None	· It is recommended that the alignment to the south of Ho Sheung Heung be monitored during excavations for support columns.	· The alignment will pass approx. 80m to the south of the area tested and is predicted to have minimal impact on any potential deposit associated with the historical village.	Moderate Potential	None	· It is recommended that further archaeological field testing of the area be carried out in advance of excavations for the support columns.	· The alignment will pass approx. 20m to the south of the area tested and is predicted to have more direct impacts on any potential deposit associated with the historical village

Table A5a

Comparison of ~~KCRC~~ ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment and River Beas Route in terms of Landscape and Visual Impacts

and Mitigation requirements

Impacts on Landscape Character	~~KCRC~~ ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment				River Beas Route
	Predicted Residual Impact		Mitigation Measures	Conclusion	Predicted Residual Impact		Mitigation Measures	Conclusion
	Con	Oper	Mitigation Measures	Conclusion	Con	Oper	Mitigation Measures	Conclusion
MUD 1: Sheung Shui	Slight adverse	Slight adverse	Reinstatement of planting along track side where appropriate. The design of noise enclosures and barriers to be responsive to the existing landscape and minimise impacts on the existing landscape character.	The proposed scheme including the introduction of the proposed noise enclosure and barrier would be integrated into an existing urban context of large high rise buildings with its existing rail infrastructure.	Slight adverse	Slight adverse	Reinstatement of planting along track side where appropriate. The design of noise enclosures and barriers to be responsive to the existing landscape and minimise impacts on the existing landscape character.	The proposed scheme including the introduction of the proposed noise enclosure and barrier would be integrated into an existing urban context of large high rise buildings with its existing rail infrastructure. There would be no substantive differences in the predicted landscape impact between these two options.
L2 River Beas Plain / Long Valley and Fung Kong	Significant adverse	Significant adverse	Provision of wetland areas as ecological mitigation below the viaduct. Design of viaduct to be visually permeable and integrate with rural character of this Long Valley. Screen planting along the boundary of the proposed emergency area to the west of Long Valley.	The proposed scheme including the introduction of the proposed noise enclosure and barrier would be integrated into an existing urban context of large high rise buildings with its existing rail infrastructure.	Moderate to Significant adverse	Moderate adverse	Provision of wetland areas as ecological mitigation below the viaduct. Design of viaduct to be visually permeable and integrate with rural character of this Long Valley. The concentration of the proposed Fanling Bypass, the River Beas retrained river channel and the Spur Line proposals in one area.	The proposed railway viaduct through Long Valley would disrupt the landscape character of the area, however this impact would be minimised to an extent through the movement of the alignment to a more northerly location. This would leave the integrity of the landscape character of Long Valley more substantially intact, therefore the operational impacts would be lower than those predicted for KCRC Alignment. In the wider context of the landscape character of the Long Valley agricultural plain the alignment of River Beas alignment would have a less significant impact than that proposed for the ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment. The proposed alignment would leave much of the Long Valley area physically intact and preserve the long distance south north views. This would leave the integrity of the landscape character of Long Valley
								more substantially intact and preserve its perceived landscape quality; therefore the operational impacts would be lower than those predicted for the ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment. In addition to this part of the northern alignment of the River Beas Option would utilise a landscape already degraded through the construction of the River Beas retrained river channel and an area used for open storage to the east of Ho Sheung Heung.
								The cumulative landscape impacts of concentrating the River Beas retrained river channel, and the proposed Fanling Bypass and Spur Line proposals would be less significant were they to follow separate alignments.
