8.
LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT
8.1.1
This Chapter outlines the Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) associated with the Drainage Improvement in the
8.1.2
The LVIA is necessary owing to the
landscape and visual impacts that could result from the construction and
operation of the Project elements as described in Chapter 2 of this
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report. These impacts need to be
identified for both the construction and operational phases of the proposed
Project. In addition, the significance and magnitude of the expected impacts
will vary between construction and operational phases and also between
mitigated and unmitigated conditions. Therefore, the significance and magnitude
during different phases and conditions need to be defined.
8.2
Scope and Content of Study
The
Study Area
8.2.1
The location plans, design
considerations and layouts for the Project are presented in Chapters 1 and 2. In summary, the following proposed works are covered
in this LVIA:
Table 8.1 Proposed
Works covered in the LVIA
|
Proposed
Drainage Channel ID |
Location |
Detail
of Proposed Channel |
|
|
Approximate
Length |
Average
Base Width |
||
|
MUP03 |
Man Uk Pin
area |
93m (for trapezoidal channel) 150m (for U-channel) 12m (for 0.6m dia. drainage pipe) 28m (for box culvert) |
1.2m 0.6m (for U-channel) - 3m (W) x 1m (D) |
|
MUP04A |
Man Uk Pin
area |
163m 21m (for 1.95m dia. drainage pipes) |
4.5m - |
|
MUP04B |
Man Uk Pin
area |
58m (for U-channel) 138m (for 1.35 dia. drainage pipes) |
0.9m (for U-channel) - |
|
MUP05 |
Man Uk Pin
area |
1014m |
2-14m |
|
LMH01 |
Stream in Lin
Ma Hang area |
190m of gabion channel and localised bank
improvement works |
5m |
Notes:
Other
ancillary works include provision of inlet/outlet pipes, maintenance ramps
& accesses, re-provision of crossings and final landscaping works.
Location of the LVIA Study Area
8.2.2
For the Landscape Impact Assessment (LIA),
the Study Area was all terrestrial and aquatic surface areas that are within
500m of the works area of the Project (refer to Figures 7.2 – 7.3 for Habitat Maps and Figures 8.1A – 8.1B for
Landscape Resources (LR) & Character Areas (LCA) in accordance with the EIA
Ordinance Guidance Note No. 8/2002, Item 3.3a).
8.2.3
The Study Area of the Visual Impact
Assessment (VIA) includes all terrestrial and aquatic areas within the visual
envelope, or Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) which is shown in Figures 8.4A – 8.4B Location of
Visually Sensitive Receivers and Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI). The ZVI is defined according to the EIA Ordinance Guidance Note No. 8/2002, Item
3.3a. It further indicates that the natural and man-made features (i.e.
high rise residential housing, view corridors created by drainage) determine
the possibility of views to the proposed drainage improvement area and define
the extent of the visual envelope.
8.3.1
The purpose of this LVIA is to identify
the existing landscape and visual quality in the LVIA Study Area and to
evaluate the landscape and visual impacts and to propose mitigation measures,
if necessary. In detail, this includes a Landscape Proposal as part of the EIA
Report.
8.3.2
To achieve this purpose, the
following goals are set out for this LVIA:
·
To perform landscape and visual
baseline studies that describe the existing conditions;
·
To identify and describe the
landscape and visual impacts of the areas;
·
To define the significance and magnitude
of these impacts;
·
To propose mitigation measures by
taking local conditions and experience in consideration and to describe the
maintenance and management of these mitigation measures; and
·
To indicate the residual impacts
after mitigation.
8.3.3
To achieve these goals, the following
objectives are set out for this LVIA:
·
To conduct a baseline study (“Tree
Survey Report”) that describes the physical properties of landscape and visual
resources and defines the sensitivity to change of these landscape and visual
resources;
·
To describe and define the magnitude
of change to the landscape and visual baseline conditions brought about by the
Project;
·
To define the significance of impacts
according to the sensitivity to change of landscape and visual resources and
the magnitude of change that is caused by the Project;
·
To identify normative mitigation
principles that are applicable to moderate the determined impacts and to select
measures that are practical and viable;
·
To define the residual impacts by
comparing the significance of impacts before mitigation to the same impacts
after mitigation; and
·
To prescribe practical maintenance
and management measures by taking local conditions into account.
8.4
Environmental Legislation, Policies, Plans, Standards and Criteria
8.4.1
The methodology for undertaking the
LVIA is in accordance with Annexes 10 and
18 of the Technical Memorandum on
Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM) and the EIAO Guidance Note No. 8/2002.
8.4.2
The landscape impact assessment shall
assess the source and magnitude of developmental effects on the existing
landscape elements, character and quality in the context of the site and its
environs.
8.4.3
The visual impact assessment shall
assess the source and magnitude of effects caused by the proposed development
on the existing views, visual amenity, character and quality of the visually
sensitive receivers within the context of the site and its environs.
8.4.4
The significance thresholds for the
landscape and visual impacts are assessed for the construction phase and
operational phase both with and without mitigation.
8.4.5
In order to illustrate these
landscape and visual impacts and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed
landscape and visual mitigation measures, photomontages at selected
representative viewpoints have been prepared to illustrate:
·
existing conditions;
·
unmitigated impacts;
·
partially mitigated impacts after
implementation of the proposed mitigation measures on day 1 of the operational
phase; and
·
residual impact in year 10 of the
operational phase.
8.4.6
These residual impacts are evaluated
in accordance with Annex 10 of the EIAO-TM.
8.5
Assessment Methodology & Criteria
LVIA Approach
8.5.1
The approach to this study has three
facets:
·
To be in accordance with the
standards and legislation as described in the EIAO;
·
To follow a sound research ethic; and
·
To base the assessment methodology on
the objectives as set in Section 8.3
for the LIA and VIA studies independently.
Project Description
8.5.2
For the construction phase, the
descriptions are on the following aspects:
·
construction areas; and
·
temporary buildings and storing
areas.
8.5.3
For the operation phase, the descriptions
are on the following aspects:
·
drainage channels, embankments,
maintenance paths; and
·
landscape areas.
Review of Planning and Development Control Framework
8.5.4
A review of the existing planning studies
and documents was undertaken as part of the assessment to gain an insight into
the planned role of the site, its context and to help determine the projects
fit into the wider existing and future landscape context. A review of the existing and development
framework of the site and surrounding areas was undertaken in order to identify
any issue of conflict with the neighbouring planned land uses and to identify
the full extent of the 'visually sensitive receivers' (VSRs). For the purposes
of this study, the Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs) for the Study Area were used as
a basis to get an accurate picture of the future landscape setting and visual
context. This also ensures that the landscape proposals are compatible with the
surrounding landscape character context.
Landscape Impact Assessment
8.5.5
The assessment of the potential
impacts of a proposed scheme on the existing landscape comprises two distinct
sections:
·
baseline survey, in this case
comprising mainly of a tree and habitat survey; and
·
potential landscape impacts
assessment.
8.5.6
To conduct the landscape baseline
study that describes the physical properties of the landscape, surveys were
carried out with considerations in both the present and planned future
landscape: the first was a desktop survey and the second was a site survey. A
baseline survey of the existing landscape character and quality has been
undertaken through site inspections and desktop surveys. Landscape elements
considered included:
·
local topography;
·
existing road side planting;
·
woodland extent and type;
·
other vegetation types;
·
built form;
·
patterns of settlement;
·
land use;
·
scenic spots;
·
details of local materials, styles,
streetscapes, etc.;
·
prominent watercourses; and
·
cultural and religious identity.
8.5.7
Planned developments either within
the study area or adjacent to it were also considered. The baseline survey
formed the basis of the landscape context by describing broadly homogenous
units of similar character. The individual landscape character areas (LCA) and
resources were rated using low, medium or high depending not only on the
quality of elements present but also their sensitivity to change and local or
regional importance. The quality of the landscape was not only related to its
visual amenity. The magnitude of change arising from the implementation of the
scheme proposals was rated as negligible, small, intermediate or large.
8.5.8
Potential landscape impacts of the
proposals were resulted from:
·
identification of the sources of impact,
and their magnitude, that would be generated during construction and operation
of the scheme; and
·
identification of the principal
landscape impacts, primarily in consideration of the degree of change to the
baseline conditions. The impacts are considered systematically in terms of the
landscape elements, the site and its context.
8.5.9
Factors affecting the evaluation of
the magnitude of landscape impacts were:
·
compatibility of the project with the
surrounding landscape;
·
duration of impacts under construction
and operational phases;
·
scale of the development; and
·
reversibility of change.
8.5.10
Factors affecting the evaluation of
the sensitivity of landscape character/resources were:
·
quality of landscape characters /
resources;
·
importance and rarity of special
landscape elements;
·
ability of the landscape to
accommodate change;
·
significance of the change in local
and regional context, and
·
maturity of the landscape.
