Environmental Impact Assessment
Proposed Low-rise and Low-density Residential
Development
At Various Lots and their Adjoining
Government Land
in D.D. 104, East of Kam Pok Road,
Mai Po, Yuen Long, N.T.
(Volume I – Main Text)
Final Report
Prepared for:
Glory
Queen Limited
Prepared by
Ramboll
Environ Hong Kong Limited
In association with
ADI Limited
AECOM
China Point Consultants Ltd.
CKM Asia Limited
Ecosystems Ltd.
MCAAL
Vision Planning Consultants Ltd.
Westwood Hong and Associates Ltd.
Date:
August 2016
Reference
Number:
R2057_V6.F
Environmental Impact Assessment
Proposed Low-rise and
Low-density Residential Development
At Various Lots and their Adjoining Government Land
in D.D. 104, East of Kam Pok Road,
Mai Po, Yuen Long, N.T.
|
Prepared by: |
|
|
Approved by: |
Henry Ng Senior
Consultant |
|
|
David
Yeung Managing
Director |
Ramboll Environ Hong Kong Limited
Room 2403 Jubilee Centre, 18 Fenwick Street,
Wan Chai, Hong Kong
Tel: 3465 2888
Fax: 3465 2899
E-mail: hkinfo@ramboll.com
Q:\Projects\HENKPRRDEI01\Report\EIA\FORMAL
Submission_public inspection Aug16\CD_Report to EPD\EIA Report\html format\EIA
Report_R2057 V6.F_Vol I_Text_20160822_clean.htm
1.2 EIAO and Designated Projects
1.3 Objectives of the EIA Study
1.5 Continuous Public Involvement
1.6 Description of the Project
1.6.2 Nature
and Scope of Project
1.7 Description of the Environment
1.9 Structure of the EIA Report
2. Consideration
of Alternatives
2.2 General Land-use Planning Background
2.4 Planning Application Record Related to the Project
Site
2.5 Evaluation of Different Development Layout Options
2.5.1 Purposes
and Objectives for the Project
2.5.2 Scenario
1: Without the Project
2.5.3 Scenario
2: With the Project (Consideration of Alternative
Layout Options)
2.5.4 Comparison
and Evaluation of Alternative Options
2.6 Key Development Parameters of the Alternative
Schemes
2.7 Alternative Construction Methods and Sequences of
Works
2.7.2 Alternative
Construction Sequence of this Project
2.7.3 Alternative
Construction Method
3.3 Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and Criteria
3.4.1 Existing
Ambient Air Quality Levels
3.4.2 Ambient
Air Quality Levels During Operational Phase
3.4.3 Ambient
Air Quality Levels for Evaluation of Construction Phase Air Quality Impacts
3.6 Air Quality Impact Assessment
3.7.1 Emission
during Construction Phase
3.8 Construction Phase Air Quality Assessment Results
(Unmitigated Scenario)
3.8.1 Short-term
and Long-term Impact
3.10 Construction Phase Air Quality Impact Assessment
Results (Mitigated Scenario)
3.10.1 Short-term
and Long-term Impacts
3.10.2 Findings
of Mitigated Scenario
3.10.3 Concurrent
Construction with Planned Development Site
3.11 Residual Environmental Impacts
3.12 Environmental Monitoring and Audit
4.2 Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and Criteria
4.2.1 Road
Traffic Noise Criterion
4.2.3 Industrial
Noise Criterion
4.2.5 Construction Noise Criteria
4.3 Proposed Development and
Nearby Environment
4.4 Identification of Potential Noise Impacts
4.4.2 Road
Traffic Noise Impact
4.4.3 Temporary
Sewage Treatment Plant Noise
4.5 Determination of Noise Sensitive Receivers
4.5.1 Planned
Sensitive Uses Under This Project for Road Traffic Noise Impact Assessment
4.5.2 Planned
Sensitive Uses Under This Project for Industrial Noise Impact Assessment
4.5.3 Existing
Sensitive Uses For Construction Noise Impact Assessment
4.5.4 Potential
Planned Sensitive Uses For Construction Noise Impact Assessment
4.7 Prediction and Evaluation of Noise Impacts
4.7.3 Unmitigated
Construction Phase Noise
4.8 Mitigation of Noise Impacts After Noise Mitigation
Measures (Mitigated Scenario)
4.8.1 Mitigated
Construction Noise with Adoption of QPMEs
4.8.2 Mitigation
Measures with Adoption of QPMEs and Movable Noise Barriers
4.8.3 Recommendations
on Noise Mitigation Measures
4.9 Cumulative Construction Noise Impacts
4.9.1 Concurrent
Construction Projects
4.9.2 Cumulative
Construction Noise Due to Adjacent Approved Government Projects
4.9.4 Cumulative
Construction Noise Assessment Results
4.11 Environmental Monitoring and Audit
5.2...... Environmental Legislation, Standards, Guidelines
and Criteria
5.2.1 Water
Pollution Control Ordinance
5.2.4 No
Net Increase in Pollution Loads Requirement in Deep Bay
5.2.5 Hong
Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines
5.2.6 ProPECC
PN 1/94 “Construction Site Drainage”
5.3...... Baseline Conditions and Sensitive Receivers
5.3.1 Existing
Environment within and in Adjacent to the Project Site
5.3.2 Identification of Water
Quality Sensitive Receivers (WSRs)
5.3.3 Baseline
Water Quality Survey
5.4...... Identification and Evaluation of Impacts
5.4.2 Project
Construction Phase
5.4.3 Project
Operational Phase
5.5...... Recommended Mitigation Measures During Construction
Phase
5.5.3 Emergency
Response Plan During Inclement Weather and Emergencies
5.6...... Recommended Mitigation Measures During Operational
Phase
5.7.1 Identification
of Cumulative Projects
5.7.2 Evaluation
of Cumulative Construction Phase Impacts
5.7.3 Evaluation
of Cumulative Operational Phase Impacts
5.8...... Environmental Monitoring and Audit
6. Sewerage
and Sewage Treatment
6.2 Existing and Planned Sewerage Infrastructures
6.3 Assessment Methodology and Parameters
6.5 Sewerage Impact Assessment for Ultimate Scenario
6.6 Needs of Interim Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)
6.8 Compliance with Town Planning Board Guidelines
6.9 Existing Pollution Loads from the Development Area
6.10 Water Quality Impact due to Abstraction of Water
from Nearby Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel
6.11 Operation, Maintenance, and Responsibilities of
Interim Sewage Treatment Plant
6.13 Environmental Monitoring and Audit
7.2 Environmental Legislation, Standards, Guidelines
and Criteria
7.3 Potential Land Contamination Due to Historic and
Current Land Use
7.3.1 Approach
and Scope of Assessment
7.3.3 Historic
and Current Land Uses
7.4 Waste Generation during Construction Phase
7.4.2 Excavated
Materials / Imported Filling Materials
7.4.3 Excavation/
Disposal of Pond Sediment
7.4.4 Construction
and Demolition Waste
7.5 Construction Waste Management Measures
7.6 Waste Generation during Operational Phase
7.7 Environmental Monitoring and Audit
8.2 Relevant Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and
Criteria
8.5 Results of Literature Review
8.5.1 Recognized
Sites of Conservation Importance
8.5.2 Review
of Previous Studies
8.6.5 Condition
Prior
to Pond-filling,
8.7 Evaluation of Habitats and Species
8.7.1 Habitats within the Project Area
8.7.2 Habitats within the Assessment Area
8.7.3 Fauna Species of Conservation Importance within the Assessment Area
8.8 Impact Identification
and Evaluation
8.8.1 Proposed Construction Works
8.8.2 Construction Phase Impacts
8.10 Environmental Monitoring
Programme
8.12 Residual Ecological
Impacts
9. Fisheries Impact Assessment
9.2 Relevant Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and
Criteria
9.4 Methodology for Baseline Establishment and
Assessment
9.5.1 Sites
of Fisheries Importance
9.6 Impact Identification and Evaluation
9.6.1 Construction
Phase – Direct Impacts
9.6.2 Construction
Phase - Indirect Impacts
9.6.3 Operational
Phase – Indirect Impacts
9.9 Environmental Monitoring and Audit
10.2 Environmental Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and Criteria
10.2.1 Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance
10.2.2 Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
10.2.3 Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines
10.2.4 Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process
10.2.5 Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
10.3 Methodology and Assessment Results
10.6 Residual Environmental Impacts
10.7 Environmental Monitoring and Audit
11.2 Environmental Legislations, Standards, Guidelines
and Criteria
11.3.5 Graphic
Presentation of Mitigation Measures
11.3.6 Prediction
of Acceptability of Impacts
11.4 Selection of the Recommended Layout
11.4.1 Alternative
Development Options
and Layouts
11.5 Review of Planning and Development Control
Framework
11.6.2 Landscape
Resources (LRs)
11.6.3 Landscape
Character Areas (LCAs)
11.7 Identification and Evaluation of Environmental
Impact
11.7.1 Source
of Potential Impact
11.7.2 Impact
on Existing Trees
11.7.4 Tree
Transplantation Proposals
11.7.6 Compensatory
Planting Principles
11.7.7 Impact
on Existing Landscape Resources
11.7.8 Potential Impacts on Trees
11.7.9 Predicted
Potential Impacts on Existing Landscape Resources
11.7.10 Predicted
Potential Impacts on Existing Landscape Character
11.9 Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Impact
11.9.2 Primary
Mitigation Measures
11.9.4 Secondary
Mitigation Measures
11.9.5 Construction
Phase Landscape
Mitigation
Measures
11.9.6 Operational
Phase Landscape
Mitigation
Measures
11.9.7 Construction
Phase Visual
Mitigation
Measures
11.9.8 Operational
Phase Visual
Mitigation
Measures
11.10 Programme and Funding Arrangement for Landscape and
Visual Mitigation Measures
11.11 Evaluation of Residual Impact
11.11.2 Residual
Impact on Landscape Resources (Yr10)
11.11.4 Residual
Impact on Landscape Character Areas
11.11.5 Impact
on Visual Amenity (Year 10)
11.12 Environmental Monitoring and Audit
11.13.1 Compatible
with the Landscape Planning Framework
12. Summary
of Environmental Outcomes
12.5 Sewerage and Sewage Treatment
13. ENvironmental
Monitoring and Audit Requirements
13.5 Sewerage and Sewage Treatment
14. Project
Implementation Schedule
14.1....... Proposed Infrastructure and Mitigation Measures
15.4 Sewerage and Sewage Treatment
List of Tables
Table 2‑1 Previous Planning
Applications Related to Project Site
Table 2‑2 Evaluation of Development Options
Table 2‑3 Key Development
Information
Table 3‑1 Hong Kong Air
Quality Objectives
Table 3‑2 Locations of
Representative Existing Air Sensitive Receivers.
Table 3‑3 Planned Air
Sensitive Receivers
Table 4‑1 Relevant Road
Traffic Noise Standard
Table 4‑2 Area Sensitivity
Ratings (ASRs)
Table 4‑3 Relevant Noise
Standard for Fixed Noise Sources
Table 4‑4 Noise Limits for
Daytime Construction Activities
Table 4‑5 Identified Industrial
Sites and Noise Sources
Table 4‑6 Instruments Used
for the Noise Survey
Table 4‑7 Summary
of noise measurement data for Fan Keung Kee
Table 4‑8 Summary
of noise measurement data for Shing Fat Logistics Ltd.
Table 4-8A Permissible Sound Power Level (SWL) for the Proposed STP
Table 4-8B Proposed Mitigation Measures for STP
Table 4‑9 Identified
Existing Noise Sensitive Receivers For Construction Noise Assessment
Table 4‑10 Status of the
Proposed Near-by Sensitive Uses
Table 4‑12 Distance between
industrial site and nearest existing NSRs
Table 4‑13 Predicted Noise
levels for existing NSRs for Daytime
Table 4‑14 Predicted Noise
levels for existing NSRs for Night-time
Table 4‑15 Traffic forecast
for Year 2033, AM Peak
Table 4‑16 Inventory of
Powered Mechanical Equipment (Unmitigated)
Table 4‑17 Estimated
Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels at Representative NSRs
Table 4‑18 Inventory of
Powered Mechanical Equipment (with QPMEs)
Table 5‑1 Standards for
effluent discharged into Group D inland waters.
Table 5‑2 Standards for
Effluent Discharged into Group C Inland Waters.
Table 5‑3 Key Water
Quality Objectives for Inland Waters in Deep Bay Water Control Zone
Table 5‑4 – Summary of
Identified WSRs of this Project
Table 5‑7 Baseline Water
Quality Monitoring Results in Year 2009
Table 6‑1 Information of
Planned Public Sewerage Project in the Vicinity of the Site
Table 6‑2 Design Parameters
and Basis
Table 6‑3 Total Estimated
Sewage Flow Generated from the Development
Table 6‑4 Summary of
Projected Sewage Flow at Different Locations in Year 2030
Table 6‑6 Target Effluent
Quality of the interim STP
Table 6‑7 Pollution Loads
from 200 m3 Channel Water Before the Treatment
Table
6‑8 Future
Pollution Loads from Development
after Treatment
Table 6‑9 Comparison of
Pollution Loads from Site Before and After the
Development
Table 7‑1 Summary Table of
Estimated Materials to be Generated, Re-used and Disposed of
Table 8‑1 Ecological Survey Programme.
Table 8‑2 Nesting
Populations of Ardeid in Mai Po
Village SSSI Egretry since 1998
Table 8‑3 Nesting
populations of ardeid in Mai Po
Lung egretry since 1998
Table 8‑4 Fauna Species
of Conservation Importance from Previous
Studies
Table 8‑5 Habitats recorded
within the Assessment Area
Table 8‑6 Bird species of
conservation importance
Table 8‑7 Summary of Flight
Observations of Large Waterbirds
Table 8‑8 Evaluation of
Plantation Habitat within the Assessment Area.
Table 8‑9 Evaluation of
Plantation Habitat within the Assessment Area.
Table 8‑10 Evaluation of
Agricultural Land within the Assessment Area
Table 8‑11 Evaluation of
Urbanised/Disturbed Habitat within the Assessment Area
Table 8‑12 Evaluation of Grassland/Shrubland within the
Assessment Area
Table 8‑13 Evaluation of Pond
(Fish Pond and Flood Storage Pond) within the
Assessment Area
Table 8‑14 Evaluation of Drainage
Channel/Nullah within the Assessment Area
Table 8‑15 Evaluation of
faunal species of conservation importance within the Assessment Area
Table 8‑16 Potential direct
ecological impacts to existing habitat within the Project Area
Table 8‑17 Summary of
Potential Impact During Construction and Operation Phases
Table 9‑2 Construction and
Operation Stage Impacts
Table 11‑2 Residual Impact
Significance Threshold Matrix
Table 11‑3 Comparison of
Alternative Development Options and Layouts
Table 11‑4 Review of
Existing Planning and Development Control Framework
Table 11‑5 Sensitivity of
landscape resources (LRs)
Table 11‑6 Sensitivity of
Landscape Character Areas (LCAs)
Table 11‑7 Sensitivity of
Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSRs)
Table 11‑8 Potential
magnitude of change for landscape resources
Table 11‑9 Existing
Landscape Resources and Predicted Impacts
Table 11‑10 Potential
Magnitude of Change for Landscape Character Areas (LCAs)
Table 11‑11 Existing
Landscape Character Areas (LCAs) and Predicted Impacts
Table 11‑12 Visually Sensitive Receivers and Predicted Impacts
Table 11‑13 Proposed
Construction Phase Landscape
Mitigation Measures
Table 11‑14 Proposed
Operational Phase
Landscape Mitigation Measures
Table 11‑15 Proposed
Construction Phase Visual Mitigation Measures
Table 11‑16 Proposed
Operational Phase Visual Mitigation Measures
Table 11‑17 Landscape and
Visual Mitigation Measures/Works Funding and Implementation
Table 14‑1 Implementation
Schedule of Recommended Mitigation Measures
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Project
Location Plan
Figure 1-2 Locations
of Approved EIA Projects and Adjacent Planned Development Sites
Figure 2-1 Master
Layout Plan for the Proposed Development and the Environs
Figure 2-2 The
Project Site and its Surroundings
Figure 2-3 Previous
Planning Application at the Project Site
Figure 2-4 Initial
Layout Just Meeting the Planning Intention of the Project Site
Figure 2-5 Alternative Layout Option A –Approved Scheme Under
A/YL-MP/170
Figure 2-6 Alternative
Layout Option B
Figure 2-7 Layout
Option B : Recommended Layout Option (same as Figure 2-1)
Figure 3-1 Location of Air Sensitive Receivers
Figure 3-2 Representative
ASRs Selected for Construction Phase Air Quality Assessment
Figure 3-3 Contour
Plot of Unmitigated Maximum Hourly TSP at Worst Hit Level at 6.0mPD
Figure 3-4 Contour Plot of Unmitigated 10th Highest
Daily Average RSP at Worst Hit Level at 6.3mPD
Figure 3-5 Contour Plot of Unmitigated Annual Average RSP at Worst
Hit Level at 6.3mPD
Figure 3-6 Contour Plot of Unmitigated 10th Highest
Daily Average FSP at Worst Hit Level at 6.3mPD
Figure 3-7 Contour
Plot of Unmitigated Annual Average FSP at Worst Hit Level at 6.3mPD
Figure 3-8 Contour
Plot of Mitigated Maximum Hourly TSP at Worst Hit Level at 6.0mPD
Figure 3-9 Contour Plot of Mitigated 10th Highest Daily
Average RSP at Worst Hit Level at 6.0mPD
Figure 3-10 Contour Plot of Mitigated Annual Average RSP at Worst Hit
Level at 6.3mPD
Figure 3-11 Contour Plot of Mitigated 10th Highest Daily
Average FSP at Worst Hit Level at 6.0mPD
Figure 3-12 Contour
Plot of Mitigated Annual Average FSP at Worst Hit Level at 6.3mPD
Figure 4-2A Existing
and Planned NSRs for Construction Phase Impact Assessment
Figure 4-2B Photographs
of Existing NSRs Selected for Construction Noise Assessment
Figure 4-2C Photographs
of Existing NSRs Selected for Construction Noise Assessment
Figure 4-3A Location
of Temporary Fixed Noise Barrier During Concurrent Construction with the
Approved Cycle Track Project and Approved Public Sewerage Project
Figure 4-3B Cross
Sectional Diagram of Proposed Temporary Fixed Construction Noise Barrier
Figure 4-4 Industrial
Lots in the Vicinity
Figure 4-5 Noise
Measurement Locations
Figure 4-6 Computer
Plot of Road Scheme (With Year 2033 Traffic Forecast)
Figure 4-7 Predicted
Façade Noise Levels
Figure 4-8 Noise
Mitigation Measures Required for Fixed Noise Sources
Figure 4-9 Proposed
Operational Phase Noise Mitigation Measures
Figure 4-10A Sound
Power Level of Fan Keung Kee
Figure 4-10B Sound
Power Level of Shing Fat Logistic Ltd.
Figure 4-11A Notional
source position of Fan Keung Kee
Figure 4-11B Notional
source position of Shing Fat Logistic Ltd
Figure 4-12 Location
of Pumping Station and NSRs
Figure 4-13 NSR
60 and Temporary Sewage Treatment Plant Room
Figure 5-1A Locations
of Kam Tin River, Mai Po Nature Reserve and Inner Deep Bay Further Downstream
of Project Site
Figure 5-1 Baseline
Water Quality Sampling Locations in Year 2009 and Locations of Existing WSRs
Figure 5-2 Additional
Baseline Water Quality Sampling Locations Between September 2012 and January
2013, and Between August 2013 and September 2013; and Between March 2015 and
April 2015
Figure 5-3 Conceptual
Construction Phase Site Drainage
Figure 5-4 Conceptual Operational Phase Site
Drainage
Figure 6-1 Existing and Proposed Sewerage Facilities
Figure 6-2 Proposed Sewer Connection for Permanent Stage (With
Sewage Pumping Station)
Figure 6-3 Proposed Sewer Connection for Interim Stage (With
Sewage Treatment Plant)
Figure 6-4 Process Flow Diagram for the Interim STP
Figure 6-5 Envisaged Arrangement of Water Extraction Facility
Figure 8-1 Recognised
Sites of Conservation Importance
Figure 8-2 Survey
Transects and Vantage Points
Figure 8-3 Habitat
map and Locations of Species of Conservation Importance, Kam Pok
Figure 8-4 Photos
of Habitats
Figure 9-1 Map Showing the Locations of Fishponds within the
Project Area and Assessment Area
Figure 9-2 Photos of Fishponds in the Assessment Area
Figure 11-1 Review
of Planning and Development Control Framework
Figure 11-2 Landscape
Resources
Figure 11-3-1 Photographs
of Landscape Resources – Sheet 1 of 7
Figure 11-3-2 Photographs
of Landscape Resources – Sheet 2 of 7
Figure 11-3-3 Photographs
of Landscape Resources – Sheet 3 of 7
Figure 11-3-4 Photographs
of Landscape Resources – Sheet 4 of 7
Figure 11-3-5 Photographs
of Landscape Resources – Sheet 5 of 7
Figure 11-3-6 Photographs
of Landscape Resources – Sheet 6 of 7
Figure 11-3-7 Photographs
of Landscape Resources – Sheet 7 of 7
Figure 11-3-8 Not use
Figure 11-4 Landscape
Character Area
Figure 11-5-1 Photographs
of Landscape Character Areas – Sheet 1 of 2
Figure 11-5-2 Photographs
of Landscape Character Areas – Sheet 2 of 2
Figure 11-6 Visual
Envelope and Zone of Visual Influence
Figure 11-7-1 Visual
Context of Visual Sensitive Receivers 1 of 4
Figure 11-7-2 Visual
Context of Visual Sensitive Receivers 2 of 4
Figure 11-7-3 Visual
Context of Visual Sensitive Receivers 3 of 4
Figure 11-7-4 Visual
Context of Visual Sensitive Receivers 4 of 4
Figure 11-8 Impact
on Landscape Resources
Figure 11-9 Impact
on Landscape Character Areas
Figure 11-10 Visual
Impacts
Figure 11-11-1 Recommended Landscape Mitigation Measures – Landscape Master
Plan
Figure 11-11-2 Recommended Landscape Mitigation Measures – Sections
Figure 11-11-3 Recommended Landscape Mitigation Measures – Design of
Landscape Berms
Figure 11-11-4 Recommended Landscape Mitigation Measures – Design of
Landscape Berms
Figure 11-11-5 Recommended Landscape Mitigation Measures – Design of
Landscape Berms
Figure 11-11-6 Recommended Landscape Enhancement – Provision of Landscape Pond
Figure 11-12-1 Photomontages – Vantage Point A
Figure 11-12-2 Photomontages – Vantage Point A
Figure 11-12-3 Photomontages – Vantage Point B
Figure 11-12-4 Photomontages – Vantage Point B
Figure 11-12-5 Photomontages – Vantage Point C
Figure 11-12-6 Photomontages – Vantage Point C
Figure 11-12-7 Photomontages – Vantage Point D
Figure 11-12-8 Photomontages – Vantage Point D
Figure 11-12-9 Photomontages – Vantage Point E
Figure 11-12-10 Photomontages – Vantage Point E
Figure 11-12-11 Photomontages – Vantage Point F
Figure 11-12-12 Photomontages – Vantage Point F
Figure 11-12-13 Photomontages – Vantage Point G
Figure 11-12-14 Photomontages – Vantage Point G
Figure 11-12-15 Photomontages – Vantage Point H
Figure 11-12-16 Photomontages – Vantage Point H
Figure 11-12-17 Photomontages – Vantage Point I
Figure 11-12-18 Photomontages – Vantage Point I
List of Appendices
Appendix 1-1 Proposed Project Implementation programme
Appendix 1-2 Original Project Implementation Programme
Appendix 3-1A Construction Programme of the Adjacent
Planned Development Projects
Appendix 3-1B
Background Contribution from the PATH
Output File
Appendix 3-2 Calculation of Hourly TSP Emission Rates of
this Project
Appendix 3-3 Calculation of Daily and Annual RSP Emission
Rates of this Project
Appendix 3-4 Summary Table of TSP Assessment Results
(Unmitigated Scenario)
Appendix 3-5 Summary Table of RSP and FSP Assessment
Results (Unmitigated Scenario)
Appendix 3-6 Summary Table of TSP Assessment Results (Mitigated
Scenario)
Appendix 3-7 Summary Table of RSP and FSP Assessment
Results (Mitigated Scenario)
Appendix 3-8 Construction Approach During Site Formation
Stage
Appendix 3-9 Calculation of Dust Suppression Efficiency
Appendix 3-10 RSP / TSP, and FSP / RSP Ratios
Appendix 3-11 Sensitivity Test on Cumulative Construction
Phase TSP, RSP and FSP Levels with “Yau Mei Site” Project
Appendix 3-11A Sensitivity Test on Cumulative Construction
Phase TSP, RSP and FSP Levels with “Yau Mei Site” and “REC Site” Projects
Appendix 3-12 Sensitivity Test of Vehicular Emissions Due
to Traffic Generated by this Project
Appendix 4-1 Site Photos of Industrial Noise Survey
Appendix 4-2 Traffic Forecast Endorsement Letter
Appendix 4-3 Road Noise Prediction Results
Appendix 4-4 Industrial Noise Calculation (Based on Field Survey)
Appendix 4-5 Industrial Noise Calculation at Nearby Existing Village Houses
(Worst Case Scenario)
Appendix 4-6 Industrial Noise Calculations (Worst Case Scenario, Daytime)
Appendix 4-7 Industrial Noise Calculations (Worst Case Scenario, Night-time)
Appendix 4-7A Cumulative Industrial Noise Calculation
Appendix 4-8 Calculation of Construction Noise Impact Assessment
(Unmitigated Scenario)
Appendix 4-9 Calculation of Construction Noise Impact Assessment (Mitigated
Scenario with QPMEs and Movable Noise Barriers)
Appendix 4-9A Calculation of Construction Noise Impact Assessment (Mitigated
Scenario with QPMEs, Movable Noise Barriers, and Temporary Fixed Construction
Noise Barriers)
Appendix 4-10 Estimated Construction Noise Levels Due to Adjacent Approved EIA
Projects
Appendix 4-11 Estimated Construction Noise Levels Due to Planned
RD Site
Appendix 4-12 Calculated Mitigated Construction Noise
Levels Due to Planned REC Site (Directly Extracted from its EIA Report
(EIA-220/2014)
Appendix 5-1 Baseline Water Quality Sampling Results
Appendix 5-2 Calculation of Pollution Loading of
Stormwater During Operational Phase
Appendix 6-1 Estimation
of Sewage Flow from the Proposed Development
Appendix 6-2 Laboratory Test Results of Water Sampling
at W3
Appendix 6-3 Sewage Offsetting Calculation
Appendix 6-4 References of Sewage Treatment Systems
Appendix 7-1 Government Correspondences
Appendix 7-2 Historic Aerial Photos
Appendix 8-1 Plant Species recorded within the Assessment Area
Appendix 8-2 Bird Species
recorded within the Assessment Area
Appendix 8-3 Butterfly Species recorded
within the Assessment Area
Appendix 8-4 Dragonfly Species
recorded within the Assessment Area
Appendix 8-5 Amphibian, Reptile and Mammal Species
recorded within the Assessment Area
Appendix 10-1 Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment Report
Appendix 11-1 Tree Survey
The Project Site comprises various lots in D.D. 104,
East of Kam Pok Road, Yuen Long. It
covers an area of about 3.8ha. The site
is located between Kam Pok Road, Ha Chuk Yuen Road and Fung Chuk Road, and
bounded by a number of existing and planned residential developments adjacent
to Castle Peak Road and Fairview Park Boulevard. Figure
1-1 presents the location of the Project Site.
The Project Site falls within an area zoned “Residential (Group D)” [“R(D)”] on the
Approved Mai Po and Fairview Park Outline Zoning Plan No. S/YL-MP/6 (the
OZP). It is
located outside the Wetland Buffer Area and Wetland Conservation Area
under the Town Planning Board Guidelines (TPB PG-No. 12C). Thus, requirements such as the “no-net-loss in
wetland” principle and wetland enhancement and management scheme do not apply
to this Project. According to the Notes
of the Subject OZP, the planning intention of the “R(D)” zone is intended primarily for improvement and upgrading of
existing temporary structures within the rural area through redevelopment of
existing temporary structures into permanent buildings. It is also intended for low-rise, low-density
residential developments subject to planning permission from the Town Planning
Board (TPB).
The current proposed development is in compliance with
the statutory planning intention of the Project Site. A
planning application for the residential development at the Project Site was
previously obtained from the TPB.
Ramboll Environ Hong Kong Limited (Ramboll Environ), formerly
known as ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited, was commissioned by the Project Proponent
of the development site, Glory Queen Limited., to undertake an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project.
A project profile was submitted to EPD on 24 August 2009 for the
proposed development. Pursuant to
section 5(7)(a) of the Environmental Impact Assessment
Ordinance (EIAO), EPD issued an EIA study brief (Ref. No. ESB-210/2009) in September 2009 for “Proposed Low-rise
and Low-density Residential Development at Various Lots and their Adjoining
Government Land in D.D. 104, East of Kam Pok Road, Mai Po, Yuen Long, N.T.”
Ramboll Environ
conducted this EIA (the Study) in association with consultants from various
fields:
·
Planning – Vision Planning
Consultants Ltd.
·
Architectural – MCAAL
·
Ecology and Fisheries – Ecosystems
Limited
·
Engineering – AECOM
·
Landscape and Visual – ADI Limited
·
Traffic – CKM Asia Limited
·
Road traffic noise and fixed noise
sources - Westwood Hong and Associates Ltd.
·
Cultural Heritage - China Point
Consultants Ltd.
According
to Item P of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the EIAO, the Project is a Designated
Project since it is a residential development other than New Territories
exempted house within the Deep Bay Buffer Zone 2.
The
objectives of the EIA study are:
·
to describe the Project and
associated works together with the requirements for carrying out the Project;
·
to identify and describe elements of
community and environment likely to be affected by the Project and/or likely to
cause adverse impacts to the Project, including both the natural and man-made
environment;
·
to identify and quantify all
environmental sensitive receivers, emission sources and determine the
significance of impacts on sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;
·
to identify and systematically
evaluate any potential losses or damage to flora, fauna and wildlife habitats;
·
to identify any negative impacts on
sites of cultural heritage and to propose measures to mitigate these impacts;
·
to identify and systematically
evaluate any potential landscape and visual impacts and to propose measures to
mitigate these impacts;
·
to propose the provision of
infrastructure or mitigation measures so as to minimise pollution,
environmental disturbance and nuisance during construction and operation of the
Project;
·
to identify, predict and evaluate
the residual (i.e. after practicable mitigation) environmental impacts and the cumulative
effects expected to arise during the construction and operation phases of the
Project in relation to the sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;
·
to identify, assess and specify
methods, measures and standards, to be included in the detailed design,
construction and operation of the Project which are necessary to mitigate these
environmental impacts and reducing them to acceptable levels;
·
to investigate the extent of
secondary environmental impacts that may arise from the proposed mitigation
measures and to identify constraints associated with the mitigation measures
recommended in the EIA study, as well as the provision of any necessary
modification;
·
to identity, within the study area,
any individual project(s) that fall under Schedule 2 and/or Schedule 3 of the
EIA Ordinance; to ascertain whether the findings of this EIA study have
adequately addressed the environmental impacts of those projects; and where
necessary, to identify the outstanding issues that need to be addressed in any
further detailed EIA study; and
·
to design and specify the
environmental monitoring and audit requirements, if required, to ensure the
implementation and the effectiveness of the environmental protection and
pollution control measures adopted.
Pursuant to the requirement
of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO), this EIA Study has been undertaken
according to the Project EIA Study Brief requirements as well as the Technical
Memorandum (TM) on the Environmental Impact Assessment Process of the EIAO
(EIAO-TM). It provides a detailed assessment of the nature and extent of potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project,
and recommendations for complying
with environmental legislations and standards.
The
scope of the EIA study covers the Project and its potential environmental
impacts. The EIA addresses key issues as
described below:
·
Noise impacts arising from
construction and operation of the Project;
·
Dust impact arising from
construction of the Project to nearby air sensitive receivers (ASRs); vehicular
emission impacts on ASRs; industrial emissions impact on ASRs; and odour impact
from the planned sewage treatment plants to the development and nearby ASRs;
·
The potential water quality impacts
caused by site formation, pond draining and filling, and any other works
activities during construction; the potential water quality impacts caused by
the operation of the Project;
·
Sewerage impacts of the Project;
·
Potential impacts and management of
waste during both construction and operational phases;
·
Direct and indirect terrestrial and
aquatic ecological impacts due to the construction and operation of the
Project;
·
Fisheries impacts during
construction and operation of the Project;
·
Potential impacts on sites of
archaeological interest, historic buildings/architectures and monuments; and
·
Landscape and visual impacts during
construction and operation of the Project.
Continuous
public involvement (CPI) is one of the initiatives incorporated into the EIA
process for engaging the public. CPI
involves identification of main concerns of the general public and special
interest groups in parallel with the EIA preparation process in soliciting
their views and opinions on the Project.
Public
comments on the proposed development of Project were received throughout the
Town Planning Application during the previous application of this project (e.g.
A/YL-MP/170, A/YL-MP/202, and A/YL-MP/242), which form the basis for the
current proposed development scheme.
The
current proposed development scheme has reflected comments that were received
during the planning application, and is in compliance with the statutory
planning intention of the Project Site.
That is to remove existing temporary structures and for low-rise and
low-density residential development. It
has obtained approval from TPB to proceed from land use planning perspective.
Apart
from the public consultation during application for EIA study brief, the
proposed development has also gone through the public inspection and comment
process during the course of Section 16 Town Planning Application.
Figure 1-1 presents the location of the Project Site. The Site has an area of about 3.8 ha. The site is located between Kam Pok Road, Ha
Chuk Yuen Road and Fung Chuk Road, and bounded by a number of existing and
planned residential developments adjacent to Castle Peak Road and Fairview Park
Boulevard. Under the Approved Mai Po and Fairview Park Outline Zoning Plan
(OZP) No. S/YL-MP/6, the Project Area is zoned “R(D)”. In addition, the Project
Area is located outside the Wetland Buffer Area and Wetland Conservation
Area under the Town Planning Board Guidelines (TPB PG-No.12C) (Figure 1-1 refers). The planning
intention of the zone is to allow comprehensive low-density residential
development within the zone. In brief,
the Project Area is designated by the Government for residential use purpose in
line with the existing and planned uses on the adjacent sites.
The Project includes the development of components
described in the following paragraphs (Figure
2-1 refers).
The Project Area covers various lots in DD 104 near Kam
Pok Road, Yuen Long, with a total area of about 3.8 ha. The proposed development consists of low-rise
and low density residential development, including residential clubhouse,
swimming pool, site drainage system and ancillary facilities to
support the development in accordance with the planned land use in the approved
OZP. 32 houses of two storeys high set
in spacious surroundings with private gardens and carports and a maximum
building height of 2 storeys of 6.6m high, are proposed. General speaking, the existing ground level
at the northern portion of the Project Site where proposed houses are located,
is about +6.5mPD in average. There are
general slopes surrounding the Project site boundary where the ground level
gradually decreases to about the road level.
The existing mPD level for the southern portion is about +4.8mPD in
average. The developable area of the
proposed houses will be raised to an average level of about +5.45mPD and 6.5mPD
for the southern portion and the northern portion, respectively.
The proposed development layout is shown in Figure 2-1, while the proposed elements of this Project are also
depicted in Figure 11-11-1.
Description of scenarios with and without the Project;
different development options; different construction methods and sequence; and
reasons for selecting the proposed development that have been considered during
the EIA Study, are detailed in Chapter 2.
Appendix
1-1 presents the implementation programme. According to the programme, the construction
works are scheduled to commence in year 2017 and for completion by year
2018. After site formation works to
raise the existing ground level, subsequent construction of building, road and
underground services will then commence within the Project Site area.
The Project Site is located about
100m north of Fairview Park Boulevard and about 300m northwest of San Tin
Highway Interchange (Figure 2-2). It is bounded by Ha San Wai Road to its
south; Kam Pok Road to its west; Fung Chuk Road to its north; and Ha Chuk Yuen
Road and an open storage site to its east (Figure 2-2).
Further west across Kam Pok Road is Ngau Tam Mei Channel. To the northwest of the Project Site is the
Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station. Further east across Ha Chuk Yuen Road are mainly abandoned agricultural
land and temporary warehousing structures.
An open storage and a garage are located immediate southeast of the
Project Site. Low-rise residential
housing developments, namely Helene Terrace and Villa Camellia, are located
across Ha San Wai Road south of the Project Site (Figure 2-2).
According to the “Town Planning Board
Guidelines for Application for Developments within Deep Bay Area under Section
16 of the Town Planning Ordinance” (TPB PG No. 12C), since the Project Site is located outside the Wetland
Conservation Area and Wetland Buffer Area, TPB
Guidelines (TPB PG No. 12C)does not apply
for the proposed residential development at the Project Site.
Land uses on the Project site and zoning on
surrounding areas are also illustrated in Figure
11-1.
Baseline environmental conditions of the Project
Site and its surrounding areas which may be affected have been identified,
which are also further described in the respective chapters of this EIA
report. Existing technical data sources;
local and regional plans; and relevant departments and authorities holding the
baseline information have been approached.
Baseline surveys were also carried out as part of this EIA Study.
A number
of development projects are known to be implemented near the Project Site. They
include the followings:
· Yuen Long and
Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal under
PWP Item 4235DS (EIA Register No.: AEIAR-078/2004);
· Construction of Cycle Tracks and the
associated Supporting Facilities from Sha Po Tsuen to Shek Sheung River (EIA Register No.: AEIAR-133/2009);
· Proposed
Residential Development within “Residential (Group D)” zone at various lots in
DD104, Yuen Long, N.T. (Study Brief No. ESB - 204/2009) (hereinafter referred
to as the “RD Site”);
· Proposed Residential Cum Passive Recreation Development within
"Recreation" Zone and "Residential (Group C)" Zone at Various Lots in DD 104, Yuen Long, N.T. (EIA Register No.: AEIAR-182/2014) (hereinafter
referred to as the “REC Site”) (note: a rezoning application for that
development site was agreed by TPB under the planning application no. Y/YL-MP/3. The
exact new zoning of that site is still subject to Government’s further
review. However, it is noted that the
submitted development scheme is the same as that approved under the EIAO); and
· Comprehensive Development and Wetland Protection near Yau Mei San Tsuen,
Yuen Long (EIA Register No.: AEIAR-189/2015) (hereinafter referred to as the
“Yau Mei Site”).
The
locations of the above-mentioned development projects (including the alignment
of section of proposed public sewerage and the proposed cycle track alignment
near the Project Site) are also shown in Figure
1-2.
Yuen Long and Kam Tin
Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Project
With
regards to the above, this Government’s public sewerage project has already obtained
approval on their EIA reports under the EIAO process, although the
Environmental Permit has not yet been obtained for its construction and
operation. The public sewerage project
near Ngau Tam Mei Channel concerns the construction of a
section of gravity trunk sewer underneath Kam Pok Road and Yau Pok Road as well
as construction of proposed San Tin No.1 Sewage Pumping Station (ST1SPS) near
the road junction between Kam Pok Road and Castle Peak Road. According to the
approved EIA report of this project, the construction would commence in
mid-2005 for completion by end of 2007.
However, there is currently no fixed construction programme for this
public sewerage project.
Proposed
Cycle Track Project
For the cycle track project, this Government project has
already obtained approval on their EIA reports under the EIAO process and
Environmental Permit has been obtained for its construction and operation. A section of the cycle track
will be constructed between Yau Pok Road and the Project Site. According to the approved EIA report, the
construction of the cycle track would commence in mid-2009 for completion by
early 2012. Currently, there is no fixed
construction programme for this cycle track project.
Proposed “RD Site” Project
This private
residential development project will need to obtain approval under the EIAO for
its construction and operation. Development programme in
the respective project profile of these planned projects is outdated. Based on the
latest project information obtained from the project proponent of that project,
its construction works would likely commence in year 2020 and for completion by
2023. It is also noted that the “RD Site” will still need
to carry out its EIA study required under the EIAO.
Proposed “REC Site” Project
The EIA report
for the “REC Site” Project has already been approved (EIA Register No.: AEIAR-182/2014). An
Environmental Permit has been issued under the EIAO in 2014 for the
construction and operation of this private residential development
project. Based on the current best available information,
the construction of the planned “REC Site” would commence in year 2017 for
completion in year 2020.
Proposed “Yau Mei Site”
Project
The EIA report
for the “Yau Mei Site” Project has already been approved. An Environmental
Permit has been issued under the EIAO in
2015 for the construction and operation of this private residential
development project. According to its approved EIA report, the
project will commence in year 2015 and it is planned for completion by year
2018 which may be constructed concurrently with this Project.
Potential Concurrent Works
As the
above two Government projects have already obtained EIA approval, overlapping
of their works programme with this proposed development project cannot be
precluded at this stage, and hence they are considered in this EIA study.
For the
last three private residential development projects, since works of this Project may potentially overlap
in terms of time with the said private residential projects, and that
concurrent works with the approved Government projects cannot be precluded at
this moment, cumulative
impact assessment is further considered in the subsequent
chapters.
The EIA presents the findings
of the Study and contains the following sections which demonstrate that the
criteria in relevant sections of the Technical Memorandum (TM) on the
Environmental Impact Assessment Process of the EIAO (EIAO-TM) are complied:
·
Section 1
(this section) provides an introduction of the Study.
·
Section 2
presents the background and the need for this Study. It also describes the consideration of
possible development options, construction methods and sequence of works for
the Project.
·
Section 3
provides information of the air quality impact assessment.
·
Section 4
describes the potential noise impact during construction and operation of the
Project and recommends mitigation measures.
·
Section 5
presents the water quality impact assessment.
·
Section 6
presents the sewerage and sewage treatment implications.
·
Section 7
presents the waste management implications.
·
Section 8
presents the ecological impact assessment.
It contains the findings of the baseline survey and the identification
of appropriate mitigation measures to avoid, minimize and compensate for
ecological impacts.
·
Section 9
presents the fisheries impact assessment.
·
Section
10 presents considerations of cultural heritage.
·
Section
11 presents the landscape and visual impact assessment.
·
Section
12 is the summary of environmental outcomes.
·
Section
13 presents the environmental monitoring and audit requirements
·
Section
14 summarises project implementation schedule of mitigation measures.
·
Section
15 presents the conclusions of the EIA Study.
This Chapter outlines the general land-use planning
background of the Project Site; a brief description of the existing site
conditions and the key development parameters of the Project; an evaluation of
the potential implications of adopting the “With Development” and “Without
Development” scenarios of the Project Site; a comparison between different
development options and the preferred development scheme; and reasons for
selecting the current proposed development.
Alternative construction methods and sequence are also evaluated.
The Project Site falls within an area zoned
“Residential (Group D)” [“R(D)”] on the Approved Mai Po and Fairview Park
Outline Zoning Plan No. S/YL-MP/6 (the “OZP”) (Figure 11-1 refers).
The Project Site is within Deep Bay Buffer Zone 2
under the EIAO, but is outside the Wetland Buffer Area as well as the Wetland
Conservation Area under the TPB Guidelines (TPB PG-No. 12C) (Figure 1-1 refers). Thus,
requirements such as the “no-net-loss in wetland” principle and wetland
enhancement and management scheme do not apply to this Project. It is intended
for low-rise and low-density residential development according to the approved
OZP.
According to the Notes of the OZP, the planning
intention of “R(D)” zone is: “ …primarily for improvement and upgrading of existing temporary
structures within the rural areas through redevelopment of existing temporary
structures into permanent buildings. It
is also intended for low-rise, low-density residential developments subject to
planning permission from the Town Planning Board”.
Paragraph (b) in the Remarks of the Notes states: “No development including redevelopment for ‘Flat’ and ‘House’ (except
‘New Territories Exempted House’) uses, ……shall result in a development and/or
redevelopment in excess of a maximum plot ratio of 0.2 and a maximum building
height of 2 storeys (6m)”.
Paragraph (c) in the same Remarks states: “Based on the individual merits of a development or redevelopment
proposal, minor relaxation of the plot ratio and building height restrictions
stated in paragraph (b) above may be considered by the Town Planning Board on
application under section 16 of the Town Planning Ordinance”.
Paragraph (e) in the same Remarks also states: “Any filling of land/pond or excavation of land necessary to effect a
change of use to any of those specified in Columns 1 and 2 above ……should not
be undertaken or continued on……without the permission from the Town Planning
Board under section 16 of the Town Planning Ordinance.”
In fact, there were previous approved planning applications for house
development at the Project Site (Section 2.4 refers).
Pond filling at the Project Site is authorized in the previous approved
planning application no. A/YL-MP/170 in year 2010.
The Project Site covers a total land area of
approximately 37,645m2. At
present, the Project Site is partially vacant, with remaining area to be
existing car parking operation. There is
also an existing abandoned pond in its southern part (which is in deteriorating conditions). . Temporary uses, such as open storage
activities are identified in the vicinity of the Project Site (Figure 2-2). It is bounded by Ha San Wai Road to its
south; Kam Pok Road to its west; Fung Chuk Road to its north; and Ha Chuk Yuen
Road and an open storage site to its east (Figure 2-2).
Further west across Kam Pok Road is
Ngau Tam Mei Channel. About 70m to the
northwest of the Project Site is the Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station.
Further east across Ha Chuk Yuen Road
are mainly abandoned agricultural land and temporary warehousing
structures. An open storage and a godown
are located to the southeast of the Project Site. Low-rise residential housing developments,
namely Helene Terrace and Villa Camellia, are located across Ha San Wai Road
south of the Project Site (Figure 2-2).
Since 1999, there were a few planning
applications for house development and applications for temporary uses within the Project Site submitted to TPB under S16 of the Town Planning
Ordinance. Details of these planning applications are summarized in Table 2‑1 and Figure 2-3.
According to the recent planning application, TPB has approved with
conditions for houses development at the Project Site with a minor relaxation
of building height restriction (i.e. from 2 storeys and 6m to 2 storeys 6.6m),
and a proposed filling of pond/ land and excavation of land. The site area is about 37,645m2. The proposed development comprises a total of thirty-two 2-storey houses with a total plot ratio
of 0.2. Detailed development parameters
are outlined in paragraphs below.
Table 2‑1 Previous Planning Applications Related
to Project Site
|
Application
No. |
Site
Address (in D.D. 104) |
Site Area (m2) |
Proposed
Uses |
Decision (Date) [Status*] |
|
|
A/YL-MP/55 |
Lots 3224(Part), 3225SA (Part), 3226SA(Part), 3228 and
3229 |
11,584 |
26 2-storey Houses with Clubhouse and Recreational
Facilities |
A/C (13.8.1999) [Lapsed] |
|
|
A/YL-MP/90 |
Lots
3221RP(Part), 3224RP (Part), 3225SA RP(Part) and 3226SA RP(Part) |
7,900 |
Temporary
Fun Kart Playground and Barbecue Site for 2 Years |
Rejected (4.5.2001) |
|
|
A/YL-MP/104 |
Lots 3122RP, 3123, 3124, 3147RP, 3150RP, 3192RP,
3209RP, 3220RP(Part), 3224RP, 3225SA RP(Part), 3226SA RP(Part), 3228, 3229,
3230RP(Part) & GL |
37,604 |
74 2-storey Houses with Relaxation of Plot Ratio |
Rejected (1.3.2002) |
|
|
A/YL-MP/110 |
Lots 3122RP, 3123, 3124, 3147RP, 3150RP, 3192RP,
3209RP, 3220RP (Part), 3224RP, 3225SA RP(Part), 3226SA RP(Part), 3228, 3229,
3230RP(Part) & GL |
37,604 |
74 2-storey Houses |
A/C (17.1.2003) [Lapsed] |
|
|
A/YL-MP/136 |
Lots 3224RP(Part), 3225SA(Part), 3226SA(Part), 3228
& 3229 |
110,938 |
26 2-storey Houses with Clubhouse and Recreational
Facilities |
A/C (14.1.2005) [Lapsed] |
|
|
A/YL-MP/144 |
Lot 4658(Part) |
110,730 |
8 2-storey Houses and Filling of Ponds |
Withdrawn (2.11.2005) |
|
|
A/YL-MP/148 |
Lots
3224RP, 3225SA RP and 3226SARP(Part) |
99,420 |
Temporary
Open Air Private Car Park for Exhibition of Used Cars for 3 Years |
A/C for 2 Years up to 23.12.2007 (23.12.2005) [Revoked
on 23.6.2007] |
|
|
A/YL-MP/156 |
Lots 3224RP, 3225SARP, 3226SA, 3228, 3229 & GL |
12,798 |
26 2-storey Houses with Clubhouse and Recreational
Facilities |
A/C (3.11.2006) [EoT of PP
Approved on 21.10.2010 and Extended for 48 Months until 3.11.2014] |
|
|
A/YL-MP/170 |
Lots No. 3207RP, 3209RP, 3220RP, 3221RP, 3224RP,
3225SA RP, 3225RP, 3225SC RP, 3226SA RP, 3226RP, 3228, 3229, 3230RP, 3250SB
ss33 SB, 3250SB ss21RP, 3250SB RP(Part), 4658(Part) & GL |
37,930 |
42 2-storey Houses with Clubhouse and Recreational
Facilities, Relaxation of BH Restriction and Filling of Ponds |
A/C (7.5.2010) [Planning
Approval Valid until 7.5.2014] |
|
|
A/YL-MP/176 |
Lots 3225 SC RP (Part), 3250 SB ss21RP, 3250 SB
ss33SB, 3250 SB ss40 (Part) |
11,860 |
Temporary Shop and Services (Sale of Household Plants,
Aquarium and Clothes) Use for a Period of 3 Years |
A/C for 3 Years up to 19.6.2012 (19.6.2009) [Revoked
on 19.12.2009] |
|
|
A/YL-MP/202 & A/YL-MP/242 |
Lots No. 3207RP, 3209RP, 3220RP, 3221RP, 3224RP, 3225SA
RP, 3225RP, 3225SC RP, 3226SA RP, 3226RP, 3228, 3229, 3230RP, 3250SB ss21 SB, 3250SB ss33RP, 3250 SB ss40SA (Part),
3250SB ss40 RP (Part),
4658(Part) & GL |
37,645 |
32 2-storey Houses with
Clubhouse and Recreational Facilities, Relaxation of BH Restriction and
Filling of Pond/Land, Excavation of Land
|
A/C (7.2.2014) [Planning Approval Valid until 7.2.2018] A/C (27.2.2015) [Planning Approval Valid until 27.2.2019] |
|
*
Status for the Approved Applications Only; EoT – Extension of Time; PP – Planning
Permission; A/C – Approved with
Conditions; BH – Building Height; GL – Government Land.
As described in Chapter 1, this Project is for
low-rise and low-density residential development within an existing planned
“R(D)” zone.
The Project is to implement the statutory land use
planning under the OZP within “R(D)” zone.
The Project area is designated by the Government for residential use
purpose in line with the existing and planned uses on the adjacent sites.
The EIA Study Brief requires the consideration of
alternative layout options with justifications and evaluations for these
alternatives. Development layout that
has been formulated for evaluation for this Project, and
the evolution of different layout options are
described in the following paragraphs.
Scenarios both with and without the Project have been evaluated in
paragraphs below.
The objectives are through different factors
considered in the option selection and comparison of environmental benefits and
disbenefits of different layout options with a view to recommending the
preferred option to avoid and minimize adverse environmental effects to the
maximum extent and to enhance the landscape and visual quality in the
area. Measures that can enhance the
landscape and visual qualities have been proposed.
According to the TPB record, temporary approval for
'Shop and Services (Sale of Household Plants, Aquarium and Clothes and Agency
for Car Repairing Service)' use for a period of 3 years at part of the project
site [i.e. Lots 3225 S.C RP(Part), 3250 S.B ss.21 RP (Part), 3250 S.B ss.33 S.B
and 3250 S.B ss.40 (Part) in D.D. 104] were previously granted by Town Planning
Board on 19.6.2009 (Application No. A/YL-MP/176). However, as the applicant of this application
failed to comply with the approval conditions, the application was revoked on
19.12.2009.
If the Project Site remains as its existing situation
(i.e. without development scenario), similar temporary planning approvals (such
as temporary car-parking area or other temporary industrial uses) may be
granted in the future which will result in deteriorating the environment; and
the planning intention of the “R(D)” zone under the approved OZP (i.e. the
improvement and upgrading of existing temporary structures within the rural
areas through redevelopment of existing temporary structures into permanent building)
cannot be implemented. Under this
scenario:
i.
No sustainable residential development will be
permanently undertaken within the Project Site.
ii.
All existing land-use features, such as the deteriorating
pond, temporary car-parking activities and vacant portion at the north, will
remain unchanged.
iii.
The conditions of the existing
pond will deteriorate further. This will
result in creating adverse environmental and hygiene problems on the local
area.
iv.
The temporary parking activities will continue and
extend to the northern part of the Project Site.
v.
The Project Site is sandwiched within a designated
residential “R(D)” zone on the town plan.
It will impose adverse effect on the residential developments on its two
sides.
vi.
It completely deviates from the original planning
intention of the “R(D)” zone which aims to improve the general living
environment of the area through redevelopment of the Project Site and other
sites within the same “R(D)” zone.
vii.
It represents a waste of land resources and
eventually, it will become a blight to the local community.
viii.
No catalyst effect will be generated to stimulate
land owners in the vicinity to phase out the open storage operations and to
upgrade the local living environment with proper redevelopment schemes.
ix.
More and more local complaints to various Government departments are anticipated.
x.
Visually unpleasant features including open carpark
and weedy trees remain on site.
Conclusion:
In the light of the above, it can be concluded that
the “Without” development option is not appropriate for the Project Site.
With the proposed development it would replace
existing uncontrolled site conditions; prevent further deterioration/ nuisance
of the Project Site; enable the implementation of planning intension the “R(D)”
zone under the OZP; and improve the environment by a properly managed and
controlled use.
Alternative layout options have been considered to represent different
development options. Details of each
alternative layout option are presented in the following paragraphs and these
options are evaluate against identified Project objectives in Section 2.5.3.4.
During the early stage of preparation of development
layout, an initial layout was firstly established with a view of just meeting the planning intention of the Project Site. Under this layout, the entire development is
designed as a typical sub-urban development.
In which, residential houses are served by a big loop road system with house lots on its two sides. A clubhouse is proposed to be located along
Kam Pok Road with vehicular access branches off directly from the main
entrance road. Please refer to Figure 2-4.
In this layout option, residential houses are
located in close vicinity to the nearby road with little or no landscape buffer
in between, thus it may lead to adverse landscape and visual impacts as well as
adverse road traffic noise and air quality impacts. Thus, this layout option is not preferred and
not considered further.
Having considered the above drawbacks, enhancement measures have been
incorporated in the later design during the previous planning application under
A/YL-MP/170. The
layout proposed under A/YL-MP/170 comprises a total of 42 nos. of 2-storey houses with a building height of 6.6m. Based on a site area of about 37,930m2 and a maximum
plot ratio of 0.2, a total GFA of 7,586m2 can be achieved. The average house size in
this scheme is 180.62m2.
In this scheme, a strip of landscaping area is
provided along Kam Pok Road as well as along Ha Chuk Yuen Road with a view to
enhance the landscape and visual quality of the Project Site. The clubhouse and the entrance point of the
Project Site breaks this landscaping area into two sections. The existing group of landscaping area in the
northern tip will be retained. Additional set back from Kam Pok Road are also
provided for the proposed houses so that the potential road traffic noise and
air quality impacts can be significantly reduced.
Under this layout option, a layer of residential
houses will be located along the eastern site boundary and may be affected by
an open storage site to the east. As
such, there will be a 7.5m tall and 0.5m cantilevered noise barrier wall along
a portion of the eastern site boundary in order to shield the development site
from the open storage site. Therefore,
its visual impact will need to be mitigated. A strip of 1.5m wide planting area will be
provided along this noise barrier wall.
Please refer to Figure
2-5 for this layout option. This
layout option is compared with other alternative options in Table 2‑2.
Asides from Option A, another alternative development
layout option was established (see Figure
2-6). Basically, the key development
parameters (i.e. site area, plot ratio, number of storeys and total GFA) in
this scheme are the same as those in Option A.
The main differences between these two are number of houses (32 in this
scheme instead of 42 under the approved A/YL-MP/170) and the overall
development layout. Table 2‑3 compares the key
development parameters of these two layout options.
Due to the reduction in the number of houses (from
original 42 to 32 in the present scheme), the average house size will be increased to 237.06m2.
In terms of development layout, this scheme adopts a
two-cluster development concept instead of the one-cluster. The merits of this
arrangement are: simpler and more effective internal road layout; more peripheral planting areas to further enhance the visual amenity of the development; a continuous landscaping area alongside Kam Pok Road, Fung Chuk Road
and Ha Chuk Yuen Road; central location of the clubhouse and the ancillary
recreational facilities; more internal communal landscaping areas; more privacy
in each house; no noise barrier wall along Kam Pok Road; and shorter noise
barrier wall along Ha Chuk Yuen Road with less visual impact.
This scheme was developed with less no. of houses and
more landscape buffer area has been provided along Kam Pok Road along the
western site boundary to increase the landscape area, while residential
buildings can be further set backed from Kam Pok Road in order to minimize
traffic noise and air quality impacts. A
wider landscape buffer area is also provided along the eastern Site boundary
(i.e. minimum 5m wide instead of 1.5m in Option A), which offers much better
screening effect on the wall; making use of the existing ingress/egress
point; and fewer houses, hence generating less vehicular traffic on the local road system.
The disposition of residential houses under this
layout option has also been revised with a view to minimize potential noise
impacts. Noise tolerant uses such as
sporting facilities, sewage treatment plant (STP), and club house are now
relocated to the eastern site boundary so that it allows a further set back of residential
buildings from the eastern site boundary and the noise source at the open
storage site. With this arrangement, the
concerned no. of residential houses along the eastern site boundary which may
be affected by the operation of open storage site, is also minimized.
Having considered the above, Option B is considered a
preferred layout option and is proposed further under the planning application
no. A/YL-MP/202. A detailed comparison
of pros and cons of different development options is provided in Table 2‑2.
Although Option B (as described in
Section 2.5.3.3 above) is considered feasible, in response to departmental comments
received during the planning application under A/YL-MP/202, some adjustments
were incorporated into the design.
Innovative measure has been proposed
to make use of the noise tolerant STP building structure in between the
residential houses and the concerned open storage site to the east. The shape of the STP building has been
designed in such a way that it can be used to provide noise shielding to the
open storage site to the east. This would replace a section of the noise
barriers originally proposed along the eastern Site boundary, thus minimizing
the extent and length of noise barrier required. With this arrangement, residential houses in
adjacent to the STP can be further set back from the eastern site boundary
(i.e. the noise source) and visual impact is improved further.
In addition, a total land area of
about 285m2 at the southwest corner of the Project Site (i.e. at the
intersection between Ha San Wai Road and Kam Pok Road) are removed in order to
make way for a right-of-way (ROW) to adjoining lots in response to comments received
during the planning process.
The Recommended Layout is shown in Figure 2-7, which was approved under
the planning application A/YL-MP/202. A
detailed comparison of pros and cons of different development options is
provided in Table 2‑2.
The abovementioned alternative layout options and
evolution, together with the “Without the Project” Scenario are compared and
evaluated in Table 2‑2 below. The evaluation compares
the relative strengths and weakness (also benefits and disbenefits) of each option
in ecological, planning, visual and landscape, environmental and engineering
respects in the context of specific project objectives. Measures to enhance the landscape and visual
qualities have been proposed.
The key development parameters of alternative schemes
are also outlined in Table 2‑3 below. Master Layout Plan of these
schemes is provided in Figure 2-5 to
2-7.
Table 2‑2 Evaluation of Development Options
|
Objectives |
Scenario 1: Without the Project |
Scenario 2: With the Project |
|||
|
Option A (Figure
2-5 refers) |
Alternative
Option B (Figure
2-6 refers) |
Option B:
Recommended Layout (Figure
2-7 refers) |
|||
|
Planning |
Complying
with the planning intention of “Residential (Group D)” [“R(D)”] zone. |
Deviated from the planning intention of the
“R(D)” zone; never realize the
town plan; site conditions will
be further degraded and will impose adverse impact to its
surrounding developments. |
Basically, in-lines with the planning intention; complies with the statutory requirements set
out in the town plan; With certain enhanced measures such as landscape
buffer and building set back; the overall development layout, allocation of clubhouse
and the ancillary facilities, and provision of landscaping areas and planting
zone for screening effect can be further improved. |
Fully in-line with the planning intention and
complies with the statutory requirements.
Better development layout; more simple road system; more landscaping
areas; wider planting; better disposition of clubhouse; |
Fully in-line with the planning intention and
complies with the statutory requirements.
Better development layout; more simple road system; better
arrangements on the landscaping areas and planting; making use of the
landscape berm to enhance the visual amenity; better disposition of
clubhouse, recreational and sewerage facilities. |
|
Planning
control on Project Site, which is outside the Wetland Buffer Area |
Temporary car-parking area or other temporary
industrial uses (similar to those granted before) may be granted in future. No sustainable development within the Project
Site which can adhere to its planning intention. |
Statutory land use planning can be implemented
through sustainable residential development to avoid further degraded site
condition. |
Statutory land use planning can be implemented
through sustainable residential development to avoid further degraded site
condition. |
Statutory land use planning can be implemented
through sustainable residential development to avoid further degraded site
condition. |
|
|
Ecological |
Minimizing habitat fragmentation |
The Project Site is located outside the Wetland Buffer Area and
is surrounded by existing residential uses and activities. |
The Project Site is urbanised and located outside the Wetland
Buffer Area and is surrounded by existing residential uses and activities. No
adverse impact |
The Project Site is urbanised and located outside the Wetland
Buffer Area and is surrounded by existing residential uses and activities. No
adverse impact |
The Project Site is urbanised and located outside the Wetland
Buffer Area and is surrounded by existing residential uses and activities. No
adverse impact. |
|
Maximizing the existing and potential
wildlife usage of the Site |
Wildlife
usage of the Site remains the same. Site condition continues to deteriorate due to unattended
management. |
Enhanced by
landscape planting will provide some habitats for birds and butterflies. Potential wildlife usage of the Site
increased compared Scenario 1. |
More landscape planting will provide
more habitats for birds and butterflies Potential wildlife usage of the Site
increased compared Option A. Reduced extent and height of noise
barrier compared with Option A, and hence the potential risk of bird
collision |
More landscape planting will provide
more habitats for birds and butterflies Potential wildlife usage of the Site
increased compared Option A. Reduced extent and height of noise
barrier compared with Option A, and hence the potential risk of bird
collision |
|
|
|
Minimization of potential impact to sites of
recognized conservation importance |
The Project Site is located outside
the Wetland Buffer Area, 520m from WCA and is far away from all other sites
of recognized conservation importance. No impact |
The Project Site is located outside the Wetland Buffer
Area, 520m from WCA and is far away from all other sites of recognized
conservation importance. Direct impacts on recognized sites of conservation importance
and other ecologically sensitive areas have been avoided. |
The Project Site is located outside the Wetland Buffer Area,
520m from WCA and is far away from all other sites of recognized conservation
importance. Direct impacts on recognized sites of conservation importance
and other ecologically sensitive areas have been avoided. |
The Project Site is located outside the Wetland Buffer
Area, 520m from WCA and is far away from all other sites of recognized
conservation importance. Direct impacts on recognized sites of conservation importance
and other ecologically sensitive areas have been avoided. |
|
Landscape
and Visual Landscape
and Visual |
Minimise
Tree Impact |
No development / No Impact Weedy
trees and existing trees with low amenity value remain on site |
Tree retention along Kam Pok Road on the
slope along Ha Chuk Yuen Road Moderate Tree Impact |
More
tree retention along Kam Pok Road, Fung Chuk Road and Ha Chuk Yuen Road. Less Tree Impact than
Option A |
More
tree retention along Kam Pok Road, Fung Chuk Road and Ha Chuk Yuen Road when compared to Option A and Alternative Option B due to reduction
of site area. |
|
Minimise Potential Landscape Impact |
Impact on landscape resources : Roadside
amenity and fishpond (abandoned): Site condition continues to deteriorate due
to unattended management. Open
yard: No Impact |
Impact on landscape resources : Roadside
amenity: approx. 1.06 ha loss (Medium impact on existing trees):
Significant Adverse Impact Fishpond (abandoned) : approx. 0.33 ha.: Moderate Adverse Open yard: 2.5 ha : Moderate Adverse impact |
Impact on landscape resources : Roadside
amenity: approx. 0.9 ha loss (Less impact on
existing trees) : Moderate Adverse Impact Fishpond (abandoned): approx. 0.33 ha Moderate Adverse Impact Open yard: 2.5 ha : Moderate Adverse Impact |
Impact
on landscape resources : Roadside
amenity: approx. 0.6 ha (Less impact on existing trees) : Moderate Adverse Impact Fishpond
(abandoned): approx. 0.33 ha Moderate Adverse Impact Open
yard: 2.5 ha : Moderate Adverse Impact Least loss of roadside amenity due to reduction
of site area when compared to Option A and Alternative B. |
|
|
Minimise Potential Landscape Impact (Cont’) |
Impact on landscape character areas: Kam
Pok Road Roadside Residential Landscape : No Impact Indirect
impacts: No
Impact The site is largely hard paved for open car park,
existing unpleasant landscape character will remain unchanged. Greening area under existing condition is
very low. |
Impact on landscape character areas: Kam
Pok Road Roadside Residential Landscape : Negligible upon implementation of residential landscape proposals Minimum
landscape buffer (1.5m) along a portion of the periphery of the site. Noise barrier is required along Kam Pok Road. Indirect
impacts: Other
impacts largely negligible due to responsive low-rise development compatible
with other house developments in the vicinity. Slightly beneficial to the low-residential
landscape along Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel upon replacement of industrial
to residential landscapes |
Impact on landscape character areas: LCA5
Kam Pok Road Roadside Residential Landscape : Negligible upon implementation of residential landscape proposals Wider landscape buffer (5m) at the periphery of
the site incorporated when compared to Option A. High noise barrier wall is still
needed along a portion of eastern site boundary, but with better screening
effect. Articulated design of noise mitigation
instead of monotonous design when compared to Option A. Removal of noise barrier along Kam Pok Road Indirect
impacts: Other
impacts largely negligible due to responsive low-rise development compatible
with other house developments in the vicinity. Slightly beneficial to the low-residential
landscape along Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel upon replacement of industrial
to residential landscapes. |
Impact on landscape character areas: LCA5
Kam Pok Road Roadside Residential Landscape : Negligible upon
implementation of residential landscape proposals Design of noise mitigation with built structures of STP which is integrated with greening area instead of
monotonous panel design when compared to Option A and Alternative Option B. Lowest overall height of noise barrier when compared to the previous
options. Wider landscape buffer (5-8m) at the periphery of
the site than Option A. Better screening effect on high noise barrier wall. Indirect
impacts: Other
impacts largely negligible due to responsive low-rise development compatible
with other house developments in the vicinity. Slightly beneficial to the low-residential
landscape along Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel upon replacement of industrial
to residential landscapes. |
|
|
Landscape and Visual |
Avoid Potential Visual Impact |
No impact. Visually
unpleasant open car park occupied by heavy duty trucks and coaches and weedy
trees remain on site, the visual quality is poor |
Relatively higher density of houses (42 houses)
with 6.6m building height. The longest extent of noise barrier along the
site boundary. Medium overall height of noise barrier when compared to the
other option Higher visual impact due to noise barriers than
other options. Proposed development is integrated into existing
topographical site condition with minimum site formation works. For VSRs including residents living in the
village settlements and low-rise residential developments surrounding the
site will experience significant visual impact due to loss of roadside
amenity and the introduction of noise barrier along all three sides of the
site. Visual quality enhanced upon replacement of
existing unpleasant use with residential landscape. |
Less density of houses (32 houses). Higher building height of 7m. Noise barrier required only along Ha Chuk Yuen
Road. Option with the highest overall height of noise barrier. Design with
articulated edges and stepped height profile. Reduced
visual impact due to noise barriers when compared with Option A. Proposed development is integrated into existing
topographical site condition with minimum site formation works. For VSRs including residents living in the
village settlements and low-rise residential developments surrounding the
site will experience moderate to significant visual impact due to loss of
roadside amenity and the introduction of noise barrier. Less visual impact than Option A due to the
reduction of the height and extent of noise barrier and number of proposed
houses. Visual quality enhanced upon replacement of
existing unpleasant use with residential landscape. |
Less density of houses (32 houses) with 6.6m
building height. Similar noise barrier extent as Option B.
Integrated noise mitigation with built structures, STP, further reduced the
extent of noise barrier panel. The lowest noise barrier when compared to
Option A and B. Visual impact due to noise barrier is minimised. Proposed development is integrated into existing
topographical site condition with minimum site formation works. For VSRs including residents living in the
village settlements and low-rise residential developments surrounding the
site will experience moderate to significant visual impact due to loss of
roadside amenity and the introduction of noise barrier. Option with the least visual impact to the
residential neighbourhoods due to further reduction of the height profile and
extent of noise barrier. Visual quality enhanced upon replacement of existing
unpleasant use with residential landscape. |
|
Engineering |
Practical and Feasible Hydrological
System |
No construction of drainage works are
required. Uncontrolled surface runoff is
directly discharged without treatment. |
Construction of drainage works are
required. Surface runoff and sewage will be
properly collected and treated before discharge. |
Construction of drainage works are
required. Surface runoff and sewage will be
properly collected and treated before discharge. |
Construction of drainage works are
required. Surface runoff and sewage will be
properly collected and treated before discharge. |
|
Environmental |
Minimise Site Formation Works and
Retaining Works Required and Associated Environmental Impacts |
No site formation works are required. |
Site formation works are required
within the Project Site. Proposed
development is integrated into existing topographical site condition with
minimum site formation level, thus minimising the scale of site formation
works. |
Site formation works are required
within the Project Site. Proposed
development is integrated into existing topographical site condition with
minimum site formation level, thus minimising the scale of site formation
works. |
Site formation works are required
within the Project Site. Proposed
development is integrated into existing topographical site condition with
minimum site formation level, thus minimising the scale of site formation
works. |
|
Environmental |
Noise and Air Quality Impacts |
No impact. Potential nuisance due to current open
car parking activities. |
Relatively
higher density of houses with minimum set back of
buildings from Kam Pok Road and some landscape buffer along site boundary,
noise and air quality impacts are reduced. Some residential buildings are in
adjacent to the eastern site boundary and close to the fixed noise source –
adverse noise impact. Requiring single-aspect design at
some houses and higher boundary noise barrier with minimum landscape buffer
along a portion of eastern site boundary to shield fixed noise source to the
east of Project Site. |
Reduced
density of houses with further set back of buildings from Kam Pok Road and
additional landscape buffer along site boundary to alleviate noise and air
quality impacts. Some
residential buildings along eastern site boundary are further set back from
the fixed noise source – noise impact reduced. Some
noise tolerant uses are placed along a portion of eastern site boundary. Additional landscape buffer area (set back
from boundary) is provided. High
boundary noise barrier will still be required along a portion of eastern site
boundary to shield fixed noise source to the east of Project Site. |
Reduced
density of houses with further set back of buildings from Kam Pok Road and
additional landscape buffer along site boundary to alleviate noise and air
quality impacts. More
residential buildings along eastern site boundary are further set back from
the fixed noise source – noise impact is minimized. Noise tolerant STP building structure
is in between the residential houses and the fixed
noise source to the east in order to provide noise shielding. Additional landscape buffer
area (set back from boundary) is provided. A section of the noise
barriers originally proposed along the eastern Site boundary will no longer
be required, thus minimizing the extent and length of noise barrier. |
|
Water Quality Impacts |
Uncontrolled surface run-off carrying
sediment laden due to lack of maintenance.
Direct discharge without treatment. |
More paved area of internal road,
which may result in relatively increased surface runoff. Surface runoff to be properly collected and
treated before discharge. During construction, surface run-off
will be diverted to the constructed surface drains and treated before
discharge. |
More
effective internal road layout with reduced paved road area and reduced
surface runoff. Surface runoff to be
properly collected and treated before discharge. During
construction, surface run-off will be diverted to the constructed surface
drains and treated before discharge. |
More
effective internal road layout with reduced paved road area and reduced
surface runoff. Surface runoff to be
properly collected and treated before discharge. During
construction, surface run-off will be diverted to the constructed surface
drains and treated before discharge. |
|
Table 2‑3 Key Development Information
|
Development Parameters |
Option A Previous Approved Scheme (Application No. A/YL-MP/170) |
Option B |
Option B: Recommended Layout (Approved under A/YL-MP/202) |
|
Site
Area |
37,930m2 (approx.) |
37,930m2 (approx.) |
37,645m2 (approx.) |
|
Plot
Ratio |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
|
Total
Domestic GFA |
about 7,586m2 |
about 7,586m2 |
about 7,529m2 |
|
Total
Non-domestic GFA (Clubhouse) (to
be exempted from GFA calculation) |
About 379m2 (i.e. not
more than 5% of the total domestic GFA) |
About 379m2 (i.e. not
more than 5% of the total domestic GFA ) |
About 376m2 (i.e. not more
than 5% of the total domestic GFA ) |
|
Site
Coverage |
not more than 20% |
not more than 20% |
not more than 20% |
|
Number
of Houses |
42 |
32 |
32 |
|
Building
Height |
2 Storey (6.6m) |
2 Storey (7m) |
2 Storey (6.6m) |
|
No.
of Car-Parking Spaces |
59 |
67 |
67 |
|
No.
of Motorcycle Parking Spaces |
6 [10% of
total car parking provision with 1m (W) x 2.4m (L) each] |
7 [10% of
total car parking provision with 1m (W) x 2.4m (L) each] |
7 [10% of
total car parking provision with 1m (W) x 2.4m (L) each] |
|
No.
Loading/Unloading Bays |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
- for HGV |
1 [3.5m (W) x 11m (L) x 4.7m (H)] |
1 [3.5m (W) x 11m (L) x 4.7m (H)] |
1 [3.5m (W) x 11m (L) x 4.7m (H)] |
|
- for Refuse Collection Vehicles |
1 [5m (W) x 12m (L) x 4.5m (H)] |
1 [5m (W) x 12m (L) x 4.5m (H)] |
1 [5m (W) x 12m (L) x 4.5m (H)] |
As discussed in Section 1.6, the
proposed development is for low-rise residential development. Top soil removal and excavation will be
performed within the site, particularly at the southern portion of the Project
Site. In order to minimize dust emission
during site formation, it is expected that the site formation works of the
Project Site will be carried out in stage.
The extent of excavation works required has been minimized as far as
possible.
Since the Project Site is in adjacent to existing
village development as well as existing residential development sites such as
Fairview Park, Helene Terrace, and there are also nearby planned residential
development sites such as the planned RD Site, and planned REC Site (see Figure 4-2A), due consideration shall
be given to the construction methods and sequence of works so as to minimise potential impacts on nearby developments during the construction
period.
Similar to other general building project, the
sequence of works of this Project will generally involve foundation (piling)
works, site formation works, superstructure works, underground services and
utilities, roadworks.
A preliminary construction programme was firstly
established based on the shortest possible construction period (see Appendix 1-2). This programme has been
developed merely based on construction sequence without considering potential
cumulative impacts due to concurrent works during difference stage of
construction activities. However, based
on this construction programme there will be many overlapping of construction
works between different stages of construction as depicted in the construction
programme shown in Appendix 1-2. Thus, significant impacts on construction
noise would arise due to the extensive construction area and concurrent works.
As such, an alternative construction programme has
been considered and proposed (See Appendix
1-1). This programme has provided
due consideration to the potential cumulative construction impacts, and
concurrent works are avoided as much as possible. This arrangement would
minimise potential impacts on construction noise due to concurrent site
activities involving the use of powered mechanical equipment. In addition, the construction programme has
been extended so that overlapping of construction activities is minimized as
far as possible. Further extension of
construction programme would significantly delay the Project programme, thus it
is not proposed. With this arrangement,
potential impacts due to construction activities can be significantly reduced
to a minimum as both the number and type of construction equipment to be used
during each construction phase is minimized (by avoiding concurrent works) when
compared to the original construction programme.
Asides from avoiding concurrent works and extending
the construction period with a view to avoid concurrent works, due
consideration has also been given to the sequence of works when developing the
construction programme. In order to
avoid unnecessary excavation between different phases of construction,
construction of underground services and utilities will be constructed before
the roadworks so that excavation of road surface to install underground
services and utilities can be avoided.
This arrangement will also avoid generation of unnecessary construction
waste as a result of excavation.
As discussed above, the current
Project construction programme has been scheduled to avoid concurrent works as
far as possible. Site hoarding will be
erected outside wintering season of water birds (October to March) to screen
disturbance to the nearby habitats during construction phase (Section 8.13 refers). Furthermore,
there will be no significant adverse residual ecological impact anticipated
during construction phase with the recommended best site practices and
mitigation measures as recommended in Sections
8.9 and 8.13.
Given to the above, the construction programme and
sequence of works presented in Appendix
1-1 is more preferable than the original construction programme shown in Appendix 1-2.
As discussed earlier, the Project is for construction
of low-rise residential development, thus the extent of building structures
construction will be minimum. Subject to the site condition, piling works may
be required for the proposed development.
Piling works could be undertaken by traditional percussive piling
method. However, this method will require
a Construction Noise Permit to be issued by EPD in advance.
While
non-percussive piling method (e.g. earth auger, mini-pile) is relatively quiet
than the percussive piling method as no shocks or vibrations are induced when
the system is performed. Given the considerations of reducing construction
disturbance, non-percussive piling would be adopted.
The proposed development will
require excavation and filling works (i.e. earthmoving activities),
thus excavated /filling materials will need to be handled carefully in order to
minimise waste generation. One way to
handle excavated materials is by off-site disposal to public fill facility
and/or landfill site subject to the quality of excavated materials. However, this would increase the amount of
waste generated by this Project.
Instead, due consideration has been given to reduce waste generation and
disposal, and the excavated material will be utilized on site where
possible. The Contractor will be
required to reuse materials on site as far as practicable and to minimize waste
from arising. This construction method
would reduce the amount of waste to be generated which requires off-site
disposal. As excavated materials will be
re-used on-site, the amount of imported fill materials would be minimized as
well.
This air quality impact assessment is carried out in
accordance with Section 3.9.1 of the EIA Study Brief to qualify and quantify the
potential air quality impacts associated with the Project. This Chapter follows the criteria and
guidelines for evaluating and assessing air quality impacts as stated in
section 1 of Annex 4 and Annex 12 of the EIAO-TM.
This Chapter addresses the potential
air quality impacts during construction phase and operational phase of the
Project. The Assessment Area for air
quality impact assessment is defined by a distance of 500 m from the boundary
of the Project Site as per the Study Brief requirements.
The
proposed Project is for low-rise and low-density residential development and
associated ancillary facilities. Details
of the proposed development and the MLP are discussed in Section 1.6.
The
principal legislation regulating air quality in Hong Kong is the Air Pollution
Control Ordinance (APCO) (Cap. 311). Air
Quality Objectives (AQOs) are set for the whole of Hong Kong, which specify the
statutory limits for various criteria pollutants and the maximum number of
exceedance allowed over a specified period of time. The
prevailing
AQOs specified under the Air Pollution
Control (Amendment) Ordinance 2013, have been adopted in this air quality
assessment.
The
AQOs for Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Sulphur
Dioxide (SO2), Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP), and Fine
Suspended Particulates (FSP), which are relevant to this assessment, are
summarized in Table 3‑1 below.
Table 3‑1 Hong
Kong Air Quality Objectives
|
Pollutants |
Averaging Period * |
Pollutants
Concentration (μg/m3) * |
No. of Exceedances
Allowed Per Calendar Year * |
|
CO |
1 hour |
30,000 |
0 |
|
8 hours |
10,000 |
0 |
|
|
NO2 |
1 hour |
200 |
18 |
|
Annual |
40 |
N.A. |
|
|
SO2 |
10-min. |
500 |
3 |
|
Daily
(24 hours) |
125 |
3 |
|
|
RSP (PM10) |
Daily (24-hours) |
100 |
9 |
|
Annual |
50 |
N.A. |
|
|
FSP (PM2.5) |
Daily
(24-hours) |
75 |
9 |
|
Annual |
35 |
N.A. |
Remark: * Based
on the Air Quality Objectives under the Air Pollution Control (Amendment)
Ordinance 2013.
N.B. Concentrations of gaseous air pollutants are
measured at 293 K and 101.325 kPa (one atmospheric pressure).
N.A. Not applicable.
FSP
means suspended particles in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 2.5
μm or less.
RSP
means suspended particles in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10
μm or less.
In addition to the AQOs, an hourly Total Suspended
Particulates (TSP) limit
of 500 μg/m3 measured at 298K(25oC) and 101.325 kPa
(one atmosphere) for construction dust impact assessment
and 5 odour units based on an averaging time of 5 seconds for odour for the odour prediction assessment is required according to
the criteria for evaluating air quality impact under
Annex 4 in EIAO-TM.
Construction dust is controlled under the Air
Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation. Works such as site formation, construction of
the foundation and superstructure of buildings, road construction works are
classified as “notifiable work” under the Regulation. Any works which involve stockpiling of dusty
materials, loading, unloading or transfer of dusty materials, transfer of dusty
materials using a belt conveyor system, use of vehicles, debris handling,
excavation or earth moving, site clearance, etc. are regarded as “regulatory
work”.
A Schedule specifying the dust control requirements
for a variety of construction activities is included in the Regulation.
Contractors responsible for a construction site where a notifiable work and/ or
regulatory work is involved have to ensure that the work is carried out in
accordance with the Schedule with regards to dust control.
