13.1
This EIA Report has provided an
assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated with the
construction and operation phases of the proposed Project, “Improvements to San
Tin Interchange”.
13.2
Specific mitigation measure
requirements for the Project, as well as environmental monitoring and auditing
procedures, have been developed during the assessment of the proposed road
scheme. The Implementation Schedules of
the recommendations are presented in Section 14. The principal findings of this Report are summarized below.
Construction Phase
13.3
Noise impact associated with the
construction activities of the Project has been assessed. The assessment results indicate that the
construction noise levels at the NSRs of village houses near San Tin Highway
and Kwu Tung Road and Tun Yu School would exceed the EIAO-TM noise criterion if
no mitigation is applied. Hence, noise
mitigation measures would be required to abate the potential construction noise
impact, including good site practices, quiet equipment and movable noise
barriers. With the adoption of the
quiet equipment and movable noise barriers, all NSRs would be protected against
adverse noise impacts from the construction of the Project.
Operational
Phase
13.4
Potential road traffic noise impact
associated with the Project has been assessed for the maximum traffic flows
within 15 years from the start of the Project in operation. With the implementation of the recommended
noise barrier, no adverse noise impact on the existing NSRs from the proposed
slip roads and the proposed section of Castle Peak Road to be widened (new
roads) would be anticipated. It was
estimated that 4 existing residential dwellings would benefit from the proposed
noise barrier by 2-4dB(A) noise reduction.
13.5
Owing to the high noise levels from
traffic along the existing roads such as San Tin Highway, Fanling Highway,
Castle Peak Road, most of the existing NSRs would be exposed to overall traffic
noise levels exceeding the EIAO-TM noise criteria. The residual impacts have been assessed against the noise
insulation criteria. No existing NSRs
would meet the noise insulation criteria and hence indirect technical remedies
in the form of window insulation and air-conditioning would not be required.
13.6
With respect to the future/planned
NSRs, the assessment indicated that traffic noise impact from the new roads
would be well below the EIAO-TM noise criterion and contribute negligible noise
increase to the overall noise levels with the implementation of the recommended
noise mitigation measures. No adverse
noise impact from the proposed slip roads and the proposed section of Castle
Peak Road to be widened would be anticipated.
13.9
The key issue in terms of water
quality would be related to site formation and foundation works for the
construction phase of the proposed road improvement works. There are no fishponds located within close
proximity of the proposed slip roads. The
nearest identified water bodies are existing nullahs running parallel to Castle
Peak Road – Chau Tau and San Sham Road.
Potential sources of water quality impact comprise construction site
runoff and drainage; debris, refuse and liquid spillages from general
construction activities; and sewage effluents from the construction workforce. Minimisation of water quality deterioration
could be achieved through implementing adequate mitigation measures such as
control measures on the runoff and drainage from the works areas to minimise
construction run-off. Proper site
management and good housekeeping practices would also be required to ensure
that construction wastes and materials would not enter the nearby nullahs. Sewage effluent arising from the
construction workforce would also require appropriate treatment through
provision of portable toilets.
13.10
As such, with the implementation of
these recommended mitigation measures, the construction works for the proposed
road improvement works would not be anticipated to result in unacceptable
impacts on water quality. Site
inspections should be undertaken routinely to inspect the construction
activities and works areas in order to ensure the recommended mitigation
measures are properly implemented.
13.11
Wastes generated by the construction
activities for the slip roads include C&D materials from the foundation
works, general refuse from the workforce and chemical waste from any
maintenance of construction plant and equipment. Provided that these identified waste arisings are to be handled,
transported and disposed of using the recommended methods and that good site
practices are to be strictly followed, adverse environmental impacts are not
anticipated during the construction works.
13.12
Waste management will be the
contractor’s responsibility to ensure that all wastes produced during the
construction of the Project are handled, stored and disposed of in accordance
with good waste management practices and EPD’s regulations and
requirements. The recommended
mitigation measures shall form the basis of the site Waste Management Plan to
be developed by the Contractor at the commencement of the construction
phase.
13.13
An extensive literature review
supplemented by a specific 6-month ecological survey was undertaken to
establish the ecological profile of the Assessment Area.
13.14
The Assessment Area included several
areas (Conservation Area, Wetland Conservation Area, Wetland Buffer Area,
Wetland Enhancement Area) of recognized conservation interest. These areas have
been designated largely to protect high ecological value wetland habitats to
the north and northwest of the proposed works areas.