8.5.11
The significance threshold for
impacts to landscape character and resources was rated as significant,
moderate, slight or negligible. The impacts may be either beneficial or
adverse.
8.5.12
The impact is a product of the
magnitude of change which the proposals will cause to the existing landscape
context and it's ability to tolerate the change, i.e. its quality and
sensitivity. The significance threshold is derived from The Significance
Threshold Matrix A as described in Table
8.2.
The Significance Threshold Matrix A
|
Sensitivity To Change Magnitude of Change (Caused by proposed) |
Low |
Medium |
High |
|
Large |
Moderate Impact |
Moderate/Significant
Impact |
Significant
Impact |
|
Intermediate |
Slight / Moderate Impact |
Moderate Impact |
Moderate/ Significant Impact |
|
Small |
Slight Impact |
Slight / Moderate
Impact |
Moderate Impact |
|
Negligible |
Negligible Impact |
Negligible Impact |
Negligible Impact |
Tree
Survey Methodology
8.5.13
To minimise conflicts with existing vegetation,
a tree survey was completed based on an agreed methodology, and involved the
identification of tree groups and significant individual trees with fung shui
importance. The numbers of trees and the range of species and sizes in each
tree group, added by health conditions and tree form was given. The location,
size and species of the significant individual trees with fung shui importance
were also given. This allowed the fine-tuning of the proposed design for the
proposed scheme and ensured that any significant trees, where possible, were
protected during both the design and construction periods. The figures
contained in this report were made reference to the findings of the detailed
Tree Survey Report (Annex 2 of Appendix H).
Visual Impact Assessment
8.5.14
The assessment of the potential
visual impact of the scheme comprises three distinct parts:
·
Quality of landscape characters /
resources
·
Baseline survey
·
Visual impact assessment
8.5.15
For the Visual Impact Assessment
(VIA), the assessment area is taken to include the visual envelope or Zone of
Visual Influence (ZVI), which includes all areas from which the scheme
proposals can be seen. This area forms the view shed formed by natural /
manmade features such as existing ridgelines, built development and for example
areas of woodland / large trees.
8.5.16
The baseline survey of all views
towards the proposals is undertaken by identifying:
·
The visual envelope as has been
described above and may contain both open and partial views of the proposals.
This must also include indirect effects such as offsite construction
activities; and
·
The visually sensitive receivers
(VSRs) within the visual envelope whose views will be affected by the scheme.
The identified VSRs include planned visually sensitive receivers (PVSRs). The
potential receivers are considered as four groups:
-
quality of landscape characters /
resources;
-
Views from residences - the most
sensitive of receivers due to the high potential of intrusion on the visual
amenity and quality of life;
-
View from workplaces - less sensitive
than above due to visual amenity being less important within the work
environment; and
-
Views from public areas - including
all areas apart from the above, e.g., public parks, recreation grounds,
footpaths, roads, cultural sites, etc. Sensitivity of this group depends on the
transitory nature of the receiver, e.g. sitting in a park or traveling on a
highway, pedestrian or cycling path. Also considered is the degree of view or
glimpsed views.
8.5.17
However, the assessment of
sensitivity has also been based on the quality and extent of the existing view.
Therefore, a view from a residential property which would normally be
considered the most sensitive view may be less so if, for example, it is
degraded by existing development or partially screened by intervening visual
obstacles such as existing vegetation.
8.5.18
The location and direction of its
view relative to the scheme also influences the sensitivity of each group. Typical
viewpoints from within each of the visually sensitive groups are identified and
their views described. Both present and future visually sensitive receivers are
considered.
8.5.19
The baseline survey formed the basis
of the visual character and quality of the site. Potential visual impacts were
resulted from:
·
identification of the sources of
visual impacts, and their magnitude, that would be generated during
construction and operation of the scheme; and
·
identification of the principal
visual impacts primarily in consideration of the degree of change to the
baseline conditions.
8.5.20
The impact assessment was related to
the typical viewpoints within the visual receiver group, as identified
previously, and their existing and potential views subsequent to the scheme
development. The factors affecting the magnitude of change for assessing the
visual impacts included the following:
·
compatibility of the project with the
surrounding landscape forming the view;
·
duration of impacts under construction
and operational phases;
·
scale of the development;
·
reversibility of change;
·
viewing distance; and
·
potential blockage of the view.
8.5.21
Factors affecting the sensitivity of
receivers for evaluation of visual impacts were:
·
value and quality of existing views;
·
availability and amenity of
alternative views;
·
type and estimated number of receiver
population;
·
duration or frequency of view; and
·
degree of visibility.
8.5.22
The views available to the identified
VSRs were rated according to their sensitivity to change using low, medium or
high. Whilst the magnitude of change arising from the implementation of the
proposed scheme was rated as negligible, small, intermediate or large. The
significance threshold for visual impact was rated in a similar fashion to the
landscape impact, i.e. significant, moderate, slight and negligible. The
impacts may be either beneficial or adverse.
8.5.23
The impact is a product of the
magnitude of change which the proposals will cause to the existing landscape
context and it's ability to tolerate the change, i.e. its quality and
sensitivity. The significance threshold is derived from The Significance
Threshold Matrix (Table 8.2).
Recommended
Landscape & Visual Impact Mitigation Measures
8.5.24
The identification of the landscape
and visual impacts highlighted those sources of conflict requiring design
solutions or modifications to reduce the impacts, and, if possible, blend the
development and associated activities with respect to the surrounding
landscape. These mitigation measures should take into account factors
including:
·
preservation of existing vegetation
as far as possible;
·
woodland, tree and shrub planting of
new or disturbed slopes, amenity strips and areas, central reservations and adjacent
to any new structures to aid stabilisation;
·
consideration of the contouring of
new slopes in order to visually integrate them into the existing topography,
use of vegetated earth mounding or structural solutions for screening;
·
sensitive treatment of structural
forms;
·
appropriate design of hard landscape,
furniture and other elements;
·
careful consideration of significant
landscape elements; and
·
feasibility of mitigation measures in
respect of funding, implementation phasing and maintenance.
8.5.25
These objectives resulted in the
formation of landscape mitigation proposals alleviated the previously
identified landscape and visual impacts as far as possible. The aim is the
design of integrated landscape proposals to alleviate the landscape and visual
impacts that arise from the final scheme, both during its construction and
operational phases, and to ensure that the residual impacts are acceptable. As
the scheme proposals, in particular the phasing of the project, develop, a
programme for the implementation, management and maintenance of landscape
works.
Defining
the Residual Impacts
8.5.26
The residual impacts are those, which
remain after the proposed mitigation measures have been successfully implemented.
This is assessed both during the construction period and during the design
year, which is taken to be 10 years after the proposed scheme has been opened
to normal operation. During the design year, the soft landscape mitigation
measures are deemed to have reached a level of maturity, which allows them to
perform their original design objectives.
8.5.27
As described above, the level of
impact is a product of the magnitude of change, which the proposals will cause
to the landscape character, landscape resource or visual amenity, and their
sensitivity to change. It is a comparison of the future landscape modified by
the proposals with the landscape, which would have existed during this period
if the proposed scheme had not been constructed. This assessment also considers
the ability of the landscape character, landscape resource or visual amenity to
tolerate change, i.e. its quality and sensitivity taking into account the
beneficial effects of the proposed mitigation. The significance threshold is
derived from the matrices described separately above for the landscape and
visual impacts.
8.5.28
In accordance with Annex 10 of the
EIAO TM, a final conclusion is also made of the residual landscape and visual
impacts attributable to the proposed scheme. The degree of residual impact is
considered in accordance with the Residual Impact Significance Threshold Matrix
in Table 8.3.
Residual Impact Significance Threshold Matrix
|
Beneficial |
Acceptable |
Acceptable with Mitigation |
Unacceptable |
Undetermined |
|
The project will
complement the landscape and visual character of its setting, will follow the
relevant planning objectives and will improve overall and visual quality. |
There will be no
significant effects on the landscape and no significant visual effects caused
by the appearance of the project, or no interference with key views. |
There are some
adverse effects, but these can be eliminated, reduced or offset to a large
extent by specific measures. |
The adverse affects
are considered too excessive and would not be reduced to an acceptable level
by mitigation. |
Significant
adverse effects are likely but the extent to which they may occur or may be
mitigated cannot be determined from the study. Further detailed study will be
required for the specific effects in question. |
8.6
Review of Planning and Development Control Framework
8.6.1
A number of outline zoning plans
(OZPs) were examined in order to review the planning and development control framework.
The following OZPs and were reviewed: Plan No. S/NE-MUP/10 for Man
8.6.2
The landscape-related land use
zonings present in the Study Area and relevant to the LVIA are as follows:
·
Green Belt (GB) - the planning
function of GB is to limit the encroachment of urban development into the
countryside.
·
Conservation Area (CA) - the planning
function of a CA is to retain existing natural characteristic of the area.