The Project Site is generally
low-lying in terrain and the geographical characteristic of the Project Site is
relatively flat.
There are existing and planned residential development projects
surrounding the Project Site (Section 3.5
refers).
The Project Site is located in rural area. CLP Power Hong Kong Ltd. has a monitoring
station at Lau Fau Shan, which is also located in rural area. Thus, the recorded air pollutants
concentrations between year 2010 and 2014 at that station was used to provide
an indication on ambient air pollutants level at the Project area. As CLP’s monitoring station only covers NO2
and SO2 levels, data recorded at EPD’s Yuen Long air quality
monitoring station was used to provide an indication of ambient air pollutants
concentrations for CO, TSP, RSP, and FSP.
The above calculated air pollutants concentrations are
presented below, which are based on best
available information. Based on the recorded air pollutants concentrations, the
ambient air pollutants level at the project area was generally within the air
quality criteria/ AQOs except some exceedances of RSP and FSP recorded in the
past few years at EPD’s Yuen Long monitoring station. It is noted that EPD’s Yuen Long monitoring
station is located at downtown area surrounded by existing road networks, which
may not fully represent the ambient air quality level at rural area where the
Project Site is located. It is selected
since it is the best available information.
Table 3‑1A Air
Quality Levels Recorded between Year 2010 and Year 2014
|
|
|
|
|
Pollutants Concentrations (μg/m3) |
|
||||
|
Pollutants |
Averaging Period * |
Air Quality
Criteria/ Standard (μg/m3) * |
No. of
Exceedances Allowed Per Calendar Year * |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
Remark |
|
Data from EPD Yuen Long Monitoring Station |
|
||||||||
|
CO @ |
1-hr |
30,000 |
0 |
2,730 |
3,210 |
2,200 |
2,690 |
2,560 |
|
|
|
8 hours |
10,000 |
0 |
2,318 |
2,610 |
1,945 |
1,950 |
2,107 |
|
|
RSP (PM10)
## & ### |
Daily (24-hours) |
100 |
9 |
115 |
111 |
100 |
142 |
124 |
Based on 10th highest conc. |
|
|
Annual |
50 |
N.A. |
49 |
54 |
44 |
56 |
50 |
|
|
FSP (PM2.5) ## & ### |
Daily (24-hours) |
75 |
9 |
73 |
76 |
65 |
106 |
86 |
Based on 10th highest conc. |
|
|
Annual |
35 |
N.A. |
32 |
36 |
29 |
37 |
35 |
|
|
TSP ** & ## |
1-hr |
500 |
N.A. |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
|
Annual |
Nil |
N.A. |
78 |
86 |
68 |
73 |
N.A.*** |
|
|
Data from CLP Lau Fau Shan Monitoring Station |
|
||||||||
|
NO2 # & ## |
1-hr |
200 |
18 |
164 |
171 |
136 |
155 |
147 |
Based on 19th highest conc. |
|
|
Annual |
40 |
N.A. |
29 |
36 |
30 |
30 |
32 |
|
|
SO2 # |
10-min. |
500 |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
|
Daily (24 hours) |
125 |
3 |
25 |
33 |
27 |
23 |
22 |
Based on 4th highest conc. |
Note:
Bold numbers indicate exceedance of the relevant air
quality criteria/ standard.
* Based on the prevailing Air Quality
Objectives (please refer to Table 3‑1 above).
** Parameter
specified in the EIAO-TM only.
*** The
TSP data for Year 2014 is not available in EPD’s Air Quality Report.
- denotes
data is not available.
# Based on recorded levels at CLP's Lau Fau
Shan Monitoring Station. (Available at:
https://www.clpgroup.com/poweru/eng/air_quality/airQuality_monitoring_detail.aspx).
## Based
on annual average concentrations reported in EPD's Air Quality in Hong Kong
Annual report (various years) for monitoring station at Yuen Long as well as
CLP's Lau Fau Shan monitoring station.
### Based on EPD's daily average monitoring data
at Yuen Long Station available at:
http://epic.epd.gov.hk/EPICDI/air/station/?lang=en
@ Based on the highest hourly CO and highest
8-hours CO reported in EPD's Air Quality in Hong Kong Annual report (various
years) for monitoring station at Yuen Long.
The above ambient air pollutants
levels provide air quality levels recorded in the past. The Environment Bureau released a report
namely “A Clean Air Plan for Hong Kong” in 2013, which documents planned
reduction in air pollution in Hong Kong.
The Government also sets out strategies for tackling air pollution
problem and to cut air pollutants emissions such as the
incentive-cum-regulatory approach to phase out pre-Euro IV diesel commercial
vehicles by end of 2019; requiring ocean going vessels to switch to fuel with
sulphur content not exceeding 0.5% while berthing starting from July 2015; and
reducing emissions from industrial sources and power plants by tightening of
emission caps from 2019 onwards, etc.
Thus, it is anticipated that the future background air quality levels
would be improved.
For the
purpose of evaluating the operational phase ambient air quality levels,
background contributions based on EPD’s PATH concentration output file are extracted and presented in Appendix 3-1B. The
500-m radius of Project study area falls within Grid (20,40) of the PATH system
(Appendix 3-1B refers). PATH
concentration output data in
year 2015 and year 2020 are available from EPD, which are then presented. As the construction of Project works would be
completed by end of year 2018, the above-mentioned PATH-predicted levels can
represent the background air quality level at the time of population intake
year of this Project.
Based on the above-mentioned PATH
output data, it is found that the ambient air pollutants levels at the Project
area during operational phase are in compliance with the prevailing AQOs.
For the purpose of
evaluating the construction phase air quality impacts,
background contributions are based on EPD’s PATH concentration output. According
to “Guidelines on Assessing the 'TOTAL' Air Quality Impacts” published in EPD’s
website, hour-by-hour background contribution is estimated using output of PATH
model.
Background contribution of FSP is
not directly available from PATH model. According to “Guidelines on the
Estimation of FSP for Air Quality Assessment in Hong Kong”, background
contribution of FSP is deduced based on the following conservative formula.
|
Daily(μg/m3): |
FSP = 0.75 x RSP |
|
Annual(μg/m3): |
FSP = 0.71 x RSP |
For TSP background contribution, the
RSP contribution in PATH’s concentration output is adopted instead.
Regarding the proposed development
which falls within grid(20,40) in PATH system, the background contributions of
RSP is based on concentration of each hour in PATH’s concentration output for
grid(20,40). For background contribution
of FSP and TSP, these are calculated based on the RSP values as discussed above. To be conservative, PATH’s
concentration output for Year 2015 is adopted in the assessment.
Representative existing ASRs within
500 m of the site boundary are identified according to the criteria listed in the
EIAO-TM through site inspections and a review of land use plans. ASRs and their horizontal distance to the
nearest emission source are summarized in Table
3-2below. Their geographical
locations are also shown in Figure 3-1. The representative ASRs selected
for construction phase air quality impact assessment are shown in Figure 3-2.
Table 3‑2 Locations
of Representative Existing Air Sensitive Receivers
|
Description |
Usage |
No. of Storeys |
Shortest Distance from Project Site Boundary
(approx.), m ** |
Ground Level, mPD * |
|
Fairview Park @ |
Residential |
2-3 |
105 |
3.9
– 4.6 |
|
Bethel High School (A10, A10A) |
School |
3 |
151 |
4.4 |
|
Wong Chan Sook Ying Memorial School
(A14) |
School |
4 |
208 |
4.4 |
|
Royal Palms (A25) *** |
Residential |
2 |
723 |
4.9 |
|
Palm Springs (A17, A34, A35) *** |
Residential |
2-3 |
713 |
5.7 |
|
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house (A07,
A18, A23, A36) *** |
Residential |
2 |
553 |
3.1
– 3.6 |
|
Hang Fook Garden (A20) |
Residential |
3 |
200 |
4.2 |
|
Chuk Yuen Tsuen (A19, A08, A09) |
Residential |
2-3 |
239 |
2.3
– 3.5 |
|
Ha San Wai Tsuen (A21, A22) |
Residential |
3 |
174 |
3.5
– 4.2 |
|
Helene Terrace and Villa Camellia
(A11, A12) |
Residential |
2 |
62 |
4.5
– 6.5 |
|
Restaurant nearby Helene Terrace
(A32) |
Commercial |
2 |
49 |
4.5 |
|
Man Yuen Chuen (A15) |
Residential |
3 |
205 |
4.1 |
|
Hong Chi Morninglight School Yuen
Long (A26) *** |
School |
3 |
739 |
4.4 |
|
Christian Ministry Institute (A24)
*** |
School |
2 |
671 |
3.5 |
|
Existing building (near Ha San Wai Road) (A27) |
Commercial |
3 |
3 |
4.5 |
|
Royal Camellia/ Greenery Garden # |
Residential |
2-3 |
143 / 201 |
4.3 |
Remark: * Existing ground level of
representative ASRs.
** Shortest horizontal distance between the ASRs
and the nearest Project Site boundary.
*** ASRs outside 500 m radius selected for the cumulative
impact assessment.
#
This ASR is covered by more
representative ASR locations (e.g. A27, A11, A12) which are closer to the
Project Site and are worst affected.
@ Representative ASRs at Fairview Park A01,
A01A, A02, A02A, A03, A04, A05, A05A, A05B, A06, A06A, A13, A16, A16A, A28,
A29, A30, A31, A33 as shown in Figure 3-2.
An assessment area of 500m envelope as well as individual representative
ASRs locations selected for construction phase air quality assessment are shown
in Figure 3-2. Since there are also planned development
projects nearby (see Section 3.5.1.2), representative ASRs outside the 500m radius of this
Project (which may be affected by the planned development projects), are also
selected for cumulative impact assessment.
Identification of potential planned/ committed ASRs has been based
on best available information such as relevant plans[1] , current Outline Zoning Plan (OZP No. S/YL-MP/6), and Town Planning Board (TPB)
records, which have been reviewed. The registry of EIAO projects was also
reviewed for identifying EIA projects. Based on information reviewed, there are a
few planned residential development projects in the vicinity of the proposed
development site. These planned residential developments are also
classified as designated project under the EIAO; as such they have to go
through the EIAO process. These
potential future development cases are listed in Table 3‑3 below, and their geographical locations are also shown in Figure 3-2.
Table 3‑3 Planned
Air Sensitive Receivers
|
ASR ID |
Planned Site |
EIAO Application Number / Relevant Town Planning Board
Ref. No. |
Description |
Appro-val from TPB |
Appro-val of EIA Report |
Ground mPD Level, (approx.) * |
No. of Storey * |
Distance (approx.), m ** |
|
|
Planned residential development
proposals |
|
|
|||||
|
A3Pa |
REC
Site |
ESB-207/2009, AEIAR-182/2014, |
Proposed
Residential cum Passive Recreational Development within “Recreation” (“REC”)
Zone and “Residential (Group C)” Zone at Various Lots in DD 104, Yuen Long |
Yes # |
Yes |
3 |
2 |
151 |
|
A4Pa |
3 |
2 |
81 |
|||||
|
A1Pa, A2Pa |
RD
Site |
ESB-204/2009. Different scales of development and
site areas were also under A/YL-MP/132, A/YL-MP/146, and A/YL-MP/193
and A/YL-MP/205 |
Proposed
Residential Development within R(D) Zone at Various Lots in DD 104. |
Yes |
No |
3 |
2 |
42 – 371 |
|
A5Pa |
Yau
Mei Site |
ESB-182/2008,
AEIAR-189/2015 |
Comprehensive
Development and Wetland Protection near Yau Mei San Tsuen, Yuen Long |
No |
Yes |
2 |
3 |
407 |
|
“V”
zone/
“R(D)” zone in OZP |
V01 |
A/YL-MP/172-3
and A/YL-MP/183-1 |
Proposed
new territory exempted village house development |
Yes |
N/A |
3 |
3 |
32 |
|
V02, V03/ V04 |
Nil |
Village
zone /”R(D)” zone in OZP, respectively |
- |
- |
2.4/ 4.8 |
3 |
6 - 430 |
|
Remark:
* Existing ground mPD
level. According to the OZP, the allowed
building height of the planned development sites is 6m high, it is therefore
assumed the planned developments are 2 storeys buildings. For Yau Mei Site, the maximum allowed
building is 3 storeys.
The proposed new territories exempted village houses are expected to be
typical 3 storeys buildings.
** Shortest horizontal distance between
the nearest Project site boundary and the ASR locations shown in
Figure 3-2.
# A rezoning application for the
development site was agreed by TPB under the planning application no.
Y/YL-MP/3. The exact new zoning of that
site is still subject to Government’s further review. However, it is noted that the submitted
development scheme is the same as that approved under the EIAO.
N/A stands for not applicable.
None of the above residential development projects
have obtained approval from both the Town Planning Board (TPB) and provisions
under the EIAO, except the planned “REC Site” which has already obtained both
approvals. Best available information
regarding their construction programmes have been obtained from the published
information including the approved/ submitted EIA reports of these projects as
well as information obtained from the project proponents of these projects,
which are considered in the cumulative construction phase air quality impact
assessment. Details of the assessment
and assumptions adopted have been provided in the following Sections in 3.6.1, 3.6.1.4, and 3.10.3.
In addition to the above planned development projects, there are also approved new territories
exempted house development sites on the opposite side of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage
Channel (e.g. case number A/YL-MP/172-3 and A/YL-MP/183-1) within the Village
Development (“V”) zone under the Outline Zoning Plan No. S/YL-MP/6 (“V01” in Figure 3-2 refers). Asides from the above, the
existing “V” zone and “R(D)” zone in the Outline
Zoning Plan No. S/YL-MP/6 are also selected for assessment (V02, V03, and
V04 in Figure 3-2 refer). It is expected that development within these
areas will be typical 3 storeys buildings.
Although there
is no committed development programme for these development sites, the
concerned development sites are also taken into account in the air
quality assessment.
During
the operational phase, the proposed development within the Project Site will be
the representative sensitive receivers. Figure 2-1 shows the layout of proposed
houses.
The Project works comprise construction of 32 nos. of
2-storeys residential buildings, club house and other ancillary facilities, and
landscaping works as discussed in Section 1.6.
Since the proposed development intensity is not high, significant air quality impacts due to construction of foundation, building structures and the finishing works are not
anticipated. As “ready-mixed” concrete
will be used during the pile cap construction, significant air quality impact
is not expected. As such, major sources
of air quality impact during the construction phase would be fugitive dust
emissions during the site formation stage due to earth movement activities and transportation
of excavated/ fill materials. As
suspended particles will be the main air quality parameter concerned for
construction works which involve handling of excavated/ fill materials, TSP,
RSP and FSP have been identified as the parameters for further air quality impact assessment for dust
emission impact.
Emissions of other air pollutants such as carbon
monoxide and dioxide, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide generated by powered
mechanical equipment and vehicle exhausts on-site should not be significant
since only limited amount of construction plants will be used on-site. Therefore, unacceptable impacts from the
criteria pollutants (such as NOx, SO2, and CO) are unlikely to occur
as significant emissions of pollutants are not anticipated, and further assessment is not necessary.
Given the Project Site area is relatively flat, no
rock crushing will be necessary. It is
expected that no concrete batching plants will be used on-site. Concrete will be brought to the site in
“ready-mixed” state or in pre-cast sections.
Thus emissions due to operation of cement works or rock crushing
activities are not anticipated.
Within the Project Site, there is a 0.33 ha abandoned
pond located at the south-eastern corner of the Project Site (Figure 5-1 refers). Sediments are usually rich in organic
matters, and therefore may potentially give rise to odour nuisance to the
surrounding area during construction.
The concerned sediment at existing pond is intended to be left in place and not to be
disturbed as far as possible. Thus,
odour nuisance is not a concern.
There is one section of fixed temporary noise barriers
(with a barrier height of 3m) proposed to be erected along the part of the
western site boundary during the construction phase (see Section 4.9.4 and Figure 4-3A). Since the Project construction site is in an
open area, the proposed vertical noise barriers along a portion of the Site
boundary will not affect the dispersion of air pollutants from the
construction site or the ASRs. Thus, no further assessment is necessary.
According to the construction programme, the Project’s
construction period will tentatively commence in 2017 for completion by end of
2018. An indicative construction programme is shown in Appendix 1-1.
During site
formation stage, earth movement activities and transportation of excavated/
fill materials will be involved, which would attribute to dust emissions. As discussed earlier, TSP, RSP, FSP have been identified as the parameter
for air quality impact assessment during the site formation stage.
Activities that would attribute to dust emissions are:
·
Removal and unloading of soil materials by excavators;
·
Earth
loading/ unloading, and stockpiling;
·
Bulldozing
and surface compaction;
·
Wind erosion on exposed ground; and
·
Vehicle movements on haul roads;
During
construction, the Contractor(s) will be required to transport only
the adequate amount of fill materials to the Project Site in order to avoid
cumulating filling materials on-site and the filled area shall be compacted as soon as
possible (relevant requirement has been stated in Section 3.9.1). In addition, excavated materials will be reused as fill materials within the Project Site so as to minimize dust
emission due to transportation of fill materials. In case temporary stockpiling of small amount
of materials is required, the stockpiling location will be covered by tarpaulin
sheets and backfilled as soon as possible.
The potential air quality impact is however anticipated
to be short-term. With appropriate dust control measures and good site practice
stipulated in the Air Pollution Control
(Construction Dust) Regulation, adverse dust impact is not
anticipated. Notwithstanding the above, an EM&A programme will be implemented during
the construction phase to verify the
effectiveness of the mitigation measures and modification of work methods will
be proposed when necessary to reduce the dust emission to acceptable levels.
The recommended control measures are summarized in Section 3.9.1. With
the continual monitoring and review of dust impact in the area, air quality
impact is not anticipated.
An assessment on impact of TSP, RSP and FSP emissions have also been undertaken for the Project works, and the results are depicted in the following sections.
As mentioned above, there is an existing abandoned
pond within the Project Site. Sediments
are usually rich in organic matters, and therefore may potentially give rise to
odour nuisance to the surrounding area when a large amount of such materials
are exposed. The pond sediment is
intended to be left in place and not to be disturbed as far as possible, and
the pond will be filled up by imported fill materials. However, should any pond sediment be
encountered during construction, precautionary measures are proposed. During the construction, any temporary
exposed surface at the pond will be covered by impervious sheet or immediately
backfilled during the construction phase, thus potential odour nuisance from
exposed materials during pond filling, if any, should be kept to a minimum.
In order to minimise potential odour nuisance, the
following control measures are recommended:
·
Exposed surface shall be immediately
filled by filling materials as far as possible;
·
Malodorous materials, if any, should
be placed as far as possible from any ASRs;
·
Malodorous materials should be
covered entirely by plastic tarpaulin sheets; and
·
Regular odour patrol to examine the
effectiveness of the above control measures.
With proper measures, potential odour impact is
considered to be short-term and controllable.
According
to the approved EIA report, namely the “EIA and TIA Studies for the Stage 2 of PWP Item No.
215DS - Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal[2]” (currently, the PWP No. 4235DS), a sewage pumping
station (SPS) (San Tin No.1 SPS), has been proposed at an
offsite location about 526m northeast of the Project Site. The approximate location of the proposed SPS,
based on the above EIA report, is shown in Figure
3-1.
Under the
same project (PWP No. 4235DS), a gravity trunk sewer will be constructed along Castle Peak Road between
Ngau Tam Mei and San Tin, and a section of alignment will be constructed along
the Ngau Tam Mei Channel at the same time as this development Project. The construction of the above sewerage
project has been assessed in the above-mentioned EIA report.
Currently, there is no committed construction
programme for the said sewage pumping station and the public sewers. The EIA report has stated that all works will
be carried out in small section areas within a short period of time, thus
construction activities should not generate significant amount of construction
dust and result in cumulative impact. It
was also recommended in the same report that the construction works will be
carried out in 50m segments. The contractor is also obliged to follow the
procedures and requirements given in the Air
Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation. Therefore, the active
areas at any one time of the whole construction period should be small. In addition, respective project specific Environmental
Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) programme will be implemented for this
concurrent project to review the effectiveness of the mitigation measures
implemented.
Similarly, based on the information in a separate EIA
report for “Construction of Cycle Tracks and the Associated Supporting
Facilities From Sha Po Tsuen to Shek Sheung River” (EIA Register No.:
AEIAR-133/2009), a cycle track will also be provided along the Castle Peak Road
and the Yau Pok Road as part of the cycle track project between Tuen Mun and
Sheung Shui under PWP Item 7259RS.
According to the EIA report, the concerned
construction of cycle track project will involve construction of a narrow strip
of cycle track, which will be constructed in sections. Typically, the working area will be 40 m long by 4
m wide and no adjacent sections (200m between two
neighbouring sections) will be constructed simultaneously. It is understood there is still no fixed
construction programme for the cycle track project. Nevertheless, given that
the concerned works will be carried out in sections with dust mitigation
measures, adverse air quality impact is not expected. In addition, the EIA report of cycle track
project has concluded that the construction dust can be controlled at source to
acceptable levels with the implementation of dust control measures as required
under the Air Pollution Control
(Construction Dust) Regulation. The approved EIA report has also
recommended a series of measures for suppressing dust on site, including
spraying the works area for site clearance with water before, during and after
the operation so as to maintain the entire surface wet.
With the wetting of the whole construction site and
keeping the construction area small, the potential dust impacts arising from
the cycle track construction are expected to be minimum. Hence, no unacceptable impacts are
anticipated. In addition, an EM&A programme will be implemented for the
Project during the construction phase, to check effectiveness of the
recommended mitigation measures and compliance with relevant statutory
criteria.
Given that the concerned construction works of the two
approved EIA projects are relatively small in scale (i.e. laying sewers along
existing road, and construction of a cycle track), and the construction will only
be carried out in small sections (less than 50m for the public sewers, and 40m
for the cycle track), adverse dust impacts are not expected from the concerned
construction works of these projects with the implementation of mitigation
measures recommended in the approved EIA reports.
In addition, the contractors will be required to follow the
procedures and requirements as stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction
Dust) Regulation and dust emissions will be effectively controlled through
implementation of mitigation measures recommended in the above-mentioned EIA reports.
EM&A programmes will also be implemented for this
Project to monitor the effectiveness of the mitigation measures during
construction of the projects. As all of
these approved projects will also be subject to control under the EIAO,
cumulative air quality impact from this Project will be controlled through
implementation measures described in this report and those committed for the
other projects. According to the
above-mentioned EIA reports, with the recommended mitigation measures, adverse
dust impacts are not expected to arise from these
projects and the residual construction air quality impacts are expected to be
acceptable. As
such, air quality impacts due to the above-mentioned adjacent projects are not
considered further in this Study.
As
discussed in Sections 1.8 and 3.5.1, there are a few planned
development projects in adjacent to the Project Site. According to the EIA Study Brief of these planned development projects, the
proposed developments of these projects are also for residential purpose (i.e. similar to this Project). Since all these projects are located in
relatively flat area, it is expected that the construction scale of these
project sites will be similar to this Project and major sources of air quality impact during the
construction of these
planned development sites would be fugitive dust emissions during the site formation stage.
A brief
account on the status of these planned development projects and potential
cumulative construction impacts are provided in Section 1.8, Table 3-3 and Appendix 3-1A. Figure
1-2 shows the location of these planned development projects. Reference was made to the
published information as well as construction programme obtained from the
project proponents of the above-mentioned planned projects.
Planned
“RD Site”
According to the best available information and the
latest project programme of that project obtained from its project proponent,
construction of the planned “RD site” will commence in year 2020, which is
after the completion of this Project. It
is also noted that project will still need to undertake its EIA study under the
EIAO before the commencement of any construction activities, thus no cumulative
impact due to concurrent construction with the planned “RD Site” is expected.
Planned
“Yau Mei Site”
For the planned “Yau Mei Site” project, according
to its approved EIA report, concurrent works with that project cannot be
precluded at this stage. However, the
planned “Yau Mei Site” is distant away from this Project with a shortest
separation distance over 360m between the site boundary of this Project and the
planned “Yau Mei Site” project boundary.
There are currently no existing ASRs between the two project sites. As such, construction of that project is
unlikely to result in any adverse impacts on ASRs. It is expected that air
quality impact of that Project will be controlled through the implementation of
mitigation measures committed for that project under its EIA
study.
Nevertheless, a
sensitivity test based on the peak construction period of the planned “Yau Mei
Site” has been undertaken to evaluate potential cumulative impacts due to
potential concurrent construction.
Please refer to Section 3.10.3 and Appendix 3-11 for details.
Planned
“REC Site”
Based on the approved EIA report of the planned
“REC Site”, its site formation works will commence in November 2017 (Please
refer to Appendix 3-1A). While, the site formation of the current
Project will be carried out between April 2017 and middle of November 2017 (Appendix 1-1 refers). Thus, the site formation works’ programme of
this Project has largely avoided concurrent works with that of the planned “REC
Site”, and cumulative impacts have been avoided. It is expected that
the cumulative air quality impacts from this Project and the planned “REC Site”
will be controlled through the implementation of mitigation measures described
in this report and those committed for the planned “REC Site” under
its EIA report. In addition, there is no
existing ASRs located in between the planned “REC Site” and this Project. Thus, no
adverse impact due to cumulative construction activities is anticipated.
However, having considered the above construction
programme that the site formation works of this Project may slightly overlap
with that of the planned “REC Site” (i.e. for a period of about half month during
the first half of November 2017) (see construction programme of the two
projects in Appendix 3-1A), to be
conservative, a sensitivity test has been carried out to assess the potential
cumulative impact due to such minor overlapped construction activities. Please refer to Section 3.10.3 and Appendix 3-11A for details.
According to Para 3.9.1.4 (iv) of the EIA Study Brief
of this Project a quantitative impact evaluation following the methodology in
para. 3.9.1.4 (v) shall be carried out if the assessment indicates likely
exceedance of the recommended limits set forth in the TM on the Project Area and
at nearby ASRs. Given the scale of this Project
(for small houses development), vehicular emissions due to
traffic generated/ attracted by this Project is unlikely to be
significant. It is expected that the Project
itself will unlikely give rise to any adverse air quality impact during its
operation (see Section 3.6.2.2). There is proposed vertical boundary
noise barrier of this Project (4.5m high) along a portion of eastern site
boundary (see Section 4.7.1 and Figure 4-9). Since the Project Site is in an open area and
the Project is unlikely to give rise air pollution problem, the proposed
vertical noise barrier will not affect dispersion of
any air pollutants. Thus, no further
assessment is necessary.
Vehicular
Emissions
Vehicular emissions from off-site sources are
identified as the only potential source of air pollution during
the operational phase of the Project.
However, since
sufficient set back distance has already been provided between the development
and the road networks, its potential impacts are anticipated to be insignificant.
Industrial
Emissions
A review of chimney locations based on EPD’s register
previously obtained, were carried out. No chimney was
identified within the Assessment Area. Additional chimney surveys were also
conducted on 30 March 2009, 10 July 2009 and 29 October 2010 to verify the
previous findings. There was no change
to the site condition during the subsequent visits on 10 December 2010, 28 July
2011, 12 October 2011, 18 October 2013, 26 February 2014, 4 August 2014, and
December 2015. As no industrial chimney
was identified within the Assessment Area in the verification surveys, no air
quality impacts related to chimney emission is expected and therefore not considered
further in this assessment.
There are an existing open storage site and a godown
to the east of the Project Site. The open storage site is used for storage of
precast units, while the godown is a totally enclosed building used by a
logistic company. As both sites are
currently hard paved and used for storage only and the godown is totally
enclosed, it is not expected to have adverse air quality impact due to dust
emission. According to the previous site
visits, no industrial chimney was identified at both sites. Thus, no adverse air quality impact is
anticipated and no further assessment is necessary.
Odour
Emissions
As there is no existing sewage treatment plants within
the 500m Assessment Area from the Project Area, potential odour impacts are not
a concern of this Project. The future San Tin No.1
Sewage Pumping Station (SPS) (under
PWP No. 4235DS by Hong Kong SAR Government Drainage Services Department) is planned to be located at the junction of Kam Pok Road and Castle Peak
Road (about 526m northeast from this Project outside the 500m study radius of
this Project) (Figure 3-1
refers). With the careful design of the
pumping station and installation of odour removal system, it is expected that
odour impact due to the pumping station will be insignificant.
Since the Project Site is not currently connected to
existing public sewerage system, interim sewage treatment plant may be proposed
within the Project Site. The interim
sewage treatment plant will only be operated if the future public sewerage
system is not yet in place when the residential development of the Project is
occupied and the proposed development will ultimately connect to the public
sewerage system when it becomes available. The location of the interim sewage
treatment plant is shown in the MLP and provided in Figure 2-1. The proposed
treatment plant includes a system of combination of biological treatment, membrane
filtration and Reverse Osmosis processes. The
membrane filtration system is a totally enclosed system; while the biological
treatment will be a semi-enclosed system.
As the interim sewage treatment plant will be located
within a totally enclosed building of which the biological treatment, membrane
filtration and Reverse Osmosis processes will be
located underground, potential odour impact is not anticipated. The concerned facility will only be temporary
and will be carefully planned such that the brine disposal during maintenance
(a potential odour source) will be away from the residential area as much as
possible and close to the vehicular access connecting the nearby road. With environmental conscious design of an effective odour
removal filtering system (with an odour removal efficiency of not less than
99.5%), the odour concentration at the exhaust would be significantly reduced
and no odour impacts are expected to arise from the operation of the interim
on-site STP. Therefore, it is expected
that there will be no odour impact upon the surroundings due to the operation
of the interim STP. With careful design, adverse odour impact due to operation of the
interim sewage treatment plant is not expected.
During the detailed design phase, the minimization of odour will be
considered to further reduce any localized impact.
During
operation, Refuse collection point (RCP) will be provided for the residential
development. A licensed waste collector
shall be employed to collect domestic waste on a daily basis. During the detailed design stage, the minimization of
odour at the RCP will be considered further to reduce any localized impact.
Thus, no adverse air quality impact is anticipated.
About 0.33ha abandoned pond is located at the
south-eastern corner of the Project Site (Figure
8-3 refers). Since sediment may be
rich in organic matters, there could be potential odour problem due to
anaerobic degradation of organic matters.
Vehicular
Emissions Upon Proposed Development
Vehicular emissions impact from the major roads (e.g.
San Tin Highway (an Expressway) and Castle Peak Road (a Rural Road for the section
near the Project)) are considered to be insignificant as the sensitive
receivers of this Project are distant away from the concerned major roads (Figure 3-1 refers). The concerned
separation distance between the sensitive uses of this Project and the road
edge of above-mentioned major roads (283m as shown in Figure 3-1) can already satisfy the buffer distance requirement for
Trunk Road (i.e. >20m) for active and passive recreation uses according to
Chapter 9, Environment of the Hong Kong Planning Standard and Guidelines
(HKPSG).
As for nearby local access roads (e.g. Fairview Park
Boulevard, Yau Pok Road, Kam Pok Road, Fung Chuk Road and Ha San Wai Road), the
proposed development is also set back from these roads by existing general
slopes surrounding the Project Site and the proposed landscape buffer. These slopes (shown as “landscape” area in
the MLP) are proposed for landscaping use
only and are
not designed for access by the general public. The separation distance measured between the
nearest sensitive uses of the Project Site and the road edge was shown in Figure 3-1, which varies from 7m to
over 104m. The separation distance can
already satisfy the buffer distance requirement for Local Distributor (i.e.
>5m) for active and passive recreation uses according to Chapter 9 of the
HKPSG.
Since the buffer distance provided can already satisfy
the HKPSG requirement, no significant
vehicular emission impact is expected.
In addition, with reference to the sensitivity test on vehicular emissions due
to the additional traffic generated/ attracted by this Project (Appendix 3-12 refers), it is found that contribution of vehicular
emissions by this Project is insignificant.
According to the PATH output data (Section 3.4.2
refers), the background air pollutants levels during the operational phase
would be within the relevant AQO criteria.
Thus, it is expected that cumulative air quality would be within the AQO
criteria, and no adverse impact is anticipated.
As such, it is not assessed
further in this assessment.
Vehicular
Emissions Upon Surrounding Environment
During
operation of the proposed development, there will be additional traffic generated
as a result, which may potentially affect other nearby existing/ planned ASRs. However, it is not expected that
there will be any adverse air quality impact given the scale of this Project
(for small house development). A sensitivity test on vehicular emissions upon nearby
roads due to the additional traffic generated/ attracted by this Project (i.e. 18 vehicles/ hour during AM peak hour and 19 vehicles/ hour during
PM peak hour, respectively), has been undertaken based
on a worst case scenario (see Appendix
3-12). According to the sensitivity test results, the contribution of
vehicular emissions by this Project is insignificant. As such this Project will not attribute to
any deterioration on air quality.
Furthermore, existing ASRs are further set back from Kam Pok Road with
adequate separation distance, thus they are unlikely impacted by vehicular
emission from the road.
It should also be noted that the
Project Site is currently used as open car park (Section 2.3 refers).
Vehicles attracted/ generated by the existing car park will also
contribute to the existing traffic flow on nearby roads. In fact, many vehicles visiting the car park are
heavy vehicles. Based on on-site
traffic survey undertaken by the traffic consultant of this Project in January
2016, it was found that the total vehicles generated/ attracted by the existing
car park operation during AM peak hour, was about 76 vehicles/ hour (~45% heavy
vehicles). While about 40 vehicles/ hour
(~65% heavy vehicles), was generated during the PM peak hour. All the concerned traffic generated/
attracted from the existing car park operation, will use Kam Pok Road as the
access road (i.e. same as this Project).
This is considered much higher when compared with the current proposed
development (up to 19 vehicles/ hours and 20% heavy vehicles) both in terms of
traffic flow and % of heavy vehicles.
As such, vehicular emission impact
due to existing car parking operation would offset those to be generated/
attracted by this Project during operation as the proposed development will not
result in an increase in traffic flow upon nearby roads when compared with its
existing car parking operation. It is
therefore expected that there will be no adverse air quality impact.
There are nearby planned development
projects (Section 1.8 refers), which may contribute to
vehicular emissions. However, this
Project will not worsen the situation based on the reasons given above (i.e.
this Project will not result in an increase in traffic flow when compared with
its existing car parking operation).
Industrial
Emissions
As discussed in Section 3.6.2.1, no
industrial chimney was identified within the Assessment Area. Thus, potential
air quality impacts due to emissions from chimneys are not anticipated for this
Project. Thus, it is not assessed
further.
Odour
from Proposed San Tin No.1 SPS
The planned San Tin No.1 SPS is outside the 500m
study radius of this Project about 526m northeast of the proposed development (Figure 3-1 refers). According to the EIA report for the said SPS
project, odour removal filtering system with efficiency of not less than 99.5% will be installed in the San Tin No.1 SPS and the maximum odour
concentration at the existing ASRs would be reduced to 0.093 OU (Odour Unit),
which is 1.9% of the 5 OU criteria. With
the odour removal filtering system and long buffer distance from the SPS, odour
impact on the proposed development is unlikely.
Thus, no adverse impact is anticipated.
Odour
Impact due to Interim STP of this Project
As discussed above, the proposed interim STP will be
within totally enclosed building of which the biological treatment, membrane
filtration and Reverse Osmosis processes will be
located underground, potential odour impact is not anticipated. Given the scale of this Project (for
development of 32 houses of 2 storeys), the amount of sewage generated would be
small (with an ADWF of 51 m3/day (or 0.6 L/s) as estimated in Section 6.4 in
Chapter 6).
Detailed
design of the interim STP has yet been carried out, but the exhaust of the totally
enclosed interim sewage system will be equipped with odour removal system, e.g.
scrubbing system. With
the proposed odour
removal system (with an odour removal efficiency of not less than 99.5%), the
odour concentration at the exhaust would be significantly reduced. As discussed above, odour removal system
with similar removal efficiency was also proposed at the planned San Tin No. 1
SPS. According to its approved EIA
report, with the odour removal system there will be no adverse odour
impact anticipated. Similar odour
removal system (with a removal efficiency of not less than 99.5%) was also
proposed for an interim STP at the approved “Yau Mei Site” EIA project with
ASRs surrounded the STP with a minimum separation distance of about 15m (AEIAR-189/2015,
Section 3.6.2.2 (p.3-14) and Figure 3-1 of that EIA report refer).
According to the assessment results of that EIA project, the residue odour level
of STP would be within the relevant odour criteria with the adopted odour
removal system, thus no adverse odour impact is anticipated.
As
for the current proposed development, the development scale is smaller when
compared with the approved “Yau Mei Site” project and that odour removal system
(with an odour removal efficiency of not less than 99.5%) is also proposed at
the interim STP. In addition, the
exhaust of the STP will be directed away from nearby ASRs with a separation
distance >15m (Figure 3-1
refers). It is therefore
expected there will be no significant odour impact upon the development site or
its surroundings. Thus, no further
assessment is considered necessary.
Odour of
Pond Sediment
During construction, the concerned sediment at the
existing pond is intended to
be left in place and not to be disturbed as far as possible. The proposed development will
be located on the land formed by imported soil, thus no adverse impact at
proposed buildings during operational phase is anticipated.
As
discussed earlier, fugitive dust could be generated during the site formation
stage, and TSP, RSP and FSP have been identified as the parameter for air
quality assessment.
The
following paragraphs describe the air quality assessment methodology.
According to the construction
programme of this Project (Appendix 1-1),
site formation of the Project Site will be carried out between April 2017 and
first half of November 2017 for a duration of about 7.5 months.
According to Section 3.6.1.2, the following activities during site formation stage that
would attribute to dust emissions have been taken into account in the assessment:
·
Removal and
unloading of soil
materials by excavators;
·
Earth
loading/ unloading, and stockpiling;
·
Bulldozing
and surface compaction;
·
Wind erosion on exposed ground; and
·
Vehicle movements on haul roads;
Unmitigated Scenario
Emission rates of the dusty
activities given above were based on typical values and emission factors
documented in Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42) 5th Edition
published by USEPA. In
order to represent the worst case scenario, the upper bound or the lower bound
of the range of typical values provided in the AP-42 document has been used in
deriving the emission rates (i.e. higher emission rate is adopted) (also refer
to Appendices 3-2 and 3-3 for details). The unmitigated scenario
refers to the calculated emission rates based on AP-42
without any mitigation measures. The works area will refer to the site boundary
of the whole Project Site. It is expected that paved haul road will be
constructed.
The identified dust emission
sources have been modelled as area sources.
Detailed calculation of emission rates corresponding
to each of the activities described in Section 3.7.1.1, are
also given in Appendices 3-2 and 3-3.
In the assessment, it has been
assumed that the whole area of the Project Site will be constructed at the same
time and soil surface is exposed to atmosphere.
Mitigated Scenario
Based on the above worst case emission rates
calculated according to the AP-42 document, the mitigated scenario refers to mitigated emission
rates after the implementation of proposed mitigation measures of
this Project and measures stipulated
in the Air Pollution Control
(Construction Dust) Regulation (Section 3.9.1 of this report refers).
Detailed calculation of mitigated emission rates corresponding
to each of the activities described in Section 3.7.1.1, are
also given in Appendices 3-2 and 3-3.
Currently,
the Project Site comprises a paved car park area with concrete paved vacant
site and grassland. During the
construction phase, site formation works will be carried out in stages and the
existing paved area at the unaffected area will be maintained so that the soil
underneath is not exposed to the atmosphere (i.e. there will be no wind
erosion).
For the
purpose of this air quality impact assessment, assumptions on work areas, works
programme, and construction method have been used in order to demonstrate a
possible way to mitigate adverse impact due to construction dust emission
during the site formation. With this
approach, assessment was undertaken according to the methodology described in Appendix 3-8, which demonstrated a
scenario of construction activities in this Project that are controllable and
the relevant air quality objectives can be complied with. During the detailed design stage, alternative
construction approach may be proposed provided that it is effective in
mitigating the construction dust level to an acceptable level. In addition, EM&A during the Project construction phase will
monitor the air quality levels and to ensure the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures implemented.
In order
to minimize dust emission during site formation, it is expected that the site
formation works will be carried out in stages.
Regular site watering will be applied within the construction site in
order to effectively supress dust emission, and that dusty materials will be
properly covered to prevent wind erosion.
As mentioned above, the Project Site is currently a paved ground/ green
field site, as such, the construction works within the active works area will
be the only emission source as the remaining areas of the Project Site is
either paved or covered by grass, which will not be affected
(i.e. no dust emission from the remaining areas).
According to the current construction programme shown
in Appendix 1-1, the site formation works will require a construction period of
about 7.5 months. The site formation
will commence in April 2017 and complete in mid-November 2017. The above information has been used in the
air quality assessment.
Since
the site formation will last for about 7.5 months, after that the site will
be hard paved and there is no significant air quality impact anticipated at the
site. Thus, in assessing the short-term
impact (i.e. hourly and daily), it is based on 7.5 months’ construction period only. For long-term impact (i.e. annually), there will be no
contribution to RSP and FSP levels due to the Project works for the remaining
4.5 months of the year, thus only
background level is taken into account during this period of time.
In order
to avoid adverse construction dust impact, controlled number of plants will be
used for construction at any one time.
Thus, the construction activities that would contribute to dust emissions
as identified in Section 3.7.1.1, particularly the removal and unloading of soil materials by excavators; earth loading/ unloading,
stockpiling; and bulldozing and surface compaction, will unlikely to operate
at the same time. However, to be conservative, air quality impacts due to
simultaneous construction of these activities have been taken into account in
the assessment.
Use of ISCST Model for
Dispersion Modelling
The TSP, RSP and FSP were modelled using the software "Industrial Source
Complex Short Term (ISCST)" developed by Trinity Consultants
Incorporated. The ISCST model is based on
the principle of Gaussian dispersion and is widely accepted by authorities
worldwide including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
and the Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department (EPD). The
model has used the following input data/ parameters in the simulation:
·
Hourly mixing
height data from MM5 was adopted;
·
Hourly
Pasquill stability classes generated by PCRAMMET;
·
Wind
direction and speed, temperature, raw from MM5;
·
Pre-processed
wind speeds capped at 1 m/s;
·
Anemometer
height taken at 10mAG which is half of the thickness of Layer 0 (ground layer)
of the MM5 model;
·
“Rural”
dispersion option was used; and
·
No wet and
dry deposition assumed
Since the representative ASRs
identified for construction phase impact assessment (Section 3.5 refers) are mainly
low-rise (about 2 to 3 storeys high buildings), the assessment height for the
ASRs is taken from the ground level including 1.5m breathing zone up to 7.5m
for the upper floor at the ASRs.
Processing
of the MM5 Meteorological Data
Meteorological data derived using
MM5 model has been adopted for the assessment. To enable the use of MM5
meteorological data in a format that can readily be accepted by the Gaussian
models ISCST3, raw MM5 data were extracted, converted and pre-processing by
PCRAMMET. PCRAMMET combines the twice-daily mixing heights data record measured
at the King’s Park weather station (2010) to produce the following additional
data:
·
Hourly Pasquill
stability classes;
·
Interpolated
hourly values from daily morning and maximum mixing heights measured at King’s
Park in 2010;
·
Converted
meteorological data in a format acceptable to the ISCST3/ CALINE4.
Background Air Pollutants
Concentrations
For the purpose of evaluating the construction and
operational phase air quality impacts, background contributions are based on EPD’s PATH
concentration output. According to “Guidelines on
Assessing the 'TOTAL' Air Quality Impacts” published in EPD’s website,
hour-by-hour background contribution is estimated using output of PATH model.
The
background hourly air quality data at the same grid covering the ASRs are
extracted from PATH model output file to calculate the overall air pollutants
concentrations for each hour. Grids
(20,40) of the PATH domain are considered relevant as they coincide with the
locations of the ASRs mentioned in Section 3.5.
For a
conservative assessment, the PATH simulated background air quality data of Year
2015 has been adopted.
Background
contributions of RSP is based on concentration of each hour in PATH’s
concentration output. As background contribution of FSP is not directly
available from PATH model. According to “Guidelines on the Estimation of FSP
for Air Quality Assessment in Hong Kong”, background contribution of FSP is
deduced based on the following conservative formula.
|
Daily(μg/m3): |
FSP = 0.75 x
RSP |
|
Annual(μg/m3): |
FSP = 0.71 x
RSP |
For TSP
background contribution, the RSP contribution in PATH’s concentration output is
adopted instead.
Post-Processing of Model
Output Data
Maximum 1-hour average TSP concentrations,
as well as 24-hour average, and annual average of RSP and FSP concentrations were
predicted at the representative ASRs. The outputs were then combined and post-processed on
an hour-by-hour basis, and then superimposed with the hourly background
level derived from the PATH output (see Section 3.4) for comparison with the air quality
criteria specified in Table 3‑1 as well as the 1-hour TSP limit of 500mg/m3
specified in the EIAO-TM.
Contour plots of the
above parameters are prepared based on the worst hit
level. Contour
plots of the maximum 1-hour average
TSP concentrations and
the annual average RSP and
FSP concentrations are based on the maximum predicted
level. Contour plots of the 24-hour average RSP and FSP concentrations are
based on the 10th highest predicted level in accordance with the
relevant AQOs.
Assumptions Adopted in
Modelling
The
following assumptions have been adopted in the
modelling exercise for both the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios:
·
The
construction works will be undertaken from 0800 to 1800 hours during
general weekdays (i.e. day-time);
·
It is expected
that there will be no construction works during restricted hours (i.e. 1900 to
0700 hours of the next day, and any time on a general holidays, including
Sunday). Construction works within
restricted hours would require advance application for a Construction Noise
Permit from EPD;
·
Since there will be no construction activities during
restricted hours, and on Sundays and general holidays, the calculated emission
rates due to construction activities as presented in
Section 3.7.1.1 have been applied to
day-time hours during general weekdays only (i.e. 0800 to 1800 hours)
only. While the hours from 1800 to 0800 during
general workdays and on Sundays and
general holidays,
are adopted for impact assessment of wind erosion on the site;
·
The designated haul road should be
hard paved; and
·
The estimated
maximum
no. of trucks during site formation is 8 trucks per hour according to the Engineer.
For the
unmitigated scenario, it is assumed that the construction activities will be
carried out at the whole Project Site at the same time.
For the
mitigated scenario, the following assumptions have been adopted
in the
modelling exercise:
·
The construction programme
and duration of site formation works has been based on the
construction programme in Appendix
1-1, and the construction in stages as described in Appendix 3-8;
·
As the
construction will be carried out in stages, the duration of construction works
in adjacent to an ASR will be relatively short.
The construction works will then be moved to another works area which is
relatively far away from the same ASR (i.e. less affected by construction
works);
·
During
construction, construction activities within the works area will be the only
dust emission source, while the remaining area of the Project Site is currently
paved or covered by grass and will not contribute to any emission (i.e. zero
contribution);
·
Dust suppression
measures in terms of frequent watering are proposed. Water to be sprayed frequently during construction period with water browser or manually. The calculated dust suppression efficiency
taken into account the dust suppression measures is also provided in Appendix 3-9. The concerned dust suppression
efficiency has been applied to both the short-term impacts (e.g.
hourly and daily) and long-term impacts (e.g. annual); and
·
Relevant requirement of the above has also been stated in Section 3.9.1 and will be included in the Project EM&A Manual
for implementation.
As discussed in Section 3.6.2.2, the proposed development can satisfy the HKPSG requirements in terms of
buffer distance from nearby roads and there is no industrial
chimney identified within the Assessment Area.
In addition, as
discussed in Section 3.6.2.2, a
sensitivity test on vehicular emissions due to the additional traffic
generated/ attracted by this Project, has been undertaken. Details of the assessment methodology and
assumptions are already listed in Appendix
3-12, which is not repeated here. The following paragraphs briefly describe
the assessment methodology, while details should refer to Appendix 3-12.
RSP, FSP and NO2 have
been determined to be focused in the assessment. Peak hour traffic flow data was obtained from
the traffic consultant, and emission model EMFAC-HK was adopted to calculate
the vehicle emission factors.
In order to represent a worst case
scenario, it has also been assumed that the peak hour traffic flow and traffic
composition would persist for 24 hours of a day and throughout the whole year although this is very
unlikely to occur. Typical worst-case
meteorological conditions were assumed:
·
Wind direction: worst-case angle selected by model
·
Wind speed: 1 m/s
·
Directional
Variability: 6°
·
Stability Class: F
·
Mixing Height: 500 m
·
Temperature: 20 ℃
Vehicular emissions were calculated
by the dispersion model “CALINE4”. The modelled hourly concentrations have been
converted to daily average concentration and the annual average level was also
calculated.
According to the sensitivity
results, vehicular emissions due to the additional traffic generated/ attracted
by this Project are found to be insignificant. Also, according to the PATH output data (Section 3.4.2 refers), the background air pollutants levels during the operational
phase would be within the relevant AQO criteria. Thus, it is expected that
cumulative air quality would be within the AQO criteria, and no adverse impact
is anticipated. As such,
it is not assessed further in this assessment.
During
the operational stage, no adverse impact is anticipated as
the proposed residential development itself will not have any emission
generating activities during the operational phase.
As
discussed in Section 3.6.2.2, during construction, the concerned sediment at existing pond is
intended to be left in place and not to be disturbed as far as possible. The future residential development
will be located on the land formed by imported soil, thus no adverse impact at
proposed buildings during operational phase is anticipated.
The
interim sewage treatment plant will be within a totally enclosed building, which comprises a biological treatment system, membrane
filtration and Reverse Osmosis processes to be located underground.
Details of the design of STP is provided in Chapter 6
of this report. The exhaust will be directed away from nearby
ASRs. With
environmental conscious design of an effective odour removal system at the exhaust of
the STP (with an odour removal efficiency of not less than 99.5%), the odour
concentration at the exhaust would be significantly reduced. With
these measures in place, potential air quality
impacts during the operational phase will be insignificant and
no adverse impacts are anticipated.
The
predicted unmitigated maximum hourly TSP concentrations
as well as daily average and annual
average RSP and FSP concentrations due to this Project were assessed
according to the methodology described in Section 3.7.1, and the results are presented in Table 3‑4 to Table 3‑8.
Location map of ASRs is shown in Figure
3-2.
Details
of the calculated emission rates are also provided in Appendices 3-2 and 3-3. Detailed assessment results are also presented in Appendices 3-4 and 3-5. Contour plots based on the worst hit
level are also
provided in Figures 3-3 to 3-7.
Table 3‑4 Predicted
Maximum Hourly TSP Concentrations at Representative ASRs Due to This Project
(Unmitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
TSP
Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
With
Background ** |
Without
Background * |
||||
|
A01 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1253 / 1153 / 1016 |
1089 / 989 / 852 |
|
A01A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1188 / 1115 / 1074 |
1024 / 951 / 910 |
|
A02 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2549 / 2344 / 1986 |
2385 / 2180 / 1822 |
|
A02A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2472 / 2252 / 1876 |
2308 / 2088 / 1712 |
|
A03 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3889 / 3047 / 1923 |
3725 / 2883 / 1759 |
|
A04 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3905 / 2951 / 1761 |
3741 / 2787 / 1597 |
|
A05 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1489 / 1430 / 1322 |
1325 / 1266 / 1158 |
|
A05A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1703 / 1634 / 1507 |
1539 / 1470 / 1343 |
|
A05B |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1318 / 1283 / 1216 |
1154 / 1119 / 1052 |
|
A06 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1166 / 1122 / 1041 |
1002 / 958 / 877 |
|
A06A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1058 / 1040 / 1005 |
894 / 876 / 841 |
|
A07 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1004 / 990 / 964 |
840 / 826 / 800 |
|
A08 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen
village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1381 / 1329 / 1232 |
1217 / 1165 / 1068 |
|
A09 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen
village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1325 / 1280 / 1194 |
1161 / 1116 / 1030 |
|
A10 |
Bethel High
School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3182 / 2629 / 1820 |
3018 / 2465 / 1656 |
|
A10A |
Bethel High
School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2991 / 2596 / 1970 |
2827 / 2432 / 1806 |
|
A11 |
Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3762 / 3517 / 3097 |
3598 / 3353 / 2933 |
|
A12 |
Villa Camellia |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3106 / 2953 / 2681 |
2942 / 2789 / 2517 |
|
A13 |
Fairview Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1383 / 1316 / 1193 |
1219 / 1152 / 1029 |
|
A14 |
Wong Chan Sook
Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1567 / 1496 / 1366 |
1403 / 1332 / 1202 |
|
A15 |
Man Yuen Tsuen
village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2125 / 2006 / 1793 |
1961 / 1842 / 1629 |
|
A16 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1238 / 1218 / 1179 |
1074 / 1054 / 1015 |
|
A16A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1307 / 1283 / 1236 |
1143 / 1119 / 1072 |
|
A17 |
Palm Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
858 / 850 / 835 |
694 / 686 / 671 |
|
A18 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
901 / 892 / 873 |
737 / 728 / 709 |
|
A19 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen
village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1447 / 1384 / 1267 |
1283 / 1220 / 1103 |
|
A20 |
Hang Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1337 / 1258 / 1118 |
1173 / 1094 / 954 |
|
A21 |
Ha San Wai
village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1527 / 1486 / 1407 |
1363 / 1322 / 1243 |
|
A22 |
Ha San Wai
village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1747 / 1691 / 1584 |
1583 / 1527 / 1420 |
|
A23 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
710 / 703 / 688 |
546 / 539 / 524 |
|
A24 |
Christian Ministry
Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
702 / 695 / 682 |
538 / 531 / 518 |
|
A25 |
Royal Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
806 / 799 / 785 |
642 / 635 / 621 |
|
A26 |
Hong Chi
Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
749 / 743 / 731 |
585 / 579 / 567 |
|
A27 |
Existing building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6884 / 4389 / 3174 |
6720 / 4225 / 3010 |
|
A28 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1104 / 1086 / 1050 |
940 / 922 / 886 |
|
A29 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1007 / 989 / 955 |
843 / 825 / 791 |
|
A30 |
Fairview Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1924 / 1813 / 1626 |
1760 / 1649 / 1462 |
|
A31 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
901 / 889 / 865 |
737 / 725 / 701 |
|
A32 |
A Restaurant
near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3749 / 2977 / 2508 |
3585 / 2813 / 2344 |
|
A33 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1272 / 1232 / 1155 |
1108 / 1068 / 991 |
|
A34 |
Palm Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
930 / 911 / 876 |
766 / 747 / 712 |
|
A35 |
Palm Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
732 / 726 / 714 |
568 / 562 / 550 |
|
A36 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
981 / 970 / 947 |
817 / 806 / 783 |
|
A1Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1364 / 1332 / 1269 |
1200 / 1168 / 1105 |
|
A2Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3671 / 3293 / 2771 |
3507 / 3129 / 2607 |
|
A3Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1520 / 1460 / 1389 |
1356 / 1296 / 1225 |
|
A4Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4683 / 3219 / 1913 |
4519 / 3055 / 1749 |
|
A5Pa |
Planned Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1323 / 1296 / 1242 |
1159 / 1132 / 1078 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT
exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4228 / 3489 / 2611 |
4064 / 3325 / 2447 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
986 / 968 / 933 |
822 / 804 / 769 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V” zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3975 / 3115 / 2160 |
3811 / 2951 / 1996 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD”
zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6832 / 4455 / 3167 |
6668 / 4291 / 3003 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
6884 |
6720 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
500 |
500 |
Remark:
* Concentration
due to contribution of Project Site.
** Total
concentration due to contribution of the Project Site as well as background
concentration in the PATH output.
The predicted TSP level due to this Project has already exceeded the
relevant air quality criteria regardless the background level (i.e. mitigation
measures will be required regardless the background level), thus in calculating
the total concentration of TSP (i.e. background + Project contribution), the
maximum hourly RSP level from the PATH output file (i.e. 164 µg/m3 according to Appendix 3-1B) is used as a conservative approach.
Table 3‑5 Predicted
Daily Average RSP Concentrations at Representative ASRs Due to This Project
(Unmitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
RSP
Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
With
Background ** |
Without
Background * |
||||
|
A01 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
186 / 183 / 178 |
64 / 61 / 56 |
|
A01A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
187 / 183 / 178 |
65 / 61 / 56 |
|
A02 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
186 / 183 / 178 |
64 / 61 / 56 |
|
A02A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
192 / 187 / 180 |
70 / 65 / 58 |
|
A03 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
260 / 240 / 211 |
138 / 118 / 89 |
|
A04 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
222 / 205 / 192 |
100 / 83 / 70 |
|
A05 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
167 / 165 / 161 |
45 / 43 / 39 |
|
A05A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
177 / 175 / 170 |
55 / 53 / 48 |
|
A05B |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
150 / 149 / 148 |
28 / 27 / 26 |
|
A06 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
155 / 154 / 153 |
33 / 32 / 31 |
|
A06A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
156 / 155 / 154 |
34 / 33 / 32 |
|
A07 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen
village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
149 / 149 / 148 |
27 / 27 / 26 |
|
A08 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen
village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
184 / 181 / 176 |
62 / 59 / 54 |
|
A09 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen
village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
180 / 177 / 173 |
58 / 55 / 51 |
|
A10 |
Bethel High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
237 / 224 / 203 |
115 / 102 / 81 |
|
A10A |
Bethel High
School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
214 / 205 / 192 |
92 / 83 / 70 |
|
A11 |
Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
291 / 257 / 222 |
169 / 135 / 100 |
|
A12 |
Villa Camellia |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
198 / 188 / 176 |
76 / 66 / 54 |
|
A13 |
Fairview Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
206 / 200 / 188 |
84 / 78 / 66 |
|
A14 |
Wong Chan Sook
Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
200 / 195 / 188 |
78 / 73 / 66 |
|
A15 |
Man Yuen Tsuen
village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
223 / 216 / 204 |
101 / 94 / 82 |
|
A16 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
160 / 159 / 158 |
38 / 37 / 36 |
|
A16A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
161 / 160 / 158 |
39 / 38 / 36 |
|
A17 |
Palm Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
144 / 143 / 143 |
22 / 21 / 21 |
|
A18 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
143 / 143 / 142 |
21 / 21 / 20 |
|
A19 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen
village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
184 / 181 / 176 |
62 / 59 / 54 |
|
A20 |
Hang Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
186 / 182 / 176 |
64 / 60 / 54 |
|
A21 |
Ha San Wai
village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
201 / 196 / 187 |
79 / 74 / 65 |
|
A22 |
Ha San Wai
village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 160 / 154 |
42 / 38 / 32 |
|
A23 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
144 / 143 / 143 |
22 / 21 / 21 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
144 / 143 / 143 |
22 / 21 / 21 |
|
A25 |
Royal Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
140 / 140 / 140 |
18 / 18 / 18 |
|
A26 |
Hong Chi
Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
136 / 136 / 135 |
14 / 14 / 13 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
377 / 257 / 216 |
255 / 135 / 94 |
|
A28 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
141 / 141 / 140 |
19 / 19 / 18 |
|
A29 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
142 / 141 / 141 |
20 / 19 / 19 |
|
A30 |
Fairview Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
213 / 206 / 196 |
91 / 84 / 74 |
|
A31 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
149 / 149 / 148 |
27 / 27 / 26 |
|
A32 |
A Restaurant
near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
353 / 297 / 234 |
231 / 175 / 112 |
|
A33 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
152 / 151 / 150 |
30 / 29 / 28 |
|
A34 |
Palm Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
139 / 139 / 139 |
17 / 17 / 17 |
|
A35 |
Palm Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
145 / 144 / 144 |
23 / 22 / 22 |
|
A36 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
145 / 145 / 144 |
23 / 23 / 22 |
|
A1Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 163 / 160 |
42 / 41 / 38 |
|
A2Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
298 / 254 / 228 |
176 / 132 / 106 |
|
A3Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
170 / 169 / 166 |
48 / 47 / 44 |
|
A4Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
271 / 237 / 208 |
149 / 115 / 86 |
|
A5Pa |
Planned Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
165 / 164 / 162 |
43 / 42 / 40 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT
exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
335 / 270 / 214 |
213 / 148 / 92 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
160 / 159 / 157 |
38 / 37 / 35 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V” zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
334 / 273 / 218 |
212 / 151 / 96 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
482 / 288 / 224 |
360 / 166 / 102 |
|
Max. Conc. |
|
- |
482 |
360 |
|
|
No. of exceedance @ |
|
|
>9 |
>9 |
|
|
Criteria |
- |
|
100 (no. of exceedance allowed <= 9) - |
||
Remark:
The above results are based on the 1st highest daily average concentrations.
@
According to Appendix 3-5, the no. of exceedance would exceed the relevant
air quality criteria/ AQOs as the 10th highest value would also
exceed the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs.
*
Concentration due to contribution of Project Site.
** Total
concentration due to contribution of the Project Site as well as background
concentration in the PATH output.
The predicted RSP level due to this Project at some of the ASRs nearby
has already exceeded the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs regardless the background level, thus in calculating the total
concentration of RSP (i.e. background + Project contribution), the maximum
daily average RSP level from the PATH output file (i.e. 122 µg/m3 according to Appendix 3-1B) is used as a conservative approach.
Table 3‑6 Predicted
Daily Average FSP Concentrations at Representative ASRs Due to This Project
(Unmitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
FSP
Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
With
Background ** |
Without
Background * |
||||
|
A01 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
110 / 109 / 108 |
19 / 18 / 17 |
|
A01A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
110 / 109 / 108 |
19 / 18 / 17 |
|
A02 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
110 / 109 / 108 |
19 / 18 / 17 |
|
A02A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
112 / 111 / 108 |
21 / 20 / 17 |
|
A03 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
133 / 126 / 118 |
42 / 35 / 27 |
|
A04 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
121 / 116 / 112 |
30 / 25 / 21 |
|
A05 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
105 / 104 / 103 |
14 / 13 / 12 |
|
A05A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
108 / 107 / 105 |
17 / 16 / 14 |
|
A05B |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
99 / 99 / 99 |
8 / 8 / 8 |
|
A06 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
101 / 101 / 100 |
10 / 10 / 9 |
|
A06A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
101 / 101 / 101 |
10 / 10 / 10 |
|
A07 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
99 / 99 / 99 |
8 / 8 / 8 |
|
A08 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen
village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
110 / 109 / 107 |
19 / 18 / 16 |
|
A09 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen
village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
108 / 108 / 106 |
17 / 17 / 15 |
|
A10 |
Bethel High
School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
126 / 122 / 115 |
35 / 31 / 24 |
|
A10A |
Bethel High
School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
118 / 116 / 112 |
27 / 25 / 21 |
|
A11 |
Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
142 / 131 / 121 |
51 / 40 / 30 |
|
A12 |
Villa Camellia |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
114 / 111 / 107 |
23 / 20 / 16 |
|
A13 |
Fairview Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
116 / 114 / 111 |
25 / 23 / 20 |
|
A14 |
Wong Chan Sook
Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
114 / 113 / 111 |
23 / 22 / 20 |
|
A15 |
Man Yuen Tsuen
village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
121 / 119 / 116 |
30 / 28 / 25 |
|
A16 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
102 / 102 / 102 |
11 / 11 / 11 |
|
A16A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
103 / 102 / 102 |
12 / 11 / 11 |
|
A17 |
Palm Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
97 / 97 / 97 |
6 / 6 / 6 |
|
A18 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
97 / 97 / 97 |
6 / 6 / 6 |
|
A19 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen
village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
110 / 109 / 107 |
19 / 18 / 16 |
|
A20 |
Hang Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
110 / 109 / 107 |
19 / 18 / 16 |
|
A21 |
Ha San Wai village
house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
115 / 113 / 110 |
24 / 22 / 19 |
|
A22 |
Ha San Wai
village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
104 / 102 / 101 |
13 / 11 / 10 |
|
A23 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
97 / 97 / 97 |
6 / 6 / 6 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
97 / 97 / 97 |
6 / 6 / 6 |
|
A25 |
Royal Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
96 / 96 / 96 |
5 / 5 / 5 |
|
A26 |
Hong Chi
Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
95 / 95 / 95 |
4 / 4 / 4 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
167 / 131 / 119 |
76 / 40 / 28 |
|
A28 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
97 / 97 / 96 |
6 / 6 / 5 |
|
A29 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
97 / 97 / 97 |
6 / 6 / 6 |
|
A30 |
Fairview Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
118 / 116 / 113 |
27 / 25 / 22 |
|
A31 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
99 / 99 / 99 |
8 / 8 / 8 |
|
A32 |
A Restaurant
near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
160 / 144 / 125 |
69 / 53 / 34 |
|
A33 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
100 / 100 / 99 |
9 / 9 / 8 |
|
A34 |
Palm Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
96 / 96 / 96 |
5 / 5 / 5 |
|
A35 |
Palm Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
98 / 98 / 98 |
7 / 7 / 7 |
|
A36 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
98 / 98 / 98 |
7 / 7 / 7 |
|
A1Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
104 / 103 / 102 |
13 / 12 / 11 |
|
A2Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
144 / 131 / 123 |
53 / 40 / 32 |
|
A3Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
105 / 105 / 104 |
14 / 14 / 13 |
|
A4Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
136 / 126 / 117 |
45 / 35 / 26 |
|
A5Pa |
Planned Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
104 / 104 / 103 |
13 / 13 / 12 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT
exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
155 / 135 / 119 |
64 / 44 / 28 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
102 / 102 / 102 |
11 / 11 / 11 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V” zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
155 / 136 / 120 |
64 / 45 / 29 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD”
zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
199 / 141 / 122 |
108 / 50 / 31 |
|
Max. Conc. - |
|
- |
199 |
108 |
|
|
No. of exceedance @ |
|
|
>9 |
>9 |
|
|
Criteria |
|
- |
75 (no. of exceedance allowed <= 9) - |
||
Remark:
The
above results are based on the 1st highest daily average
concentrations.
@ According
to Appendix 3-5, the no. of exceedance would exceed the relevant air quality
criteria/ AQOs as the 10th highest value would also exceed the relevant air
quality criteria/ AQOs.
* Concentration due to contribution of
Project Site.
** Total concentration due to contribution of
the Project Site as well as background concentration in the PATH output. The predicted FSP level due to this Project
at some of the ASRs nearby has already exceeded the relevant air quality criteria/
AQOs regardless the background level, thus in calculating the total
concentration of FSP (i.e. background + Project contribution), the maximum
daily average FSP level from the PATH output file (i.e. 91 µg/m3
according to Appendix 3-1B) is used as a conservative approach.
Table 3‑7 Predicted
Annual Average RSP Concentrations at Representative ASRs Due to This Project
(Unmitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
RSP
Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
With Background
** |
Without
Background * |
||||
|
A01 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
54 / 53 / 52 |
11 / 10 / 9 |
|
A01A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
55 / 54 / 53 |
12 / 11 / 10 |
|
A02 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
52 / 52 / 51 |
9 / 9 / 8 |
|
A02A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
52 / 52 / 51 |
9 / 9 / 8 |
|
A03 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
63 / 60 / 57 |
20 / 17 / 14 |
|
A04 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
55 / 53 / 51 |
12 / 10 / 8 |
|
A05 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
46 / 46 / 46 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
|
A05A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
46 / 46 / 46 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
|
A05B |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
46 / 46 / 46 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
|
A06 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
47 / 47 / 47 |
4 / 4 / 4 |
|
A06A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
46 / 46 / 46 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
|
A07 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen
village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
46 / 46 / 46 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
|
A08 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen
village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
51 / 51 / 50 |
8 / 8 / 7 |
|
A09 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen
village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
50 / 49 / 49 |
7 / 6 / 6 |
|
A10 |
Bethel High
School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
61 / 59 / 56 |
18 / 16 / 13 |
|
A10A |
Bethel High
School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
58 / 56 / 54 |
15 / 13 / 11 |
|
A11 |
Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
70 / 65 / 59 |
27 / 22 / 16 |
|
A12 |
Villa Camellia |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
48 / 47 / 47 |
5 / 4 / 4 |
|
A13 |
Fairview Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
58 / 57 / 55 |
15 / 14 / 12 |
|
A14 |
Wong Chan Sook
Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
56 / 56 / 54 |
13 / 13 / 11 |
|
A15 |
Man Yuen Tsuen
village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
56 / 55 / 54 |
13 / 12 / 11 |
|
A16 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
49 / 49 / 49 |
6 / 6 / 6 |
|
A16A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
50 / 50 / 49 |
7 / 7 / 6 |
|
A17 |
Palm Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
47 / 47 / 47 |
4 / 4 / 4 |
|
A18 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
46 / 46 / 46 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
|
A19 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen
village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
50 / 49 / 49 |
7 / 6 / 6 |
|
A20 |
Hang Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
51 / 51 / 50 |
8 / 8 / 7 |
|
A21 |
Ha San Wai
village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
53 / 53 / 52 |
10 / 10 / 9 |
|
A22 |
Ha San Wai
village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
48 / 48 / 47 |
5 / 5 / 4 |
|
A23 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
|
A25 |
Royal Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
|
A26 |
Hong Chi
Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
44 / 44 / 44 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
77 / 59 / 52 |
34 / 16 / 9 |
|
A28 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
|
A29 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
|
A30 |
Fairview Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
50 / 49 / 48 |
7 / 6 / 5 |
|
A31 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
46 / 46 / 46 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
|
A32 |
A Restaurant
near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
81 / 73 / 65 |
38 / 30 / 22 |
|
A33 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
48 / 48 / 48 |
5 / 5 / 5 |
|
A34 |
Palm Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
46 / 46 / 46 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
|
A35 |
Palm Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
47 / 47 / 46 |
4 / 4 / 3 |
|
A36 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
46 / 46 / 46 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
|
A1Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
49 / 49 / 48 |
6 / 6 / 5 |
|
A2Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
88 / 79 / 70 |
45 / 36 / 27 |
|
A3Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
51 / 51 / 51 |
8 / 8 / 8 |
|
A4Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
62 / 59 / 54 |
19 / 16 / 11 |
|
A5Pa |
Planned Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
50 / 50 / 49 |
7 / 7 / 6 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT
exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
84 / 76 / 67 |
41 / 33 / 24 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
47 / 47 / 47 |
4 / 4 / 4 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V” zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
101 / 83 / 67 |
58 / 40 / 24 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD”
zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
141 / 91 / 69 |
98 / 48 / 26 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
141 |
98 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
50 |
50 |
Remark:
* Concentration due to contribution of
Project Site.
** Total concentration due to contribution of the
Project Site as well as background concentration in the PATH output. The predicted RSP level due to this Project
at some of the ASRs nearby has already exceeded the relevant air quality
criteria/ AQOs regardless the background level, thus in calculating the total
concentration of RSP (i.e. background + Project contribution), the maximum
annual average RSP level from the PATH output file (i.e. 43 µg/m3
according to Appendix 3-1B) is used as a conservative approach.
Table 3‑8 Predicted
Annual Average FSP Concentrations at Representative ASRs Due
to This Project (Unmitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
FSP
Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
With
Background ** |
Without
Background * |
||||
|
A01 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
34 / 34 / 34 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
|
A01A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
35 / 34 / 34 |
4 / 3 / 3 |
|
A02 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
34 / 34 / 33 |
3 / 3 / 2 |
|
A02A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
34 / 34 / 33 |
3 / 3 / 2 |
|
A03 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
37 / 36 / 35 |
6 / 5 / 4 |
|
A04 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
35 / 34 / 33 |
4 / 3 / 2 |
|
A05 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A05A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A05B |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A06 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A06A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A07 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A08 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen
village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
33 / 33 / 33 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
|
A09 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen
village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
33 / 33 / 33 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
|
A10 |
Bethel High
School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
36 / 36 / 35 |
5 / 5 / 4 |
|
A10A |
Bethel High
School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
35 / 35 / 34 |
4 / 4 / 3 |
|
A11 |
Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
39 / 38 / 36 |
8 / 7 / 5 |
|
A12 |
Villa Camellia |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A13 |
Fairview Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
35 / 35 / 35 |
4 / 4 / 4 |
|
A14 |
Wong Chan Sook
Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
35 / 35 / 34 |
4 / 4 / 3 |
|
A15 |
Man Yuen Tsuen
village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
35 / 35 / 34 |
4 / 4 / 3 |
|
A16 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
33 / 33 / 33 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
|
A16A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
33 / 33 / 33 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
|
A17 |
Palm Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A18 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A19 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen
village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
33 / 33 / 33 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
|
A20 |
Hang Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
33 / 33 / 33 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
|
A21 |
Ha San Wai
village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
34 / 34 / 34 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
|
A22 |
Ha San Wai
village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A23 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen
village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A25 |
Royal Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A26 |
Hong Chi
Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
41 / 36 / 34 |
10 / 5 / 3 |
|
A28 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A29 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A30 |
Fairview Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
33 / 33 / 32 |
2 / 2 / 1 |
|
A31 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A32 |
A Restaurant
near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
42 / 40 / 38 |
11 / 9 / 7 |
|
A33 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A34 |
Palm Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A35 |
Palm Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A36 |
Yau Mei San
Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A1Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
33 / 33 / 33 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
|
A2Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
44 / 42 / 39 |
13 / 11 / 8 |
|
A3Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
33 / 33 / 33 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
|
A4Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
37 / 36 / 34 |
6 / 5 / 3 |
|
A5Pa |
Planned Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
33 / 33 / 33 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT
exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43 / 41 / 38 |
12 / 10 / 7 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V” zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
48 / 43 / 38 |
17 / 12 / 7 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD”
zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
60 / 45 / 39 |
29 / 14 / 8 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
60 |
29 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
35 |
35 |
Remark:
* Concentration
due to contribution of Project Site.
** Total concentration due to contribution of the
Project Site as well as background concentration in the PATH output. In calculating the total concentration of
annual FSP (i.e. background + Project contribution), the maximum annual average
FSP level from the PATH output file (i.e. 31 µg/m3 according to
Appendix 3-1B) is used as a conservative approach.
Based on
the above results, in the absence
of any mitigation measures the unmitigated TSP, RSP and
FSP levels due to construction of the Project Site would exceed the relevant air quality
criteria/ AQOs as well as the
no. of exceedance allowed under the AQO. Thus, mitigation measures as stipulated in Section 3.9.1 will be required
to be implemented in order to alleviate adverse impacts.
To ensure compliance with the AQOs at the ASRs at all
times, it is recommended to include requirements of good site practice in the
contract clauses in order to minimize cumulative dust impact and to implement a
dust monitoring and audit programme to ensure proper implementation of the
identified mitigation measures. The
Contractor shall follow the requirements
stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation to ensure
constructional dust impacts are controlled within the relevant standards.
Good site management practices are important in
reducing potential air quality impacts.
As a general guidance, the contractor shall maintain high standard of
housekeeping to prevent emission of fugitive dust emission. Loading, unloading, handling and storage of
fuel, raw materials, products, wastes or by-products should be carried out in a
manner so as to minimise the release of visible dust emission. For example,
dusty materials to be covered to prevent wind erosion and dust emission could
be suppressed by regular site watering.
Increasing the watering frequency would achieve higher dust
suppression efficiency. Based on the assessment in Appendix 3-9, it is recommended that the active works areas within the construction site to be watered regularly during the construction period so as to
suppress dust emission effectively.
The speed of the trucks travelling on haul roads
within the Project Site to be controlled at 10 kph in order to reduce dust
impact and for safe movement around the Project Site. Any piles of materials accumulated on-site to
be cleaned up regularly. Cleaning,
repair and maintenance of all plant facilities within the work areas to be
carried out in a manner without generating fugitive dust emissions. The
material to be handled properly to prevent fugitive dust emission before
cleaning.
It is expected that no concrete batching will be
required for the Project works, and concrete will be brought to the site in
“ready-mixed” state or in pre-cast sections instead. However, if concrete batching is required at
the site, the plant should be cleaned and watered regularly as a good practice. Cement and other fine grained materials delivered
in bulk should be stored in enclosed silos fitted with high level alarm
indicator. Wet mix batching process is preferred over dry mix batching. In addition, concrete batching plant shall comply with
the specified process (SP) licence requirements including specified emission
limits and dust control measures.
General
Mitigation Measure
All the relevant dust control measures stipulated in
the Air Pollution Control (Construction
Dust) Regulation would be fully implemented. Typical mitigation measures include:
·
The designated haul road should be
hard paved to minimize fugitive dust emission;
·
During the site formation works, the active works areas should be water sprayed with water
browser or sprayed regularly during the construction
period. The Contractor(s) should ensure
that the amount
of water spraying is just enough
to dampen the exposed surfaces without over-watering which could result in
surface water runoff;
·
Dump trucks for
material transport should be totally enclosed using impervious sheeting;
·
Any excavated dusty materials or
stockpile of dusty materials to be covered by impervious sheeting or sprayed
with water so as to maintain the entire surface wet, and recovered or
backfilled or reinstated as soon as practicable;
·
Dusty materials remaining after a
stockpile is removed should be wetted with water;
·
The area where vehicle washing takes
place and the section of the road between the washing facilities and the exit
point should be paved with e.g. concrete, bituminous materials or hardcore or
similar;
·
The Contractor(s) shall only
transport adequate amount of fill materials to the Project Site to minimise
stockpiling of fill materials on-site, thus reducing fugitive dust emission due
to wind erosion;
·
Should temporary stockpiling of
dusty materials be required, it shall be either covered entirely by impervious
sheeting, placed in an area sheltered on the top and the 3 sides; or sprayed
with water so as to maintain the entire surface wet;
·
All dusty materials shall be sprayed
with water prior to any loading, unloading or transfer operation so as to
maintain the dusty material wet;
·
Vehicle speed to be limited to 10
kph except on completed access roads;
·
The portion of road leading only to
a construction site that is within 30 m of a designated vehicle entrance or
exit should be kept clear of dusty materials;
·
Every vehicle should be washed to
remove any dusty materials from its body and wheels before leaving the
construction sites;
·
The load of dusty materials carried by
vehicle leaving a construction site should be covered entirely by clean
impervious sheeting to ensure that the dusty materials do not leak from the
vehicle;
·
The working area of excavation
should be sprayed with water before, during and after (as necessary) the works
so as to maintain the entire surface wet; and
·
Use of effective dust screens,
sheeting or netting to be provided to enclose dry scaffolding which may be
provided from the ground floor level of the building or if a canopy is provided
at the first floor level, from the first floor level, up to the highest level
(maximum two floors for this Project) of the scaffolding where scaffolding is
erected around the perimeter of a building under construction.
Site-specific
Mitigation Measures
In order to minimize dust
emission, the site formation works should be carried out in stages. Regular
site watering will be applied within the construction site in order to
effectively supress dust emission, and that dusty materials will be properly
covered to prevent wind erosion. Works
area to be properly covered at the end of working day to minimize wind erosion.
Therefore,
with appropriate dust control measures and good housekeeping practice, adverse
dust impact is not anticipated. EM&A
during the Project construction phase will monitor the air quality impacts and
to ensure the effectiveness of the mitigation measures implemented. With the continual monitoring and review of
dust impact in the area and the proper control measures, it is expected that
there will be no adverse construction dust impacts on the ASRs.
Odour
Impact of Pond Sediment
As discussed earlier, the concerned sediment at
existing pond is intended to
be left in place and not to be disturbed as far as possible. However, in case pond
sediment is involved during construction at the abandoned pond area, the
following precautionary measures are proposed:
·
Exposed surface shall be filled by
filling materials;
·
Malodorous material, if any, should
be placed as far as possible from any ASRs;
·
Malodorous materials should be
covered by plastic tarpaulin sheets; and
·
Regular odour patrol to examine the
effectiveness of the above control measures.
With proper measures, potential odour impact will be
short-term and controllable.
During the operational
stage, an interim sewage treatment plant is proposed within the
Project Site before connection to the public sewerage system becomes
available. Detailed design of the interim STP
has yet been carried out, but the interim sewage treatment plant
will be within a totally enclosed building with biological treatment, membrane
filtration and Reverse Osmosis processes to be located underground. The concerned facility will only be temporary
and will be carefully planned such that the brine disposal during maintenance
(a potential odour source) will be away from the residential area as much as
possible and will be close to the vehicular access connecting the nearby
road.
The
STP will be equipped with odour removal system (with an odour removal
efficiency of not less than 99.5%). In
addition, the exhaust of the STP will be directed away from nearby ASRs. With these measures, the odour concentration
at the exhaust would be significantly reduced and no odour impact is expected
to arise from the operation of the interim on-site STP.
During the detailed design phase,
the minimisation of odour will be duly considered to further reduce any
localized impact and no adverse odour impact due to operation of the interim
sewage treatment plant is expected.
During
operation, RCP will be provided for the residential development. A licensed waste collector shall be employed
to collect domestic waste on daily basis.
Localized impact and minimization of
odour nuisance will be considered during detailed design. With these
measures, no adverse air quality impact is anticipated during operation.
The sediment at an abandoned pond within the Project
Site is intended to be left in place and
not to be disturbed as far as possible.
After the filling, the proposed development will be located on the land
formed by imported soil, thus no adverse impact at proposed buildings during
operational phase is anticipated.
In terms of vehicular emission impacts, as discussed in Section 3.6.2.2, the required minimum separation distance
between sensitive uses of this Project and the edge of nearby roads surrounding
the Project Site should be >5m as stipulated in Chapter 9 of HKPSG. The
current proposed development (with separation distance of 7m to over 104m
between air quality sensitive uses of this Project and the edge of nearby roads
surrounding the Project Site) can satisfy the above-mentioned minimum
separation distance (Figure 3-1 refers).
The predicted mitigated maximum hourly TSP concentrations as well as daily average
and annual average RSP and FSP concentrations due to construction of this Project with the
implementation of mitigation measures provided in Section 3.9.1, were assessed according to the methodology described
in Section 3.7.1, and the results are presented in Table 3‑9 to Table 3‑13. Location map of representative ASRs
selected for construction phase air quality impact assessment is presented in Figure 3-2.
Details of the calculated emission rates are also
provided in Appendices 3-2 and 3-3. Details of assessment results are also presented in Appendices 3-6 and 3-7. Contour plots based on
the worst hit level (Section
3.7.1.3 refers) are also provided in Figures 3-8 to 3-12.