13.15
Eleven major habitat types were
identified within the Assessment Area, comprising active fishponds, abandoned
areas, plantation, developed areas, village/orchard, fung shui woodland,
secondary woodland, active agricultural land, abandoned agricultural land,
shrubland/grassland mosaic and nullahs/drainage ditches. Most habitats were
considered to be of low or low-moderate ecological value. No plant species of
conservation interest were found in the Assessment Area.
13.16
Eleven birds of conservation interest
were recorded in the Assessment Area, although none were recorded in the
proposed development area. No other fauna of conservation interest were
recorded in the Assessment Area.
13.17
Residual impacts resulting from this
Project would be limited to the direct loss of small areas of low ecological
value, disturbed habitats, increased disturbance in the Assessment Area
resulting from traffic utilizing the new development, and shading of the EMDC
grasscrete lining following link bridge construction.
13.18
Overall potential ecological impacts
resulting from the Project were found to be minor and acceptable.
13.19
A review of the relevant literature
and supplementary field visits were conducted. This established that the
Assessment Area had only a very small area (approximately 1 ha) of active fish
pond, none of which was located along or in close proximity to the proposed
slip roads.
13.20
According to the assessment, none of
the fish ponds would be directly lost or indirectly affected by the Project and
so there would be no impact to pond aquaculture fisheries resources or
operations. From the fisheries perspective, the Project would not give rise to
unacceptable impacts. Aquaculturists were not expected to be affected by the
proposed works.
13.21
The Study Area was determined to not
contain any archaeological sites or areas of archaeological potential.
13.22
The impact assessment showed that
there would be no adverse impacts to any of the recorded built heritage
features, therefore, no mitigation measures would be required. The impact assessment showed that there
would be no adverse impacts to any of the recorded graves, therefore, no
mitigation measures would be required.
No cultural and historical landscape features were identified in the
Study Area.
13.23
The conclusions of the landscape and
visual impact assessment are as follows:
·
Majority of the baseline condition within the study area comprises
traffic corridor, industrial/ utility uses are considered to be of medium to
low quality and sensitivity to change.
The wooded slope to the south of the study area with high in landscape
quality and sensitivity to change will not be affected by the proposed
improvement works.
·
No area of the improvement works would fall within the landscape zoning
context such as country park, open space, greenbelt or conservation area. This project is compatible with the
government’s statutory planning framework in terms of landscape conservation.
·
This project would result in the loss of approx.
2775sq.m of vehicle corridor (LE2), approx. 0.9ha of
roadside tree (LE3) and approx. 0.6ha of
industrial/utility (LE5).238 nos. of roadside tree, compensatory planting will
comprise 714 no. of screen planting and road side planting result in a net gain of over 476 no. of trees.
·
The Proposed Improvement Works would result in negligible landscape
impact and slight adverse visual impact assuming mitigation measures are incorporated.
·
Views towards the proposed improvement works are generally in short distance.
For the potential local sensitive residents at Wing Ping Tsuen, it is assessed
that advance boundary screen planting would screen the project from view. These
local residents would therefore have no adverse visual impact caused by the
proposed improvement works.
·
The landscape and visual impact assessment indicated that no
significant impact would occur during construction and operation stage. The
disturbance to existing road side tree would either be transplanting or
compensated in the form of advance planting prior to the construction
stage. The disturbed traffic corridor
and industrial/utility is man-made with low sensitivity to change, the
landscape mitigation measure would minimize the adverse impact. Adverse visual impact on the villages, which
is in a local context, would be minimized with the incorporation of mitigation
measures.