8.6.3
No part of the improved drainage
alignment will be constructed through either GB or CA, therefore the Project is
considered not to be in conflict with the landscape zonings in the area.
8.7
Existing Landscape Baseline Conditions
8.7.1
The landscape baseline of the Study
Area comprises landscape resources and landscape character. The existing landscape
resources are shown in Figures 8.1A –
8.1B. Landscape character has been categorized into landscape character
areas (LCAs) as per LCA boundaries shown in
Figures 8.1A - 8.1B Landscape
Resources (LR) & Landscape Character Areas (LCA). Figure 8.2 presents a photographic record of the LCAs.
8.7.2
The LCAs identified were LCA1 -
Wooded Upland and Shrubland, LCA2 - Active and Inactive Agriculture including
plantations, LCA3 - Used and Disused Fishponds, LCA4 - Residential Rural
Fringe, LCA5 – Stream / Drainage Cchannel, LCA6 – Public Open Space / Park,
LCA7 - High-Rise / Commercial and LCA8 Upland Grassland. These detail
descriptions are listed below in Table 8.4.
8.7.3
The tree survey report (Annex 2 of
Appendix H) conducted for this project included approximately 410 nos.
identified trees in total (two locations) with the main species commonly found
in Hong Kong and mostly in good or fair condition.
Landscape Character Areas
(Refer to Figures 8.1A to 8.1B)
|
Landscape Character Area
(LCA) |
Landscape Character Type
Description |
Location |
Sensitivity to change |
Ability to Accommodate
Change |
|
LCA 1 |
Well-wooded
upland and scrubland with lower dispersed vegetation cover. |
MUPs: At southern section (Princess Hill), North
(Miu Keng) & East section (Near Shan Tong) of MUP 05 and south eastern
section of MUP 04B, 03 (near |
Medium |
Medium |
|
LMH01: At North-eastern section of LMH 04, (Lin Ma
Hang village) southern area (Tong To Shan Tsuen) |
Medium |
Medium |
||
|
LCA 2 Active /
Inactive Agriculture |
Agriculture
land characterized mainly by small-scale active and inactive agriculture and
plantation plots near residential rural areas |
MUPs:At both sides of the drainage channel of
MUP 05 & MUP 04A ( |
Medium |
Low |
|
LMH01: At both sides of the |
Medium |
Medium |
||
|
LCA 3 Used & Disused
Fishponds |
This is
characterized by used and disused fishponds, these areas normally
interspersed with agricultural land in the rural landscape matrix. |
MUPs: near |
Low |
High |
|
LMH01: Further from the site limit, Wang Lek area |
Low |
High |
||
|
LCA 4 Residential Rural Fringe |
Residential
Rural Fringe is the essential rural residential mixed zone characterized by
typical low storey residential development as well as the amenities
associated with village style living in the |
MUPs: |
High |
Low |
|
LMH01:
Lin Ma Hang |
Medium |
Medium |
||
|
LCA 5 Stream/
Drainage Channel |
This is
characterized by natural stream and engineered drainage channels with
variable designs and sizes. Natural streams are generally more closely
associated with LCA1 Wooded Upland / Shrubland. The drainage channel of LCA 5
is associated with more disturbed landscapes, for instance LCA 2, LCA 4 and
LCA 7. |
MUPs: Along Ng Tung River: Ch 1013.04 to Ch 944.39 (MUP05) Ch 944.39 to
Ch.0.00 (MUP 05), Ch0.00 to Ch 184.00 (MUP 04A) |
High |
Medium |
|
LMH01:
Along |
Medium |
Medium |
||
|
LCA 6 Public Open
Space/ Park |
This is
characterized by typical recreational park/public spaces with jogging track,
seating and basic facilities for the users. |
MUPs: Intersection location for Wo Keng Shan
Road & Sha Tau Kok Road-Wo Hang (MUP05) Ch. 1013.04 to Ch. 944.39 |
High |
Low |
|
LMH01: N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
||
|
LCA 7 High Rise/
Commercial |
This is
characterized by high-rise residential new town development and commercial
building |
MUPs: N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
LMH01: N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
||
|
LCA 8 |
This upland
grassland, found on cleared slopes in the hilly terrains. |
MUPs: N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
LMH01: North, West and South western of project
site (Wang Lek, Tong To Shan Tsuen) |
Low |
High |
8.8
Landscape Impact Assessment
Landscape Resources during Construction
8.8.1
The landscape impacts on existing
landscape resources during construction will be generated by the removal of existing
trees and other vegetation and the modification of existing natural terrain.
The impact on landscape resources is shown in Figures 8.3A (I-V) and 8.3B (I-III).
Impacts on Landscape Resources during Operation
8.8.2
The Project will not generate any further
changes, activities, movement or alterations to the baseline conditions after
completion of the construction activities. Therefore, no increases in the
levels of impacts on landscape resources above and beyond those produced during
construction are predicted.
Impacts on Landscape Character during Construction
8.8.3
The presence of the Project elements
within the LCAs will change their character. The unmitigated impact on the
landscape character is summarized in Tables
8.5A to 8.5B.
Impacts on Landscape Character during Operation
8.8.4
The Project will not generate any
further changes, activities, movement or alterations to the baseline conditions
after completion of the construction activities. Therefore, no increases in the
levels of impacts on landscape character above and beyond those produced during
construction are predicted.
Landscape Impact MUP03,
MUP04A, MUP04B & MUP05 – Assuming No Mitigation
|
Landscape Character Area
(LCA) |
Location
Reference |
Magnitude
of Change |
Sensitivity
to Change |
Significance
Threshold – Landscape Impact |
|
LCA 1 |
At southern section (Princess Hill), North (Miu
Keng) & East section (Near Shan Tong) of MUP05 and south eastern section of
MUP04B, MUP03 (near |
Negligible |
High |
Negligible
Impact |
|
LCA 2 Active /
Inactive Agriculture |
At both sides of the drainage channel of MUP05 &
MUP04A ( |
Intermediate |
Medium |
Moderate
Impact |
|
LCA 3 Used &
Disused Fishponds |
near |
Negligible |
Low |
Negligible
Impact |
|
LCA 4 Residential
Rural Fringe |
|
Negligible |
High |
Negligible
Impact |
|
LCA 5 Stream/
Drainage Channel |
Along Ng Tung River: Ch 1013.04 to Ch
944.39 (MUP05) |
Intermediate |
High |
Moderate
/ Significant Impact |
|
Along Ng Tung River: Ch 944.39 to Ch.0.00
(MUP05), Ch 0.00 to Ch 184.00 (MUP04A) |
Intermediate |
High |
Moderate
/ Significant Impact |
|
|
LCA 6 Public Open
Space/ Park |
Intersection location for Wo Keng Shan Road &
Sha Tau Kok Road - Wo Hang (MUP05) |
Large |
High |
Significant Impact |
|
LCA 7 High Rise/
Commercial |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
LCA 8 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Landscape Impact LMH 01 –
Assuming No Mitigation
|
Landscape Character Area
(LCA) |
Location
Reference |
Magnitude
of Change |
Sensitivity
to Change |
Significance
Threshold – Landscape Impact |
|
LCA 1 |
At North-eastern section of LMH01, (Lin Ma Hang
village) southern area (Tong To Shan Tsuen) |
Small |
Medium |
Slight
/ Moderate Impact |
|
LCA 2 Active / Inactive
Agriculture |
At both sides of the |
Small |
Medium |
Slight
/ Moderate Impact |
|
LCA 3 Used &
Disused Fishponds |
Further from the site limit, Wang Lek area |
Negligible |
Low |
Negligible
Impact |
|
LCA 4 Residential
Rural Fringe |
Lin Ma Hang |
Small |
Medium |
Slight
/ Moderate Impact |
|
LCA 5 Stream/
Drainage Channel |
Along |
Small |
Medium |
Slight
/ Moderate Impact |
|
LCA 6 Public Open
Space/ Park |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
LCA 7 High Rise/
Commercial |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
LCA 8 |
North, West and South western of project site (Wang
Lek, Tong To Shan Tsuen) |
Negligible |
Low |
Negligible
Impact |
8.9
Existing Visual Baseline Conditions
8.9.1
The visual impacts have been assessed
in accordance with Sections 8.5.14 - 8.5.23.
The Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) of the Project and the Visually Sensitive
Receivers (VSRs) are shown in Figures
8.4A to 8.4B to illustrate the sensitivity and quality of the existing view
from each VSR location in plan and Figures
8.4Ai to 8.4Aviii and Figures 8.4Bi
to 8.4Biv for the detail understanding for each VSRs.
8.9.2
A description of the Visually
Sensitive Receivers along with an analysis of the quality of the existing view,
distance from the impact source, degree of visibility, frequency of view and
sensitivity to change is provided in Table 8.6A to 8.6B as shown below.