Table 3‑9 Predicted Maximum Hourly
TSP Concentrations at Representative ASRs Due to This Project (Mitigated
Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
TSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
With Background ** |
Without Background * |
||||
|
A01 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
35 / 31 / 25 |
|
A01A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
32 / 30 / 27 |
|
A02 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
28 / 26 / 24 |
|
A02A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
35 / 31 / 24 |
|
A03 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
61 / 45 / 32 |
|
A04 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
53 / 42 / 29 |
|
A05 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
17 / 16 / 15 |
|
A05A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
24 / 23 / 22 |
|
A05B |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
15 / 14 / 14 |
|
A06 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
21 / 19 / 18 |
|
A06A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
15 / 15 / 14 |
|
A07 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
8 / 8 / 7 |
|
A08 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
16 / 15 / 14 |
|
A09 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
19 / 15 / 13 |
|
A10 |
Bethel High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
54 / 43 / 38 |
|
A10A |
Bethel High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
46 / 40 / 33 |
|
A11 |
Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
171 / 164 / 164 |
88 / 72 / 48 |
|
A12 |
Villa Camellia |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
166 / 166 / 165 |
56 / 52 / 45 |
|
A13 |
Fairview Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
38 / 36 / 31 |
|
A14 |
Wong Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
45 / 42 / 37 |
|
A15 |
Man Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
36 / 34 / 30 |
|
A16 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
10 / 10 / 10 |
|
A16A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
11 / 11 / 10 |
|
A17 |
Palm Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
6 / 6 / 6 |
|
A18 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
10 / 10 / 10 |
|
A19 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
26 / 24 / 21 |
|
A20 |
Hang Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
33 / 31 / 26 |
|
A21 |
Ha San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
36 / 33 / 28 |
|
A22 |
Ha San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
165 / 164 / 164 |
49 / 47 / 43 |
|
A23 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
9 / 9 / 9 |
|
A24 |
Christian Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
9 / 9 / 8 |
|
A25 |
Royal Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
10 / 9 / 9 |
|
A26 |
Hong Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
9 / 9 / 9 |
|
A27 |
Existing building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
316 / 252 / 182 |
226 / 163 / 92 |
|
A28 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
10 / 10 / 10 |
|
A29 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
11 / 11 / 10 |
|
A30 |
Fairview Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
44 / 42 / 38 |
|
A31 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
14 / 13 / 12 |
|
A32 |
A Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
166 / 164 / 164 |
89 / 82 / 70 |
|
A33 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
19 / 18 / 16 |
|
A34 |
Palm Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
13 / 13 / 12 |
|
A35 |
Palm Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
6 / 6 / 6 |
|
A36 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
11 / 11 / 10 |
|
A1Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
166 / 166 / 165 |
19 / 18 / 18 |
|
A2Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
176 / 167 / 165 |
109 / 94 / 71 |
|
A3Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
17 / 16 / 14 |
|
A4Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
213 / 164 / 164 |
179 / 110 / 43 |
|
A5Pa |
Planned Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
13 / 13 / 13 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
168 / 164 / 164 |
152 / 67 / 51 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
167 / 167 / 166 |
15 / 14 / 14 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V” zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
227 / 175 / 164 |
164 / 96 / 65 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
224 / 164 / 164 |
143 / 77 / 65 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
316 |
226 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
500 |
500 |
Remark:
* Concentration
due to contribution of Project Site.
** The
above results have included the background level extracted from the PATH Output
(year 2015). The hour-by-hour background
contribution is estimated using output file of PATH model, and added hour-by-hour
to the Project contribution in order to calculate the total TSP level.
Table 3‑10 Predicted
Daily Average RSP Concentrations at Representative ASRs Due to This Project
(Mitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
RSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
With Background ** |
Without Background * |
||||
|
A01 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A01A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
2 / 2 / 1 |
|
A02 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A02A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A03 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
2 / 1 / 1 |
|
A04 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
2 / 2 / 1 |
|
A05 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A05A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
|
A05B |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A06 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A06A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A07 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A08 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A09 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A10 |
Bethel High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
2 / 2 / 1 |
|
A10A |
Bethel High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A11 |
Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
9 / 7 / 4 |
|
A12 |
Villa Camellia |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
2 / 2 / 1 |
|
A13 |
Fairview Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
2 / 1 / 1 |
|
A14 |
Wong Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A15 |
Man Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
3 / 2 / 2 |
|
A16 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A16A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
|
A17 |
Palm Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A18 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A19 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A20 |
Hang Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A21 |
Ha San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A22 |
Ha San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A23 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A24 |
Christian Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A25 |
Royal Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A26 |
Hong Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A27 |
Existing building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
11 / 5 / 3 |
|
A28 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A29 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A30 |
Fairview Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A31 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A32 |
A Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
6 / 5 / 3 |
|
A33 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A34 |
Palm Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A35 |
Palm Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A36 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A1Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A2Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
124 / 123 / 123 |
4 / 3 / 2 |
|
A3Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
|
A4Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
5 / 3 / 2 |
|
A5Pa |
Planned Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
124 / 123 / 123 |
4 / 2 / 1 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V” zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
6 / 3 / 2 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
10 / 5 / 2 |
|
Max. Conc. # |
|
- |
124 |
11 |
|
|
No. of exceedance @ |
|
|
1 |
- |
|
|
Criteria |
- |
|
100 (no. of
exceedance allowed <= 9) - |
||
Remark:
The
above results are based on the 1st highest daily average concentrations.
* Concentration
due to contribution of Project Site.
** The
above results have included the background level extracted from the PATH Output
(year 2015). The hour-by-hour background
contribution is estimated using output of PATH model, and added hour-by-hour to
the Project contribution in order to calculate the daily average total RSP
levels.
@ The
total no. of exceedance based on the calculated RSP concentrations.
# Based
on the calculated maximum 1st highest daily average concentrations of RSP. According to Appendix 3-7, the calculated
maximum 10th highest daily average RSP is 80 µg/m3, which can comply with
the relevant AQO criteria.
Table 3‑11 Predicted
Daily Average FSP Concentrations at Representative ASRs Due to This Project
(Mitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
FSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
With Background ** |
Without Background * |
||||
|
A01 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A01A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
1 / 0 / 0 |
|
A02 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A02A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A03 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
1 / 0 / 0 |
|
A04 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
|
A05 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A05A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A05B |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A06 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A06A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A07 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A08 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A09 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A10 |
Bethel High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
|
A10A |
Bethel High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A11 |
Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
3 / 2 / 1 |
|
A12 |
Villa Camellia |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
1 / 0 / 0 |
|
A13 |
Fairview Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A14 |
Wong Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A15 |
Man Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A16 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A16A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A17 |
Palm Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A18 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A19 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A20 |
Hang Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
92 / 92 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A21 |
Ha San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A22 |
Ha San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A23 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A24 |
Christian Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A25 |
Royal Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A26 |
Hong Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A27 |
Existing building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
3 / 2 / 1 |
|
A28 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A29 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A30 |
Fairview Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A31 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A32 |
A Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
2 / 1 / 1 |
|
A33 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A34 |
Palm Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A35 |
Palm Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A36 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A1Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A2Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
92 / 92 / 92 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A3Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A4Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
|
A5Pa |
Planned Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
92 / 92 / 92 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V” zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
2 / 1 / 1 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
3 / 1 / 1 |
|
Max. Conc.
# - |
|
- |
92 |
3 |
|
|
No. of exceedance @ |
|
|
1 |
- |
|
|
Criteria |
|
- |
75 (no. of
exceedance allowed <= 9) - |
||
Remark:
The
above results are based on the 1st highest daily average concentrations.
* Concentration
due to contribution of Project Site.
** The
above results have included the background level extracted from the PATH Output
(year 2015). The hour-by-hour background
contribution is estimated using output of PATH model, and added hour-by-hour to
the Project contribution in order to calculate the daily average FSP levels.
@ The
total no. of exceedance based on the calculated daily average FSP
concentrations.
# Based
on the calculated maximum 1st highest daily average concentrations of FSP. According to Appendix 3-7, the calculated
maximum 10th highest daily average FSP is 59 µg/m3, which can comply with
the relevant AQO criteria.
Table 3‑12 Predicted
Annual Average RSP Concentrations at Representative ASRs Due to This Project
(Mitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
RSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
With Background ** |
Without Background * |
||||
|
A01 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
|
A01A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.4 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
|
A02 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
|
A02A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
|
A03 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.4 / 43.4 / 43.3 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
|
A04 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
|
A05 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A05A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A05B |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A06 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A06A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A07 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A08 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A09 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A10 |
Bethel High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.4 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
|
A10A |
Bethel High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
|
A11 |
Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.4 / 43.4 / 43.3 |
0.2 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
|
A12 |
Villa Camellia |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A13 |
Fairview Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.4 / 43.4 / 43.3 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
|
A14 |
Wong Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
|
A15 |
Man Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
|
A16 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A16A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A17 |
Palm Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A18 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A19 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A20 |
Hang Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A21 |
Ha San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
|
A22 |
Ha San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A23 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A24 |
Christian Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A25 |
Royal Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A26 |
Hong Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A27 |
Existing building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.4 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0.2 / 0.1 / 0 |
|
A28 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A29 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A30 |
Fairview Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0.1 / 0 / 0 |
|
A31 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A32 |
A Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.4 / 43.4 / 43.3 |
0.2 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
|
A33 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A34 |
Palm Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A35 |
Palm Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A36 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A1Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A2Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.5 / 43.5 / 43.4 |
0.3 / 0.2 / 0.2 |
|
A3Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A4Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.4 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
|
A5Pa |
Planned Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.5 / 43.4 / 43.4 |
0.3 / 0.2 / 0.1 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V” zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.5 / 43.4 / 43.4 |
0.3 / 0.2 / 0.1 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43.7 / 43.4 / 43.4 |
0.4 / 0.2 / 0.1 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
43.7 |
0.4 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
50 |
50 |
Remark:
* Concentration
due to contribution of Project Site.
** The
above results have included the background level extracted from the PATH Output
(year 2015). The hour-by-hour background
contribution is estimated using output of PATH model, and added hour-by-hour to
the Project contribution in order to calculate the annual average total RSP
level.
Table 3‑13 Predicted Annual Average FSP
Concentrations at Representative ASRs Due to This Project (Mitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
FSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
With Background ** |
Without Background * |
||||
|
A01 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A01A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A02 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A02A |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A03 |
Fairview Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A04 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A05 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A05A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A05B |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A06 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A06A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A07 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A08 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A09 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A10 |
Bethel High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A10A |
Bethel High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A11 |
Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.8 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A12 |
Villa Camellia |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A13 |
Fairview Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A14 |
Wong Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A15 |
Man Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A16 |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A16A |
Fairview Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A17 |
Palm Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A18 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A19 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A20 |
Hang Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A21 |
Ha San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A22 |
Ha San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A23 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A24 |
Christian Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A25 |
Royal Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A26 |
Hong Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A27 |
Existing building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.8 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0.1 / 0 / 0 |
|
A28 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A29 |
Fairview Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A30 |
Fairview Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A31 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A32 |
A Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.8 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0.1 / 0 / 0 |
|
A33 |
Fairview Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A34 |
Palm Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A35 |
Palm Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A36 |
Yau Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A1Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A2Pa |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.8 / 30.8 / 30.8 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
|
A3Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A4Pa |
Planned REC Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
A5Pa |
Planned Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.8 / 30.8 / 30.7 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V” zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.8 / 30.8 / 30.7 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30.8 / 30.8 / 30.7 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
30.8 |
0.1 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
35 |
35 |
Remark:
* Concentration
due to contribution of Project Site.
** The
above results have included the background level extracted from the PATH Output
(year 2015). The hour-by-hour background
contribution is estimated using output of PATH model, and added hour-by-hour to
the Project contribution in order to calculate the annual average total FSP
level.
It is found that with the
implementation of general mitigation measures listed out in Section 3.9.1; and the proposed
site-specific measures, the dust level can be significantly
reduced and can comply with the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs for TSP,
RSP and FSP, respectively. Thus, no
further mitigation measures will be necessary.
As the dust level can comply with the relevant air
quality criteria/ AQOs, no residual impact is anticipated.
With regard to the above, the air quality impact of
construction activities has been assessed using a conservative emission rate in
order to represent a worst case scenario.
To be conservative, simultaneous construction of
construction activities as identified in Section 3.7.1.1 (i.e.
removal and unloading of soil materials by
excavators; earth loading/ unloading, stockpiling; and bulldozing and surface compaction), has also
been assumed. Thus, the predicted air
quality impact upon ASRs as shown above is based on a conservative approach. However, the concerned activities are considered unlikely to operate at the same time, where there are
limited space and controlled number of construction plants available for
construction at any one time. Thus, it
is expected that the actual air quality impact due to construction works would
be less significant.
The site formation works of this
Project will only last for about 7.5 months. After that, the site will be hard paved and
there will be no significant air quality impact at the site over the long
term. In
addition, the construction works will be carried out in stages, thus the
construction duration of each works area would be relatively short. As a result, the air quality impact upon ASRs
will be relatively short-term and temporary as the nearest dust emission
sources of an individual ASR will not last for the whole period of site
formation stage and will discontinue after a short period of time.
It should also note that practical mitigation measures have already been proposed in
Section 3.9.1; the works area will be constructed in
stages; frequent watering will be applied; exposed surfaces will be compacted
or covered after works. Thus, the
air quality impact due to construction of this Project has already been reduced
to a minimum and practical mitigation measures have been exhausted.
As discussed in
Sections 3.6.1.3 and 3.6.1.4, there are
planned development projects nearby.
Potential impact due to concurrent construction with these planned
projects has been evaluated in the said sections of this report. It is found that site formation works of the
planned “Yau Mei Site” and planned “REC Site” may potentially overlap with this
Project, thus it is investigated further.
Given the concerned “Yau Mei Site” project is distant away from this
Project (over 360m apart) and there are currently no existing ASRs between the
two project sites, it is expected that concurrent construction is unlikely to
result in any adverse impacts on ASRs.
Nevertheless, a sensitivity test based on the peak construction period
during site formation of that project has been undertaken to evaluate potential
cumulative impacts due to concurrent construction with that of the current
Project.
Information of
predicted TSP, RSP and FSP levels from the approved “Yau Mei Site” project, has
been extracted directly from its approved EIA report, and the cumulative impact
upon nearby ASRs (same locations as this Project) are evaluated. Please refer to Appendix 3-11 for details of assessment.
For the planned “REC Site”, as discussed in Section 3.6.1.4, the site formation works of
this Project have largely avoided concurrent works with that project. Thus, adverse cumulative impact is not
anticipated. Nevertheless, to be
conservative, a sensitivity test on cumulative impact due to such minor
overlapped construction activities has been assessed, which are provided in Appendix 3-11A. Information of
predicted TSP, RSP and FSP levels from the approved “REC Site” project, has
been extracted directly from its approved EIA report. Cumulative impact upon
nearby ASRs (same locations as this Project) by considering site formation
works of the current Project; the planned “Yau Mei Site”; as well as the
planned “REC Site”, are then evaluated.
According to the sensitivity test results presented in Appendix 3-11 and Appendix 3-11A, the cumulative dust emissions due to concurrent
construction of the two project sites would not adversely impact on ASRs as the
contribution due to the planned “Yau Mei Site” Project as well as from the “REC
Site” is very small and insignificant.
The cumulative dust levels can comply with the relevant air quality
objectives/ criteria. As such, there
will be no adverse cumulative impact anticipated during construction stage.
No residual impact is
anticipated during construction and operation of this Project.
Given the mitigated TSP, RSP and FSP levels (with implementation of
recommended mitigation measures) can comply with the relevant air quality
criteria/ AQOs, no adverse impact will be anticipated due to the Project works,
and no environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) will be necessary.
Nevertheless, in order to ensure the effectiveness of
implementation of mitigation measures, it is proposed that an environmental
monitoring and audit (EM&A) program is carried out during construction
phase to monitor the short-term impacts.
The Environmental Team (ET) shall check the contractor(s)’ practice and
ensure the above recommendations are properly implemented. Should adverse dust impacts be identified, the
source of fugitive dust emission should be identified. Additional mitigation measures shall be
proposed by the Contractor(s) before concerned construction works is continued.
Details of the EM&A requirements are provided in Chapter 13 of this report.
Construction
Phase
Through implementation of dust control measures
required under the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation; recommended specific
measures in the EIA report; and good housekeeping practice by the works contractors, construction
dust impacts can be controlled to acceptable levels. Practical mitigation measures have already been
proposed for this Project to alleviate potential impacts. The concerned site formation works will only
be short-term and potential air quality impacts have been reduced to a
minimum through
recommended mitigation measures, and can comply with the relevant air quality
criteria/ AQOs. The predicted mitigated
air pollutants levels are also summarised below.
Table 3‑14 Summary
Table of Predicted Mitigated Air Pollutants Concentrations During Construction Phase
|
|
TSP
(1-hour average)
|
RSP
(24-hour average)
|
RSP
(Annual average)
|
PM2.5
(24-hour average)
|
PM2.5
(Annual average)
|
Predicted
Range, μg/m3
|
164 – 316 **
|
78-80 *
|
43.3 – 43.7 **
|
59-59 *
|
30.7 – 30.8 **
|
No. of Exceedance
|
n/a
|
1 ***
|
n/a
|
1 ***
|
n/a
|
Compliance with Air Quality Criteria?
|
Yes
|
Yes #
|
Yes
|
Yes #
|
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Air Quality Criteria, μg/m3
|
500
|
100
|
50
|
75
|
35
|
No. of Exceedance Allowed
|
n/a
|
9
|
n/a
|
9
|
n/a
|
# The predicted 10th highest 24-hour average concentrations as well as the no. of exceedances from the calculated 24-hour average concentrations are both within the air quality criteria / AQO.
During the construction phase, the concerned sediment
at existing pond is intended to
be left in place and not to be disturbed as far as possible. Potential odour impact is
therefore not considered to be an issue.
Therefore, no
adverse impact is anticipated. There is
no residual impact as a result.
Operational Phase
During operation, appropriate
precautionary measures (e.g. peripheral set back from the site boundaries by
means of landscape area) have been incorporated in the layout to alleviate potential
vehicular emissions impacts. It was
found that the Project Site can satisfy the buffer distance requirements stated
in the HKPSG for both active and passive recreational uses, thus no
unacceptable air quality impacts due to vehicular emission is expected. No unacceptable air quality impact due to
industrial emission is expected as no industrial emission source has been
identified within 500m from the Study boundary.
The existing open storage site and an enclosed godown to the east
of the Project Site are unlikely to have adverse air quality impact upon the
development. Thus, no adverse air quality impact is anticipated.
Given the scale of the Project (for small houses
development), there is no major planned dust generating or air
pollutant emission source from the proposed development that would contribute
to any adverse impact on air quality. In
addition, vehicular emission due to additional traffic generated/ attracted by
this Project is found to be insignificant (~19 vehicles/ hour during peak
hour). In
addition, this Project would not contribute to additional traffic flow on
nearby roads when compared with traffic flow generated by its existing open car
park operation. The Project Site itself is unlikely to
generate any air pollution nuisance. During the operational phase, a licensed waste collector will be
employed to collect domestic waste on a daily basis and RCP will be provided
for the residential development. Localized
impact and minimization of odour nuisance will be considered during detailed
design. Thus, no adverse odour impact is anticipated.
During the operational
stage, an interim sewage treatment plant is proposed within the
Project Site before connection to the public sewerage system becomes
available. The interim sewage treatment
plant will be within a totally enclosed building with biological treatment, membrane
filtration and Reverse Osmosis processes to be located underground.
It will be equipped with odour
absorptive system (with odour removal efficiency of not less
than 99.5%) and the exhaust
will be directed away from nearby ASRs. Thus, adverse odour impact is not
expected. Brine disposal during
maintenance will be away from residential area as much as possible and close to
the vehicular access connecting the nearby road. With the careful design and odour control
measures, adverse odour impact due to operation of the interim sewage treatment
plant is not anticipated.
With the recommended
mitigation measures in place, no non-compliance with the criteria as set out in
Annex 4 of the EIAO-TM is anticipated for both vehicular emissions and odour
impacts. No adverse residual air quality
impact due to the Project is anticipated.
This Chapter
presents a noise assessment conducted to predict the future noise impact at the
proposed Development. This Chapter follows the criteria and guidelines for
evaluating and assessing noise impacts as stated in Annex 5 and Annex 13 of the
TM and has covered the scope outlined
in Clause 3.9.2 of the EIA Study Brief.
Noise
standards are recommended in Table 1A of the Technical Memorandum on
Environmental Impact Assessment Process for planning against possible noise
impact from road traffic, railway and aircrafts. According to the guidelines, the maximum
allowed road traffic noise level, measured in terms of L10(1‑hr.), at
typical facades of new dwellings like the proposed development is recommended
to be 70 dB(A).
Table 4‑1 Relevant
Road Traffic Noise Standard
|
Common Uses |
Road Traffic Noise L10 (1 hour),
dB(A) |
|
All domestic premises including temporary housing
accommodation |
70 |
|
Hotel and hostels |
70 |
|
Offices |
70 |
|
Educational institutions including kindergartens,
nurseries and all others where unaided voice communication is required |
65 |
|
Places of public worship and courts of law |
65 |
|
Hospital, clinics, convalescences and homes for the aged,
diagnostic rooms, wards |
55 |
Note:
(i) The above standards apply to
uses which reply on opened windows for ventilation;
(ii) The above
standards shall be viewed as the maximum permissible noise levels assessed at
1m from the external façade.
Noise
Control Ordinance (NCO)
The
Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) provides the statutory framework for the control
of fixed plant. It defines statutory limits applicable to the fixed plants used
during the operational phase of the Project. The Technical Memorandum for the
Assessment of Noise from Places other than Domestic Premises, Public Places or
Construction Sites (IND-TM) sets the criteria - Acceptable Noise Level (ANL)
for governing fixed plant noise.
Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO)
According
to the Table 1A of EIAO-TM, the noise impact due to fixed noise sources shall
comply with the following criteria:
·
5 dB(A) below the appropriate
Acceptable Noise Levels (ANLs) given in Table 2 of the IND-TM; or
·
The prevailing background noise
levels where it is 5 dB(A) below the ANL.
Noise
sensitive receivers (NSR) are classified according to the Area Sensitivity
Rating (ASR). Any NSR shall be assigned
an ASR of "C" if it is within 100 m of a zone designated as
"Industrial" or "Industrial Estate" on a statutory Outline
Zoning Plan, or an ASR of "B" if it is between 100 m and 250 m from
such a zone, except for cases which indicate an ASR of "C". Table 4‑2 presents the ASRs in different areas.
As Project Site is located in rural area, to be
conservative, the Area Sensitive Rating (ASR) of “A” has been assumed, and the
planning noise standard of “ANL–5 dB(A)” should be 55 dB(A) for day-time and
evening time periods, and 45 dB(A) for night time accordingly. The ANL for
Area Sensitivity Ratings of “A” is depicted in Table 4‑3.
Table 4‑2 Area
Sensitivity Ratings (ASRs)
|
Type of Area Containing NSR |
Degree to which NSR
is affected by Influencing
Factor |
||
|
Not Affected |
Indirectly Affected |
Directly Affected |
|
|
Rural area,
including country parks or village type developments |
A |
B |
B |
|
Low density
residential area consisting of low-rise or isolated high-rise developments |
A |
B |
C |
|
Urban area |
B |
C |
C |
|
Area other than
those above |
B |
B |
C |
Table 4‑3 Relevant Noise Standard for Fixed Noise Sources
|
Standards |
Criteria in relevant Time Periods |
Acceptable Noise Level (ANL) |
Criteria (ANL-5 dB(A)) |
|
NCO |
Day and Evening
(07:00 – 23:00) |
60 dB(A) and |
55 dB(A) and |
|
NCO |
Night (23:00 –
07:00) |
50 dB(A) |
45 dB(A) |
It is recommended in the HKPSG that the rail
traffic noise limits for noise sensitive receivers should be 65dB(A) Leq(24
hrs) and 85dB(A) Lmax(2300-0700 hr). These noise limits apply to
uses which rely on open windows for ventilation.
Noise limits recommended in the Noise Control
Ordinance are 60dB(A) Leq(30mins) during day and evening periods and
50dB(A) Leq(30mins) during the night-time for the Development, which
is assigned an Area Sensitivity Rating (ASR) of “A”.
Construction
noise is controlled under the Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) which prohibits the
use of powered mechanical equipment (PME) during the restricted hours (7 p.m.
to 7 a.m. on normal weekdays and any time on a public holiday, including
Sunday) without a valid Construction Noise Permit (CNP) granted by the
Authority. The criteria and procedures for issuing such a permit are specified
in the “Technical Memorandum on Noise From Construction Works Other than
Percussive Piling” (TM1).
For
construction works other than percussive piling, although TM1 do not provide
control over daytime construction activities, noise limits are set out in Annex
5 of the EIAO-TM. The TM applies to designated projects, including residential
or recreational development planned within Deep Bay Buffer Zones 1 or 2. The relevant noise standards are summarised
in Table 4‑4 below.
Table 4‑4 Noise Limits for Daytime
Construction Activities
|
NSR |
0700 to 1900 hours on any day not being a Sunday or
general holiday Leq (30 min.) dB (A) |
|
All domestic
premises including temporary housing accommodation |
75 |
|
Educational
institutions including kindergartens, nurseries. |
70 65 (during
examination) |
N.B.
(i) The above standards apply to
uses which reply on opened windows for ventilation.
(ii) The above standards shall
be viewed as the maximum permissible noise levels assessed at 1m from the
external facade.
Noise
impacts arising from general construction activities (excluding percussive
piling) conducted during the restricted hours (19:00-07:00 hours on any day and
anytime on Sunday or general holiday) and percussive piling during anytime are
governed by the Noise Control Ordinance (“NCO”).
For
carrying out of any general construction activities involving the use of any
Powered Mechanical Equipment (“PME”) within restricted hours, a Construction
Noise Permit (CNP) is required from the Authority under the NCO.
The
noise criteria and the assessment procedures for issuing a CNP are specified in
Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work Other Than Percussive Piling
(GW-TM) under the NCO.
The use
of Specified PME (“SPME”) and/or the carrying out of Prescribed Construction
Work (“PCW”) within a Designated Area (“DA”) under the NCO during the
restricted hours are also prohibited without a CNP. The relevant technical details can be
referred to Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work in Designated
Areas (DA-TM) under NCO.
Designated
areas, in which the control of SPME and PCW shall apply, are established
through the Noise Control (Construction Work Designated Areas) Notice made
under Section 8A(1) of the NCO.
According
to the latest Designated Area defined under the NCO [Plan No.: EPD/AN/NT-01 by the Environment Bureau], the
Project Area is within Designated Areas.
During
the construction phase, the Contractor has the responsibility to check the
latest status and coverage of the Designated Areas at time of construction of
the project.
Percussive
piling is only permitted when the Authority has granted a CNP. Technical Memorandum on Noise from Percussive
Piling (PP-TM) under the NCO sets out the permitted hours of operation of
percussive piling and Acceptable Noise Level (“ANL”) requirements, which are
dependent on the level of exceedance of the Acceptable Noise Level (“ANL”). Should percussive piling
method be found necessary due to engineering reason during the detailed design
stage, it will be subject be a CNP to be issued by EPD.
Regardless
of any description or assessment made in this chapter, in assessing a filed
application for a CNP the Authority will be guided by the relevant Technical
Memoranda. The Authority will consider
all the factors affecting their decision taking contemporary situations/
conditions into account. Nothing in this
report shall pre-empt the Authority in making their decisions, and there is no
guarantee that a CNP will be issued. If
a CNP were issued, the Authority may include any conditions they consider
appropriate and such conditions are to be followed while the works covered by the
CNP are being carried out. Failing to do
so may lead to cancellation of the permit and prosecution action under the NCO.
The Proposed Development is
located at East of Kam Pok Road, Yuen Long.
It is bounded by Fung Chuk Road to the north and Ha Chuk Yuen Road to
the east, Kam Pok Road to the west and Ha San Wai Road to the south (Figure 1-1).
The Development comprises
32 houses with 2 storeys in height (Figure
2-1). Details of the proposed development and the concerned MLP, have been
provided in Section 1.6.
There are existing and
planned developments surrounding the Project Site, these are potential
sensitive receivers during construction and operation of the Project, which are
described in Section 4.5.
Site surveys were
conducted on 4 July 2014, 12 September 2013, 10 February 2012 and 6 January
2010 by Westwood Hong & Associates Ltd
(WHA). The aim of the survey is to establish whether or not the Development
would be significantly affected by the industrial noise sources in the
neighbourhood. Photographs taken on site are given in Appendix 4-1. The surveys were conducted by WHA.
Noise
Sensitive Receivers in the Vicinity
The
identified Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) in the vicinity were Fairview
Park, Villa Camellia and 3-storey village dwellings in Ha San Wai (Plates 4 and 5 in Appendix 4-1).
Observation of Construction Works
No construction activity was being carried out at the
site located to the east of the Development.
Industrial Noise Sources in the Vicinity
Figure 4-4 shows the
locations of identified industrial noise sources in vicinity, photographs were
also provided in Appendix 4-1.
Inspections revealed that
the open storage (Fan Keung Kee) adjoining the eastern site boundary of the
Project Site was for storage use of precast units. The identified industrial
noise sources were a mobile crane, a lorry and a forklift within the yard. Site surveys revealed that the lorry
was moving slowly in the yard, the mobile crane was loading a prefabricated
unit to or from the lorry with insignificant engine noise (Plate 1 of Appendix
4-1). Also, a forklift was used for
loading/unloading and that the site had occasional slight hammering noise.
Inspections
revealed that the Shing Fat Logistics Ltd adjoining the eastern site boundary
of the Project Site was for storage use. The identified industrial noise
sources were a lorry and an electrical forklift. The lorry was moving slowly
within the yard and stopped close to the godown building and the forklift was
moving within the godown building for loading/ unloading from the lorry (Plates
2 – 3 of Appendix 4-1).
The pumping station
(DSD’s Chuk Yuen Flood Water Pumping Station) located north of the Development
was quiet during the site survey (Plates 6 –7 in Appendix 4-1).
The
identified industrial noise sources and number of plants are summarised in Table 4‑5.
Table 4‑5 Identified Industrial Sites
and Noise Sources
|
Source ID |
Industrial Site |
Description |
Consideration of Shielding Effect |
Identified Noise Source |
Max. No. of Plants Used in Noise Assessment |
|
S1-1 |
Fan Keung Kee |
Sheltered warehouse |
The concerned warehouse is within a sheltered area with hoarding
erected on 3 sides and the top, which shields the Development from this
warehouse |
Operating noise |
General operating noise of the warehouse |
|
S2-3 |
Open storage |
- |
Loading and unloading using forklift |
One forklift |
|
|
S2-1 |
For open storage of precast units |
- |
Movement of Lorry |
Movement of one lorry |
|
|
S2-2 |
For open storage of precast units |
- |
Lifting of container by a mobile crane |
One mobile crane |
|
|
S10-1 |
Shing Fat Logistics |
Totally enclosed godown |
The structure of the godown shields the Development |
Loading and unloading using forklift |
One forklift |
|
S10-2 |
Totally enclosed godown |
The structure of the godown shields the Development |
Movement of lorry |
One lorry |
Instrumentation
The instruments
used by Westwood Hong & Associates Ltd for the survey comply with International
Electrotechnical Commission Publications 651:1979 (Type 1) and 804:1985 (Type
1). They are listed in Table 4‑6.
Table 4‑6 Instruments Used for the
Noise Survey
|
MANUFACTURER |
TYPE |
|
Ono Sokki |
Precision Integrating Sound Level
Meter (Serial no.: 04100820) |
|
Ono Sokki |
Foam Windshield |
|
Bruel and Kjaer |
Noise Calibrator Type 4231
(Serial no.: 1807333) |
The
sound level meter was calibrated before use in accordance with the
manufacturer’s recommendations and further checks on completion of the survey
confirmed that there had been no significant drift of calibration.
Weather
Conditions
The weather conditions on site were checked
to ensure the measurements were made only during “dry” weather conditions
without the presence of fog and rain. The wind speed had been checked to ensure
that the wind speed did not exceed 5m/s and 10m/s in any direction for steady
and gusty wind respectively.
Survey Method
The site
was inspected before commencing the noise measurements to ascertain that there was
minimal noise from occupational activities being carried out in the
vicinity. The occupational activity in
the neighbourhood was not considered to have any significant increase on the
measured road traffic and industrial noise levels.
The
sound level meter was adjusted to determine the A-weighted statistical sound
pressure levels such as L10 and Leq. The measurement locations were given
in Figure 4-5.
Site surveys have revealed
that industrial noise from Fan Keung Kee is insignificant at Villa Camellia and
the measured noise levels were in the range of 56 – 57dB(A) (Loc 1 of Figure 4-5).
Site surveys have also
revealed that industrial noise from Shing Fat Logistics Ltd is insignificant
and the measured noise levels at Ha San Wai village were in the range of 47 –
49dB(A) (Loc 2 of Figure 4-5).
For Fan Keung Kee, the sound power levels of the plant are summarized in Table 4‑7, which are used in the industrial noise assessment for projecting the
noise level at the planned NSRs of the Development.
Table 4‑7 Summary of noise
measurement data for Fan Keung Kee
|
Source ID |
Observed Activities/ Equipment |
Measured SPL, dB(A) |
Measurement
Distance, m |
Distance correction, dB(A) |
SWL, dB(A) |
|
S1-1 |
Operation noise of the warehouse |
66 |
10 |
28 |
94 |
|
S2-1 |
Movement of
Lorry |
73 |
8 |
26 |
99 |
|
S2-2 |
Lifting of container by a Mobile crane |
69 |
10 |
28 |
97 |
|
S2-3 |
Loading and
unloading using Forklift |
69 |
5 |
22 |
91 |
For Shing Fat Logistics
Ltd, the
sound power levels of the plant
are summarized in Table 4‑8, which are used in the
industrial noise assessment for projecting the noise level at the planned NSRs
of the Development.
Table 4‑8 Summary of noise
measurement data for Shing Fat Logistics Ltd.
|
Source ID |
Observed Activities/ Equipment |
Measured SPL, dB(A) |
Measurement
Distance, m |
Distance correction, dB(A) |
SWL, dB(A) |
|
S10-1 |
Loading and
unloading using forklift |
63 |
10 |
28 |
91 |
|
S10-2 |
Movement of
lorry |
74 |
7 |
25 |
99 |
Upon Proposed Development Site
The proposed development site is
surrounded by existing road networks such as Kam Pok Road, Fairview Boulevard,
Yau Pok Road, Castle Peak Road, and San Tin Highway. There could be road traffic noise impact upon
the proposed development site due to vehicles travelling on the nearby road
networks during the operational phase of the development. As discussed in Section 1.8, there are planned development projects
nearby, which may contribute to the future traffic flow on surrounding roads
during operation of this Project. A road
traffic noise impact assessment for the Project Site (based on projected cumulative traffic flow with the
inclusion of concerned nearby planned development project sites), has been conducted and details of which are described in Section 4.6.2 below.
Upon Surrounding Environment
As for
the noise impact of traffic attracted/ generated by the proposed development
upon the surrounding environment, it is estimated that only about 18 vehicles/ hour and 19 vehicles/ hour will be attracted/ generated by
this Project during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The majority of concerned traffic flow (80%)
will be private cars and with about 20% heavy vehicles. Thus, adverse noise impact due to this
traffic flow is unlikely to occur.
It shall
also be noted that the Project Site is currently used as open car park (Section
2.3 refers).
Vehicles generated/ attracted by the existing car park will also
contribute to the existing traffic flow on nearby roads. In fact, many vehicles visiting the car park
are heavy vehicles. According
to on-site
traffic survey undertaken by the traffic consultant of this Project in January
2016, the total vehicles generated/ attracted by the existing car park
operation during AM peak hour, was about 76 vehicles/ hour (with about 45%
heavy vehicles). While a traffic flow of
40 vehicles/ hour (with about 65% heavy vehicles), was generated during the PM
peak hour. All the concerned traffic
generated/ attracted from the existing car park operation, will use Kam Pok
Road as the access road (i.e. same as this Project). This is considered much higher when compared
with the current proposed development both in terms of traffic flow and % of
heavy vehicles. Thus, the proposed development will not result in an increase
in traffic flow upon nearby roads when compared with its existing condition.
In
addition, traffic
generated by this Project is expected to take the shortest path and go south
along Kam Pok Road to Fairview Park Boulevard (instead of going north along Kam
Pok Road to Castle Peak Road, where it would merge with traffic generated by
other nearby development projects to the north), thus accumulation of traffic
flow is not expected.
As such,
adverse noise impact upon surrounding environment due to proposed development
is not expected.
The plant
noise control is essential as the temporary sewage treatment plant in the Development may need to be in
operation during the evening (1900 to 2300 hours) and night (2300 to 0700
hours).
The
permissible SWL for the STP is summarised in Table 4-8A.
Table 4‑8A Permissible
sound power level (SWL) for the proposed STP
|
Most Critical NSR No. # |
Distance from STP, m |
Distance Correction, dB(A) |
Required Façade Noise Level, dB(A) ## |
Façade Correction, dB(A) |
Permissible SWL at the Louvre, dB(A) |
|
NSR 60 |
21 |
-35 |
42 |
3 |
74 (42+35-3) |
Remark:
# Industrial noise calculation refers to Appendix 4-6.
## The night-time noise criteria is 45dB(A). With considering the other
fixed noise sources, the required façade noise level due to STP is 42dB(A).
With
reference to the measurement carried out in the existing Ha Tsuen Sewage
Pumping Station (Table A5-1 in Annex A of the EIA report of YLKTSSDS-1), a
noise level of 81dB(A) was measured at 1m from the louvre opening (which is
equivalent to Sound Power Level of 94dB(A) at Louvre on assuming area source of
louvre size of 1.65m x 1.65m, SWL= Measured SPL + 10log (conformal surface),
where the conformal surface at 1m is approximate 19.4m2). According
to the EIA report of YLKTSSDS-1, the existing Ha Tsuen SPS is currently without
any acoustic treatment. In view of the above calculation, the recommended
maximum permissible SWL is not particularly onerous and could be achieved by
using conventional plant with the adoption of proper acoustic treatments and
building design, where necessary. From Table
4-8A, the permissible SWL is 74dB(A), which is 20dB(A) lower than that of
the common pumping station without mitigation measures. Table 4-8B proposes the mitigation measures that are required in
practice to reduce the noise levels.
According
to the approved “EIA and TIA Studies for the Stage 2 of PWP Item No. 215DS-Yuen
Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal”, maximum permissible SWLs at louvre of sewage pumping station are reported to be in the range of 64 – 74dB(A) by the same noise mitigation measures such as acoustic silencer and
enclosure.
Table 4‑8B Proposed
Mitigation Measures for STP
|
Source |
Proposed Mitigation Measures |
Reduction dB(A) |
|
Fan |
Acoustic
Enclosure Silencer at
inlet and outlet |
20 – 30 |
|
Pump |
Acoustic
Enclosure Anti-vibration
Spring Mount |
20 – 30 |
During detailed design, the acoustic
performance of the STP should be reviewed and acoustic treatments such as
provision of acoustic silencer and acoustic enclosure shall be proposed so that
the SWL of STP should be 74dB(A) or below in order to meet the noise criteria.
With careful design of the STP and appropriate noise treatments, it is anticipated that the STP would not cause unacceptable noise impact on the surrounding noise sensitive receivers. Thus, there will be no adverse noise impact due to operation of the sewage treatment plant.
Noise impacts arising from
construction of the proposed development are mainly due to the use of powered
mechanical equipment (PME) for various construction activities. The
construction work for the proposed development is generally divided into the
following stages:
·
Stage A – Site Formation, Filling
and Excavation;
·
Stage B – Construction of
Underground Services and Utilities;
·
Stage C – Construction of Roadworks;
·
Stage D – Foundation; and
·
Stage E – Superstructure
Stage A
works mainly involve site clearance, site formation,
excavation and filling activities.
While, Stages B to E involve construction of underground utilities,
foundation, infrastructure and superstructure works, as well as landscaping
works of the residential portion at the Project Site.
Piling activities will be required for the foundation
works of the proposed development.
Non-percussive piling was assessed based on proposed construction plants
and construction activities. The construction activities that are likely to cause noise impacts
include excavation, piling, materials loading and unloading and
concreting. No noisy operations are
expected during the landscaping works and the “finishing” activities inside the
buildings. The landscaping works would involve planting of various plantations;
while the “finishing” activities would be carried out inside the buildings. The potential noise impact during the
construction phase of the development was assessed quantitatively in later
Sections.
The
Development lies beyond the NEF25 contour of the Chek Lap Kok Airport. Hence,
there will be no aircraft noise restrictions on the Development. As such,
aircraft noise is not considered further in this noise assessment.
West Rail tracks are located at more than
500m from the Development Site. Hence, the proposed
Development would not be adversely affected by the Rail noise. As such, rail noise is not considered further
in this noise assessment.
Noise
sensitive uses of this Project are the planned residential blocks within the
boundary of Project Site. The proposed
development includes 2 storeys buildings with a maximum building height of
6.6m. Thus, the selected noise assessment
points have included both the ground floor (G/F) and first floor (1/F) uses
1.2m above the corresponding floor level.
Representative
sensitive uses are selected for operational phase road traffic noise assessment
and their geographical locations are also depicted in Appendix 4-3.
Similarly,
representative sensitive uses are selected for industrial noise impact
assessment and their geographical locations are also depicted in Appendix 4-4.
With
reference to Annex 13 of the EIAO-TM, noise sensitive receivers are identified
within the 300m radius of the Assessment Area.
These NSRs included all existing NSRs.
The uses
and description of the identified representative existing noise sensitive uses
within the Assessment Area are shown in Table 4‑9. The locations of assessment
points for construction noise impact assessment are also shown in Figure 4-2A, photographs of the
selected NSRs are also provided in Figure
4-2B.
Table 4‑9 Identified
Existing Noise Sensitive Receivers For Construction Noise Assessment
|
NSR ID |
Description |
Current Use |
No. of Storey |
Ground mPD level, m |
|
|
N1 |
Fairview Park |
Residential |
3 |
4.4 |
|
|
N2 |
Fairview Park |
Residential |
3 |
4.4 |
|
|
N3 |
Fairview Park |
Residential |
3 |
4.4 |
|
|
N4 |
Fairview Park |
Residential |
3 |
4.3 |
|
|
N5 |
Fairview Park |
Residential |
3 |
4.2 |
|
|
N6 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen |
Residential |
2 |
2.3 |
|
|
N7 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen |
Residential |
3 |
3.5 |
|
|
N8 |
Bethel High School |
Education |
3 |
4.4 |
|
|
N9 |
Helene Terrace |
Residential |
3 |
4.5 |
|
|
N10 |
Villa Camellia |
Residential |
3 |
6.5 |
|
|
N11 |
Fairview Park |
Residential |
3 |
4.6 |
|
|
N12 |
Wong Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
Education |
4 |
4.4 |
|
|
N13 |
Man Yuen Chuen |
Residential |
3 |
4.1 |
|
|
N14 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen |
Residential |
3 |
3.3 |
|
|
N15 |
Hang Fook Garden |
Residential |
3 |
4.2 |
|
|
N16 |
Ha San Wai |
Residential |
3 |
4.2 |
|
|
N17 |
Ha San Wai |
Residential |
3 |
3.5 |
|
Information
such as relevant plans[3] , current Outline Zoning Plan No.
S/YL-MP/6, and Town Planning Board (TPB) records have been reviewed in order to
identify potential planned/ committed NSRs.
The registry of EIAO projects was also reviewed for EIA projects. Based on information reviewed, there are a
few residential development projects in the vicinity of the proposed
development site. These residential developments are also classified as
designated project under the EIAO; as such they have to go through the EIAO
process.
These potential
future development cases are listed in Table 4‑10 below, and their geographical locations
are also shown in Figure 4-2A.
Table 4‑10 Status
of the Proposed Near-by Sensitive Uses
|
Site Ref. No. |
NSR ID |
EIAO Application Number / Relevant Town Planning Board Ref. No. |
Description |
Appro-val of TPO |
Appro-val of EIAO |
mPD Level (1.2m Above Upper Floor Level), m |
|
|
|
Planned residential development proposals |
||||
|
REC Site |
N1P |
ESB-207/2009,
AEIAR-182/2014, |
Proposed Residential cum
Passive Recreational Development within “Recreation” (“REC”) Zone and “Residential
(Group C)” Zone at Various Lots in DD 104, Yuen Long |
Yes # |
Yes |
8.9 * |
|
N2P |
6.6 * |
|||||
|
RD Site |
N3P |
ESB-204/2009. Different
scales of development and site areas were also under A/YL-MP/132, A/YL-MP/146, A/YL-MP/193 and
A/YL-MP/205 |
Proposed Residential
Development within R(D) Zone at Various Lots in DD 104. |
Yes |
No |
6.6 * |
|
Yau Mei Site |
- |
ESB-182/2008, AEIAR-189/2015 |
Comprehensive Development and
Wetland Protection near Yau Mei San Tsuen, Yuen Long |
No |
Yes |
7.4 * |
|
“V” Zone |
V1P |
- |
New territories exempted house development |
Yes |
N/A |
** |
|
V4P |
- |
Planned “V” Zone |
- |
- |
** |
|
|
“R(D)” Zone |
V2P, V3P |
- |
Planned R(D) Zone |
- |
- |
*** |
Remark: * According to the OZP, allowed building height of the planned
development sites are 6m high. Thus, it is
assumed the planned developments are 2 storeys buildings with floor to floor
height at 3m. The mPD level shown in the
table is based on 1.2m above the upper floor level. For example, the mPD level for N3P is
calculated by 2.4m (existing ground mPD level) + 3m/ per floor + 1.2m above the
ground floor = 6.6mPD).
** No information is available. It is assumed the proposed new territories
exempted village houses will be typical 3 storeys buildings; 2.8m floor to
floor height.
***
According to the OZP No. S/YL-MP/6 , 2 storeys residential development
with a maximum building height of 6m is allowed within the planed R(D)
Zone. Thus, 2 storey building (with a
building height of 6m) has been assumed in this assessment.
#
A rezoning application for the development site was agreed by TPB under
the planning application no. Y/YL-MP/3.
The exact new zoning of that site is still subject to Government’s
further review. However, it is noted
that the submitted development scheme is the same as that approved under the
EIAO.
None of the above planned residential development projects (i.e. “RD
Site”, and “Yau Mei Site”) have obtained approval from both the TP Ordinance
(TPO) and under the EIAO, except planned “REC Site” which has already obtained
approval from both ordinances.
For the planned “REC Site”, its EIA report was approved. As the construction programme of that project
may overlap with this Project, cumulative construction noise impact assessment
has been carried out and presented in Section 4.9 based on information extracted from its EIA report.
For the planned “RD Site”, it was previously approved under the Town
Planning Ordinance. However, it is noted
that project will still need to undertake its EIA study according to the
EIAO. There is no committed development
programme for that project. To be
conservative, cumulative noise impact has considered that project as well.
For the planned “Yau Mei Site” development project, its EIA report was
recently approved. Since the planned
“Yau Mei Site” is outside the 300m study radius of this Project, thus it is not
considered further in the cumulative construction noise assessment.
According to the OZP No. S/YL-MP/6, residential development
may be permitted upon application to the TPB.
As such, the above planned development projects are
considered as potential future NSRs in this noise assessment (except “Yau Mei
Site” which is outside 300m study radius from this Project).
According to TPB records, there are approved new territories exempted
house development sites on the opposite side of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel
(e.g. case number A/YL-MP/172-3 and A/YL-MP/183-1) within the Village
Development (“V”) zone under the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) No. S/YL-MP/6 near
to the Chuk Yuen Tsuen (see Figure 4-2A)
((V1P refers). There is also planned
village development (“V” zone) under the same OZP (Figure 4-2A) (V4P refers).
There is currently no committed development programme for these village
houses development at the moment, however since there could be future NSRs
within this area, representative location is also selected for noise
assessment. It is expected that these proposed
new territories exempted village houses will be typical 3 storeys
buildings.
Asides from the above, there is also planned “R(D)” zone under the OZP
No. S/YL-MP/6. These include the planned
“R(D)” Site described Table 4‑10 above as well as this Project Site, which is also located within the
“R(D)” zone. There are two remaining
small land parcels within the “R(D)” zone that are current vacant, these are to
the south and north-east of the Project Site respectively. There is currently no committed development
programme within these locations. To be
conservative, representative locations V2P and V3P are selected for noise
assessment and their locations are presented in Figure 4-2A.
The extent of noise
assessment was based on an area within 300m radius from the Development
boundary. The identified industrial noise sources include an open storage site
and a godown as discussed in Section 4.4.1. The pattern of operation of
these industrial sites and the type and number of equipment used, were
identified during site surveys. Background noise was also measured near the
Development for the noise assessment.
In evaluating the impact of these industrial sites,
Sound Power Levels (SWL) of the identified plants is based on site measurement
and general acoustic principal (Tables Table 4‑3 and Table 4‑4). Noise
measurements were by using Ono Sokki Precision Integrating Sound Level Meter,
which complies with International Electrotechnical Commission Publications
651:1979 (Type 1) and 804:1985 (Type 1). The weather condition was good with
calm wind condition (<5m/s) during measurement, which satisfies the required
criteria. The equipment was properly calibrated immediately prior to and
following each measurement by a B&K Sound Level Calibrator Type 4231. The
noise levels before and after measurement agreed to within 1.0dB(A). During the
noise measurement, the noise level was dominated by the identified noise
source.
In assessing the noise level, it is assumed that
the identified noisy equipment is located at the notional noise source location
in order to represent a worst case scenario (Figures 4-11A and 4-11B).
To predict the noise level at the future noise
sensitive uses, the following correction factors have been accounted for:
·
Distance
correction: based on the slant distance between the identified noise sources
and the NSR, the distance correction is projected based on standard acoustical
principle for point source;
·
As observed
during the site visits, the noise sources were found to operate occasionally.
Although it is unlikely that all the identified industrial sources will be in
operation simultaneously, to be conservative, it has been assumed that all the
identified noise sources are in operation at the same time, which also
represents a worst case scenario. Noise sources are assumed to operate
continuously instead of in occasion as observed on-site and all noise sources
are regarded as point source;
·
Façade
correction: a +3dB(A) correction is applied to account for noise reflection
from façade; and
Corrected Noise Level (CNL) at the NSRs of the
proposed development can be calculated by applying the above corrections to the
measured SWL of the noise sources in accordance with the following formula:
CNL = SWL + Cdist + Cfac +
Cbarr
Where,
CNL is the
corrected noise level at the Noise Sensitive Receiver in dB(A)
SWL is the measured sound power level of the industrial
plant in dB(A)
Cdist
is the
distance correction in dB(A) in accordance with the Technical Memorandum on
Noise From Construction Works Other than Percussive
Piling.
Cfac
is
façade correction, +3 dB(A)
Cbarr
is the barrier
correction in dB(A). The barrier attenuation is calculated based on Path
Difference Method. Maekawa equation and general
acoustic principle is applied in the calculation of barrier effect.
As there are existing residential development sites
that are much closer to the concerned industrial sites than the Development and
with a separate distance of about 72m (from Villa Camellia) and
90m (from Ha San Wai Village), respectively (Figures 4-10A and 4-10B),
these village houses would be most affected by the concerned industrial sites
when compared with the Development. The potential industrial noise impact under
the worst case scenario was then checked. For establishment of worst case
scenario, it is assumed that the existence of NSRs would limit the extent and
scale of operation as noise emissions would be capped by the ANL (60/50 dB(A)
day/night) under the NCO. Detailed description for the worst case scenario
can be found in Sections 4.6.1.4.
As discussed in Section 4.4.1 above, there
is an existing floodwater pumping station (i.e. Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station)
in the Assessment Area. The potential impacts due to operation of the pumping
station are evaluated further in the following paragraphs.
It was found that the totally enclosed Chuk Yuen
Floodwater pumping station, managed by Hong Kong Government Drainage Services
Department (DSD) is located to the north of the Development. This pumping
station is a completely enclosed structure and it is designed for discharge of
collected rainwater during heavy rainfall, i.e. it will only operate under
extreme condition when there is a threat of flooding in the area under extreme
storm event.
According to the approved EIA report of this
pumping station under the “Main Drainage Channels for Ngau Tam Mei, Yuen Long
and Kam Tin” Project, Sound Pressure Level immediately outside the louvre at
the pumping station is 79dB(A). Thus, noise level at the representative NSR
location of the Development is calculated, and the result is also presented in Table 4‑11.
Geographical locations of the NSRs are shown in Figure 4-12.
Table 4‑11 Calculated Noise Level at
the Existing Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station and Sound Pressure Level from
Approved EIA Report
|
NSR ID |
Noise Level
in the Approved EIA report, dB(A) |
Horizontal
Distance between NSR and the Pumping Station, m |
Distance
Correction, dB(A) |
Façade
Correction, dB(A) |
Calculated
Noise Level at NSR, dB(A) |
|
107 |
79 # |
76 |
-46 |
3 |
36 |
|
111 |
79 # |
53 |
-42 |
3 |
40 |
Remark: # According to Sections 8.3.6 and 8.3.7 of
the “Main Drainage Channels for Ngau Tam Mei, Yuen Long and Kam Tin” EIA Report
in year 1996, the reverberant noise Sound Pressure Level inside the plant room
is 85dB(A). While the Sound Pressure
level immediately outside the louvre at the pumping station is estimated by
substracting 6dB(A) from the reverberant Sound Pressure level (i.e. 85 – 6 =
79dB(A)).
Based on
information in the EIA report of the ‘Main Drainage Channels for Ngau Tam Mei,
Yuen Long and Kam Tin” in year 1996, the noise level at nearby NSR location of
the Development is within the noise criteria described in Table 4-3.
There are
several industrial operations identified within the Project Assessment (Figure
4-4). According to the approved EIA “Proposed Residential cum Passive
Recreational Development within REC Zone and R(C) Zone at Various Lots in DD
104, Yuen Long, N.T.” , the identified industrial sites have no night-time
operation based on site observations from February 2008 to October 2013 (over 5
years’ observations). In addition, night-time noise measurements were carried
out and no operation of the industrial sites during night-time period was
observed. Additional night-time noise surveys have also been undertaken for 7
consecutive days which further confirms that absence of noisy industrial
activities during night-time period. The above observations were verified by
independent site surveys of WHA from 2010 to 2014. As night-time operation of
industrial sites was not observed, day-time noise assessment was undertaken
below.
For industrial
noise assessment, the identified industrial noise sources, number of plants,
and the observed existing condition on-site are summarised in Table 4‑5, which are also reproduced below:
Open Storage Site:
· Loading and unloading using
forklift x 1 No.
· Lifting of container/ materials by
mobile crane x 1 No.
· Moving in/out of lorry x 1 No.
· General operation of warehouse x 1 No.
Enclosed Godown:
·
Loading and unloading using forklift
x 1 No.
·
Moving in/out of lorry x 1 No.
The recorded
number of plants at each industrial site and sound power levels of the plants
are also summarised in Tables Table 4‑7 and Table 4‑8, which are used in the noise assessment for
projecting the noise level at the planned NSRs under the Development. The
geographical locations of NSRs used for the noise assessment is provided in Appendix
4-4.
Although it is
unlikely that all the identified industrial noise sources will be in operation
simultaneously, to be conservative, it has been assumed that all the identified
noise sources are in operation at the same time, which also represents a worst
case scenario. Noise sources are assumed to operate continuously instead of in
occasion as observed on-site and all noise sources are regarded as point
source.
Detailed noise
calculations and assumptions based on field observations are provided in Appendix
4-4. Based on the noise assessment results, with the provision of noise
barrier (Figure 4-8), the estimated noise levels due to identified fixed
noise sources can comply with the day-time noise criteria specified in Table 4‑3 above (i.e. 55dB(A)). Therefore, no unacceptable
industrial noise impact is anticipated.
As mentioned in
Section 4.6.1 above, the concerned two industrial sites include an open
storage site and its associated warehouse, and an enclosed godown. The type and
no. of noisy equipment used for the above noise assessment have been verified
through continuous site surveys, which can represent the operational activities
of the concerned industrial sites to date.
It shall be
noted there are existing NSRs nearby the Development and the industrial sites,
which are most affected by the concerned industrial activities (due to shorter
separation distance) (Section 4.6.1 refers). These existing NSRs include
Villa Camellia to the south of the open storage site and village houses at Ha
San Wai village to the southeast of the godown as shown in Figures 4-10A and
4-10B, which is also tabulated below. The
operation of the concerned industrial sites will also need to comply with the
relevant noise criteria (ANL) with respect to these existing NSRs. For
establishment of worst case scenario, it is therefore assumed that the
existence of NSRs would limit the extent and scale of operation as noise
emissions would be capped by the ANL (60/50 dB(A) day/night) under the NCO.
Details are provided in the following paragraphs.
Table 4‑12 Distance between industrial site and
nearest existing NSRs
|
Industrial site |
Nearest Existing NSRs |
Distance |
|
Enclosed Godown |
Ha San
Wai Village |
90m
(refer to Figure 4-10B) |
|
Open
Storage Site |
Villa
Camellia |
72m (refer
to Figure 4-10A) |
Open Storage
Site
For the open
storage site, as the majority of the site is used for storage of precast units,
the remaining land area would limit the maximum no. of noisy equipment that can
be used at any one time. Also, for safety reason it is unlikely that additional
mobile crane can be used on-site within a limited site area. Taking into
account the site condition and the ANL at nearest NSR, a sensitively test has
been carried out by assuming a maximum of 2 lorries to be used during day-time
(i.e. one lorry leaving the site while another lorry arriving the site). This
would represent the worst case scenario of the operation of this industrial
site during day-time. For the night-time operation, although no night-time
works were observed, assumption has been made by assuming the workshop operates
during night-time in the worst case scenario. These are summarised below:
· Daytime:
- Loading and unloading using forklift x 1 No.
- Lifting of container/ materials by mobile
crane x 1 No.
- Moving in/out of lorry x 2 Nos.
- General operation of warehouse x 1 No.
· Night-time:
- General operation of warehouse x 1 No.
Enclosed Godown
For the
enclosed godown, based on site observation, operation of this site will involve
loading and unloading by forklift and movement of lorry with limited traffic
flow in and out of the godown. Taking into account the site condition (where
most of the site area is occupied by totally enclosed building structures with
limited open space available for parking of equipment) and the ANL at its
nearest NSR at Ha San Wai village, a sensitivity test has been carried out by
assuming a maximum of 3 lorries (i.e. one leaving the site; one unloading
materials and one arriving the site) and a maximum of 2 forklifts (one loading
materials onto the lorry and one unloading materials from lorry), respectively
during day-time. Further increase in equipment will not be feasible due to site
constraints. For the night-time operation, although no night-time works were
observed at this site, assumption has been made by assuming that the forklifts
are used at night within the godown. These are summarised below:
· Daytime:
- Loading and unloading using forklift x 2 No.
- Moving in/out of lorry x 3 Nos.
· Night-time:
-
Loading and unloading using forklift
x 2 No.
The above
assumptions regarding the open storage site and the godown have been
counter-checked against the ANL at existing nearest NSR for each of the
industrial sites, and the results are tabulated blow and in Appendix 4-5.
Based on the assumption mentioned above, the ANLs at the nearest NSR (both
daytime and night-time) can just be met. Thus, the assumption on noisy
equipment would represent the operation of industrial sites under a worst case
scenario.
Table 4‑13 Predicted Noise levels for existing NSRs
for Daytime
|
Industrial site |
Noise sources (Daytime) |
No. |
Predicted Noise Levels |
|
|
NSR 1 – Ha San Wai Village |
NSR 2 - Villa Camellia |
|||
|
Open Storage |
- Loading and unloading using
forklift - Lifting of container/
materials by mobile crane -
Moving in/out of lorry -
General operation of warehouse |
1 1 2 1 |
59.2dB(A) |
58.5dB(A) |
|
Enclosed Godown |
-
Loading and unloading using forklift - Moving in/out of lorry |
2 3 |
||
Table 4‑14 Predicted Noise levels for existing NSRs
for Night-time
|
Industrial site |
Noise sources (Night-time) |
No. |
Predicted Noise Levels |
|
|
NSR 1 – Ha San Wai Village |
NSR 2 - Villa Camellia |
|||
|
Open Storage |
General operation of warehouse |
1 |
48.2(A) |
49.2dB(A) |
|
Enclosed Godown |
Loading and unloading using forklift |
2 |
||
As such, the
noise level at the Development was then projected based on the same assumption.
With the provision of noise barrier, the calculated noise levels at the NSRs of
the Development would comply with the relevant noise criteria (ANL-5) for both
daytime and night-time periods (Appendices 4-6 and 4-7). Therefore, the Development
is not affected by the industrial noise sources.
To be
conservative, cumulative noise level due to the existing Chuk Yuen Pumping
Station and the identified industrial noise sources at the representative NSR
locations are also calculated and the results are provided in Appendix 4-7A.
Based on the
results, the estimated cumulative noise levels can comply with the relevant
noise criteria specified in Table 4‑3. Therefore, no unacceptable industrial noise
impact is anticipated.
With the noise
mitigation measures of noise barrier (Figure 4-8), noise impact
assessment results have shown that the relevant noise criteria would be
complied with and there will be no adverse noise impact. The proposed noise
mitigation measures are practicable and welly adopted practices, no side
effects or constraints due to inclusion of such measures are expected.
The
noise prediction has been conducted by employing the RoadNoise 2000[3]
computer software licensed to use by WS Atkins.
Traffic
Forecast Data
According
to Section 1.6.3, the Project is planned for completion by year 2018. To provide a conservative approach, traffic
forecast has been undertaken for year 2033, which represents the worst case scenario of projected traffic flows between
year 2018 and year 2033. The traffic forecast has taken into account nearby
proposed development projects along Kam Pok Road as well as the
future Kam Pok Road Extension.
The AM and PM peak traffic forecasts for Year 2033 are provided by the Traffic Consultant (CKM Asia Ltd).
The traffic forecast data has been endorsed by the Transport Department
(TD) (Appendix
4-2 refers). The heavy
vehicles are as defined in the UK
Department of Transport’s “Calculation
of Road Traffic Noise (1988)” (CRTN). Review of the data indicates that the AM
peak is higher than the PM peak.
Therefore, the AM peak is employed for the assessment.
The AM
peak traffic forecast data is shown in Table 4‑15. A summary of the traffic forecast
predicted for Year 2033 is also illustrated in Figure 4-6.
Table 4‑15 Traffic
forecast for Year 2033, AM Peak
|
Ref. |
Road
Name |
Traffic Forecast, AM peak |
|
|
Veh./hr |
% HGV |
||
|
A |
Fairview
Park Boulevard |
1450 |
27 |
|
B |
Castle
Peak road – Tam Mi |
950 |
39 |
|
C |
Slip Road
to San Tin Highway – NB |
500 |
38 |
|
D |
Slip
Road from San Tin Highway – SB |
450 |
47 |
|
E |
San
Tam Road |
700 |
37 |
|
F |
San
Tam Road |
900 |
45 |
|
G |
Slip
Road to San Tin Highway – SB |
1050 |
21 |
|
H |
Slip
Road from San Tin Highway – NB |
800 |
32 |
|
J |
Castle
Peak Road – tam Mi |
600 |
43 |
|
K |
Kam
Pok Road |
300 |
23 |
|
L |
Yau
Pok Road |
50 |
20 |
|
M |
San
Tin Highway NB |
3250 |
40 |
|
N |
San
Tin Highway SB |
3000 |
50 |
Methodology
The
traffic noise levels at the Development have been predicted, basing on the predicted
traffic flows in Year 2033 and calculation methods in accordance with the CRTN[4]. The predicted noise levels at the building
facades include a 2.5dB(A) facade reflection and correction factors for effects
due to gradient, distance, view angle and barriers.
According
to the EIAO-TM, the construction noise standard relevant to daytime
construction activities for domestic premises is LAeq (30 minutes)
75 dB(A) and that for education institute is LAeq (30 minutes) 70
dB(A) (65 dB(A) during examination period).
As indicated in Section 4.2.5, construction works in restricted hours and percussive piling works are
controlled under NCO. Should such works
be required for the Project, suitable CNP applications will need to be made to
the Noise Control Authority in advance.
The
approach used in the assessment of noise from construction works other than
percussive piling is based on standard acoustic principles, and the guidelines
given in Para. 5.3 and 5.4 of Annex 13 of the EIAO-TM. The methodology adopted is the same as that
presented in TM1.
Noise
impact arising from the construction works of this Project have been predicted
using the following typical procedures: -
·
Based on the tentative construction
programme (see Appendix 1-1). The
worst construction scenarios of each construction activities were identified;
·
Identify the corresponding SWL of
each preliminary planned powered mechanical equipment (PME) as listed in the
Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Works other than Percussive
Piling of the Noise Control Ordinance and EPD’s Quality PMEs (QPMEs) inventory,
where appropriate;
·
Select representative NSRs for the
construction noise impact assessment;
·
Identify the notional source
position for each representative assessment point (RAP). The identification of
the notional source position will follow the methodology given in the section 2
of the Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Works other than
Percussive Piling of the Noise Control Ordinance;
·
Calculate the Predicted Noise Level
(PNL) based on distance attenuation from notional source positions to the
representative NSRs;
·
With consideration of the effect of facade
reflection at the NSRs, the Corrected Noise Level (CNL) at the NSRs was
predicted; and
·
Based on a comparison of the CNL
with the noise criteria presented in Table 4‑4, situations/ locations where the need for noise mitigation measures can
be identified.
As
discussed in earlier paragraphs, the Project Site involves construction of
residential buildings and ancillary facilities as discussed in Section 1.6. Thus, construction noise level
due to construction activities within the Project Site is considered in this
noise assessment.
As the
Project Site is adjacent to the existing residential developments such as
Helene Terrace, Villa Camellia, Fairview Park and Ha San Wai Tsuen, thoughtful
consideration has been undertaken when developing the Project construction
programme/ sequence, type of equipment to be used, and construction method in
order to minimise potential construction noise impact to adjacent NSRs. The Project construction programme has also
been designed in such a way that concurrent construction activities are
avoided/ minimised as much as possible.
The current construction programme with indication of concurrent
construction activities of this Project is provided in Appendix 1-1.
Table 4‑16 shows the list of plant inventory for construction works of the
proposed development. As confirmed by the Project Engineer, the plant inventory
and the number of equipment are considered to be appropriate and practical for
completing works within the proposed works programme. Cumulative construction
noise due to potential concurrent construction activities of this Project
(construction programme in Appendix 1-1
refers), and also due to other nearby planned development projects, were also estimated
in order to represent the worst case scenario.
With
regard to noise level due to travelling of dump trucks on haul road within the
Project construction area, it was evaluated according to the procedure given in
British Standard, Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites, BS 5228: Part
1:2009 with the equation below:
LAeq =
SWL – 33 + 10log10 Q – 10 Log10 V – 10log10 D
Where,
SWL = Sound Power Level of the dump truck
Q is the number of vehicles per hour (no. of veh./hr)
V is the average speed (10 km/hr)
D is the distance of receiver position from the haul road (m).
Table 4‑16 Inventory
of Powered Mechanical Equipment (Unmitigated)
|
Construction Activity |
Sub. Work Group
# |
Powered Mechanical Equipment |
TM Ref. |
Quantity |
SWL per unit, dB(A) |
|
|
Site Formation, Filling and Excavation |
A1 |
Excavation and Filling |
Air Compressor |
CNP003 |
2 |
104 |
|
|
|
Breaker, Excavator mounted |
CNP027 |
2 |
122 |
|
|
|
|
Excavator |
CNP081 |
3 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP101 |
3 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Dump Truck |
CNP067 |
2 |
117 |
|
|
A2 |
Ground Compression |
Roller, vibratory |
CNP186 |
2 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Bulldozer |
CNP030 |
2 |
115 |
|
|
Construction of Underground Services and Utilities |
B1 |
Earthwork |
Breaker, Excavator mounted |
CNP027 |
1 |
122 |
|
|
|
Dump Truck |
CNP067 |
2 |
117 |
|
|
|
|
Excavator |
CNP081 |
2 |
112 |
|
|
B2 |
Utilities laying |
Air Compressor |
CNP003 |
2 |
104 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP101 |
2 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
CNP141 |
1 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Water Pump, Submersible (Electric) |
CNP283 |
2 |
85 |
|
|
B3 |
Ground reinstatement |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
1 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Power Rammer (Petrol) |
CNP169 |
1 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, Vibratory, Hand-held |
CNP170 |
1 |
113 |
|
|
|
|
Roller, Vibratory |
CNP186 |
1 |
108 |
|
|
Road works |
C1 |
Earthwork |
Dump Truck |
CNP067 |
2 |
117 |
|
|
|
Excavator |
CNP081 |
1 |
112 |
|
|
C2 |
Concreting Works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
2 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP101 |
2 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, Vibratory, Hand-held |
CNP170 |
2 |
113 |
|
|
C3 |
Road Finishing |
Air Compressor |
CNP003 |
2 |
104 |
|
|
|
|
Asphalt Paver |
CNP004 |
2 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP101 |
2 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
CNP141 |
2 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Power Rammer (Petrol) |
CNP169 |
1 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Road Roller |
CNP185 |
1 |
108 |
|
|
Foundation |
D1 |
General foundation construction |
Air Compressor |
CNP003 |
5 |
104 |
|
|
|
Bar bender and cutter (electric) |
CNP021 |
5 |
90 |
|
|
|
|
Crane, tower (electric) |
CNP049 |
3 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
4 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
CNP141 |
2 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Drill/grinder, hand-held (electric) |
CNP065 |
4 |
98 |
|
|
|
|
Excavator |
CNP081 |
3 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Saw, circular, wood |
CNP201 |
4 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Water pump, submersible (electric) |
CNP283 |
4 |
85 |
|
|
D2 |
Piling Works |
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
4 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Non-percussive piling machine |
** |
2 |
115 |
|
|
D3 |
Concreting Works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
3 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
4 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, vibratory, hand-held |
CNP170 |
3 |
113 |
|
|
Superstructure |
E1 |
General construction works |
Air Compressor |
CNP003 |
6 |
104 |
|
|
|
Bar bender and cutter (electric) |
CNP021 |
9 |
90 |
|
|
|
|
Mobile Crane |
CNP048 |
3 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Drill/grinder, hand-held (electric) |
CNP065 |
10 |
98 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
4 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Saw, circular, wood |
CNP201 |
7 |
108 |
|
|
E2 |
Concreting works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
8 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Concrete Pump |
CNP047 |
4 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
4 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, vibratory, hand-held |
CNP170 |
7 |
113 |
|
|
Dump Trucks
Travelling on Haul Road during site formation (Veh./hr) |
F |
Dump Truck (Moving on Haul Road) |
Dump Truck |
CNP067 |
8 |
117 |
Remark: # Each Construction Activity has been
divided into several sub. work groups based on the sequence of construction
works. The respective sub-work groups
of each Construction Activity will not overlap with one another.
** Non-percussive type
piling machine will be used, subject to the detailed design stage the exact
type of non-percussive piling machine will proposed. To be conservative, noise level of commonly
used non-percussive piling machine according to the Technical Memorandum on
Noise From Construction Work Other Than Percussive Piling, has been used for
noise calculation.
The calculated highest SWLs of each Construction Activity used for
construction noise impact assessment, are provided in Appendix 4-8.
Proactive
Noise Measures Incorporated in the Design
Given to the site condition and the presence of
industrial noise sources in adjacent to the Project Site as discussed in
Section 4.6.1 above (i.e. fixed noise sources in adjacent
site) as well as the proposed interim STP, proactive noise protection measures
have already been incorporated into the design of the proposed development,
which include placing noise tolerant uses such as the proposed STP (with
10.4mPD at roof level) between the proposed house and the industrial noise
source; and a noise barrier along the remaining eastern site boundary with a
minimum 4.5m tall solid boundary wall. The locations of the above-mentioned
proactive measures are shown in Figure
4-8. In addition, recommendations on
noise mitigation measures have also been proposed in Section 4.4.3 to alleviate noise impact from the proposed interim STP.
The above-mentioned proactive noise protection
measures have been taken into account in the noise assessment, and the results
are presented in the following paragraphs.
Predicted
Industrial Noise Levels
The Development requires noise levels of the fixed industrial noise sources
not to exceed (ANL - 5) and the prevailing background noise levels. For
daytime, the prevailing background noise levels are in the range of 56 –
58dB(A), which is higher than (ANL – 5) (Section 4.4.1 refers). Therefore, the ANL – 5 (i.e.
55dB(A) for daytime) is used as the industrial noise criteria.
With the above-mentioned proactive noise protection
measures in place, it is found that the proposed development will not be adversely
affected by the activities carried out at the industrial noise
sources in the vicinity. According to
the predicted facade noise levels at the NSRs (Appendices
4-6 and 4-7 refer), 100%
noise compliance could be achieved.
Thus, no unacceptable noise impact is expected.
Please refer to Sections 4.4.3 and 4.6.1 for the noise assessment, and Appendices 4-6 to 4-7 for details of
the predicted noise levels at NSRs and the sample noise calculations.
As for
existing Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station, no adverse noise impact is
anticipated according to the noise assessment results provided in 4.6.1.2. A cumulative noise impact assessment was also
provided in Section 4.6.1.5 with
the above-mentioned industrial noise sources, proposed interim STP and the Chuk
Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station. The
noise assessment results are also provided in Appendix
4-7A. It was found that the estimated cumulative
noise levels can comply with the relevant noise criteria and no adverse impact
is anticipated. Thus, no further noise
mitigation measures are necessary.
Road traffic noise impacts were assessed based on
the methodology described in Section 4.6.2. The proposed development layout has
provided set back from Kam Pok Road (>8m between nearest NSR and the edge of
Kam Pok Road as shown in Figure 4-7).
The predicted road traffic noise levels at the
Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs) of the residential blocks are presented in Figure 4-7. Details of the computer
output and input files are shown in Appendix
4-3. Computer plot of the road scheme is also shown in Figure 4-6.
According to the calculation results, the noise
level at all residential flats (i.e. 100%) will be within the stipulated noise
limit of 70dB(A), thus the proposed development will not be subject to adverse
impact as a result of road traffic noise.
According
to the EIAO-TM, the construction noise standard for domestic premises is Leq
(30 minutes) 75 dB(A) and that for education institute is Leq (30
minutes) 70 dB(A) (65 dB(A) during examination period).
Construction
noise level due to this Project has been assessed based on the plant inventory
shown in Table 4‑16 and the construction programme in Appendix
1-1. Noise due to concurrent construction
works is also assessed. Information such
as SWLs used for the noise calculation, NSRs separation distance, and sample
calculation of construction noise levels are also provided in Appendix 4-8.
Table 4‑17 below shows the predicted construction noise levels at the
representative NSRs due to construction of this Project. The geographical locations of the NSRs are
also depicted in Figure 4-2A.
According
to the assessment results, the noise levels due to construction activities of
this Project at the representative NSRs would exceed the relevant noise
criteria specified in Table 4‑4 above. As such, noise mitigation
measures (e.g. using quiet type construction equipment and movable noise
barriers) have been proposed in order to alleviate the potential construction
noise impacts. Details of the assessment
with the proposed noise mitigation measures are depicted in Section 4.8.
Table 4‑17 Estimated
Unmitigated Construction Noise Levels at Representative NSRs
Note: Please refer to Appendix 4-8 for the sample calculation and Figure 4-2A for the NSR locations.
* Please refer to Table 4‑16 and Appendix 1-1 for the equipment
inventory, construction programme and duration of concurrent construction
activities.
Hatched numbers indicate exceedance of the relevant noise criteria for
construction activities.
Since the estimated unmitigated noise level at NSRs
would exceed the relevant noise criteria, EPD’s quality powered mechanical
equipment (QPME) inventory is reviewed and proposed to be used wherever
possible as a noise mitigation measure, and the updated equipment inventory is
shown in Table 4‑18. The Contractor of this Project
should diligently seek equivalent models of quiet/ silenced PMEs, and the
requirement will be included in the Project EM&A Manual.
Table 4‑18 Inventory
of Powered Mechanical Equipment (with QPMEs)
|
Construction Activity |
Sub. Work Group # |
Powered Mechanical Equipment |
TM Ref. |
Qty |
SWL per unit, dB(A) |
|
|
Site Formation,
Filling and Excavation |
A1 |
Excavation
and Filling |
Air
Compressor |
CNP001 |
2 |
100 |
|
|
|
Breaker,
excavator mounted |
EPD * |
2 |
115 |
|
|
|
|
Excavator,
wheeled/ tracked |
KATO model
HD820V (EPD-01233) |
3 |
99 |
|
|
|
|
Generator,
super silenced |
CNP103 |
3 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Dump Truck
(5.5 tonne < Gross vehicle weight <= 38 tonne) |
EPD * |
2 |
105 |
|
|
A2 |
Ground
Compression |
Roller,
vibratory |
SAKAI
model SW250-1 (EPD-00509) |
2 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Bulldozer |
Komatsu
modelled D21A-8 |
2 |
102 |
|
|
Construction
of Underground Services and Utilities |
B1 |
Earthwork |
Breaker,
excavator mounted |
EPD * |
1 |
115 |
|
|
|
Dump Truck
(5.5 tonne < Gross vehicle weight <= 38 tonne) |
EPD * |
2 |
105 |
|
|
|
|
Excavator,
mini-robot mounted |
EPD * |
2 |
94 |
|
|
B2 |
Utilities
laying |
Air
Compressor |
CNP001 |
2 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
Generator,
Standard |
CNP103 |
2 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry (5.5
tonne < Gross vehicle weight <= 38 tonne) |
EPD * |
1 |
105 |
|
|
|
|
Water
Pump, Submersible (Electric) |
CNP283 |
2 |
85 |
|
|
B3 |
Ground
reinstatement |
Concrete
Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
1 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Power
Rammer (Petrol) |
Dynapac
model LT700 (EPD-00536) |
1 |
107 |
|
|
|
|
Poker,
Vibratory, Hand-held |
EPD * |
1 |
102 |
|
|
|
|
Roller,
Vibratory |
SAKAI
model SW250-1 (EPD-00509) |
1 |
95 |
|
|
Road works |
C1 |
Earthwork |
Dump Truck
(5.5 tonne < Gross vehicle weight <= 38 tonne) |
EPD * |
2 |
105 |
|
|
|
Excavator,
wheeled/tracked |
KATO model
HD820V (EPD-01233) |
1 |
99 |
|
|
C2 |
Concreting
Works |
Concrete
Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
2 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator,
Standard |
CNP103 |
2 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Poker,
Vibratory, Hand-held |
EPD * |
2 |
102 |
|
|
C3 |
Road
Finishing |
Air
Compressor |
CNP001 |
2 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
Asphalt
Paver |
VOLVO
model. No. ABG5770 (EPD-01226) |
2 |
104 |
|
|
|
|
Generator,
super silenced |
CNP103 |
2 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry (5.5 tonne < Gross vehicle weight <=
38 tonne) |
EPD * |
2 |
105 |
|
|
|
|
Power
Rammer (Petrol) |
Dynapac
model LT700 (EPD-00536) |
1 |
107 |
|
|
|
|
Road
Roller |
HITACHI
model CP220-3 (EPD-01183) |
1 |
97 |
|
|
Foundation |
D1 |
General
foundation construction |
Air
Compressor |
CNP001 |
5 |
100 |
|
|
|
Bar bender
and cutter (electric) |
CNP021 |
5 |
90 |
|
|
|
|
Mobile
Crane |
Hitachi
Sumitomo SCX700, 132kW |
3 |
101 |
|
|
|
|
Generator,
standard |
CNP103 |
4 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry (5.5
tonne < Gross vehicle weight <= 38 tonne) |
EPD * |
2 |
105 |
|
|
|
|
Drill/grinder,
hand-held (electric) |
CNP065 |
4 |
98 |
|
|
|
|
Excavator,
wheeled/tracked |
KATO model
HD820V (EPD-01233) |
3 |
99 |
|
|
|
|
Saw,
circular, wood |
CNP201 |
4 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Water
pump, submersible (electric) |
CNP283 |
4 |
85 |
|
|
D2 |
Piling
works |
Generator,
standard |
CNP103 |
4 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Non-percussive
piling machine |
** |
2 |
115 |
|
|
D3 |
Concreting
Works |
Concrete
Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
3 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator,
standard |
CNP103 |
4 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Poker,
vibratory, hand-held |
EPD * |
3 |
102 |
|
|
Superstructure |
E1 |
General
construction works |
Air
Compressor |
CNP001 |
6 |
100 |
|
|
|
Bar bender
and cutter (electric) |
CNP021 |
9 |
90 |
|
|
|
|
Mobile
Crane |
Hitachi
Sumitomo SCX700, 132kW |
3 |
101 |
|
|
|
|
Drill/grinder,
hand-held (electric) |
CNP065 |
10 |
98 |
|
|
|
|
Generator,
standard |
CNP103 |
4 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Saw,
circular, wood |
CNP201 |
7 |
108 |
|
|
E2 |
Concreting
works |
Concrete
Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
8 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Concrete
Pump |
CNP047 |
4 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator,
standard |
CNP103 |
4 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Poker,
vibratory, hand-held |
EPD * |
7 |
102 |
|
|
Dump Trucks Travelling on Haul Road during site formation
(Veh./hr) |
F |
Dump Truck
(Moving on Haul Road) |
Dump Truck |
EPD * |
10 |
105 |
Remark: # Each
Construction Activity has been divided into several sub. work groups based on
the sequence of construction works. The
respective sub-work groups of each Construction Activity will not overlap with
one another. The calculated highest SWLs
of each Construction Activity used for construction noise impact assessment,
are provided in Appendix 4-9.
* EPD website: http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/application_for_licences/guidance/files/OtherSWLe.pdf
**
Non-percussive type piling machine will be used, subject to the detailed
design stage the exact type of non-percussive piling machine will
proposed. To be conservative, noise
level of commonly used non-percussive piling machine according to the Technical
Memorandum on Noise From Construction Work Other Than Percussive Piling, has
been used for noise calculation.