V4 Ho Sheung Heung	Neutral impact	Neutral impact	None required	This character area is remote from the proposed works resulting in no impact to the existing landscape character.	Substantial to moderate adverse	Moderate adverse	Woodland planting to integrate the proposed viaduct into the existing landscape of this area and reduce the impact of the proposed scheme on the landscape setting of the village. The design of noise enclosures and barriers to be responsive to the existing landscape and minimise impacts on the existing landscape character.	The predicted impact of River Beas Route would be more adverse than that of ~~KCRC~~ ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment due to the proximity of the proposed scheme alignment to the village and the requirement for the noise barriers or enclosures on the viaduct structure. The cumulative impacts associated with the River Beas alignment on the village environs would be more adverse than those predicted for the KCRC option due to the concentration of large scale projects including the existing River Beas retrained river channel works and the proposed Fanling Bypass.
C1 Ho Heung Sheung	Moderate adverse	Moderate adverse	Minimization of slope cutting and embankment Compensatory tree and shrub planting along slopes and to visually integrate the proposed scheme into the landscape framwork. Provision of footpaths and bridges to avoid segregation of development.	The proposed scheme would lead to the disturbance of a number of remnant fishponds in the southern part of the character area and the introduction of the viaduct as a major feature in local landscape. This would result in a substantive moderation of the existing landscape character.	Substantial adverse	Substantial to moderate adverse	Minimization of slope cutting and embankment Compensatory tree and shrub planting along slopes and to integrate to local context. Provision of footpaths and bridges to avoid segregation of development. The design of noise enclosures and barriers to be responsive to the existing landscape and minimise impacts on the existing landscape character.	The proposed scheme would lead to the disturbance of a number of remnant fishponds in the southern part of the character area and the introduction of the viaduct as a major feature in local landscape. This would result in a substantive moderation of the existing landscape character. This impact of River Beas Route would be more pronounced that predicted for ~~KCRC Alignment~~ ~~Gazetted~~Central as a larger part of the existing character area would be affected.
RC1 Fanling Highway	Neutral impact	Neutral impact	None required	This character area is remote from the proposed works resulting in no impact to the existing landscape character.	Neutral impact	Neutral impact	None required	This character area is remote from the proposed works resulting in no impact to the existing landscape character.
F1 River Beas Plain	Neutral impact	Neutral impact	None required	This character area is remote from the proposed works resulting in no impact to the existing landscape character.	Substantial to moderate adverse	Moderate adverse	Provision of wetland areas as ecological mitigation below the viaduct. Design of viaduct to integrate with rural character. Screen planting along the banks of the River Beas retrained river channel to provide a form of limited integration between the proposed viaduct and the existing landscape framework.	The proposed railway viaduct through the southern section of this character area and its proximity to the northern part of the Long Valley character area would cause a substantive modification to the landscape character of these areas. However this predicted impact would be minimised to an extent through the movement of the alignment to the peripheral regions of these identified character areas. This would leave the integrity of the landscape character of Long Valley and the agricultural land north of the River Beas retrained river channel more substantially intact, therefore the operational impacts would be lower for River Beas Route than those predicted for ~~KCRC~~ ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment.
								The cumulative landscape impacts of concentrating the River Beas retrained river channel, and the proposed Fanling Bypass and Spur Line proposals would be less significant were they to follow separate alignments.