Visually Sensitive Receivers (MUP03,
MUP04A, MUP04B & MUP 05)
|
Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSR) |
Description of Visually Sensitive
Receivers |
Numbers of Individuals (Many/Fair/ Few/Very Few |
Quality of Existing View (Good
/ Fair
/ Poor) |
Minimum Distance between VSRs & Impact Source |
Degree of Visibility (Full
/ Partial
/ Glimpse) |
Frequency of View (Very
Frequent/ |
Sensitivity to Change (High/
Medium/ Low) |
|
VSR 1 |
Road Users of |
Many |
Good |
<
10m |
Full |
Very Frequent |
High |
|
VSR 2 |
Park Visitors @ |
Fair |
Good |
<
15m |
Full |
Very Frequent |
High |
|
VSR 3 |
Park Visitors @ |
Fair |
Good |
<
15m |
Full |
Very Frequent |
High |
|
VSR 4 |
Road Users of |
Many |
Good |
<
10m |
Glimpse |
Occasional |
Medium |
|
VSR 5 |
Residents @ toe of Princess
Hill ( |
Few |
Fair |
Approx. 80m |
Glimpse |
Rare |
Low |
|
VSR 6 |
Residents @ Loi Tung ( |
Many |
Fair |
Approx. 50m |
Full |
Frequent |
Medium |
|
VSR 7 |
Residents @ Loi
Tung (Active agricultural
land) |
Few |
Fair |
<
10m |
Full |
Frequent |
Medium |
|
VSR 8 |
Residents @ Loi Tung (Low Rise Housing Development) |
Many |
Fair |
Approx. 140m |
Partial |
Occasional |
Low |
|
VSR 9 |
Residents @ Loi Tung ( |
Few |
Fair |
<
30m |
Full |
Frequent |
Medium |
|
VSR 10 |
Residents @ Loi Tung ( |
Very
Few |
Fair |
Approx. 20m |
Full |
Frequent |
Medium |
|
VSR 11 |
Residents @ Loi Tung ( |
Few |
Good |
Approx. 30m |
Partial |
Frequent |
Medium |
|
VSR 12 |
Residents @ Loi Tung ( |
Few |
Good |
Approx. 15m |
Partial |
Frequent |
Medium |
|
VSR 13 |
Road Users of |
Many |
Fair |
<
30m |
Full |
Very
Frequent |
Low |
|
VSR 14 |
Residents @ toe of small hill next to MUP01 ( |
Many |
Fair |
Approx. 25m |
Full |
Frequent |
Low |
|
VSR 15 |
Residents @ near junction of ( |
Many |
Poor |
Approx. 20m |
Full |
Frequent |
Low |
Visually Sensitive Receivers
(LMH01)
|
Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSR) |
Description of Visually
Sensitive Receivers |
Numbers of Individuals (Many/Fair/ Few/Very Few |
Quality of Existing View (Good / Fair / Poor) |
Minimum Distance between
VSRs & Impact Source |
Degree of Visibility (Full / Partial / Glimpse) |
Frequency of View (Very Frequent/ |
Sensitivity to Change |
|
VSR 1 |
Road Users along access road |
Few |
Good |
< 15m |
Partial |
Occasional |
Medium |
|
VSR 2 |
Road Users along |
Few |
Good |
< 10m |
Partial |
Occasional |
Medium |
|
VSR 3 |
Residents @ Lin Ma Hang (Low Rise Housing Development) |
Fair |
Good |
Approx.10m |
Partial |
Frequent |
High |
|
VSR 4 |
Residents near vehicular
bridge @ Lin Ma Hang ( |
Fair |
Good |
< 10m |
Partial |
Frequent |
Medium |
|
VSR 5 |
Residents near river bank @
Lin Ma Hang ( |
Fair |
Good |
< 10m |
Full |
Very
Frequent |
High |
|
VSR 6 |
Residents near ancestral
shrine @ Lin Ma Hang ( |
Fair |
Good |
Approx. 20m |
Partial |
Very Frequent |
High |
|
VSR 7 |
Residents near the temple @
Lin Ma Hang (Low Rise Housing Development) |
Fair |
Good |
Approx. 35m |
Partial |
Frequent |
Medium |
Visual Resources during Construction
8.10.1
The visual impacts on existing views
during construction will be generated by the removal of existing vegetation, the
modification of existing natural terrain, and the activity generally associated
with construction works such as machinery, temporary buildings and hoarding.
Visual Resources during Operation
8.10.2
The Project will not generate any further
changes, activities, movement or alterations to the baseline conditions after
completion of the construction activities. Therefore, no increases in the
levels of impacts on visual resources above and beyond those produced during
construction are predicted.
8.10.3
As it is not possible to accurately
portray the appearance of the Project during construction, visual changes are
illustrated in Figures 8.5A to 8.5B
by comparing the existing views to those immediately after construction and
assuming no mitigation measures in place. A summary is provided in Tables 8.7A to 8.7B.
Summary of Visual Impact – Assuming
No Mitigation (MUP03, MUP04A, MUP04B
& MUP 05)
|
Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSR) |
Description of Visually
Sensitive Receivers |
Minimum Distance between
VSRs & Impact Source |
Magnitude of Change |
Sensitivity to Change |
Significance Threshold –
Landscape Impact |
|
VSR 1 |
Road Users of |
< 10m |
Large |
High |
Significant Impact |
|
VSR 2 |
Park Visitors @ |
< 15m |
Intermediate |
High |
Moderate / Significant Impact |
|
VSR 3 |
Park Visitors @ |
< 15m |
Intermediate |
High |
Moderate / Significant Impact |
|
VSR 4 |
Road Users of |
< 10m |
Small |
Medium |
Slight / Moderate Impact |
|
VSR 5 |
Residents @ toe of Princess
Hill ( |
Approx. 80m |
Small |
Low |
Slight Impact |
|
VSR 6 |
Residents @ Loi Tung ( |
Approx. 50m |
Small |
Medium |
Slight / Moderate Impact |
|
VSR 7 |
Residents @ Loi
Tung (Active agricultural
land) |
< 10m |
Intermediate |
Medium |
Moderate Impact |
|
VSR 8 |
Residents @ Loi Tung (Low Rise Housing Development) |
Approx. 140m |
Small |
Low |
Slight Impact |
|
VSR 9 |
Residents @ Loi Tung ( |
< 30m |
Negligible |
Medium |
Negligible Impact |
|
VSR 10 |
Residents @ Loi Tung ( |
Approx. 20m |
Small |
Medium |
Slight / Moderate Impact |
|
VSR 11 |
Residents @ Loi Tung ( |
Approx. 30m |
Small |
Medium |
Slight / Moderate Impact |
|
VSR 12 |
Residents @ Loi Tung ( |
Approx. 15m |
Small |
Medium |
Slight / Moderate Impact |
|
VSR 13 |
Road Users of |
< 30m |
Small |
Low |
Slight / Moderate Impact |
|
VSR 14 |
Residents @ toe of small hill next to MUP01 ( |
Approx. 25m |
Intermediate |
Low |
Slight Impact |
|
VSR 15 |
Residents @ near junction of ( |
Approx. 20m |
Small |
Low |
Slight Impact |
Summary
of Visual Impact – Assuming No Mitigation (LMH 01)
|
Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSR) |
Description of Visually
Sensitive Receivers |
Minimum Distance between
VSRs & Impact Source |
Magnitude of Change |
Sensitivity to Change |
Significance Threshold –
Landscape Impact |
|
VSR 1 |
Road Users along access road |
< 15m |
Intermediate |
Medium |
Moderate Impact |
|
VSR 2 |
Road Users along |
< 10m |
Intermediate |
Medium |
Moderate Impact |
|
VSR 3 |
Residents @ Lin Ma Hang (Low Rise Housing Development) |
Approx.10m |
Small |
High |
Moderate Impact |
|
VSR 4 |
Residents near vehicular
bridge @ Lin Ma Hang ( |
< 10m |
Small |
Medium |
Slight / Moderate Impact |
|
VSR 5 |
Residents near river bank @
Lin Ma Hang ( |
< 10m |
Intermediate |
High |
Moderate / Significant Impact |
|
VSR 6 |
Residents near ancestral
shrine @ Lin Ma Hang ( |
Approx. 20m |
Intermediate |
High |
Moderate / Significant Impact |
|
VSR 7 |
Residents near the temple @
Lin Ma Hang (Low Rise Housing Development) |
Approx. 35m |
Small |
Medium |
Slight / Moderate Impact |
8.11
Recommended Landscape and Visual Impact Mitigation Measures
Introduction
8.11.1
Refer to Sections 8.5.24 - 8.5.25 for
the rationale behind landscape mitigation measures, these mitigation measures
devised took into account the following:
·
consideration of surface finishes
within and next to the drainage channel which are visually recessive;
·
feasibility of mitigation measures in
respect of funding, implementation phasing and maintenance.