Asides from QPMEs mentioned above, additional noise
mitigation measures in terms of movable noise barriers are also proposed. Movable noise barriers are proposed to shield construction
plants. The movable
noise barriers should have sufficient surface density of at least 10 kg/m2
or material providing equivalent acoustic performance to block the line of
sight from the sensitive receivers. There should not be any gaps and openings
at the noise barriers to avoid noise leakage.
The design of the noise barriers shall be proposed by the work
contractor(s), and approved by the Engineer’s Representative (ER) and the
Environmental Team in accordance with the Project EM&A Manual.
According to EIAO Guidance Note No.
9/2010, with provision of noise barriers, a 5dB(A) noise reduction for movable
plant, 10 dB(A) for stationary plant and 15 dB(A) for enclosed ones can be
assumed.
The estimated noise level at both existing and planned
NSRs with the adoption of QPMEs and movable noise barriers are provided in Table 4‑19.
According to the estimated noise levels, with the
proposed noise mitigation measures the construction noise levels at the NSRs
due to this Project would comply with the relevant construction noise
criteria.
Table 4‑19 Estimated Mitigated
Construction Noise Levels Due to This Project With the Use of QPMEs and Movable Noise Barriers
Note: Please refer to Appendix 4-9 for the sample calculation
and Figure 4-2A for the NSR
locations.
* Please refer to Table 4‑18 and Appendix
1-1 for the construction programme and the duration of concurrent
construction activities.
Hatched numbers indicate exceedance
of the relevant noise criteria for construction activities.
It is also recommended that good housekeeping
activities shall also be carried out to further minimise the potential
construction noise impact, and these are summarised below. The following good site practices are also
recommended for incorporation into the contractual requirements.
·
Before the commencement of any work,
the Contractor shall submit to the Engineer for approval the method of working,
equipment and sound-reducing measures intended to be used at the Project Site;
·
Contractor shall comply with and
observe the Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) and its current subsidiary
regulations;
·
Contractor shall devise and execute
working methods that will minimise the noise impact on the surrounding
environment; and shall provide experienced personnel with suitable training to
ensure that these methods are implemented;
·
Only well-maintained plants should be
operated on-site;
·
Plants should be serviced regularly
during the construction programme;
·
Machines that may be in intermittent
use should be shut down or throttled down to a minimum between work periods;
·
Silencer and mufflers on
construction equipment should be utilised and should be properly maintained
during the construction programme;
·
Noisy activities can be scheduled to
minimise exposure of nearby NSRs to high levels of construction noise. For example, noisy activities can be
scheduled for midday or at times coinciding with periods of high background
noise (such as during peak traffic hours);
·
Noisy equipment such as emergency
generators shall always be sited as far away as possible from noise sensitive
receivers;
·
Provision of mobile noise barriers
in adjacent to construction plants, piling machine, or provision of acoustic screens by the Contractor(s);
·
Mobile plants should be sited as far
away from NSRs as possible;
·
Material stockpiles and other
structures should be effectively utilised as noise barrier, where practicable;
·
The contractor(s) is also encouraged
to arrange construction activities with care so that concurrent construction
activities are avoided as much as possible.
The contractor(s) should closely liaise with the school so that noisy
activities are not undertaken during school’s examination period. With the above noise mitigation measures in
place and good site practices, residual noise impact at the school would be
temporary and unacceptable noise impact is not expected; and
·
Similar to other EIA projects,
EM&A will be carried out for this Project during the Project construction
phase in order to monitor the construction noise level and to verify the
effectiveness of the noise mitigation measures.
A Project Environmental Team will be formed as part of the Project
EM&A works, which will closely monitor contractor(s)’ performance and the
residual noise level at the school. Should unacceptable construction noise
level be identified during the construction noise monitoring, necessary actions
following the standard Event and Action Plan specified in the Project EM&A
Manual, will be required by the Project Environmental Team.
Given to the site condition
and the presence of industrial noise sources in adjacent to the Project Site
and the proposed interim STP as discussed in Section 4.7.1 above, proactive noise protection measures
have already been incorporated into the design of the proposed development,
which include placing noise tolerant uses such as the proposed STP (with
10.4mPD at roof level) between the proposed house and the industrial noise
source; and a noise barrier along the remaining eastern site boundary with a
minimum 4.5m tall solid boundary wall.
The locations of the above-mentioned noise barriers and noise tolerant
uses as proactive measures are shown in Figure
4-8.
In addition, recommendations have also been proposed
in Section 4.4.3 for the
proposed interim STP. During detailed design, the acoustic performance of the temporary STP should
be reviewed and acoustic treatments such as provision of acoustic silencer and
acoustic enclosure shall be proposed so that the SWL of STP should be 74dB(A) or below
in order to meet the stipulated noise criteria.
With these mitigation measures in place, no adverse
noise impact is anticipated during operation of the Project.
As for road traffic noise, based on the current
layout in the MLP including setback from Kam Pok Road, there will be no adverse
noise impact expected (Section 4.4.2 refers). Thus, no noise mitigation
measure is proposed.
As discussed in Section 1.8, there
are a few works projects near the Project Site. These are the approved cycle track project;
approved public sewerage project; and 3 planned private development sites
(namely, the planned “REC Site”, “RD Site” and “Yau Mei Site” as shown in Figure 1-2). The first two
projects are Government projects which have already obtained approval on their
EIA reports under the EIAO process. There is currently no fixed
construction programme available and overlapping of their works programme with
this Project cannot be precluded at this stage.
However, to be conservative, these approved projects have been taken
into account in the cumulative noise assessment of this Project.
For the planned private development projects, no
committed development programme has been available for those projects (except
“REC Site”). For the planned “Yau Mei
Site”, it has obtained an approval under the EIAO. However, since that project is outside the
300m study radius of this Project, it is not considered further. Published information has been obtained for
the remaining two projects. According to
the best available information (Section 1.8
refers), planned development projects with published information which may
overlap with this Project (i.e. planned “RD Site” and planned “REC Site”) have
been selected for cumulative noise impact assessment.
Potential cumulative impacts have been addressed in
the following paragraphs.
Within the Assessment Area, there is a proposed public
sewerage project near Ngau Tam Mei Channel and Castle Peak Road between Ngau
Tam Mei and San Tin under PWP Item 4235DS.
The concerned public sewerage project has been assessed in a separate
EIA report for “Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Stage 2”
(EIA Application No. EIA-094/2004). The concerned public sewerage project near
Ngau Tam Mei covers the construction of a section of gravity trunk sewer
underneath Kam Pok Road and Yau Pok Road as well as construction of proposed
San Tin No.1 Sewage Pumping Station (ST1SPS) near the road junction between Kam
Pok Road and Castle Peak Road.
The EIA report has stated that all works will be
carried out in small section areas within a short period. These activities
should not generate significant amount of construction noise and result in
cumulative impact. It has also
recommended in the same report the construction works will be carried out in
50m segments. The section of proposed
public sewers and the ST1SPS are shown in Figure
4-2A. Since the SPS is outside the
300m radius Assessment Area (Figure 4-2A
refers), it is not considered further in this noise assessment.
There is currently no fixed construction programme for
the above-mentioned public sewerage project.
Since overlapping of construction programme of these projects with the
construction programme of this Project cannot be precluded at this stage,
cumulative construction noise due to construction of the public sewers and the
construction of this Project has been considered in this assessment as a worst
case scenario. Information such as the
plant inventory and SWLs has been extracted from the corresponding EIA report,
which is also summarised in Appendix
4-10. The calculated construction
noise levels due to these approved EIA projects are also presented in Appendix 4-10.
Asides from the proposed public sewerage works, there
is also a proposed alignment of cycle track between Sha Po Tsuen and Shek
Sheung River (EIA Application No. EIA 159/2008). The section of cycle track near the Project
Site will be constructed along the edge of Yau Pok Road on the other side of
existing Ngau Tam Mei Channel. According to the EIA report, the concerned
construction of cycle track project will involve construction of a narrow strip
of cycle track, which will be constructed in sections. Typically, the working area will be 40 m long by 4
m wide and no adjacent sections (200m between two
neighbouring sections) will be constructed simultaneously. Currently, there is no fixed construction
programme for the cycle track project.
Construction plant inventory presented in the approved
EIA report of the above-mentioned projects has been adopted in this noise
assessment. Cumulative construction noise impact has also been assessed based
on the highest noise level predicted for the above approved projects and that
predicted for this Project in order to represent the worst case scenario, and
the results are present in the following paragraphs.
As discussed in Section 1.8, there
are other planned development projects in adjacent to the Project Site which
may overlap with construction works of this Project. For the planned “Yau Mei Site”, as discussed
in Section 4.5.4, this
development project is outside the 300m study radius from this Project and is
not considered further in this noise assessment. The remaining planned
development Projects that may overlap with construction of this Project, has
been identified in Section 1.8 (i.e.
the planned “RD Site” and planned “REC Site”) and are assessed. As the concerned planned development
projects will be subject to approval from both TPB and EIAO, and also subject
to fulfilment of relevant approval conditions, it is expected that overlapping
of the peak construction activities of the development site is not very likely
to occur. Thus, adverse impacts due to
concurrent construction of peak construction activities of the project are not
anticipated. Having said that, a
sensitivity test based on the assumption has been conducted to provide a more
conservative assessment.
For the planned “RD Site” project, according to the
Study Brief of that project, its development intentions are also for low-rise
and low-density residential developments (similar to this Project). Since the planned project is located in
relatively flat area, it is expected that the construction scale of the project
site will be similar to this Project. Thus, the construction scale and plant
inventory of this project have been based on best available information and
assumptions, which is also presented in Appendix
4-11. Since the planned “RD Site”
project will be controlled under the EIAO, it is expected that noise mitigation
measures (e.g. QPMEs and movable noise barriers) would be adopted during its
construction, which has been taken into account for the purpose of this
cumulative noise assessment.
For the planned “REC Site” project, since its EIA report
was recently approved. Construction
activities of this Project which may be constructed concurrently with the
planned “REC Site” project, have been identified and shown in Appendix 4-12. Calculated mitigated noise level due to the
planned “REC Site” was then directly extracted from its EIA report and is
presented in Appendix 4-12.
With
QPMEs and Movable Noise Barriers proposed for This Project
As the Project Site is subject to both the approved EIA
projects as well as adjacent planned development project, cumulative
construction noise impact due to these projects has also been assessed. The
assessment has been conducted for both the existing NSRs and planned NSRs based
on the following assumptions.
For existing NSRs, cumulative construction noise
levels due to the adjacent approved EIA projects as well as planned development
sites, have been estimated.
As for planned NSRs discussed in Section 4.5.4 above,
since these planned development projects have no committed development
programme, two scenarios have been assumed in the noise assessment:
·
Scenario A – the planned private
development sites are already occupied during the construction of this Project;
and
·
Scenario B – the planned private
development sites are constructed at the same time during the construction of
this Project.
Noise calculation has been undertaken for the
representative NSR location. Results of
the estimated cumulative construction noise levels are presented in Table 4‑20. The calculation of cumulative construction noise due
to concurrent projects should be based on concurrent construction activities
shown in the respective construction programme and its plant inventory for
evaluation of cumulative impacts.
However, due to lack of committed construction programme of the
concerned nearby project sites, the noise levels presented is based on a
conservative approach by assuming concurrent construction of the peak
construction activities of these projects (i.e. calculation of cumulative noise
is based on highest noise level to be generated from the nearby project sites),
which is not very likely to occur.
Based on the assessment results, the calculated
cumulative construction noise levels with noise mitigation measures would
comply with the relevant noise criteria at most of the NSR locations (except
N4, N13, N1P, N2P, and V2P). However, for these few NSRs, their noise
level is dominant by other construction projects while the contribution due to
this Project is negligible.
For NSR N8 (i.e. the Bethel High School), calculated
construction noise due to this Project alone would comply with the relevant
noise criteria. However, it is found that the cumulative noise level would slightly exceed the
relevant noise criteria when this Project is constructed concurrently with the
planned cycle track project and the public sewerage project.
As such, further noise mitigation measures in terms of
temporary fixed noise barriers have been proposed along a portion of western
site boundary in order to alleviate adverse noise impacts (Figure 4-3A and Figure 4-3B
refer).
Since site hoarding will be erected
along the site boundary, the proposed temporary fixed noise barriers may be
combined with the site hoarding. It is proposed that 3m tall
temporary fixed noise barrier would be required along the western site boundary
in order to shield N8 (i.e. the Bethel High School) from construction site of
this Project. The proposed noise barrier
will also benefit existing NSRs such as N1 to N4; N15 to N17, as well as
planned NSRs such as V1P, V3P and V4P by providing additional noise shielding
effect.
It shall be noted that these proposed temporary fixed
noise barriers are only required when this Project is constructed concurrently
with the nearby approved EIA projects (namely, the approved cycle track
project; and the approved public sewerage project).
The exact alignment and design of these temporary
noise barriers is subject to the contractor(s) and the prior approval from the Engineer’s Representative (ER). To minimize potential
impact, erection of temporary fixed noise barriers will be carried out section
by section and precast units will be used for the foundation of the noise
barrier. These noise barriers shall be
erected before the commencement of construction works of this
Project. The temporary fixed noise
barriers should have sufficient surface density of at least 10 kg/m2
or material providing equivalent acoustic performance. There should not be any
gaps and openings at the noise barriers and site hoardings to avoid noise
leakage. The design of the noise
barriers shall be proposed by the work contractor(s), and approved by the
Engineer’s Representative (ER) and the Environmental Team (ET) in accordance
with the Project EM&A Manual (potential visual impact of noise barrier and its
design is also addressed in Chapter 11).
With
QPMEs, Movable Noise Barriers and Temporary Fixed Noise Barriers proposed for
This Project
With the proposed temporary fixed noise barriers, the
calculated further mitigated cumulative noise level at N8 has been presented in
Table 4‑21. Since the concerned temporary
fixed noise barriers would also benefit other nearby existing NSRs such as N1
to N4; N15 to N17, and V1P, V3P and V4P, cumulative noise level at these NSRs
are also presented in Table 4‑21.
With the proposed noise mitigation measures, the
cumulative noise level at N8 would comply with the relevant noise criteria
(Scenario A), or the noise level is dominant by other construction projects
while the contribution due to this Project is negligible (Scenario B). As such, no further noise mitigation measure
is proposed.
Although the mitigated noise level at the school (i.e.
N8) would comply with the noise criteria for schools (i.e. 70dB(A) during
non-examination period), the contractor(s) is required to closely liaise with
the school so that noisy activities are not undertaken during school’s
examination period. With the above noise
mitigation measures in place and good site practices, residual noise impact at
the school would be temporary and unacceptable noise impact is not expected.
Nevertheless, the Project Environmental Team shall
closely monitor contractor(s)’ performance and noise level at sensitive
receivers throughout the construction.
Should unacceptable construction noise level be identified during the
construction, the concerned construction works shall be stopped temporarily and
necessary actions following the standard Event and Action Plan specified in the
Project EM&A Manual, shall be implemented.
The above requirement will be included in the EM&A manual of this
Project for implementation.
With the implementation of the recommended noise
mitigation measures, unacceptable construction noise impact is not anticipated.
Cumulative construction noise impact from this Project will be controlled
through implementation measures described in this report and those committed
for the other projects.
Table 4‑20 Estimated
Mitigated Cumulative Construction Noise Levels at NSRs With QPMEs and Movable
Noise Barriers
Note: * Please refer to Appendix 4-10 and Appendices 4-11 and 4-12 for the calculation of
construction noise level as a result of the approved EIA projects and planned
development projects, respectively.
Since the planned development site (i.e. the RD site) is subject to
approval from both the TPB and EIAO, the estimated construction noise levels
are presented here for reference only, which were calculated based on best
available information and the assumptions of adoption of QPMEs and movable
noise barriers. For the planned “REC
Site”, calculated construction noise level was based on concurrent works
directly extracted from its published EIA report (EIA-220/2014) (please refer
to Appendix 4-12).
** For NSRs N14 to N17, they
are outside 300m radius from the “REC Site” and were not assessed in that
report. Thus, the nearest NSR locations
at N9 and N12, which are worst affected by the construction of “REC Site”, has
been used instead. Similarly, NSRs V1P,
V3P and V4P are based on N3P in the “REC Site” EIA report; and V2P is based on
N2P in the “REC Site” EIA report, respectively.
Please refer to Appendix 4-12
for extracted information from the published “REC Site” EIA report.
# The calculated mitigated noise level due to
construction of this Project is provided in Appendix 4-9; Please refer
to Figure 4-2A for the construction
NSR locations.
@ The concerned NSRs are outside 300m study
radius from the boundary of planned “REC Site” project, thus these are not
included in the cumulative impact assessment.
Hatched
numbers indicate exceedance of the relevant noise criteria for construction
activities.
Table 4‑21 Estimated Mitigated
Construction Noise Levels at NSRs With QPMEs, Movable Noise Barriers and
Temporary Fixed Noise Barrier
Remark: # The calculated
mitigated noise level for each NSR due to construction of this Project with
QPMEs and movable noise barriers (please refer to Appendix 4-9). For NSRs N1
to N4; N8; N15 to N17; V1P, V3P, and V4P, the above figures are based on
mitigated noise level with QPMEs, movable noise barriers, and proposed
temporary fixed noise barrier (Appendix
4-9A refers). Please refer to Figure 4-2A for the construction NSR
locations.
No residual noise impact is
anticipated during both construction and operation of the Project.
Given the mitigation measures are in place, no adverse noise impact will
be anticipated due to the Project works and no environmental
monitoring and audit (EM&A) will be necessary.
Nevertheless, in order to ensure the effectiveness of
implementation of mitigation measures, it is proposed that an environmental
monitoring and audit (EM&A) program is carried out during construction to
monitoring the short-term impacts. The
Environmental Team (ET) shall check the contractor(s)’ practice and ensure the
above recommendations are properly implemented.
Should adverse dust impacts be identified, the source should be
identified and additional mitigation measures shall be proposed by the
Contractor(s) before concerned construction works is continued. Details of the EM&A requirements are
provided in Chapter 13 of this report.
The proposed development
scheme has been reviewed and the noise levels at all the facades have been
predicted. The
proposed development layout has provided set back from Kam Pok Road (>8m
between nearest NSR and the edge of Kam Pok Road as shown in Figure 4-7). All the
residential flats (i.e. 100%) will be subject to road traffic noise levels
within the stipulated 70dB(A) noise criterion.
With the provision of mitigation measures including noise barrier
and placing noise tolerant use (i.e. STP) as shown in Figure 4-8 as well as recommended noise mitigation measures for the
proposed interim STP in Section 4.8.4 the prediction results indicate that the predicted facade noise levels at the proposed
Development due to industrial noise sources (i.e. fixed noise sources in
adjacent site and the proposed interim STP) would comply with the stipulated
daytime noise criterion. Thus, no further noise mitigation measures are
considered to be necessary and no residual noise impact is anticipated.
|
|
Calculated Noise Level, dB(A)
|
Noise Criteria, dB(A)
|
Road Traffic Noise *
|
46 - 70
|
70
|
Industrial Noise **
|
52 / 45 (day-time/ night-time)
|
55 (day-time); and 45 (night-time)
|
**
Estimated maximum noise level due to nearby industrial noise sources
during day-time period and night-time period, respectively under a worst case
scenario. Extracted from Appendices 4-6 and 4-7 of the EIA report.
No adverse noise impact is expected due to the existing
Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station, and no further noise mitigation measure
is therefore proposed.
Construction noise due to
construction of this Project has been assessed. Noise mitigation measures such as
use of quiet type equipment, scheduling of construction programme to avoid
concurrent works, and provision of movable/ fixed temporary noise barriers have
been proposed in order to mitigate the noise levels.
It was found that with the
implementation of proposed noise mitigation measures such as QPMEs, movable
noise barriers, and good practices, construction noise level at the NSRs due to
construction of this Project alone would comply with the noise standard. Cumulative construction noise impacts due to
adjacent approved/ planned EIA projects have also been assessed based on worst
case assumption. It was found
that the cumulative noise levels at NSRs are mainly dominant by the approved
EIA Projects rather this Project. In
order to alleviate adverse noise impact due to concurrent construction of this
Project and that of the nearby planned construction projects (namely, the approved cycle track project;
the approved public sewerage project; and planned development site (planned
R(D) Site)), a short section of temporary fixed noise barrier is also proposed along
part of the western and south-western site boundary. It is found that with the proposed noise
mitigation measures, no unacceptable noise impact is anticipated.
Unmitigated Noise Level, dB(A)
|
Mitigated Noise Level, dB(A) *
|
Noise Criteria, dB(A)
|
Mitigation Measures
|
>75
(for dwellings)
|
58 - 74
|
75dB(A) for
residential uses; and 70dB(A) for educational institutions (65B(A) during school examination period)
|
Quiet type
construction equipment; scheduling of construction programme to avoid
concurrent works; best practices; and provision of movable noise barriers and
fixed temporary noise barriers.
|
>70
(for educational institutions)
|
61-62
|
Remark: * Mitigated construction noise level
due to construction of this Project.
Extracted from Table 4-19 of
the EIA report.
As such, with the proposed
mitigation measures in place, no residual noise impact is expected.
[1] Hong Kong Government "Hong Kong Planning
Standards & Guidelines" June 1998.
[2] Environmental Protection Department
"Technical memorandum for the assessment of noise from places other than
domestic premises, public places or construction sites", June 1997 (DP -
TM).
[3] WS Atkins Noise and Vibration, England
"RoadNoise 2000" computer software, 2000.
[4] Department of Transports, Welsh Office, UK
“Calculation of Road Traffic Noise” 1988.
[5] Environmental Protection Department, Practice
Note for Professional Persons, “Streamlined Approach for the Planning of Residential
Developments Against Road Traffic Noise”, PN 1/97, October 1997.
[6] Environmental Protection Department
"Technical memorandum on noise from construction work other percussive
piling", July 1991 (GW - TM).
[7] “Main Drainage Channels for Ngau Tam Mei,
Yuen Long and Kam Tin: Environmental Impact Assessment” by ERM Hong Kong Ltd,
May 1996.
[8] “Comprehensive Development and Wetland
Protection near Yau Mei San Tsuen: Environmental Impact Assessment” by Environ,
March 2015.
This Chapter presents an assessment of the potential
water quality impact that may arise from construction and operation of the
Project. The assessment has been carried
out in accordance with the requirements given in Clause 3.9.3 of the EIA Study
Brief and the criteria and guidelines as stated in Annexes 6 and 14 of the
EIAO-TM respectively.
The assessment area for the water quality impact
assessment is defined by a distance of 500m from the boundary of the Project
Site as per the EIA Study Brief.
Potential impacts to surrounding areas in the larger Deep Bay Catchment
Area of the Deep Bay Water Control Zone (WCZ) are also addressed.
The proposed Project is for low-rise and low-density
residential development and associated ancillary facilities. Detailed elements of the proposed development
are discussed in Section 1.6, which
are also illustrated in the MLP (Figure 2-1) and the Landscape Master Plan
(Figure 11-11-1).
The relevant legislations, standards and guidelines
applicable to the present study for the assessment of water quality impacts
include:
·
Water Pollution Control Ordinance
(WPCO) CAP 358;
·
Technical Memorandum on “Standards
for Effluent Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage Systems, Inland and Coastal
Waters” (TM-Effluents);
·
Environmental Impact Assessment
Ordinance (EIAO) (CAP. 499), and the Technical Memorandum on Environmental
Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM);
·
No Net Increase in Pollution Loads
Requirement in Deep Bay under the approved
Mai Po and Fairview Park Outline Zoning Plan No. S/YL-MP/6 ;
·
Hong Kong Planning Standards and
Guidelines; and
·
ProPECC PN 1/94 “Construction Site
Drainage”.
The Water Pollution Control Ordinance (WPCO) (Cap.
358) enacted in 1980 is the principal legislation controlling water quality in
Hong Kong. Under the WPCO, Hong Kong waters
are classified into 10 Water Control Zones (WCZ). The Project Site is situated within the
catchment area of the Deep Bay WCZ.
Statutory Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) are
specified for each WCZ. The WQOs for any
particular waters, as defined in the WPCO, shall be the quality, which should
be achieved and maintained in order to promote conservation and best use of
those waters in the public interest.
The TM-Effluents issued under Section 21 of the WPCO
defines acceptable discharge limits of effluent to different types of receiving
waters. Under the Ordinance, any
discharge into the WCZ requires licensing and must comply with the terms and
conditions specified in the licence, except for domestic sewage discharged into
public foul sewers, and unpolluted water into storm water drains and river
courses.
The discharge from the Project Site shall comply with
the standards for effluent discharge into inland waters. Group D and C inland effluent standards are
adopted, which are also provided in Table 5‑1
and Table 5‑2
respectively.
Table 5‑1 Standards for effluent discharged into Group D inland waters
(All
units in mg/L unless otherwise stated; all figures are upper limits unless
otherwise indicated)
|
Flow Rate (m3/day) Determinand |
£ 200 |
> 200 and £ 400 |
> 400 and £ 600 |
> 600 and £ 800 |
> 800 and £ 1000 |
> 1000 and £ 1500 |
> 1500 and £ 2000 |
> 2000 and £ 3000 |
|
pH (pH units) |
6-10 |
6-10 |
6-10 |
6-10 |
6-10 |
6-10 |
6-10 |
6-10 |
|
Temperature (°C) |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
|
Colour (lovibond units) (25mm cell length) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Suspended solids |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
|
BOD |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
|
COD |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
|
Oil & Grease |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
|
Iron |
10 |
8 |
7 |
5 |
4 |
2.7 |
2 |
1.3 |
|
Boron |
5 |
4 |
3.5 |
2.5 |
2 |
1.5 |
1 |
0.7 |
|
Barium |
5 |
4 |
3.5 |
2.5 |
2 |
1.5 |
1 |
0.7 |
|
Mercury |
0.1 |
0.05 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
|
Cadmium |
0.1 |
0.05 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
|
Other toxic metals individually |
1 |
1 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
|
Total toxic metals |
2 |
2 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
1 |
1 |
0.5 |
0.4 |
|
Cyanide |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.05 |
|
Phenols |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
|
Sulphide |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Sulphate |
800 |
600 |
600 |
600 |
600 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
|
Chloride |
1000 |
800 |
800 |
800 |
600 |
600 |
400 |
400 |
|
Fluoride |
10 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
|
Total phosphorus |
10 |
10 |
10 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
5 |
5 |
|
Ammonia nitrogen |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
10 |
|
Nitrate + nitrite nitrogen |
50 |
50 |
50 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
20 |
|
Surfactants (total) |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
|
E. coli (count/100 ml) |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
Table 5‑2 Standards for Effluent Discharged into Group C Inland
Waters
(All
units in mg/L unless otherwise stated; all figures are upper limits unless
otherwise indicated)
|
Flow Rate (m3/day) Determinand |
£ 100 |
> 100 and £ 500 |
> 500 and £ 1000 |
> 1000 and £ 2000 |
|
pH (pH units) |
6-9 |
6-9 |
6-9 |
6-9 |
|
Temperature (°C) |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
|
Colour (lovibond units) (25 mm cell length) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Suspended solids |
20 |
10 |
10 |
5 |
|
BOD |
20 |
15 |
10 |
5 |
|
COD |
80 |
60 |
40 |
20 |
|
Oil & Grease |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Boron |
10 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
|
Barium |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Iron |
0.5 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
|
Mercury |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
|
Cadmium |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
|
Silver |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
|
Copper |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
|
Selenium |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
|
Lead |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
|
Nickel |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
|
Other toxic metals
individually |
0.5 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
|
Total toxic metals |
0.5 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
|
Cyanide |
0.05 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
0.01 |
|
Phenols |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
|
Sulphide |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
|
Fluoride |
10 |
7 |
5 |
4 |
|
Sulphate |
800 |
600 |
400 |
200 |
|
Chloride |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
|
Total phosphorus |
10 |
10 |
8 |
8 |
|
Ammonia nitrogen |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
Nitrate + nitrite nitrogen |
30 |
30 |
20 |
20 |
|
Surfactants (total) |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
E. coli (count/100 ml) |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
Asides from the above, the applicable key WQOs
designated for inland waters in Deep Bay WCZ is also provided in Table 5‑3.
Table 5‑3 Key Water Quality Objectives for Inland
Waters in Deep Bay Water Control Zone
|
Parameter |
WQOs |
|
pH range |
6.0 - 9.0 |
|
Maximum 5-Day Biochemical Oxygen
Demand, mg/L |
5 |
|
Maximum Chemical Oxygen Demand,
mg/L |
30 |
|
Maximum Annual Median Suspended
Solids, mg/L |
20 |
|
Minimum Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L |
4 |
|
Unionised Ammonia (annual mean),
mg/L |
0.021 |
|
E. coli (median), count/100 mL |
1000 |
Remark: Refers to
Key WQOs for river monitoring stations in the Northwestern New Territories,
River Water Quality in Hong Kong in 2014 published by EPD and Statement of WQOs
(Deep Bay Control Zone), Schedule of Cap 358R.
The general
criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing water quality impacts are
listed in Annexes 6 and 14 of the EIAO-TM.
The ‘No
Net Increase in Pollution Loads Requirement’ aims to provide protection to the
inland and marine water quality of the Deep Bay WCZ. According to Clause 3.9.3.4(x) and (xiii) of
the EIA Study Brief and approved Mai Po
and Fairview Park Outline Zoning Plan No. S/YL-MP/6, no net increase in
pollution load to Deep Bay will be required for this Project.
Chapter 9
of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) outlines
environmental requirements that need to be considered in land use planning of
both public and private developments. It
also lists out environmental factors influencing land use planning and
recommends buffer distances for land uses.
The
Practice Note for Professional Persons (ProPECC Note PN1/94) on Construction
Site Drainage provides guidelines on good practice for dealing with discharges
from construction sites. It is applicable to this study for control of site
runoff and wastewater generated during the construction phase.
Within
Project Site
The Project Site is generally low-lying in terrain and
the geographical characteristic of the Project Site is relatively flat. At present, the northern part of the Project
Site is partially vacant with paved car parking. In its southern part, it is
also an existing paved car parking area.
An existing abandoned pond is located at the south-eastern corner of the
Project Site.
Sediment-laden surface runoff may flow from the
Project Site and discharge directly into the nearby existing drainage channels
without any treatment. Currently, during
heavy rainfall, water in the abandoned ponds may flow over the bunds to nearby
drainage channels then discharge into the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel (NTMDC)
and then Inner Deep Bay.
Outside
Project Site
The Project Site is surrounded by existing Kam Pok
Road to its immediate west; Fung Chuk Road to the immediate north; Ha Chuk Yuen
Road to the immediate east; and Ha San Wai Road to the immediate south,
respectively. The NTMDC and Fairview
Park development are also situated to the further west. Across Fung Chuk Road to the north, there is
an existing DSD’s Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station, which stores collected
surface runoff during heavy rainfall before discharge into the NTMDC.
The Project Site is currently surrounded by existing
u-channels. The existing drainage
channel, NTMDC, is located to the west; and existing drainage ditches along
roadside of Ha San Wai Road to the south; and along Ha Chuk Yuen Road to the
east. Surface runoff from the Project
Site is discharged into the existing u-channels, then into the nearby drainage
channels.
The NTMDC is an engineered channel which is divided
into upstream section (Section B – upstream of San Tin Highway) and downstream
section (Section A – between San Tin Highway and Kam Tin River). The river
training works for Section B and Section A were completed in 2003 and early
2005 respectively under the project “Construction of Main Drainage Channels for
Ngau Tam Mei” by DSD. The NTMDC is
located about 10m to the west of the Project Site with Kam Pok Road situated
between the Ngau Tam Mei Channel and the Project Site.
Currently, the Project Site and the surrounding areas
are not equipped with any public sewerage system, but there
is approved public sewerage system nearby.
Water sensitive receivers within the 500m radius of
Assessment Area are identified in accordance with the Project EIA Study Brief. Information such as
relevant plans[4]
, current Outline Zoning Plan No. S/YL-MP/6, and Town Planning Board (TPB)
records have been reviewed in order to identify potential planned/ committed
WSRs. The registry of EIAO projects was
also reviewed for EIA projects. Based on
information reviewed, there are a few planned development projects in the
vicinity of the proposed development site (Section 1.8 refers). These
development projects are also classified as designated projects under the EIAO;
as such they have to go through the EIAO process.
Currently,
collected surface runoff within the Project Site will be discharged into NTMDC.
There is an existing abandoned water pond located at the south-eastern corner
of the Project Site where proposed development
is located. The concerned pond will be
filled during construction, and will be part of the construction site during
construction stage. Thus, it is not considered as a water quality
sensitive receiver of this Project. Please refer to
Section 5.5 for construction phase impact assessment.
Existing
WSRs
Existing
WSRs of this Project have been identified and described below. The Project Site is currently surrounded by
open U-channels, which connect to the existing drainage systems (i.e. those
along Ha Chuk Yuen Road and Ha San Wai Road, and the
NTMDC). The collected surface runoff within and in
adjacent to the Project Site will eventually be discharged into NTMDC. Thus, the drainage channels and NTMDC (also
Kam Tin River further downstream) are considered as existing WSRs of this
Project.
There is
also an existing water storage pond at the existing Chuk Yuen Floodwater
Pumping Station managed by the Drainage Services Department (DSD) of the HKSAR
Government. The concerned pumping
station is for temporary storage of stormwater collected from
the nearby existing drainage ditches along Ha Chuk Yuen Road before
discharge into NTMDC under heavy rainfall.
As the water storage pond of this pumping station is physically
separated from the Project Site by the existing Fung Chuk Road and existing
u-channels along the northern site boundary of the Project Site, it is
considered as an indirect water sensitive receiver. See Figure 5-1 for the locations of the above WSRs.
Within the 500m Assessment Area, there are several
stream courses and water bodies at off-site locations which are considered as
potential WSRs, such as Fairview Park Nullah at Fairview Park, existing abandoned
water ponds within the planned “REC site”, existing water ponds near Hang Fook
Garden to the further east of the Project Site as well as water ponds to the
further south of Fairview Park Boulevard near Man Yuen Chuen. Please refer to Figure 5-1 for the detailed locations.
However, the above-mentioned sensitive receivers are either located at
the upstream of the Project or are physically separated from the Project Site
by existing development such as Fairview Park; existing residential developments
along Fairview Park Boulevard; adjacent village development sites; as well as
existing NTMDC. Since these sensitive
receivers are unlikely to be affected by the Project, they are
not regarded as WSRs of this Project and are not assessed further.
Beyond the 500m Assessment Area and further
downstream, Inner Deep Bay SSSI, Ramsar Site, Mai Po Nature
Reserve, and Ma Po Marshes SSSI are
further away from Project Site. Their locations are shown in Figure 5-1A. These sensitive receivers are
distant away from the Project Site (over 1.2km away) and there will be no
direct discharge to these areas, thus they are unlikely affected by this
Project. As such, these sensitive
receivers are not identified as WSRs of this Project and are not considered
further.
Planned
WSRs
As discussed in Section 1.8, there
are a few planned development sites nearby.
As per the approved EIA report of two Government projects (i.e. the
public sewerage project and the cycle track project), there will be no planned
WSRs arising from these projects.
There is a planned landscape pond to the north-west of
this Project Site, which is within the approved “REC Site” (AEIAR-182/2014 refers). This planned landscape pond is shown in Figure 5-1. However, the planned pond is physically
located on the opposite side of NTMDC, thus it is unlikely be affected by this
Project.
For the Planned “RD Site”, landscape pond is also proposed
based on the approved planning application no. A/YL-MP/205. The concerned pond is further away from
Project Site and is physically separated by the DSD’s existing Chuk Yuen
pumping station as well as the roadside u-channels surrounding this Project
Site, thus they are unlikely affected by this Project.
As for the approved “Yau Mei Site”, a low-rise
residential development is proposed with provision of Wetland Restoration Area
at the northern portion of the site as per its approved EIA report (AEIAR-189/2015).
Nevertheless, the planned “Yau Mei Site” is distant away from this
Project Site, and is physically located on the opposite side of NTMDC upstream
of this Project, thus any planned WSRs within that project will unlikely be
affected.
Asides
from the above, there are no other known planned WSRs in
adjacent that would be affected by this Project.
The
identified WSRs which may potentially be affected by this Project (based on the
above discussion), are summarised below:
Table 5‑4 – Summary of Identified WSRs of this
Project
|
ID |
Location |
Is it WSR of this Project? |
|
|
Construction Phase |
Operational Phase |
||
|
WSRs which may potentially be affected: |
|||
|
WSR1 |
Existing open u-channels
surrounding the Project Site |
ü |
ü |
|
WSR2 |
Nearby
existing drainage ditches (along Ha Chuk Yuen Road and Ha San Wai Road) |
ü |
ü |
|
WSR3 |
NTMDC |
ü |
ü |
|
WSR4 |
Existing
water storage pond at the existing Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station |
ü |
ü |
|
WSRs which may NOT be
Affected or Beyond the Assessment Area: |
|||
|
- |
Fairview Park Nullah |
û |
û |
|
- |
Water ponds near Hang Fook Garden,
and abandoned pond within planned “REC” Site |
û |
û |
|
- |
Water ponds to the further south
of Fairview Park Boulevard near Man Yuen Chuen |
û |
û |
|
- |
Planned landscape pond within the approved “REC
Site” |
û |
û |
|
- |
Planned landscape pond within the approved “RD
Site” |
û |
û |
|
- |
Planned WSRs within the approved “Yau Mei Site” |
û |
û |
|
- |
Inner Deep Bay SSSI, Ramsar Site,
Mai Po Nature Reserve, and Ma Po Marshes SSSI |
û |
û |
There is also an EPD’s river water quality monitoring
station at Fairview Park Nullah. The
Fairview Park Nullah is an engineering channel within the Fairview Park
residential development to the west of the Project Site. Data of key water quality parameters measured
at that station between year 2009 and year 2014 by EPD[5] was also summarised in Table
5‑5 for
reference.
Table 5‑5 Summary
of River Water Quality at Nearby Fairview Park Nullah in the Deep Bay Water
Control Zone between 2009 and 2014
|
Parameters |
*WQO |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
|
pH |
6.0-9.0 |
7.8 (7.3-8.9) |
7.8 (7.2–9.0) |
7.8 (7.1-8.9) |
7.5 (7.3-8.5) |
7.6 (7.2-8.3) |
8.0 (7.1-8.8) |
|
BOD5 (mg/L) |
≤ 5 |
8 (4 – 26) |
11 (3 - 37) |
11 (4 - 20) |
5 (3 - 14) |
6 (2 - 18) |
8 (3 - 23) |
|
COD (mg/L) |
≤ 30 |
33 (18 – 87) |
28 (16 – 61) |
30 (13-46) |
22 (12-54) |
26 (14-50) |
26 (10-39) |
|
SS (mg/L) |
≤ 20 |
36 (14-64) |
40 (11–150) |
29 (6-49) |
26 (11-56) |
15 (6-41) |
22 (4-590) |
|
DO (mg/L) |
≥ 4 (Median) |
7.3 (2.1-18.6) |
7.5 (3.5-15.1) |
9.2 (3.9-17.2) |
5.5 (3.8-11.7) |
5.7 (2.9-10.1) |
6.5 (4.8-10.5) |
|
E. coli (cfu/100 mL) |
≤ 1000 |
23,000 (4,400-1,000,000) |
31,000 (4,600-220,000) |
18,000 (4,200-97,000) |
16,000 (2,800-330,000) |
55,000 (3,500-2,500,000) |
28,000 (1,900-210,000) |
|
Ammonia-nitrogen (mg/L) |
- |
2.90 (0.80-7.20) |
4.30 (1.40-6.70) |
4.55 (0.74-5.60) |
4.15 (2.30-6.60) |
3.95 (0.71-5.50) |
0.94 (0.45-6.90) |
|
Nitrate-nitrogen (mg/L) |
- |
0.45 (<0.01-1.20) |
0.52 (0.31-0.89) |
0.56 (0.10-1.00) |
0.96 (0.35-1.30) |
0.82 (<0.01-1.2) |
0.39 (0.11-1.10) |
|
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/L) |
- |
5.70 (1.80-8.30) |
6.10 (5.10-8.80) |
6.15 (4.00-11.00) |
5.85 (3.30-7.80) |
5.10 (2.50-7.80) |
2.35 (1.10-9.80) |
|
Oil & grease (mg/L) |
- |
<0.5 (<0.5-0.9) |
<0.5 (<0.5-2.4) |
0.7 (<0.5-2.0) |
<0.5 (<0.5-0.7) |
<0.5 (<0.5-1.4) |
<0.5 (<0.5-<0.5) |
|
Aluminium (μg/L) |
Waste discharges shall not cause
the toxins in water to attain such levels as to produce significant toxic
carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic
effects in humans, fish or any other aquatic organisms, with due regard to
biologically cumulative effects in food chain and to toxicant interactions with each other. Waste discharges shall not
cause a risk to any beneficial uses of the aquatic environment. |
255 (160-610) |
285 (100-750) |
170 (60-400) |
240 (110-470) |
185 (110-390) |
180 (98-3,147) |
|
Cadmium (μg/L) |
<0.1 (<0.1-0.1) |
<0.1 (<0.1-0.3) |
<0.1 (<0.1-<0.1) |
<0.1 (<0.1-<0.1) |
<0.1 (<0.1-1.0) |
<0.1 (<0.1-0.9) |
|
|
Chromium (μg/L) |
<1 (<1-2) |
1 (<1-3) |
<1 (<1-2) |
1 (<1-3) |
<1 (<1-2) |
1 (<1-7) |
|
|
Copper (μg/L) |
4 (3-8) |
5 (2-17) |
3 (2-5) |
3 (2-7) |
3 (1-5) |
5 (2-73) |
|
|
Lead (μg/L) |
4 (2-5) |
4 (1-14) |
2 (<1-4) |
2 (1-7) |
2 (1-4) |
3 (<1-86) |
|
|
Zinc (μg/L) |
45 (20-100) |
35 (20-110) |
35 (20-170) |
30 (10-120) |
50 (20-138) |
35 (17-436) |
Remark: Data presented is based on River Water Quality in Hong Kong
(various years), published by EPD.
Data
presented are in annual medians of monthly samples; except those for E. coli
which are in annual geometric means.
Figures
in bold denote non-compliance to WQOs.
Figures
in brackets are annual ranges.
E. coli stands for Escherichia coli and cfu stands for colony forming unit.
Table 5‑6 Water Quality Index (WQI)
Gradings and WQO Compliance Rates of Fairview Park Nullah (station FVR1)
between 2009 and 2014
|
Year |
WQI Gradings |
Compliance % |
|||||
|
pH |
BOD5 |
COD |
DO |
SS |
Overall |
||
|
2009 |
Fair |
100 |
8 |
50 |
83 |
0 |
48 |
|
2010 |
Bad |
100 |
17 |
67 |
92 |
0 |
55 |
|
2011 |
Bad |
100 |
8 |
50 |
92 |
0 |
50 |
|
2012 |
Fair |
100 |
50 |
75 |
83 |
0 |
62 |
|
2013 |
Fair |
100 |
42 |
58 |
83 |
100 |
77 |
|
2014 |
Fair |
100 |
33 |
58 |
100 |
0 |
58 |
Remark: Data presented is based on River Water Quality in Hong Kong (various
years), published by EPD.
From Table 5‑5 and Table 5‑6, it is noted that the water
quality of Fairview Park Nullah was
generally fair or bad while the concentration of BOD5,
COD, SS,
Ammonia-nitrogen, and E.coli at the
Fairview Park Nullah were generally high. A
gradual improvement on water quality has been observed in the past few years at
the Fairview Park Nullah.
Baseline Survey in Year 2009
A baseline water quality sampling has been conducted in August 2009 at the Project Site and its vicinity
waterbodies. Water samples were collected and tested by a HOKLAS accredited
laboratory. Water samples were collected
from key water sensitive receivers such as the abandoned water pond within the Project Site, NTMDC, Fairview Park Nullah, and
the water storage pond within DSD’s Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station,
respectively. The water quality sampling
locations are shown in Figure 5‑1, and the results of water quality survey are also provided in Table 5‑7.
Table 5‑7 Baseline Water Quality
Monitoring Results in Year
2009
|
Parameters |
NTMDC |
Fairview Park Nullah |
Abandoned Water Pond Within Project Site |
Water Storage Pond in DSD’s Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping
Station |
|||||||||
|
W1 |
W3 |
W4 |
WK6 |
WK4 |
WK3A |
||||||||
|
Salinity (ppt) |
0.7 |
1.8 |
2.1 |
0.5 |
0.2 |
0.7 |
|
|||||||
|
Water flow (L/s) |
0.02 |
0.03 |
0.02 |
0.06 |
0.01 |
0.04 |
|
|||||||
|
Water depth (m) |
1.80 |
1.90 |
1.85 |
1.05 |
1.02 |
0.19 |
|
|||||||
|
Water Temperature (°C) |
29.19 |
30.74 |
31.82 |
33.96 |
35.03 |
35.78 |
|
|||||||
|
pH Value |
7.07 |
7.40 |
7.67 |
7.53 |
8.97 |
8.90 |
|
|||||||
|
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) |
4.56 |
4.07 |
2.27 |
1.21 |
2.61 |
3.97 |
|
|||||||
|
Dissolved Oxygen Saturation (%) |
59.60 |
55.10 |
31.25 |
17.10 |
37.55 |
58.05 |
|
|||||||
|
Turbidity (NTU) |
13.50 |
16.05 |
16.00 |
15.20 |
10.45 |
24.80 |
|
|||||||
|
BOD5 (mg/L) |
2 |
3 |
3 |
26 |
6 |
16 |
|
|||||||
|
COD (mg/L) |
16 |
20 |
24 |
68 |
50 |
68 |
|
|||||||
|
Total Phosphorus (mg/L) |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
2.6 |
<0.1 |
0.6 |
|
|||||||
|
Reactive Phosphorus (mg/L) |
0.41 |
0.37 |
0.40 |
2.24 |
0.02 |
0.15 |
|
|||||||
|
Oil and Grease (mg/L) |
<5 |
<5 |
<5 |
<5 |
<5 |
<5 |
|
|||||||
|
Conductivity (mS/cm) |
1,310 |
3,240 |
3,670 |
929 |
424 |
1,310 |
|
|||||||
|
Suspended Solids (mg/L) |
14 |
18 |
19 |
15 |
13 |
39 |
|
|||||||
|
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) |
3.9 |
4.8 |
5.1 |
7.5 |
2.4 |
7.0 |
|
|||||||
|
Ammonia as N (mg/L) |
2.68 |
3.52 |
3.80 |
3.85 |
0.03 |
2.79 |
|
|||||||
|
E. coli (cfu/100 mL) |
5,400 |
7,200 |
6,200 |
45,000 |
110 |
7,500 |
|
|||||||
|
Faecal coliforms (cfu/100 mL) |
15,000 |
13,000 |
8,800 |
62,000 |
210 |
9,600 |
|
|||||||
|
Aluminium (mg/L) |
0.25 |
0.37 |
0.30 |
0.04 |
0.18 |
0.17 |
|
|||||||
|
Copper (mg/L) |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
|||||||
|
Chromium (mg/L) |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
|||||||
|
Lead (mg/L) |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
|
|||||||
|
Zinc (mg/L) |
0.06 |
0.02 |
0.03 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.02 |
|
|||||||
|
Cadmium (mg/L) |
0.004 |
<0.002 |
<0.002 |
<0.002 |
<0.002 |
<0.002 |
|
|||||||
|
Sulphide as S2- (mg/L) |
<0.2 |
<0.2 |
<0.2 |
<0.2 |
<0.2 |
<0.2 |
|
|||||||
|
Nitrate as N (mg/L) |
0.47 |
0.34 |
0.29 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.24 |
|
|||||||
|
Nitrite as N (mg/L) |
0.17 |
0.17 |
0.16 |
<0.01 |
<0.01 |
0.11 |
|
|||||||
Remark: All sampling and measurements were undertaken by the laboratory, ALS Technichem
(HK) Pty Ltd. on 21 August 2009. Parameters such as Water Depth, Water Flow
Rate, Salinity, Water Temperature, pH Value, Dissolved Oxygen, Dissolved Oxygen
Saturation and Turbidity were measured in-situ by using portable meters by the
same laboratory.
No measurement on water flow
rate in L/s was undertaken during the survey.
E.coli stands for Escherichia
coli.
Additional Wet Season/ Dry Season
Surveys in Year 2012/ 2013 and Year 2015
In order to better establish the baseline water quality at the
WSRs to taking into account natural and seasonal variation, further water
samplings were carried out during the wet season between September 2012 and
October 2012, and between August 2013 and September 2013. Water samplings were
also carried out during the dry season in December 2012 and January 2013, as
well as between March 2015 and April 2015 (see Appendix 5-1 for details).
Water samples were collected from
the identified WSRs of this Project (Section 5.3.2 refers) at the existing drainage ditches along Ha Chuk Yuen Road and Ha San Wai Road and NTMDC. Since the storage pond
within DSD’s Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station was not accessible, water samples were collected from
its water inlet point near Ha Chuk Yuen Road instead. In addition, the abandoned water pond within the Project Site was also sampled for
reference. The water sampling locations are shown in Figure 5-2 and the raw test results are
provided in Appendix 5-1. During wet season surveys in year 2012, water samples were collected from the sampling
locations three times per week and for four consecutive weeks. The water sampling and testing were performed
by a HOKLAS accredited laboratory.
According to the test results, water
quality at the water sampling locations was found to be in poor condition. It was found that there were lower levels of
Dissolved Oxygen (DO), and higher concentrations of ammonia-nitrogen content,
SS, BOD5, COD, and E. coli
at most of the sampling locations during the wet season surveys between
September 2012 and October 2012. Other
parameters tested were either within the water quality criteria or below the
reporting limit.
Thus, the above-mentioned parameters
were selected for a close monitoring during the subsequent water sampling and
testing in the dry season in December 2012 and in January 2013, as well as the
wet season between August 2013 and September 2013. Testing on the key WQO parameters stated in Table 5‑3 were also carried out. As no particular patterns
of water quality were observed during the wet season surveys conducted in year
2012, water samples in the dry season were
collected once per week and for four consecutive weeks. The dry season water quality survey results
were found to be similar to that in wet season (i.e. low in DO, but high in
ammonia-nitrogen content, SS, BOD5, COD, and E. coli). No specific pattern of natural or
seasonal variation was observed.
Asides from the above, an update on the dry season
water quality survey was also carried out between March 2015 and April 2015 to
facilitate the sewerage impact assessment of this Project. This updated baseline water quality survey
results were also incorporated in Appendix
5-1. The water quality in this
survey was found to be similar to that of the previous survey (i.e. low in DO, but high in ammonia-nitrogen
content, SS, BOD5, COD, and E.
coli). Table 5‑8 and Table 5‑9 summarise this additional baseline water
quality survey results during both the wet season and dry season, while the raw
data is also provided in the Appendix
5-1.
Summary
of Baseline Water Quality Survey Results
The above baseline monitoring results are generally in
line with EPD’s monitoring data at Fairview Park Nullah. No specific pattern of natural
or seasonal variation was observed during the baseline water quality
survey. Baseline
results revealed that the water quality of nearby drainage channels was in poor
condition with exceedances of WQOs. The possible sources of pollution may arise
from the livestock farms, small industrial establishments or
septic tank/soakaway systems of village houses without adequate
maintenance located upstream of the Project Site.
Based on the test results of Stations W2, W3 and W4,
water quality at NTMDC was generally poor.
Although the water flow of NTMDC was high, lower levels of Dissolved
Oxygen (DO), and higher concentrations of ammonia-nitrogen content, SS, BOD5,
COD, and E. coli were detected at the
sampling stations at NTMDC. Nevertheless, increasing trend in concentration of
various pollutants have been observed as water flows along the channel from
Stations W2 to W3 and from W3 to W4, which suggests the addition of pollutants
from drainage channels along Ha San Wai Road and Ha Chuk Yuen Road.
The monitoring results of Stations WK1, WK2 and WK3
are generally rich in phosphorus and nitrogen content with high BOD and COD.
Oil and grease contents with high BOD and COD were also detected at station
WK5.
The dry season survey results were found to be similar
to that in wet season (i.e. low in DO, but high in ammonia-nitrogen content,
SS, BOD5, COD, and E. coli).
Overall, water quality at the water sampling locations
was poor. However, there is gradual
improvement on river water quality (e.g. Fairview Park Nullah) according to
EPD’s regular monitoring results. (Table 5‑6
refers)
Table 5‑8 Summary of
Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Results for Wet Season between September 2012
and October 2012, and Between
August 2013 and September 2013
|
Parameters |
Effluent Discharge Std. # |
WQO |
Ngau
Tam Mei Drainage Channel |
Abandoned Water Pond Within Project
Site |
Drainage
Channel along Ha San Wai Road |
Drainage Channel along Ha Chuk Yuen Road |
Inlet of DSD’s Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station |
|||
|
W2 |
W3 |
W4 |
WK4 |
WK5 |
WK1 |
WK2 |
WK3 |
|||
|
Salinity (ppt) |
- |
- |
2.8 / 0.4 |
3.1 / 0.5 |
3.3 / 1.2 |
<0.1 * / <0.1 * |
0.4 / 0.2 |
1.9 / 0.3 |
0.5 / 0.5 |
2.1 / 0.3 |
|
|
Water flow (L/s) |
- |
- |
153.2 / 79.0 |
110.5 / 73.5 |
98.5 / 69.0 |
- / - |
2.5 / 1.0 |
2.4 / 1.0 |
<1.0 * / <1.0 * |
5.0 / 3.0 |
|
|
Water depth (m) |
- |
- |
1.3 / 1.4 |
1.4 / 1.3 |
1.3 / 1.5 |
0.3 / 0.3 |
0.1 / 0.1 |
0.1 / 0.1 |
0.1 / 0.1 |
0.1 / 0.1 |
|
|
Water Temperature (°C) |
30 |
- |
28.4 / 28.1 |
28.0 / 27.6 |
27.6 / 27.4 |
29.0 / 28.8 |
26.3 / 26.4 |
27.8 / 27.6 |
26.9 / 27.3 |
27.9 / 27.7 |
|
|
pH Value |
6-10 |
6-9 |
7.4 / 7.4 |
7.3 / 7.3 |
7.3 / 7.3 |
8.6 / 8.7 |
7.5 / 7.5 |
7.4 / 7.4 |
7.6 / 7.8 |
7.4 / 7.4 |
|
|
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) |
- |
4 (Minimum) |
5.0 / 5.0 |
3.6 / 3.6 |
3.1 / 2.9 |
7.2 / 7.6 |
5.4 / 6.2 |
4.0 / 4.1 |
3.7 / 2.9 |
3.7 / 3.9 |
|
|
Dissolved Oxygen Saturation (%) |
- |
- |
64.7 / 65.5 |
46.6 / 45.0 |
40.9 / 37.0 |
93.7 / 95.1 |
67.5 / 75.0 |
51.8 / 52.7 |
47.5 / 36.4 |
47.0 / 49.9 |
|
|
Turbidity (NTU) |
- |
- |
80 / 64 |
110 / 68 |
170 / 76 |
26 / 26 |
28 / 20 |
34 / 31 |
25 / 15 |
34 / 31 |
|
|
BOD5 (mg/L) |
20 |
5 (Maximum) |
4 / 4 |
4 / 4 |
5 / 4 |
4 / 4 |
8 / 6 |
15 / 12 |
5 / 4 |
14 / 11 |
|
|
COD (mg/L) |
80 |
30 (Maximum) |
23 / 24 |
25 / 21 |
28 / 24 |
46 / 39 |
26 / 25 |
41 / 37 |
34 / 33 |
42 / 38 |
|
|
Total Phosphorus (mg/L) |
5-10 |
- |
0.7 / 0.8 |
0.8 / 0.9 |
1.1 / 0.9 |
0.2 / 0.1 |
1.3 / 1.3 |
0.9 / 0.9 |
4.1 / 3.5 |
0.9 / 0.8 |
|
|
Reactive-Phosphorus (mg/L) |
- |
- |
0.39 / 0.30 |
0.45 / 0.37 |
0.46 / 0.46 |
0.01 / 0.01 |
1.10 / 1.18 |
0.58 / 0.56 |
3.55 / 2.88 |
0.57 / 0.54 |
|
|
Oil and Grease (mg/L) |
10 |
- |
<5 * / <5 * |
<5 * / <5 * |
5.2 / 5.0 |
<5 * / <5 * |
5.8 / 5.0 |
5.1 / 5.0 |
<5 * / <5 * |
<5 * / <5 * |
|
|
Conductivity (mS/cm) |
- |
- |
8099 / 7440 |
9003 / 9520 |
9347 / 9915 |
239 / 237 |
1119 / 386 |
5617 / 2955 |
846 / 805 |
5593 / 2545 |
|
|
Suspended Solids (mg/L) |
30 |
20 (Maximum Annual Median) |
60 / 49 |
67 / 48 |
68 / 54 |
21 / 24 |
21 / 14 |
40 / 29 |
20 / 9 |
27 / 28 |
|
|
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N (mg/L) |
- |
- |
3.6 / 2.7 |
4.2 / 3.9 |
4.4 / 4.6 |
2.3 / 1.9 |
8.1 / 6.2 |
9.4 / 9.9 |
9.3 / 10.1 |
9.2 / 9.2 |
|
|
Ammonia as N (mg/L) |
10-20 |
|
2.30 / 1.87 |
2.69 / 2.51 |
2.91 / 2.71 |
0.09 / 0.07 |
6.40 / 4.57 |
7.02 / 6.73 |
7.40 / 7.80 |
6.82 / 6.79 |
|
|
E. coli (cfu/100 mL) |
1,000 |
1,000 (Median) |
8705 / 8100 |
18363 / 20000 |
26687 / 22500 |
244 / 295 |
42596 / 43500 |
284552 / 275000 |
6854 / 7550 |
249090 / 175000 |
|
|
Faecal coliforms (cfu/100 mL) |
- |
- |
11380 / 14400 |
19209 / 18500 |
24608 / 28000 |
741 / 560 |
49287 / 52500 |
127670 / 104000 |
4715 / 3650 |
113595 / 120000 |
|
|
Aluminium (mg/L) |
- |
## |
1.31 / 0.81 |
2.43 / 0.69 |
4.70 / 0.87 |
0.12 / 0.12 |
0.17 / 0.14 |
0.37 / 0.40 |
0.05 / 0.04 |
0.38 / 0.35 |
|
|
Copper (mg/L) |
- |
0.008 / 0.007 |
0.012 / 0.005 |
0.023 / 0.007 |
0.002 / 0.002 |
0.004 / 0.004 |
0.005 / 0.005 |
0.004 / 0.003 |
0.005 / 0.004 |
||
|
Chromium (mg/L) |
- |
<0.01 * / <0.01 * |
0.01 / 0.01 |
0.02 / 0.01 |
<0.01 * / <0.01 * |
<0.01 * / <0.01 * |
<0.01 * / <0.01 * |
<0.01 * / <0.01 * |
<0.01 * / <0.01 * |
||
|
Lead (mg/L) |
- |
## |
0.006 / 0.004 |
0.009 / 0.003 |
0.017 / 0.003 |
0.003 / 0.003 |
0.002 / 0.002 |
0.003 / 0.003 |
0.001 / 0.001 |
0.003 / 0.002 |
|
|
Zinc (mg/L) |
- |
0.11 / 0.08 |
0.15 / 0.10 |
0.24 / 0.11 |
0.01 / 0.01 |
0.04 / 0.02 |
0.14 / 0.06 |
0.03 / 0.02 |
0.13 / 0.04 |
||
|
Cadmium (mg/L) |
0.001-0.1 |
0.0002 / 0.0002 |
0.0002 /
0.0002 |
0.0003 / 0.0002
|
<0.0002 * / <0.0002 * |
<0.0002 * / <0.0002 * |
<0.0002 * / <0.0002 * |
<0.0002 * / <0.0002 * |
<0.0002 * / <0.0002 * |
||
|
Sulphide as S2- (mg/L) |
1 |
- |
<0.1 * / <0.1 * |
<0.1 * / <0.1 * |
<0.1 * / <0.1 * |
<0.1 * / <0.1 * |
<0.1 * / <0.1 * |
0.1 / 0.1 |
0.1 / 0.1 |
0.2 / 0.1 |
|
|
Nitrate as N (mg/L) |
- |
- |
1.16 / 1.07 |
1.05 / 1.03 |
1.12 / 1.08 |
0.02 / 0.01 |
1.39 / 1.35 |
0.87 / 0.76 |
0.66 / 0.42 |
0.89 / 0.82 |
|
|
Nitrite as N (mg/L) |
- |
- |
0.21 / 0.18 |
0.23 / 0.21 |
0.26 / 0.26 |
0.01 / 0.01 |
0.18 / 0.18 |
0.18 / 0.16 |
0.34 / 0.19 |
0.17 / 0.14 |
|
|
Nitrate + nitrite nitrogen |
20-50 |
- |
1.37 / 1.33 |
1.29 / 1.20 |
1.38 / 1.31 |
0.03 / 0.02 |
1.57 / 1.49 |
1.05 / 1.08 |
1.01 / 0.64 |
1.06 / 1.10 |
|
|
Unionized ammonia-nitrogen |
- |
0.021 |
0.039 / 0.032 |
0.036 / 0.033 |
0.036 / 0.030 |
0.020 / 0.015 |
0.186 / 0.096 |
0.123 / 0.088 |
0.190 / 0.140 |
0.120 / 0.077 |
|
Remark: Values
at or below laboratory reporting limits are calculated as laboratory report
limits.
Bold numbers
indicate exceedance of the relevant water quality criteria/ standard.
Data
presented are Arithemetric Means / Medians, except for E. coli and Faecal
Coliforms which are Geometric Means / Medians
“E.coli” stands for Escherichia coli.
All sampling and measurements were undertaken by the laboratory,
ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. on 23 Sep., 2012, 26 Sep., 2012, 29 Sep., 2012, 02
Oct., 2012, 04 Oct., 2012, 06 Oct., 2012, 08 Oct., 2012, 10 Oct., 2012, 12
Oct., 2012, 15 Oct., 2012, 17 Oct., 2012, 19 Oct., 2012, 19 Aug., 2013, 21
Aug., 2013, 23 Aug., 2013, 26 Aug., 2013, 28 Aug., 2013, 30 Aug., 2013, 02 Sep., 2013, 04 Sep., 2013, 06 Sep., 2013, 09
Sep., 2013, 11 Sep., 2013, 13 Sep., 2013.
* denotes that the measured concentration is below
the laboratory’s detection limit. Values at or below reporting limits are
calculated as report limits.
# According
to the standards stated in Section 5.2.2.
## Waste discharges shall not cause the toxins in water to attain
such levels as to produce significant toxic carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic effects in humans, fish or any
other aquatic organisms, with due regard to biologically cumulative effects in
food chain and to toxicant interactions
with each other. Waste discharges shall not cause a risk to any beneficial uses
of the aquatic environment
@@ Calculated
by summation of the concentration of Nitrate as N and Nitrite as N
@@@ The concentration of unionized ammonia (UIA) are calculated from
analysed NH3-N from water samples taken and in-situ measurement of
temperature, pH and salinity. References are shown as below:
l Bower C.E. and Bidwell J.P. (1978), Ionization of ammonia in seawater:
Effect of temperature, pH and salinity. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. Vol.35,
pp.1012-1016;
l K., Russo R.C. & et. al. (1975), Aqueous ammonia equilibrium
calculations: effect of pH and temperature. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. Vol.32,
pp.2379-2383;
l K.H. Khoo, C.H. Culberson, and R.G. Bates, Thermodynamics of the
dissociation of ammonium ion in seawater from 5 to 40°C, Journal of Solution
Chemistry, 6:281-290, 1977.
Table 5‑9 Summary of
Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Results for Dry Season between December 2012
and January 2013, and
between March 2015 and April 2015
|
Parameters |
Effluent Discharge Std. # |
WQO |
Ngau
Tam Mei Drainage Channel |
Abandoned Water Pond Within Project
Site |
Drainage
Channel along Ha San Wai Road |
Drainage Channel along Ha Chuk Yuen Road |
Inlet of DSD’s Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station |
|||
|
W2 |
W3 |
W4 |
WK4 |
WK5 |
WK1 |
WK2 |
WK3 |
|||
|
Salinity (ppt) |
- |
- |
3.2 / 3.5 |
4.8 / 4.6 |
5.5 / 5.3 |
0.2 / 0.2 |
0.4 / 0.2 |
2.5 / 1.9 |
0.6 / 0.6 |
1.7 / 1.4 |
|
|
Water flow (L/s) |
- |
- |
156.6 / 170.0 |
215.7 / 215.0 |
210.3 / 205.0 |
- / - |
30.0 / 18.0 |
25.3 / 23.0 |
<1.0 * / <1.0 * |
26.2 / 23.0 |
|
|
Water depth (m) |
- |
- |
1.5 / 1.7 |
1.6 / 1.7 |
1.6 / 1.8 |
0.4 / 0.4 |
0.5 / 0.5 |
0.3 / 0.2 |
0.3 / 0.3 |
0.3 / 0.2 |
|
|
Water Temperature (°C) |
30 |
- |
21.5 / 21.6 |
21.4 / 21.8 |
21.1 / 21.6 |
22.1 / 23.3 |
20.7 / 21.2 |
21.5 / 22.0 |
21.1 / 21.0 |
21.3 / 21.5 |
|
|
pH Value |
6-10 |
6-9 |
7.3 / 7.4 |
7.4 / 7.4 |
7.3 / 7.3 |
8.2 / 8.2 |
7.5 / 7.4 |
7.3 / 7.4 |
7.8 / 7.7 |
7.4 / 7.4 |
|
|
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) |
- |
4 (Minimum) |
2.2 / 2.0 |
2.7 / 2.3 |
2.4 / 2.2 |
6.9 / 6.9 |
4.1 / 4.6 |
2.9 / 2.5 |
3.4 / 3.2 |
3.0 / 2.9 |
|
|
Dissolved Oxygen Saturation (%) |
- |
- |
24.6 / 23.0 |
31.0 / 25.3 |
27.7 / 27.2 |
79.5 / 80.9 |
44.9 / 50.3 |
31.6 / 25.6 |
37.4 / 35.0 |
33.1 / 33.1 |
|
|
Turbidity (NTU) |
- |
- |
75 / 33 |
68 / 39 |
180 / 41 |
21 / 19 |
23 / 17 |
35 / 28 |
17 / 15 |
36 / 27 |
|
|
BOD5 (mg/L) |
20 |
5 (Maximum) |
7 / 6 |
6 / 6 |
8 / 7 |
5 / 5 |
22 / 15 |
15 / 13 |
9 / 8 |
15 / 13 |
|
|
COD (mg/L) |
80 |
30 (Maximum) |
35 / 33 |
37 / 31 |
49 / 43 |
47 / 45 |
53 / 39 |
41 / 40 |
54 / 43 |
44 / 42 |
|
|
Total Phosphorus (mg/L) |
5-10 |
- |
1.1 / 1.1 |
1.0 / 1.0 |
1.0 / 1.0 |
0.1 / 0.1 |
1.7 / 1.8 |
1.1 / 1.1 |
2.6 / 2.6 |
1.1 / 1.1 |
|
|
Reactive-Phosphorus (mg/L) |
- |
- |
0.70 / 0.73 |
0.67 / 0.73 |
0.67 / 0.70 |
0.01 / 0.01 |
1.28 / 1.27 |
0.72 / 0.72 |
1.93 / 2.06 |
0.69 / 0.68 |
|
|
Oil and Grease (mg/L) |
10 |
- |
<5 * / <5 * |
<5 * / <5 * |
<5 * / <5 * |
<5 * / <5 * |
8.4 / 5.0 |
<5 * / <5 * |
<5 * / <5 * |
<5 * / <5 * |
|
|
Conductivity (mS/cm) |
- |
- |
5971 / 6195 |
8011 / 8030 |
9567 / 9440 |
320 / 323 |
1162 / 441 |
8010 / 4455 |
1076 / 1030 |
4155 / 4280 |
|
|
Suspended Solids (mg/L) |
30 |
20 (Maximum Annual Median) |
50 / 32 |
59 / 34 |
91 / 35 |
16 / 13 |
33 / 21 |
32 / 28 |
17 / 16 |
37 / 29 |
|
|
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N (mg/L) |
- |
- |
6.7 / 7.0 |
7.4 / 7.9 |
7.9 / 7.7 |
1.9 / 1.7 |
17.7 / 16.1 |
9.4 / 9.5 |
24.9 / 25.9 |
9.3 / 9.8 |
|
|
Ammonia as N (mg/L) |
10-20 |
|
4.95 / 5.43 |
5.42 / 5.64 |
5.65 / 5.65 |
0.07 / 0.05 |
15.79 / 15.20 |
6.93 / 6.63 |
21.89 / 21.40 |
6.84 / 6.73 |
|
|
E. coli (cfu/100 mL) |
1,000 |
1,000 (Median) |
14368 / 18000 |
26828 / 27500 |
32500 / 32500 |
1379 / 1100 |
135853 / 155000 |
217190 / 250000 |
6827 / 5500 |
300124 / 295000 |
|
|
Faecal coliforms (cfu/100 mL) |
- |
- |
15748 / 12500 |
26290 / 22500 |
34941 / 28500 |
2097 / 1450 |
296348 / 460000 |
283708 / 410000 |
12388 / 13400 |
393159 / 380000 |
|
|
Aluminium (mg/L) |
- |
## |
0.45 / 0.37 |
0.50 / 0.46 |
0.53 / 0.47 |
0.06 / 0.06 |
0.66 / 0.11 |
0.22 / 0.21 |
0.11 / 0.08 |
0.47 / 0.24 |
|
|
Copper (mg/L) |
- |
0.004 / 0.003 |
0.006 / 0.004 |
0.005 / 0.004 |
0.001 / 0.001 |
0.009 / 0.005 |
0.003 / 0.003 |
0.004 / 0.004 |
0.005 / 0.003 |
||
|
Chromium (mg/L) |
- |
<0.01 * / <0.01 * |
<0.01 * / <0.01 * |
<0.01 * / <0.01 * |
<0.01 * / <0.01 * |
0.01 / 0.01 |
<0.01 * / <0.01 * |
<0.01 * / <0.01 * |
<0.01 * / <0.01 * |
||
|
Lead (mg/L) |
- |
## |
0.002 / 0.001 |
0.002 / 0.002 |
0.002 / 0.002 |
0.001 / 0.001 |
0.005 / 0.002 |
0.001 / 0.001 |
0.003 / 0.003 |
0.003 / 0.002 |
|
|
Zinc (mg/L) |
- |
0.05 / 0.04 |
0.12 / 0.06 |
0.13 / 0.08 |
0.05 / 0.02 |
0.06 / 0.03 |
0.04 / 0.04 |
0.04 / 0.03 |
0.05 / 0.04 |
||
|
Cadmium (mg/L) |
0.001-0.1 |
<0.0002 * / <0.0002 * |
<0.0002 * / <0.0002 * |
<0.0002 * / <0.0002 * |
<0.0002 * / <0.0002 * |
0.0002 / 0.0002 |
<0.0002 * / <0.0002 * |
<0.0002 * / <0.0002 * |
<0.0002 * / <0.0002 * |
||
|
Sulphide as S2- (mg/L) |
1 |
- |
<0.1 * / <0.1 * |
<0.1 * / <0.1 * |
<0.1 * / <0.1 * |
<0.1 * / <0.1 * |
0.1 / 0.1 |
0.2 / 0.1 |
0.1 / 0.1 |
0.2 / 0.2 |
|
|
Nitrate as N (mg/L) |
- |
- |
1.07 / 0.88 |
1.01 / 0.94 |
1.08 / 0.95 |
0.01 / 0.01 |
0.89 / 0.32 |
0.70 / 0.60 |
0.41 / 0.27 |
0.74 / 0.70 |
|
|
Nitrite as N (mg/L) |
- |
- |
0.26 / 0.25 |
0.27 / 0.28 |
0.30 / 0.31 |
<0.01* / <0.01 * |
0.20 / 0.10 |
0.21 / 0.18 |
0.32 / 0.29 |
0.19 / 0.18 |
|
|
Nitrate + nitrite nitrogen |
20-50 |
- |
1.33 / 1.09 |
1.29 / 1.20 |
1.37 / 1.19 |
1.25 / 0.02 |
1.09 / 0.44 |
0.91 / 0.81 |
0.73 / 0.62 |
0.93 / 0.88 |
|
|
Unionized ammonia-nitrogen |
- |
0.021 |
0.018 / 0.016 |
0.020 / 0.017 |
0.017 / 0.017 |
0.003 / 0.001 |
0.084 / 0.044 |
0.027 / 0.020 |
0.278 / 0.165 |
0.028 / 0.023 |
|
Remark: Values
at or below laboratory reporting limits are calculated as laboratory report
limits.
Bold
numbers indicate exceedance of the relevant water quality criteria/ standard.
Data
presented are Arithemetric Means / Medians, except for E. coli and Faecal
Coliforms which are Geometric Means / Medians.
“E.coli” stands for Escherichia coli.
All sampling and measurements were undertaken by the laboratory,
ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd. on 28 Dec., 2012, 03 Jan., 2013, 10 Jan., 2013, 17
Jan., 2013, 25 Mar., 2015, 27 Mar., 2015, 30 Mar., 2015, 01 Apr., 2015, 08
Apr., 2015, 10 Apr., 2015, 13 Apr., 2015, 15 Apr., 2015, 17 Apr., 2015, 20
Apr., 2015, 22 Apr., 2015, 24 Apr., 2015.
* denotes that the measured concentration is below
the laboratory’s detection limit. Values at or below reporting limits are
calculated as report limits.
# According
to the standards stated in Section 5.2.2.
## Waste discharges shall not cause the toxins in water to attain
such levels as to produce significant toxic carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic effects in humans, fish or any
other aquatic organisms, with due regard to biologically cumulative effects in
food chain and to toxicant interactions
with each other. Waste discharges shall not cause a risk to any beneficial uses
of the aquatic environment.
@@ Calculated
by summation of the concentration of Nitrate as N and Nitrite as N
@@@ The concentration of unionized ammonia (UIA) are calculated from
analysed NH3-N from water samples taken and in-situ measurement of
temperature, pH and salinity. References are shown as below:
l Bower C.E. and Bidwell J.P. (1978), Ionization of ammonia in seawater:
Effect of temperature, pH and salinity. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. Vol.35,
pp.1012-1016;
l K., Russo R.C. & et. al. (1975), Aqueous ammonia equilibrium
calculations: effect of pH and temperature. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. Vol.32,
pp.2379-2383;
l K.H. Khoo, C.H. Culberson, and R.G. Bates, Thermodynamics of the
dissociation of ammonium ion in seawater from 5 to 40°C, Journal of Solution
Chemistry, 6:281-290, 1977.
Currently, the Project Site is partially vacant with
paved car parking operation at the Project Site. During heavy rainfall, surface runoff from
the Project Site and the nearby areas would flow to the nearby u-channels and
eventually into the NTMDC without treatment.
Overflow of the nearby drainage channels and sediment-laden surface
runoff could occur.
Livestock farms and unsewered villages upstream of
Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel would also generate particulates, BOD5
and other pollutants, which may result in poor water quality.
The Project Site is generally low-lying in terrain and
the geographical characteristic of the Project Site is relatively flat. The existing ground level at the northern
portion of the Project Site where proposed houses are located, is about
+6.5mPD, while the mPD level for southern portion is about +4.8mPD in average.
Construction of the Project mainly includes site
formation, ground excavation, foundation and superstructure works, landscaping
works, and construction of associated facilities for the residential
development and club house within the Project Site.
If not properly controlled, construction site runoff
generated from the Project Site may bring along pollutants (e.g. sediment-laden
surface runoff) and pollute the nearby water bodies depending upon the
topography. Superstructure works are
typical of many building construction works, which would generate insignificant
impact on water quality.
During the course of construction of the project,
construction site runoff may be generated from the following activities:
erosion from site surfaces and stockpiles; wash water from wheel washing
facilities; and fuel, oil, solvents and lubricants from maintenance of
construction machinery and equipment. Pollutants can flow into nearby water
bodies as non-point source discharge if not properly controlled.
According
to the estimation, the surface runoff flow rate due to the construction activities would be
slightly decreased by 0.97m3/s in a 1 in 10 years event [6], because
the site surface would all become unpaved during construction as compared to
the current partially paved condition before the construction. The concerned amount is negligible when
compared with the design capacity of the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel (500m3/s). Thus, there will be no adverse water quality
impact as long as the mitigation measures proposed in Section 5.5 will be implemented.
Appropriate site drainage such as
sedimentation basins, sand traps and similar facilities will be provided on
site to properly direct stormwater to silt removal facilities. Good site practices stipulated
in ProPECC Note PN 1/94, listed in Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2, will be adopted in order to
avoid any uncontrolled discharge and potential impacts on the nearby WSRs.
Treated construction site runoff will be discharged into nearby
existing stormwater
drains and
eventually discharged into NTMDC. Figure 5-3 shows the indicative design
of drainage system during construction phase.
There is an abandoned water pond at the south-eastern
corner of the Project Site (Figure 5-1
refers), which has a size of about 0.33 ha.
The average water depth of the pond is about 0.3m. Sediment
at the pond is intended to be left in place and not to be disturbed as far as
possible. As the
abandoned pond will be filled up to the proposed site formation level,
remaining
water in the pond will be absorbed by soakaway mechanism and no discharge to
off-site location is expected. During
pond filling within the Project Site, additional site drainage will also be
provided
around the existing abandoned pond to divert surface runoff away from this pond
(Figure 5-3). Draining of pond water and discharge to surrounding
area should be avoided by implementing the mitigation measures proposed in
Section 5.5.2.3. Good site practices to be adopted during construction phase are provided
in Section 5.5.2. With these measures in place, significant water quality impact on nearby
water bodies is not anticipated.
As discussed in Section 7.3,
there is no historic and / or existing land uses at the Project Site that would
result in potential contamination of soil and underground water, thus land
contamination at the Project Site is not expected. As such, contaminated underground water is
not anticipated at the Project Site.
Water pollution due to temporary site facilities e.g.
toilets could be a source of pollution if appropriate measures are not implemented properly in respect
of storage and discharge. Since portable
chemical toilets will be provided, no adverse water quality impact is
anticipated.
There will be no alternation of any natural
watercourse/ stream/ drainage system arising from implementation of the Project.
The proposed drainage system will follow the existing flow regime after
passing through screening facilities. Therefore, there will be no adverse water quality impact due to the
Project.
Permanent
Sewage Disposal
Currently, the Project Site and the surrounding areas
are not equipped with any public sewerage system. Sewage from the proposed development may
cause pollution to the surrounding waterbodies if there is uncontrolled
discharge and lack of treatment.
Domestic wastewater will be a point-source of
pollution. During the operational
stage, potential impacts will be the discharge of wastewater from the proposed
development (residential
development, club house and swimming pool, etc.). All domestic wastewater will be
discharged to the planned public sewerage system when it is in operation via a
proposed rising main from the Project Site (Section 6.5 refers),
thus there will be no adverse water quality impact during operation phase.
Interim
Sewage Disposal
Since there is a possibility that there will be no
public sewer available at the time of occupation, an interim sewage treatment
plant (STP) will be provided (Sections 6.6 and 6.7 refer).
The operation of the interim STP will cease once connection to the public sewer
is completed. The interim STP will comprise a
system of combination of biological treatment, membrane filtration and Reverse Osmosis processes. The discharge requirement of the Project and
the capacity of the interim STP have been evaluated in Section 6.7.
As the
Project Site is located in Deep Bay area, treated
effluent from the proposed interim STP will need to follow
the requirement of no net increase of pollution loading. The estimated existing pollution loading from the
Project Site and that due to the proposed development are provided in Table 6-9
in Chapter 6, which shows compliance with the no net increase in pollution load
requirement.
Treated effluent from the interim STP will be
discharged to the adjacent NTMDC, which is the engineered trained main drainage
channel for the area. The concerned quantity of treated effluent discharge is
estimated to be about 4.4 L/s
(peak design flow), according to the estimation provided in Section 6.4, which
is negligible when compared with the capacity of the NTMDC (over 500m3/s
without overtopping the channel embankment under 1 in 200 year rainfall). Therefore, adverse impacts on NTMDC is not
anticipated in terms of both flow regime and water quality.
To the further downstream, the existing Kam Tin River is also an engineered
trained drainage channel with a width of about 130m (i.e. with a greater
capacity than NTMDC, which is about 44m wide), thus the discharge from this
Project will be negligible when compared with its capacity. As such, no adverse water quality impact to
the downstream water body is therefore expected.
Precautionary
measures have also been proposed in Sections 6.6, 6.11 and 6.12 to address potential adverse water quality impact
due to decommissioning
of the interim sewage treatment plant; sewage overflow; emergency discharge; and change
in flow regime. Equalization tank will be provided for the STP for temporary storage of sewage in
case of outage of the interim STP, and
tanker away will be provided for proper disposal at designated sewage treatment
works to be assigned by DSD. With the proposed precautionary measures
in place, sewage overflow, discharge
of sewage to the nearby environmental during decommissioning
and emergency discharge would
be very unlikely and no adverse water quality impact is expected.
In addition, the wastewater discharge from the Project
Site will be required to apply for a discharge licence under the WPCO, and the
discharge shall comply with the terms and conditions of the licence and the
discharge standards for effluent specified in the licence as well as the
conditions specified in the Environmental Permit of this Project under the EIAO.
During operational phase, potential water quality
impact would be the surface runoff during rainfall events which is known as
non-point source of pollution.
Substances such as vehicle dust, scraps and oil may
be deposited on paved road surface. Fallen leaves, particles, litter from
open areas/ landscape areas, which is a source of organic and nutrient
pollutants, can be washed into the drainage system during
heavy rainfall if it is not properly controlled. No fertilizers and pesticides will be
routinely used for vegetation management.