~~1. Choi Po Court~~ ~~(Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 250m for KCRC Alignment and 250m for River Beas Route)~~	~~Slight adverse~~	~~Slight adverse~~	~~Design of viaduct crossing Long Valley to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate it within the existing rural context.~~ ~~The design of noise enclosures and barriers to be responsive to the existing landscape and minimise impacts on the existing landscape character.~~	The proposed scheme would be visible in views to the east and those to the north east. The first view would be of the existing Sheung Shui Station and the second Long Valley. The main impacts to the Sheung Shui Station view would arise from the introduction of the proposed noise enclosure and barriers as major linear elements in the urban landscape.	~~Slight adverse~~	~~Slight adverse~~	~~Design of viaduct crossing Long Valley to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate it within the existing rural context.~~ ~~The design of noise enclosures and barriers to be responsive to the existing landscape and minimise impacts on the existing landscape character.~~	The proposed scheme would be visible in two directions on the existing Sheung Shui Station and the second Long Valley. The main impacts to the Sheung Shui Station view would be the introduction of the proposed noise enclosure and barriers as major linear elements in the urban landscape. These impacts would remain unchanged through the movement of the alignment. Views of Long Valley would be degraded due to the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in the rural landscape. The predicted impact would be exacerbated by the movement of trains. However the movement of the proposed alignment to a more northerly location would reduce the visual impacts associated with the proposed scheme in this review. Therefore River Beas Route would have a less adverse impact than KCRC Alignment in this view.
~~2. Sheung Shui Sewage Treatment Works~~ ~~(Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 250m for KCRC Alignment and 20m for River Beas Route)~~	~~Slight adverse~~	~~Slight adverse~~	~~Design of viaduct crossing Long Valley to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate it within the existing rural context~~	Views to the west would be degraded through the introduction of the proposed viaduct structure as a major linear element in this largely rural landscape. The predicted impact would be compounded by the movement of trains into Long Valley and the loss of some limited woodland / scrub lining the existing KCR line to Lo Wu.	~~Moderate to slight adverse~~	~~Moderate to slight adverse~~	~~Design of viaduct to be as visually permeable as possible, allowing views through the structure to the landscape of Long Valley and Fung Kong Shan beyond.~~ ~~Woodland planting to line the railway corridor to screen views of the structures and visually integrate the line into the existing landscape framework.~~	Views to the west would be dominated by the proposed viaduct structure as a major linear element in close proximity to the VSR and the loss of some limited woodland /scrub lining the existing KCR line to Lo Wu. However this viewpoint would have a low sensitivity as a product of its function. Therefore River Beas Route would have a more adverse impact on this VSR than KCRC Alignment.
~~3. Former Sheung Shui THA~~ ~~(Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 20m for KCRC Alignment and 20m for River Beas Route)~~	~~Slight adverse~~	~~Slight adverse~~	~~Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context.~~	Views of the north and west would be degraded through introduction of the proposed viaduct structure as a major linear element in this urban fringe landscape. The predicted impacts would be compounded by the movement of trains into Long Valley and the loss of some limited woodland / scrub lining the existing KCR line to Lo Wu.	~~Slight adverse to neutral impact~~	~~Slight adverse to neutral impact~~	~~Design of viaduct to be as visually permeable as possible, allowing views through the structure to the landscape of Long Valley and Fung Kong Shan beyond.~~ ~~Woodland planting to line the railway corridor to screen views of the structures and visually integrate the line into the existing landscape framework.~~	Views to the west would be dominated by the proposed viaduct structure as a major linear element in close proximity to the VSR and the resulting visual impacts would be compounded by the loss of some limited woodland /scrub lining the existing KCR line to Lo Wu. However this viewpoint would have a low sensitivity as a product of its function. Therefore KCRC Alignment would have a more adverse impact on this VSR than River Beas Route.
~~4. Tsung Pak Long~~ ~~(Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 20m for KCRC Alignment and 200m for River Beas Route)~~	~~Moderate adverse~~	~~Moderate adverse~~	~~Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them into the rural context.~~	Views of Long Valley would be degraded by the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in this largely rural landscape. The predicted impacts would be compounded by the movement of trains.	~~Moderate adverse~~	~~Moderate to slight adverse~~	~~Design of viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context.~~	Views to Long Valley would be degraded by the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in the rural landscapes compounded to an extent by the movement of trains. However the movement of the proposed alignment to a more northerly location would reduce the visual impacts associated with the proposed scheme in this view. Therefore for this view River Beas Route would have a lower level of impact than KCRC Alignment.