Standards, Legislation and Guidelines
8.11.2
New landscape works will be designed
in accordance with:
·
Works Branch Technical Circular
(WBTC) 17/2000 "Improvement to the Appearance of Slopes" which
outlines the principles and procedures recommended for all departments involved
in new slope formation and in upgrading and maintenance of existing slopes for
improving the aesthetic and environmental impact of slope works.
·
GEO Publication No 1/2000
"Technical Guidelines on Landscape Treatment and Bio-Engineering for
Man-made Slopes and Retaining Walls" which prescribes good practice for
the aesthetic landscape design of slopes and retaining walls.
·
ETWB TC(W) No. 2/2004 “Maintenance of
Vegetation and Hard Landscape Features” which defines the management and
maintenance responsibilities for natural vegetation and landscape works,
including both softworks and hardworks, and the authorities for tree
preservation and felling. Minimum 1:1 compensatory ratio will be adopted in
designing the planting mitigation works within the site boundary.
·
ETWB TC(W) No. 29/2004 “Registration
of Old and Valuable Trees, and Guidelines for their Preservation”. Removal of
registered trees is prohibited.
·
DSD Practice Note No. 1/2005
“Guidelines on Environmental Considerations on River Channel Design”.
·
ETWB TC(W) No.11/2004 “Cyber Manual
for Greening”.
·
ETWB TC(W) No.5/2005 “Protection of
Natural Streams/Rivers from Adverse Impacts arising from Construction Works”.
·
ETWB TC(W) No. 3/2006 “Tree
Preservation” which sets out the policy on tree preservation, and the
procedures for control of tree felling, transplanting and pruning in Government
projects.
Landscape Mitigation Measures
8.11.3
The proposed landscape mitigation
proposal and measures and how they would be effective are illustrated in Figures 8.6A (I to V), 8.6B (I to III) and
Figure 8.7 and Figure 8.7i (Landscape Mitigation Measures).
Summary of the Compensatory Tree Planting & Landscape Mitigation
Planting Proposals:
The areas to receive LMM3 - Compensatory Tree Planting (Heavy Standard Trees) are as follows:
- MUP 03, 04A, 04B & 05 =
740 nos. of trees, approx. 1,100
m2
- LMH 01
=
11 nos. of trees, approx. 16 m2
Others areas are to receive riparian vegetation with the proposal for landscape mitigation measures 1, 2, 4 and 5 are as follows:
- MUP 03, 04A, 04, 04B & 05 = approx. 21,330 m2
- LMH 01 =
approx. 705 m2
LMM 1 (Landscape Mitigation Measure 1):
Gabions/ Gabion Mattress for Riparian Vegetation
Gabion/ Gabion Mattress, a wire mesh cage filled with loose stone -
provide flexible structure for bank & bed protection and with the gaps in
between the loose stone, suitable plants can be introduced. A sufficient
planting medium (compacted clay and topsoil) is needed to cover the gabion /
gabion mattress to accommodate roots of the proposed plants. Since the water
level for the channel will rise during wet season and drop during dry season,
plants that are proposed should be able to adapt the alternate wet and dry
condition and must have the ability to regenerate in the next season. These may
include but not limited to the following species (which are also species
present in the area): Alocais macrorrhiza,
Alopecurus aequalis, Bacopa monniera, Colocasia esculenta, Commelina
diffusa, Cyperus pilosus, Ludwigia adscendens, Polygonum barbatum, Polygonum chinense, and Ranunculus
scleratus. Further suggested species are listed in DSD Practice Note No.
1/2005 “Guidelines on Environmental Considerations for River Channel Design,
Section 9.2.2 - Proposed plant list in channel bed and toe-zone”.
Areas to receive Gabion / Gabion Mattress and Riparian Vegetation are as
follows:
- MUP 03, 04A, 04B & 05 : approx. 4,170
m2
- LMH 01 : approx. 705
m2
LMM 2 (Landscape Mitigation Measure 2):
Existing natural river bed to be retained or widened, using natural
substrate (example rip-rap bedding) & Existing natural riverbank
to be retained or reinforced using gabions/ gabion mattress for riparian
vegetation (refer to different type of two-stage channel detail)
This measure has an emphasis on retaining or widening the existing
natural riverbed and retaining or reinforcing the existing natural riverbank.
Riprap bedding comprises of a layer of different sized, angular rocks or
boulders to simulate the condition of natural pebble or stone stream/ riverbed.
The space between the rocks provide good habitat for establishment of the
ecosystem for flora and fauna.
Similar to LMM 1 above, further suggested species of plants are those
that can adapt to dry and wet conditions are listed in DSD’s “Guidelines on
Environmental Considerations for River Channel Design, Section 9.2.2 - Proposed
plant list for channel bed and toe-zone”. Areas for planting are shown as
below:
- MUP 03, 04A, 04B & 05 : approx. 14,390 m2,
- LMH 01 : N/A
LMM 3 (Landscape Mitigation Measure 3):
Compensatory tree planting along channel side
The 1-meter wide verge at one side or both sides of the channel are
proposed for compensatory tree planting. Compensatory tree planting is intended
to replace trees that cannot be retained or transplanted and will serve dual
purpose of landscape impact mitigation as well as mitigating the loss of riparian
trees in terms of ecological impact. The species of trees for planting along
the channel sides are selected as being appropriate for the habitat of the
river bank and are in accordance with DSD’s “Guidelines on Environmental
Considerations for River Channel Design, Section 9.2.3 - Proposed plants for
use along channel side”. Plant species which are known to be of high value to
wildlife as recommended in the Ecology chapter (Section 7.9) should also be
considered.
List of Suitable Trees for Single Tree Planting
|
Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Recommended Size |
Remarks |
Approximate
Percentage |
|
Bischofia
javanica |
Autumn
Maple |
Heavy standard |
Native
/ ornamental |
5% |
|
Castanopsis
fissa |
Chestnut
Oak |
Heavy standard |
Small
tree. Native |
10% |
|
Celtis sinensis |
Chinese Hackberry |
Heavy standard |
Native |
20% |
|
Cleistocalyx operculatus |
Water Banyan |
Heavy standard |
Native |
35% |
|
Cinnamomum
burmannii |
Indonesian
Cinnamon |
Heavy standard |
Native |
5% |
|
Cinnamomum
camphora |
Camphor
Tree |
Heavy standard |
Native |
5% |
|
Liquidambar
formosana |
Sweet
Gum |
Heavy standard |
Native,
Colour Foliage, Seasonal |
10% |
|
Sapium
sebiferum |
Tallow
Tree |
Heavy standard |
Native |
10% |
Notes:
Detailed planting proposals to be provided
in the final Landscape Plan.
The final Landscape Plan should also take
into account the recommended plant species which are known to be of high value
to wildlife (see Section 7.9).
LMM 4 (Landscape Mitigation Measure 4):
Maintenance access ramps with grasscrete finish and planting with
channel bed/ toe zone vegetation
Similar to LMM 1 & 2 above, plants species for LMM 4 should be
plants that are able to adapt the alternate wet and dry conditions and have the
ability to regenerate in the next season. Suggested species are listed in DSD’s
“Guidelines on Environmental Considerations for River Channel Design, Section
9.2.2 - Proposed plant list in channel bed and toe-zone”.
These measures will only apply in MUP areas where grasscrete ramps are implemented in an area of approximately 2,180 m2. Mitigation measures could involve the establishing of plant communities from wild grass/flower seed mixes instead of turf. This would require a reduction in regular cutting (see Figure 8.7, LMM 4). Trials have shown that the plant community’s composition will change overtime due to the invasion by established species. However, the more diverse flora including the invading species resulting from the reduced cutting does lead to colonization by more diverse fauna, especially invertebrates (as shown in trial at Lam Tsuen River Channel).
LMM 5 (Landscape Mitigation Measure 5):
Mitigation planting along embankments
These measures will only apply in MUP05 areas (approximately 590 m2) - downstream
portion of Ng Tung River, at the existing
Tree Preservation
8.11.4
The Tree Survey Report in Annex 2 of Appendix H contains
detailed information about the trees.
8.11.5
For trees not covered under ETWB TCW
No. 29/2004; i.e. all trees in the Study Area, the following order of priority
was adopted for tree removal considerations:
a)
Retain the trees at their existing locations;
b)
If a) is not possible, transplant the affected trees
to other permanent locations within the site, unless the trees affected are of
low conservation and amenity value, or have low survival rates or a low chance
of recovering normal form after transplanting;
c)
If both a) and b) are not possible, transplant the
trees affected to a permanent, local, off site, location. Only trees with high
conservation value or high amenity value, including rare and precious species
and ‘transplantable’ trees are considered for this option.
d)
Felling of trees to be considered as a last resort
under the following circumstances:
- there
is no other practical alternative; or
-
the tree(s) has unrecoverable health problems and is
in poor condition;
or
-
other
justifications are provided by the project proponent.