Pollutants
contributed by non-point source are often bound or adsorbed onto particles,
thus an effective stormwater management system will be the removal of pollution
sources prior to rainstorm and the provision of degritting/ screening
facilities that collect debris or sediment.
The main concern of
operational surface runoff would be the first flush flow which carries most of
the pollutants. Under normal condition of operational phase, runoff
will not be generated in low rainfall intensity. Thus, prevention of “first
flush” pollution in stormwater runoff will be an effective way in controlling
pollution at source and to abate pollutants.
The proposed development will be
constructed on existing formed land. It
is expected that the volume of surface runoff will increase in the developable
area due
to increase in paved areas.
Drainage system will be provided for the formed and
paved road/areas in the proposed development to collect stormwater surface
runoff. Collected surface runoff
from the development site will be discharged into
the NTMDC after passing through screening facilities.
Given the scale of this Project (for small house development),
the increase in surface runoff generated from the developable area after
development should be insignificant (about 14.7m3/day (or 0.17L/s) (Appendix
5-2 refers) when compared with the capacity of the
trained downstream Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel (over 500m3/s). Given the design capacity of the NTMDC and the
small amount of surface runoff from this Project, there will be no adverse
water quality impact on the NTMDC and its downstream locations in
terms of both the flow regime and water quality. Moreover, the NTMDC has been designed to
convey flows due to urbanization/ development inclusive of all its catchment
areas. In
addition, the existing roadside channel along Kam Pok Road
will be retained to maintain the original flow path. Therefore, there will be no flooding or
hydrology issue arising from the proposed development, and no adverse water
quality impact on nearby water bodies during operation of the Project is
anticipated.
Estimation
on the potential pollution loading due to the surface runoff from the
developable area is provided in Appendix
5-2, which is found to be a minor source and can be controlled with
implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) described below as well as
in Section 5.6.2.
Surface
runoff can be controlled by good drainage design and implementation of
BMPs. The proposed development has
adopted the following BMPs, which are also listed in Section 5.6.2.
Erosion
Control
If uncontrolled, exposed surfaces may contribute to
sediment-laden surface runoff during rainstorm and cause water pollution. The proposed development
site is either hard paved or covered by landscaping area with appropriate
planting species in order to eliminate any exposed surface.
The landscaped open area will be managed and
maintained by the property management company (and its contractor) during
operation.
Runoff
Control
In the proposed layout of the development, the area of
internal
access road (i.e. hard paved area) has been minimised by a simpler and more effective layout, at
which proposed houses are allocated on both sides of the road. The hard paved area is therefore minimised
and hence providing more space for landscaping area which has a lower runoff
coefficient. As a result, the overall amount of surface runoff is minimised.
The existing roadside channel surrounding the Project
Site will be retained to maintain the original flow path. The drainage system will be
designed to avoid flooding.
In
addition, appropriate drainage system will be constructed for the proposed
development in order to control its surface runoff. Drainage system of the development has been
designed in such way that surface runoff from the residential area will be
directed towards the internal access road, where appropriate drainage system
with control facilities have been proposed.
Additional concreted U-channels with screening facilities are also
provided along site boundary to avoid uncontrolled spillage of runoff. Figure 5-4 shows the
indicative site drainage during operational phase.
Prevention
of “First Flush” Pollution
As discussed above, prevention of “first
flush” pollution will be an effective way in controlling pollution. This can be done by prevention of pollutants
from entering the drainage system and by removal of pollutants by installation
of appropriate devices as well as management measures.
Prevention
of Pollution at Source
Tree planting has been introduced along the roadside
of internal access road, which helps to reduce soil erosion and as a buffer
zone between the residential area and the drainage system along roadside. With this planting area, it can help minimize
the amount of direct flushing of substances such as fallen leaves, soil
particles, and rubbish into the drainage system.
Broadleaf and evergreen species, which in general
generate relatively smaller amount of fallen leaves, should be considered to be
utilized in the landscape berm at the periphery of the site so as to minimize
the amount which may enter the drainage system during heavy rainfall.
Fertilizer, which is a source of nutrient, will only
be applied when needed. According to the
“General Specification for Building
(2012 edition)” published by Architectural Services Department, HKSAR
Government, fertilizer is generally applied twice a year. If required, the fertilizer should be applied
in early Spring and in late summer in order to avoid major rainy season as far
as possible. Slow
release fertilizer should be selected as far as possible to minimize the amount
of nutrient to be washed out by rain.
Application of fertilizer should not be arranged before forecasted heavy
rainfall, and over dosing
should be avoided.
Particles flushing out by rainfall (which may carry nutrient) would be
removed by provisions
of sand traps in the drainage system. Application
of fertilizer should be managed by an experienced contractor through the property management company during operation.
Regular
cleaning and sweeping of road surface/ open areas is
suggested so as to minimize exposure of pollutants to stormwater. The road
surface/ open area cleaning should also be carried out prior to occurrence of rainstorm.
With the above measures, the amount of pollutants at
source has been largely reduced/ avoided as far as possible.
Devices
for Removal of Pollutants
In
addition to the above, screening facilities such as standard gully grating and
trash grille, with spacing which is capable of screening off large substances
such as fallen leaves and rubbish should be provided at the inlet of drainage
system as well as at upstream location of the u-channels. It is expected that most of the large
substances in stormwater runoff would be removed with such devices so as to
prevent it from entering the drainage system.
Road gullies with standard design and silt traps and oil interceptors
should be incorporated during the detailed design to remove particles and
grease present in stormwater runoff.
General speaking, device such as sand trap may achieve about 20% of
removal efficiency as reported in other studies[7]. Figure
5-4 shows the indicative site drainage conceptual layout during operational
phase.
Drainage outlet
of any covered car park should be connected to foul sewers via petrol
interceptors or similar facilities.
In the event of emergency (e.g. car accident) where
there is a major spillage of oil, chemical or fuel, dispersants or firefighting
foam, etc., a system of contaminant bunding will be implemented as appropriate.
Management
Measures
Good
management measures such as regular cleaning and sweeping of road surface/ open
areas is suggested. The road surface/ open area
cleaning should also be carried out prior to occurrence of rainstorm.
Stormwater gullies and ditches provided among the
residential development will be regularly inspected and cleaned by the property
management company.
With the removal of pollutants, the pollution levels
from stormwater would be much reduced, and given the stochastic nature of
non-point source pollution and the proposed management measures, there will be
no significant impact expected.
Control of potential water quality impact arising from
the construction works should be based on the following principles:
·
Minimisation of runoff;
·
Prevention or minimisation of the
likelihood of the identified pollutants being in contact with rainfall or
runoff; and
·
Measures to abate pollutants in the
stormwater runoff.
The
Contractor shall apply for a discharge licence under the WPCO and
the discharge shall comply with the terms and conditions of the licence.
Construction
Phase Drainage Management Plan
Contractor(s) of this Project is required to
submit a Construction Phase Drainage Management Plan with details such as
design of the temporary site drainage system; wastewater treatment facilities;
and maintenance of drainage system for the approval of the Engineers
Representative (ER) and the Environmental Team in order to ensure that the
mitigation measures are in place. The
concerned drainage management plan should include recommended mitigation
measures as well as best practices identified in Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 of
this EIA study. .
The Drainage Management Plan and recommended
mitigation measures and best practices shall be implemented by the
Contractor(s) and inspections shall be carried out regular (e.g. weekly) by the Engineer’s Representative
(ER), and Environmental Team (ET) in order to ensure all
mitigation measures are effectively implemented, in particular to ensure that no
off-site spillage of runoff from the project site. Any deficiencies identified shall be timely
rectified by the Contractor(s).
The BMPs
given in the ProPECC PN 1/94 shall be implemented in controlling water
pollution during the whole construction phase.
The main practices provided in the above-mentioned document (i.e. ProPECC
PN 1/94) are also summarized in the following paragraphs which should be
implemented by the contractor during the construction phase, where practicable:
·
High loading of suspended solids
(SS) in construction site runoff shall be prevented through proper site
management by the contractor;
·
The boundary of critical work areas
shall be surrounded by ditches or embankment.
Accidental release of soil or refuse into the adjoining land should be prevented
by the provision of site hoarding or earth bunds, etc. at the site
boundary. These facilities should be
constructed in advance of site formation works and roadworks;
·
Consideration should be given to
plan construction activities to allow the use of natural topography of the
Project Site as a barrier to minimise uncontrolled non-point source discharge
of construction site runoff;
·
Temporary ditches, earth bunds
should be provided to facilitate directed and controlled discharge of runoff
into storm drains via sand/ silt removal facilities such as sand traps and
sedimentation basins. Oil and grease
removal facilities should also be provided where appropriate, for example, in
area near plant workshop/ maintenance areas;
·
Sedimentation basins and sand traps
designed in accordance with the requirements of ProPECC Note PN 1/94 should be
installed at the construction site for collecting surface runoff;
·
Sand and silt removal facilities,
channels and manholes should be maintained and the deposited silt and grit
should be removed regularly by the contractor, and at the onset of and after
each rainstorm to ensure that these facilities are functioning properly;
·
Slope exposure should be minimised
where practicable especially during the wet season. Exposed soil surfaces should be protected
from rainfall through covering the temporary exposed slope surfaces or
stockpiles with tarpaulin or the like;
·
Haul roads should be protected by
crushed rock, gravel or other granular materials to minimise discharge of
contaminated runoff;
·
Slow down water run-off flowing
across exposed soil surfaces;
·
Plant workshop/ maintenance areas
should be bunded and constructed on a hard standing. Sediment traps and oil interceptors should be
provided at appropriate locations;
·
Manholes (including newly
constructed ones) should be adequately covered or temporarily sealed so as to
prevent silt, construction materials or debris from getting into the drainage
system;
·
Construction works should be
programmed to minimise soil excavation works where practicable during rainy
conditions;
·
Chemical stores should be contained
(bunded) to prevent any spills from contact with water bodies. All fuel tanks and/ or storage areas should
provide with locks and be sited on hard surface;
·
Chemical waste arising from the
Project Site should be properly stored, handled, treated and disposed of in
compliance with the requirements stipulated under the Waste Disposal (Chemical
Waste) (General) Regulation;
·
Drainage facilities must be adequate
for the controlled release of storm flows;
·
Vehicle wheel
washing facilities should be provided at the site exit such that mud, debris,
etc. attached to the vehicle wheels or body can be washed off before vehicles
leave the work site;
·
Section of the
road between the wheel washing bay and the public road will be paved to reduce
vehicle tracking of soil and to prevent site run-off from entering public road
drains;
·
Bentonite
slurries, if any to be generated, shall be reconditioned and reused as far as
practicable. Spent bentonite should be kept
in a separate slurry collection system for disposal at a marine spoil grounds
subject to obtaining a marine dumping licence from EPD. If used bentonite slurry is to be disposed of
through public drainage system, it should be treated to meet the respective
applicable effluent standards for discharges into sewers, storm drains or the
receiving waters;
·
Appropriate peripheral drainage
system shall be constructed
along the Project Site boundary to divert away surface runoff in accordance
with requirements stipulated in ProPECC PN 1/94 in order to collect surface
runoff and discharge it into the nearby existing stormwater drains, and via
which into the existing NTMDC; and
·
Temporary drains, sedimentation
basins, sand traps and similar facilities shall be provided during the
construction works in accordance with the
ProPECC PN 1/94.
·
Sewage generated from the
construction workforce should be contained in chemical toilets before
connection to public foul sewer becomes available. Chemical toilets should be provided at a
minimum rate of about 1 per 50 workers. The facility should be serviced and
cleaned by a specialist contractor at regular intervals;
Spillage of fuel oils or other polluting fluids should
be prevented at source. It is
recommended that all stocks should be stored inside proper containers and sited
on sealed areas, preferably surrounded by bunds.
During
construction, temporary drains, peripheral site drainage comprising precast concrete
u-channels,
sedimentation basins, sand traps and similar facilities will be provided along the Site boundary to collect and treat
construction site runoff. Figure 5-3 shows the
indicative site drainage during construction phase.
The construction of water extraction facility for interim
STP should be carried out in dry season so that to avoid affecting water
quality at the channel. Silt curtain or sand bags should be
provided to carve out the working area so as to bypass the channel flow and to
avoid any solids/materials arising from the construction activities from
entering the channel during construction phase. The work sites at the NTMDC for
construction of water abstraction facilities should be maintained in dry
conditions. Regular
visual inspections should also be carried out by the Environmental Team and
Contractor to ensure there is no spillage into the channel.
The existing abandoned pond will be filled up by
imported fill materials. The pond sediment is intended to be left in
place and not to be disturbed as far as possible. However, in case any sediment is encountered
during construction, preventative measures are proposed below. Temporary
access roads of Project Site should be protected by crushed stone or gravel. Offsite disposal should be
avoided and pond sediment should be re-used on-site. For
the purpose of prevention of soil erosion, temporary exposed surfaces in
interim should be covered by tarpaulin sheets to prevent materials from washing
away. Appropriate site drainage should
be provided, as part of the construction phase drainage system, to ensure
surface runoff is properly collected and treated and there should be no
spillage to offsite location.
In addition, intercepting
channels should be provided along the edge of pond to divert surface runoff
away from this pond and to prevent storm runoff from washing across exposed
surfaces (Figure 5-3 refers).
Arrangements should always be in place to ensure that adequate surface
protection measures can be safely carried out well before the arrival of a
rainstorm.
As the concerned existing abandoned pond will be
filled up to the
proposed site formation level during construction, remaining water
in the pond will be absorbed by soakaway mechanism and no discharge to off-site
location is expected. During pond filling, site drainage should be
provided
around the existing pond to divert surface runoff away from this pond (Figure 5-3 refers). Draining of pond water and discharge to surrounding
area should be avoided as far as possible.
In case there is still surplus pond water, the pond water will be
on-site re-used for the construction activities such as dust suppression and
wheel washing facilities to minimize the water consumption of project as well
as the volume of pond water that needs to be handled.
In case there is still a need for disposal, on-site treatment should be
proposed by the Contractor(s) and the discharge of treated effluent will be
subject to agreement with EPD and DSD, where necessary. The contractor(s) will be required to properly treat the water on-site with the quality of the treated water complying with the requirement of the discharge license to be issued by the EPD.
During construction period, in order to better control
potential water pollution due to site runoff during inclement weather and
emergencies, the Contractor(s) will be required to prepare and implement an
Emergency Response Plan (ERP).
As a general indication, the ERP should include but
not limited to the design of drainage facilities/ system; maintenance of
drainage system; recommended measures and best practices identified in the EIA
study; an event and action plan during inclement weather and emergencies
condition; emergency procedures and emergency contact details; and
responsibility of relevant parties and follow up actions.
In particular, the plan should provide details of
procedure and actions required both before and after forecasted rainstorm such
as checking/ inspection before onset of rainy season/ rainstorm that all drains
are cleared from blockage and functioning properly; checking standby plant and
equipment are ready for use; frequency of updating weather conditions; persons
who will implement the measures and follow up actions; ensuring easily loose
construction materials are well covered; more frequent inspection and cleansing
preferably before and after every rainstorm event. In case of severe weather condition, upon the
instruction from the Engineers’ Representative (ER), to stop works for the sake
of safety reasons.
The ERP shall be submitted for the
approval of the ER, the Environmental Team (ET) and the Independent Checker
(Environment) (IEC), which shall be implemented by the
Contractor(s) throughout the construction period. Its implementation will be monitored by the
ER and the ET in order to ensure all measures are effectively
implemented. Any
deficiencies identified shall be timely rectified by the Contractor(s).
Permanent
Sewage Disposal
All domestic sewage generated will be discharged to
the public sewerage system via a proposed rising main from the Project Site as
described in Section 6.5. Thus, sewage discharge from the
Project would present no adverse water quality impact.
The discharge from the club house and swimming pool
shall apply for a discharge licence under the WPCO, and the discharge shall
comply with the terms and conditions of a licence and the standards for
effluents specified in the licence, as
well as conditions in Environmental Permit of this Project under the EIAO.
Interim
Sewage Disposal
An interim STP will be proposed with discharge of the
treated effluent to the adjacent NTMDC in case the public sewerage is not
available when the Project is in operation. The design of the interim STP will
follow the requirement of no net increase of pollution loading. A discharge licence under the WPCO will be
obtained for the interim STP and, and the discharge shall comply with the terms
and conditions of the licence and the discharge standards for effluents
specified in the licence as well as the conditions specified in the Environmental Permit
of this Project. Samples of treated effluent will be taken
regularly and tested according to the discharge licence under the WPCO and the conditions in the
Environmental Permit to ensure compliance with discharge
standards.
Precautionary
measures in Sections 6.12 and 6.6 should be implemented, so that adverse
water
quality impact due to sewage overflow, emergency
discharge, and change in flow regime is unlikely to occur. In addition, equalization
tank will be provided in the STP for temporary storage of sewage in
case of outage of the interim STP, and tank away will be provided for proper
disposal at designated sewage treatment works to be assigned by DSD (Section 6.12 refers).
During
Decommissioning of STP
The proposed interim sewerage system
will be designed in such a way to facilitate the future
connection to the planned Ngau Tam Mei sewerage system with the flow direction
to be controlled by several flow control devices such as valves or stop-log,
etc. The interim STP will be
decommissioned and converted
to a sewage pumping station once the trunk sewer becomes
available for connection. Details
of which provided in Section 6.6 should
be implemented.
Small amount of residual sewage left in the interim STP would be
tankered away. No sewage will be
discharged into the nearby water body during decommissioning of the interim STP and hence no adverse water quality impact is anticipated.
During operational stage, potential
water quality impact due to storm water discharge is addressed in this EIA
study. The control of water pollution
will be through good drainage design and implementation of Best Management
Practices, which have been recommended and listed out below.
Best
Management Practices (BMPs) have been proposed for the development, which are
summarised and grouped under the following categories:
Design Measures
· Exposed surface
shall be avoided within the proposed development to minimize soil erosion. Development site shall be either hard paved
or covered by landscaping area where possible.
· The landscaped open area should be managed and maintained by the
property management company (and its contractor) during operation.
· Paved
area of development has been minimized by a simpler and more effective internal road
layout, at which proposed houses are allocated on both sides of the road. Thus hard paved area of internal access road
as well as increase in surface runoff, can be minimized;
· The
roadside channel surrounding the Project Site will be retained to maintain the
original flow path. The
drainage system will be designed to avoid flooding;
· Figure 5-4 shows the indicative site
drainage during operational phase. Drainage system of the
development shall be designed in such a way that surface runoff from the
residential area is directed towards the internal access road, where
appropriate drainage system with control facilities have been proposed. Additional paved U-channels with screening
facilities are also provided along site boundary to avoid uncontrolled spillage
of runoff.
·
Street level tree planting should be
introduced along roadside of internal access road, which can help to reduce
soil erosion and as a buffer zone between the residential area and the drainage
system along roadside.
·
Broadleaf and evergreen species, which in
general generate relatively smaller amount of fallen leaves, should be selected
where possible (e.g. at landscape berm at the periphery of the site).
·
Fertilizer will only be applied on
landscape area when needed. If required,
the fertilizer should be applied in early Spring and in later summer in order
to avoid major rainy season as far as possible.
Slow release fertilizer should be selected as far as possible to
minimize the amount of nutrient to be washed out by rain. Application of fertilizer should not be
arranged before forecasted heavy rainfall, and over dosing should be avoided. Application of fertilizer should be managed
by an experienced contractor through the property
management company.
Devices/ Facilities to
Control Pollution
In
addition to the above, the following device/ facilities will be incorporated
into the design:
·
Screening facilities such as standard gully grating
and trash grille, with spacing which is capable of screening off large
substances such as fallen leaves and rubbish should be provided at the inlet of
drainage system as well as at upstream location of the u-channels.
·
Road gullies with standard design and silt traps
and oil interceptors should be incorporated during the detailed design to
remove particles present in stormwater runoff.
·
Drainage
outlet of any covered car park should be connected to foul sewers via petrol
interceptors or similar facilities.
In the event of emergency (e.g. car accident) where
there is a major spillage of oil, chemical or fuel, dispersants or firefighting
foam, etc., a system of contaminant bunding will be implemented as appropriate.
Administrative
Measures
Good
management measures such as regular cleaning and sweeping of road surface/ open
areas is suggested. The road surface/ open area
cleaning should also be carried out prior to occurrence of rainstorm.
Stormwater gullies and ditches provided among the
residential development will be regularly inspected and cleaned (e.g. monthly)
by the property management company.
Additional inspection and cleansing should be carried out if heavy rain
is forecasted.
The mitigation measures listed in Section 5.6.2 will
be implemented by the Project Proponent, which will be managed and maintained
by the property management company / Incorporated Owners during operational
phase.
During operation, in order to control/
minimize water pollution during inclement weather and emergencies, an Emergency
Response Plan should be established and implemented. As a general indication, the ERP
should include but not limited to record plans of drainage facilities/ system;
maintenance of drainage system; recommended measures and best practices
identified in the EIA study; an event and action plan during inclement weather
and emergencies condition; emergency procedures and emergency contact details;
and responsibility of relevant parties and follow up actions.
In particular, the plan should provide details of
procedure and actions required both before and after forecasted rainstorm such
as checking/ inspection before onset of rainy season/ rainstorm that all drains
are cleared from blockage and functioning properly; checking standby plant and
equipment are ready for use; frequency of updating weather conditions; persons
who will implement the measures and follow up actions; more frequent inspection
and cleansing preferably before and after every rainstorm event [8].
The ERP shall be prepared by the Environmental Team (ET) and submitted to the Independent Environmental
Checker (IEC) for approval prior to occupation of project. The ERP shall be implemented by the property
management company and its sub-contractor during operational phase. Any
deficiencies identified shall be timely rectified.
As discussed in Section 1.8, a few works projects near the
Project Site have been identified for cumulative impact assessment. Cumulative impacts of these projects are
described in following paragraphs.
Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal
Project
The location of the proposed Ngau Tam Mei sewage
pumping station and the public sewers are also shown in Figure 1-2. According
to its approved EIA report, namely the “EIA and TIA
Studies for the Stage 2 of PWP Item No. 215DS - Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage
and Sewage Disposal”, a sewage
pumping station (SPS) (San Tin No.1 SPS), has been proposed at an offsite location about
206m southeast of the Project Site.
Under the same project (current PWP Item
4235DS), a gravity
trunk sewer will be constructed along Castle Peak Road between Ngau Tam Mei and
San Tin, and a section of alignment will be constructed along the Ngau Tam Mei
Channel in adjacent to this development Project.
It is understood that there is currently no updated
status of implementation of that Project (an interim STP is proposed for this
Project as a result), thus concurrent works with that Project is unlikely to
occur in near future.
According to the said EIA report (Section 10.6 of the
concerned EIA report refers), potential water quality impacts of the sewerage
works could arise as a result of sediment-laden surface runoff and water
pollution due to site facilities such as toilets.
The EIA report has stated that all the construction
works of that project will be carried out in small sections, and construction
of each section will be lasted for a shorter period of time. It has also
recommended in the same report that the construction works will be carried out
in 50m segments (Section 8.5 of the same EIA report refers). Thus, the exposed surface at any one time
will be much reduced and controllable during the construction phase. In addition, the construction programme of
that project will also be arranged to minimize surface excavation during rainy
seasons. Furthermore, various
practicable mitigation measures have also been proposed in that EIA report to
prevent the transportation of sediment away from the works area (section 10.6.2
of the same EIA report refers).
The contractor is also obliged to follow the
procedures and requirements given in the Practice Notes for Professional
Persons on “Construction Site Drainage” (ProPECC
PN 1/94). Efficient silt removal
facilities will be installed, and channels, earth bunds or sand bag barriers
will be provided to divert stormwater to silt removal facilities. For sewage generated from construction
workforce, portable chemical toilets or sewage holding tanks will be provided. With the proposed mitigation measures in
place, adverse water quality impacts on the nearby water environment are not
anticipated. Most importantly,
respective project specific Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A)
programme will be implemented for the said sewerage project to ensure and
review the effectiveness of the mitigation measures implemented.
Construction of Cycle Tracks and the associated
Supporting Facilities from Sha Po Tsuen to Shek Sheung River Project
A cycle track will be provided along the Castle Peak
Road and the Yau Pok Road as part of the cycle track project between Tuen Mun
and Sheung Shui under PWP Item 7259RS.
The section of concerned alignment of cycle track near
the Project Site is along Yau Pok Road on the opposite side of NTMDC (Figure
1-2 refers). According to the concerned
cycle track EIA report, the identified primary potential impacts to water
quality of that project will be the pollutants from construction site run-off
(suspended solids). Measures have been
proposed in that EIA to control/ prevent impacts to the water sensitive
receivers (e.g. Sections 6.5 and 6.6 of the cycle track EIA report). In particular, the contractor is also obliged
to follow the procedures and requirements given in the ProPECC PN 1/94. Surface
run-off from the construction sites will be directed into storm drains via
adequately designed wastewater treatment facilities such as sand traps, silt
traps and sediment settling basins. Wastewater from temporary site facilities
(such as toilets) will be discharged to foul sewer or chemical toilets will be
provided.
In addition, the cycle track project will be
constructed in sections. Typically, the working area will be 40 m long by 4
m wide and no adjacent sections (200m between two neighbouring
sections) will be constructed simultaneously.
Thus, the exposed surface that may cause sediment laden runoff will be
minimized and controlled during the construction phase. With the proposed control measures,
stormwater runoff will be adequately controlled and the project will not cause
unacceptable impact. Most importantly,
the project specific EM&A programme will be implemented for that project to
ensure the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.
The Proposed Residential Cum Passive Recreation
Development within “Recreation” Zone and “Residential (Group C)” Zone at
Various Lots in DD104, Yuen Long, N.T.
(The “REC Site”) (note: a
rezoning application for the development site was agreed by TPB under the
planning application no. Y/YL-MP/3. The exact new zoning of that site is still
subject to Government’s further review.
However, it is noted that the submitted development scheme is the same
as that approved under the EIAO)
According to the approved
EIA report of that Project under AEIAR-182/2014, the planned development
project is for land-based development.
Identified water quality impacts will be sediment laden surface runoff
and sewage generated from construction workforce during construction phase. With the implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures of the EIA report, adverse impacts on water quality impact
from the REC Site is not anticipated.
Based on the current construction programme, the site
formation works of this Project (which is a major source of construction site
runoff, will be undertaken between April 2017 and November 2017 (Appendix 1-1 refers), which should
avoid concurrent construction with the site formation works of the “REC Site”
(the site formation for “REC Site” is to commence in November 2017 after the
site formation works of this Project).
Thus, cumulative impact due to concurrent construction has been avoided
as far as possible.
Nevertheless, discharge of surface runoff due to the
approved “REC Site” will be controlled through the implementation of mitigation
measures as stated in its approved EIA report such as adaptation of best practices stipulated in ProPECC
PN 1/94 and project-specific mitigation measures and proper design of drainage
system, which will be monitored as part of its EM&A programme during its
construction. According to its approved
EIA report, with these measures in place, no adverse water impact is
expected. As such, no adverse water quality impact is
anticipated.
The Proposed Residential Development within
“Residential (Group D)” zone at various lots in DD104, Yuen Long, N.T. (The “RD
Site” Project)
According to the EIA Study
Brief of this development project (ESB-204/2009) and its approved planning
application (under planning application no. A/YL-MP/205), the planned
development site is also for land-based development. It is expected that potential water quality
impacts of these Project will be similar to that identified in the approved
“REC Site” project as described above.
The concerned “RD Site”
development will be subject to an approval under the EIAO, and an EP will be
obtained from EPD for its construction works.
Given that there is currently no updated status of that project and the
construction works of that project will require a prior approval under the
EIAO, its construction works are unlikely to commence in near future. As a result, concurrent construction with
this Project is considered unlikely to occur.
Nevertheless, construction works of that project will be under control
of the EIAO, and project-specific mitigation measures will be recommended in
this respective EIA report to ensure there is no adverse water quality impact
due to its construction activities. The
implementation of these measures will need to be monitored as part of its
EM&A programme to monitor its implementation and the effectiveness of
proposed mitigation measures during the whole construction period. As such, no adverse water quality impact is
anticipated.
The Comprehensive Development and Wetland
Protection near Yau Mei San Tsuen, Yuen Long (The “Yau Mei Site” Project)
According to the approved
EIA Report of this development project (AEIAR-189/2015), the planned
development sites are also for land-based development. It is therefore expected that potential water
quality impacts of this Project will be similar to that identified in the
approved “REC Site” project.
The major impacts during
construction of the Project will be construction site surface runoff and soil
erosion associated with exposed surfaces.
Standard best practices as
well as site specific measures have been recommended in order to avoid and
minimise potential impacts. Peripheral site drainage system comprising precast
concrete u-channels, sedimentation basins, sand traps and similar facilities
together with those good site practices stipulated in ProPECC Note PN 1/94,
have been recommended. Construction site runoff will be collected, and treated
effluent will be discharged into the NTMDC. EM&A programme will be in place
to monitor the effectiveness of these mitigation measures. By adopting good
site management practices and proposed mitigation measures, adverse water
quality impact is not expected.
Evaluation of Cumulative Impacts
For the Yuen Long and Kam
Tin Sewerage Project, the cycle track project, the REC Site project and Yau Mei
Site Project, mitigation measures have been recommended in the EIA
reports respectively. According to the
approved EIA reports of these projects, construction activities will be
controlled during its construction. With
the proposed mitigation measures committed for those projects in place, adverse
impact on water quality is considered as insignificant.
For the planned “RD Site”, it is a designated project
and mitigation measures will be recommended during EIA process. EM&A programme will also be proposed in
order to ensure that the recommended mitigation measures and their
effectiveness are properly implemented and monitored throughout the
construction phase.
As discussed earlier, the construction programmes of
the potential concurrent projects mentioned above will unlikely be overlapped
with the Project. The construction works of these projects are land-based only.
Provided that all mitigation measures as recommended in the EIA reports will be
implemented properly, the potential water quality impacts from the projects are
expected to be localized and kept to within the standards. In the rare case
when the construction programmes overlapped, the potential cumulative water
quality impacts are expected to be insignificant.
For the current Project, BMPs and site-specific
mitigation measures have been proposed.
Peripheral site drainage systems have been proposed along the boundary
of Project Site to divert away
surface runoff, and treatment facilities such as sedimentation basins and sand traps are recommended in accordance with requirements
stipulated in ProPECC PN 1/94. An EM&A programme have been proposed to
monitor the implementation and the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation
measures throughout the construction phase. As discussed above, based on
current construction programme of this Project, concurrent works with nearby
planned development sites have been avoided or are unlikely to occur. Nevertheless, construction site runoff will
be controlled through the implementation of mitigation measures described in
this report as well as those committed for other nearby projects.
Furthermore, regular site inspections have been
recommended and routine water quality monitoring at nearby sensitive receivers
as part of the EM&A programme will be undertaken by the Environmental Team
of this Project throughout the construction period. An Event and Action Plan as detailed in the
EM&A Manual will be implemented to make sure any deficiencies are timely
rectified. With the above measures, it
is considered that the cumulative impacts on water quality (in case of
concurrent works with nearby development projects) will be insignificant.
Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal
Project
The planned public sewerage
project is to convey collected sewage to DSD’s sewage treatment plant for
treatment. As the sewer will be laid
underneath existing road surface, there will be no additional surface runoff
due to this project.
There will be no sewage
discharge from that project, thus there will be no operational impact.
Construction of Cycle Tracks and the associated
Supporting Facilities from Sha Po Tsuen to Shek Sheung River Project
According to the EIA report
of the planned cycle track (Section 6.1.2 of that EIA report refers), the
proposed cycle track does not require any sewerage provisions. Thus, there will be no adverse water quality
impacts during its operation.
No significant surface
runoff is expected due to the cycle track during its operation.
The Proposed Residential Cum Passive Recreation
Development within “Recreation” Zone and “Residential (Group C)” Zone at
Various Lots in DD104, Yuen Long, N.T.
(The “REC Site”)
Based on the approved EIA
report of that project (Section 5.8.1 of the approved EIA report refers), the
concerned development will not have population intake until the commissioning
of the planned local public sewerage works.
As the sewage generated from the development will be discharged into
public sewerage system, there will be no adverse water quality impact due to
that Project.
There is no estimation on
the amount of surface runoff in the approved EIA report for the “REC Site”
project. Since the proposed development
is similar to this Project (i.e. land based development comprising small houses
development), it is expected that the concerned surface runoff should not be in
significant amount. With the proposed
mitigation measures in its EIA report, no adverse impact is anticipated.
An estimation of surface
runoff is presented in Appendix 5-2B
and discussed in following paragraphs.
The Proposed Residential Development within
“Residential (Group D)” zone at various lots in DD104, Yuen Long, N.T. (The “RD
Site” Project)
Best available information
has been referenced regarding this development project. It is found that similar to the planned “REC
Site” project, the approved planning application of this planned development
site under A/YL-MP/205 has assumed no population intake until the commissioning
of the planned local public sewerage system.
As such, there will be no adverse water quality impact due to sewage
discharge of this Project.
There is no available
information regarding the amount of surface runoff to be generated by this
development project. Since the proposed
development is similar to this Project (i.e. land based development comprising
small houses development), it is expected that the concerned surface runoff
should not be in significant amount.
Mitigation measures would be recommended in its EIA report and controlled
under the EIAO process, it is expected that there will be no adverse impact.
An estimation of surface
runoff is presented in Appendix 5-2B
and discussed in following paragraphs.
The Comprehensive Development and Wetland
Protection near Yau Mei San Tsuen, Yuen Long (The “Yau Mei Site” Project)
Information has been
obtained from the Project Proponent of that Project as well as its approved EIA
Report (application no. EIA-227/2015). Based on
its approved EIA Report, an interim STP may be proposed for that Project and
the estimated peak Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) of that project will be
about 12 L/s. The development is also
expected to comply with the no net increase in pollution loading requirement in
Deep Bay.
Since the proposed
development is similar to this Project (i.e. land based development comprising
small houses development), the concerned surface runoff should not be in
significant amount. Based on its
approved EIA Report, the estimated increase in surface runoff due to that
project is about 37 m3/day (or 0.81 L/s). Mitigation measures would be recommended in
its EIA report and controlled under the EIAO process, it is therefore expected
that there will be no adverse impact.
Evaluation of Cumulative Impact
Sewage
Discharge
As mentioned above, there will be no adverse water
quality impact due to the approved EIA projects (i.e. Public Sewerage Project; Cycle Track Project; and “REC Site” Project) as well
as planned “RD Site” project as there will be no direct sewage discharge from
these projects. Thus, cumulative impact
will be due to treated effluent discharge from the interim STP of “Yau Mei
Site” as well as those from the interim STP of this Project.
According to Section 6.4 of this
EIA report, the estimated peak flow from STP of this development Project is
about 4.4 L/s. Thus, the cumulative
total peak ADWF of the two projects (i.e. this Project and planned “Yau Mei
Site” project) should be 16.4 L/s, which is negligible when compared with the
capacity of the NTMDC (over 500m3/s without overtopping the channel
embankment under 1 in 200 year rainfall).
Given the effluent
qualities from the interim STP of these projects are in compliance with the
requirement of no net increase in pollution loading, cumulative impacts on
water quality is no anticipated and no further mitigation measures will be
required.
Stormwater Discharge
As discussed above, it is not
expected that the approved public sewerage project as well as cycle track will
contribute to any significant increase in surface runoff during its
operation.
The estimated increase in
surface runoff due to this Project is about 14.7 m3/day (or 0.17 L/s)
(Appendix 5-2A refers).
For planned “Yau Mei Site”,
the estimated increase in surface runoff due to developable area is about 37 m3/day
(or 0.81 L/s) (according to its approved EIA report (application no. EIA-227/2015)), which is based on the transformation from existing unpaved
area into a hard-paved low-density and low-rise residential development.
For the remaining 2 private
development sites (i.e. planned “RD Site” and “REC Site”), published
information of these projects has been referenced. Reference has been made to the approved EIA
report of the “REC Site”, and the approved planning application documents of
the planned “RD Site”. According to the
layout plans of these development projects, the approved “REC Site” is divided
into two portions. The Southern Portion
(about 50% of total site area) is proposed for residential development while
the Northern Portion (remaining 50%) is proposed mainly for landscaping and
recreational uses only. While for the
planned “RD Site”, it is proposed for residential development only. The planned “RD Site” is currently
unpaved. Estimation on the possible
increased in surface runoff due to these planned projects (changing from
unpaved area to paved area), have been provided in the approved EIA report of
the planned “Yau Mei Site” project
(EIA-227/2015). Thus, relevant information is extracted and
presented in Appendix 5-2B. The approved “Yau Mei Site” EIA report has
also estimated possible increase in surface runoff due to this Project. However, it is considered that the figure is
over estimated as the Project Site is currently partially paved (instead of
unpaved as assumed in the “Yau Mei Site” EIA report).
According to the
estimation, the estimated total increase in surface runoff due to the ”Yau Mei
Site”, “REC Site”, “RD site” and this project will be about 186 m3/day
(or 2.2 L/s)[9] (Appendix 5-2B refers), which is negligible
when compared with the capacity of the NTMDC (over 500m3/s).
It shall be noted that all
these planned development projects will be required to comply with EIAO
requirements. The concerned surface
runoff will be controlled through committed mitigation measures
described in the respective EIA reports of those projects as well as those
recommended in this Project. It is therefore expected that there will be
no adverse water quality impact during the operation.
The water quality assessment in the EIA indicated that
there would be no adverse impact on water quality from the construction phase
with proper implementation of the recommended environmental mitigation
measures. However, in order to ensure
proper implementation of mitigation measures, regular water quality monitoring
and site auditing programme is proposed to ensure the effectiveness of the recommended
mitigation measures. The monitoring and
audit details are given in the EM&A Manual. For the EM&A requirements during operation of
the proposed interim STP, please refer to Chapter 6.
Construction
Phase
The major impact during construction works of this
Project is surface runoff and soil erosion due to exposed surfaces. Peripheral site drainage
system comprising
precast
concrete u-channels, sedimentation basins, sand traps and similar facilities
together with those good site practices stipulated in ProPECC Note PN 1/94, have been recommended.
Construction site runoff will be collected and treated effluent will be discharged into nearby existing
stormwater drains, and via which into the NTMDC following the existing flow regime. A drainage management plan for the
construction phase will be submitted, and its implementation will be monitored
and audited. During construction, chemical
toilets will be provided to contain sewage generated from the construction
workforce, which will be services and cleaned by a specialist contractor at
regular intervals. With the adoption of the recommended good
practices on-site, adverse residual water
quality impact is not expected. The Contractor shall apply for a discharge licence under the WPCO and
the discharge shall comply with the terms and conditions of the licence.
Operational Phase
During the operation of the
Project, sewage generated will be discharged into the planned
public sewerage system under the permanent sewage disposal scheme, thus there
will be no adverse water quality impact. An interim sewage treatment
plant will be used for treatment of sewage generated from the proposed
development site until the public sewerage system becomes available. The STP has been designed in such a
way to comply with the no net increase in pollution loading requirement in Deep
Bay. The
effluent discharge issue has been addressed in Chapter 6 of the EIA
report. Treated
effluent from the interim STP will be discharged to the adjacent NTMDC. The discharge from the STP is also
subject to a discharge licence under the WPCO and the discharge shall comply
with the terms and conditions of the licence as well as the conditions
specified in the Environmental Permit of this Project. Thus, no adverse water quality impact is
expected.
Surface runoff from the development site will be
discharged to the NTMDC. Pollutants, if
any, will be treated and settled before discharge. It was estimated that the increase in surface
runoff due to this Project is negligible when compared with the design capacity
of the NTMDC. Best Management Practices
have been proposed in order to abate first flush pollution in stormwater runoff
such as design measures to minimize soil erosion; minimizing paved area; proper
managed landscape area; proper site drainage design/ control; provision of
devices/ facilities to control pollution and to remove pollution source;
minimizing the use of fertilizers; and administrative measures for maintenance
issues. Screening facilities such as gully grating, trash frille, and road
gullies with silt traps and oil interceptors will be incorporated into the
drainage design to control pollution.
With the recommended measures, there will be no unacceptable impacts to
the water quality in the Deep Bay.
It is also recommended that emergency response plans to deal
with inclement weather and emergencies for both construction and operation
phases will be developed.
Potential cumulative impacts due to concurrent
construction with the nearby approved designated projects as well as planned
development sites, have been assessed.
Based on current information, concurrent works with nearby planned
development sites have been avoided or are unlikely to occur. Nevertheless, all those projects will need to
implement their own mitigation measures to ensure discharge from the
construction sites can comply with the relevant WPCO as well as EIA
requirements, it is expected that there will not be any unacceptable cumulative
construction phase water quality impact.
With these measures in place, the discharge will be
controlled through the implementation of committed measures described in the
respective EIA reports of the planned EIA projects as well as those recommended
in this Project. Further site
inspections and regular water quality monitoring at nearby sensitive receivers
are also recommended throughout the construction phase of this Project. Event and Action Plan will be implemented to
rectify any deficiencies. It is
therefore expected that there will not be any unacceptable cumulative
construction phase water quality impact.
During operation, it is expected that the approved
public sewerage project and the cycle track project will not contribute to
significant increase in surface runoff.
It is expected that the scale of nearby planned development will be
similar to this Project which will be controlled through implementation of
committed measures described in the respective EIA reports of those projects as
well as those recommended in this Project.
Thus, no adverse cumulative impact during operational phase is expected.
For sewage discharge, there will be no adverse water
quality impact due to the approved public sewerage project as well as the approved
cycle track project. The sewage
generated from the nearby planned/ approved development projects will be
discharged into future public sewerage system, thus no adverse impact is
expected. In interim, these planned/
approved development projects will need to demonstrate compliance with the no
net increase in pollution loading requirements and to proposed relevant
mitigation measures in their respective planning application/ EIA studies, thus
no adverse cumulative impact is anticipated.
With proper implementation of the recommended
environmental mitigation measures, no adverse water quality impacts would be
expected from the construction and operational phase. Thus, no adverse residual impact is anticipated
during the construction and operation of the Project.
The potential impacts of this
Project will be the management of sewage generated by the development. Sewerage issue during construction phase of
this Project is already addressed in Sections 5.4.2.4 and 5.5.1.2. Chemical toilets will be provided to
contain sewage generated from the construction workforce, which will be
serviced and cleaned at regular intervals.
This Sewerage Impact Assessment (SIA) presented in following paragraphs
is carried out to give a brief discussion on the current environmental
legislation and standards; assess impact arising from the proposed residential
development, and provide recommendations if there is any adverse effect induced
by the proposed development in accordance with Section 6.5, Annex 14 of the
EIAO-TM. In addition, this assessment
will identify the alternative sewage disposal arrangement to temporarily handle
the sewage to be generated from the Project during the interim period until the
successful completion of planned Ngau Tam Mei trunk sewerage system.
The proposed development of this Project has been
described in Section 1.6.
The Project Site is located east of
Kam Pok Road near Fairview Park at Yuen Long in the New Territories and is
bounded by Kam Pok Road, Fung Chuk Road, Ha Chuk Yuen Road and Ha San Wai
Road. The site
currently falls within the Yuen Long / Kam Tin sewerage catchment area and is
classified as an unsewered area under the Yuen Long / Kam Tin Sewerage Master
Plan (YLKT SMP). According to the existing sewerage record, there is no public
sewerage system serving the Site (Refer to Figure 6-1).
Two planned sewerage improvement
projects are identified in the vicinity of the Site as shown in Table 6‑1.
Table 6‑1 Information
of Planned Public Sewerage Project in the Vicinity of the Site
|
Project Title |
Project ID |
Scope of Works |
Status |
Tentative Completion Date |
|
San Tin and Ngau Tam Mei Trunk
Sewerage |
PWP No. 4235DS |
1)
Laying
of rising main along Kam Pok Road from San Tin No.1 Sewage Pumping Station to
Nam Sang Wai Sewage Pumping Station 2)
Laying
of Gravity Trunk Sewer at Yau Pok Road 3)
Construction
of San Tin No.1 Sewage Pumping Station |
Design and Consultation |
No Definite Programme |
|
Provision of Sewerage to
unsewered Areas / Villages in Northwest New Territories |
Village Sewer (Ha Chuk Yuen) |
Laying of Gravity Village Sewer at Fairview Park Boulevard
and Castle Peak Road – Tam Mei Section for eventual discharge to Ngau Tam Mei
Pumping Station |
Feasibility Study |
No Definite Programme |
Under PWP No. 4235DS for Yuen Long and Kam Tin
Sewerage and Sewage Disposal project, a section of public sewer (Ngau Tam Mei
trunk sewerage system) is proposed to be constructed along Kam Pok Road. After commissioning, sewage generated from
the Project Site can then be discharged into this public trunk sewer for
subsequent centralized treatment in Yuen Long Sewage Treatment Works (YLSTW).
However, the proposed Ngau Tam Mei trunk sewerage
under PWP No. 4235DS is still at design and consultation stage. The completion
date of the proposed trunk sewerage is hinged on the support of local
communities such as Rural Committee and the availability of funding such that
it cannot be ascertained at this stage.
Capacity analysis of the sewage pipe, pumping station
and sewage treatment plant is carried out to assess the adequacy of the proposed
sewerage system. The design parameters and the basis are shown below.
Table 6‑2 Design
Parameters and Basis
|
Items |
Values |
|
Design Standard |
DSD Sewerage Design Manual, Part 1 & 2 |
|
Flow Formula Used |
Colebrook White Formula |
|
Roughness Assumed, Ks |
1.5 mm |
|
Unit Flow Factor |
EPD Guideline for Estimating Sewage Flows for Sewage
Infrastructure Planning (GESF) 0.37m3/d/head (Domestic, Private R4) 0.28 m3/d/head (Commercial, J11) |
Details of assessment methodology
and parameters for permanent scheme as well as interim sewage treatment plant
scheme are provided in following paragraphs.
The
estimation of sewage flow (ADWF & peak flow) from the proposed development
is shown in Appendix 6-1 and
summarized in Table 6‑3 below in accordance with the Guideline
for Estimating Sewage Flows for Sewage Infrastructure Planning (GESF) published
by EPD.
Table 6‑3 Total Estimated Sewage Flow Generated
from the Development
|
Items |
Units |
Resident |
Employee |
Swimming Pool |
Total |
|
ADWF |
m3/d |
41.44 |
5.60 |
4.3 |
51.34 |
|
L/s |
0.48 |
0.065 |
0.05 |
0.60 |
|
|
Peak
Flow (1) |
m3/d |
331.52 |
44.80 |
4.3 |
380.62 |
|
L/s |
3.84 |
0.52 |
0.05 |
4.41 |
Note: (1) Peaking factor of 8 is applied for the flow from
residents and employees.
According
to the calculations from the above tables, the
design ADWF and peak flow generated
from the subject development are estimated to be 51 m3/d (0.60 L/s) and 381 m3/d (4.41 L/s) respectively.
Under
PWP No. 4235DS, the following sewerage components as shown in Figure 6-1 are being designed and
constructed:
·
600 mm dia.
gravity sewer at Yau Pok Road to San Tin No.1 Sewage Pumping Station;
·
San Tin No.1
Sewage Pumping Station and its associated rising main;
·
900 mm dia. gravity
sewer connecting the rising main to Nam Sang Wai Sewage Pumping Station.
Under
PWP No. 4215DS, Nam Sang Wai Sewage Pumping Station and its associated rising
main to existing Yuen Long Sewage Treatment Works as shown in Figure 6-1 will also be constructed.
With reference to the routing of the
planned trunk sewerage in the vicinity, sewage from the Project Site is
proposed to be discharged to the planned public gravity trunk sewer via a
rising main to be constructed and maintained by the subject development for
eventual discharge to the existing YLSTW.
This sewage discharge arrangement is in line with the catchment boundary
of the aforesaid Ngau Tam Mei Trunk Sewerage project.
The
proposed rising main for conveying sewage from the Project Site to the future
public sewer will be in the form of twin rising mains, so as to provide
continued operation of the pumping system when one of the mains is
damaged. The rising main will run
underneath the internal roads within the Project Site and then northward along
Kam Pok Road to a new sewage manhole at immediate upstream of San Tin No.1
Sewage Pumping Station. Figure 6-2 shows the alignment of the
proposed rising main. This rising main
alignment running northward along Kam Pok Road is favourable because the rising
main would not encroach onto the land at the junction of Kam Pok Road and
Fairview Park Boulevard, which are the busy carriageways. Thus, disturbance to the traffic and public
can be minimized.
The
section of rising main within the development will be constructed before the
occupation intake to minimize disruption to the residents. The construction
programme of the remaining rising main along public road will be discussed with
relevant departments at later stage to cope with the construction programme of
the trunk sewerage project.
Agreements will be sought from all relevant
authorities for the construction of the proposed sewerage, connection to the
planned public sewerage system, and the associated future maintenance
responsibility.
Table 6‑4 summarises the capacity usage of the
public sewerage system affected by the Project Site. Flow estimated for the Project Site as
indicated in Table 6‑3 is adopted in the assessment.
Table 6‑4 Summary of
Projected Sewage Flow at Different Locations in Year 2030
|
Location |
Design Capacity (l/s) [A] |
Projected Peak Flow + Peak Flow from
the Project Site (l/s)(2) [B] |
% Usage [B]/[A] (%) |
|
600 mm Dia. Gravity Sewer |
262 |
208 |
80% |
|
San Tin No.1 SPS |
566 |
472 |
83% |
|
900 mm Dia. Gravity Sewer |
730 |
420 |
58% |
|
Nam San Wai SPS |
1476 |
953 |
65% |
|
Existing Yuen Long STW (1) |
2431 |
1256 |
52% |
Note:
(1) Existing Yuen Long STW may be upgraded to tertiary treatment
and with expanded capacity in future.
(2) The
projected sewage flow in the public sewerage is based on the population at year
2030 from the interim version of the HK2030 Planning Data (reference Scenario),
the projected flow figures has been referenced from the approved EIA report
“Comprehensive Development and Wetland Protection Near Yau Mei San Tsuen (March
2015)”.
As the
projected population in year 2030 is well beyond the population intake year of
the project, this sewerage impact assessment is considered as a very
conservative approach. As shown in Table 6‑4, the overall sewage generated in year
2030 utilizes less than 83% capacity of the sewerage network therefore, capacity
of proposed sewers, pumping stations and sewage treatment plant are adequate to
handle additional sewage generated from the Project Area.
Yuen Long Sewage Treatment Works (YLSTW) locates
at the most downstream of the sewerage system. The design dry weather flow
(DWF) of the existing YLSTW is 70,000 m3/day with design capacity at 3 x DWF = 210,000 m3/day. The sewage generated by the proposed
development of 51 m3/day is only equivalent to 0.07% of the design
DWF of the existing YLSTW.
It is
anticipated that the capacity of YLSTW would be exceeded due to the development of
Yuen Long and Kam Tin area. There is plan from EPD to upgrade the
treatment level of YLSTW from secondary treatment to tertiary treatment with expanded
capacity.
The sewage to be generated by the proposed development of 51 m3/day
would therefore be equivalent to less than 0.07% of the design DWF of
upgraded YLSTW. Therefore it is
considered that sewage generated by the proposed development would not cause
any significant impact to the YLSTW.
In view
of the programme gap between the provision of public sewerage and the
occupation of the proposed development, it is necessary to consider the
provision of STP as an interim measure to handle the sewage generated from the
development before the availability of public sewerage for connection.
The interim STP will be provided by the Project
Proponent while the operation and maintenance will be responsible by the
management office of the development and its contractors. The Project Proponent
will also be responsible for connecting the sewerage system of the development
to the public sewerage system when it becomes available and the decommissioning
of the interim STP.
It should also be pointed out that the on-site sewage
treatment plant is for temporary use during the interim period only in case the
planned public sewerage is not
available at the time of occupation. The sewerage system within the development
area will be designed to facilitate the future connection to the planned Ngau
Tam Mei sewerage system with the flow direction to be controlled by several
flow control devices such as valves or stop-log, etc. The interim STP will be decommissioned and converted to a sewage pumping station once the trunk sewer becomes available for connection. Small amount of residual sewage left in
the interim STP would be tanked away.
Therefore, there should be no sewage discharge into the nearby water
body during decommissioning of the interim STP. To minimize disturbance to the
residents, all sewers within the development for connection to the public
system in the
future will also be constructed together with the construction of this Project.
The estimated ADWF generated by the
development is approximately 51 m3/day. Previous experience revealed that the use of
temporary sewage storage for tankering away the sewage generated from the
development to YLSTW is not ideal.
It is therefore necessary to
consider the provision of on-site sewage treatment plant as an interim scheme
to handle the sewage generated from the Project. The STP will be designed to
handle the average dry weather flow of 0.60 L/s (see Section 6.4 for details).
The treated effluent will be discharged
into the new drainage system within the development and conveyed to the
adjacent Ngau Tam Mei Channel via existing twin cell box culvert. The effluent
will then be conveyed into Kam Tin River and finally into the Deep Bay. The
proposed alignment for conveying the treated effluent is showed in Figure 6-3.
According to Section 3.9.4 of the
EIA Study Brief of this Project, any proposed sewerage system and/or STP should
be designed to meet the current government standards and requirements.
Currently, the protection and control of water quality in Hong
Kong is governed by the Water Pollution Control Ordinances (WPCO) (Cap.358).
With reference of Technical Memorandum on Standards for Effluents Discharged
into Drainage and Sewerage Systems, Inland and Coastal Waters under the WPCO,
the effluent of the interim STP should comply with Standards for effluents
discharged into Group C inland Waters, i.e. Table 5 of the Technical
Memorandum. However, owing to the requirement of no net increase of pollution loading
to the Deep Bay, the discharge standards to be imposed by the Authority in the
future WPCO licence may be more stringent than the Standards for effluents
discharged into Group C inland Waters. Therefore, a set of Target Effluent
Quality as shown in Table 6-6 is
proposed, which will meet both the no net
increase in pollution loads to Deep Bay requirement, as well as the Standards
for effluents discharged into Group C inland Waters (Table 6‑5 refers).
The Target Effluent Quality is derived mainly from the requirement
of no net increase of pollution loading to the Deep Bay, based on the water
sampling data taken from wet season and dry season from Ngau Tam Mei Drainage
Channel. As explained in Section 6.9,
the proposed Target Effluent Quality would achieve the requirement of no net
increase in total pollution loadings to Deep Bay WCZ as well as a pollutants
loading reduction to the Deep Bay WCZ.
In addition, it is understood that nutrient and bacterial
requirements are not specified under the current discharge license of YLSTW.
The proposed effluent of the interim STP is anticipated to have better water
quality than the effluent at YLSTW.
As stated in Section 6.9, the channel water will be co-treated in
the interim STP with the sewage generated by the development. Considering the
influent characteristic, the process of biological treatment, membrane filtration
and Reverse Osmosis (such as MBR + RO), is proposed for the interim STP. The
proposed process is proven capable to produce high-quality effluent in terms of
low turbidity, BOD, TSS, nitrogen, and bacteria, as shown in Table 6-5. The
schematic of process options are presented in Figure 6-4. Recent references on the proposed process are listed underneath Table 6-5.
The interim STP will adopt RO system after membrane filtration
process to further polish the effluent quality in order to cover fluctuation of
pollutants in Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel water, to ensure that the Target
Effluent Quality can be met. The effluent from the interim STP and Ngau Tam Mei
Drainage Channel water will be sampled weekly under the same condition and
approximately the same time, the pair of results will be compared to justify
effluent from the STP will not exceed the total pollution loadings recorded
during the year (52 sets of weekly samples).
After successful operation of the interim STP for a period not less than
one year, and the end of year result showing no net increase in pollution
loading is confirmed, the operation frequency of the RO system will then be
reviewed. It is known that high quality of RO permeate is at the cost of high
energy consumption. Upon stable performance of the interim STP with effluent
quality compliance with the targets parameters, the RO system may be bypassed
to conserve energy and promote environmental conservation. Before reviewing the
performance of the RO system, sufficient performance data including influent
quality and effluent quality of the RO system should be collected. The RO
system can be served as a backup process to further polish the upstream
effluent and eliminate the residual pollution loads of the STP, competent
personnel will be responsible to constantly review the effluent water quality
and decide the need of the RO system as it is readily available for operation
when upstream system experienced deficiency in handling the fluctuation of the
influent.
Table 6‑5 Table of Target Effluent Quality of the Interim STP, Typical Effluent Quality of Biological Treatment Combined with
Filtration, Typical MBR Effluent Quality and Group C Inland Discharge Standards
|
|
Pollutant Parameters (mg/L) |
Target Effluent Quality of
STP |
Typical Effluent Quality of
Biological Treatment combined with Filtration (1) |
Typical MBR Effluent Quality (1) |
Typical RO Permeate Quality |
Group
C Inland Discharge Standards (for flow of ≤100 m3/d) |
|
Key Parameters |
BOD5 |
3 |
1-5 |
<1-5 |
3 |
<20 |
|
TN-N |
4 |
2-5 |
<10 |
1 |
Not Specified |
|
|
TP |
0.5 |
≤2 (6) |
<0.3-5 (2) |
<0.067 (1) |
<10 |
|
|
Other Parameters |
TSS |
10 |
1-4 |
≤2 |
≤0.02 (5) |
<20 |
|
NH3-N |
2 |
1-2 |
1 (3) |
0.2 |
<2 |
|
|
E. coli (no./100mL) |
1,000 |
<10 (4) |
<100 |
~0 |
<1,000 |
Note:
(1) Table 3-14 of Water Reuse - Issues, Technologies,
and Applications, Metcalf & Eddy, AECOM (2007)
(2) Phosphorous are removed by MBR with chemical
coagulant
(3) Table 8-30 of
Wastewater Engineering – Treatment and Reuse, Metcalf & Eddy, 4th edition
(4) The original value of 104-105
is for general filtration process, such like depth filtration, instead of
membrane filtration. For ultrafiltration, its removal efficiency of E.coli is
99.9% to 99.9999% as indicated in Table 8-21 of Water Reuse - Issues, Technologies,
and Applications, Metcalf & Eddy, AECOM (2007). According to table 3-14 as
mentioned in Footnote (1), the E.coli of biological treatment effluent is 104-105 no. /100mL, thus the E.coli in ultrafiltration effluent
should be below 10 no./100mL.
(5) Strategies for
Meeting Ultra-low Phosphorous Limits: State of the Art Technologies and Case
Studies, Black & Veatch Corporation (2009)
(6) Chemical
addition for TP removal will be required to meet target effluent quality for
this project .
Table 6‑6 Target Effluent
Quality of the interim STP
|
|
Pollutant
(mg/L) |
Target
Effluent Quality |
|
Key Parameters |
BOD5 |
3 |
|
TN-N |
4 |
|
|
TP |
0.5 |
|
|
Other Parameters |
TSS |
10 |
|
NH3-N |
2 |
|
|
E. coli (no./100mL) |
1000 |
In addition to the provision under
the WPCO, it is noted that there are concerns regarding the disposal of
effluent to Deep Bay. It is necessary to
demonstrate that the interim sewage disposal scheme would not pose a net
increase of pollution loads to the Deep Bay.
It should also be pointed out that
the STP is for temporary use during the interim stage only. The sewerage system
within the development area will be designed to facilitate the future
connection to the planned San Tin and Ngau Tam Mei public sewerage system. Once
the government public sewerage system becomes available, the STP will be
decommissioned and converted to a sewage pumping station.
According to the approved North East New Territories New Development
Areas Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA-213/2013), the three key
pollutant parameters, namely biological oxygen demand (BOD5), total
nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorous (TP) are bounded by “no net increase in
pollution load” requirement. According
to the approved Comprehensive Development and Wetland Protection near Yau Mei
San Tsuen Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA-227/2015), it is proposed
to assess the net change of the suspended solids (SS), ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N),
and E.coli in addition to the three
above-mentioned parameters under this project, in order to have a better
understanding on the changes of solids, organic, nutrient, and bacterial loads
to the Deep Bay WCZ due to the development.
There is
no existing sewage pollution load generated from the site. Any on-site sewage
treatment discharge would then cause an increase of pollution load. In order to
offset the additional pollution load, it is proposed to abstract water from
Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel for co-treatment in the interim STP. The proposed
rising main for abstracting water from channel to sewage treatment plant is
showed in Figure 6-3. A diagram
showing the envisaged arrangement of water abstraction facilities is shown in Figure 6-5. The
arrangement of water abstraction facilities and associated equipment will be
detailed in the design stage.
A total
of 39 water samples were taken at the channel (Sampling ID W3 as shown in Figure 6-3) from September 2012 to
September 2013 and from March 2015 to April 2015. Water samples taken between
March 2015 and April 2015 confirm that the water quality at channel is similar
to that taken between September 2012 and September 2013. The laboratory testing
results of the water samples are summarised in Appendix 6-2. The sewage
flow from the development is estimated to be 51 m3/d. With a view to offset the
pollution loads due to the development, it is proposed to use 200 m3/d
water from the nearby Ngau Tam
Mei Drainage Channel for offsetting. Thus, the total sewage flow of 251 m3/d
(i.e. 51 + 200 = 251 m3/d) will be treated in STP.
Minimum value of Wet Season Average and Dry Season
Average of BOD5, TN-N, TP, TSS, NH3-N and E-Coli, i.e.
4 mg/L, 5.45 mg/L, 0.8 mg/L, 61 mg/L, 2.69 mg/L and 30,100
no./100ml respectively (Appendix 6-2),
is used for offsetting calculation. Based on this pollutant concentration, the
pollutant loading of 200 m3 water abstracted from Ngau Tam Mei
Drainage Channel are summarized in Table 6‑7. It
should be noted that most of the samples taken at W3 are identified of
pollutant concentration higher than these figures, which means the channel
water quality is consistently poor than concentration used for offsetting
calculation. Therefore, the proposed
pollutant concentration of channel water for offsetting calculation is
considered conservative and could cater for the seasonal pollutant loading
fluctuation of the channel water. The calculation is summarized in
Appendix 6-3.
Moreover, the highest pollutant concentration of
the channel water, instead of its average pollutant concentration is used for
the design of the STP, which also introduces buffer for fluctuations of
pollution loads in abstracted channel water.
Table 6‑7 Pollution
Loads from 200 m3 Channel Water Before the Treatment
|
Item |
Pollution Loads Generated by 200 m3 channel water |
|
|
Pollutant Concentration (mg/L) |
Pollution Loads (kg/day) |
|
|
BOD5 |
4 mg/L |
0.8 kg/day |
|
TN-N |
5.45 mg/L |
1.09 kg/day |
|
TP |
0.8 mg/L |
0.16 kg/day |
|
TSS |
61 mg/L |
12.2 kg/day |
|
NH3-N |
2.69 mg/L |
0.54 kg/day |
|
E.coli. |
30,100 (no./100ml) |
6 x 1012
(no./day) |
Based on the target effluent
concentration as listed in Table 6‑6 the
residual BOD5, TSS, NH3-N, TN-N, E. coli and TP loads at the effluent of STP are estimated
and tabulated in Table 6‑8. The total pollution loads before and
after the development is compared in Table 6‑9 to demonstrate that the
objective of “No Net Increase in Pollution Loading to Deep Bay” could be
achieved.
Table 6‑8 Future Pollution
Loads from Development after Treatment
|
Item |
Target Effluent Concentration |
Pollution Loads after the Development |
|
BOD5 |
3.0
mg/L |
0.75
kg/day |
|
TN-N |
4.0
mg/L |
1
kg/day |
|
TP |
0.5
mg/L |
0.13
kg/day |
|
TSS |
10
mg/L |
2.51 kg/day |
|
NH3-N |
2 mg/L |
0.5
kg/day |
|
E.coli. |
1000
no./100mL |
2.5
x109 (no. day) |
The target effluent concentration in
the table above are annual average values, except NH3-N and E.coli marked with
(*) are upper limits.
Table 6‑9 Comparison
of Pollution Loads from Site Before and After the Development
|
Item |
Annual Pollution
Loads from 200 m3 channel water before the Development (from Table 6‑7) |
Annual Pollution Loads after the Development (from Table 6‑8) |
Annual Reduction of Pollution Loads at Deep Bay
WCZ |
|
BOD5 (kg ) |
292 |
274 |
18 |
|
TN-N (kg) |
398 |
365 |
33 |
|
TP (kg) |
58 |
47 |
11 |
|
TSS (kg) |
4,453 |
916 |
3,537 |
|
NH3-N (kg) |
197 |
183 |
14 |
|
E.coli (no.) |
2.2 x1013
|
9.1 x1011 |
2.1 x1013
|
The above Table 6‑9
indicates that BOD5, TN-N, TP, TSS, NH3-N and E.coli. loads to the Deep Bay WCZ will be
reduced after the interim STP; and thus the requirement of no net increase in
pollution loadings is met. The annual reduction of pollution loads in Table 6‑9
demonstrated a scenario using the historical water sampling information at Ngau
Tam Mei Drainage Channel between September 2012 and April 2015, abstraction of
200m3 channel water is used to co-treat the proposed development
sewage. The extra pollution loads reduction is subject to the amount of
pollution loads in the channel water, while pollution loads in channel water
fluctuates, the amount of reduction will NOT be a constant. In fact, the extra
pollution loads reduction are introduced to cater for the uncertainly of
pollution loads in channel water, allowing buffer on the treatment process to
always maintain no net increase in pollution loadings.
The amount of
channel water abstraction will maintain at 200m3/d, the abstraction
amount will be reviewed after completion of a full year operation with sampling
results to support any new decisions. The annual pollution loads (kg) from the
interim STP will be no more than the bolded figures in Table 6‑9.
As
mentioned above, in order to offset the additional pollution load due to the
development, it is proposed to abstract water from Ngau Tam Mei Drainage
Channel for co-treatment in the interim STP (Figure 6-3). The water abstraction facility which is
to be located within the application site, as shown in Figure 6-5, is subject to detailed design and relevant approval for
construction access and government land matters. The construction of water abstraction facility
should be carried out in dry season. Silt curtain or sand bags should
be provided to carve out the working area so as to bypass the channel flow and
to avoid any solids/materials arising from the construction activities from
entering the channel during construction phase.
The work sites at the NTMDC for construction of water abstraction
facilities should be maintained in dry conditions. Regular visual inspections should
also be carried out by the Environmental Team and Contractor to ensure there is
no spillage into the channel. The water
abstraction facilities should meet the prevailing government policies and
legislation including but not be limited to drainage, safety, land matter, and
structures issues prior to commencement of operation.
The concerned
Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel is an existing engineering concrete channel. Only
relatively small amount of water is to be abstracted (200 m3/d when
compared with 18,600 m3/d
of the average total flow rate of the channel) and after
treatment, the discharge will go back to the same channel, therefore no
adverse water quality impact would be expected.
Proper
operation and maintenance of interim STP is essential to safeguard the quality
of discharge effluent, subject to the following aspects:
(i) Competent technicians to be employed by the development management
office to operate the STP. They are to
be fully conversant with the operating procedures as stipulated in the
operation and maintenance manual.
(ii) The proposed STP only serves the proposed
development and thus the operation and maintenance (O&M) cost would be
borne by the future management office of the development. The Applicant will
ensure the design of STP is cost-effective such that the O&M cost imposed
is reasonable.
(iii) The STP is to be kept in a tidy state. This includes regular hosing
down, scraping of the walkways,
whitewashing the walls, cleaning and painting the metalwork, and maintaining
adequate lighting and ventilation.
(iv) Where parts of the STP are sited beneath ground, forced ventilation will
be provided.
(v) Online sensors will be installed
in the STP to monitor the parameters of Ammonia, Nitrite & Nitrate, and
TSS. Easily accessible sampling point will also be provided for sampling of the
treated effluent for laboratory testing.
(vi) Turbidity meter will be
installed at the outlet of membrane filtration as well as the outlet of Reverse
Osmosis (RO) to indicate the efficiency of pollutant removal from the corresponding
process units, adjustment of RO system can then be made to suit the variation
of pollutants.
(vii) Samples
of treated effluent of STP and abstracted channel water will be documented
weekly, such that the lows and highs of the pollutant variations can be
captured. Results will be compared against the total annual loadings,
adjustment of water abstraction amount, membrane backwash frequency, RO unit
operation will be fine-tuned to ensure effluent quality meet discharge license
under the Water Pollution Control Ordinance and the target effluent quality in Table 6-6.
(viii) Based
on the pollutant offsetting approach, co-treating sewage with abstracted
channel water will be subject to the amount of pollutants in the channel water
for offsetting. The proposed target
effluent quality of the STP has taken it into account. The annual pollution loading in
abstracted channel water (kg) and annual pollution loading in effluent of the
interim STP (kg) would be balanced.
(ix) A
check and balance system monitor the pollutant loading every week. Monthly or
quarterly report shall be submitted. By the end of each year, the exceeding and
shortcoming amount will be balanced to quantify no net increase in pollutant
loading achieved based on total pollutant reduction of the year.
(x) The
production of sludge is estimated to be approx. 4 m3/d. While
the reject water from the RO unit is normally around 20% of the influent
depends on the quality of RO influent. The sludge and reject water will be
transported by tankers from the interim private STP to government’s STW for
offsite treatment. A storage tank with capacity of 150 m3 will be
provided for storage of the RO reject water.
(xi) The
Project Proponent will be responsible for the future sewer connection upon its
available in the future and STP decommissioning with connection details subject
to agreement of DSD. Appropriate conditions could be imposed in the
Environmental Permit (EP) to ensure the EP holder to take up the responsibility
to ensure connection to public sewer when trunk sewer is ready.
(xii) The
Project Proponent will be responsible for the maintenance of the proposed water
abstraction facilities and the associated pipelines. The proposed water abstraction facilities
will be decommissioned together with the interim STP once the public sewer
becomes available.
(xiii) The discharge of treated effluent from the
interim STP should follow the discharge licence requirements under the WPCO as
well as the terms and conditions specified in the EP under the EIAO.
Apart
from ensuring the sewage discharge quality, the STP with also be provided with
mitigation measures to avoid other nuisance to the resident. For example an effective odour removal system as well as
appropriate acoustic treatment at STP (Sections 3.7.2.3 and 4.4.3 refer).
The following measures will be adopted in order to
eliminate adverse impact due to potential sewage overflow, emergency discharge
and change in flow regime beyond the expectation of this assessment:
(i)
Adequate spare
parts for the plant will have to be made readily available by storage.
(ii)
Qualified
personnel will be hired to inspect the plant condition and carry out
maintenance on a regular basis.
(iii)
Regular test,
maintenance and replacement of membranes and plant equipment will be carried
out in accordance to the recommendations from manufacturers or as recommended
by the qualified personnel after inspection.
(iv)
Equalization tank with capacity of 168
m3 (~ 3 days of sewage storage depending on actual flow condition)
will be provided in case of entire outage of the interim STP.
(v)
Tank away will
be provided for prolonged outage of the interim STP, for disposal of sewage at
designated sewage treatment works to be assigned by DSD.
With the above measures in place the likelihood of emergencies discharge
would be very low even when multiple incidents
occurring concurrently (including failure of both normal and backup power
supply, incoming of excessive sewage flow for longer than 24 hours
continuously, unavailable of tanker truck, etc.). As such it is considered that the proposed
interim scheme of local discharge after on-site sewage treatment would not
cause net increase of pollution load to the Deep Bay WCZ.
Also, in case of abnormal
effluent quality is detected from water sampling, discharge of treated effluent
will be suspended and all sewage will be diverted to the equalization tank for
temporary storage until the problem is rectified. In case of entire outage of the STP, channel
water will not be abstracted from Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel. And if prolonged outage of the interim STP is
anticipated, tankers will be arranged to transport the sewage for disposal to Government operated public sewage
treatment works to be assigned by DSD.
With
the proposed measures for the interim STP, no adverse sewerage impact will be envisaged
as a result of the Project. Nevertheless, specific monitoring requirements have
been proposed to monitor the implementation of the interim STP and its
performance, three key pollutants BOD5, TN and TP suggested in Section 6.8 will be monitored by taking
water samples from Ngau Tam Mie Channel abstraction point and the discharge
outlets of the proposed STP, which will be licensed under the WPCO and
implemented under the EP conditions of the Project. EM&A
requirements are provided in Chapter 13 of this report.
Other
pollutant such as SS, NH3-N and E.coli are sampled as indicators
for better understanding on the changes of solids, organic, nutrient and
bacterial loads to the Deep Bay WCZ.
Water
samples will be taken every week, with a total of 52 sampled data each year.
Monthly report will be prepared for the first 3 months until the STP operation
becomes stabilized, and then switch to quarterly reports. Total pollution
loadings will be reviewed annually, by comparing the total pollution loadings
in abstracted water from Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel based on the 52 sample
data each year, and that of the pollution loading discharge from the STP, which
must comply with “no net increase” on BOD5, TN and TP in kg/yr. Interim reviews on pollution loading will
also be carried out on quarterly basis and with actions to be undertaken. The
event and action plan can be referred to EM&A manual, while the details of
the operation and maintenance, exact water quality monitoring points,
procedures of pollution load offsetting calculations as well as emergency
response plan to deal with emergencies such as malfunction of the STP will be
documented in the Operation Manual during detailed design stage before
commencement of the operation.
The Project Site is located at the
east of Kam Pok Road near Fairview Park in Yuen Long and falls within the Yuen Long / Kam Tin sewerage catchment.
The proposed development will generate a peak flow of about 4.41 L/s and
proposed to be discharged to the planned trunk sewer at Kam Pok Road under PWP
No. 4235DS, as permanent measure.
The sewage effluent generated from the proposed development
is relatively small amount when compared to the spare capacity of the
downstream sewerage facilities. The proposed development will not impose adverse
sewerage impact to the surrounding areas. Also there will be no anticipated
residual adverse sewerage impact during the operation of the interim Sewage
Treatment Plant.
Considering that the current implementation programme of the
Ngau Tam Mei Sewerage under PWP No. 4235DS is under review and subject to
public consultation, provision
of a private STP to handle the proposed development sewage is considered as an
interim measure. The interim STP
will adopt advanced process with biological treatment, membrane filtration and Reverse Osmosis
(such as MBR + RO) to co-treat
approximately 0.6 L/s sewage with channel water to meet no net increase in
pollution load to Deep Bay requirement. In addition, it is
understood that nutrient and bacterial requirements are not specified under the
current discharge license of YLSTW. The proposed effluent of the interim STP is
anticipated to have better water quality than the effluent of existing YLSTW.
Furthermore, in addition to the provision in WPCO, the
interim STP will also need to fulfil the requirement of no net increase of
pollution loading to the Deep Bay. Therefore, it is proposed to abstract water from nearby channel for co-treatment. The assessment demonstrated that after the completion of the development,
the above requirements can be met. The proposed Target Effluent Quality of the
interim STP can refer to Table 6-6,
which is also tabulated below.
|
Item |
Target Effluent Quality of
STP * |
Group C Inland
Discharge Standards in WPCO (for flow of ≤100 m3/d) * |
Annual Pollution Loads from 200 m3
channel water (before Development), ** |
Annual Pollution Loads (after Development with co-treatment) ** |
Annual Reduction of Pollution Loads at Deep
Bay WCZ ** |
|
BOD5 |
3 |
<20 |
292 |
274 |
18 |
|
TN-N |
4 |
Not
Specified |
398 |
365 |
33 |
|
TP |
0.5 |
<10 |
58 |
47 |
11 |
|
TSS |
10 |
<20 |
4,453 |
916 |
3,537 |
|
NH3-N |
2 |
<2 |
197 |
183 |
15 |
|
E.coli. (no.) |
1000 |
<1,000 |
2.2 x1013 |
9.1 x1011 |
2.1 x1013 |
Remark: The above figures are extracted from Tables 6-6 and 6-9.
* All units in mg/L except E. coli which is in no./100ml.
**
All units in Kg per annual except E. coli which is in no. per annual.
The sewerage system within the development area will
be designed to facilitate the future connection to the government public
sewerage system at Kam Pok Road. The proposed sewerage system for the
development will be connected to San Tin and Ngau Tam Mei sewerage system once
it becomes available.
The discharge of treated effluent from the interim STP is required to comply with the terms and
conditions in the discharge licence under the WPCO as well as the conditions
specified in the EP of this Project. Maintenance and emergency measures have also been
recommended to ensure effective operation of the STP. Equalization tank will be provided in case of entire outage
of the STP. Tank away will be provided
for prolonged outage of STP.
In addition, continuing the current situation, the quality of discharges to Deep Bay
from the proposed site is not expected to improve in the future until the
planned public trunk sewer is constructed by the Government. But upon completion of the Project with the
provision of on-site treatment facility the total pollution loads to Deep Bay
could be reduced,
an estimation of total pollution loads reduction based on Ngau Tam Mei Drainage
Channel data recorded between 2012 and 2015 can be referred to Table 6‑9.
With the proposed mitigation measures, no adverse short-term and long-term
environmental impacts in respect of water quality, ecological, public health
and safety arising from both the long term and interim
sewerage scheme are anticipated. No
adverse residual sewerage impact will be incurred as a result of the development.
This Chapter identifies the quantity, quality and
timing of wastes arising as a result of construction and operation of the
Project. The waste management implications and the associated environmental impacts
are evaluated and assessed in accordance with the criteria and guidelines given
in Annexes 7 and 15 of the EIAO-TM.
Clause 3.9.5 of the EIA Study Brief sets out the scope and requirement
of the assessment.
No particular land contamination issue was identified
as the Project Site has not been used by land
contamination uses as stated in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of Annex 19 in the EIAO-TM. There are no records of
existing and/ or historic activities relating to chemicals and hazardous
substances in the area. Thus, further
assessment is not required.
As advised by the Project Engineer, the construction
method mainly involve the following procedures: site clearance to remove the
surface vegetation, site formation, construction of boundary wall, import of
inert filling material, and construction of infrastructure and superstructure.
Foundation of the superstructure will likely to be carried out through pilling.
The appropriate disposal method and good site
practices for handling, storage and disposal of waste during construction
phase, have been recommended.
Opportunities for reducing construction waste generation and maximizing
re-use on-site were evaluated.
Due to the low-density nature of the proposed
residential development, the operation of the development will generate limited
amount of domestic waste. Standard approach that is widely adopted in other parts of Hong Kong
shall be adopted for the handling and disposal of this small quantity of waste
during the operational phase. Waste
generated will be collected and disposed of properly by a licensed contractor
using refuse collection vehicles (RCV).
It is unlikely that there will be any significant residual environmental
impact. Therefore, the waste management implication during the operation of the
residential development is not evaluated further in this EIA study.
The principle legislation governing waste management
in Hong Kong is the Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354) (WDO), and its subsidiary
regulations. The Ordinance, enacted in 1980, generally encompasses all stages of waste management, from place
of arising to final disposal point of waste.
The Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation (Cap. 354C),
enacted under the WDO in 1992, provides controls on all aspects of chemical
waste disposal, including storage, collection, transport, treatment and final
disposal. Under the Waste Disposal
(Charges for Disposal of Construction Waste) Regulation (Cap. 354N), percentage
of inert material in construction waste to be disposed of at landfill site;
sorting facility; or public fill reception facility will be controlled.
In addition to the WDO and its subsidiary regulation,
the following legislations have some bearing on the handling, treatment and
disposal of wastes in Hong Kong, viz.:
·
Land
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28);
·
Public Health
and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132) - Public Cleansing and Prevention
of Nuisances Regulation;
·
Dangerous Goods
Ordinance (Cap. 295);
·
Air Pollution
Control (Open Burning) Regulation (Cap. 311O); and
·
Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499), Technical Memorandum on Environmental
Impact Assessment Process (TM-EIAO) Annex 7 and Annex 15.
There are also various guidelines which are relevant
to waste management in Hong Kong such as:
·
Waste Disposal
Plan for Hong Kong (December 1989), Planning, Environmental and Lands Branch
Government Secretariat;
·
A Guide to the
Registration of Chemical Waste Producers, Environmental Protection Department,
Hong Kong;
·
A Guide to the
Chemical Waste Control Scheme, Environmental Protection Department, Hong Kong;
·
Code of
Practice on the Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes,
Environmental Protection Department;
·
Works Bureau Technical
Circular No. 12/2000, Fill Management;
·
Works Bureau
Technical Circular No. 2/93, Public Dumps;
·
Works Bureau
Technical Circular No. 2/93B, Public Filling Facilities;
·
Work Bureau
Technical circular No. 16/96, Wet Soil in Public Dumps;
·
Works Bureau Technical
Circular No. 4/98, Use of Public Fill in Reclamation & Earth Filling
Projects;
·
Works Bureau
Technical Circular No.19/2001, Metallic Site Hoardings and Signboards;
·
Project Administration Handbook for Civil Engineering Works, 2014
Edition (Section 4.1.3 of Chapter 4 on management of
construction and demolition materials) (Note: the previous ETWB TC(W) No. 33/2002, Management of
Construction/Demolition Materials including Rocks, was subsumed into the
above-mentioned document);
·
ETWB TC(W) No.
6/2010, Trip-ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Materials;
·
ETWB TC(W) No.
19/2005, Environmental Management on Construction Sites; and
·
“Construction and Demolition Waste”
in PNAP ADV-19, published by
Buildings Department;
·
Practice Guide
for Investigation and Remediation of Contaminated Land (2011);
·
Guidance Note
for Contaminated Land Assessment and Remediation, (2007); and
·
Guidance Manual
for Use of Risk-based Remediation Goals for Contaminated Land Management,
(2007)
The following approach was used for the land
contamination assessment:
·
Desktop
study to review the current and historical land uses. The objective is to
identify any potential contaminative land uses within the Study Area; and
·
Site
reconnaissance to identify the existing land uses and to confirm the general
environmental conditions associated with each of the identified sites. This is
a non-intrusive approach for making an initial determination of the likely
nature of any potential contamination, and, where identified, to evaluate
whether there were any significant land contamination concerns associated with
these properties.
In addition, other sources of information such as
historical Hong Kong survey maps, previous applications for planning permission
at the Town Planning Board, records and photographs taken from site visits,
have also been collated and reviewed.