~~5. Yin Kong~~ ~~(Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 400m for KCRC Alignment and 800m for River Beas Route)~~	~~Moderate adverse~~	~~Moderate adverse~~	~~Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them into the rural context.~~	~~Views of Long Valley would be degraded by the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in this largely rural landscape including the movement of trains.~~	~~Moderate adverse~~	~~Moderate to slight adverse~~	~~Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them into the rural context.~~	Views to Long Valley would be degraded by the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in the rural landscapes. This impact would be compounded to an extent through the movement of trains. However the movement of the proposed alignment to a more northerly location would reduce the visual impacts associated with the proposed scheme in this view. Therefore for this view River Beas Route would have a lower level of impact than KCRC Alignment.
~~6. Fanling Highway East~~ ~~(Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 700m for KCRC Alignment and 1200m for River Beas Route)~~	~~Slight adverse to neutral~~	~~Slight adverse to neutral~~	~~Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them into the rural context.~~	Filtered but severely interrupted views of Long Valley would be degraded by the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in this largely rural landscape including the movement of trains.	~~Slight adverse to neutral~~	~~Neutral impact~~	~~Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them into the rural context.~~	Filtered but severely interrupted views of Long Valley would be degraded through the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in this largely rural landscape, compounded to an extent by the movement of trains. However, the movement of the proposed alignment to a more northerly location would reduce the visual impacts associated with the proposed scheme in this view. Therefore in this view River Beas Route would be a neutral level of impact during the operational phase due to the availability of views and the viewing distances involved.
~~7. Ho Sheung Heung~~ ~~(Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 250m for KCRC Alignment and 100m for River Beas Route)~~	~~Moderate adverse~~	~~Moderate adverse~~	~~Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context.~~	Views of Long Valley would be degraded due to the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in this largely rural landscape and impacts would be exacerbated through the movement of trains.	~~Substantial adverse impact~~	~~Substantial adverse impact~~	~~Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context.~~ ~~Woodland planting along the northern side of the proposed viaduct to partially screen views of the proposed scheme for River Beas Route.~~	Views to Long Valley would be degraded by the introduction of the proposed viaduct as a major linear element in this largely rural landscapes and impacts would be exacerbated through the movement of trains. Therefore the visual impacts arising for residents of Ho Sheung Heung under River Beas Route would be more severe than those for KCRC Alignment.
~~28. KCR line to Lo Wu~~ ~~(Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 20m for KCRC Alignment and 200m for River Beas Route)~~	~~Slight adverse~~	~~Slight adverse~~	~~Design of the viaduct crossing Long Valley to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate it within the existing rural context.~~	Filtered and interrupted views to the west would be degraded through the introduction of the proposed viaduct structure as a major linear element in this largely rural landscape. These predicted impacts would be compounded by the movement of trains into Long Valley and the loss of some limited woodland / scrub lining the existing KCR line to Lo Wu.	~~Moderate to slight adverse~~	~~Moderate to slight adverse~~	~~Design of the viaduct to be as visually permeable as possible so as to allow views through the structure to the landscape of Long Valley beyond.~~ ~~Woodland planting to line the railway corridor to screen views of the structures and visually integrate the line into the existing landscape framework.~~	Views to the west would be dominated by the proposed viaduct structure as a major linear element in closed proximity to this VSR and the loss of some limited woodland / scrub lining the existing KCR line to Lo Wu. Although this viewpoint would have a low sensitivity to change resulting from the availability of views there would be a more adverse impact on this VSR than KCRC Alignment due to the nature of the existing view.
~~29. Europa Gardens~~ ~~(Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 550m for KCRC Alignment and 550m for River Beas Route)~~	~~Slight adverse to neutral~~	~~Slight adverse to neutral~~	~~Design of viaduct to be as visually permeable as possible so as to allow views through the structure to the landscape of Long Valley beyond.~~ ~~Compensatory planting to soften the engineered form of the proposed earthworks and screen the movement of trains.~~	The introduction the viaduct across Long Valley as major linear element in rural landscape would have a low level of impact from this VSR due to the availability of views and the viewing distances involved.	~~Slight adverse to neutral~~	~~Slight adverse to neutral~~	~~Design of viaduct to be as visually permeable allowing views through the structure to the landscape of Long Valley beyond.~~ ~~Compensatory planting to soften the engineered form of the proposed earthworks and screen the movement of trains.~~	The introduction the viaduct across Long Valley as major linear element in rural landscape would have a low level of impact from this VSR due to the availability of views and the viewing distances involved. Therefore the impact of the two options would be of a similar level of significance for KCRC Alignment and River Beas Route.