8.11.6
Based on the currently available
design information and the drainage layout indicated on the Figure 8.3A (I-V) and 8.3B (I-III), the treatment of the Existing
Trees on site is summarized in Table 8.9.
8.11.7
The following section presents a
qualitative and quantitative assessment of existing trees that can be retained
or are suitable for transplanting. A total of 410 existing trees have been
recorded within the site limit boundary. Table
8.9 below presents further data and indicates the number of trees required
for compensatory tree planting during mitigation of construction impacts.
Details of Tree
Preservation
|
Areas |
Trees
to be Retained |
Trees
to be Transplanting |
Trees
to be Felled |
Missing
Trees |
Dead |
|
MUPs |
246 |
17 |
117 |
- |
3 |
|
LMH
01 |
30 |
0 |
1 |
- |
- |
8.11.8
A number of trees were found to be in
direct conflict with the works due to their position on the widened channel
alignment, the ramp and footpath area. In addition to selecting alignments to
minimize the number of trees in such conflict with the works, trees suitable
for transplanting were identified.
8.11.9
Trees suitable for transplanting were
selected based on several criteria such as; good health and form; amenity and
conservation value; and for good transplant survival rates for that species.
Trees identified for Transplanting are to be transplanted within the site
boundary to permanent locations identified as least affected by the
construction operations.
8.11.10
Exotic species and self seeding
/invasive/adventives species were given a lower rating for transplanting due to
their lower conservation and amenity values and were deemed less suitable for
transplanting.
8.11.11
Trees may also be considered as
unsuitable for transplanting if their proximity to other trees is such that
severe root damage is likely to be inadvertently caused (however careful the
excavation process) in attempting to separate the trees for transplanting that
the trees would be highly unlikely to survive. It should be noted that the
rating for survivability in the tree schedule relates to the tree species
general ability to survive transplanting only and does not indicate the
particular site conditions of the individual tree.
8.11.12
Retaining trees in existing locations
is the preferred preservation strategy according to the above order. This
addresses also found in areas earmarked as verge as much as practical.
8.11.13
Native Trees (indigenous
species) have generally a higher ecological value than exotic tree species. As
part of the natural ecosystem, native trees support more indigenous flora and
fauna than exotic trees by providing habitat space, food resources, nesting
materials, etc. As data on native and exotic tree species were provided by the
tree survey, a ratio of native to exotic tree species was calculated (see Annex 1 of Appendix H). This native-exotic
tree ratio allowed a direct comparison of ecological values between different
works area. Landscape elements such as tree clusters are not evenly distributed
along the drainage corridors. Change would cause more significant impacts if
trees were clustered, especially if of higher landscape-ecological value. A few
examples are given below for MUP05.
MUP05
8.11.14
The tree vegetation in this
area is dominated by the roadside planting (nearly
300 trees) of mainly exotic tree species
along
8.11.15
Where the river meanders away
from the road, more native trees are found. A private orchard near Loi Tung
village features some large uncommon but cultivated trees. The highest tree
abundance is present in the recreational park with about 151 trees near the
intersection. The overall native-exotic tree ratio is about 0.50.
MUP 03, MUP04A and MUP04B
8.11.16
The tree conditions of MUP03,
MUP04A and MUP04B are very similar and comparable to MUP05. Trees within the
site limit are proposed to retained and some required to be felled or
transplanted. A low density of trees is found in MUP 03 (24 trees) and
MUP04A&B (31 trees). However, MUP 04A&B features more native trees (12
trees) such as Elephant’s Ear Tree (Macaranga tanarius), Ficus
hispida & Ficus microcarpa
than MUP 03.
LMH
01
8.11.17
In this are, the majority of trees are native
species. 1 number tree, Weeping
Measures for Preservation and Protection of Trees
8.11.18
To ensure the preserved trees
are not adversely affected during construction, the Contractor should submit a
Tree Preservation and Protection Plan to the ET for review and Engineer for
approval before commencing any works on site.
8.11.19
In addition, the Contractor
should exercise the greatest care to avoid any damage to the preserved trees
and should comply with the following in respect of all the preserved trees:
(i) No nails or other fixings shall be driven into the trees.
(ii) No fencing, services, or signs other than the identification labels or markings shall be attached to any part of the trees.
(iii) No trees shall be used as anchorages for ropes or chains used in guying or pulling or for equipment used for removing stumps, roots or other trees, or for any other purposes.
(iv) No soil, materials, equipment or machinery shall be stockpiled or stored within the tree protection zones[1].
(v) No site offices, workshops, canteens, containers or similar structures shall be installed within the tree protection zones.
(vi) Excessive water shall be drained away from the tree protection zones to prevent damage to tree roots by asphyxiation.
(vii) No passage or parking of vehicles and no operation of equipment or machinery shall take place within the tree protection zones unless otherwise agreed by the Engineer.
(viii) No stripping of surface vegetation or top layer of soil shall be carried out within the tree protection zones unless otherwise agreed by the Engineer.
8.11.20
The Contractor should erect,
secure and maintain in good condition temporary protective fencing to protect
the preserved trees before commencement of any works within the site. The
temporary protective fencing should be erected along or beyond the perimeter of
the tree protection zone of each individual tree. If erection of temporary
protective fencing is not practicable, temporary hessian armouring (or hessian
and plank armouring) should be provided around tree trunks to protect the
preserved trees. The Contractor should submit method statements including
proposed design details of the temporary protective fencing or armouring to the
ET for review and to the Engineer for approval.
8.11.21
Notwithstanding the above
measures, the Contractor should also follow all the requirements listed in the General
Specification for Civil Engineering Works: Section 26 – Preservation and
Protection of Trees.
8.11.22
To enhance the health and the
appearance of the preserved trees, advance tree surgery or pruning works may be
necessary. The Contractor should provide detailed proposals and method
statements to the ET for review and to the Engineer for approval before
commencement of any tree surgery or pruning works. Pruning should be conducted
in accordance with good arboriculture and horticultural practices.
8.11.23
The Contractor should assign a
competent member of the site supervisory staff to oversee and supervise tree
works related to horticultural operations and preservation of trees within the
site, including, but without limitation to, planting, transplanting, tree surgery
work, pruning and control of pest and disease affecting trees on the site.
Tree Transplanting
8.11.24
Selection criteria for determining
tree suitable for transplanting are summarized below:
1. Health - determine if the tree is healthy, free of disease,
infestation, is undamaged in any way.
2. Species - is the tree of a species worth retaining in
some way - if really rare then a more sensible approach would be to revise the alignment.
However, no registered tree or tree of conservation importance or
rare/protected species was found in the Project area. A good specimen even if
not rare then it could be a good candidate for transplanting. Invasive species,
introduced species of no amenity value or very common, quick growing species
and species that tend not to respond well to transplanting (e.g. many conifers)
would be best avoided as candidates for transplanting also.
3. Size - Large trees, 500mm girth or larger
(measured at 1m above ground level), which require specialized methods to
transplant, have a lower survival rate than that of smaller trees and are also
likely to be considerably damaged to their form using conventional
transplanting techniques. Budget constraints may be a consideration in
assessing the possibility of very large trees as only in the case of
significant trees (or old or valuable trees) are the costs likely to be an
acceptable proposition. The transplanting of large trees is therefore likely to
be considered only when all other factors justify the attempt.
4. Form - Trees of poor shape (even though they may be healthy) and multi-stem trees which are difficult to transplant.
5. Location - Certain trees may be
situated in positions that are difficult to transplant from due to their
location next to surfaces, utilities, structures etc that makes careful
excavation and protection of the root difficult or impossible.
Compensatory Tree Planting
(LMM3)
8.11.25
Where trees cannot be retained or transplanted and have to be
felled, compensatory tree planting (LMM3) is proposed as shown in Figures 8.6A I-V to 8.6B
I-III. In addition, existing retained and new slopes
should be planted with suitable tree planting mixes for screening to mitigate
views and other purposes. Based on the current available information, the
approximate numbers of trees to be felled and compensated are summarized below.
|
|
Felled |
Compensated |
Ratio |
|
MUPs |
117
nos. |
740
nos. |
1
: 6.3 |
|
LMH01 |
1
no. |
11
nos. |
1
: 11 |
Old & Valuable
Trees (OVT) / Trees for Religious Rituals
8.11.26
No OVT or trees for religious rituals have been identified.
Landscape Plan
8.11.27
As details of the proposed planting cannot be ascertain at the EIA
stage, the preliminary design stage of the Project, it is recommended that a
detailed Landscape Plan be submitted before commencement of planting or
landscape works of the Project. The Landscape Plan should include the
locations, size, number and species of plantings, design details,
implementation programme, maintenance and management schedules, and drawings in
scale of 1:1000 showing the landscape and visual mitigation measures. The
Landscape Plan should also take into account plant species recommended in the
Ecology chapter (see Section 7.9). The Landscape Plan should be certified by
the ET Leader and verified by the IEC as conforming to the information,
requirements and recommendations set out in the approved EIA Report before
submission to the relevant authorities.