There are also previously approved EIA projects in
adjacent to the Project Site. This
includes the construction of public sewers and a pumping station along the
existing Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel (NTMDC)[10] and
construction of a cycle track[11]
adjacent to the Project Site. Information in these approved EIA reports was also
reviewed.
According to the Study Brief, if any contaminated
land uses as stated in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of Annex 19 in the EIAO-TM is
identified, the Applicant shall carry out a land contamination assessment as detailed
from sub-section 3.9.5.2 (iv) (a) to (f) of the Study Brief and propose
measures to avoid disposal.
If there is any potential land contamination
identified within the Project boundary due to either current or historic land
uses, further investigation in accordance with sub-section 3.9.5.2 of the Study
Brief will be required. The major
potential impacts from contaminated soil are considered to be the following:
·
potential health risks to future users of the cycle tracks.
The Project Site is zoned for “R(D)” zone in the
approved Mai Po and Fairview Park OZP No. S/YL-MP/6. Review of historic aerial photos found that the Project Site was vacant and
partially used as open air car parking only (since year 2000’s). Aerial photos showing the car parking
activity is provided in Appendix 7-2. Before year 2000’s, the Project Site was
found to be vacant. Aerial photo taken in year 1999 showing that the Project
Site was vacant, is also provided in Appendix
7-2. There was no change in land use status before
year 1999 and the Project Site was found vacant in the past. There was no known historic
land uses at the Project Site in accordance with Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of Annex 19 in the EIAO-TM that would
result in potential land contamination issue. According to the HKSAR Government
Fire Services Department (FSD), neither records of dangerous goods licence nor
incidents of spillage/ leakage were found within and/ or immediate adjacent to
the Project Site (Appendix 7-1
refers). EPD’s chemical waste producer registration
records were also checked. There
is a recorded chemical waste producer (lubricating oil and waste battery) for a
warehouse within the existing open storage site to the south-east of Project
Site (about 70m away from Project Site as mentioned in Section 7.3.3.2). However, the concerned open storage site is
outside the boundary of Project Site.
There was no chemical waste producer record within the Project Site and there was no chemical spillage accident
record within and/ or in vicinity of the Project Site. As such, there is no particular
land contamination concern.
Historic
TPB records of the Project Site were also reviewed. Since year 1999, there were several planning applications for house development as
well as applications for temporary uses within the Project Site were submitted to TPB under S16 of the Town Planning Ordinance. Details of these planning applications are summarized in Table 2‑1 (please refer to Section 2.4). There was also
recent planning application for houses
development approved at the Project Site, however, there was no construction of
the approved house development since then.
Based on site reconnaissance results, the Project
Site is currently used as open car parking only (Section 7.3.3.2 refers).
Asides from the above, historic
information from the approved nearby EIA project (i.e. the proposed cycle track project[12]), which
was submitted in year 2008 as well as its submitted EIA project profile in year
2006 were also reviewed. The alignment of planned cycle track is shown in Figure 1-2, and a section of which is
in adjacent to the Project Site.
According to Sections 8.6.1 and 8.6.2 in the approved cycle track EIA
report12, the reported land uses (i.e. rural area,
farmland, with scattered village houses) were identified along the Ngau Tam Mei
Drainage Channel. There was also low
density residential areas such as Fairview Park and Man Yuen Chuen located in
the middle section of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel. No site of potential land contamination was
identified near Fairview Park area or in vicinity of the Project Site. The submitted EIA project profile of the same
project in year 2006 also indicates no particularly land use or any building
structure within or immediate adjacent to be Project Site.
In addition, according to another
approved nearby EIA project before year 2006 (i.e. the public sewer project[13]). The location of the concerned proposed public
sewer of that project is shown in Figure
1-2. The current Project Site is
immediately adjacent to a section of the proposed public sewer along Kam Pok
Road. The approved public sewer EIA
report13 has identified potential land
contamination sites on both sides of the proposed sewers through site reconnaissance visits during the EIA study, and the
review of historic land use information including aerial photos in year 2000s’
and before that. According to Sections
12.4.1, 12.5.1, and Figures 12.9 and 12.10 in that EIA report, there was no
site of potential land contamination identified near Fairview Park area or in
vicinity of the Project Site. There was
also no particular building structure within or immediately adjacent to the
Project Site indicating that the Project Site was occupied.
Based on the above information, the
Project Site was used as open air car park and has not been used by other land
uses as stated in Sections
3.1 and 3.2 of Annex 19 in the EIAO-TM that may result in potential land contamination. No hot spot was identified
within the Project Site during site reconnaissance. According to the EIA report of
nearby approved EIA projects, which cover historic land use information, there
was no site of
potential land contamination reported near Fairview Park area or in vicinity of
this Project Site. As the project Site
was not used by historical land uses as stated in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of Annex 19 in the EIAO-TM, there is no concern of land
contamination issue at the Project Site. Since no historic land
contamination uses were identified at the Project Site, potential land
contamination issue due to historic land uses is not expected.
A preliminary desktop review and site
reconnaissance have identified the various current land uses within and adjacent
to the Project Site. Currently, the majority of the Project Site is vacant with paved car
parking area located within the Project Site.
There is also an abandoned water pond at the south-eastern corner of the
Project Site. Site
reconnaissance visit was undertaken in February 2009 and
in October 2011 to identify existing land uses.
The land use status was found to be same during the subsequent visit
undertaken in January 2012, February 2014, and December 2015. Based on the site visit, no vehicle repairing
activity or any activity stated in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of Annex 19 of the
EIAO-TM, that would likely result in land contamination, has been identified
on-site. No trace of potential land
contamination was identified during the site
reconnaissance visit. In addition, as
discussed above, no potential land contamination issue has been identified at
the Project Site. There is no change in
land use status at the Project Site to date.
Site photos of present condition of Project Site are provided in Appendix 7-2.
The surrounding area of the Project Site is
characterized by a mixture of existing Ha Chuk Yuen Road to the east; existing
Fung Chuk Road and Kam Pok Road to the north and west of the Project Site. The existing Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel is
also located to the further west. To the
South of the Project Site is the existing Ha San Wai Road. An existing open storage site for storage of
precast units and carparking is located to the south-east of the Project Site
outside the Project Site boundary. This
open storage site is concrete paved. There is also a sheltered warehouse within
the open storage site, which is about 70m away from the Project Site. However, the development will not involve
ground excavation in adjacent to the open storage site as the Project Site will
be filled up to the proposed formation level.
General speaking, the existing
ground level at the northern portion of the Project Site where proposed houses
are located, is about +6.5mPD in average.
The existing mPD level for the southern portion is about +4.8mPD in
average. The developable area of the
proposed houses will be raised to an average level of about +5.45mPD and 6.5mPD
for the southern portion and the northern portion, respectively. Therefore, the
development is unlikely require significant excavation. Instead, the existing ground level will need
to be raised to the proposed site formation level by imported fill
materials. Given that significant
excavation is not required for this Project, direct contact with existing soil
materials by the future users is unlikely.
Thus, potential land contamination problem at the Project Site is
unlikely.
Since there is no historic and/ or
existing land uses at the Project Site that would result in potential
contamination of soil and underground water, land contamination at the Project
Site is not expected. Thus, further
assessment on this aspect is not required.
Construction of the proposed development mainly
involves construction of the proposed residential development and associated
infrastructures and facilities as described in Section 1.6.
The majority of waste to be generated as a result of
the proposed development would be excavated materials during site formation and
filling. Handling, transportation and
storage of excavated materials will likely be involved at this stage. Construction of buildings, associated
infrastructures and facilities would also generate waste, but the quantity will
be in small amount through the adoption of standard construction methods and
use of pre-fabricated materials as much as practicable. The production of construction waste due to
over-ordering or as “side-products” of construction activities should be
minimized by the Contractor(s) through careful design, planning, good site
management, control of ordering procedures, segregation and reuse of materials.
The varieties of waste that may arise due to the
construction activities mainly include the followings:
·
Waste due to site clearance;
·
Construction and Demolition
(C&D) materials/ waste;
·
Chemical waste; and
·
General refuse.
The potential environmental impact arising from the
handling, storage, transport and disposal of these different categories of
wastes are described below. The nature
of each of these wastes and the recommended waste management measures are identified.
In any case, landfill disposal shall only be considered as a last resort of waste management
for the non-inert portion of the excavated materials.
Construction waste of this Project will be controlled
through the implementation of mitigation measures described in this
report. It is expected that mitigation
measures will also be implemented by nearby planned development projects under their
respective EIA studies.
Thus, no adverse impact is anticipated.
The Project Site is currently vacant. Surface vegetation within the Project Site
will be removed at the start of the Project and set aside for reuse, if
necessary.
The amount of site clearance works within the
Developable Area will be limited to the removal of a thin layer of top soil and
vegetation. Based on initial estimation,
about 7,000m3 of materials would be generated during site
clearance. Among which, about 5,600m3
of inert top soil is intended to be sorted on-site and re-used at landscaping
areas subject to the satisfaction of engineering requirements (see Table 7‑1). Any surplus inert materials will be disposed
of at public fill facility. It is
estimated that about 1,400m3 of non-insert materials (e.g.
vegetation) will be disposed of at landfill site. The above figures are based on preliminary
estimation and the exact quantity will be provided during the detailed design
stage later on. In any case, landfill
disposal shall only be considered as a last resort of waste management.
For the Developable Area, excavated materials will be
generated during the site formation of the Project site. General speaking, the Project Site is
topographically flat, rural in character.
General speaking, the existing ground level at the northern portion of
the Project Site where proposed houses are located, is about +6.5mPD in
average. There are general slopes
surrounding the Project site boundary where the ground level gradually
decreases to about the road level. The
existing mPD level for the southern portion is about +4.8mPD in average.
The developable area of the proposed houses will be
raised and is up to about +5.45mPD and 6.5mPD for the southern portion and the
northern portion, respectively. Thus,
fill materials will be required for the site formation works within the
southern portion of the Site. It is expected that imported fill
materials of approximately 52,500m3 would
be required for the site formation works in question. As filling works are required, there is an
incentive for the Contractor(s) to re-use materials on-site as much as possible
in order to minimise associated construction costs.
The Project Engineer shall also
ensure excavated materials from the Project Site are re-used on-site as much as
practicable. Any materials not suitable
for filling shall be disposed of at public fill facilities. In any case, landfill
disposal shall only be considered as a last resort of waste management for the
non-inert portion of the excavated materials.
The estimated amount of materials to be generated,
re-used, and disposed of is summarized in Table 7‑1.
There is an abandoned pond (about 0.33 ha) within the
Project Site (Figure 8-3 refers)
(assuming an average depth of sediment of 3m, the concerned quantity of
sediment is about 9,900m3).
The concerned pond is located within the existing car park area. As
discussed in Section 7.3.3, the Project
Site is currently occupied by an existing car parking operation and the Project
Site is currently fenced off.
Minimization/ Avoidance of Excavation of Pond Sediment
During construction, the concerned
abandoned pond within Project Site will be filled up. The concerned pond sediment
is intended to be left in place and not to be disturbed as far as
possible. However, should pond sediment
be encountered during construction, it should be temporarily stored and re-used
on-site and no offsite disposal is expected (for example, re-use as fill
material during site formation stage.
Subject to detailed design stage, mixing pond sediment with cement
material may be required so that its
quality can meet the engineering requirements). Potential water quality impact due to surface
runoff from the concerned works area and the odour impact during construction
at pond area, are addressed in Chapter 5 (water quality) and Chapter 3 (air
quality), respectively. It is also understood
that there
is no specific environmental standard/ requirement for measuring/ controlling
on-site re-use of pond sediment. If solidified materials will
not be reused on-site and to be used as public filling materials, prior
approval from Public Fill Committee of Civil Engineering and Development
Department should be sought beforehand in accepting the solidified materials at
public fill.
As this Project will require
imported fill materials in order to raise the site level to the proposed site
formation level, this also provides an incentive for contractor(s) to reduce
the amount of materials to be excavated provided that the materials can be
re-used and its quality can meet the engineering requirements.
The above requirements are also provided in EM&A
Manual for implementation.
Construction
waste may comprise unwanted materials generated during construction, including
rejected structures/ materials which have been over ordered or are surplus to
requirements, and used materials.
Generally speaking, construction waste mainly arise from the
construction of earth retaining structures and other maintenance activities
carried out by the Contractor, which may include the followings:
·
Wood from formwork and falsework;
·
Equipment and vehicle maintenance
parts;
·
Materials and equipment wrappings;
·
Unusable/surplus concrete/grouting
mixes; and
·
Damaged/contaminated/surplus
construction materials.
The
volume of demolition waste would be very low as the Project Site is currently
vacant and no major demolition work will be required.
The
concerned Project construction works involve construction of low-density
low-rise (2-storeys tall) residential development using standard construction
practices, thus significant amount of construction waste is not expected. Construction of the proposed development does
not involve any facilities which may require significant foundation works or
piling works, thus waste to be generated due to foundation works is expected to
be minimum.
The
amount of construction waste to be generated from this Project will be subject
to contractor(s)’ operating procedure and site practices, however, the
contractor(s) of this Project will be required to reuse materials on site as
far as practicable and minimize waste arising.
This could be achieved through recovery, reuse and/ or recycling of
materials involved in the construction.
Whenever practicable, the production of construction waste due to
over-ordering or as “side-products” of construction activities should be
minimised by the contractor through careful design, planning, good site
management, control of ordering procedures, segregation and reuse of
materials. These measures will also
assist the Contractor(s) in minimizing costs associated with the construction
works. Prefabricated building construction
elements could also be used as appropriate to avoid generation of surplus
construction materials.
For
examples, wooden boards can be reused on-site or off-site, though the
reusability and quantity of final waste to be generated will be subject to the
quality, size and shape of the boards proposed by the contractor(s). Timbers which cannot be reused shall be
sorted and stored separately from all other inert waste before disposal.
Should
construction site hoarding be erected, metal fencing or building panels, which
are more durable than wooden panels, are recommended to be used as far as
practicable. Opportunity shall also be
sought to re-use any wooden boards used in site fencing on-site or off-site. Concrete and masonry can be crushed and used
as fill material if practicable. On-site burning of wooden waste is prohibited.
Cross
contamination of inert C&D materials by other waste categories shall be
minimised as far as practicable through provision of storage facilities for
storage of different categories of waste. Inert materials including soil, rock,
concrete, brick, cement plaster/ mortar, inert building debris, aggregates and
asphalt should be segregated from and stored separately from other waste
categories to ensure proper handling and reuse. The on-site temporary
facilities should be equipped with dust control measures where necessary.
By
reducing the quantity of C&D materials requiring off-site disposal through
proper reuse on-site, the potential traffic impacts due to transportation of materials
can be reduced. Thus, additional traffic
flow generated from transportation of construction materials due to movement of
vehicles in and out of the Project Site is considered to be insignificant.
Spent
bentonite slurries, if any, will be handled and disposed of properly in
accordance with the requirements set out in the Practice Note for Professional
Persons (PN1/94) Construction Site Drainage.
In order
to avoid dust, odour and erosion impacts, any stockpile areas within the
Project Site should be covered with tarpaulin or impermeable sheeting. Any
vehicle carrying C&D waste should have their load covered when leaving the
works area. Vehicles should be routed as far as possible to avoid sensitive
receivers in the area. Potential air and
surface runoff impacts due to handling of excavated materials are presented in
the Chapters 3 and 5, respectively.
Estimation
on types, timing and quantities of wastes to be generated during construction,
as well as its route of disposal, is provided in Table 7‑1.
As defined under the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste)
(General) Regulation, chemical waste includes any substance being scrap
material or unwanted substances specified under Schedule 1 of the Regulation.
Chemical waste that could be generated from
construction works would primarily arise from chemicals used in operation and
maintenance of on-site equipment. These may include fuel, oil, lubricants,
cleaning fluids, and solvents arising from leakage or maintenance of on-site
equipment and vehicles. Chemical
generated from daily operation of the construction works shall be recycled/
reused on-site as far as practicable.
The amount of chemical waste that will be generated
from the construction works will depend on the contractor’s on-site maintenance
intention, age and number of plant and vehicles used. Nevertheless, chemical wastes such as
lubricating oil or solvent generated by workers are not expected to be in large
quantity. The likely chemical waste
types are readily accepted at the chemical waste treatment centre at Tsing Yi
or other licensed waste oil recycling facilities in Hong Kong.
If off-site disposal of chemical waste is required,
they should be collected and delivered by a licensed contractor, and disposed
of strictly following the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation.
The contractors shall register with EPD as chemical waste producers when
chemical waste is produced.
Chemical waste generated has to be stored in suitable
containers and away from water bodies so that leakage or spillage is prevented
during the handling, storage, and subsequent transportation.
Provided that the handling, storage and disposal of
chemical wastes are in accordance with the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste)
(General) Regulation and the Code of Practice on the Packaging, Labelling and
Storage of Chemical Wastes, this will unlikely cause an unacceptable environmental
impact.
Fossil fuel and used lubricants from trucks and
machinery are classified as chemical waste.
The Contractor shall prevent fuel and lubricating oil
leakage from plant and storage sites from contaminating the construction
site. All compounds in work areas shall
be positioned on areas with hard paving and served by drainage facility. Sand/ silt traps and oil interceptors shall
be provided at appropriate locations prior to the discharge points.
Throughout the construction phase, the workforce on
the construction site will generate a variety of general refuse requiring
disposal. These refuse will mainly
consist of food wastes, aluminium cans, empty plastic bottles and waste paper,
etc. Nevertheless, estimates of general
refuse generated from the Site Formation works are dependent on the number of
workers. As no information regarding the
number of workers on-site is available at this early project stage, it has been
assumed that about 180 workers in average will work on the Developable Area
during site formation at any one time.
Based on a generation rate of 0.65 kg per worker per day, the daily
arising of general refuse during site formation would be approximately 117 kg/
day.
General refuse
generated at the construction site should be stored separately from
construction and chemical wastes to avoid cross contamination. A reliable waste collector shall be employed
by the Contractor to remove general refuse from the construction site on a
daily basis where appropriate to minimise the potential odour, pest and litter
impacts.
Open burning for the
disposal of construction waste or the clearance of the Project Site in
preparation for construction work is prohibited under the Air Pollution Control
(Open Burning) Regulation.
Table 7‑1 Summary
Table of Estimated Materials to be Generated, Re-used and Disposed of
|
Construction Activities |
Total Quantity Generated |
C&D Waste to be disposed of
off-site |
C&D material to be re-used |
|
Site clearance |
~7,000m3 |
1,400m3
(C&D waste
that cannot be reused or recycled, to be disposed of at NENT landfill as last
resort (subject to confirmation during detailed design) |
5,600 m3 (Inert C&D material to be reused at landscaping area as much
as possible) |
|
Site formation
and filling, etc. |
~52,500 m3 (imported fill
materials) # |
- |
It is expected that all C&D materials (52,500 m3) will
be reused on-site for site formation. Any surplus
inert C&D materials to be disposed of at public filling area in Tuen Mun
Area 38 (subject to confirmation during detailed design). |
|
Pond
Sediment |
9,900 m3 |
- |
Estimated quantity of pond sediment
at existing abandoned pond. Pond sediment is intended to be left in place and
not to be disturbed. In case pond sediment is encountered during
construction, it will be re-used on-site and no off-site disposal is
expected. |
|
Building
construction |
~753 m3 * |
~98 m3 ** (C&D waste that cannot be
reused or recycled, to be disposed of at NENT landfill as last resort
(subject to confirmation during detailed design). |
~655 m3 ** (Inert
C&D materials to be disposed of at public fill area in Tuen
Mun Area 38) (subject to confirmation during
detailed design). |
|
General
Refuse (e.g. Food waste, waste paper, empty container generated from
workforce) |
117kg/day (preliminary estimate) |
117kg
per day |
Refuse
station for compaction and containerisation and then dispose of at NENT
landfill. |
|
Chemical
Waste (e.g. Cleansing fluids, solvent, lubrication oil and fuel from
construction plants and equipment) |
Less
than few cubic meters/month (preliminary estimate) |
Less
than few cubic meters/month |
To be
collected by licensed chemical waste collector. |
|
Remark:
Estimated quantity of waste quantity during construction phase, which
is subject to detailed design stage. #
Estimated volume of filling/ excavation materials during site
formation including estimated pond sediment at abandoned pond. * Estimated based on the
generation rate of 0.1m3 per 1m2 of Gross Floor Area
(GFA). According to the approved OZP,
the maximum allowed Gross Floor Area (GFA) of the Project Site is 7,529 m3 (i.e. 37,645m2 x 0.2 (plot ratio)). The waste generated due to construction of
building structures is estimated based on the generation rate of 0.1m3
per 1m2 of GFA (similar waste generation rate was also adopted in
the approved EIA Report in the “Agreement No. CE61/2007(CE), North East New
Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study –
Investigation”, Section 7.5.1.2). **
According to the statistical information in the Monitoring of Solid
Waste in Hong Kong, published by EPD, it is estimated that about 87% of the
construction waste was categorised as public fill and the remaining 13% as
C&D waste (similar figure was also adopted in the approved EIA Report in
the “Agreement No. CE61/2007(CE), North East New Territories New Development
Areas Planning and Engineering Study – Investigation”, Section 7.5.1.2). |
|||
To ensure the appropriate handling of the C&D
materials, it is recommended that a Waste Management Plan (WMP) shall be
developed by the contractor and incorporated in the Environmental Management Plan
(EMP) in accordance with ETWB TCW No. 19/2005 – Environmental Management on
Construction Sites at the commencement of the construction works.
In formulating the EMP in respect to waste management,
the following hierarchy should be considered:
·
Avoidance and minimization to reduce
the potential quantity of C&D materials generated;
·
Reuse of materials as practical as
possible;
·
Recovery and Recycling as practical
as possible; and
·
Proper treatment and disposal in
respect to relevant laws, guidelines and good practice.
The EMP shall be submitted to the Engineer’s
Representative (ER) and the Project Environmental Team Leader (ETL) for
approval, and shall be implemented throughout the Project.
The EMP shall covers the followings and developed
taking into account the recommended control measures given in this Chapter
where appropriate:
·
A waste management policy,
organization chart, and responsibility;
·
An estimation on the location, type,
nature, quality and quantity of different waste streams to be generated from
the Project works, and the corresponding waste management methodology;
·
A method statement for demolition
and transportation of the excavated materials and other construction wastes;
·
Potential for recycling or reuse
should be explored and opportunities taken if waste generation is unavoidable;
·
Recommendations for appropriate
disposal routes if waste cannot be recycled;
·
A system to control the disposal of
C&D materials and C&D waste to public fill reception facilities, sorting facilities and landfills
respectively through a trip-ticket system in accordance with the PNAP
ADV-19; and
·
A system to record the C&D
materials/ C&D waste to be generated, disposed of, reused, and recycled,
respectively.
·
The EMP should
be approved before the commencement of construction. All mitigation measures in
the approved EMP should be fully implemented.
The Project Proponent/ ER will
ensure that the day-to-day operations comply with the approved EMP. The Project Proponent/ ER shall require the
contractor to separate public fill from C&D waste for disposal at appropriate facilities. In addition, the Project Proponent/ ER shall
regularly audit Contractor(s)’ records for the disposal, reuse and recycling of
C&D materials for monitoring purposes.
Based on the above waste management recommendations, a
detailed management and control plan shall be formulated during the detailed
design stage. A good management and control can prevent the generation of
significant amount of waste. On-site
sorting of construction wastes will be recommended. Secondary on-site sorting
can be achieved by avoiding the generation of “mixed waste” through good site
control. Construction wastes shall be
sorted to remove contaminants, with the inert materials broken up into small
pieces before being transported to the public fill reception facilities.
Chemical and oily wastes generated from the
construction activities, vehicle and plant maintenance and oil interceptors
should be disposed of as chemical waste in strict compliance with the Waste
Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulations.
The demolition and construction work shall be
considered in the planning and design stages to reduce the generation of
C&D waste where possible. Landfill disposal shall only be considered as the
last resort.
Construction methods with minimum waste generation
quantity and other environmental impacts shall be considered in the detailed
design.
In addition, the Project Proponent shall require the
contractor to reuse inert C&D materials (e.g. excavated soil) on-site or in
other suitable construction sites as far as possible, in order to minimize the
disposal of C&D materials to public fill reception facilities.
The Project Proponent shall encourage the contractor
to maximize the use of recycled or recyclable C&D materials, as well as the
use of non-timber formwork to further minimize the generation of construction
waste.
The following additional control/ mitigation measures
are recommended to be followed by the Contractor:
·
Storage of different waste types –
different types of waste should be segregated and stored in different
containers, skips or stockpiles to enhance reuse or recycling of materials and
their proper disposal. An on-site
temporary storage area equipped with required control measures (e.g. dust
control) should be provided;
·
Trip-ticket system – in order to
monitor the proper disposal of non-inert C&D waste to landfills and to
control fly-tipping, a trip-ticket system should be included as one of the
contractual requirements and audited by the Environmental Team;
·
Records of Wastes – a recording
system should be proposed to record the amount of wastes generated, recycled
and disposed of (including the location of disposal sites);
·
Training – The contractor should
provide his workers with proper training of appropriate waste management
procedure to achieve waste reduction as far as practicable and cost-effective
through recovery, reuse and recycling and avoid contamination of reusable
C&D materials;
·
Incorporate good practice in
“Recommended Pollution Control Clauses for Construction Contracts” published by
EPD in respect to removal of waste material from the construction site into the
contract of the contractor.
In additional to the above, the relevant construction
waste pollution clauses to be included in construction contracts are summarized
in the Sections 7.5.1 to 7.5.3.
The Contractor shall submit to the Engineer for
approval a waste management plan with appropriate mitigation measures including
the allocation of an area for waste segregation and shall ensure that the
day-to-day site operations comply with the approved waste management plan.
The Contractor shall minimise the generation of waste
from his work. Avoidance and minimisation of waste generation can be achieved
through changing or improving design and practices, careful planning and good
site management.
The Contractor shall ensure that different types of
wastes are segregated on-site and stored in different containers, skips or
stockpiles to facilitate reuse/recycling of waste and, as the last resort,
disposal at different outlets as appropriate.
The reuse and recycling of waste shall be practised as
far as possible. The recycled materials shall include paper/cardboard, timber
and metal etc.
The Contractor shall ensure that Construction and
Demolition (C&D) materials are sorted into public fill (inert portion) and
C&D waste (non-inert portion). The public fill which comprises soil, rock,
concrete, brick, cement plaster/mortar, inert building debris, aggregates and
asphalt shall be reused in earth filling, reclamation or site formation works.
The C&D waste which comprises metal, timber, paper, glass, junk and general
garbage shall be reused or recycled and, as the last resort, disposal of at
landfills.
The Contractor shall record the amount of wastes
generated, recycled and disposed of (including the disposal sites).
The Contractor shall implement a trip ticket system in
accordance with the “Construction and Demolition Waste” in PNAP ADV-19 for public fill, C&D materials and
C&D waste to public fill reception facilities, sorting facilities and
landfills respectively.
Training shall be provided for workers about the
concepts of site cleanliness and appropriate waste management procedure,
including waste reduction, reuse and recycling.
The Contractor shall not permit any sewage, wastewater
or effluent containing sand, cement, silt or any other suspended or dissolved
material to flow from the Project Site onto any adjoining land or allow any
waste matter [or refuse] which is not part of the final product from waste
processing plants to be deposited anywhere within the Project Site [or onto any
adjoining land]. He shall arrange removal of such matter from the Project Site
[or any building erected or to be erected thereon] in a proper manner to the
satisfaction of the Engineer in consultation with the Director of Environmental
Protection.
The Contractor shall observe and comply with the Waste
Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation.
The Contractor shall apply for registration as
chemical waste producer under the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General)
Regulation when chemical waste is produced. All chemical waste shall be
properly stored, labelled, packaged and collected in accordance with the
Regulation.
As mentioned
in Section 7.4.3, concerned abandoned pond within Project
Site will be filled up during construction stage. Existing
pond sediment is intended to be left in place and not to be disturbed as far as
possible.
However, should pond sediment be encountered during
construction, it should be fully re-used on-site (e.g. as fill material during
site formation) given its
quality can meet relevant engineering requirements. If solidified materials cannot not be reused
on-site and to be used as public filling materials, prior approval from Public Fill
Committee of Civil Engineering and Development Department should be sought
beforehand in accepting the solidified materials at public fill.
As this Project will require imported fill materials in
order to raise the site level to the proposed site formation level, this also
provides an incentive for contractor(s) to reduce the amount of materials to be
excavated provided that the materials can be re-used and its quality can meet
the engineering requirements. The Contractor(s) will be
required to minimize the amount of materials to be excavated and to re-use
excavated materials on-site.
The proposed residential development will accommodate
a population of about 132 after full occupation. With
reference to the Data from Monitoring in Solid Waste in Hong Kong 1999, the
capita generation rates of domestic waste will be 1.48 kg/day in 2016. Based on the above assumptions, the estimated
quantity of wastes to be generated from this Development during the operation
will be about 195 kg/day.
Refuse collection points (RCP) will be provided for
the residential development (e.g. near the interim STP subject to the detailed
design). A licensed waste collector
shall be employed to collect domestic waste on daily basis. Given the scale of proposed development, it
is expected that number of refuse collection vehicles visiting the Project Site
(so as associated traffic noise) will not be significant. To minimize odour nuisance, odour
absorption system will be provided, details of which will be provided in the
detailed design phase. In order to
comply with Building Regulation, mechanical ventilation will also be provided
at the RCP. With
proper management and maintenance of the waste facilities, possible leachate
impact from the RCP is not anticipated.
It is also recommended that separate collection bins
for used aluminium cans, waste paper and plastic bottles should be provided at
strategic locations within the residential development area and adjacent to the
passive recreational facilities in order to promote and encourage recycling
during the operational phase.
During operation, waste generated by this Project will
be properly controlled through the implementation of mitigation measures
described in this report. It is expected
waste generation by nearby planned development sites will also be controlled
through mitigation measures committed under their respective EIA studies. No adverse impact is therefore
anticipated.
Given the mitigation
measures are in place, no adverse impact will be anticipated due to operation
of the Project, and no environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) will be necessary during operation.
During
construction, in order to ensure the effectiveness of implementation of
mitigation measures, it is proposed that an EM&A program is carried out
during construction. The Environmental
Team (ET) shall check the contractor(s)’ practice and ensure the above
recommendations are properly implemented.
Details of the EM&A requirements are provided in Chapter 13 of this report.
The waste streams that would be generated during the
construction of the proposed Project were identified and evaluated in terms of
their nature, type, quantity, and associated environmental impacts.
Opportunities for reduction in waste generation through recovery, reuse or
recycling have been identified in the assessment.
Provided that the recommendations set out in this
Chapter are implemented, no waste related regulatory non-compliance and
unacceptable environmental impacts are expected as a result of handling,
storage, transportation and disposal of construction waste arising from the
proposed residential development.
The Project Site is vacant and partially used as open air
car park. No historic and/ or existing land uses at the Project Site that would
result in potential land contamination
has been identified. Thus, land contamination at the Project Site
is not expected.
Domestic waste may be generated during the operational
phase of this Project. However, given
the scale of this Project the quantity of waste is expected to be small. Standard approach that is widely adopted in
other parts of Hong Kong for handling and disposal of waste shall be
adopted. Refuse collection chambers
shall be provided and a licensed waste collector will be employed to collect
domestic waste on daily basis.
With these measures in place, it is unlikely that
there will be any residual environmental impact.
This chapter presents the Ecological Impact Assessment
on any direct and indirect potential impacts to ecology arising from the
construction and operation of the Project.
The
ecological impact assessment has been conducted in accordance with the
requirements of Annexes 8 and 16 of the EIAO-TM and the EIA Study Brief for the
Project (ESB-210/2009). Ecological
baseline conditions of the Project Area and its surroundings were described, potential ecological
impacts including losses or damages of habitats and other potential impacts to the inhabiting flora and fauna were assessed, and the need of mitigation measures such
as avoidance, minimization and compensation
were investigated. The potential ecological impacts on the
identified species and habitats were found acceptable with implementation of
mitigation measures.
The HKSAR ordinances and regulations relevant to
ecological assessment of this Project include the following:
·
Forests and Countryside Ordinance
(Cap. 96) and its subsidiary legislation, the Forestry Regulations (Cap. 96A);
·
Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131);
·
Wild Animals Protection Ordinance
(WAPO, Cap. 170);
·
Protection of Endangered Species of
Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586); and
·
Environmental Impact Assessment
Ordinance ("the EIAO", Cap. 499) and the associated TM (EIAO-TM), in
particular Annexes 8 and 16; and
·
Town Planning Board Guidelines for Application for
Development within the Deep Bay Area under Section16 of the Town Planning Ordinance.
Ecological assessment also made reference to the
following guidelines and standards as well as international conventions:
·
EIA Study Brief No. 210/2009;
·
Hong Kong Planning Standards and
Guidelines (HKPSG) Chapter 10, "Conservation";
·
Ecological Baseline Survey For
Ecological Assessment (EIAO Guidance Note No. 7/2010);
·
Methodologies for Terrestrial and
Freshwater Ecological Baseline Surveys (EIAO Guidance Note No. 10/2010);
·
PELB Technical Circular 1/97 / Works
Branch Technical Circular 4/97, "Guidelines for Implementing the Policy on
Off-site Ecological Mitigation Measures";
·
ETWB Technical Circular (Works) No.
5/2005, “Protection of natural streams/rivers from adverse impacts arising from
construction works”;
·
Relevant wildlife protection laws of
the PRC;
·
Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (the "Ramsar
Convention"), which requires parties to conserve and make wise use of
wetland areas, particularly those supporting waterfowl populations;
·
United Nations Convention on Biological
Diversity, which requires parties to regulate or manage biological resources
important for the conservation of biological diversity, to promote the
protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of viable
populations of species in natural surroundings. Sgnatories of the
convention are required to make active efforts to protect and manage their
biodiversity resources. The Government
of Hong Kong SAR has stated that it will be “committed to meeting the
environmental objectives” of the Convention;
·
International Union for Conservation
of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species;
·
The Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is an international
agreement between governments. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in
specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.
According to the Study Brief No. ESB - 210/2009, key ecological issues identified
include the following:
·
Recognized sites of conservation
importance’s such as the Wetland Conservation Zone, Wetland Buffer Zone, Mai Po
Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site, Mai Po Nature Reserve, Mai Po Village SSSI and Mai
Po Marshes SSSI (Figure 8-1);
·
Wetlands including fish ponds, wet
agricultural land and marshes;
·
Roosting, breeding and feeding sites
for wetland birds; and
·
Any other habitats
identified as having special conservation interests by this study.
Project Area of the present
proposed Project is shown in Figure 1-1
of the present EIA. The
Assessment Area for the purpose of terrestrial and aquatic ecological impact
assessment includes all areas within 500m distance from the Project Area
boundary (Figure 8-2).
Relevant literature including previous EIAs and Hong Kong
biodiversity database were reviewed.
Field surveys were conducted between July 2009 to June 2010, of a 12-month period covering wet and dry seasons, fulfilling the requirements stipulated in the EIA
Study Brief (i.e. covering at least 6 months and both wet and dry seasons), to record ecological data within
the assessment area and establish the ecological profile for incorporation into
the assessment. In addition to day-time
surveys, night-time surveys were also conducted (in July 2009 and January 2010) to record nocturnal fauna including
birds, herpetofauna and mammals.
Additional surveys were
also performed in the 2010/2011 winter (February and March 2011), and July 2014, and the 2015/2016 winter (from
November 2015 to January 2016) to
update the site conditions and ecological baseline. Data
analysis and discussions described habitats and species found in the Assessment
Area, highlighting those that are rare, of conservation importance, or
protected by law. Survey methods of
flora and faunal groups were made reference to “Methodologies for Terrestrial
and Freshwater Ecological Baseline Surveys (EIAO Guidance Note No. 10/2010);”
and are described below.
Habitats in the Assessment Area were mapped based on the latest government
aerial photos and ground truthing.
Walk-over surveys were conducted at representative areas of each habitat
type. Plant species in each habitat type
were identified (with the aid of binoculars when necessary) and
their relative abundance were recorded, with special attention to rare and protected
species. Colour photographs were taken of all habitats encountered on site and
of ecological features of special importance.
Habitat maps of the Assessment Area were produced at the required scale using GIS software. Nomenclature and conservation status of plant
species follow AFCD (2003, 2004) and Xing et al. (2000).
Bird surveys were conducted monthly
between July 2009 and June 2010, February and March 2011 and July 2014. Bird
surveys were also conducted twice
each month between November 2015 and January 2016. The surveys covered both
breeding season and overwintering season of birds. Birds within the Project Area and Assessment
Area were surveyed quantitatively using transect count method and point
count method. Locations of
survey transects and vantage points are shown in Figure 8-2. All birds seen or heard were identified and their abundance recorded. Signs of breeding (e.g. nests, recently fledged juveniles) were also
recorded. As some birds (e.g., owls,
nightjars) are nocturnal, night surveys were conducted during wet and dry
seasons. Nocturnal birds were identified
by active searching using spot-light and by their calls. Nomenclature
of the bird species followed the latest version of List of Hong Kong Birds by
Hong Kong Bird Watching Society (HKBWS).
Flight behaviour of birds within the Project Area and Assessment Area was
also observed at
three observation points.
Monthly
surveys were conducted between November 2009 and June 2010, February and March 2011, July 2014, and between November 2015 and January 2016. Flying birds were identified and counts. The heights and directions of flying birds observed within the Assessment Area
were estimated.
Mammals within the Project Area and Assessment
Area were surveyed qualitatively. Surveys
were conducted during July 2009, January and June
2010, March 2011, July 2014 and December 2015. All
sightings, tracks, and signs of mammals found were recorded. Nomenclature of mammal follows Shek (2006). As some mammal species (e.g.
bats) are nocturnal, night surveys were conducted during wet and dry
seasons. Nocturnal Mammals were actively
searched using spot-light.
Herpetofauna within Project Area and the Assessment Area were surveyed qualitatively. Surveys
were conducted during the following periods: July
- August 2009, March - May 2010, March 2011, July 2014 and November 2015. All reptiles and amphibians sighted were recorded. Nomenclature of
amphibian follows Chan et al. (2005)
and reptile follows Karsen et al.
(1998). As herpetofauna are mostly nocturnal
and more active
during wet season, night surveys were carried out in wet seasons of 2009,
2010 and 2014.
Potential microhabitats of herpetofauna such as wall, fallen logs,
litter, channel/nullah, fishpond margins, underneath of stones or other
materials, artificial container (e.g. pots) were searched during surveys to
locate cryptic or secretive herpetofauna species. Amphibians were also identified by their
calls during night surveys.
Dragonflies and butterflies within Project Area and the Assessment Area were surveyed quantitatively using the transect count method. Surveys
were conducted during the following periods: July
- November 2009, April - June 2010, March 2011, July 2014 and November 2015. Dragonflies and butterflies observed were identified and recorded. Nomenclature of dragonfly follows Tam et
al. (2011) and nomenclature of butterfly follows Chan et al. (2011).
Aquatic fauna (such as freshwater
fish and invertebrates) within the Project Area and Assessment Area
were studied by active searching and direct observation.
Surveys were conducted in
September 2009, March 2010, March 2011, July 2014 and November 2015. Baited fish cages, which is a standard survey method in Hong Kong, were deployed
inside the pond within the Project Area, while direct observations were made at the pond as well as other aquatic habitats (nullah and drainage
channel) in
the Assessment Area. As aquatic habitats within the Assessment Area were mainly fish ponds, a
Fisheries Impact Assessment was also performed through desktop review and site
verification, and reported in another chapter.
The time schedule of the ecological
survey programme is presented in Table 8‑1 below:
Table 8‑1 Ecological
Survey Programme
|
|
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
||||||||||||
|
Month |
Jul |
Aug |
Sep |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Jan |
Feb |
Mar |
Apr |
May |
Jun |
Feb |
Mar |
Jul |
Nov |
Dec |
Jan |
|
Habitat and Vegetation |
|
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
|
|
Ö |
Ö |
|
|
|
|
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
|
|
Ö |
|
Bird |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
|
Mammal |
Ö |
|
|
|
|
|
Ö |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ö |
Ö |
|
Ö |
|
|
Herpetofauna |
Ö |
Ö |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
|
|
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
|
|
|
Butterfly &
Dragonfly |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
|
|
|
|
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
|
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
|
|
|
Stream and Freshwater Fauna |
|
|
Ö |
|
|
|
|
|
Ö |
|
|
|
|
Ö |
Ö |
Ö |
|
|
There is no Recognized Site of Conservation Importance
within the Project Area of this
Project.
The Project is located outside Wetland
Conservation Area (WCA) and immediately
outside the boundary of Wetland Buffer Area (WBA) (Figure 8-1), and part of
the Assessment Area thus covered the WBA. The planning intention of WBA is to protect
the ecological integrity of the fishponds and wetlands within the Wetland Conservation Area (WCA) and to prevent development that would have
a negative off-site impact on the ecological value of those fishponds. The “no-net-loss in wetland” principle and
wetland enhancement and management scheme according to the TPB Guidelines (TPB
PG-No. 12C) do not apply to this Project.
The Project Area is about 520m from the boundary of WCA. WCA
comprises of the existing and contiguous, active or abandoned fishponds in the
Deep Bay Area. The planning intention of
WCA is to conserve the ecological value of the fishpond which form an integral
part of the wetland ecosystem in the Deep Bay Area. New development within the WCA will not be
allowed unless it is required to support the conservation of the ecological
value of the area or the development is essential infrastructural project with
overriding public interest.
Other
recognised sites of conservation importance in Northwest New Territories
included the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site, Mai Po Nature Reserve, Mai Po
Marshes SSSI, Mai Po Village SSSI Egretry and Mai Po Lung Egretry.
About 1500 ha
of wetland in the Mai Po and Inner Deep Bay region was designated as a Ramsar
Site on 4 September 1995. The wetland
habitats in the Ramsar Site included intertidal mudflats, mangroves, tidal
shrimp ponds (gei wais), fishponds
and reedbeds. The site serves as an
important over-wintering and refuelling station site for the migratory
waterbirds.
Mai Po Nature
Reserve comprises gei wais, fishponds
and extensive area of mangroves and mudflat.
This reserve provides important habitats for waterbirds and other
wildlife (e.g., Eurasian Otter).
The Mai Po
Village SSSI Egretry is a piece of fung shui woodland of size about 53ha behind the Mai Po Village, and is about
2km from the boundary of the Project Area. This woodland
once provided nesting habitats for a number of ardeid species. The ardeids are now nesting in trees near the
former woodland nesting areas.
Nesting
population of ardeids in Hong Kong was
annually surveyed by The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society since 1998. The nesting ardeid populations in Mai Po
Village SSSI Egretry since 1998 are shown in Table 8-2. Five ardeid
species have been recorded nesting in the Mai Po Village SSSI egretry. Only Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron
nested in this egretry since 2005.
Foraging ecology of Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron nesting in Mai Po Village SSSI Egretry was
studied previously (Wong 1992, Young 1998, City University of Hong Kong. 2001). Fishpond was the most frequently used habitat
by both species. Drained fishponds are
particularly attractive to Little Egret (Young 1998). The average distances flown by Little Egret
and Chinese Pond Heron were 2.1km and 1.6km respectively (Wong 1992, Young
1998). Foraging ecology of Little Egret
and Chinese Pond Heron in Mai Po
Village SSSI Egretry was also studied in 2011 during the EIA study of “Proposed Residential Cum Passive Recreation
Development within "Recreation" Zone and "Residential (Group
C)" Zone at Various Lots in DD 104, Yuen Long, N.T.” (ENVIRON Hong
Kong Limited. 2013). Most breeding birds of these two species took off from the Mai Po Village egretry flew towards Mai Po, Tam Kon
Chau or other nearby wetlands to forage.
There is
another active egretry, known as the Mai Po Lung Egretry, near the Mai Po
Village SSSI Egretry. The Mai Po Lung Egretry is 2.7km from the boundary
of the Project Area. This egretry was discovered in 2000. Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron were
recorded nesting in this colony, and the nesting population is smaller than
that of the Mai Po Lung Egretry (Table
8-3). Foraging ecology of Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron nesting in Mai Po Lung Egretry was
not studied previously, but the uses of foraging habitat and average flight distance
of might be similar to the observations in the Mai
Po Village SSSI Egretry.
An ardeid nesting colony was reported in mangroves within
the Mai Po Marshes Nature Reserve in 2015 (named as “Mai Po Marshes Nature Reserve
Egretry” in Anon. 2015). This colony is about 5km from the boundary of the
Project Area. There
were 204 ardeid nests (including 123 Great Egret nests, 10 Little Egret nests,
62 Black-crowned Night Heron nests and 9 Eastern Cattle Egret nests) in this
colony in 2015.
The assessment area of “Proposed Residential Cum Passive
Recreation Development within "Recreation" Zone and "Residential
(Group C)" Zone at Various Lots in DD 104, Yuen Long, N.T.” overlapped
with the Assessment Area of the Project.
Ecological
surveys of the EIA study of this
development project were conducted between January and July 2009, and between
August and December 2010 (ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited. 2013). The usage of grassland/shrubland and drainage
channel by ardeids within the Assessment Area of the present project during
peak breeding season of ardeid (April to July) was very low. The maximum counts of ardeids in habitats
fall within the Assessment Area of the present study were also very low during
peak breeding season of ardeids.
Table 8‑2 Nesting Populations of Ardeid in Mai Po Village
SSSI Egretry since 1998
(data from Anon.
2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2014, 2015, Wong
and Kwok 2001, Wong 2002, Wong and Woo 2003)
|
Year |
Little Egret |
Chinese Pond Heron |
Cattle Egret |
Great Egret |
Black-crowned Night Heron |
Total nests (% of total in Hong Kong) |
|
1998 |
38 |
34 |
16 |
- |
45 |
133 (NA) |
|
1999 |
39 |
12 |
22 |
6 |
26 |
105 (12.7%) |
|
2000 |
44 |
6 |
10 |
8 |
40 |
108 (14.5%) |
|
2001 |
50 |
7 |
15 |
12 |
25 |
109 (13.1%) |
|
2002 |
37 |
14 |
12 |
15 |
9 |
87 (9.0%) |
|
2003 |
42 |
14 |
3 |
2 |
- |
61 (8.3%) |
|
2004 |
28 |
16 |
6 |
- |
- |
52 (5.8%) |
|
2005 |
37 |
51 |
- |
- |
- |
88 (8.5%) |
|
2006 |
35 |
50 |
- |
- |
- |
85 (8.4%) |
|
2007 |
4 |
30 |
- |
- |
- |
34 (4.1%) |
|
2008 |
2 |
55 |
- |
- |
- |
57 (8.6%) |
|
2009 |
8 |
135 |
- |
- |
- |
143 (17.7%) |
|
2010 |
19 |
108 |
- |
- |
- |
128 (17.2%) |
|
2011 |
35 |
118 |
- |
- |
- |
153 (19%) |
|
2012 |
29 |
125 |
- |
- |
- |
154 (18.1%) |
|
2013 |
21 |
125 |
- |
- |
- |
146 (19.3%) |
|
2014 |
80 |
122 |
- |
- |
- |
202 (21%) |
|
2015 |
104 |
131 |
- |
- |
1 |
236 (16.6%) |
Table 8‑3 Nesting
populations of ardeid in Mai Po Lung egretry since 1998
(data from Anon.
2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2014, 2015, Wong
and Kwok 2001, Wong 2002, Wong and Woo 2003)
|
Year |
Little Egret |
Chinese Pond Heron |
Total nests (% of total in Hong Kong) |
|
2000 |
1 |
14 |
15 (2.0%) |
|
2001 |
1 |
43 |
44 (5.3%) |
|
2002 |
2 |
45 |
47 (4.8%) |
|
2003 |
1 |
36 |
37 (5.1%) |
|
2004 |
10 |
35 |
45 (5.2%) |
|
2005 |
5 |
56 |
61 (5.9%) |
|
2006 |
12 |
74 |
86 (8.5%) |
|
2007 |
18 |
31 |
49 (6.0%) |
|
2008 |
16 |
21 |
37 (5.6%) |
|
2009 |
3 |
6 |
9 (1.1%) |
|
2010 |
2 |
5 |
7 (1%) |
|
2011 |
1 |
4 |
5 (0.6%) |
|
2012 |
- |
12 |
12 (1.4%) |
|
2013 |
- |
12 |
12 (1.6%) |
|
2014 |
3 |
33 |
36 (3.8%) |
|
2015 |
5 |
68 |
73 (5.1%) |
The Mai Po
Marshes SSSI contains the largest area of mangroves in Hong Kong. The gei wais provide important feeding
habitats for both resident and migratory birds.
This SSSI was designated on 15 September 1976.
These sites are
more than 1km from the Project Area, and hence not likely to be affected by the
proposed development project.
A study on the
evaluation of measure in prevention of predation of Great Cormorant on
commercial fishponds was previously conducted by AFCD between December 2006 and
February 2007 (Ecosystems Ltd 2008) covered some of the fishponds at the south of the Project Area, which fell within 500m from the present
Project Area. Diversity of waterbirds
on these fishponds was found very low (ibid.),
probably due to the high disturbance level from the surrounding container sites.
The Assessment Area of the present project
overlapped with those of five other EIA/EcoIA studies,
including:
·
“Yuen Long and Kam Tin
Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Stage 2”;
·
“Construction of Cycle
Tracks and the Associated Supporting Facilities From Sha Po Tsuen to Shek
Sheung River”;
·
“Proposed
Residential cum Passive Recreational Development within "Recreation”
(“REC”) Zone and “Residential (Group C)” Zone at Various Lots in DD 104, Yuen
Long, N.T.” (hereafter REC Site EIA);
·
"Comprehensive
Development and Wetland Protection near Yau Mei San Tsuen” (hereafter Yau Mei
Site EIA); and
·
“Residential Development
within R(D) Zone at Various Lots in DD104, Yuen Long, N.T.” (hereafter R(D)
Site EcoIA).
There
was no significant observation in the Assessment Area of the present project
from the EIA studies of “Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage
and Sewage Disposal Stage 2” (EIA-094/2004) and
“Construction of Cycle Tracks and the Associated Supporting Facilities From Sha
Po Tsuen to Shek Sheung River” (EIA-159/2008).
Yau Mei Site is located about 350m
to the north of the present Project. The 500m distance of Yau Mei Site EIA
covered the northern half of the present Assessment Area, including the
urbanized/disturbed habitat of the Project Area. Ecological surveys were conducted between September 2007 and August
2008. Fauna
species of conservation importance recorded in this EIA study included 35 bird
species, 1 reptile species, 2 dragonfly species and 2 butterfly species (Table 8-4).
The bird species of conservation importance were mostly waterbirds
(e.g., Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata,
Yellow Bittern Ixobrychus sinensis). These waterbird species were recorded in a
variety of habitats, e.g., agricultural land, drainage channel, fishpond
habitat (Appendix 8.3 of ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited 2015).
None of these waterbirds, however, was recorded in the abandoned fishpond inside
the Project Area as it fell outside the assessment area of the Yau Mei Site EIA.
Number of waterbird species recorded in other habitat types was
lower. Abundance of two dragonfly
species and two butterfly species of conservation importance recorded in the
surveys were low.
The Project Area of the present
project fell within the assessment area of the REC Site EIA. Ecological surveys
were conducted between January 2009 and July 2009 and between August 2010 and
January 2011. Fauna species of
conservation importance recorded in this EIA study included 2 mammal species,
27 bird species, 2 dragonfly species and 2 butterfly species (Table 8-4).
The bird species of conservation importance were mostly waterbirds
(e.g., Black-faced Spoonbill Platalea
minor, Red-billed Starling Spodiopsar
sericeus). These species were mainly
recorded in grassland/shrubland within the REC Site and fishpond in the
assessment area of this study. Two
dragonfly species and two butterfly species of conservation importance were
recorded in the surveys. Their abundance
were low.
The Project Area of the present
project also fell within the assessment area of the R(D) Site EcoIA. Ecological surveys were conducted between
February and July 2009 and between August 2010 and January 2011. Fauna species of conservation importance
recorded in this EIA study included 26 bird species, 2 dragonfly species and 2
butterfly species (Table 8-4). These species were generally present in low
number.
During the R(D) Site EcoIA, the Ngau
Tam Mei Drainage Channel was found to provide foraging habitats to ardeids in
winter. Food items might be brought in
this channel by tides. High counts of ardeids
were occasionally recorded during dry season. Observations of bird surveys
of the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel conducted for CEDD between 2006 and 2009
were also reviewed in the Yau Mei Site EIA.
Some wetland dependent species and species of conservation importance
(e.g., Little Egret, Great Egret) were recorded in this channel. In the REC Site EIA, the survey results showed that Ngau
Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel supported a number of ardeids, and the counts of
some species were higher in winter: Little Egret (high count of 101 individuals
in January 2009), Grey Heron (80) and Great Egret (65), both recorded in
December 2010, Chinese Pond Heron (five recorded in August 2010) and
Black-faced Spoonbill (up to six recorded in December 2010). Under the approved Comprehensive Development
and Wetland Protection near Yau Mei San Tsuen (EIA 227/2015), a
pre-construction ecological baseline survey is required and is currently
on-going. Birds in the section of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel between Fung
Chuk Road and Castle Peak Road (Tam Mei section) were surveyed, and
observations from this survey between August 2015 and May 2016 provided more
updated information about utilization of this channel by waterbirds. The
recorded species are mainly common in Hong Kong, and included some wetland
dependent species of conservation importance (e.g., Black-faced Spoonbill). The
numbers of each of these waterbird species were not more than 10 individuals
for each survey. Black-faced
Spoonbill was only recorded once during the surveys. Four birds were observed during low tide in
December 2015. The number of waterbirds were higher
in low tide when the channel bed was exposed and provided some foraging
habitats.
Fishponds within WCA which are more or less
continuous and less disturbed are considered of higher ecological value, but
ecological value of ponds to the east of the Ngau Tam Mei Channel,
including the abandoned fishpond within the Project Area, was ranked as “low” in the
REC EIA (Table 8.21 in ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited 2013) and R(D) Site EcoIA
(Table 15 of AEC 2014).
Flight lines of four ardeid species, including Grey
Heron, Great Egret, Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron, were studied between
October and November 2009, and April to June 2011 during the Yau Mei Site
EIA. These ardeid species mainly flew
between the fishponds near Palm Springs and the Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage
Channel, and along the Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel (Appendix 8.4 of
ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited 2015). No
major flight path of these ardeid species above the Project Area of the present
project was identified.
Flight lines of birds were studied in March and
July 2009 during the REC Site EIA. The
number of observations was low. No regular flight between a breeding ground and
a foraging area in ardeid breeding season) and/or between a foraging area and a
roosting site (such as cormorant roost in winter) was observed. The observed birds in flight were mainly over
the Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel and the northern part of the REC Site.
Flight lines of birds were studied in March and
July 2009 during the ecological study for the R(D) Site. Three bird species, including Great
Cormorants, Black-faced Spoonbill and Northern Shoveler, were observed flying
across the Project Area of the present project.
The number of birds of these species observed was low compared to Deep
Bay population. The minimum flight
height across the Project Area was more than 16m, and most of these birds flew
at heights above 24m. The observed
flight heights were all taller than the proposed heights of building in the
Project Area.
Table 8‑4 Fauna Species of Conservation Importance from Previous Studies
|
Fauna |
Yau Mei Site EIA 1 |
REC Site EIA 2 |
R(D) Site EcoIA 3 |
Yau Mei Site On-going
baseline survey |
Local/
Regional/ International Conservation Status 4, 5, 6, 7 |
Commonness
& distribution in Hong Kong |
|
Mammal |
||||||
|
Japanese
Pipistrelle Pipistrells abramus |
|
+ |
|
|
WAPO |
Very
Common, Widely
distributed throughout Hong Kong |
|
Small
Asian Mongoose Herpestes javanicus |
|
+ |
|
|
WAPO |
Uncommon, Fairly
widely distributed in countryside areas in the New Territories |
|
Bird |
||||||
|
Common
Teal Anas crecca |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
WAPO; RC |
Common
winter visitor. Found in Deep Bay area, Shuen Wan, Tai Lam Chung Reservoir,
Victoria Harbour, Urban Park. |
|
Northern
Shoveler Anas clypeata |
+ |
|
|
|
WAPO; RC |
Abundant
winter visitor. Found in Deep Bay area |
|
Little
Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
WAPO; LC |
Common
resident. Found in Deep Bay area. |
|
Black-faced
Spoonbill Platalea minor |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
IUCN: endangered; WAPO; PGC |
Common winter
visitor. Found in Deep Bay area. |
|
Yellow
Bittern Ixobrychus sinensis |
+ |
|
|
|
WAPO; (LC) |
Uncommon
summer visitor and passage migrant. Found in Deep Bay area, Chek Keng, Tai
Long Wan. |
|
Cinnamon
Bittern Ixobrychus cinnamomeus |
+ |
|
|
|
WAPO; LC |
Scarce passage
migrant. Found in Deep Bay area, Tai Long Wan, Tap Mun, Long Valley, Sha Lo
Tung, Mui Wo, and Ma Tso Lung. |
|
Black-crowned
Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
WAPO; (LC) |
Common
resident and winter visitor. Widely distributed in Hong Kong |
|
Striated
Heron Butorides striatus |
+ |
|
|
|
WAPO; (LC) |
Present
all year, locally uncommon in summer and scarce in winter. Widely distributed
in Hong Kong |
|
Chinese
Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
WAPO; PRC
(RC) |
Common
resident. Widely distributed in Hong Kong. |
|
Grey Heron Ardea cinerea |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
WAPO; PRC |
Common
winter visitor. Found in Deep Bay area, Starling Inlet, Kowloon Park, Cape
D'Aguilar. |
|
Purple
Heron Ardea purpurea |
+ |
+ |
|
|
WAPO; RC |
Uncommon
passage migrant. Found in Deep Bay area. |
|
Great
Egret Ardea abla |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
WAPO; PRC
(RC) |
Common
resident and winter visitor. Widely distributed in Hong Kong. |
|
Intermediate
Egret Egretta intermedia |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
WAPO; RC |
Common
passage migrant. Found in Deep Bay area, Tai Long Wan, Starling Inlet, Tai O,
Cape D'Aguilar |
|
Little
Egret Egretta garzetta |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
WAPO; PRC
(RC) |
Common
resident. Widely distributed in coastal area throughout Hong Kong. |
|
Great
Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
WAPO; PRC |
Common winter
visitor. Widely distributed in coastal areas throughout Hong Kong. |
|
Black Kite Milvus migrans |
+ |
|
|
|
WAPO; (RC) |
Common
resident and winter visitor. Widely distributed in Hong Kong. |
|
Black-winged
Stilt Himantopus himantopus |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
WAPO; RC |
Common
passage migrant. Found in Deep Bay area, Long Valley, Kam Tin. |
|
Little
Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
WAPO; (LC) |
Common
winter visitor and passage migrant. Widely distributed in freshwater areas
throughout Hong Kong. |
|
Greater
Painted-snipe Rostratula benghalensis |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
WAPO; LC |
Passage
migrant and winter visitor. Found in Ha Tsuen, Lok Ma Chau, Kam Tin, Long
Valley, Hong Kong Wetland Park |
|
Pintailed/Swinhoe’s
Snipe Gallinago stenura/megala |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
WAPO; LC |
- |
|
Common
Greenshank Tringa nebularia |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
WAPO; RC |
Common
passage migrant and winter visitor. Widely distributed in wetland area
throughout Hong Kong |
|
Wood
Sandpiper Tringa glareola |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
WAPO; LC |
Common
passage migrant and winter visitor. Widely distributed in wetland area
throughout Hong Kong. |
|
Pied
Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta |
|
|
|
+ |
WAPO; RC |
Abundant
winter visitor. Found in Deep Bay area |
|
White-throated
Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
WAPO; (LC) |
Common
resident. Widely distributed in coastal areas throughout Hong Kong |
|
Pied Kingfisher Ceryle rudis |
+ |
|
|
|
WAPO; (LC) |
Uncommon
resident. Widely distributed in lakes and ponds throughout Hong Kong. |
|
Greater
Coucal Centropus sinensis |
|
+ |
+ |
+ |
WAPO; China Red
Data Book: Vulnerable |
Common
resident. Widely distributed in Hong Kong. |
|
Collared
Crow Corvus torquatus |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
IUCN: near-threatened; WAPO; LC |
Uncommon
resident. Found in Inner Deep Bay area, Nam Chung, Kei Ling Ha, Tai Mei Tuk,
Pok Fu Lam, Chek Lap Kok, Shuen Wan, Lam Tsuen. |
|
Chinese
Penduline Tit Remiz consobrinus |
+ |
|
|
|
WAPO; RC |
Common
passage migrant and winter visitor. Found in Deep Bay area, Tai O , Mui Wo,
Long Valley, Luk Keng, Chek Lap Kok |
|
Red-throated
Pipit Anthus cervinus |
|
+ |
+ |
|
WAPO; LC |
Common
passage migrant and winter visitor. Widely distributed in dry agricultural areas
throughout Hong Kong |
|
Pallas’s
Grasshopper Warbler Locustella certhiola |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
WAPO; LC |
Common
autumn passage migrant. Found in wetland areas throughout Hong Kong |
|
Bright-capped
Cisticola Cisticola exilis |
|
+ |
+ |
|
WAPO; LC |
Scarce winter
visitor. Widely distributed in grassland throughout Hong Kong |
|
Zitting
Cisticola Cisticola juncidis |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
WAPO; LC |
Common
passage migrant and winter visitor. Widely distributed in grassland
throughout Hong Kong. |
|
Red-billed
Starling Spodiopsar sericeus |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
WAPO; GC |
Common
winter visitor. Widely distributed in Hong Kong |
|
White-cheeked
Starling Spodiopsar cineraceus |
+ |
|
|
|
WAPO; PRC |
Common
winter visitor. Found in Deep Bay area, Kam Tin, Long Valley |
|
Daurian
Starling Agropsar sturninus |
+ |
|
|
|
WAPO; LC |
Scarce
passage migrant. Found in Mai Po, Long Valley, Kam Tin, Lam Tsuen, Tolo
Harbour area, Kowloon Park, Mui Wo, Ho Chung. |
|
White-shouldered
Starling Sturnia sinensis |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
WAPO; (LC) |
Common passage
migrant. Found in Kam Tin, Deep Bay area, Po Toi Island, Long Valley,
Victoria Park, Ho Chung, Ma Tso Lung, Mui Wo, Lam Tsuen Valley |
|
Bluethroat Luscinia svecica |
+ |
|
|
|
WAPO; LC |
Common
passage migrant and winter visitor. Widely distributed in wet agricultural
areas throughout Hong Kong |
|
Red-throated
Pipit Anthus cervinus |
+ |
|
|
|
WAPO; LC |
Common
passage migrant and winter visitor. Widely distributed in dry agricultural
areas throughout Hong Kong |
|
Chinese
Grosbeak Eophona migratoria |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
WAPO; LC |
Rare winter
visitor. Widely distributed in Hong Kong |
|
Reptile |
||||||
|
Many-banded
Krait |
+ |
|
|
|
China Red
Data Book: Vulnerable PRC |
Widely
distributed in New Territories, Hong Kong Island and Lantau Island. |
|
Butterfly |
||||||
|
Pale Palm
Dart Telicota colon |
|
+ |
+ |
|
LC |
Rare, Widely
distributed in grassland and shrubland throughout Hong Kong |
|
Plain
Hedge Blue Celastrina lavendularis |
+ |
|
|
|
LC |
Very Rare, Tai Po
Kau, Tai Lam Country Park, Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, Ngau Ngak Shan |
|
Danaid
Egg-fly Hypolimnas misippus |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
LC |
Uncommon, Ngau Ngak
Shan, Lung Kwu Tan, Hong Kong Wetland Park, Mount Parker, Cloudy Hill, Lin Ma
Hang |
|
Dragonfly |
||||||
|
Coastal
Glider Macrodiplax cora |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
LC |
Common, Hong Kong
Wetland Park, Kam Tin, Lai Chi Wo, Nim Wan and Luk Keng |
|
Scarlet Basker Urothemis signata |
+ |
+ |
+ |
|
LC |
Common, Common in
areas containing abandoned fish ponds throughout Hong Kong |
1: ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited (2015); 2: ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited
(2013); 3: AEC (2014); 4: AFCD (2015), 5: Wang (1998), 6: Zhao (1998), 7: IUCN
(2015)
LC = local concern, PRC = potential regional concern, RC =
regional concern, GC = global concern; Letters in parentheses indicate that the
assessment is on the basis of restrictedness in breeding and/or roosting sites
rather than in general occurrence (Fellowes et
al,.2002).
The Project Area is composed of a paved car park with
little vegetation cover, an isolated abandoned fishpond, and an area disturbed by
previous earthwork and partially concrete paved. Some young plantations established on the engineering
slope on the northern fringe of the Project Area. A total of 33 plant species were recorded in the Project Area, 20 of
which are exotic species (Appendix 8-1). None of the recorded species was considered
of conservation importance / concern.
Habitats
recorded within the Assessment Area included plantation, agricultural land, grassland/shrubland, fishpond, drainage channel/nullah, and urbanised/disturbed,
(Figures 8-3 & 8-4, Table 8-5). A total of 157 plant species were recorded
within the Assessment
Area.,
107 of which are exotic species (Appendix
8-1). No plant species considered of conservation importance
/ concern was
recorded during the ecological field survey within the Assessment Area.
Table 8‑5 Habitats recorded within the Assessment Area
|
Habitat |
Size (ha) |
Percentage (%) |
Size (ha) |
|
|
Assessment Area |
Project Area |
|
|
Plantation |
4.03 |
3.1 |
0.3 |
|
Agricultural
Land |
3.34 |
2.6 |
- |
|
Grassland/Shrubland |
13.85 |
10.8 |
- |
|
Urbanised/Disturbed |
91.28 |
71.4 |
3.17 |
|
Fishpond |
8.96 |
7.0 |
0.33 |
|
Flood
Storage Pond |
0.82 |
0.6 |
- |
|
Nullah |
1.61 |
1.3 |
- |
|
Drainage
Channel |
3.95 |
3.1 |
- |
|
Total |
127.84 |
100.0 |
3.8 |
Plantation was mainly found on engineered slopes along
the Ngau Tam Mei
Drainage Channel, roadsides and the surrounding of the
Project Area. Major trees recorded were Leucaena leucocephala, Melaleuca quinquenervia, Albizia lebbeck, Lagerstroemia speciosa, and Macaranga
tanarius. The understorey was
planted with amenity shrubs including Hibiscus
rosa-sinensis, Schefflera arboricola,
and Calliandra hematocephala. Forty-two plant species were recorded.
A small area of agricultural land was once found
near the northern boundary of the Assessment
Area. Major
crops were lettuce (Lactuca sativa)
while fruit trees such as longan (Dimocarpus
longan) and papaya (Cairica papaya)
were also seen. However most of these agricultural plots were found abandoned or left fallowed during
later
surveys. Some abandoned agricultural
lands were inundated and
covered with some reeds and other wetland plants during wet season. Twelve plant species were recorded in this habitat.
The urbanised/disturbed area was composed of the existing
residential area, open storage area, villages, highways and roads and was the
dominant habitat in the Assessment
Area.
Ornamental or landscaping species recorded in this habitat included Acacia confusa, Melaleuca quinquenervia, Albizia
lebbeck and Syzygium jambos.
Seventy-four plant species were recorded.
Most drainage channel and nullah were concreted with
little vegetation grown on banks or bottom, and
hence provide very little habitat for floral or faunal utilisation. Most recorded species are
ruderal herbs or weeds such as Panicum
maximum and Conyza canadensis. A few individuals of mangrove species, i.e. Acanthus ilicifolius, colonised on
channel banks. Seventeen plant species were recorded here. The Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel passing through
the Assessment Area had grasscreted banks and in some sections the channel bed
was covered by muddy sediment.
Waterbirds, mostly ardeids, were observed roosting and foraging in
this drainage channel during low tides in winter, mainly at locations of 150m north of the Project Area (see sections on avifauna
below).
Grassland/Shrubland was formed apparently from
abandonment of agricultural land followed by earthwork and possibly also
hydroseeding. This habitat was dominated
by weeds and ruderals while a few isolated trees were also seen. Part of these
grassland/shrubland was inundated and
covered with some reeds during wet season. No plant species of conservation importance was
recorded in the reed stands or the seasonally inundated areas in grassland/shrubland
during the ecological survey of previous study (ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited. 2013).
Two kinds of ponds were recorded in the Assessment
Area: fish ponds and flood storage pond. The fish ponds recorded in both the
Project Area and Assessment Area were found abandoned when the field survey
commenced. Some were overgrown with reeds while others had disturbed bunds and
little vegetation cover. During the verification surveys in 2016, all fishponds in the Assessment Area still found remained abandoned.
The flood storage pond is an engineering pond which was part of the
drainage channel element where surplus water during wet season was stored. The bunds were planted with some ornamental
and native vegetation.
The Project Area is composed of a concrete paved car park
with little vegetation cover and an
isolated abandoned fishpond.
The fishpond in the Project Area appeared to be abandoned for long time, and subjected to disturbance from
the adjacent carpark at least since early 1990’s. Therefore, trash shrimps and fishes, which
are abundant in active fishponds during drain-down for harvesting of commercial
fishes and attracting many waterbirds (Young and Chan 1997), were not available
in the pond within the Project Area.
Fishpond in the Project Area was not drained throughout the whole study
period. In addition, the pond is
surrounded by urbanised/disturbed areas, which are of very high human
disturbance. The pond bunds are steep and could provide little
foraging habitats for wading birds. No aquatic fauna collected by
the baited fish cages deployed
in the abandoned fishpond inside the Project Area. The ecological value of the
fishpond inside the Project Area as foraging habitats of waterbirds is very
limited.
The rest of the Project Area is a paved car park with
limited vegetation cover. The ecological
value of this type as habitat of wildlife is also limited, due to the high disturbance level.
Twelve bird species were
recorded in the Project Area (Appendices 8.2a). Four of
the recorded species are considered of conservation importance, including
Little Grebe, Grey Heron, Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron (Table 8‑6). Abundance of these waterbird species were
present in the Project Area in very low abundance, which accounted for
insignificant proportion of Deep Bay population. These species were also found in other areas
within the Assessment Area. The
other bird species recorded in the Project Area are common in Hong Kong, and
are typical of disturbed areas (e.g., Chinese Bulbul, Eurasian Tree Sparrow).
Most of the Assessment Area is Urbanised/Disturbed, which is subjected to very high human
disturbance level and with very little vegetation. Other habitats within the Assessment Area (e.g., plantation, fish pond) were mostly
fragmented and small in size. Fauna
recorded in the Assessment Area were mostly disturbance tolerant
species.
A total of 69
bird species were recorded in the Assessment Area (Appendix 8.2a). Species
richness was considered low in plantation, urbanised/disturbed,
grassland/shrubland, pond (fishpond and flood storage pond) and channel/nullah, and low to
moderate in agricultural
land within the Assessment Area. Bird
abundance were low in plantation, agricultural land (active and abandoned),
urbanised/disturbed, wasteland, pond (fishpond and flood storage pond) within
the Assessment Area. Bird abundance was
moderate in drainage channel/nullah.
Twenty
bird species recorded in the Assessment Area were considered of conservation importance (Table 8-6)
(Figure 8-3). These species of conservation importance
included Little Grebe Tachybaptus
ruficollis, Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax
carbo, Grey Heron Ardea cinerea,
Purple Heron Ardea purpurea, Chinese
Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus,
Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax
nycticorax, Little Egret Egretta
garzetta, Eastern Cattle Egret Bubulcus
coromandus, Great Egret Ardea alba,
Black-faced Spoonbill Platalea minor,
Black Kite Milvus migrans, Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus, Eastern Buzzard Buteo japonicus, Little ringed Plover Charadrius dubius, Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola,
Common Redshank Tringa totanus, Greater Coucal Centropus sinensis, White-throated
Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis,
Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis
and Collared Crow Corvus torquatus.
Single Little Grebes were recorded in the abandoned
fishponds within Project Area. No sign
of breeding was observed in this pond.
This species was also recorded in fishponds outside the Project Area in
the Assessment Area.
Great Cormorants were recorded outside the Project
Area. All observed birds flew over the
drainage channel passing through the Assessment Area.
Seven ardeid
species of conservation importance were recorded within the Assessment
Area. These ardeids were recorded in
fishponds, flood storage pond and drainage channel in the Assessment Area. Flocks of 50 Little Egrets and 20 Great
Egrets were recorded in the section of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel at 150m north
of the Project Area with some emergent plants during low tide in a survey in
January 2010. Apart from this
observation, abundance of ardeids observed in the Assessment Area was generally
not high. The number of foraging
ardeids observed within
the Assessment Area during peak breeding season of
ardeids (April to July) was very low (<
10 birds). This
showed that utilization of the wetland habitats within the Assessment Area as
foraging habitats by breeding ardeids was low.
Black-faced Spoonbills were once observed foraging
in the same section of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel during low tide in
December 2015. The number of birds (2
birds) observed was also low.
Three species
of raptors of conservation importance, Black
Kite, Eastern
Buzzard and Common Kestrel, were recorded within the Assessment
Area. Black
Kites were recorded in soaring above urbanised/disturbed and fishpond. Common Kestrel was
observed foraging in active agricultural land. Eastern Buzzards were observed soaring above urbanised/disturbed,
grassland/shrubland and fishpond outside the Project Area.
Three species
of waders of conservation importance were recorded within the Assessment Area.
These were Little Ringed Plover, Wood Sandpiper and Common Redshank. All were recorded in drained fishponds within
the Assessment Area, and were present in low abundance. The other species of conservation importance,
including Greater Coucal, White-throated Kingfisher, Zitting Cisticola and
Collared Crow, were present in low abundance within the Assessment Area.
Table 8‑6 Bird
species of conservation importance
|
Common names & Scientific
names |
Project Area |
Assessment Area (excluding Project Area) |
Commonness in Hong Kong 1 |
Local/
regional/ international Protection
and Conservation Status 1, 2, 3, 4 |
||||
|
No.
of surveys with records* |
Mean
no. ** |
Max
no. |
No.
of surveys with records * |
Mean
no. ** |
Max no. |
|||
|
Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis |
4 |
0.16 |
2 |
8 |
0.33 |
2 |
Common resident. Found in Deep Bay area |
WAPO (Cap 170); LC |
|
Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo |
- |
- |
- |
8 |
0.33 |
2 |
Common winter visitor. Widely distributed in coastal areas throughout
Hong Kong |
WAPO (Cap 170); PRC |
|
Grey Heron Ardea cinerea |
1 |
0.08 |
2 |
10 |
0.67 |
7 |
Common winter visitor. Found in Deep Bay area, Starling Inlet, Kowloon
Park, Cape D'Aguilar |
WAPO (Cap 170); PRC |
|
Purple Heron Ardea purpurea |
- |
- |
- |
2 |
0.08 |
1 |
Uncommon passage migrant. Found in Deep Bay area |
WAPO (Cap 170); RC |
|
Chinese Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus |
1 |
0.04 |
1 |
10 |
1.21 |
8 |
Common resident. Widely distributed in Hong Kong |
WAPO (Cap 170); PRC, (RC) |
|
Black-crowned Night
Heron Nycticorax nycticorax |
- |
- |
- |
6 |
0.33 |
2 |
Common resident and winter visitor. Widely distributed in Hong Kong |
WAPO (Cap 170); (LC) |
|
Little Egret Egretta garzetta |
2 |
0.08 |
1 |
22 |
3.63 |
50 |
Common resident. Widely distributed in coastal area throughout Hong
Kong |
WAPO (Cap 170); PRC, (RC) |
|
Eastern Cattle Egret Bubulcus coromandus |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
1.00 |
13 |
Resident and common passage migrant. Widely distributed in Hong Kong |
WAPO (Cap 170); (LC) |
|
Great Egret Ardea alba |
- |
- |
- |
12 |
1.71 |
20 |
Common resident and winter visitor. Widely distributed in Hong Kong |
WAPO (Cap 170); PRC, (RC) |
|
Black-faced Spoonbill Platalea minor |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
0.08 |
2 |
Common winter visitor. Found in Deep Bay area |
WAPO (Cap 170); IUCN Red List: Endangered; China Red Data Book: Endangered; PGC |
|
Black Kite Milvus migrans |
- |
- |
- |
8 |
0.33 |
1 |
Common resident and winter visitor. Widely distributed in Hong Kong |
WAPO (Cap 170); Class 2 Protected Animal of China; Appendix 2 of CITES; (RC) |
|
Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
0.04 |
1 |
Common autumn migrant and winter visitor. Widely distributed in Hong
Kong |
WAPO (Cap 170); Class 2 Protected Animal of China; Appendix 2 of CITES |
|
Eastern Buzzard Buteo japonicus |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
0.13 |
1 |
Common winter visitor. Widely distributed in Hong Kong |
WAPO (Cap 170); Class 2 Protected Animal of China; Appendix 2 of CITES |
|
Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
0.13 |
3 |
Common winter visitor and passage migrant. Widely distributed in
freshwater areas throughout Hong Kong |
WAPO (Cap 170); (LC) |
|
Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola |
- |
- |
- |
3 |
0.13 |
1 |
Common passage migrant and winter visitor. Widely distributed in
wetland area throughout Hong Kong |
WAPO (Cap 170); RC |
|
Common Redshank Tringa totanus |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
0.13 |
3 |
Common passage migrant. Found in Deep Bay area |
WAPO (Cap 170); RC |
|
Greater Coucal Centropus sinensis |
- |
- |
- |
2 |
0.08 |
1 |
Common resident. Widely distributed in Hong Kong |
WAPO (Cap 170); Class 2 Protected Animal of China; China Red Data Book: vulnerable |
|
White-throated
Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis |
- |
- |
- |
2 |
0.08 |
1 |
Common resident. Widely distributed in coastal areas throughout Hong
Kong |
WAPO (Cap 170); (LC) |
|
Zitting Cisticola Cisticola juncidis |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
0.04 |
1 |
Common passage migrant and winter visitor. Widely distributed in
grassland throughout Hong Kong |
WAPO (Cap 170); LC |
|
Collared Crow Corvus torquatus |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
0.08 |
2 |
Uncommon resident. Found in Inner Deep Bay area, Nam Chung, Kei Ling
Ha, Tai Mei Tuk, Pok Fu Lam, Chek lap Kok, Shuen Wan, Lam Tsuen |
IUCN: near-threatened; WAPO (Cap 170); LC |
1: AFCD
(2015), 2: Wang (1998), 3: Zhao (1998), 4: IUCN (2015).
Level of
concern: LC = local concern, PRC = potential regional concern, RC = regional concern,
GC = global concern; Letters in parentheses indicate that the assessment is on
the basis of restrictedness in breeding and/or roosting sites rather than in
general occurrence (Fellowes et al,.2002).
* Number
of surveys with record of the respective species.
** The mean count was number of individuals per total
number of surveys.
Twenty-nine species of birds were observed flying
above the Assessment Area (Appendix
8.2b). No major flight line was
observed over the Project Area. Very few birds (2.4% of total observed) flew
across the Project Area as it and the surroundings were mainly
urbanized/disturbed area.
Large waterbirds are
considered of lower flight maneuverability and hence will be
more vulnerable to barrier to flight. Large waterbird species observed flying in
the Assessment Area included Little Egret, Great Egret, Grey Heron,
Black-crowned Night Heron, Chinese Pond Heron, Eastern Cattle Egret and Great
Cormorant (Table 8‑7). The flight heights of
these large waterbird species ranged
between 15 and 34m above
ground (see Table 8‑7), with a mean of 22m. These
species were mainly flying along the drainage channel within the Assessment
Area. Only Chinese Pond Heron (31m)
and Little Egret (27m, 32m) were observed flying across the Project Area during
the surveys and the abundance was very low.
Other bird
species (e.g., Crested Myna Acridotheres
cristatellus, Common Magpie Pica pica)
observed within the Assessment Area mainly flew to-and-fro the agricultural
lands in the northern side of the Assessment Area.
Table 8‑7 Summary
of Flight Observations of Large Waterbirds
|
Height
Interval (m) |
Project Area (no. of birds) |
Assessment Area (no. of birds) |
|
0-10 |
0 |
0 |
|
10-20 |
0 |
20 |
|
20-30 |
1 |
55 |
|
30-40 |
2 |
55 |
|
>40 |
0 |
0 |
Butterfly and dragonfly
Nine species of butterfly were recorded in the Project Area
(Appendix 8.3). All recorded species are very
common or common in Hong Kong, and were present in low abundance. None of the recorded species was considered
of conservation importance. The low
diversity of butterfly in the Project Area was related to high disturbance
level, low vegetation cover and dominated by exotic plant species.
Thirty-one species of butterfly were recorded in the
Assessment Area (Appendix 8.3). Apart
from Common Sergeant Athyma perius, all
are common in Hong Kong (Chan et al. 2011).
Common Sergeant is uncommon in Hong Kong. No butterfly species recorded was considered
of conservation importance. Abundance
and species richness of butterflies were low in all types of habitats within
the Assessment Area.
The low diversity of butterfly within the Assessment Area
was due to low vegetation coverage and diversity.
Five species of dragonfly were recorded in the Project Area
(Appendix 8.4). All recorded species are common or abundant
in Hong Kong.
A total of 16 species
of dragonfly were recorded
in the Assessment Area (Appendix 8.4).
All are common in Hong Kong (Tam et al. 2011). Abundance and
species richness of dragonflies were very low in all types of habitats within the Assessment Area. The low
diversity of dragonfly within the Assessment
Area was due to paucity of optimal freshwater habitat. Drainage channel and nullah within the Assessment
Area were of poor water quality. The
presence of fish in fishponds and flood storage ponds limited the uses as
breeding habitats by dragonflies.
Herpetofauna
Two species of reptiles were recorded in the Project Area
(Appendix 8.5). Both species are common in Hong Kong.