Table A5b Comparison of the Predicted Impacts of ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment and River Beas Route on

Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSR’s) in the Study Area.

Impacts on Visually Sensitive Receivers	~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment				River Beas Route
	Predicted Residual Impact		Mitigation Measures	Conclusion	Predicted Residual Impact		Mitigation Measures	Conclusion
	Con	Oper	Mitigation Measures	Conclusion	Con	Oper	Mitigation Measures	Conclusion
1. Choi Po Court (Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 250m for ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment and 250m for River Beas Route)	Slight adverse	Slight adverse	Design of viaduct crossing Long Valley to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate it within the existing rural context. The design of noise enclosures and barriers to be responsive to the existing landscape and minimise impacts on the existing landscape character.	The proposed scheme would be visible in views to the east and those to the north east. The first view would be of the existing Sheung Shui Station and the second Long Valley. The main impacts to the Sheung Shui station view would arise from the introduction of the proposed noise enclosure and barriers as major linear elements in the urban landscape	Slight adverse	Slight adverse	Design of viaduct crossing Long Valley to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate it within the existing rural context. The design of noise enclosures and barriers to be responsive to the existing landscape and minimise impacts on the existing landscape character.	The proposed scheme would be visible in two directions one the existing Sheung Shui Station and the second Long Valley. The main impacts to the Sheung Shui station view would be the introduction of the proposed noise enclosure and barriers as major linear elements in the urban landscape. These impacts would remain unchanged through the movement of the alignment.
				Views of Long Valley would be degraded through the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in the rural landscape. These predicted impacts would be exacerbated by the movement of trains.				Views of Long Valley would be degraded due to the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in the rural landscape. The predicted impact would be exacerbated by the movement of trains. However the movement of the proposed alignment to a more northerly location would reduce the visual impacts associated with the proposed scheme in this view. Therefore River Beas Route would have a less adverse impact than ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment in this view.
2. Sheung Shui Sewage Treatment Works (Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 250m for ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment and 20m for River Beas Route)	Slight adverse	Slight adverse	Design of viaduct crossing Long Valley to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate it within the existing rural context	Views to the west would be degraded through the introduction of the proposed viaduct structure as a major linear element in this largely rural landscape. The predicted impact would be compounded by the movement of trains into Long Valley and the loss of some limited woodland / scrub lining the existing KCR line to Lo Wu.	Moderate to slight adverse	Moderate to slight adverse	Design of viaduct to be as visually permeable as possible, allowing views through the structure to the landscape of Long Valley and Fung Kong Shan beyond. Woodland planting to line the railway corridor to screen views of the structures and visually integrate the line into the existing landscape framework.	Views to the west would be dominated by the proposed viaduct structure as a major linear element in close proximity to the VSR and the loss of some limited woodland / scrub lining the existing KCR line to Lo Wu. However this viewpoint would have a low sensitivity as a product of its function. Therefore River Beas Route would have a more adverse impact on this VSR than ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment.
3. Former Sheung Shui THA (Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 20m for ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment and 20m for River Beas Route)	Slight adverse	Slight adverse	Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context.	Views to the north and west would be degraded through the introduction of the proposed viaduct structure as a major linear element in the this urban fringe landscape. The predicted impacts would be compounded by the movement of trains into Long Valley and the loss of some limited woodland / scrub lining the existing KCR line to Lo Wu.	Slight adverse to neutral impact	Slight adverse to neutral impact	Design of viaduct to be as visually permeable as possible allowing views through the structure to the landscape of Long Valley and Fung Kong Shan beyond. Woodland planting to line the railway corridor to screen views of the structures and visually integrate the line into the existing landscape framework.	Views to the west would be dominated by the proposed viaduct structure as a major linear element in close proximity to this VSR and the resulting visual impacts would be compounded by the loss of some limited woodland / scrub lining the existing KCR line to Lo Wu. However this viewpoint would have a low sensitivity as a product of its function. Therefore ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment would have a more adverse impact on this VSR than River Beas Route.
4. Tsung Pak Long (Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 20m for ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment and 200m for River Beas Route)	Moderate adverse	Moderate adverse	Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them into the rural context.	Views of Long Valley would be degraded by the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in this largely rural landscape. The predicted impacts would be compounded by the movement of trains.	Moderate adverse	Moderate to slight adverse.	Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context.	Views of Long Valley would be degraded by the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in the rural landscapes compounded to an extent by the movement of trains. However the movement of the proposed alignment to a more northerly location would reduce the visual impacts associated with the proposed scheme in this view. Therefore for this view River Beas Route would have a lower level of impact than ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment.