8.12
Residual Environmental Impact
Residual
Landscape Impacts
8.12.1
The residual landscape impacts are
defined and assessed as stipulated in Sections 8.5.26 - 8.5.28. Figures 8.6A to 8.6B and Figure 8.7 and Figure 8.7i illustrate
the proposed landscape mitigation measures that would be incorporated into the
Project to mitigate landscape impacts. Residual landscape impacts on landscape
resources and landscape character are summarized in Tables 8.10A-B.
Residual Visual Impacts
8.12.2
Figures 8.8A to 8.8B illustrates the improvements that
landscape mitigation measures would provide if incorporated into the Project.
The residual visual impacts are summarized in Table 8.11. For the
purposes of this report, the significance Threshold/ Landscape Impact is
reduced by one level by the mitigation measures.
Landscape Impact MUP03,
MUP04A, MUP04B & MUP05 – Assuming Mitigation
|
Landscape Character Area
(LCA) |
Location
Reference |
Magnitude
of Change - Unmitigated |
Sensitivity
to Change - Unmitigated |
Landscape
Mitigation Measures |
Significance
Threshold – Landscape Impact Mitigated |
|
LCA 1 |
At southern section (Princess Hill), North (Miu
Keng) & East section (Near Shan Tong) of MUP05 and south eastern section of
MUP04B, MUP03 (near |
Negligible |
High |
-- |
Negligible
Impact |
|
LCA 2 Active /
Inactive Agriculture |
At both sides of the drainage channel of MUP05 &
MUP04A ( |
Intermediate |
Medium |
LMM 1 LMM 2 LMM 3 |
Slight
Impact |
|
LCA 3 Used &
Disused Fishponds |
near |
Negligible |
Low |
-- |
Negligible
Impact |
|
LCA 4 Residential
Rural Fringe |
|
Negligible |
High |
LMM 1 |
Negligible
Impact |
|
LCA 5 Stream/ Drainage
Channel |
Along Ng Tung River: Ch 1013.04 to Ch
944.39 (MUP05) |
Intermediate |
High |
LMM 4 LMM 5 |
Moderate Impact |
|
Along Ng Tung River: Ch 944.39 to Ch.0.00
(MUP05), Ch 0.00 to Ch 184.00 (MUP04A) |
Intermediate |
High |
LMM 2 LMM 4 |
Moderate Impact |
|
|
LCA 6 Public Open
Space/ Park |
Intersection location for Wo Keng Shan Road &
Sha Tau Kok Road - Wo Hang (MUP05) |
Large |
High |
LMM 3 LMM 4 LMM 5 |
Moderate Impact |
|
LCA 7 High Rise/
Commercial |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
LCA 8 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Landscape Impact LMH01 –
Assuming Mitigation
|
Landscape Character Area
(LCA) |
Location
Reference |
Magnitude
of Change - Unmitigated |
Sensitivity
to Change - Unmitigated |
Landscape
Mitigation Measures |
Significance
Threshold – Landscape Impact Mitigated |
|
LCA 1 |
At North-eastern section of LMH 04, (Lin Ma Hang
village) southern area (Tong To Shan Tsuen) |
Small |
Medium |
LMM 1 |
Negligible
Impact |
|
LCA 2 Active /
Inactive Agriculture |
At both sides of the |
Small |
Medium |
LMM 1 |
Negligible
Impact |
|
LCA 3 Used &
Disused Fishponds |
Further from the site limit, Wang Lek area |
Negligible |
Low |
-- |
Negligible
Impact |
|
LCA 4 Residential
Rural Fringe |
Lin Ma Hang |
Small |
Medium |
LMM 1 |
Negligible
Impact |
|
LCA 5 Stream/
Drainage Channel |
Along |
Small |
Medium |
LMM 1 |
Negligible
Impact |
|
LCA 6 Public Open
Space/ Park |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
-- |
N/A |
|
LCA 7 High Rise/
Commercial |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
-- |
N/A |
|
LCA 8 |
North, West and South western of project site (Wang
Lek, Tong To Shan Tsuen) |
Negligible |
Low |
-- |
Negligible
Impact |
Summary of Visual Impact - Assuming
Mitigation (MUP03, MUP04A, MUP04B & MUP05)
|
Visually
Sensitive Receivers (VSR) |
Description
of Visually Sensitive Receivers |
Magnitude of Change -Unmitigated |
Sensitivity to Change -Unmitigated |
Landscape Mitigation Measures |
Significance Threshold – Landscape Impact Mitigated |
|
VSR
1 |
Road Users of |
Large |
High |
LMM 1, LMM 3, LMM 4, LMM 5 |
Slight Impact |
|
VSR
2 |
Park Visitors @ |
Intermediate |
High |
LMM 1, LMM 3, LMM 4, LMM 5 |
Slight Impact |
|
VSR
3 |
Park Visitors @ |
Intermediate |
High |
LMM 2, LMM 3, LMM 4, LMM 5 |
Slight Impact |
|
VSR
4 |
Road Users of (Along the road) |
Small |
Medium |
LMM 2, LMM 3, LMM 5 |
Slight Impact |
|
VSR
5 |
Residents @ toe of Princess
Hill ( |
Small |
Low |
LMM 1, LMM 3, LMM 5 |
Negligible Impact |
|
VSR
6 |
Residents @ Loi Tung ( |
Small |
Medium |
LMM 1, LMM 3 |
Negligible Impact |
|
VSR
7 |
Residents @ Loi
Tung (Active agricultural
land) |
Intermediate |
Medium |
LMM 1, LMM 3 |
Negligible Impact |
|
VSR
8 |
Residents @ Loi Tung (Low Rise Housing Development) |
Small |
Low |
LMM 1, LMM 3 |
Negligible Impact |
|
VSR
9 |
Residents @ Loi Tung ( |
Negligible |
Medium |
LMM 3, |
Negligible Impact |
|
VSR
10 |
Residents @ Loi Tung ( |
Small |
Medium |
LMM 2, LMM 3 |
Negligible Impact |
|
VSR
11 |
Residents @ Loi Tung ( |
Small |
Medium |
LMM 2, LMM 4 |
Negligible Impact |
|
VSR
12 |
Residents @ Loi Tung ( |
Small |
Medium |
LMM 2, LMM 3, LMM 4 |
Negligible Impact |
|
VSR
13 |
Road Users of |
Small |
Low |
LMM 1, LMM 3, LMM 4 |
Negligible Impact |
|
VSR
14 |
Residents @ toe of small hill next to MUP01 ( |
Intermediate |
Low |
LMM 1, LMM 3 |
Negligible Impact |
|
VSR
15 |
Residents @ near junction of ( |
Small |
Low |
LMM 1, LMM 3 |
Negligible Impact |
Summary
of Visual Impact – Assuming Mitigation (LMH01)
|
Visually
Sensitive Receivers |
Description
of Visually Sensitive Receivers |
Magnitude of Change -Unmitigated |
Sensitivity to Change -Unmitigated |
Landscape Mitigation Measures |
Significance Threshold – Landscape Impact Mitigated |
|
VSR
1 |
Road Users along access road |
Intermediate |
Medium |
LMM 1 |
Slight Impact |
|
VSR
2 |
Road Users along |
Intermediate |
Medium |
LMM 1 |
Slight Impact |
|
VSR
3 |
Residents @ Lin Ma Hang (Low Rise Housing Development) |
Small |
High |
LMM 1, LMM 3 |
Slight Impact |
|
VSR
4 |
Residents near vehicular bridge
@ Lin Ma Hang ( |
Small |
Medium |
LMM 1 |
Negligible Impact |
|
VSR
5 |
Residents near river bank @
Lin Ma Hang ( |
Intermediate |
High |
LMM 1 |
Negligible Impact |
|
VSR
6 |
Residents near ancestral
shrine @ Lin Ma Hang ( |
Intermediate |
High |
LMM 1 |
Negligible Impact |
|
VSR
7 |
Residents near the temple @
Lin Ma Hang (Low Rise Housing Development) |
Small |
Medium |
LMM 1 |
Negligible Impact |
8.13
Environmental Monitoring and Audit Requirements
8.13.1
This Section defines the
Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) requirements that have been recommended
to ensure that the proposed landscape and visual mitigation measures are
effectively implemented.
8.13.2
A key landscape design issue during
detailed design will be the need for a high level of co-ordination and liaison
between the design consultants and government to ensure that all recommended
mitigation measures are effectively incorporated into the Project. The proposed
works would unlikely be acceptable in landscape and visual terms if these
mitigation measures are not incorporated. The landscape mitigation measures
would need to be monitored as follows:
·
LMM 1 (Landscape Mitigation
Measure 1): Gabions / Gabion Mattress for
Riparian Vegetation
A sufficient planting medium (compacted clay and topsoil) is needed to cover
the gabion/ gabion mattress to accommodate roots of the proposed plants, plants
that are proposed should be able to adapt the alternate wet and dry condition
and must have the ability to regenerate in the next season. Suggested species
are listed in DSD’s “Guidelines on
Environmental Considerations for River Channel Design, Section 9.2.2 Proposed
plant list in channel bed and toe zone”.