Six species of
reptiles were recorded in the Assessment
Area (Appendix 8.5).
These were Chinese Gecko Gekko chinensis, Bowring’s Gecko Hemidactylus
bowringii, Changeable Lizard Calotes versicolor, Chinese Skink Eumeces
chinensis, Long-tailed Skink Mabuya longicaudata and King Cobra Ophiophagus
hannah. All except King Cobra are
common in Hong Kong, and occur in many types of habitats (Karsen et al. 1998).
King Cobra is
widespread but uncommon in Hong Kong (Chan et al. 2006). This species occurs in many types of
habitats, e.g., grassland, shrubland.
King Cobra is listed in Appendix 2 of CITES, considered “vulnerable” by IUCN Red List and ranked “critically endangered” by
China Red Data Book (Chan et al.
2006). This species was recorded in
grassland/shrubland within the Assessment Area.
Two species of amphibians were recorded in the Project Area
(Appendix 8.5). Both species are common in Hong Kong. These
species were recorded in very low abundance.
The low number of amphibian species recorded was related to the
isolation and high level of disturbance level.
Five species of
amphibians were recorded within the Assessment
Area (Appendix 8.5). These were
Asian Common Toad Bufo melanostictus, Gunther’s Frog Rana guentheri,
Asiatic Painted Frog Kaloula pulchra, Paddy
Frog Fejervarga limnocharis and
Brown Tree Frog Polypedates megacephalus. All are common in Hong Kong (Chan et al.
2005).
Mammal
Two species of mammals were recorded in the Project Area
(Appendix 8.5). Four species of
mammals were recorded within the Assessment Area (Appendix 8.5). Apart from Japanese Pipistrelle, none of
these species was considered of conservation importance. Japanese Pipistrelles Pipistrellus abramus is considered of conservation importance. Japanese Pipistrelles were sighted all
over the Assessment Area (Appendix 8.5).
This species is common in Hong Kong and occurs in many types of habitats
(Shek 2006). All bats are protected
under WAPO in Hong Kong. The other mammal species (e.g., Brown Rat Rattus norvegicus) recorded within the
Assessment Area are considered of low conservation importance. No medium-sized mammal was recorded in the Assessment
Area during the surveys. This was due to the high level of disturbance
and isolation from natural habitats.
There was no
aquatic fauna collected by the baited fish
cages deployed in the
abandoned fishpond inside the Project Area. Only Tilapia were recorded in the
pond within the Project Area. Tilapia
and Mullet Mugil cephalus were
observed in the nullah and drainage channel within the Assessment Area.
Mullet is often found in estuarine
areas and coastal waters. They could
move between the brackish water and the seawater. Tilapia is also common in brackish waters, freshwater
ponds as well as ditches throughout Hong Kong.
Both species are considered of low conservation importance.
The Project Area is outside both WBA and WCA under the
TPB Guidelines (TPB PG-No. 12C) (see Section 8.5.1). The
Project Site is zoned as “Residential
(Group D)” [“R(D)”] on the approved Outline Zoning Plan, so the Project Site is
planned for residential development with planning permission. As
discussed in Section 2.2, pond filling in the development zone “R(D)” was approved in the previous planning application
no. A/YL-MP/170 in year 2010.
Nevertheless,
the ecological conditions prior to pond filling was investigated based on best
available information such as historic aerial photos and previous published
documents. Fishponds in the Deep Bay region were mainly
converted from rice fields since the mid 1960s (Irving and Morton 1988).
As revealed from the past aerial photos, there were previously two ponds within
the Project Area, which were basically intact in 1999. When the Study Brief of
this Project was issued in 2009, there was only one pond within the Project
Site. The existing abandoned pond within the Project Area was partially
filled in 2009. Filling might occur between 2009 and 2010.
Aerial photos were reviewed
to identify any changes of potential ecological value of the Project Area and
the surrounding areas as waterbird habitats. Pond-filling, in fact,
would only affect the ecological characteristic of the ponds within the Project
Area. The effect would be localized and had no effect on the other
habitats within the Assessment Area, particularly because the abandoned pond in
the Project Area was isolated from other wetland habitats and surrounded by
urbanised disturbed habitats for long time and before filling occurred. The ecological profile prior to pond filling was
also evaluated by reviewing previous EIA studies listed as following, which
have also covered the Assessment Area in general:
·
Environmental Impact
Assessment for the Main Drainage Channels for Ngau Tam Mei, Yuen Long and Kam
Tin (EIA-052/BC) (ERM 1996) (survey period: from December 1994 to January 1995);
·
Yuen
Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Stage 2 (AEIAR-078/2004) (survey
period: from July 2002 to January 2003); and
·
Construction
of Cycle Tracks and the Associated Supporting Facilities From Sha Po Tsuen to
Shek Sheung River” (AEIAR-133/2009) for any significant record from these two
ponds (survey period: from November 2006 to April 2007).
The two ponds in the
Project Area were located near Chuk Yuen Tsuen. These two ponds were
already isolated from the continuous and contiguous Deep Bay wetland
system in 1990. According to previous EIA study (ERM 1996), fishponds in
the vicinity of Chuk Yuen Tsuen and Ha San Wai (probably included the two ponds in the
Project Area) were ranked as “Grade C” ponds as per the AFD fishpond
classification. The classification criteria of Grade C ponds were “Areas
with scattered small fish ponds and substantial amount of fishponds are either
idle or filled. They are subject to high development pressure due to its
proximity to developments”. In general, small, scattered ponds located
near developments would be subject to higher level of disturbance, which would
discourage the utilisation by large waterbirds. Hence, the two
ponds in the Project Area were unlikely important foraging habitats for large
waterbirds at that time.
In addition to the
above-mentioned EIA study, the assessment areas of the EIA studies of “Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and
Sewage Disposal Stage 2” and “Construction of Cycle Tracks
and the Associated Supporting Facilities From Sha Po Tsuen to
Shek Sheung River” also covers the existing abandoned fishpond within their Project
Area. The ecological surveys of both previous EIA studies were conducted
before filling of the existing abandoned
fishpond occurred. There
was nil
observation of significant ecological value at this abandoned fishpond (i.e. no species of conservation
importance recorded) in these previous EIA studies. Ecological value of the subject abandoned fishpond was assessed as low in the EIA report for
the sewerage project above.
Based on the current
ecological survey results presented in Section 8.6.2, utilisation of this abandoned fishpond by
waterbirds was found very low although some waterbirds were recorded at this
abandoned pond. This abandoned pond was unlikely their key foraging habitats
since they were also found in other areas within the Assessment Area in
particular Ngau Tam Mei Channel in higher numbers. Relatively, the abundance of
waterbird species recorded in the Project Area were very low, which accounted
for insignificant proportion of Deep Bay population (Section 8.6.2 refers). Previous EIA studies and the survey
findings of this project did not indicate that this pond was important habitats
for ardeids. Given the abandoned
fishpond within the project area is small, isolated and subject to disturbance
due to heavy traffic movement of the adjacent car park for a long time, its
potential as foraging habitat for waterbirds is considered very low even before filling occurred. The ecological
profile established from literature review and ecological surveys, which also
reflects the condition prior to pond-filling within the Project Area, is then
used for the ecological assessment of this Project as described in following
paragraphs.
The ecological importance of the habitats within the Project Area (Table 8‑8) and Assessment Area was evaluated in accordance with
the criteria stipulated in Annex 8 of EIAO-TM (Table 8‑9 to Table 8‑14).
In accordance with Table 3, Annex 8 of the EIAO-TM,
the ecological value of species was assessed in terms of protection status
(e.g. fauna protected under WAPO (except birds), and flora and fauna protected
under regional/global legislation/conventions), species distribution (e.g.
endemic), and rarity (e.g. rare or restricted).
The list and evaluation of faunal
species of conservation importance recorded within the Assessment Area,
according to the EIAO-TM, are given in Table 8‑15.
The Project Area of the present
project, however, is mainly covered by urbanized/disturbed habitat, which is
not important habitats of these waterbird species. The single isolated abandoned fishpond within
the Project Area is also not considered important habitat to these species due
to the isolation and the high disturbance level from the surrounding areas
(e.g., car park in the Project Area).
Table 8‑8 Evaluation
of Plantation Habitat within the Assessment Area
|
Criterion |
Description |
||
|
Urbanised/disturbed |
Plantation |
Abandoned Fishpond |
|
|
Naturalness |
Man-made habitat |
Man-made (planted). |
Man-made habitat |
|
Size |
3.17
ha |
0.3 ha |
0.33 ha |
|
Diversity |
Low flora diversity. Low diversity of butterfly, low diversity
of bird, and very low diversity of dragonfly. |
Low flora diversity. Low diversity of butterfly, bird, and very
low diversity of dragonfly. |
Low flora diversity. Low diversity of butterfly and bird, and
very low diversity of dragonfly. |
|
Rarity |
None for flora Fauna species of conservation importance:
Japanese Pipistrelle and Chinese Pond Heron (flew over the Project Area
without landing) |
No flora
or fauna
species of conservation importance |
None for flora. Fauna
species of conservation importance: Little Grebe, Chinese Pond Heron, Little
Egret, Grey Heron |
|
Re-creatability |
Easy to recreate |
Easy to recreate |
Easy to recreate |
|
Fragmentation |
None |
Formed thin belts on engineered
slopes |
Isolated
from other continuous wetland ecosystem of Deep Bay. |
|
Ecological linkage |
Not functionally linked to
habitats of conservation importance |
Not functionally linked to
habitats of conservation importance |
Not functionally linked to
habitats of conservation importance |
|
Potential value |
Low |
Low
due to small footprint and regular maintenance |
Very
low due to isolation, small size and subject to high level of disturbance. |
|
Nursery/breeding ground |
No
significant record. |
No significant records. |
No
significant record. |
|
Age |
N/A |
Young |
N/A |
|
Abundance/richness of wildlife |
Low for butterfly and bird, very
low for dragonfly. |
Low for butterfly and bird, and
very low for dragonfly |
Low for butterfly and bird, very
low for dragonfly. |
|
Overall ecological value |
Very Low |
Very Low |
Very Low |
Habitats
within the Assessment Area are mostly of low ecological value, dominated by
Urbanised/disturbed.
The Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel
located to the west of the Project Area might provide some foraging habitats to
these species (e.g., Black-faced Spoonbill, Little Egret) during low tides.
Previous EIA studies also indicated that the channel might be used by wintering
waterbirds during low tides.
In the R(D) Site EcoIA and the REC
Site EIA, the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel was found to provide foraging
habitats to ardeids, in particular in winter.
But their numbers were considered very small in the
context of Deep Bay.
Fishponds within WCA which are more or less
continuous and less disturbed are considered of higher ecological value, but
ecological value of ponds to the east of the Ngau Tam Mei Channel, including
the abandoned fishpond within the Project Area, was ranked as “low” in the REC
EIA (Table 8.21 in ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited 2013) and R(D) Site EcoIA (Table
15 of AEC 2014).
Table 8‑9 Evaluation
of Plantation Habitat within the Assessment Area
|
Criterion |
Description |
|
Naturalness |
Man-made (planted). |
|
Size |
A total of 4.03
ha |
|
Diversity |
Low flora diversity.
Low diversity of butterfly, bird, and very low diversity of dragonfly. |
|
Rarity |
None for flora. Fauna species of conservation
importance: Japanese Pipistrelle |
|
Re-creatability |
Easy to recreate |
|
Fragmentation |
Formed thin belts on engineered slopes |
|
Ecological linkage |
Not functionally linked to habitats of conservation
importance |
|
Potential value |
Low due to small footprint and subjected to high level of disturbance from traffic |
|
Nursery/breeding ground |
No significant records.
Value as breeding habitat for terrestrial fauna is low due to sparse
canopy and exotic tree species composition, and subjected to high level of
disturbance from traffic. |
|
Age |
Young |
|
Abundance/richness of wildlife |
Low for butterfly and bird, and very low for dragonfly |
|
Overall ecological value |
Very Low |
Table 8‑10 Evaluation
of Agricultural Land within the Assessment Area
|
Criterion |
Description |
|
Naturalness |
Man-made habitat,
mostly left fallow/abandoned |
|
Size |
3.34 ha |
|
Diversity |
Low flora diversity.
Low to moderate diversity
of bird, low diversity of
butterfly and very low diversity of dragonfly. |
|
Rarity |
None for flora. Fauna species of conservation
importance: Japanese Pipistrelle, Common Kestrel and White-throated Kingfisher and Collared Crow |
|
Re-creatability |
Easy to re-create |
|
Fragmentation |
Isolated stand |
|
Ecological linkage |
Not functionally linked to habitats of conservation
importance |
|
Potential value |
Limited. |
|
Nursery/breeding ground |
No significant record. Minimal
due to high level of disturbance from intensive management |
|
Age |
N/A |
|
Abundance/richness of wildlife |
Low for butterfly and bird, and very low dragonfly
abundance |
|
Overall ecological value |
Low to
moderate |
Table 8‑11 Evaluation
of Urbanised/Disturbed Habitat within the Assessment Area
|
Criterion |
Description |
|
Naturalness |
Man-made habitat |
|
Size |
91.28 ha |
|
Diversity |
Low flora diversity.
Low to moderate diversity of butterfly, low diversity of bird, and
very low diversity of dragonfly. |
|
Rarity |
None for
flora. Fauna species of conservation
importance: Japanese Pipistrelle, Little Egret, Chinese Pond Heron, Zitting Cisticola and Greater
Coucal |
|
Re-creatability |
Easy to recreate |
|
Fragmentation |
None |
|
Ecological linkage |
Not functionally linked to habitats of conservation
importance |
|
Potential value |
Low |
|
Nursery/breeding ground |
No significant record. Minimal
due to high level of disturbance |
|
Age |
N/A |
|
Abundance/richness of wildlife |
Low for butterfly and bird, very low for dragonfly. |
|
Overall ecological value |
Very Low |
Table 8‑12 Evaluation
of Grassland/Shrubland within the Assessment Area
|
Criterion |
Description |
|
Naturalness |
Man-made habitat,
with earthwork and possibly hydroseeded after abandonment of agriculture |
|
Size |
13.85 ha |
|
Diversity |
Low flora diversity.
Low diversity of butterfly and bird, and very low diversity of
dragonflies.’ |
|
Rarity |
None for
flora; Fauna species of conservation
importance: Japanese Pipistrelle, Chinese Pond Heron, Black-crowned Night Heron, Little Egret, Black
Kite and King Cobra |
|
Re-creatability |
Easy to recreate |
|
Fragmentation |
None |
|
Ecological linkage |
Not functionally linked to habitats of conservation
importance |
|
Potential value |
Low |
|
Nursery/breeding ground |
No significant record. Minimal
as nursey/breeding ground due to high level of disturbance |
|
Age |
N/A |
|
Abundance/richness
of wildlife |
Low for butterfly and bird, and very low for dragonfly. |
|
Overall ecological value |
Low to
moderate |
Table 8‑13 Evaluation
of Pond (Fish Pond and Flood Storage Pond) within the Assessment Area
|
Criterion |
Description |
|
Naturalness |
Man-made habitat |
|
Size |
8.96 ha (abandoned fish pond), 0.82 ha (flood storage pond) |
|
Diversity |
Low flora diversity.
Low diversity of butterfly and bird, and very low diversity of
dragonfly. |
|
Rarity |
None for
flora. Fauna species of conservation importance:
Japanese Pipistrelle, Little Grebe, Chinese Pond Heron, Black-crowned Night Heron, Purple Heron, Little Egret, Great Egret, Eastern Buzzard, Little Ringed Plover, Wood Sandpiper, Common
Redshank, Black Kite and Greater Coucal |
|
Re-creatability |
Easy to recreate |
|
Fragmentation |
The fishpond within the Project
Area is isolated from other wetland habitats.
Fishponds in the southern corner of the Assessment Area exist as a
fairly large patch |
|
Ecological linkage |
The fishpond within the Project
Area and those to the east of the Project Area are not
functionally linked to habitats of conservation importance. Some of the fishponds in the
southern corner of the Assessment Area fall within WBA. |
|
Potential value |
Very low for the fishpond in the Project Area and those
to the east of the Project Area due to isolation, small size and subject to
high level of disturbance. Low to moderate for those
fishponds in the south corner of the Assessment Area due to larger size and
located within/close to WBA |
|
Nursery/breeding ground |
No significant record. Minimal
for the fishpond in the Project Area as
nursey/breeding ground due to subjected to high level of disturbance. The abandoned fishponds in the south corner of
the Assessment Area might provide breeding habitats for birds, amphibians and
dragonflies. |
|
Age |
N/A |
|
Abundance/richness of wildlife |
Low for butterfly and bird, very low for dragonfly. |
|
Overall ecological value |
Very Low for the fishpond in the Project Area and those to
the east of the Project Area. Low to
moderate for Flood Storage Pond. Low to moderate for those
fishponds in the south corner of the Assessment Area. |
Table 8‑14 Evaluation
of Drainage Channel/Nullah within the Assessment Area
|
Criterion |
Description |
|
Naturalness |
Man-made, with concrete bank
and bottom |
|
Size |
1755 m, 3.95ha (Drainage channel), 2283 m, 1.61ha (nullah) |
|
Diversity |
Low flora diversity.
Low diversity of bird and butterfly, very low diversity of
dragonflies. |
|
Rarity |
Fauna species of conservation
importance: Japanese Pipistrelle, Great Cormorant, Grey Heron, Chinese Pond Heron, Little Egret, Eastern
Cattle Egret, Great Egret, Black-faced Spoonbill, Black Kite. |
|
Re-creatability |
Easy to recreate |
|
Fragmentation |
The Ngau Tam Mei
Main Drainage Channel is
connected to the Kam Tin River Channel.
Other drainage channel/nullahs are fragmented by urbanised/disturbed
habitats |
|
Ecological linkage |
Hydrological
linked to Inner Deep Bay |
|
Potential value |
Low due to the main function for flood control, surrounded by
urbanised/disturbed habitats. The Ngau Tam Mei
Main Drainage Channel could
provide foraging and roosting habitats for some water birds |
|
Nursery/breeding ground |
No significant record. Minimal
as nursey/breeding ground due to subjected to high level of disturbance and low habitat complexity |
|
Age |
N/A |
|
Abundance/richness of wildlife |
Low aquatic
fauna abundance. Moderate for bird,
low for butterfly and very low for dragonfly. |
|
Overall ecological value |
Moderate for the Ngau
Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel Low for other drainage
channel/nullah |
From both literatures and field survey
results, three species of butterfly, two species of dragonfly, two specie of
mammal and forty-one species of avifauna, mostly waterbirds, were considered of
conservation importance.
Table 8‑15 Evaluation
of faunal species of conservation importance within the Assessment Area
|
Common name |
Locations |
Protection
status |
Distribution |
Rarity |
|
Japanese Pipistrelle |
Seen in all types of habitats within Project Area and
Assessment Area |
WAPO (Cap 170) |
Widespread |
Very common in Hong Kong |
|
Little Grebe |
Recorded in fishpond within the
Project Area and Assessment Area Recorded in very low abundance
in the abandoned fishpond in the Project Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); LC |
Mainly found in Deep Bay area |
Common in Hong Kong |
|
Great Cormorant |
Flying above drainage channel
outside the Project Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); PRC |
Mainly found in Deep Bay area |
Common in Hong
Kong |
|
Grey Heron |
Roosting in
grassland/shrubland, fishpond, flood storage pond and drainage channel
outside the Project Area Recorded in very low abundance
in the abandoned fishpond in very low numbers |
WAPO (Cap 170); PRC |
Mainly found in Deep Bay area |
Common in Hong
Kong |
|
Purple Heron |
Recorded in fishpond outside
the Project Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); Level of Concern: RC |
Found in Deep Bay area |
Uncommon passage migrant |
|
Chinese Pond Heron |
Mainly found in areas with
emergent plants in drainage channel, also found in fishpond, grassland/
shrubland and flood storage pond outside the Project Area; Recorded in very low numbers in
the abandoned fishpond in the Project Area; One bird flew over the Project
Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); PRC, (RC) |
Widespread |
Common in Hong
Kong |
|
Black-crowned Night Heron |
Single birds found in
grassland/ shrubland and fishpond outside the Project Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); (LC) |
Mainly found in low lying
wetlands and coastal areas with mangroves |
Common in Hong
Kong |
|
Little Egret |
Found in areas with emergent
plants in drainage channel, also found in urbanized/disturbed, grassland/
shrubland, flood storage pond and fish pond outside the Project Area; Recorded in the abandoned
fishpond in the Project Area in very low numbers, two birds observed flew
across the Project Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); PRC, (RC) |
Widespread |
Common in Hong
Kong |
|
Eastern Cattle
Egret |
Found in drainage channel and
agricultural land outside the Project Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); (LC) |
Widespread |
Common in Hong
Kong |
|
Great Egret |
Mainly found in areas with
emergent plants in drainage channel, also found in grassland/ shrubland and
flood storage pond outside the Project Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); PRC, (RC) |
Mainly found in Deep Bay area |
Common in Hong
Kong |
|
Black-faced Spoonbill |
Two birds foraging in section of Ngau Tam Mei drainage
channel near Yau Mei San Tsuen outside
the Project during low tide |
WAPO (Cap 170); IUCN Red List:
Endangered; China Red Data Book:
Endangered; Level of Concern: PGC |
Found in Deep Bay area |
Common winter visitor |
|
Black Kite |
Soaring above urbanized/disturbed
and fishpond outside the Project
Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); Appendix 2 of CITES; Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC |
Widespread |
Common in Hong Kong |
|
Eastern Buzzard |
Soaring above urbanized/disturbed,
grassland/shrubland and fishpond outside
the Project Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); Appendix 2 of CITES; Class 2 Protected Animal
of PRC |
Widespread |
Common winter visitor |
|
Common Kestrel |
Single birds foraging
in agricultural land outside
the Project Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); Appendix 2 of CITES; Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC |
Widespread |
Common in Hong Kong |
|
Little Ringed Plover |
Three birds were recorded in
drained fishpond outside the Project Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); (LC) |
Widespread |
Common in Hong
Kong |
|
Wood Sandpiper |
Three birds were recorded in
drained fishpond outside the Project Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); RC |
Widespread |
Common in Hong
Kong |
|
Common Redshank |
Three birds were recorded in
drained fishpond outside the Project Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); RC |
Mainly found in Deep Bay area |
Common in Hong
Kong |
|
Greater Coucal |
Found in grassland/ shrubland and
fishpond habitat outside the Project
Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); Appendix 2 of CITES; Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC; China Red Data Book: Vulnerable |
Widespread |
Common in Hong Kong |
|
White-throated Kingfisher |
Recorded in agricultural land
outside the Project Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); (LC) |
Mainly found in coastal mudflat
and mangroves, also seen in inland fishponds, wet agricultural areas |
Common in Hong
Kong |
|
Zitting Cisticola |
One bird was recorded in
urbanized/disturbed outside the Project Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); LC |
Found in open areas with long
grasses |
Uncommon in Hong Kong |
|
Collared Crow |
One bird was recorded in
agricultural land outside the Project Area |
WAPO (Cap 170); LC IUCN Red List: Near threatened |
Usually found near coastal
areas |
Uncommon in
Hong Kong |
|
King Cobra |
One individual found
in grassland/ shrubland outside the Project Area |
Appendix 2 of CITES; IUCN Red List: Vulnerable China Red
Data Book: Critically endangered |
Widespread |
Uncommon in Hong Kong |
1: AFCD (2015), 2: Wang (1998), 3:
Zhao (1998), 4: IUCN (2015)
Remark: Level of
concern: LC = local concern, PRC =
potential regional concern, RC = regional concern, GC = global concern; Letters
in parentheses indicate that the assessment is on the basis of restrictedness
in breeding and/or roosting sites rather than in general occurrence (Fellowes et al,.2002).
The extent of the
Project Area is shown in Figure 8-1, while the master layout plan of the proposed
residential development is the Recommended Layout Option shown in Figure 2-7 of Chapter 2.
The potential terrestrial and aquatic ecological impacts arising from
the construction works, including loss of habitats, removal of vegetation, and
disturbance to wildlife, were assessed in accordance with Annexes 8 and 16 of
the EIAO-TM.
Direct
Impact due to Habitat Loss
The
Project Area is located outside WBA and of 520m from WCA. There
will be no encroachment to the fishponds and wetlands within the WCA, or influence on
the planning intentions of the WBA on protecting the ecological integrity of
WCA.
Loss of
habitats and associated vegetation due to site formation within
the Project Area will constitute
direct ecological impacts of the Project (Table 8-16). The
Project Area is covered by habitats of very low ecological value. Estimated habitat loss includes 3.17 ha of
urbanised/disturbed area, 0.3 ha of plantation and 0.33 ha of abandoned
fishpond.
Losses of
limited extent of urbanised/disturbed area and plantation and their associated
flora and fauna, are considered insignificant, due to the small area affected,
disturbed nature, low diversity of flora and fauna
and the presence of only common species. No mitigation
for loss of these habitats is required. Plantation lost
to the Project will be mainly composed of the undesirable weedy species Leucaena leucocephala, which is among the 100 worst invasive spp in the world and supported low diversity of flora and
fauna.
Loss of abandoned fishpond and the associated flora and fauna is
considered Insignificant due to the small area affected, disturbed nature and the limited ecological
importance. The
pond has also become degraded in function and habitat quality due to isolation
from the continuous and contiguous Deep Bay wetland system. Only a few
waterbird species were recorded in this pond during the surveys. Their abundance were very low and made up
insignificant proportion of Deep Bay population. This fishpond remnant was not
considered important foraging habitats of waterbirds, and was subjected to high
disturbance level at least
since early
1990’s and long-term isolation. Utilization
by waterbird was very low. Previous EIA studies and the survey findings of
this project did not indicate that this pond is important habitats for ardeids
during breeding season. No
mitigation for loss of this habitat
is required.
There will be no additional works
area outside the Project Area, and thus no temporary habitat loss is
anticipated.
Table 8‑16 Potential direct
ecological impacts to existing habitat within the Project Area
|
Criteria |
Urbanised/disturbed |
Plantation |
Abandoned
fishpond |
|
Habitat Quality |
Very low |
Very low |
Very low |
|
Species |
Low flora and fauna diversity; Fauna species of conservation importance: Japanese
Pipistrelle, Chinese Pond Heron (flew over the Project Area without landing). |
Low flora and fauna diversity |
Low flora and fauna diversity; Fauna
species of conservation importance: Little Grebe, Chinese Pond Heron, Little
Egret, Grey Heron. Abundance of these
species were very low. |
|
Size/ Abundance |
Major habitat loss in the
Project Area: 3.17ha; Low faunal abundance |
Very small (0.3 ha) in a Hong
Kong context. Very low faunal abundance |
Very small (0.33 ha) in a Hong
Kong context. Very low faunal abundance |
|
Duration |
Permanent loss of existing
habitat |
Permanent loss of existing
habitat |
Permanent loss of existing
habitat |
|
Reversibility |
Habitat loss would be permanent
and irreversible. |
Habitat loss would be permanent
and irreversible. |
Habitat loss would be permanent
and irreversible. |
|
Magnitude |
Insignificant |
Insignificant |
Insignificant |
|
Overall Impact Severity without Mitigation |
Insignificant |
Insignificant |
Insignificant |
Indirect
disturbance Impact due to Construction Disturbance
The construction activities, including excavation and piling during foundation works, and materials
loading/unloading, and concreting during superstructure works, are likely to produce noise and cause
disturbance. Among them, piling is of
particular concern, especially when the traditional percussive piling is
performed without appropriate specific mitigation. The potential impact due to other construction activities will not cause
significant impact as the construction works will be small in scale
given the nature of low-rise residential building development and low number of
houses toe constructed.
High level noise disturbance can potentially lead
to behavioural disturbance, auditory masking, and physiological stress to
wildlife. In the most serious cases, it may also lead to abandonment of
preferred habitats by the wildlife if the noise disturbance is constantly present for a prolonged duration. For the present Project, utilization of habitats adjacent
to the Project Area by fauna might decrease during construction phase. The
significance of construction impacts will depend upon the distance between the
source of noise and sensitive receivers, the type and frequency of disturbance
and the tolerance of species to disturbance.
The immediate surroundings of the
Project Area are mostly urbanized/disturbed habitat, which is considered of
very low ecological value. Habitat types
near the Project Area also include
grassland/shrubland, flood storage pond and Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel, with
the channel of relatively higher importance (of moderate ecological value).
Some waterbird species of conservation importance
(e.g., Little Egret, Great Egret, Black-faced Spoonbill) were recorded, in
these habitats, including Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel.
Hence, apart from the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel, utilization of grassland/shrubland and flood storage
pond near the Project Area by fauna might also be affected by construction
noise. But these habitats are of lower importance when compared with the Ngau
Tam Mei Drainage Channel (Grassland/shrubland is of low to moderate ecological value and Flood Storage Pond of low
ecological value), and/or are located farther from the Project Area than the channel. Other types of
habitats present in the Assessment Area are also further away from the Project
Area and are not likely to be affected by the construction works.
As
revealed by reviewed literatures and ecological surveys, high counts of
waterbirds (mostly ardeids) foraging in the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel were
occasionally recorded in low tides during dry season. Flocks of ardeids were
observed once in the section of drainage channel 150m north of the Project Area (Figure 8-3). Black-faced Spoonbills were also recorded
once during the surveys (ibid). Counts of egrets and herons in the
Assessment Area were low even in peak ardeid breeding season, however. Hence, the prime concern would be the potential disturbance to Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel which is utilized by some water birds, in particular
the section of the channel close to the Project Area during the wintering season.
The Project
Area has been used as car park since early 1990’s. Fauna in the surrounding areas, particularly urbanized/disturbed
habitat, have been
habituated to disturbance of human activities and traffic noise from the
operation of the car park.
However, construction disturbance from the present Project, if percussive piling
method is adopted, might still discourage the uses of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage
Channel near the Project Area by these waterbirds in low tides during winter.
Without mitigation measures, construction noise impact from percussive piling
method will be ranked as Moderate,
and mitigation measure is required. Given the concern, alternative piling method (non-percussive piling methods, e.g., earth auger, mini piles)
that are quieter than the
percussive piling method causing
less shocks or vibrations, will be adopted as mitigation (Tables
4-16 & 4-18, and Section 8.9 below). With the adoption of non-percussive piling method, it is expected
that the disturbance impact to fauna utilizing the habitats near the Project
Area, particularly Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel, could be reduced to Minor. Provision of other mitigation measures
to further reduce the potential disturbance impact is also recommended in Section 8.9 below.
Indirect
Impact due to Runoff
Potential impacts to nearby
aquatic habitats (e.g., drainage channel, flood
storage pond) during the construction phase would mainly arise from sedimentation due
to surface runoff. Elevated suspended
solids levels caused by site runoff could increase the suspended solids load in
the water bodies, and could decrease dissolved oxygen levels. A lower oxygen level would affect stationary
species, whilst mobile species would tend to temporarily avoid the area. The result could be a temporary reduction in
aquatic life abundance, and might affect the uses as foraging and roosting
habitats by waterbirds. The potential impact due to runoff is
considered minor to moderate. Mitigation measures will be required, and have been recommended in
Section 5.5 of this report.
As stated in Section 5.5 of this report,
contractor(s) of this Project will be required to submit a Construction Phase Drainage
Management Plan with details such as design of the temporary site drainage
system; wastewater treatment facilities; and maintenance of drainage system for
the approval of the Engineers Representative (ER) and the Environmental Team in
order to ensure that the mitigation measures are in place. The concerned drainage management plan will
include recommended mitigation measures as well as best practices identified in
Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 of this report.
In addition, good site practice and precautionary measures (e.g. those
in Section 5.5) will be implemented to avoid the potential impact
due to runoff.
Light
Glare from the Construction Site
Lighting for the construction
site may lead to light pollution at night, which is a potential source of
disturbance, if there are night roosts in the vicinity. No night roost of birds
was found near the Project Area. In addition, there are existing artificial
lightings in the surrounding areas of the Project Areas. Fauna sensitive to lightings would have
already avoided these areas. Potential
impact due to light glare during construction phase is considered as Insignificant.
Potential Impact to Recognized
Sites of Conservation Importance
According to Clause 3.4 of the
Study Brief, potential impact to recognized sites of
conservation importance in Northwest New Territories during construction phase should be evaluated. The
Project Area is located outside WBA, and is 520m away from the WCA. Construction
works will not affect the ecological integrity of the fishponds and wetlands within WCA, or cause directly habitat loss in WBA or WCA.
Regarding the potential disturbance impacts during
construction phase to recognized sites of conservation importance in Northwest
New Territories, including the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site, Mai Po Nature
Reserve, Mai Po Village SSSI, Mai Po Marshes SSSI, Wetland Conservation Area
and Wetland Buffer Area, it is considered unlikely as most of these sites of concern
are far away from the Project Area, and also sheltered from the Project Area by
other developed areas in between.
Construction disturbance from the proposed project will be localized,
reversible and short-term. The potential
impact to these recognized sites of conservation importance is considered Insignificant.
The proposed project is not expected to cause
disturbance or impact to the foraging grounds of ardeids nesting in Mai Po
Village SSSI egretry, Mai Po Lung egretry and Mai Po Marshes Nature Reserve
Egretry. The flight line survey by ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited (2013) showed that most
breeding ardeids of Mai Po Village SSSI egretry flew to Mai Po, Tam Kon Chau or
other nearby wetlands to forage. Ardeids
nesting at Mai Po Lung egretry probably foraged in similar locations since this
egretry is also near these areas. Fewer than 10 individuals of ardeids were
recorded in the Assessment Area during the ardeid breeding
season. The
Project Area is mainly urbanised/disturbed area,
which is not
important foraging habitat of ardeids. The
abandoned fishpond within the Project Area is not important foraging habitats
of ardeids due to the long distance, high level of disturbance and the absence
of periodic drain-down due to abandonment.
In
addition, foraging habitats (e.g., fishponds) are present near the Mai Po
Village SSSI Egretry, Mai Po Lung Egretry and Mai Po Marshes
Nature Reserve Egretry so utilisation of habitats within the Assessment Area
by nesting
ardeids is expected to be low. Therefore, the potential
impact to due to disturbance the foraging ground of ardeid nesting in these ardeid
breeding colonies by the Project during construction phase is considered Insignificant.
The potential impact of water
quality during construction phase was assessed in Section 5.4.2. There will be no adverse water quality impact
as long as the mitigation measures proposed in Section 5.5
are implemented. Hence, the potential impact on the recognized sites of
conservation importance due to deterioration of water quality during
construction phase is anticipated to be Insignificant.
Potential
Impact to Species of Conservation Importance
Four waterbird species of conservation importance
were recorded in the abandoned fishpond in the Project Area. These species were present in very low
abundance. Birds are very mobile and
hence mortality due to site formation or other construction activities is not
anticipated. Due to the small size,
disturbed nature and long-term isolation, the abandoned fishpond lost to the
proposed project is also not important habitats of other fauna species of
conservation importance recorded in the Assessment Area. Potential
impact due to loss of the abandoned fishpond to fauna species of conservation
importance listed in Table 8‑15 is considered Insignificant.
Construction works will affect the habitats adjacent to the
Project Area, including grassland/shrubland, flood storage pond and Ngau Tam
Mei Drainage Channel. Some of the fauna species
of conservation importance would forage or roost in these habitats. Utilisation of these habitats by these fauna
species might be affected by the construction works. Potential disturbance due to construction
works to these species will be mitigated by measures described in Section 8.9.
Potential impacts
during operational
phase will include noise from residential development and
human activities and noise,
traffic, artificial lightings and noise barriers.
Human
activities and Noise
Human activities and noise of the Project Area
might potentially affect the utilization of surrounding habitats by fauna
during operation phase.
Human activities will mainly be indoors and noise from residential houses will
be screened by walls of houses and fence wall of the Project Area. Also, the houses will be separated from the
surrounding habitats by the landscape buffer and setback area.
The Project Area and the surrounding area are mainly composed of
urbanized/disturbed, which is subjected to the high level of
disturbance (e.g., noise of existing traffic). Fauna in the surrounding habitats have been habituated to disturbance
from noise, and is not
expected to be adversely affected by the noise from the Project Area.
High counts of waterbirds were occasionally
recorded in the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel near the Project Area at low
tides in dry season. Houses in the
western side of the Project Area will be nearer to the channel. However, even these houses will be separated
from the foraging habitats (i.e., mudflat) in this channel by the channel
embankment, Kam Pok Road, landscape buffer and the garden area of individual
houses. These areas are about 40m in
width. In addition, mudflat in the Ngau
Tam Mei Drainage Channel is lower in elevation and birds foraging in these
habitats will not see the human activities in the Project Area easily. Potential impact to fauna of surrounding habitats due to
human activities and noise is ranked as Insignificant.
Traffic
Noise and Disturbance
Habitats along the Kam Pok Road, including
urbanized/disturbed, grassland/shrubland, flood storage pond, drainage channel
and agricultural land, are already subjected to the existing disturbance from
traffic of Kam Pok Road and Yau Pok Road
The Project Area is currently utilized as car park
with many large-sized vehicles moving in and out during daily operation. Hence, habitats along Kam Pok road are
already under the existing disturbance of vehicle movements in and out the car
park. The proposed population in the
Project Area during operation phase will be low (112 persons in 32 houses), and
hence the number of vehicles moving in and out of the Project Area is not
expected to be high. Traffic generation
from the Project Area during operation phase will only be 18 veh/hr and 19
veh/hr during morning and afternoon peak hours respectively. Compared to the existing traffic flow in and
out of the Project Area due to the operation of car park (76 veh/hr and 40
veh/hr during morning and afternoon peak hours), there will be a decrease in
traffic noise during the operation phase. The potential impact to surrounding
habitats and associated fauna due to traffic noise during operation phase will
be Insignificant. No mitigation measure is necessary.
Runoff and drainage/effluent discharge
The potential
impacts of surface runoff and drainage/effluent discharge have been addressed
in Chapters 5 and 6 respectively.
The
potential impact of
surface runoff during
operation phase has been addressed in Chapter 5 of the EIA report. During the operation phase of the Project, there will be additional paved areas, roads
and facilities which may contribute to an additional stormwater surface runoff
due to the change of catchment characteristics.
Given the scale
of this Project (for small house development), the increase in surface runoff
generated from the developable area after development should be insignificant
when compared with the capacity of the trained downstream Ngau Tam Mei Drainage
Channel (Section 5.4.3.2). Drainage system will be provided for the formed and
paved road/areas in the proposed development to collect stormwater surface
runoff. Collected surface runoff from the development site will be discharged
into the NTMDC after passing through screening facilities.
There will be no adverse impact on
water quality.
The potential impact of effluent
discharge during operation phase has been addressed in Chapter 6 of the EIA report. During
operation, an interim sewage treatment plant will be used for treatment of
sewage generated from the proposed development site until the public sewerage
system becomes available. Discharge of the sewage from the interim STP will follow the
requirement of no net increase of pollution loading, such that the water quality
of the downstream water body will not be adversely affected.
Habitat
Fragmentation
The east and west parts of
the Assessment Area are already fragmented by the drainage
channel in existing condition. The
Project Area is mainly surrounded by urbanized/disturbed, which support low
abundance of fauna. Frequent movement of wildlife through the
Project Area in existing condition is not expected. The
proposed development project will only convert urbanized/disturbed habitat to
residential landscape area during operation phase, and hence will not cause
habitat discontinuties. The potential impact due to
habitat fragmentation is anticipated to be Insignificant. Mitigation measures such as provision of
wildlife corridor or wildlife tunnel is not considered necessary.
Artificial Lightings
The behaviour
of nocturnal wildlife may be affected by the increased residential
lighting. Nocturnal animals either avoid
or are attracted to lighted areas. The Assessment Area is mostly
developed. Residential buildings and other lighting sources are
already present in localities near the Project Area for long time, and fauna inhabiting in nearby habitats
have probably habituated to lighting. Lights
from the residential buildings are not expected to be very strong. Other lightings in the Project Area will only be directed to
target areas (e.g., tennis court, basketball court) and lighting will be kept
to minimum lux level for safety. Potential
impacts to fauna from this source are ranked as Insignificant.
Barrier Effect to Bird Flight
The heights of noise barriers (4.5m) and
houses (6.6m) of the proposed project are similar to the
existing buildings around the Project Area.
Large waterbirds, including ardeids and Great Cormorant, which are of lower flight manoeuvrability, mainly flew along the drainage channel
within the Assessment Area. Flights of
these species will not be impeded by buildings in the Project Area.
Other bird species observed within the Assessment Area mainly flew
between agricultural lands in the north fringe of the Assessment Area. No major flight line through the Project Area
was observed. The potential
impact due to barrier to the flight of birds is considered Insignificant.
Noise Barrier and Bird
Collision
The Project will provide of
low-rise residential development and ancillary passive recreational
facilities. In order to mitigate traffic
noise and noise from industrial activities in the vicinity during the operation
phase, permanent noise barriers are proposed as noise mitigation measures of
the Project.
Noise barriers
may potentially cause bird collision. However, no
major flight line was observed over the Project Area during the field
surveys. Birds,
particularly large waterbirds, mainly flew along the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage
Channel. The Project Area will be residential area during operation phase and
still surrounded by
urbanized/disturbed habitat during operation phase. Due to the disturbed nature of
the Project Area and surrounding areas, the Project Area is not considered as
important ecological corridor. Frequent
bird movement through the Project Area is not expected.
The selected option of development will have lower number of
noise barriers (Table 2.2). Noise barriers will only be built on the
eastern side of the Project Area, which will be away from the Ngau Tam Mei
Drainage Channel. In addition, the
height of the noise barriers will only be 4.5m. The number of panels will not
be large. Materials which are opaque, non-reflective panels with colour will be
used for construction of noise barriers to reduce the risk of bird collision, particularly under dim condition (e.g., dusk and
dawn). Due
to disturbed nature of the area, the relative low height of noise barrier, and
design adopted for the noise barrier, the potential risk of bird collision is anticipated
to be Insignificant.
Landscape Planting
The Project
Area was mostly devoid of vegetation cover, and only surrounded by narrow
strips of plantation of an exotic species Leucaena leucocephala. These
vegetation cover made up of exotic plant species generally support low
diversity of fauna.
Vegetation
cover in the Project Area will be enriched by landscape planting during
operation phase ( about30% of the Project Area will be green area). The selected option of
development will have wider landscape buffer (Table 2.2). A continuous
5-8m wide landscape buffer will be included in the northern, eastern and
western boundary of the Project Area. A
combination of native and ornamental, bird-attracting and butterfly-attracting
plant species will be proposed in order to enhance the landscape and ecological
value of the site. Plants producing berry will enhance the food resources of birds. Nectar plants will also provide food
resources for butterflies. Both fauna
groups will benefit from Landscape Planting.
The planting of trees will also provide roosting habitats for birds. The
potential impact of replacement of existing plantation by landscape planting to
birds and butterflies will be positive.
Potential Impact to Recognized
Sites of Conservation Importance
According to Clause 3.4 of the Study Brief, potential impact to recognised sites of conservation importance
in Northwest New Territories during operation phase should be evaluated.
Regarding the
potential disturbance impacts during operation phase to recognised sites of
conservation importance in Northwest New Territories, including the Mai Po
Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site, Mai Po Nature Reserve, Mai Po Village SSSI Egretry, Mai Po
Lung Egretry, Mai Po Marshes
SSSI, Wetland Conservation Area and Wetland Buffer Area, it is considered
unlikely as the Project Area is separated from these sites by long distances. Disturbance of noise and artificial lighting
from the residential buildings will be confined to areas adjacent to the
Project Area. The potential impact to
these sites from the development project during operation phase is considered Insignificant.
Since foraging habitats (e.g., fishponds) are present near the Mai
Po Marshes Nature Reserve Egretry, Mai Po Village
SSSI Egretry and
Mai Po Lung Egretry, the frequency of nesting ardeids flying to habitats within the Assessment
Area is expected to be low. Therefore, the potential impact
to due to disturbance to the foraging ground of ardeid nesting in the Mai Po Village SSSI Egretry
and Mai Po Lung Egretry by the Project
during operation phase is considered Insignificant.
The potential impact of water quality during operation
phase was assessed in Section 5.4.3. With the implementation of mitigation
measures proposed in Section 5.6, there will be no adverse water quality
impact. No adverse water quality impact to the recognized sites of conservation
importance due to deterioration of water quality during operation phase is
therefore expected.
Potential
Impact to Species of Conservation Importance
The Project will provide residential areas of a
small proposed population (112 persons) during operation phase. Intense disturbance is not anticipated. Human activities inside the Project Area will
be screened by the wall of houses, fence wall and landscape buffer. Traffic flow in and out of the Project Area
will decline during operation phase. Potential impact affecting the utilization
of habitats surrounding the Project Areas by the fauna species of conservation
importance listed in Table 8‑17
is not considered Insignificant.
Table 8‑17 Summary of Potential Impact During Construction and Operation Phases
|
Impact |
Source |
Receiver |
Nature of Impacts |
Significance of an ecological impact |
Mitigation Required |
|||||
|
|
|
|
Habitat quality |
Species affected |
Size-abundance |
Duration |
Reversibility |
Magnitude |
|
|
|
Construction
phase |
||||||||||
|
Terrestrial habitat loss |
Construction works |
Urbanised/disturbed |
Very low |
Low diversity of flora and fauna Two species of conservation importance recorded, with Chinese Pond Heron only fly over this
type of habitat |
3.17 ha |
Permanent |
Irreversible |
Insignificant |
Insignificant |
No |
|
|
|
Plantation |
Very low |
Low diversity of flora and fauna |
0.3 ha |
Permanent |
Irreversible |
Insignificant |
Insignificant |
No |
|
|
|
Abandoned fishpond |
Very low |
Low diversity of flora and fauna, Four waterbird species of conservation importance but the
abundance was very low |
0.33 ha |
Permanent |
Irreversible |
Insignificant |
Insignificant |
No |
|
Construction
disturbance |
Construction works |
Surrounding
habitats and associated fauna, including urbanised/dsiturbed, flood storage
pond, grassland/shrubland, Ngau Tam Mei Drainage channel |
Very low for urbanised/disturbed; Low to moderate for grassland/shrubland and flood storage pond; Moderate for
Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel |
Mostly common
species, but some are of conservation importance |
Moderate bird
abundance in Ngau Tam Mei Drainage channel, low/very fauna abundance in other
habitats |
Temporary |
Transient and reversible |
Moderate |
Moderate for waterbirds
occassionally utilising the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel if traditional
percussive piling method is used |
Yes Erection of hoarding outside wintering season of waterbirds between October and March; Use of non-percussive piling method (e.g., earth auger, mini piles); Use of quiet/silenced equipment (QPMEs); Provision of mobile noise barriers in adjacent to construction plants or provision of acoustic screens by the Contractor(s); Implementation
of good site practice |
|
Light glare |
Construction works |
Surrounding habitats and associated fauna, including
urbanised/dsiturbed, flood storage pond, grassland/shrubland, Ngau Tam Mei
Drainage channel |
Very low for urbanised/disturbed; Low to moderate for grassland/shrubland and flood storage
pond; Moderate for Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel |
Mostly common species, but some are of conservation
importance |
Low abundance |
Temporary |
Transient and reversible |
Low |
Insignificant |
No |
|
Site runoff |
Construction works |
Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel |
Moderate |
Mostly common species, but some are of conservation
importance |
Low abundance |
Temporary |
Reversible |
minor to
moderate |
minor to
moderate |
Yes, by implementation of Good Site Practice |
|
Operation phase |
||||||||||
|
Traffic noise, human activities |
Proposed development |
Urbanised/disturbed habitat,
grassland/shrubland,agricultural land, flood storage pond, Ngau Tam Mei
Drainage Channel |
Very low for urbanised/disturbed; Low to moderate for grassland/shrubland, agricultural
land and flood storage pond; Moderate for Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel |
Mostly common species, but some are of conservation
importance |
Low abundance |
Permanent |
Irreversible |
Low |
Insignificant |
No In fact, traffic flow in and out of the Project Area will
decline during operation phase |
|
Runoff, drainage /effluent discharge |
Proposed development |
Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel |
Moderate |
Mostly common species, but some are of conservation
importance, including Black-faced Spoonbill |
Low abundance |
Permanent |
Irreversible |
Low |
Insignificant |
Discharge will pass through sand traps, Discharge of the sewage from the interim STP
will follow the requirement of no net increase of pollution loading There will be no adverse impact on water quality. |
|
Habitat fragmentation |
Proposed development |
Fauna inhabiting the habitats within the Assessment Area |
Vary with habitat types, mostly are of low ecological
value |
Mostly common species |
Low |
Permanent |
Irreversible |
Low |
Insignificant |
No. The Project will convert urbanised/disturbed habitats and
an isolated abandoned fishpond to residential areas, and will not cause
fragmentation of continouous habitats. |
|
Artificial light |
Lightings in the Project Area |
Nocturnal fauna |
Low |
Common species |
Low |
Permanent |
Irreversible |
Low |
Insignificant |
No. Areas surrounding the Project Area are subjected to
existing lightings for long time.
Fauna sensitive to lightings probably have avoided these areas. |
|
Barrier effect to bird flight |
Buildings in the Project Area |
Large waterbirds of low flight manoeuvrability |
Vary with habitat types, mostly are of low ecological
value |
Mostly common species |
Low |
Permanent |
Irreversible |
Low |
Insignificant |
No These birds mostly flew along the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel; Potential barrier effect to bird flight is minimised by
the low height of buildings, which are similar to the existing buildings
around the Project Area |
|
Bird collision |
Noise barriers |
Birds |
Low |
Mostly common species |
Low |
Permanent |
Irreversible |
Low |
Insignificant |
Minimise by using materials which are opaque,
non-reflective panels with colour for construction of noise barriers |
Avoidance of WCA and WBA – The Project Area is located outside the boundary of WBA (Figure 8-1), and is over
500m from the boundary of WCA. The
proposed development has thus avoided encroachment on sensitive habitats
such as the fishponds and wetlands in WCA, and the purposes of WBA
on protecting the
ecological integrity of WCA.
Avoidance of Important Habitats
– The Project Area has avoided habitats of higher ecological value such as
continuous fishponds and wetlands, or other natural habitats. Only man-made
habitats of very low ecological value, including plantation,
urbanised/disturbed habitat and one small isolated abandoned fishpond, will be
affected.
Avoidance of Additional Habitat Loss – The Project Area will be
accessed by existing road network during both construction and
operation phases. There will be no
impact due to temporary or permanent loss of habitats from construction of
access.
Construction
Disturbance
– Literature review and ecological
surveys showed that high counts of waterbirds occasionally foraged in the Ngau
Tam Mei Drainage Channel Site during low tides in winter.
Piling method (non-percussive piling
methods, e.g., earth auger, mini piles) that are quieter than the percussive piling method causing less shocks or vibrations, will be adopted as mitigation (Tables 4-16 & 4-18, and Section 8.9 below). With the adoption of non-percussive piling method, it is expected
that the disturbance impact to fauna utilizing the habitats near the Project
Area, particularly Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel, could be reduced to Minor. Provision of other mitigation measures
to further reduce the potential disturbance impact is also recommended in Section 8.9 below.
Hoarding will be erected
outside wintering season of water birds (October to March) to properly delineate the works site boundary and
screen disturbance to the nearby habitats during construction phase. In
order to reduce the potential disturbance to wildlife utilizing habitats near
the Project Area, the hoardings will be made of opaque, non-reflective
materials and painted in colour that will blend in with the environment. The workers
will be instructed not to disturb any nearby habitats. Furthermore, the site
boundary will be clearly defined (i.e. fenced with the screening materials mentioned
above) and any works beyond the boundary would be strictly prohibited.
Construction noise will be
further minimised by the use of quiet/silenced equipment (QPMEs), provision of
mobile noise barriers in adjacent to construction plants, or provision of
acoustic screens by the Contractor(s). Other measures proposed in compliance
with the Noise Control Ordinance will also be enforced and monitored as a
mitigation measure under the Noise Impact Assessment (details see Chapter 4 of this report).
Dust control measures listed in Section 3.9.1 of this report, e.g. hard
paving of the haul road, frequent watering, covering dusty materials, careful
site formation scheduling etc. will reduce dust impact to an acceptable
level. Good site practice and precautionary
measures (e.g. those in Section 5.5)
will be implemented to avoid the potential impact due to runoff. These measures
will minimize the potential disturbance to the surrounding habitats and
associated fauna.
As stated in Section 5.5 of this report,
contractor(s) of this Project is required to submit a Construction Phase
Drainage Management Plan with details such as design of the temporary site drainage
system; wastewater treatment facilities; and maintenance of drainage system for
the approval of the Engineers Representative (ER) and the Environmental Team in
order to ensure that the mitigation measures are in place. The concerned drainage management plan will
include recommended mitigation measures as well as best practices identified in
Sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 of this report.
Good site
practice listed as
follows would be
implemented to minimise potential impacts due to noise, dust and runoff to the surrounding environment.
·
Regular checking should be
undertaken to ensure that the work site boundaries are not exceeded and that no
damage occurs to surrounding areas;
·
Implementation of mitigation
measures specified in ProPECC PN 1/94 to control site runoff and drainage at
all work sites during construction;
·
Implementation of noise control
measures at all construction sites to reduce impacts of construction noise to
wildlife habitats adjacent works areas;
·
Implementation of dust control
measures at all construction sites to minimise dust nuisance to adjacent
wildlife habitats during construction activities;
·
Construction debris and spoil
should be covered up and/or properly disposed of as soon as possible to avoid
being washed into nearby waterbodies by rain;
·
Construction effluent, site run-off
and sewage should be properly collected and/or treated. Wastewater from a
construction site should be managed with the following approach in descending
order;
·
Dusty materials remaining after a stockpile is
removed should be wetted with water;
·
All dusty materials shall be sprayed with water
prior to any loading, unloading or transfer operation so as to maintain the
dusty material wet;
·
Proper locations for discharge
outlets of wastewater treatment facilities well away from the natural
streams/rivers should be identified; and
·
Supervisory staff should be
assigned to station on site to closely supervise and monitor the works.
The above measures will all
contribute to the minimization of potential construction disturbance to the
surrounding habitats and associated fauna.
With the implementation of these measures, noise and disturbance impact
would be mitigated to an acceptable level and no residual impact is anticipated.
Provision
of Setback
– Setback area on the western
side of the Project Area
will increase the distance between houses and Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel. This layout design will minimize the potential
impact to wildlife in the surrounding areas, particularly waterbirds in the
Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel, due to human activities and noise in the Project
Area during operation phase. The houses will be at least 30m from the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel. In addition, this layout design will also increase the
distances between locations of foundation works and the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage
Channel, and reduce the potential disturbance to birds foraging in this
channel.
Provision
of Landscape Area in the Development in particular at the Western Side – A continuous 5-8m wide landscape buffer will be
included in the northern, eastern and western boundary of the Project
Area. This layout design will minimize
the potential impact to wildlife in the surrounding areas, particularly waterbirds
in the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel, due to human activities and noise in the
Project Area during operation phase.
Low-rise
Building – The layout proposed will only involve the construction of
low-rise buildings with a maximum height of 6.6m. This will minimize the potential barrier
effect to bird flights.
Incorporation
of Noise Barriers with Building – Most birds were observed flying along
the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel, located on the western side of the Project
Area. Noise barriers will only be provided on the eastern side of
the Project Area. As the sewage treatment plant will also
form part of noise mitigation measures (Section 11.7.1), extent of glass panel
of the noise barrier will be reduced. Compared to glass panels, building wall will
cause lower risk of bird collision.
These design layouts will minimize the potential impact due to bird
collision.
Design
of Noise Barriers – The
Recommended Layout Option has the lowest overall height of noise barrier. This would minimize the potential impact of
bird collision. Minimization of bird collision will
also be taken into account in the design of noise barrier. Materials which are opaque,
non-reflective panels with colour blend in with the environment will be used
for construction of noise barriers to reduce the risk of bird collision,
particularly under dim condition (e.g., dusk and dawn) to reduce bird
collision.
Regular site audit will be conducted on weekly basis for
checking the implementation of the proposed good site practice during
construction phase.
Ecological monitoring of utilization
of the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel within the Assessment Area by
birds between October and March during construction phase is
proposed. Baseline surveys will be conducted prior to site
construction works.
Observations during construction
phase monitoring will be compared against the baseline data, and the
effectiveness of the recommended mitigation measures will be evaluated
Details of monitoring method are given in the EM&A Manual.
Potential
cumulative impact of habitat loss, construction disturbance, increased human
activities and noise, and traffic noise of the Project with other projects in
nearby locations are evaluated in the following sections.
There are
a few works projects near the Project Area. These included the approved cycle
track project, approved public sewerage project and three planned private
development sites (namely, the planned “REC Site”, “RD Site” and “Yau Mei Site”
as following:
l EIA 159/2008 Construction of
Cycle Tracks and the associated Supporting Facilities from Sha Po Tsuen to Shek
Sheung River;
l “Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage
Disposal Stage 2” (EIA Application No. EIA-094/2004);
l EIA 220/2014 Proposed
Residential cum Passive Recreational Development within "Recreation”
(“REC”) Zone and “Residential (Group C)” Zone at Various Lots in DD 104, Yuen
Long, N.T; (construction phase: 2017 – 2020)
l
EIA 227/2015 Comprehensive Development and Wetland
Protection near Yau Mei San Tsuen, Yuen Long; (construction phase: 2015 – 2018)
and
l
Proposed residential development within Residential
(Group D) Zone at various lots in DD104, Yuen Long, N.T. (ESB-204/2009).
Cumulative
Impact due to Wetland Habitat Loss
Cycle Track and the Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage
projects will only cause loss of non-wetland habitats of low ecological value
(e.g., grassland/shrubland, urbanized/disturbed). These two projects will not contribute to the
cumulative loss of wetland habitats in the Deep Bay area.
The proposed development at the REC Site will mainly affect non-wetland habitats (e.g., grassland/shrubland,
urbanised/disturbed). Only very small area and highly fragmented wetland
habitats (including 0.22ha reed, 0.5ha pond and 0.1ha seasonal wet grassland)
of low or very low ecological value will be lost.
The proposed development at the Yau Mei Site will affect
4.9ha agricultural land, 1.2ha pond area, 0.9ha marsh, 0.2ha reed bed, 0.2ha
grassland/ shrubland, and 0.7ha seasonally wet grassland. All significant
impacts would be mitigated by appropriate measures during both the construction
and operation phases of the project. A wetland restoration area with
long-term management plan will be created.
The proposed development at the R(D) Site will
affect 0.38ha of reed and seasonally wet grassland, and 5.81ha of
grassland/shrubland. The development project will be regulated by
relevant guidelines, and requirements in the respective zoning intention of
Outline Zoning Plan. Therefore, any loss
of important habitats due to development
in the R(D) Site should be compensated / mitigated, and significant
cumulative impacts associated with this project are not expected.
The current Project Area
is located immediately outside the boundary of WBA (Figure 8-1). The planning intention of WBA is to protect
the ecological integrity of the fishponds and wetlands within WCA and to prevent development
that would have a negative off-site impact on the ecological value of those fishponds.
The proposed project will not cause loss of wetland in WBA and WCA, or
affect the ecological integrity of fishponds
and wetlands within WCA.
The
abandoned fishpond within the Project Area is of limited ecological value due
to the small size, surrounded by urbanized/disturbed area, subjected to long
term disturbance
from the car park in the Project Area and long-term isolation from
other wetland habitats in the Deep Bay area. Field observations
showed that utilisation of this pond by waterbirds was very low. Cumulative impact of loss of wetland habitat
in the Deep Bay area due to the current Project and other nearby projects is considered
Insignificant.
Cumulative
Impact due to Construction Disturbance
The
construction works of the Project are scheduled to commence in year 2017 and
for completion by year 2018 (Section 1.6.3).
The two
government projects which have already obtained approval on their EIA reports
under the EIAO process. However, there is currently no fixed construction
programme available. Overlapping of
their works programme with this Project cannot be precluded at this stage. The public sewerage project near the Project
Area will include the construction of a section of gravity trunk sewer
underneath Kam Pok Road and Yau Pok Road as well as construction of proposed
San Tin No.1 Sewage Pumping Station near the road junction between Kam Pok Road
and Castle Peak Road. All works will be
carried out in small section areas within a short period, and hence the
construction activities should not generate significant amount of construction
noise and dust and result in cumulative impact.
The section of cycle track near the Project Area will be constructed
along the edge of Yau Pok Road on the other side of existing Ngau Tam Mei
Channel. According to the EIA report, the concerned construction of cycle track
project will involve construction of a narrow strip of cycle track, which will
be constructed in sections. Typically, the working area will be 40m long by 4 m
wide and no adjacent sections (200m between two neighbouring sections) will be
constructed simultaneously. Cumulative impact due to construction noise and
dust generated from the construction activities is not expected. With the implementation of mitigation
measures recommended in Section 8.9,
no cumulative impacts are likely to be associated with these two projects.
Construction phase of the development project at
the R(D) is not fixed, but likely to take place after the completion of
construction works of the Project.
Construction phase of the Project might overlap with the development
projects at the REC Site (100m west of the Project Area) and Yau Mei Site (350m
north of the Project Area). The construction works at the Yau Mei Site will be
away from the Project Area, and hence significant cumulative construction
disturbance is not likely to be associated with this project. The construction
disturbance caused by these two projects will be resolved by the mitigation
measures recommended during the EIA studies.
Impacts during the construction phase of the Project will also be
mitigated by measures recommended in Section
8.9. Hence, the cumulative impact
due to construction disturbance from the Project will be Insignificant.
Cumulative
Impact due to Human Activities and Traffic during Operation Phase
During the operation phase, potential disturbance impact due to the
increase of population in the area caused by all concurrent projects is also a
concern. In accordance with “Projections of
Population Distribution 2015-2024” issued by Planning Department (2015), in
which the projected populations in different areas and sub-areas in Hong Kong
are provided, the Project Area is located within Area 5.4.1, and so are the three
concurrent residential projects (i.e. Yau Mei Site, REC Site and R(D) Site).
The projected population size in Area 5.4.1 (Planning Department 2015) will be
19,200 persons in 2020 (the farthest projected year available for subareas in
the report, and closer to the operation of the Project and the nearby planned
developments). To take a more conservative approach, by assuming that the
projected population size of Area 5.4.1 by Planning Department has not included
all these residential developments, and by including not only residents but
also the staffs/visitors from these residential developments, the anticipated
population size in this subarea will thus be higher, at about 20,346 persons
during the operation phase of the Project. The additional residents and
staffs/visitors of the Project and the nearby planned development include - the
present Project: 112 residents and 20 staffs; REC Site: 287 residents and 164
staffs/visitors; Yau Mei Site: 315 residents and 30 staffs; and R(D) Site 185
residents and 33 staffs (ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited 2013, 2015). The present
Project is a low density residential development and the target population is
the smallest among all planned residential developments at only 112 residents (Table 2.3), with 20 employees for club
house and estate management (Appendix
6.1). The Project will only account for a very minor proportion (i.e.,
0.6%) of the total population in the surrounding areas during operation phase.
Human activities in the Project Area and the other nearby planned developments,
which are also low density residential developments, will be mainly indoors and
screened by walls of houses during operation phase. It is not expected that all
residents would go out or stay in open areas at the same
time. In fact, there are existing human
activities in the car park within the Project Area. Drivers who visit the existing car park will
also need to access the Project Area through Kam Pok Road and contribute to
human disturbance. The proposed
development will not result in a significant increase in human activities in
the surrounding areas during the operation phase. Most areas within the Assessment Area are
developed areas and fauna utilizing these habitats are mainly disturbance
tolerant. Hence, the potential cumulative increase in disturbance to wildlife
due to human activities and noise from the current Project and other nearby projects is considered Insignificant.
The Project Area is currently utilized as car park,
with many large vehicles moving in and out during daily operation (76 veh/hr
and 40 veh/hr attracted/ generated by the car park during morning and afternoon
peak hours, respectively). Traffic
flow of the proposed development will only be 18 veh/hr and 19 veh/hr during
morning and afternoon peak hours respectively.
Hence, the proposed development will not result in a significant
increase in traffic flow on nearby roads (thus disturbance to surrounding
areas) when compared with its existing site condition. Total traffic flow on Kam Pok Road during
afternoon and morning peak hours will be 250 veh/hour and 300 veh/hour
respectively (i.e., including the traffic flow due to other three nearby
planned residential projects). In addition, the peak
traffic flow generated by the proposed development will only account for small
proportion on Kam Pok Road during operation phase. The cumulative impact to the
surrounding habitats due to traffic noise from the Project during operation
phase will be Insignificant.
It should also be noted that the Project Site is currently used as an
existing car park, which will also generate significant amount of traffic flow
in the absence of the proposed development. According to the
traffic survey, the existing car parking operation will generate 76 veh./hr and
40 veh./hr during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively.
Many of these vehicles are in fact heavy vehicles. Thus, with the
proposed development it will not worsen the situation. In fact, the
traffic flow of proposed development would be insignificant when compared with
the existing situation.
Cumulative
Impact to Sites of Recognised Conservation Importance
The Project Area is located 1km from the sites of recognized
conservation importance (e.g., Mai Po Nature Reserve)
in Deep Bay area described in Section
8.5.1. Therefore, these sites are not likely to
be significantly affected by the disturbance of construction works and
operation of the Project. With the
implementation of mitigation measures recommended in Section 8.9, the cumulative impact of disturbance to sites of recognized
conservation importance during construction and operation
phases will be Insignificant.
Cumulative
Impact due to effluent/ sewage discharge during Operation Phase
Cumulative impact due to effluent/
sewage discharge from the current Project and other nearby projects to Ngau Tam
Mei Drainage Channel has been assessed in Section 5.7.3 of the report. The sewage generated from the current and
nearby planned/ approved development projects will be discharged into future
public sewerage system, thus no adverse impact is expected. Given the effluent qualities from the interim
STP of these projects are in compliance with the requirement of no net increase
in pollution loading, no adverse cumulative impact during operational phase is
expected. Hence, no significant
ecological cumulative impact to Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel and its
downstream recognized sites of conservation importance is anticipated.
The residual environmental
impacts refer to the net environmental impacts after the implementation of
mitigation measures. The
residual impact will be the loss of 3.17 ha of urbanised/disturbed area, 0.3 ha of plantation and 0.33ha of abandoned fishpond of limited ecological
value. As discussed in Section 8.8.2
above, the loss of these habitats was considered as Insignificant and no
corresponding mitigation is required. Potential
indirect impacts during both construction and operation phases will be
mitigated by the recommended measures. With
implementation of landscape planting which will be beneficial to birds and
butterflies, the residual ecological impacts of the project are considered
acceptable.
The
Project Area is located outside WBA and thus of distance with WCA. Habitats
recorded within the assessment area included plantation, agricultural land, grassland/shrubland, fishpond, flood storage pond, drainage channel/nullah, and
urbanised/disturbed.
Ecological
baseline based on the 12-month ecological survey programme revealed that the
Project Area was only covered by habitats of very low ecological value. Twenty-two species of conservation
importance were recorded within the Assessment Area during the ecological field survey,
including one mammal species, twenty bird species and one reptile species. Potential impact to these
species of
conservation importance is considered Insignificant as no important habitat of these species will be
affected. Potential construction impacts
include loss of 3.17
ha of urbanised/disturbed area, 0.3 ha of plantation and 0.33 ha of abandoned fishpond. The potential impact of habitat loss was
ranked as Insignificant. Potential impact to surrounding habitats and
associated fauna due to construction disturbance was considered Moderate. Potential impact due to runoff during
construction phase is ranked as Minor to
Moderate. The other impact during construction phase will be Insignificant. Mitigation measures including
utilization of quieter construction method and machinery, provision of mobile
noise barriers in adjacent to construction plants and provision of acoustic
screens will be implemented. In
addition, hoarding will be erected outside wintering season of water birds
(October to March) to screen disturbance to the nearby habitats during
construction phase. Effectiveness of the
recommended measures will be evaluated by ecological monitoring surveys. The Project will cause insignificant
disturbance to wildlife in surrounding habitats during operation. Potential risk of bird collision with noise
barrier will be minimized by incorporation of interim sewage treatment work
into noise mitigation and utilization of materials which are opaque,
non-reflective panels with colour blend in with the environment for
construction of noise barriers.
With the
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, there will be no
significant adverse residual impact during
construction and operation phases.
AEC. 2014. EcoIA for Proposed Residential Development within
R(D) Zone at Various Lots in DD 104 and Adjoining G.L Yuen Long, N.T.
Agriculture,
Fisheries and Conservation Department. 2003.
Rare and Precious Plants of Hong Kong.
In: http://www.hkherbarium.net/herbarium/frame.html
Agriculture,
Fisheries and Conservation Department. 2004.
Checklist of Hong Kong Plants 2004.
Dong Sheng Printing Co., Guangzhou.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department.
2015. Hong Kong Biodiversity
Database. http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/hkbiodiversity/database/search.asp
Anon, 2004.
Summer 2004 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site.
Report by Hong Kong Bird Watching Society to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation
Department, Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region Government.
Anon, 2005.
Summer 2005 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to
the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by Hong Kong Bird Watching
Society to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region Government.
Anon, 2006.
Summer 2006 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to
the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by Hong Kong Bird Watching
Society to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region Government.
Anon. 2001. Preparation
of a conservation plan for the Black-faced Spoonbill (Platalea minor) in Hong
Kong. Conservation Plan. Unpublished report by WWFHK to the Agriculture,
Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Government.
Anon, 2008.
Summer 2007 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to
the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by Hong Kong Bird Watching
Society to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region Government.
Anon, 2009.
Summer 2010 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to
the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by Hong Kong Bird Watching
Society to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region Government.
Anon, 2010.
Summer 2009 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to
the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by Hong Kong Bird Watching
Society to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region Government.
Anon, 2011.
Summer 2010 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to
the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by Hong Kong Bird Watching
Society to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region Government.
Anon, 2012a. Summer 2011 Report: Egretry Counts in
Hong Kong with particular reference to the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site.
Report by Hong Kong Bird Watching Society to the Agriculture, Fisheries and
Conservation Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.
Anon, 2012b. Summer 2012 Report: Egretry Counts in
Hong Kong with particular reference to the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by The Hong
Kong Bird Watching Society to the Agriculture,
Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.
Anon, 2013. Summer 2013 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong
Kong with particular reference to the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by The Hong Kong Bird Watching
Society to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region Government
Anon, 2014. Summer 2014 Report: Egretry
Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay
Ramsar Site. Report by The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society to the Agriculture,
Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Government
Anon,
2015. Summer 2015 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference
to the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Report by The Hong Kong Bird Watching
Society to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region Government
Atkins. 2008.
Construction of Cycle Tracks and the Associated Supporting Facilities from Sha Po Tsuen to Shek Sheung River Final Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) Report. Civil Engineering and Development
Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.
Carey, G.J.,
Chalmers, M.L., Diskin, D.A., Kennerley, P.R., Leader, P.J., Leven, M.R.,
Lewthwaite, R. W., Melville, D.S., Turnbull, M. and Young, L. 2001. The
Avifauna of Hong Kong. Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, Hong Kong.
Chan, K.F.,
Cheung, K.S., Ho, C.Y., Lam F.N. and Tang, W.S. 2005. A Field Guide to the
Amphibians of Hong Kong. Agriculture, Fisheries & Conservation Department,
Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Chan, K.F., Cheung, K.S., Ho, C.Y., Lam
F.N. and Tang, W.S. 2006. A Field Guide to the Venomous
Land Snakes of Hong Kong. Agriculture, Fisheries
& Conservation Department, Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region.
Chan, A.
Cheung, J., Sze, P., Wong, A., Wong, E. and Yau, E. 2011.
A review of the local restrictedness of Hong Kong Butterflies. Hong
Kong Biodiversity 21: 1-12
City University of Hong Kong. 2001. Study on the effect of water
pollution on the breeding success of ardeids – Final Report. Centre for Coastal
Pollution and Conservation, Hong Kong.
Ecosystems Limited 2008. Review of Pond-wiring to Reduce
Cormorant Predation in Commercial Fishponds in Inner Deep Bay area. Report by
Ecosystems Limited to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department,
HKSAR.
ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited. 2013. Environmental Impact Assessment Proposed
Residential cum Passive
Recreational Development within "Recreation”
(“REC”) Zone and “Residential (Group C)” Zone at Various Lots in DD 104,
Yuen Long, N.T (AEIAR-182/2014).
ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited. 2015.
Comprehensive Development and Wetland Protection Near Yau Mei San Tsuen
(AEIAR-189/2015).
ERM. 1996.
Environmental Impact Assessment for the Main Drainage Channels 60 CD, 43
CD, 30 CD, 29 CD, and 22 CD – Final Report.
Territory Development Department, NTN Development Office.
Fellowes, J.R., Lau, M.W.N., Dudgeon, D., Reels,
G.T., Ades, G.W.J., Carey, G.J., Chan, B.P.L., Kendrick, R.C., Lee, K.S.,
Leven, M.R., Wilson, K.D.P. and Yu, Y.T. 2002. Wild animals to watch: Terrestrial
and freshwater fauna of conservation concern in Hong Kong. Memoirs of the Hong Kong Natural History Society 25: 123-159.
IUCN 2015.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2015-3. http://www.iucnredlist.org
Karsen, S.J.,
Lau, M.W.N. and Bogadek, A. 1998. Hong Kong Amphibians and Reptiles. Urban Council, Hong Kong.
Irving, R. and
Morton, B. 1988. A Gegraphy of the Mai P
Matrshes. Hong Kong University Press.
Mott Connell
Ltd. 2008. Proposed
Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai, Yuen Long Environmental Impact
Assessment
Planning Department. 2015. Projections of Population Distribution
2015-2024. http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/statistic/wgpd15.html
Shek, C.T.
2006. A Field Guide to the Terrestrial Mammals of Hong Kong. Agriculture,
Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong.
Tam, T.W.,
Leung, K.S., Kwan, B.S.P., Wu, K.K.Y., Tang, S.S.H., So, I.W.Y., Cheng, J.C.Y.,
Yuen, E.F.M., Tsang, Y.M. and Hui, W.L. 2011. Field Guide to the Dragonflies of Hong Kong.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong.
Viney, C.,
Phillipps, K. & Lam, C.Y. 2005. The birds of Hong Kong and South China, 8th
edition. Information Services Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region Government.
Wang, S. 1998.
China Red Data Book of Endangered animals: Aves. Science Press, Beijing.
Wong, F.K.O. 1991. Habitat utilization by Little Egrets breeding
at Mai Po Egretry. Hong Kong Bird Report: 185 – 190.
Wong, L.C. and
Kwok, H.K. 2001. Egretry counts in Hong Kong, with particular reference to the
Mai Po and Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site – Summer 2000 report. The Hong Kong Bird
Watching Society.
Wong, L.C. 2002. Summer 2002 Report
on Egretry Counts in Hong Kong, with
particular Reference to the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. The Hong Kong
Bird Watching Society Limited. Hong Kong.
Wong, L.C. and Woo C.K. 2003. Summer 2003 Report on Egretry Counts in
Hong Kong, with particular
Reference to the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society Limited. Hong Kong.
Xing, F.W., Ng,
S.C., Chau, L.K.C. 2000. Gymnosperms and angiosperms of Hong Kong. Memoirs of
the Hong Kong Natural History Society. 23: 21-136.
Young, L. &
Chan, G. 1997. The significance of drained fish ponds for wintering waterbirds
at the Mai Po Marshes, Hong Kong. Ibis139:
694-698.
Young, L. 1998. The importance to Ardeids of the Deep Bay
fish ponds, Hong Kong. Biological
Conservation 84(3): 293 – 300.
Zhao, E.M. 1998. China Red Data Book of Endangered animals:
Aves. Science Press, Beijing.
The Fisheries Impact Assessment comprises three major
parts: establishment of baseline conditions, evaluation and assessment of
fisheries impact following the criteria and guidelines of Annexes 9 and 17 of
the EIAO-TM, and recommendations of mitigation measures where necessary.
Key issues of the Fisheries Impact Assessment, as
stipulated in Section 3.9.7.2 of the EIA Study Brief ESB-201/2009, include but
not be limited to the following:
·
Pond culture resources
·
Water courses that serve as water sources
for fish ponds
The assessment covers potential impacts on fisheries
during both the construction and operation of the
Project.
The Fisheries Impact Assessment includes the following
according to the Study Brief:
·
description of the physical environmental
background;
·
description and quantification of
existing fisheries activities
·
description and quantification of
existing fisheries resources (e.g. major
fisheries products and stocks);
·
identification of parameters (e.g.
water quality parameters) and areas that are important to fisheries;
·
identification and quantification of
any direct/indirect to fisheries, such as permanent resumption and temporary
occupation of fish ponds, deterioration of water quality of fish ponds and the
surrounding streams, hydrological disruptions such as draw-down of water table,
blocking of access to the surrounding fish ponds, and disturbance by
construction noise and vibration;
·
evaluation of impacts and proposal
of effective mitigation measures with details on justification, description of
scope and programme, feasibility as well as staff and financial implications
including those related to subsequent management and maintenance requirements
of the proposal; and
·
review of the need for monitoring
during the construction and operational phase of the Project and, if necessary,
propose a monitoring and audit programme.
HKSAR Ordinances and Regulations which are relevant to
this study include the following:
·
The Environmental Impact Assessment
Ordinance (Cap. 499) and the associated TM;
·
Fisheries Protection Ordinance (Cap.
171) and its subsidiary legislation, the Fisheries Protection Regulations;
·
Water Pollution Control Ordinance
(Cap. 358) and its supporting regulations and statements; and
In accordance with the EIA Study Brief, the Assessment
Area includes 500 m from the limit of the Project site boundary and any areas
likely to be impacted by the Project.
Baseline information on the Assessment
Area was reviewed. A review of
Government and private sector reports, independent Government published
literature and academic studies was undertaken to determine the existing
conditions of fisheries in the Assessment Area, and to identify practices,
areas and species of potential fisheries importance which may be affected by
the Project. This review included but
was not limited to the following:
·
Agriculture, Fisheries and
Conservation Department (AFCD) latest annual report 2013/2014 and website; and
·
Other relevant reports from private
sectors or Government.
AFCD’s annual report and website provide the most
updated information on the development and trend in Hong Kong fisheries. The latest annual fisheries production is
also provided.
The validity of the information compiled during the
literature review has been assessed before it is adopted into the present EIA
study.
Field checks were conducted in August 2009, April
2010, Jan 2011 and July 2014. Coverage of ponds during each
survey is shown in Table 9.1. Management status of fishponds was
judged by the maintenance conditions of the pond bunds and the facilities on
pond bunds, the presence/absence of aerators inside the ponds and fodder on the
pond bunds. Overgrown of bunds by grass,
absence of aerators in ponds and fodder on pond bunds were considered signs of
abandoned status.
Impacts are assessed in the absence of
mitigation. The construction and
operational phase impacts on pond culture resources have been assessed
individually, then cumulatively, in combination with other existing, committed
and proposed developments.
Table 9‑1 Survey
programme
|
Survey
dates |
Ponds checked* |
|
27 August 2009 |
Ponds
No. 1 – 21 |
|
30 April 2010 |
Ponds
No. 1 – 12, 21 |
|
20 Jan 2011 |
Ponds
No. 1 – 12, 21 |
|
25 July 2014 |
Ponds
No. 1 – 12, 21 |
|
24 Nov 2015 |
Ponds
No. 1 – 12 |
* Numbering of ponds referred to Figure 9.1; access to ponds no. 13 – 20
were blocked since Nov 2009, access to pond no. 21 was blocked in Nov 2015
Besides the fish ponds
within both the Project Area and the Assessment Area, there is no other designated or recognized site of
fisheries importance within the fisheries assessment area based upon recent
government aerial photos and site visit observations.
The Project Area is located immediately outside the
boundary of Wetland Buffer Area (WBA) (Figure 8-1), and part of the Assessment Area thus fell within the WBA. The planning intention of WBA
is to protect the ecological integrity of the fishponds and wetlands within the Wetland Conservation Area (WCA) and to prevent development that would have
a negative off-site impact on the ecological value of those fishponds.
WCA comprises
of the existing and contiguous, active or abandoned fishponds in the Deep Bay
Area. The planning intention of WCA is
to conserve the ecological value of the fishpond which form an integral part of
the wetland ecosystem in the Deep Bay Area.
New development within the WCA will not be allowed unless it is required
to support the conservation of the ecological value of the area or the
development is essential infrastructural project with overriding public
interest. The Project Area is about 520m
from the boundary of WCA.
For some fishponds in Hong
Kong, the surrounding streams/water courses would be one of the water
sources. The major water course
within the Assessment Area would be the Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel (Figure 9-1). However, the distance between this channel and the
ponds inside the Assessment area are at
least 100 m, with roads and urbanized areas in between. Therefore, the practicability of using the flow in the drainage channel for fishpond culture
purposes is in doubt.
Fisheries in Hong Kong consist of capture fisheries
and culture fisheries (which are further divided into pond culture and
mariculture). The Assessment Area is far from marine area and thus there is
neither capture fisheries nor mariculture fisheries. This FIA thus focuses on pond culture
fisheries.
The pond fish culture industry (either freshwater or brackish) is centred in the north-west New
Territories. In 2014, the local inland ponds, covering an
area of approximately 1,140 ha, produced 2,001 tonnes of freshwater fish. Most ponds
practice polyculture of carps mixed with tilapia or grey mullet. Some coastal
ponds have been converted to culture brackish species, such as scat, sea bream,
pompano and giant grouper, to reap better profits. Majority of the fry and fingerlings are
imported from the Mainland and Taiwan.
Some of the grey mullet fry may also be caught in local coastal
waters. Traditionally, fry are stocked
in early spring and most fish species reach marketable size in eight to twelve
months (Information from AFCD website).