5. Yin Kong (Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 400m for ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment and 800m for River Beas Route)	Moderate adverse	Moderate adverse	Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them into the rural context.	Views of Long Valley would be degraded by the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in this largely rural landscape including the movement of trains.	Moderate adverse	Moderate to slight adverse.	Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context.	Views of Long Valley would be degraded due to the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in the rural landscapes. This impact would be compounded to an extent through the movement of trains. However the movement of the proposed alignment to a more northerly location would reduce the visual impacts associated with the proposed scheme in this view. Therefore for this view River Beas Route would have a lower level of impact than ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment.
6. Fanling Highway East (Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 700m for ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment and 1200m for River Beas Route)	Slight adverse to neutral	Slight adverse to neutral	Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context.	Filtered but severely interrupted views of Long Valley would be degraded through the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in this largely rural landscape including the movement of trains.	Slight adverse to neutral	Neutral impact.	Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context.	Filtered but severely interrupted views of Long Valley would be degraded through he introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in this largely rural landscape, compounded to an extent by the movement of trains. However the movement of the proposed alignment to a more northerly location would reduce the visual impacts associated with the proposed scheme. Therefore in this view River Beas Route would be a neutral level of impact during the operational phase due to the availability of views and the viewing distances involved.
7. Ho Sheung Heung *(Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 250m for ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment and 100m for River Beas Route)***	Moderate adverse	Moderate adverse	Design of the viaduct structure to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context.	Views of Long Valley would be degraded due to the introduction of the viaduct as a major linear element in this largely rural landscape and impacts would be exacerbated through the movement of trains.	Substantial adverse impact	Moderate to substantial adverse impact	Design of the viaduct structure including the proposed noise barriers mounted on the viaduct parapets to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate them within the rural context. Woodland planting along the northern side of the proposed viaduct to partially screen views of the proposed scheme for River Beas Route.	Views of Long Valley would be dominated by the introduction of the proposed viaduct as a major linear element in this largely rural landscape and impacts would be exacerbated through the movement of trains. Both alignment the KCRC and River Beas alignments will have adverse visual impacts on those views available from the village houses however the requirement for noise barriers with the river Beas option and it’s closer proximity to the village will cause more significant impacts than those which accrue from the ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment. Therefore the visual impacts arising for residents of Ho Sheung Heung under River Beas Route would be more severe than those for ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment.
28. KCR line to Lo Wu (Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 20m for ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment and 20m for River Beas Route)	Slight adverse	Slight adverse	Design of viaduct crossing Long Valley to reduce the visual impact of the proposals and integrate it within the existing rural context	Filtered and interrupted views to the west would be degraded through the introduction of the proposed viaduct structure as a major linear element in this largely rural landscape. These predicted impacts would be compounded by the movement of trains into Long Valley and the loss of some limited woodland / scrub lining the existing KCR line to Lo Wu.	Moderate to slight adverse	Moderate to slight adverse	Design of viaduct to be as visually permeable as possible so as to allow views through the structure to the landscape of Long Valley beyond. Woodland planting to line the railway corridor to screen views of the structures and visually integrate the line into the existing landscape framework.	Views to the west would be dominated by the proposed viaduct structure as a major linear element in close proximity to this VSR and the loss of some limited woodland / scrub lining the existing KCR line to Lo Wu. Although this viewpoint would have a low sensitivity to change resulting from the availability of views there would be a more adverse impact on this VSR than ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment due to the nature of the existing view.
29. Europa Gardens (Viewing distance to nearest part of the proposed scheme 550m for ~~Gazetted~~Central Alignment and 550m for River Beas Route)	Slight adverse to neutral	Slight adverse to neutral	Design of viaduct to be as visually permeable as possible so as to allow views through the structure to the landscape of Long Valley beyond. Compensatory planting to soften the engineered form of the proposed earthworks and screen the movement of trains.	The introduction the viaduct across Long Valley as major linear element in rural landscape would have a low level of impact from this VSR due to the availability of views and the viewing distances involved.	Slight adverse to neutral	Slight adverse to neutral	Design of viaduct to be as visually permeable allowing views through the structure to the landscape of Long Valley beyond. Compensatory planting to soften the engineered form of the proposed earthworks and screen the movement of trains.	The introduction the viaduct across Long Valley as major linear element in rural landscape would have a low level of impact from this VSR due to the availability of views and the viewing distances involved. Therefore the impact of the two options would be of a similar level of significance for options 1 and River Beas Route.

APPENDIX 1

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISONS OF ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS

Table A12.3

Comparison of KCRC GazettedCentral Alignment and River Beas Route in terms of Ecological Impacts

Comparison of KCRC GazettedCentral Alignment and River Beas Route in terms of Cultural Heritage Impacts

1

2Ho Sheung Heung Village

None

Sin Wai Nunnery

None

Shrine

Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSR’s) in the Study Area.

River Beas Route