·
LMM 2 (Landscape Mitigation
Measure 2): Existing natural river bed
to be retained or widened, using natural substrate (example rip-rap
bedding) & Existing natural riverbank to be retained or reinforced
using gabions/ gabion mattress for riparian vegetation (refer to
different type of two-stage channel detail)
Similar to LMM 1, suggested species of plants are those that can adapt
to dry and wet conditions will be proposed. Suggested species for gabion bank
and widened river bed with natural substrate are listed in DSD’s “Guidelines on Environmental Considerations
for River Channel Design, Section 9.2.2 Proposed plant list in channel bed and
toe zone”.
·
LMM 3 (Landscape Mitigation
Measure 3): Compensatory tree planting
along channel side
The 1 meter wide verge at one side or both sides of the channel are proposed
for compensatory tree planting to serve dual purpose of mitigating the loss of
riparian trees (ecological impact) as well as landscape impact. More species
are listed in DSD’s “Guidelines on
Environmental Considerations for River Channel Design, Section 9.2.3 Proposed
plant list along channel side”.
Suggested percentage mixture of trees can be found in Table 8.8.
Recommended plant species that are known to be of high value to wildlife as
described in the Ecology chapter should also be included.
·
LMM 4 (Landscape Mitigation
Measure 4): Maintenance access ramps with
grasscrete finish and planting with channel bed/ toe zone vegetation
Mitigation measures involve the establishing of plant communities
from wild grass/flower seed mixes instead of turf. This would require a
reduction in regular cutting. Suggested species are listed
in DSD’s “Guidelines on Environmental
Considerations for River Channel Design, Section 9.2.2 Proposed plant list in
channel bed and toe zone”.
·
LMM 5 (Landscape Mitigation Measure
5): Mitigation planting along embankments
Proposed plants that are adapted to the area between the average high
water level and top of the embankment. As this area is close to water table,
the moisture content in soil is relative high during the wet season. Suggested
species are listed in DSD’s “Guidelines
on Environmental Considerations for River Channel Design, Section 9.2.3
Proposed plant list for planting at embankment”.
8.13.3
In addition to the Landscape
Mitigation Measures set out above, tree felling operations will be carried out
just before commencement of works and tree debris to be removed immediately
after felling. In order to speed up the restoration of greenery of the
environment, advance compensatory planting will be carried out as far as
practicable.
8.13.4
The proposed mitigation measures are
listed in Table 8.12, together with an indication of funding,
implementation, management and maintenance agencies. Generally, all landscape
mitigation measures are to be implemented as early as possible.
8.13.5
Monitoring
and audit should be undertaken during the construction and operation phases of
the Project to ensure and check that the implementation and maintenance of
landscape and visual mitigation measures are carried out.
8.13.6
A landscape
auditor (as a member of the ET) shall be employed to review contractor’s
submissions and proposals and to monitor and audit the contractor’s landscape
works in particular to ensure the existing trees retained on-site are being
well preserved, tree transplanting and felling operations are being undertaken
in accordance with the requirements, procedures and specifications as
stipulated in the contract and the approvals granted by concerned authorities,
and all the newly planted vegetations are being maintained properly during the
establishment period.
8.13.7
It is recommended that a detailed Landscape Plan be submitted before
commencement of planting or landscape works of the Project. The Landscape Plan
should include the locations, size, number and species of plantings, design
details, implementation programme, maintenance and management schedules, and
drawings in scale of 1:1000 showing the landscape and visual mitigation
measures. The Landscape Plan should also take into account plant species
recommended in the Ecology chapter. The Landscape Plan should be certified by
the ET Leader and verified by the IEC as conforming to the information,
requirements and recommendations set out in the approved EIA Report before
submission to the relevant authorities.
8.13.8
Details of
the monitoring and audit programme are presented in the EM&A Manual.
Proposed Landscape and Visual Impact
Mitigation Measures
|
LMM No. |
Mitigation
Measures |
Funding
Agency |
Implementation
Agency |
Maintenance
/ Management Agency |
|
LMM1 |
Gabions/ Gabion Mattress for
Riparian Vegetation |
DSD |
Construction Contractor |
DSD |
|
LMM2 |
Existing natural river bed
to be retained or widened, using natural substrate (example rip-rap bedding)
& Existing natural riverbank to be retained or reinforced using gabions/
gabion mattress for riparian vegetation (refer to different type of two-stage
channel detail) |
DSD |
Construction Contractor |
DSD |
|
LMM3 |
Compensatory tree planting along
channel side |
DSD |
Construction Contractor |
DSD |
|
LMM4 |
Maintenance access ramps
with grasscrete finish and planting with channel bed/ toe zone vegetation |
DSD |
Construction Contractor |
DSD |
|
LMM5 |
Mitigation planting along
embankments |
DSD |
Construction Contractor |
DSD |
Note: Maintenance
agency with reference to WBTC No. 14/2002 and ETWB TCW No. 2/2004.
Landscape Impacts
MUP05,
MUP04A, MUP04B and MUP03
8.14.1
The landscape impacts on the landscape
resources and character are predicted to be negligible in LCA1 Wooded
Upland/Shrubland, LCA3 Used / Disused Fishponds and LCA4 Residential Rural
Fringe, as no or limited activities are carried out in these areas, even
without mitigation measures incorporated into the Project. The landscape
impacts on the landscape resources and character within LCA2 Active / Inactive
Agriculture, LCA5 Stream / Drainage Channel and LCA6 Public Open Space / Park
are predicted to be moderate to significant adverse without mitigation measures
incorporated into the Project, due mainly to the loss of the highest portion of
the existing trees lining the road and channel sides. The section of MUP 05
near the intersection of Sha Tau Kok and
8.14.2
Trees have been preserved or
transplanted as far as practicable. The incorporation of landscape mitigation
measures through retention of natural riverbed and banks, tree planting
alongside channels, the planting of embankment and toe zone plant mixes would
lessen the landscape impacts to moderate.
LMH
01
8.14.3
The landscape impacts on the
landscape resources and character are predicted to be slight in LCA1 Wooded
Upland/Shrubland, LCA2 Active / Inactive Agriculture, LCA4 Residential Rural
Fringe and LCA5 Stream / Drainage Channel, as no or limited bank improvement
works are carried out in these areas, even without mitigation measures
incorporated into the Project. The landscape impacts on the landscape resources
and character within LCA3 Used / Disused Fishponds and LCA8 Upland Grassland
are predicted to negligible adverse without mitigation measures incorporated
into the Project. The incorporation of landscape mitigation measures through
planting of embankment plant mixes would lessen the landscape impact to
negligible overall. Demolishing and reconstruction of vehicular crossing is
expected to have a slight positive impact on LCA4 Residential Rural Fringe
through the improved access.
Visual
Impacts
8.14.4
The unmitigated visual impact of the
Project on VSRs at MUP05 is predicted to be significant adverse, due to the
loss of the roadside and drainage channel trees and surrounding vegetation and
the partial widening of the existing channel, in close proximity to the
residential amenities such as a recreational park. However, in the other areas
of MUP05, MUP04A, MUP04B and MUP03 the unmitigated visual impacts are
negligible or slight.
8.14.5
The unmitigated visual impact of the
Project on VSRs at LMH01 is predicted to be negligible and slight adverse. The
improvement of riverbanks might result in slight adverse impacts when
unmitigated. The demolishing and reconstruction of vehicular crossings may have
beneficial visual impacts as the newly constructed crossings are expected to be
more visually acceptable.
8.14.6
It is predicted that, through the
incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures, adverse visual impacts can
be further reduced to negligible to slight in most cases. For MUP05, sufficient
screen tree planting alongside the channel and embankment planting are expected
to reduce the visual impacts after mitigation to slight adverse impacts. The
use of vegetated gabions and gabions mattress will also reduce the visual
impact of the drainage improvements.
Conclusion on Significance of Residual Impact
8.14.7
The significance of the residual
landscape and visual impacts is evaluated as described in Annex 10 of the Technical Memorandum to the EIA Ordnance.
There are some adverse effects, mainly due to tree loss and infringement into
small plots of landscapes, but these can be eliminated, reduced or offset to a
large extent by specific landscape measures. Some slight residual visual impact
will remain for some of the viewer groups.
8.14.8
Overall, the drainage improvement in
the
[1] “Tree protection zone” means an area the perimeter of which is defined by the dripline of the tree. “Dripline” of a tree means the imaginary vertical plumb line that extends downward from the tips of the outer most tree branches and intersects the ground.