Table
13.1 Summary of Residual
Landscape Impacts (With Landscape Mitigation Measures)
LCU
|
With
Recommend Mitigation Measure
|
Recommended
Mitigation Measures
|
With
Recommended Mitigation Measures
|
Landscape
Impact during Construction Stage
|
Landscape
Impact during Operation Stage
|
Threshold
of Residual Landscape Impact during Construction Stage
|
Threshold
of Residual Landscape Impact during Operation Stage
|
LCU1
Woodland and Shrub bed
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
NIL
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
LCU2
Transport corridor
|
Slight adverse
|
Slight adverse
|
LMM3, LMM4, LMM5, LMM6, LMM7,LMM8
|
Slight adverse
|
Negligible
|
LCU3
Institutional
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
NIL
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
LCU4
Residential
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
NIL
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
LCU5
Industrial/Utility
|
Slight adverse
|
Slight adverse
|
LMM1, LMM2, LMM4, LMM5, LMM7,LMM8
|
Slight adverse
|
Negligible
|
LCU6
Fishpond /Agricultural field
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
NIL
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
LE
|
|
|
|
|
|
LE1
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
NIL
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
LE2
|
Slight adverse
|
Slight adverse
|
LMM3,
LMM4, LMM5, LMM6, LMM7, LMM8
|
Slight adverse
|
Negligible
|
LE3
|
Moderate
adverse
|
Slight adverse
|
LMM1,
LMM4, LMM5, LMM6
|
Slight adverse
|
Negligible
|
LE4
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
NIL
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
LE5
|
Slight adverse
|
Slight adverse
|
LMM1,
LMM2, LMM4, LMM5
|
Slight adverse
|
Negligible
|
Table
13.2 Summary of Residual Visual Impact
(With Landscape Mitigation Measures)
SVR
Number
|
Without
Recommendation Mitigation Measures
|
Recommended
Mitigation Measures
|
With
Recommendation Mitigation Measures
|
Visual
Impact during Construction
|
Visual
Impact during Operation
|
Significance
Threshold of residual Visual Impact during Construction
|
Significance
Threshold of residual Visual Impact during Operation
|
SVR1
|
|
|
|
|
|
VPT1.1
|
Moderate to Slight
|
Slight
|
LMM3, LMM4, LMM5, LMM6, LMM7, LMM8
|
Slight
|
Negligible
|
VPT1.2
|
Substantial
to Moderate
|
Moderate
|
LMM8
|
Moderate
|
Slight
|
VPT1.3
|
Moderate to Slight
|
Slight
|
LMM5, LMM7
|
Slight
|
Negligible
|
VPT1.4
|
Moderate to Slight
|
Slight
|
LMM2, LMM4, LMM5, LMM6, LMM7
|
Slight
|
Negligible
|
VPT1.5
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
NIL
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
SVR2
|
|
|
|
|
|
VPT2.1
|
Moderate to Slight
|
Slight
|
LMM2, LMM4, LMM5
|
Slight
|
Negligible
|
VPT2.2
|
Slight
|
Slight
|
LMM3, LMM5
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
VPT2.3
|
Moderate to Slight
|
Slight
|
LMM3, LMM4, LMM5, LMM6, LMM7
|
Slight
|
Negligible
|
VPT2.4
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
NIL
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
SVR3
|
|
|
|
|
|
VPT3.1
|
Substantial to Moderate
|
Moderate
|
LMM3, LMM4, LMM5, LMM6, LMM7, LMM8
|
Moderate
|
Slight
|
VPT3.2
|
Substantial to Moderate
|
Moderate
|
LMM1, LMM2, LMM3, LMM4, LMM5, LMM6,LMM7,LMM8
|
Moderate
|
Slight
|
VPT3.3
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
NIL
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
VPT4
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
NIL
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
VPT5.1
|
Substantial to Moderate
|
Moderate
|
LMM3, LMM4, LMM5, LMM6
|
Moderate
|
Slight
|
VPT5.2
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
NIL
|
Negligible
|
Negligible
|
13.24
It is predicted that the proposed
improvement works would have limited landscape and visual impact. With the Landscape Mitigation Measures, i.e. advance tree transplanting,
advance boundary planting and advance screen planting along side the perimeter
of the improvement works, conservation of existing soil and reuse in the planting
area; the selection of fast growing native plant material below and adjacent to
viaduct and noise barrier, the significance threshold of residual landscape
impact would effectively be reduced from “slight adverse” in the construction
stage to “negligible” in the operation stage.
In conclusion, the landscape and visual impact
are considered “acceptable with mitigation measures”.
13.25
Based on the information obtained from
the site history, site reconnaissances and the information provided by FSD and
LandsD, it is considered that some of the areas in the Study Area (Site A and
Site E) appear to be potentially contaminated.
Based on the available information, the potential of land contamination
impact at the Study Area is considered surmountable.
13.26
It is proposed that land contamination
assessment works should be conducted at the two proposed potential zones for
conducting site contamination investigation (S-a and S-e) prior to the
commencement of site clearance / construction works. During the construction works of the Project, the recommended
mitigation measures should be implemented, in order to minimize the potential
health impact on the construction workers.
13.27
The findings of this EIA have provided
information on the nature and extent of environmental impacts arising from the
construction and operation of the Designated Project element of the
Improvements to San Tin Interchange project.
The EIA has, where appropriate, identified mitigation measures to ensure
compliance with environmental legislation and standards.
13.28
Overall, the EIA Report for the
Improvements to San Tin Interchange has predicted that the Project would comply
with all environmental standards and legislation with the implementation of the
proposed mitigation measures for construction and operation phases. This EIA has also demonstrated the
acceptability of the residual impacts from the Project and the protection of
the identified environmentally sensitive resources. Environmental monitoring and audit mechanisms have been
recommended before and during construction, where necessary, to verify the
accuracy of the EIA predictions and the effectiveness of recommended mitigation
measures.