Within 500 m of the Project
Area, there are twenty-one fish ponds and the total area was 8.9ha (Figure
9-1). Only an isolated abandoned fish pond was identified within the Project Area. Other fishponds
were all away from the Project Area, including one pond located about 340 m
northwest to the Project Area, eight ponds
situated about 100 m east to the Project Area, and twelve ponds about 200 m south to the
Project Area (Figure 9-1). According to the results of field checks for the present EIA study, all
fishponds within the Assessment Area were abandoned. There was one irregular-shaped pond adjacent
to the Project Area. It was a floodwater storage pond as part of the floodwater
pumping station managed by DSD, rather than
fish ponds.
The abandoned pond inside the Project Area was of poor conditions in
terms of pond fish culture practices (Figure
9-2). The pond had been partially filled with soil and construction
materials. The pond water was turbid and stagnant as observed. Area immediately adjacent to the pond was a
paved area used as car park. The pond was
thus highly disturbed and under high constraint for any pond culture.
The small filled abandoned
fish pond within the Project Area will not be retained for the development,
and thus the construction of the
Project would cause a permanent loss of 0.33 ha abandoned fish pond. This pond is currently of
poor conditions for pond culture, and would be difficult to be resumed given
the currently surrounding conditions and operations. The chance
that the pond within the Project Area will be resumed
as active pond is very low.
When compared with the 1,140 ha of culture fishponds in Hong Kong, the fishpond loss caused by the Project is considered to be very small (i.e. less than 0.029% of Hong Kong and 3.7% in
the Assessment Area).
Given the fact that the
affected fishpond is abandoned and small in size, the potential
impacts on pond fish production in
Hong Kong from this loss would be insignificant. The impacts of
construction and operation phases were evaluated in Table 9‑2.
Table 9‑2 Construction and
Operation Stage Impacts
|
Impact |
Source |
Receiver |
Nature of
Impacts |
Severity |
Mitigation
Required |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
Nature of
impact |
Size of
affected area |
Loss of
fisheries resources/ production |
Destruction
and disturbance of nursery and spawning grounds |
Impact on
fishing activities |
Impact on
aquaculture activity |
|
|
||
|
Construction phase |
||||||||||||
|
Fish pond loss |
Site formation |
Abandoned
pond within the Project Site |
Permanent |
0.33 ha |
Yes (only
if the abandoned fish pond within the Project Site resumed) |
No |
No |
The
fishpond area will be lost. |
Insignificant |
No |
||
|
Drainage
channel water quality
deterioration |
Site
runoff and wastewater |
Potential
water source for pond culture |
Temporary |
In the
vicinity |
No |
No |
No |
Potentially
affect the pond culture if the flow from the drainage channel is used as
water source |
Insignificant |
No
specific fisheries mitigation required. Only standard site practices (refer
to Chapter 5) |
||
|
Operation phase |
||||||||||||
|
NA |
||||||||||||
The major potential activities that could cause water
quality impacts during the construction phase of the Project include:
·
Construction site runoff; and
·
Wastewater from construction
activities.
Construction site runoff and
wastewater might not cause water quality impacts on the surrounding fishponds
since the ponds are at least 100 m away from the Project Area. Mitigation measures as mentioned in Section 5.4.2
will be implemented to minimise the potential impact of construction site runoff and wastewater to
water quality including water quality of the surrounding fishponds.
The drainage channel to the west of the Project Area might potentially
serve as water source for fish ponds in the Assessment Area. However, the need of utilisation of this
water source for the fishponds in the Assessment Area would be low as the ponds
were separated from this channel at some distance by roads. Even
though, adequate site drainage will be provided to ensure that site
runoff and wastewater will be properly contained and treated prior to discharge
into the surrounding water courses.
The access to all other
fishponds inside the Assessment Area would not
be blocked or occupied during the construction phase. The construction works would be limited
within the Project boundary. The Contractor would be required under the
Contract to maintain or re-provide all existing roads/accesses throughout the
construction period. However, only
limited traffic is expected to increase.
Even for the abandoned fishponds (Figure 9-1), at the northwest, east and south of the Project Area,
access would not be impacted and any resumptions of fish culture
operations would not be affected.
Given the nature of the Project,
no disturbance on the fishpond culture operation or deterioration of the
fishpond water quality during the operation phase of the channel are
anticipated. The pond operators/owners may opt to redevelop aquaculture in the
currently abandoned fishponds at the northwest, east and south of the Project
Area during the operation phase.
Residential discharge will be collected by
municipal sewer system, and other activities arising from the residential
development will not have an impact on culture activities and water quality of
fish ponds and nearby drainage channel during the operation phase.
As all the direct and indirect impacts in both
construction and operation phases are insignificant, no specific fisheries
mitigation measures are required.
Standard site practice detailed in Chapter 5 would be
implemented to avoid or minimise the impacts on water quality on site, which
are summarized as follows:
·
Implementation of mitigation
measures specified in ProPECC PN 1/94 to control site runoff and drainage at
all work sites during construction;
·
Construction debris and spoil should
be covered up and/or properly disposed of as soon as possible to avoid being
washed into nearby waterbodies by rain;
·
Construction effluent, site run-off
and sewage should be properly collected and/or treated;
·
Proper locations for discharge
outlets of wastewater treatment facilities well away from the natural
streams/rivers should be identified; and
·
Supervisory staff should be assigned
to station on site to closely supervise and monitor the works.
The residual impacts from the Project would be loss of
0.33 ha of fishpond area. The successful implementation
of zone “R(D)” and the impacted fishpond is abandoned,
the residual impact is acceptable.
Other than the water quality monitoring programme at
nearby water courses/ channels during the construction phase, no specific
fisheries EM&A programme would be required during the construction and
operation phases of the Project.
Literature
review and field checks have been conducted to establish the fisheries baseline
condition of the assessment area and assessment of potential impacts conducted
in accordance with the EIAO-TM requirements.
The Project would cause a loss of 0.33 ha of an abandoned fishpond. Potential impacts on fisheries of the
Assessment Area during
both construction phase and operation phase are
ranked as Insignificant. No
mitigation is required and the residual impact is acceptable. Other than the water quality monitoring programme, no
specific fisheries EM&A programme would be required.
AFCD website. (http://www.afcd.gov.hk/eindex.html)
AFCD
2013. AFCD Department Report 2013-2014.
(http://www.afcd.gov.hk/misc/download/annualreport2014/en/fisheries.html)
Environmental Protection
Department (2009). EIA Study Brief (ESB-210/2009) for Proposed Low-rise and
Low-density Residential Development at Various Lots and their Adjoining
Government Land in D.D.104 East of Kam Pok Road, Mai Po, Yuen Long, N.T.
The aims
of the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) are the followings:
·
to identify and highlight all archaeological deposits, cultural heritage
resources, built heritage structures and cultural/ historical landscapes in the
Study Area;
·
to assess direct and indirect impacts which may result from the proposed Project
on these resources; and to recommend mitigation of
impacts where required.
The CHIA will follow the Antiquities and Monuments Office Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment and will fulfil the requirements as set out in Annex 10 and 19 of
the Technical Memorandum on
EIA Process (EIA Ordinance,
Cap. 499, S.16).
Legislation,
Standards and Guidelines relevant to the consideration of Cultural Heritage
impacts under this study include the following:
·
Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance
·
Environmental
Impact Assessment Ordinance
·
Hong Kong
Planning Standards and Guidelines
·
Technical Memorandum
on Environmental Impact Assessment Process
·
Guidelines for
Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
The Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (the Ordinance) provides the statutory framework to provide for the preservation of objects of historical, archaeological
and paleontological interest. The Ordinance contains the statutory procedures for the Declaration of Monuments.
The
proposed monument can be any
place, building,
site or structure, which is considered
to be of public interest by
reason of its historical,
archaeological or paleontological significance.
Under Section 6 and subject to sub-section (4) of the Ordinance, the following acts are prohibited in relation to certain
monuments, except under
permit;
·
To excavate, carry on building works, plant or fell trees or deposit earth
or refuse on or in a proposed monument or monument;
·
To demolish, remove,
obstruct, deface or interfere with a proposed
monument
or monument.
The discovery of an Antiquity, as defined in the Ordinance must be reported to
the Antiquities Authority (the Authority), or a designated person. The Ordinance also
provides that,
the ownership of every relic discovered
in Hong Kong after the commencement of this Ordinance shall vest in the Government from the moment of discovery. The Authority on behalf of the Government may disclaim ownership of
the
relic.
No archaeological excavation may be carried out by any person, other than
the Authority and the designated person, without a licence issued by
the
Authority. A licence will
only
be issued if
the
Authority is satisfied that
the
applicant has sufficient scientific training
or experience to enable him to carry out
the excavation
and search satisfactorily, is able to conduct, or arrange for, a proper scientific study of any antiquities discovered as a result of the excavation and search and
has sufficient staff and financial support.
It should also
be noted that the discovery of an
antiquity
under any circumstances must be reported to the authority, i.e. the Secretary
for Development or designated
person. The authority
may
require
that the antiquity
or suspected antiquity is
identified to the authority
and that any person who has discovered an antiquity or suspected
antiquity should take all reasonable measures to
protect it.
The Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) was implemented on 1 April 1998. Its purpose is
to
avoid, minimise and control the adverse
impact on the environment of designated projects, through the application of the EIA process and
the
Environmental Permit (EP) system.
Chapter 10 of the HKPSG details the principles of conservation of natural landscape and
habitats, historic buildings and archaeological sites.
The
document states that
the retention of
significant heritage features should
be adopted through the
creation of
conservation
zones within
which
uses should be restricted
to ensure the
sustainability of the heritage features.
The
guidelines state that the concept of
conservation of heritage features, should not be restricted to individual structures, but should endeavour to
embrace the setting
of
the feature or features in
both urban and rural settings.
The guidelines also address the issue of the preparation of plans for the conservation of
historic buildings, archaeological sites and other antiquities. It is noted that the
Existing Declared Monuments and proposed Monuments be listed in the explanatory notes of Statutory Town
Plans and that it be stated
that prior consultation
with
AMO
is
necessary for any redevelopment or rezoning
proposals
affecting the Monuments
and their surrounding environments.
It is also noted
that
planning
intention
for non-statutory town plans at the
sub-regional level should
be include
the protection of monuments, historic
buildings, archaeological sites and other antiquities through the identification of such
features
on
sub-regional layout plans. It
also
addresses
the issue of enforcement.
The appendices list the
legislation
and
administrative controls for conservation, other conservation related measures in Hong Kong, and Government departments involved
in conservation.
The general criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing impacts to Cultural
Heritage are listed in Annexes 10 and 19 of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM). It is stated in Annex 10
that all adverse impacts
to Sites of Cultural Heritage
should be kept to
an absolute minimum and that the
general presumption of impact assessment should
be in
favour of the protection
and
conservation of all Sites of Cultural Heritage. Annex 19 provides
the details of scope and
methodology
for
undertaking
Cultural Heritage
Impact Assessment, including baseline
study, impact assessment and mitigation
measures.
This document, as issued by
the Antiquities and Monuments Office, outlines the specific technical requirement for conducting terrestrial archaeological and
built
heritage
impact assessments and
is
based upon the requirements of the Technical
Memorandum for Environmental Impact Assessment. It includes the parameters and scope for the Baseline Study, specifically desk-based research
and field evaluation.
There are also included guidelines encompassing reporting requirements and
archive preparation and submission in the form of Guidelines for Archaeological
Reports and Guidelines for the Handling of Archaeological Finds and Archives.
The prerequisite conditions for conducting
impact assessment and mitigation
measures are presented in
detail, including
the
prediction and evaluation of impacts based upon five levels of significance (Beneficial,
Acceptable, Acceptable with
Mitigation Measures, Unacceptable and Undetermined). The guidelines also state
that preservation in totality must be taken as the first priority and if this is not
feasible due to site constraints or other factors, full justification
must be provided.
Mitigation measures will be proposed in cases with identified impacts and shall have the aim of minimising the degree of adverse impact and also where applicable
providing enhancement to a heritage site through means such as enhancement of the existing environment or improvement to accessibility
of heritage sites.
The responsibility for the implementation of any proposed mitigation measures must
be clearly stated with details of when and where the measures will be implemented and
by whom.
A CHIA has been undertaken
for the Project by China Point Consultants Limited. A report detailing the assessment methodology
and results is also provided in Appendix
10-1.
According to
CHIA report presented in Appendix 10-1, no sites of archaeological interest or
areas of archaeological interest, declared/
proposed monuments, historical villages, cultural landscaped features, and graves were identified
within the Study Area. The identified Built Heritage Items (BH1 to BH4, i.e. the temple in Chuk Yuen Tsuen and three graded historic buildings
in San Wai Tsuen) (about 250m-280m from the Project Site) are considerably
far from the Project Site. No impact during construction phase is anticipated.
According to the CHIA report
presented in Appendix 10-1, no sites of archaeological interest or areas of archaeological interest, declared/ proposed monuments, historical villages,
cultural landscaped features, and graves were identified within the Study Area. The identified
Built Heritage Items (BH1 to BH4, i.e. the temple in
Chuk Yuen Tsuen and three graded historic buildings in San Wai Tsuen) (about 250m-280m from the Project Site) are considerably far from the Project Site. No impact during operational phase is anticipated.
As there were no associated impacts identified, no
mitigation measure was required. As a
precautionary
measure however, it is
recommended that care should be
taken during the construction stage to report any signs of possible discovery of artefacts.
As no impact is predicted, no residual impact will be incurred.
There are no environmental monitoring and audit requirements proposal for cultural heritage.
According to the assessment
findings, no sites of
archaeological interest or areas of archaeological interest, declared/ proposed
monuments, historical villages, cultural landscaped features, and graves were identified within the Study Area. The identified Built Heritage Items (BH1 to
BH4,
i.e. the temple in Chuk Yuen Tsuen and three graded historic buildings in San
Wai Tsuen) (about 250m-280m
from the Project Site) are
considerably far from the Project Site.
No impact during
construction and operational phase is anticipated.
The proposed development will not encroach
upon any known site of archaeological interest or areas of
archaeological interest, and will not have any
direct or indirect impacts on any
declared monuments, graded or
proposed graded historic buildings,
cultural landscape features,
graves or historical village during construction and operational
phases. No specific EM&A requirement is considered necessary.
This
section describes legislation and guidelines that have been reviewed in the
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA).
The landscape baseline reviews the condition of existing landscape
resources (LRs) and landscape character areas (LCAs), planning and development
control framework, and the visual amenity and visually sensitive receivers
(VSRs).
The
assessment has been based on the criteria and guidelines stated in Annexes 10
and 18 of the EIAO-TM and covered in the scope outlined in the EIA Study Brief.
The assessment identifies potential landscape and visual impacts that would
occur during the construction and operational phases of low-rise and
low-density residential development at various Lots and their Adjoining
Government Land in D.D. 104, East of Kam Pok Road, Mai Po, Yuen Long,
recommends landscape mitigation measures to alleviate the impacts; and
identifies residual effects apparent after mitigation.
Legislation, Standards,
Guidelines and Criteria relevant to the consideration of landscape and visual
impacts in this report include the following:
¡ Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap.
499) and the Technical Memorandum on EIA Process (EIAO-TM), particularly
Annexes 3, 10, 11, 18, 20 and 21;
¡ EIAO Guidance Note 8/2010 on Preparation of Landscape
and Visual Impact Assessment under the EIAO;
¡ Town Planning Ordinance (Cap 131);
¡ Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines
Chapter 4 and Chapter 10;
¡ ETWB TCW No. 6/2005 on Maintenance of Vegetation
and Hard Landscape Features;
¡ ETWB TCW No. 29/2004 on Registration of Old and
Valuable Trees, and Guidelines for their Preservation;
¡ ETWB TCW No. 8/2005 - Aesthetics Design of
Ancillary Buildings in Engineering Projects;
¡ Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap. 96) and
its subsidiary legislations;
¡ Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and
Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586);
¡ EPD Guidelines and References on Design of Noise
Barriers, Second Issue, January 2003;
¡ GEO Publication No. 1/2011 "Technical
Guidelines on Landscape Treatment and Bio-engineering for Man-made Slopes and
Retaining Walls"; and GEO Technical Guidance Note No. 20 (TGN 20);
¡ Land Administration Office , Lands Department
Practice Note No. 7/2007 Tree Preservation and Tree Removal Application for
Building Development in Private Projects; and
¡ Study on Landscape
Value Mapping of Hong Kong, 2005.
The preparation of the
LVIA is based on the EIAO GN No. 8/2010 “Preparation of Landscape and Visual
Impact Assessment under the EIAO” for evaluation of proposed development. Section
2 of EIA describes the details of the Project and this LVIA section also
provides a summary. The methodology for the LVIA is described in the following
sections.
A review of the existing
planning studies and documents has been undertaken as part of the baseline
study to gain an insight into the planned role of the site, its surrounding
areas, and its landscape context and to help to determine if the project fits
into the wider existing and future landscape context. This review has considered the Outline Zoning Plans including Approved Kam
Tin North
Outline Zoning Plan No. S/YL-KTN/9, Approved Mai Po &
Fairview Park Outline Zoning Plan No. S/YL-MP/6, Approved Ngau Tam Mei Outline
Zoning Plan No. S/YL-NTM/12 and Approved
Nam Sang Wai Outline Zoning Plan No. S/YL-NSW/8. Compatibility of the proposed works
to the planned developments within the Study Area is considered in terms of the landscape and visual impacts.
The assessment of the
potential impacts of a proposed scheme on the existing landscape comprises two
distinct sections namely the baseline survey and the landscape impact
assessment. Landscape Impact Assessment
(LIA) Study Area has been undertaken to include all areas within 500 m of the
site boundary in accordance with the EIA Study Brief.
A baseline survey of the
existing landscape resources and landscape character has been undertaken based on
a combination of desktop studies and site surveys. The landscape elements which
contribute to the landscape character include:
¡ Local topography and geology
¡ 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 water bodies; and
¡ Cultural and religious identity.
The process of landscape
characterisation draws on the information gathered in the desktop and site
survey and provides an analysis of the way in which the elements including the
identified landscape resources (LRs) interact to create the character of the
landscape. The Study Area is then divided into broadly homogenous units of
similar character, which are called Landscape Character Areas (LCAs).
The sensitivity of the
individual LRs and LCAs is rated using low, medium or high depending on the
following factors:
¡ Condition, quality and maturity (maturity in
this context refers to the age of the LR or LCA relative to its constituent
components therefore a woodland containing mature trees would be considered to
have a high level of maturity) of the LRs / LCAs;
¡ Importance and rarity of special landscape
elements (rarity being of either local, regional, national or global
importance) ;
¡ Significance of the LRs / LCAs from a local and
regional perspective (therefore the sensitivity of a LR or LCA which is either
rare in a local or regional context is greater than one which is common place);
¡ Ability of the LRs / LCAs to accommodate change;
and
¡ Statutory or regulatory requirements relating to
the landscape including its resources.
The next stage of the
assessment process is the identification of the assessment of the magnitude of
change (rated as negligible, small, intermediate
or large) arising from the implementation of the project and the principal
sources of impact based on the following factors:
¡ Scale of the works and the associated supporting
facilities
¡ Compatibility of the project with the
surrounding landscape
¡ Duration of impacts (temporary or permanent)
under construction and operation phases and
¡ Reversibility of change
The degree of
significance of landscape impact is derived from the magnitude of change which
the project will cause to the LRs/LCAs and the sensitivity of the LRs/LCAs.
This makes a comparison between the landscapes, which would have existed in the
absence of the Project with that predicted as a result of the implementation of
the project. The significance threshold for impacts to LRs and LCAs is rated as
significant, moderate, slight or insubstantial.
The impacts may be beneficial or adverse.
The significance threshold is derived from the following matrix:
|
Magnitude of Change caused by Project |
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 |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
|
|
Low |
Medium |
High |
|
|
|
Sensitivity
of LRs/LCAs |
||
To minimize conflicts
with existing vegetation a preliminary tree survey in accordance with LAO PN
No. 7/2007, ‘Tree Preservation and Tree Removal Application for Building Development
in Private Projects’ has been
undertaken to inform the potential tree impact assessed in this LVIA as a
result of the proposed works. This tree survey involves the identification of
individual trees within the proposed works area. The survey includes individual
tree species, sizes, health condition, form, and amenity value and their
treatment as a result of the implementation of proposed works.
This existing tree data
allows the fine tuning of the detailed design for the proposed works and
ensures that any significant trees including potential old and valuable trees
or rare or protected tree species, where possible, be protected in current
location or through transplantation during both the construction and
operational phases of the Project.
The assessment of the
potential visual impact of the scheme comprises two distinct parts:
¡ Baseline survey which identifies the visual
envelope, zone of visual influence, the visually sensitive receivers and their quality of existing
views and their sensitivity to change as a result of proposed works; and
¡ Visual impact assessment which includes the
identification of the sources of visual impact, and their magnitude, that would
be generated during construction and operation phases of the proposed works;
and identification of the principal visual impacts primarily in consideration
of the degree of change to the baseline conditions.
The assessment area for
the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) is defined by an Visual Envelope (VE) which
includes all areas from which the proposed works can be seen, or the area forms
the view shed formed by natural / manmade features such as existing ridgelines,
built development and for example areas of woodland / large trees. Within the
VE, Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) is identified to demonstrate the visibility
of the proposed works. This is achieved through a combination of detailed
walkover surveys, and desk-top study of topographic maps and photographs, and
preparation of cross-sections to determine visibility of the improvement works
from various locations.
The baseline survey of
all views towards the proposals is undertaken by identifying:
¡ The VE and ZVI are the area from which the whole
or portions of the development or other structure or its associated offsite construction activities and temporary works is theoretically visible; and
¡ The visually sensitive receivers (VSRs) within
the visual envelope whose views will be affected by the scheme.
The potential receivers
are considered as four groups:
¡ 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;
¡ Views from recreational landscapes – including
all areas apart from the above, e.g., public parks, recreation grounds,
footpaths, cultural sites etc. Sensitivity of this group depends on the length
of stay and nature of activity, e.g. sitting in a park as opposed to an active
sporting pursuit; and
¡ Views from riverside access, public roads and
railways – including vehicle travellers with transitory views.
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. Factors affecting the sensitivity of
receivers for evaluation of visual impacts include:
¡ 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.
Views available to the
identified VSRs are rated according to their sensitivity to change using low,
medium or high.
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
(planned) visually sensitive receivers (PVSRs), if any, are considered.
The factors affecting
the magnitude of change for assessing the visual impacts include the following:
¡ Scale of the works and the associated supporting
facilities;
¡ Compatibility of the project with the
surrounding landscape;
¡ The extent of visibility of the proposed works
and level of potential blockage of existing views;
¡ Viewing distance;
¡ Duration of impacts under construction and
operational phases; and
¡ Reversibility of change
The magnitude of change
to the views will be classified as follows:
¡ Large: e.g. large project works extent/
extensively blocked the views of VSRs / Project nature is not compatible to
existing visual context / works area located in the foreground of the visual
context / permanent impacts / irreversible of change;
¡ Intermediate: e.g. intermediate project works
extent / partially blocked the views of VSRs / project nature is fairly
compatible to existing visual context / works area located in the middle ground
of the visual context and not immediately adjacent to VSRs or their views are
already partially screened by existing topography, built structures or
vegetation / permanent impacts/ Irreversible of change;
¡ Small: e.g. small project works extent / no
blockage of views / project nature is compatible to existing visual context / works
area located in distant to VSRs / permanent impacts and duration of
construction impacts is short/ Irreversible change or temporary change of view;
and
¡ Negligible: e.g. no discernible change in visual
context.
Therefore the impact is derived from the magnitude of
change, which the project will cause, to the existing visual context and the
sensitivity of VSRs. The significance threshold is derived from the following
matrix:
|
Magnitude of Change Caused by Project |
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 |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
|
|
Low |
Medium |
High |
|
|
|
Sensitivity of VSRs |
||
Table 11.1 below provides an explanation of the degree of impact
for both landscape and visual impact of the project.
Table 11‑1 Degree
of Impact
|
Impact |
Description |
|
Significant |
Adverse / beneficial
impact where the proposal would cause significant deterioration or
improvement in existing landscape quality or visual amenity. |
|
Moderate |
Adverse /
beneficial impact where the proposal would cause a noticeable deterioration
or improvement in existing landscape quality or visual amenity. |
|
Slight |
Adverse /
beneficial impact where the proposal would cause a barely perceptible
deterioration or improvement in the existing landscape quality or visual
amenity. |
|
Insubstantial |
No discernible
change in the existing landscape quality or visual amenity. |
The purpose of
mitigation is to avoid, reduce, and where possible remedy or offset any adverse
effects on the environment arising from the proposed works. The ideal strategy
for identifiable adverse impacts is one of avoidance. If this is not possible,
alternative strategies of reduction, remediation and compensation should be
explored.
Mitigation measures may
be considered under two categories:
¡ Primary mitigation measures which are embedded
into the project design and have been developed through an iterative design
process. These mitigation measures is the most effective if considered as an
integral part of the site layout and design to avoid adverse impact in the
design process; and
¡ Secondary mitigation measures designed to
specifically address the remaining (residual) adverse effects arising from the proposed works.
Primary mitigation measures
form integrated mainstream components of the proposed works focusing on the
adoption of alternatives to the alignment and their associated above-ground
structures; and refinements to the basic engineering and architectural design
including layout, built structures etc. to avoid and/or minimize potential
adverse impacts. The design philosophy can also describe the benefits to the
design of alternative solutions, introduced to reduce potential adverse
impacts, and indicate how these have been addressed.
Secondary mitigation
measures are specifically designed to mitigate the adverse impacts of the
proposed works and are considered in the assessment of the landscape and visual
impacts. These may take the form of remedial
measures such as colour and textural treatment of built structure; and
compensatory measures such as the implementation of landscape design measures
(e.g. tree planting, creation of new amenity area etc.) to compensate for
unavoidable adverse impacts and to attempt to generate potentially beneficial
long-term impacts.
Programme for the
mitigation measures will be provided. The agencies responsible for the funding,
implementation, management and maintenance of the mitigation measures will be
identified.
The residual impacts are
those, which remain after the proposed mitigation measures, have been
implemented. This has been assessed both during the construction period and
during the design year, which is often taken to be 10 to 15 years after the
proposed scheme has been opened to normal operation when the soft landscape
mitigation measures are deemed to have reached a level of maturity, which
allows them to perform their original design objectives.
The level of impact is
derived from the magnitude of change, which the project will cause to the
LRs/LCAs and the visual context of VSRs taking into account the beneficial
effects of the proposed mitigation and the sensitivity of LRs/LCAs and VSRs.
The significance threshold is derived from the matrices described separately
above for the landscape and visual impacts.
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 11-2 below.
Table 11‑2 Residual
Impact Significance Threshold Matrix
|
Residual
Impact |
Description |
|
Beneficial |
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 |
|
Acceptable |
There will be no
significant effects on the landscape, no significant visual effects caused by
the appearance of the project, or no interference with key views. |
|
Acceptable with
mitigation measures |
There will be
some adverse effects, but these can be eliminated, reduced or offset to a
large extent by specific measures. |
|
Unacceptable |
The adverse effects
are considered too excessive and are unable to mitigate practically; |
|
Undetermined |
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. |
¡ 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
¡ Day 1 of Operation Phase without Landscape and
Visual Mitigation Measures
¡ Day 1 of Operation Phase with Landscape and
Visual Mitigation Measures and
¡ Year 10 of Operation Phase with Landscape and
Visual Mitigation Measures
An overall assessment of
the acceptability, or otherwise, of the impacts will be carried out according
to the five criteria set out in Annex 10 of the EIAO-TM, namely Beneficial,
Acceptable, Acceptable with Mitigation Measures, Unacceptable and Undetermined.
Evaluation of layout options
and the relevant landscape and visual issues have been discussed in Section 2
of this Report. The process of selecting a recommended layout for the proposed
development considered several alternative layout options based on the initial
findings of the various assessments. Scenario 1 assumed that no permanent
development will be taken place within the Project Site. Options A is the
development layout derived during the planning application A/YL-MP/170. This
layout was approved by Town Planning Board on 7 May 2010. Asides from Option A, another alternative
development scheme was also developed as Option B. The Option B (recommended scheme) is the
Recommended Layout forming the basis of this assessment which was subsequently approved by Town Planning Board on 7 February 2014 under the planning application A/YL-MP/202. Alternative layouts are put in Figures 2-5 to 2-6.
Among which, the
following alternative
development options and layouts are
evaluated in terms of landscape and visual perspectives. All options and layouts comply with noise mitigation requirement to indusial noise
which generated from adjacent workshops through the use of noise barrier at
periphery of the Project Site. The selection of the recommended layout requires
a balanced view of landscape and visual with other environmental factors which
is considered in Section 2. A comparison of the environmental concern of the
development options is shown on Table 11-3.
Scenario 1: Without the Project
The “Without the
Project” scenario assumes that no permanent development will take place within
the Project Site. Without the proposed development, it is assumed that the existing
open car park for heavy duty vehicles will be continuously operating that
implies no improvement on the
existing unpleasant landscape features found in the core area of the Project
Site including open storage activities and/or material dumping activities, weedy trees, the continuing operation or expansion of these activities in the Project Site will
lead to further degradation of the adjoining nullahside rural character.
Although existing tree and shrub planting along Kam Pok Road, Fung Chuk Road
and Ha Chuk Yuen Road North serve as a visual buffer to these unpleasant
features, these features are still dominant in the views of residents living
along Ha San Wai Road and visitors along the Ngau Tam Mei Nullah. Besides, the
continuing operation of existing activities does not fit into the planning
intention for the area which supports low-rise/ low-density developments and
tends to fade out the unpleasant open storage/ car parking and industrial uses
in the environs.
Scenario 2 “ With the
Residential Development” contained the following three development layout options
which derived at different time during planning applications.
Option A is to develop
the Project Site with 42 houses based on the approved S16 planning application
(Application No. A/YL-MP/170). Low-rise residential development and its
associated landscape proposals will replace existing unpleasant landscape
features. A 1.5m wide planting zone is proposed eastern periphery of the
Project Site along Ha Chuk Yuen Road, in combination of vegetation on sloping
area, this planning and tree preservation proposals serve as visual mitigation
to the proposed 8m high noise barrier wall. This noise barrier wall is designed
with monotonous height along three sides of the Project Site for fully
compliance with EPD noise mitigation requirement for industrial noise generated
from the east of Ha Chuk Yuen Road and traffic noise along Kam Pok Road.
Although the scheme have been approved on 7 May 2010 by Town Planning Board,
the noise barrier design and planting proposal under the approved scheme are
required to be further explored to minimise the visual intrusion of barrier
wall and maximise the greening opportunities for the wall and within the
development to address comments from Urban Design and Landscape Unit at
Planning Department during the application.
Option B: Interim layout devised
Another development layout is formulated with the aim to address the
technical requirements and further explores the design of noise barrier and associated planting
proposal for
the low-rise residential development which
was not yet provided in Option A.
Proposed number of houses reduced from 42 to 32 will enhance the
permeability of the proposed development.
A landscape and recreation core is provided under this development
layout creating high quality
recreation spaces for the use of future residents as well as enhancing local
landscape quality and visual amenity. This residential landscape will visually benefit to the adjacent residents at
Fairview Park and along Ha San Wai Road, planned residential and recreational users along Yau Pok Road and Kam Pok Road, and visitors
along Ngau Tam Mei Nullah. Planting concept which utilised both native and ornamental species will extend
from the proposed landscape core to internal streets of the proposed
development and to the landscape buffer at periphery of the Project Site. This proposal will create a comprehensive landscape framework
for the proposed development. A 5m wide
landscape buffer is adopted in design of noise mitigation measure to minimise the visual impact. The height of the noise barrier varies from 9.5 to
6.5m along Ha Chuk Yuen Road, stepped height profile have been used in this
layout option. Although the extent of proposed
noise barrier is less than Option A, the barrier has a
higher height profile than Option A. Even a screening buffer has been
incorporated in front of the barrier, it is still visually dominant in the
views of residential neighbourhoods.
Option B: Recommended
Layout: Preferred Development Scheme(Planning application
approved scheme under A/YL-MP/202 (approved by Town Planning Board on 7
February 2014)
This recommended layout is
formulated with the aim to address the technical requirements and further explore
the design of noise barrier and associated planting proposal which was not yet
provided in Option B. The development density and the
extent of noise barrier are the same as Option B. The site area have been
slightly reduced in this development layout to exclude the potential works area
for infrastructure works along Kam Pok Road which will be implemented by
others. The reduction of site area
implies less impact of roadside amenity along Kam Pok Road. The height of noise
barrier is limited to maximum 10.1mPD (approximately 200m long and 4.5m high
along Ha Chuk Yuen Road). Besides, a semi-sunken temporary sewage treatment,
the refuse and switch room along south-eastern boundary of the Site are
designed to form the remaining portion of noise mitigation measures along Ha
Chuk Yuen Road. 5 to 8m wide landscape buffer, in combination of tree planting
and preserved trees, is designed at the outerside of the noise barrier. The planting strip extends along the periphery
of the Site to screen the 2.5m high fence wall as well as proposed houses. 32 numbers of proposed 2-storey houses are
6.6m high which the building height is compatible to the existing and planned
developments in the surrounding context. Same as Option B, the proposed
residential landscape will visually
benefit the adjacent residents at Fairview Park and along Ha San Wai Road,
planned residential
and recreational users. This integrated design approach of noise barrier and built structures
and the introduction of landscape buffer/continuous planting strip
mentioned above would further minimise
the visual impact and would be better integrated with the surrounding landscape character
when compared to Interim layout. Lower height profile of noise barrier and wider landscape
buffer in this option enhanced the
screening effect
when compared to Option A and B,
hence it is considered as a Preferred Development layout.
Of the development scenarios
and layout options mentioned above,
the Recommended Development Layout prefers from both landscape and visual impact perspectives through the
reduction in the number of houses,
responsive house disposition which
maximised the degree of visual access from east to west through the proposed
development, the variation of built form and noise barrier design creating
architectural interest and introduction of wider landscape buffer in the existing rural context and better integration of existing landscape buffer along Kam Pok
Road and Ha Chuk Yuen Road.
Table 11‑3 Comparison of Alternative
Development Options and Layouts
|
Evaluation
Criteria |
Scenario 1: Without the Project |
Scenario 2: With the Project |
|||
|
Option A Previous Approved Scheme (Application No. A/YL-MP/170) |
Option B |
Option B: Recommended Layout (Approved Scheme under Planning Application A/YL-MP/202) |
|||
|
|
|
||||
|
Site Area |
38,400m2 |
37,930m2(Approx.) |
37,930m2(Approx.) |
37,645m2(Approx.) Reduction in site area. |
|
|
Site Coverage |
67.4% of open
yard for car parking/open storage/ temporary structures/ green nursery, 23.8%
roadside amenity area surrounding the site along Kam Pok Road and Ha Chuk
Yuen Road and 8.8% abandon fishpond located at south-eastern corner of the
site. |
Max 20% |
Max 20% |
Max. 20% |
|
|
Number of House |
N/A |
42 Average house
size from 139.35 to 278.70 m2 |
32 Average house
size from 206.99 to 340.95 m2 |
32 Average house
size from 206.99 to 340.95 m2 |
|
|
Number of Storeys |
Existing single storey of temporary structures, car parking and
open container storage. |
2 storeys |
2 storeys |
2 storeys |
|
|
Building Height |
Less than 5m high |
6.6m |
6.6m |
6.6m |
|
|
Height of Noise Mitigation along Ha Chuk Yuen Road |
N/A |
7.5m high barrier + 0.5m high cantilever penal Monotonous height |
6.3 to 9.3m high barrier + 0.2m high noise reducer |
4.5 m high barrier + integrated
design approach with sewage treatment plant with a height of not more than
10.4mPD. |
|
|
Building Orientation |
Scattered Temporary Structures |
Single Loop
Layout Club house facilities and communal recreation areas located at
entrance of the Site. Houses distributed alongside of single loop internal road layout. Extent of private premises up to the edge
of site boundary. . |
Focal Point
Layout Club house facilities and communal recreation focused in central
portion of the site. Houses distributed in the northern and southern portions of the
site along east-west orientated internal roads. Landscape buffer along the edge of
the Site. |
Focal Point
Layout Club house facilities and communal recreational areas focused in
central portion of the site. Houses distributed in the northern and southern portions of the site
along east-west orientated internal roads. Larger houses distributed along north-eastern portion of the site. Landscape buffer along the edge of
the Site. |
|
|
View Corridors |
No major visual corridor provided. |
No major visual corridor provided. |
No major visual corridor provided. |
No major visual corridor provided. |
|
|
Visual Mass of Structure and Permeability |
Given to the low existing building height profile, temporary
structures within the Site are screened by amenity planting along Kam Pok
Road and Ha Chuk Yuen Road |
Small average flat sizes. Less communal landscape and recreation areas. Average size
private garden areas. |
Smaller flat size mix, less number of houses proposed. Less internal road
coverage. Maximizes visual permeability through the provision of landscape
and recreation core and disposition of the houses. |
Larger flat size mix, least number of houses proposed. Smaller private garden areas, more communal space and landscape area. Less internal road
coverage. Maximizes visual permeability through the provision of landscape
and recreation core and disposition of the houses. |
|
|
Landscape
Impacts |
|||||
|
Impact on
Existing Trees |
No development / No Impact Weedy trees and existing trees with low amenity value remain on site. |
Tree retention along Kam Pok Road on the slope along Ha Chuk Yuen
Road. Moderate Tree Impact |
More tree retention along Kam Pok Road, Fung Chuk Road and Ha Chuk
Yuen Road. Less Tree Impact than Option A |
More tree retention along Kam Pok Road, Fung Chuk Road and Ha Chuk
Yuen Road when compared to Option A and B due to reduction of site area. |
|
|
Landscape
Resources |
Impact on landscape resources : Roadside amenity: No Impact Fishpond (abandoned) : No Impact Open yard: No Impact |
Impact on landscape resources : Roadside amenity: approx. 1.06 ha loss (Medium impact on existing
trees): Significant Adverse Impact Fishpond (abandoned) : approx. 0.33 ha.: Moderate Adverse Open yard:
2.5 ha : Moderate Adverse Impact |
Impact on landscape resources : Roadside amenity: approx. 0.9 ha loss(Less impact on existing trees) :
Moderate Adverse Impact Fishpond (abandoned): approx. 0.33 ha Moderate Adverse Impact Open yard: 2.5 ha : Moderate Adverse Impact |
Impact on landscape resources : Roadside amenity: approx. 0.6 ha (Less impact on existing trees) :
Moderate Adverse Impact Fishpond (abandoned): approx. 0.33 ha Moderate Adverse Impact Open yard: 2.5 ha : Moderate Adverse Impact Least loss of roadside amenity due to reduction of site area when
compared to Option A and B. |
|
|
Landscape
Character |
Impact on landscape character areas: Kam Pok
Road Roadside Residential Landscape : No Impact Indirect
impacts: No Impact The site is largely hard paved for open car park, existing unpleasant
landscape character will remain unchanged. |
Impact on landscape character areas: Kam Pok
Road Roadside Residential Landscape: Insubstantial upon implementation of residential landscape proposals.
No impact on surroundings low-rise and rural residential landscapes. |
Impact on landscape character areas: Kam Pok
Road Roadside Residential Landscape : Insubstantial impact upon implementation of residential landscape
proposals Wider landscape buffer (5m wide) at the periphery of the site
incorporated when compared to Option A. Better screening effect on noise
barrier wall. Articulated design of noise mitigation instead of monotonous
design when compared to Option A. Removal of noise barrier along Kam Pok Road No impact on surroundings low-rise and rural residential landscapes.. |
Impact on landscape character areas: Kam Pok
Road Roadside Residential Landscape : Insubstantial impact upon implementation of
residential landscape proposals Integrated design of noise mitigation with built structures instead of monotonous panel design when compared to Option A and B. Lowest overall height of noise barrier when compared to the previous
options. Wider landscape buffer (5-8m wide) at the most periphery of the site
than Option A. Better screening effect on high noise barrier wall. No impact on surroundings low-rise and rural residential landscapes. |
|
|
Visual
Impacts |
No impact. Visually unpleasant open car park occupied by heavy duty trucks and
coaches and weedy trees remain on site, the visual quality is poor. |
Relatively higher density of houses The longest extent of noise barrier along three sides of the site.
Medium overall height of noise barrier when compared to the other option. For VSRs including residents living in the village settlements and
low-rise residential developments surrounding the site will experience
significant visual impact due to loss of roadside amenity and the
introduction of noise barrier along all three sides of the site. Visual quality enhanced upon replacement of existing unpleasant use
with residential landscape. |
Less density of houses Noise barrier required only along Ha Chuk Yuen Road. Option with the
highest overall height of noise barrier. Design with articulated edges and
stepped height profile. For VSRs including residents living in the village settlements and
low-rise residential developments surrounding the site will experience
moderate to significant visual impact due to loss of roadside amenity and the
introduction of noise barrier. Less visual impact than Option A due to the reduction of the height
and extent of noise barrier and number of proposed houses. Visual quality enhanced upon replacement of existing unpleasant use
with residential landscape. |
Less density of houses Similar noise barrier extent as Option B. Integrated noise mitigation
with built structures, STP, further reduced the extent of noise barrier
panel. The lowest noise barrier when compared to Option A and B For VSRs including residents living in the village settlements and
low-rise residential developments surrounding the site will experience
moderate to significant visual impact due to loss of roadside amenity and the
introduction of noise barrier. Option with the least visual impact to the residential neighbourhoods
due to further reduction of the height profile and extent of noise
barrier. Visual quality enhanced upon replacement of existing unpleasant use
with residential landscape. |
|
A review of the existing
planning studies and documents has been undertaken as part of the baseline
study to gain an insight into the planned role of the site, its surrounding
areas, and its landscape context and help to determine if the project fits into
the wider existing and future landscape context. The assessment does not
consider all of the areas zoned on the OZP but focuses on only those affected
by the proposed works. The locations of these areas are shown on Figures 11-1.
This review considered the following aspects of the identified planning
designations:
·
Zoning areas which would be physically affected by
the proposals, that is where the implementation of the proposed works would lead
to the actual loss of an area;
·
The potential degradation of the landscape setting
of an area which might affect the viability of its landscape planning
designation but not result in a loss of zoning area;
·
The visual amenity enjoyed by future residents or
users; and
·
The general fit of the proposals into this future
landscape.
The assessment covers areas shown on the following
Outline Zoning Plans:
·
S/YL-KTN/9 Kam Tin North;
·
S/YL-MP/6 Mai Po & Fairview Park;
·
S/YL-NTM/12 Ngau Tam Mei; and
·
S/YL-NSW/8 Nam Sang Wai
Table 11-4
indicates that proposed house development will have direct impact on a
Residential (Group D) zone under Mai Po & Fairview Park OZP No. S/YL-MP/6. There is no impact on adjacent
zonings under Kam Tin North OZP No.
S/YL-KTN/9, Ngau
Tam Mei OZP
No. S/YL-NTM/12 and Nam Sang Wai
OZP No. S/YL-NSW/8. Considered that the proposed residential development is
low-rise and low-density which complied with the
existing land uses and planning intention of future land uses in the
context. Therefore the proposed
works have no conflict and implication on existing or planned designations as
shown in OZPs. Town Planning Board has
approved the development scheme under Planning Application A/YL-MP/202 on 7
February 2014 which is the Preferred Development Scheme under this EIA.
Table 11‑4 Review
of Existing Planning and Development Control Framework
|
Land Use Zonings |
Landscape Planning, Design and Conservation Intention of Zoning |
Potential Impacts/Approx. Area Affected by the Proposed Works /
Total Zoning Area |
Mitigation Measures and Future Outlook of the Area with the
Proposed Works |
|
Outline Zoning Plan Number: S/YL-MP/6 Mai Po & Fairview Park |
|||
|
Residential
(Group D) (14.9Ha) |
This zone is intended
primarily for improvement and upgrading of existing temporary structures
within the rural areas through redevelopment of existing temporary structures
into permanent buildings. It is also intended for low-rise, low-density
residential developments subject to planning permission from the Town
Planning Board. |
Approximately half of this
zoning site will be acquired for the construction of the low-rise and
low-density residential development. (3.8 Ha
affected, 25.5% of the total zoning area) Magnitude: Small |
The subject site is currently
occupied by temporary open car park and open storage which are intended to be
fading out in the area. The preferred scheme under the recent Section 16
planning application has been approved by Town Planning Board on 7 February 2014. As such, the proposed residential development is considered to
be tolerable to the existing land use and planning intention for this area. Concurrent
Projects within this OZP: Proposed
Residential Development within “Residential (Group D)” zone at various lots
in DD104, Yuen Long, N.T. (Study Brief No. ESB - 204/2009) - low-rise residential
development (6.1Ha, 71 houses, 3-storeys + 1 basement) at the northern
portion of this zoning has been approved by the Town Planning Board on 2013. EIA studies required under the EIAO to be
carried out. Proposed
Residential Cum Passive Recreation Development within "Recreation"
Zone and "Residential (Group
C)" Zone at Various Lots in DD 104, Yuen Long, N.T. (EIA Register No.: AEIAR-182/2014) - low-rise residential cum
recreation
development (9 Ha, 106 houses, 2-storeys) in the
Recreation Zone (REC) to the east of Fairview Park along Yau Pok Road.
Environmental Permit issued by EPD in 2014. Amendments to Statutory Plan under
planning application no. TPB/Y/YL-MP/3 has been agreed by Town Planning Board
in May 2016. Comprehensive Development and Wetland Protection
near Yau Mei San Tsuen, Yuen Long (EIA Register No.: AEIAR-189/2015) - low-rise residential
development with wetland restoration proposal (8.1Ha, 70 houses, 3-storeys) in
the Comprehensive Development and Wetland Protection Area zone (OU) at Yau
Mei San Tsuen. EIA was approved by EPD in 2015. Planning application is in
progress pending for TPB approval. Given the existing and planned
outlook of the Area are largely for low-rise residential
developments, the
proposed house development within the development site boundary will fit into the planning
context. |
Baseline Condition
The baseline review of
the existing landscape establishes the broad characteristics, identifies
landscape resources, landscape character and visual amenity of the Study Area.
This baseline review is based on desktop information and recent site visits,
the findings will then be used to provide a characterization and elevation of
the identified landscape resources and landscape character areas.
Figures 11-2 and 11-3-1 to 11-3-7 show the existing LRs found within the 500m
Study Area with photographs of the LRs. Figure 11-4
show the extent of the identified LCAs and Figures
11-5-1 and 11-5-2
illustrate the quality of LCAs with site photographs.
Topography
The Study Area is characterized
by the lowland rural and low-rise residential landscapes alongside of Ngau Tam
Mei Drainage Channel which locates in the central portion of the Study Area.
The proposed development site is a relatively flatland area of about 3 to
6.5mPD. It is occupied by open yard for temporary car parking, partly vacant and with a small portion of abandoned fishpond located at the southern portion of the
site. The site is largely paved with
concrete and compacted soil surface for
the use of heavy vehicle parking. It is bounded by existing vegetated slopes
along Fung Chuk Road and Ha Chuk Yuen Road and a roadside amenity strip along
Kam Pok Road. These vegetated slopes form the major tree groups and vegetation within the site. The site is surrounding by Kam Pok Road (4.65
to 6mPD), Fung Chuk Road (3.5 to 5.5mPD), Ha Chuk Yuen Road (3.5mPD) and Ha San
Wai Road (5mPD).
To the west of the
proposed development site is an extensive low-rise residential development
area, Fairview Park, associated with car parking areas, grassland and abandoned fields along Yau Pok Road. Some grassed areas
are planned for recreation or residential uses under the OZPs. Fairview Park is an extensive low-rise and low
density residential estate developed in the 1980s. Typical houses within the
estate are approximately 3-storeys high with systematic internal access roads
provided within the estate. Extensive grassland adjacent to Bethel High School
which used to be a golf course which planned
for future recreational use but is now vacant. Another piece of grassland
located at the northern portion of Fairview Park is also vacant pending for
residential and recreation developments as planned under the Mai Po & Fairview Park Outline
Zoning Plan. The Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel is located to the east of
Fairview Park. Vegetated slopes alongside of
the nullah are covered by herbaceous
vegetation
and water plants. The nullah is
bounded by Yau Pok Road and Kam Pok Road, newly established roadside planting
is observed with tree and shrubs which are
common in Hong Kong and was originally planted
after the drainage improvement works. As the proposed development will not have
any direct conflict on the nullah and its adjacent road, the channelside
vegetation are largely preserved. The
low-rise residential developments, open yards, abandoned agricultural fields together with Ngau Tam Mei
Drainage Channel form the rural backdrop for the proposed residential
development.
Moving to the north,
northeast and east, the Study Area composes of scattered village settlements,
extensive grassland, open yards, agricultural fields and San Tin Highway. The
scattered village settlements including Chuk Yuen Tsuen, Ha San Wai Tsuen and
Sheung Chuk Yuen which are located along the western side of Castle Peak Road
(Tam Mi Section) and the eastern side of San Tin
Highway. These village settlements are characterised by extensive groups of
3-storey village houses which are dominant landscape feature in the rural lowland landscape. Built form of these village settlements includes a
combination of traditional dwellings although the majority of them have been replaced by
a modern building design. The settlements connect by narrow lanes and footpaths. Extensive grassland
and abandoned/active
agricultural fields are located to
the north and northeast of the Study Area while some open yards with temporary
open car parking, warehouses and container storage facilities are scattered to
the west of Ha San Wai Road and along San Tin Highway. San Tin Highway is
located in the eastern portion of the Study Area. It is the major road and
highway connecting from Sheung Shui and Tuen Mun. Castle Peak Road (Tam Mei
Section) and San Tam Road are two lane carriageway located alongside of San Tin Highway
respectively.
To the south of the
Study Area, there are some low-rise residential estates, fish ponds and open
yards. The low-rise residential estates in this area include Helene Terrace,
Royal Camellia, Kamease Garden, Greenery Garden and Villa Camellia. These
low-rise residential estates are located along Fairview Park Boulevard while
another residential estate - Man Yuen Chuen, is located at the northern portion
of the Study Area. Similar with Fairview Park, these low-rise residential
estates are mostly 2 to 4-storeys high
with internal access roads provided within the estate. Planting is limited within these
estates. An extensive fish pond area and some open yards are located to the southern
periphery of the Study Area.
Vegetation
Inside the development
site, the area was originally occupied by car parking, open container storage,
green nursery and a small portion of abandoned fish pond. All tenancies have
been terminated in 2011 and the Site is vacant pending for development. Given
that the majority of the Site is hard paved (over two-thirds of the site area),
existing trees and vegetation are only concentrated at the western, northern
and eastern peripheries of the Site. The majority of them are planted on
sloping areas along Kam Pok Road, Fung Chuk Road and Ha Chuk Yuen Road whilst
some self-seeded weedy trees are found on the slope at the northern periphery
of the Site. A total of 364 trees, which have a DBH
over 95mm, were identified within the Site.
The majority of existing
trees surveyed are relatively young and has an average DBH of less than 150mm.
A combination of native, a few ornamental and
pioneer species are densely planted on the sloping areas along Fung Chuk Road
and Ha Chuk Yuen Road with an average planting distance of 3m centre to centre
that creates a dense foliage greening effect for roadside and nullahside
amenity.
Over 15% of existing trees (56 out of total 364 existing trees) are Leucaena leucocephala, (銀合歡), which are weedy trees. It is originally from
tropical America which has become naturalised throughout the region. It is
extremely vigorous, a prolific seed producer, the seeds are dispersed by
rodents and granivorous birds and often colonises disturbed sites such as this
one. It also regenerates rapidly from basal shoots after being cut hence has
resulted in number of multi-stemmed trees within the site. Typically these
trees form thickets of closely spaced stems and as a result many of the trees
exhibit an average to poor form due largely to their growing conditions, i.e.
grouped together competing for space and light, which has resulted in contorted
and leaning trunks, unbalanced crowns and small size. These weedy trees show a spindly form, leaning, contorted trunk, and have poor health and condition. In addition, this
species can often grow to be 95mm DBH within three to four years of becoming
established. This fast growth rate and their existing condition often mean the
trees are relatively unstable and the branches are quite brittle in strong
winds. Leucaena leucocephala has been
identified as a weed species which should be removed as part of development
project where the opportunity exists. These weedy species shall be
replaced with better quality ornamental or native tree species.
The remaining trees are
recently planted on the gentle sloping areas along Fung Chuk Road and Ha Chuk
Yuen Road for roadside and channelside for amenity purposes including Bischofia javanica, Cleistocalyx operculata,
Delonix regia, Ficus altissima, Ficus binnendijkii, Ficus microcarpa, Hibiscus
tiliaceus, Khaya seneglensis, Spathodea campanulata and Syzygium cumini.
Given their dense planting condition, they exhibit a fair to poor form and
health condition which is evident of restricted or unbalance crown spread and
some branches died back. They have a contribution to the local landscape and
visual amenity in groups rather than individually.
Besides, some undersized
tree mixes (with DBH of less than 95mm) along Kam Pok Road roadside amenity
areas are excluded from this survey. They have recently been planted in light
standard to whip size under Ngau Tam Mei Main Channel Works Phase 1. They are
common roadside planting species including Bauhinia variegate, Albizia lebbek, Bischofia javanica,
Cinnamomum camphora, Ficus microcarpa, Lagerstroemia Speciosa, Liquidambar
formosana, Melaleuca cajuputi subsp. cumingiana , Schefflera heptaphylla,
Syzygium cumini and Syzygium jambos. The majority of this planting strip
will be preserved under the current scheme and will continue their contribution
to the nullahside landscape.
A total of 23 species
were identified as part of the survey including a combination of tree species
native to Hong Kong and a number of exotic species. Some of which it is assumed
were introduced by previous landowners or tenants and main channel improvement
works, which have become naturalised. Among the 23 species, 9 species are
native to Hong Kong and 10 species are exotic. The species which dominate in
the site include Leucaena leucocephala, Ficus
altissima and Delonix regia. The other species found on the site are limited to a
smaller amount of specimens which are
largely common roadside planting and a
few woodland species.
No rare or protected
tree species (based on Forests and Countryside Ordinance, Cap. 96) or Champion
Trees (identified in the book Champion Trees in Urban Hong Kong’) were found to
exist on the site. In addition, none of the trees surveyed were found to meet
the requirements for an Old and Valuable Tree ETWB TCW No. 29/2004 Registration
of Old and Valuable Trees, and Guidelines for their Preservation).
The tree survey
(including tree survey schedule and tree survey plans) are enclosed in Appendix11-1. The tree survey has been
completed in broad accordance with LAO PN No. 7/2007, Tree Preservation and Tree Removal Application for
Building Development in Private Projects, Development Bureau Technical Circular (Works) (DEVB
TC(W)) No. 7/2015 on Tree Preservation, and DEVB TC(W) No. 6/2015 on
Maintenance of Vegetation and Hard Landscape Features. This report outlines the
approach and findings of the tree survey, the type and extent of vegetation
that will be affected by the proposed works and the proposed treatment of this
vegetation. During detailed design stage, the tree felling application with be
prepared and circulated to the relevant government departments for approval.
The important
determinants of the landscape resources within the Study Area include a
combination of major roads and highways, village settlements, roadside amenity,
grassland, agricultural fields, fish ponds (abandoned), engineered water
channels, flood storage and facilities, development areas and open yards. These
landscape resources (LRs) are shown on Figure
11.2 and their photographic record is provided on Figures 11.3.1 to 11.3.7. The following LRs are identified within
the Study Area and Table 11.5
provides an assessment of the sensitivity of each of the identified LRs:
LR1 Major Roads and Highways
The major roads and
highways contained within the Study Area include San Tin Highway, San Tam Road,
Castle Peak Road (Tam Mi Section), Kam Pok Road, Yau Pok Road, Ha Chuk Yuen
Road, Ha San Wai Road, Fung Chuk Road, Fairview Park Boulevard and Fairview
Park Road South. Among these roads, San Tin Highway, San Tam Road and Castle
Peak Road (Tam Mi Section) are located to the east of the Study Area separated
by Ha San Wai and Chuk Yuen Tsuen which are major highways/roads in NWNT.
LR1.1 San Tin Highway
San Tin Highway is a
multi-lane road with busy traffic connecting Sheung Shui, Tuen Mun and Yuen
Long. Castle Peak Road (Tam Mi Section) to the west and San Tam Road to the
east run alongside San Tin Highway. No footpath is provided along the sides of
San Tin Highway, only footbridges and subways are provided for connecting
villages alongside of San Tin Highway. Due to the busy traffic on the road, a
sectional concrete noise barrier and roadside plantations (refer to LR3.1) have been provided for noise mitigation,
screening and greenery purposes. LR1.1 is a manmade feature, no tree or vegetation, and
occupied by busy traffic and engineered structures, it has a relatively low landscape and amenity value; it is
able to accommodate modification and so it is considered to have a low sensitivity to change.
LR1.2 San Tam Road
San Tam Road is located
to the east of San Tin Highway, similar to Castle Peak Road (Tam Mi Section),
it is a two-lane road framed by roadside planting (refer to LR3.3), scattered village settlements, open yards and
low-rise residential developments. Concrete
footpath is
provided on one side of the road. Tree planting is found in the verge between
the footpath and open drainage channel. Heavy vehicle traffic along the road is
frequent. LR1.2 is a manmade feature, no tree or vegetation, and
occupied by busy traffic and engineered structures, it has a relatively low landscape and amenity value; it is
able to accommodate modification and so it is considered to have a low sensitivity to change.
LR1.3 Ha San Wai Road
Ha San Wai Road is located
immediately to the south of the proposed development site. It is a two-lane
road with a narrow concrete paved footpath leading to the scattered village
houses, warehouses and container storage to the east of Ha San Wai. An engineered water channel runs parallel to
the road with tree and shrubs planting (refer to LR 3.7). Low-rise residential houses including Helene
Terrace and Villa Camellia set alongside of the existing engineered water
channel. Heavy
vehicle traffic along the road is frequent. LR1.3 is a manmade feature and
occupied by busy traffic and engineered structures, no tree or vegetation found
along the carriageway, it has a
relatively low landscape and amenity value; it is able to accommodate
modification and so it is considered to have a
low sensitivity to change.
LR1.4 Fairview Park
Boulevard
Fairview Park Boulevard
is the main
access road to Fairview Park which
is a low-rise residential development. Scattered village houses and low-rise
residential buildings including Royal Camellia, Kamease Garden, Greenery
Garden, Villa Camellia and Helene Terrace are located alongside the eastern
section of Fairview Park Boulevard. Shrub planting, including Excoecaria cochinchinensis, Ficus microcarpa
'Golden Yellow' and Ixora chinensis etc., found in the central median of the
eastern section of the road only whilst the section inside Fairview Park is
aligned with some 30 numbers of street trees including amenity species such as Bauhinia
blakeana. Condition of vegetation in this LR is fair. Heavy vehicle traffic is
frequent in the eastern section as the road is served as main access to
warehouses and open container storages in the area. LR1.4 is a manmade feature and
occupied by busy traffic and engineered structures, a few young street trees
found in this LR, it has a
relatively low landscape and amenity value; it is able to accommodate
modification and so it is considered to have a
low sensitivity to change.
LR1.5 Ha Chuk Yuen Road
Ha Chuk Yuen Road is
located immediately along the eastern periphery of the proposed development.
Similar to Ha San Wai Road, it is bounded by roadside sloping area (within the
development site) and an engineered drainage
channel along the other side of the road. The roadside sloping area is
dominated by plantation (refer to LR3.6)
whilst self-spread weedy trees, are found alongside of the engineered drainage channel. LR1.5 is a manmade feature, no tree or vegetation, and occupied engineered
structures, it has a relatively low
landscape and amenity value; it is able to accommodate modification and so it is considered to have a low sensitivity to
change.
LR1.6 Kam Pok Road
Kam Pok Road is located
to the west of the proposed development alongside of Ngau Tam Mei
Nullah. It is a two lane local road
providing access to adjacent village settlements, open yards, development
areas, agricultural fields and maintenance access for the engineered Ngau Tam
Mei Nullah. Nullahside and roadside planting are planted for the previous nullah engineering works, and majority of them are undersized vegetation (refer to LR3.8).
Footpath is available on one side. Heavy vehicle parking is common at the
roadside. LR1.6 is a manmade feature and
occupied by heavy vehicle parking, no tree or vegetation found along the
carriageway, it has a relatively low
landscape and amenity value; it is able to accommodate modification and so it is considered to have a low sensitivity to
change.
LR1.7 Yau Pok Road
Yau Pok Road is located
along western side of Ngau Tam Mei Nullah, similar to Kam Pok Road, but it serves
as maintenance access only for the Nullah. Planters (refer to LR3.4) are found along the road and they also
serves as divider between the road, footpath and cycle track. LR1.7 is a
manmade feature, no tree or vegetation and
occupied by engineered structures, no vegetation found along the carriageway,
it has a relatively low landscape and amenity value; it is able to accommodate
modification and so it is considered to have a
low sensitivity to change.
LR1.8 Castle Peak Road
(Tam Mi Section)
Castle Peak Road (Tam Mi
Section) aligned with the western side of San Tin Highway. Traffic along this
two-lane road is very busy as it is the major access road to adjacent
development. Given the long history of Castle Peak Road, mature specimen/ OVTs
are found on the very narrow footpath (refer to LR3.2). LR1.8 is a manmade feature, no tree or
vegetation, and occupied by busy traffic and engineered
structures, it has a relatively low landscape and amenity value; it is able to
accommodate modification and so it is
considered to have a low sensitivity to change.
LR1.9 Fung Chuk Road
Similar to Ha San Wai Road,
Fung Chuk Road is located immediately along the northern periphery of the
development site. The road serves as access road to the Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station, traffic is very
rare. Tree planting are found along its southern side (refer to LR3.5) which majority of them falls inside the development
site. LR1.9 is a manmade feature, no tree or vegetation, it has a relatively low landscape and amenity value; it is
able to accommodate modification and so it is considered to have a low sensitivity to change.
LR2 Village Settlements
Village settlements are
scattered alongside of road corridors and the adjacent lowland areas. They are characterized
by extensive groups of 3-storey town houses which form the settlement pattern
within the lowland landscape. The existing building forms include a combination
of traditional dwellings although the majority of the buildings has been
replaced by modern house developments
connected by narrow lanes and footpaths. The main concentrations of village
settlements within the Study Area include Chuk Yuen Tsuen and Ha San Wai
located to the west of Castle Peak Road (Tam Mi Section), which are closer to
the development site, San Wai Tsuen and Sheung Chuk Yuen located to the east of
San Tin Highway.
LR2.1 San Wai Tsuen
Village Settlement
San Wai Tsuen village
settlement is located to the east of San Tin Highway. It is comprised of
scattered 3-storey village house and low-rise residential developments. Open
carpark is found adjacent to San Tam Road. Only a few ornamental planting and fruit trees, approximately 50 trees, including Archontophoenix
alexandrae, Bauhinia variegate, Cairica papaya, Dimocarpus longan, Livistona chinensis, Mangifera indica and Senna siamea etc., are
found in this LR which is located inside the fenced off private garden of the houses. Given most of garden areas are fenced off, other
vegetation is not obvious from views looking from public footpath. Tree planting locations are scattered, they are relatively young and have a fair condition.
Given the nature of this LR and the relatively low vegetation coverage, LR2.1
is considered to have a relatively low landscape and amenity value and it is considered to have a relatively low sensitivity
to further development.
LR2.2 Chuk Yuen Tsuen
Village Settlement
Chuk Yuen Tsuen village
settlement is located to the west of San Tin Highway. It can be accessed from
Castle Peak Road (Tam Mi Section) and Ha Chuk Yuen Road. It is comprised of cluster
of low-rise house developments. The typical village house setting is fading out
from this LR. Construction activities dominate in this LR. Approximate 50 trees
are found in this LR, species include Cairica
papaya, Casuarina equisetifolia, Delonix regia, Dimocarpus longan, Leucaena
leucocephala and Macaranga tanarius etc. Others vegetation found on
piecemeal vacant areas in the village include self-seeded plants such as Bidens pilosa, Cynodon dactylon, Ligustrum
sinensis and Merremia hederacea etc. Existing
vegetation is scattered in random pattern, young to mature in age and have a
fair condition. Given the nature of
this LR and the
relatively low vegetation coverage, LR2.2 is
considered to have a relatively low landscape and amenity value and it is considered to have a relatively low sensitivity
to further development.
LR2.3 Ha Sun Wai Tsuen
Village Settlement
Ha Sun Wai Tsuen village
settlement is located to the west of Castle Peak Road (Tam Mi Section). It is
comprised of squatters and 2 to 3-storey houses and a village school. The
village school have been renovated and a kindergarten is operating. Trees are found at the periphery of this LR.
Approximately 50 trees are found in
this LR, they are scattered in abandoned fields at the frontcourt of the
village.
Trees are relatively mature specimen and their condition is
fair. Major tree species
include Archontophoenix alexandrae,
Celtis sinensis, Clausena lansium, Dimocarpus longan, Ficus microcarpa, Plumeria
rubra etc. Others vegetation found in the abandoned fields including self-seeded plants
such as Bidens pilosa, Cynodon dactylon,
Ligustrum sinensis and Merremia hederacea etc. Condition of vegetation is fair. Graves and shines are also preserved along this section of
Castle Peak Road. Given the nature of this LR, vegetation coverage and their
maturity, LR2.3 is considered to have a medium landscape and amenity value, it
is less tolerant to change and hence it is considered to have a medium sensitivity
to further development.
LR3 Roadside Amenity
As mentioned in LR1, this LR refers to the roadside planting
along the transportation corridors of San Tin Highway, Castle Peak Road – Tam
Mi Section, San Tam Road, Kam Pok Road, Yau Pok Road and some local roads
within the Study Area. In addition, this LR also covers vegetation located on
engineering slopes along both sides of water channel and nullah. Most of the
vegetation is mature alongside of Castle Peak Road and San Tin Highway whilst
vegetation planted alongside of Kam Pok Road, Yau Pok Road, Ha San Wai Road and
Fung Chuk Road are relatively younger.
LR 3.1 San Tin Highway
Roadside Amenity
This LR composed of
roadside planting along San Tin Highway. Majority tree planting are pioneer species including Acacia confusa, Casuarina
equisetifolia, Eucalyptus citriodora, Eucalyptus tereticornis, Lagerstroemia
speciosa, Livistona chinensis and Leucaena leucocephala etc. Approximately 500 trees along the highway play an important role in the
roadside amenity. Majority of them were originally planted when San Tin Highway
was constructed almost 30 years ago, hence they have a higher maturity and their condition
is fair in general. Tree coverage in
these roadside planting areas is extensive, only a few and scattered amenity
shrub planting are observed at the edge of the planting areas, species
including Ficus microcarpa cv. golden
leaves, Murraya paniculata and Schefflera arboricola etc. Vegetation is
being managed and it is generally fair in condition. Given the nature of
this LR, its
contribution to the road corridor
landscape, so it is considered to have
less tolerant to accommodate change and hence this LR has a medium sensitivity
to change.
LR3.2 Castle Peak Road
(Tam Mi Section) Roadside Amenity
Roadside planters are
found along the eastern side of the road particular at the landing of
footbridges across San Tin Highway. Larger planting area is found adjacent to
the San Tin roundabout and an open drainage channel. The footpath on the other
side of the road is very narrow but it is punctuated by mature street trees/OVT including species
Albizia lebbek, Aleurites moluccana and Melaleuca cajuputi subsp. cumingiana . A registered OVT, No. LCSD YL/7 Melaleuca
cajuputi subsp. cumingiana is located on footpath adjacent to Chuk Yuen Tsuen. The OVT is located far
away from proposed development and will not be affected. These mature specimens were planted when the
road developed over 50 years ago. Their aggressive root system is found pop-up
from the footpath and disturbed the circulation space for pedestrian. On the
contrary, tree and shrub inside the roadside planters or planting areas mentioned above are relatively young, dominant
species including Bahunina Blakeana,
Bauhinia variegata, Bischofia javanica, Bombax malabaricum, Delonix regia,
Ficus altissima, Figus binnendijkii, Ficus microcarpus and Largestroemia
speciosa etc. Approximately 100
trees are found in this LR, their condition is fair to good. A small amount of amenity shrub planting observed in roadside planting
areas, species include Excoecaria
cochinchinensis, Ficus microcarpa cv. golden leaves, Murraya paniculata and
Asparagus densiflorus ‘Sprengeri’ etc. Vegetation is common for roadside planting
and their condition is fair. Given the importance of this LR to the landscape
and visual amenity of the road corridor, the maturity of these LRs are medium
to high, it is considered to have less tolerant to accommodate change and hence
this LR has a medium sensitivity to change.
LR3.3 San Tam Road
Roadside Amenity
This LR comprised of
approximately 150 trees are found
in the verge between the footpath and the open drainage channel and in planters
adjacent to San Tin roundabout. Dominant species include Ficus microcarpus and Ficus benjamina, they are semi-mature
specimen and have a fair to good condition. Tree coverage of
these roadside planting areas is extensive, only managed grass cover, some
shrub planting and a few self-seeded plants are observed, species include Axonopus compressus, Cynodon dactylon and
Calliandra haematocephala etc.. Condition of vegetation is fair. Given the importance of this LR to the landscape
and visual amenity of the road corridor, it is considered to have less tolerant to accommodate
change and hence this LR has a medium sensitivity to change.
LR3.4 Yau Pok Road
Roadside Amenity
Yau Pok Road is the
maintenance access which runs adjacent to the largest engineered water channel
named Ngau Tam Mei within the study area. Approximately 300 trees are planted in this LR in combination with shrub planting, major
species include Peltophorum pterocarpum,
Lagerstroemia speciosa and Syzygium
cumini, and shrubs, Aglaia odorata,
Allamanda cathartica, Calliandra haematocephala and Hibiscus rosa-sinensis etc. They are common roadside plantation which is relatively
young and have a fair condition. Vegetation
has significant contribution to the roadside
landscape in form of a group. Given the importance of this LR to the landscape
and the visual amenity of the road corridor for cyclists and pedestrians, it is
less tolerant to accommodate change and hence this LR has a medium sensitivity
to change.
LR3.5 Fung Chuk Road
Roadside Amenity
Fung Chuk Road is
located along the northern periphery of the proposed development site. Newly
established tree and shrub planting including Delonix regia,
Cleistocalyx operculata, Spathodea campanulata, Ficus binnendijkii, Ficus
altissima, Khaya seneglensis, Melaleuca cajuputi subsp. cumingiana and Schefflera
arboricola, are found on slope and in the verge opposite the site. They are
planted in dense condition. These 210 trees and vegetation have a fair
condition and their maturity is medium. Given the importance of this LR to the landscape and visual
amenity of the road corridor it is considered that it is less tolerant to accommodate change and hence this LR has a medium sensitivity to change.
LR3.6 Ha Chuk Yuen Road
Roadside Amenity
Ha Chuk Yuen Road is
located along the eastern periphery of the proposed development site. Roadside
tree planting extends to the other side of the road and to the northern section
of Ha Chuk Yuen Road. The roadside sloping area adjacent to the site, and the
amenity area along the northern section of the road are dominated by Hibiscus tiliaceus, Khaya seneglensis,
Melaleuca cajuputi subsp. cumingiana and Spathodea campanulata which are plantation and Leucaena leucocephala, a self-spread weedy tree, are found
alongside of the engineered nullah. Approximately 400 trees found in this LR have fair condition and they
are young to mature specimens. They have contribution to the roadside amenity
in form of a group. Other amenity shrub planting are observed, species include Calliandra
haematocephala and Ficus microcarpa cv. golden leaves, Hibiscus rosa-sinensis and Murraya
paniculata etc.. Condition of vegetation is fair. Given the importance of this LR to the landscape and visual
amenity of the road corridor it is considered to have less tolerant to
accommodate change and hence this LR has a medium sensitivity to change.
LR3.7 Ha San Wai Road
Roadside Amenity
Ha San Wai Road is
located to the south of the proposed development site. An engineered water
channel runs parallel to the road with tree and shrubs planting in between,
dominant tree species are Melaleuca
cajuputi subsp. cumingiana and Calliandra haematocephala. Approximately 80
exotic trees are found in this LR. They have a fair condition and relatively
mature. Amenity shrub, Calliandra haematocephala, is observed in the
area and its condition is fair. They serve as screening buffer for residents
living alongside of water channel. Given the importance of this LR to the landscape
and visual amenity of adjacent residents it is
considered to have less tolerant to accommodate
change and
hence this LR has a medium
sensitivity to change.
LR3.8 Kam Pok Road
Roadside Amenity
Kam Pok Road is located
to the west of the proposed development site and it is one of the major roads and maintenance access along the engineered water channel named Ngau Tam
Mei. Nullahside and roadside planting
are newly planted for years after implementation of the nullah engineering works, hence majority of them are young
specimen including trees, Bischofia
javanica, Lagerstroemia speciosa, Spathodea campanulata and Syzygium cumini, and shrubs, Aglaia odorata, Allamanda cathartica,
Calliandra haematocephala and Hibiscus
rosa-sinensis. Approximately 300 trees are found in this LR, their condition is fair.
Condition of shrub planting is fair. Given
the importance of this LR to the landscape and visual amenity of the road
corridor it is considered to have less tolerant to accommodate change and hence this LR has a medium sensitivity to change.
LR4 Grassland
LR4.1 Yau Tam Mei Tsuen
Grassland
It is a small piece of
grassland/ abandoned field across the road from the Sheung Chuk Yuen Tsuen open
yard. 15
nos. of Leucaena leucocephala are found at its periphery. These are self-seeded weedy
trees and have a low amenity value. Dominant grass species including Bidens pilosa, Cynodon
dactylon, Merremia hederacea and Panicum
maximum etc. are observed in the area. Condition
of these self-seed grass and trees are fair to poor. Given the low amenity value of
this LR it is able to accommodate change and hence this LR has a low sensitivity
to change.
LR4.2 Chuk Yuen Tsuen
Grassland
Located between Ha Chuk
Yuen Road and San Tin Highway, the large coverage of the grassland distributed
on the east of the Ha Chuk Yuen Road, it is a vacant site covered by grass.
Only self-seed grass cover is observed, major species include Cynodon
dactylon, Imperata cylindrica and
Panicum maximum etc.. Condition of the self-seed grass is poor. The
whole area is subject to village extension and house developments under the
current “V” zone on the OZP. Given
the low amenity value of this LR it is able to accommodate change and hence
this LR has a low sensitivity to change.
LR4.3 Fairview Park Road
Golf Course (abandoned)
Another large piece of
grassland located to the southeast of Bethel High School within Fairview Park
which was originally used for a golf practicing ground but it is now abandoned,
it is pending for future recreational and residential developments. Managed grass cover species, Axonopus
compressus, is dominant. Given
the low amenity value of this LR it is able to accommodate change and hence this LR has a low
sensitivity to change.
LR4.4 Yau Pok Road North Grassland
This LR covers a vacant
site located to the east of Fairview Park. The area is largely covered by
self-seeded grass, species include Cynodon dactylon and
Imperata cylindrica.
Approximately 50 nos. of trees are located at the edge of the LR, major tree species include Araucaria
heterophylla, Celtis sinensis, Dimocarpus longan L., Litchi chinensis,
Macaranga tanarius, Mangifera indica and Melia azedarach etc. Condition of tree and
vegetation is fair. It is
considered to have a high ability to accommodate change therefore this LR has a
low sensitivity to change.
LR4.5 Kam Pok Road North Grassland
This LR covers a vacant site
located to the north of Fung Chuk Road Floodwater Storage and Facilities. The
area is largely covered by self-seeded grass, major species include Cynodon dactylon. Approximately 15 nos. of trees,
including major tree species Celtis
sinensis, Delonix regia and Macaranga tanarius etc., are observed. Condition of trees is good and vegetation is
fair. It is considered to have a high ability to accommodate change therefore
this LR has a low sensitivity to change.
LR4.6 Kam Pok Road East Grassland
This LR covers a
triangular piece of land abutting to Kam Pok Road East. It is vacant and is
pending for development. The area is largely covered by self-seed grass,
species include Cynodon dactylon and
Urochloa mutica etc.. 10 nos. of self-seeded weedy trees observed, tree
species include Leucaena leucocephala and
Melia azedarach etc.. Condition of trees and vegetation are fair. It is
considered to have a high ability to accommodate change therefore this LR has a
low sensitivity to change.
LR5 Agricultural Fields
LR5.1 Ha Chuk Yuen Road
North Agricultural Field
This LR covers a piece
of active agricultural field at road junction of Kam Pok Road and Ha Chuk Yuen
Road. Approximately 30 nos. of fruit trees are found in this LR adjacent to
the paddy field. The field is cultivating vegetables for commercial purposes. Tree species include Cairica papaya, Clausena lansium, Dimocarpus longan and Litchi
chinensis. They are relatively young and have a fair condition. Vegetables including brassica chinensis and Lactuca sativa
etc. are grown for cultivation
purposes and
changed seasonally according to the
market needs. The amenity of this LR is fair to good, it is
able to accommodate change, and hence this LR has a medium sensitivity to
change.
LR5.2 Yau Pok Road North
Agricultural Field
Yau Pok Road North
Agricultural Field is a remnant field within the planned residential development
site. Some Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane) is growing in the
field. The active agricultural activities
have been faced out. Given that the landscape and amenity value of is generally
considered to be low, it is able to accommodate change and hence this LR has a
low sensitivity to change.
LR6 Fish Ponds (Abandoned)
Fish pond found within the Study Area
is not extensive and have been abandoned for a long time due to the declination of the
fishing industry in Hong Kong, more and more fish ponds have been filled
in for open
container storage facilities or abandoned pending for developments. Vegetation is
seldom found on fish pond bunds.
LR6.1 Ha San Wai Road
North Fish Pond
This LR is a small size
abandoned fish pond located within the proposed
development site. This pond is abandoned and previously disturbed by dumped materials. The bund is largely bare
soil and part of it covered by grass, species include Bidens pilosa, Urochloa mutica and Panicum maximum etc. and its
condition is poor. Given this LR
has been disturbed and in a small scale, the landscape and amenity value of is low, it is able to accommodate change and hence this LR has a low sensitivity to change.
LR6.2 Man Yuen Chuen
East Fish Ponds
This LR is much larger
than LR 6.1, it is comprised of several abandoned ponds
located in the south of the Study Area between Kam Pok Road and San Tin
Highway. Only a few self-seeded Macaranga
tanarius and less than 10 nos. of trees
are found on bund. The bund is also covered by self-seeded grass, species include Bidens pilosa, Urochloa mutica and Panicum
maximum etc.. Condition of trees and vegetation is fair to poor condition.
Given the scale, condition and amenity value of this LR, it is considered to
have less tolerant to accommodate change and it is considered to have a medium
sensitivity to change.
LR6.3 Chuk Yuen Tsuen South Ponds
This LR covers two abandoned ponds and pond bunds are covered by tall
grass and a few trees. A few
self-seeded Macaranga tanarius and less than 10 nos. of fruit trees, such as Dimocarpus longan
ae found on the bunds. The bunds are covered
by self-seed grass cover, major species include Cynodon dactylon, Imperata cylindrica and Panicum maximum etc. Condition of
trees and vegetation is fair. Given
this LR has been disturbed and in a small scale, the landscape and amenity value of is low, it is able to accommodate change and hence this LR has a low sensitivity to change.
LR7 Engineered Water Channels
LR7.1 San Tam Road
Engineered Water Channel
This LR is a narrow
manmade channel. It is located between existing developments and verge along
the footpath. The channel is covered by shortcrete sloping surface. Given this
is a manmade feature, largely hard finished, no tree or vegetation, it has a low landscape and amenity value, it is
considered able to accommodate change and hence this LR has a low sensitivity
to change.
LR7.2 Ha San Wai Road
Engineered Water Channel
Concrete box structured
channel along Ha San Wai Road and residential developments along Fairview Park
Boulevard. Some tree planting found as LR3.7 in the verge between the road and
adjacent developments. Given this is a manmade feature, no tree or vegetation, largely hard finished, it has a low landscape
and amenity value, it is considered able to accommodate change and hence this
LR has a low sensitivity to change.
LR7.3 Ha Chuk Yuen Road
Engineered Water Channel
Ha Chuk Yuen Road
channel intersects with the Ha San Wai Road water channel and going through the
Ha Chuk Yuen Road open yards. Similar to LR7.2, it is a box concrete structure. LR3.6 roadside planting runs parallel with the water channel, tree and shrub planting
disguised
it functional appearance. Given this is a manmade feature, no tree or
vegetation, largely hard finished,
it has a low landscape and amenity value, it is considered able to accommodate change and hence this LR has a low
sensitivity to change.
LR7.4 Ngau Tam Mei
Engineered Water Channel
Ngau Tam Mei water
channel is the main engineered water channel within the Study Area. It is
located to the west of the proposed development site. It is a manmade concrete paved watercourse located between Kam Pok Road and Yau
Pok Road. Water plant species include Alocasia
macrorrhiza, Axonopus sp., Commelina nudiflora, Commelina nudiflora, Conyza
Canadensis, Ludwigia perennis, Pennisetum purpureum and Wedelia triloba etc. These plants
significantly mitigate the unpleasant manmade appearance of the nullah and form
a major component of the riverside landscape in combination with the roadside
amenity tree
planting along Kam Pok Road and Yau
Pok Road which
mentioned above in LRs 3.8 and 3.4 roadside amenity. Condition of vegetation is fair to good. Although this is a manmade feature, it is largely
covered with plants, it has a medium landscape and amenity value in combination
with water body and plants, it is considered less tolerant to accommodate change and hence this LR has a medium
sensitivity to change.
LR7.5 Fairview Park
Engineered Water Channel
Engineered water
channel, concrete box like structure, runs along the periphery of the Fairview Park.
This is a storm drain discharge to the Ngau Tam Mei Channel. No vegetation
covered. Given this is a manmade feature, largely hard finished, it has a low
landscape and amenity value, it is considered able to accommodate change and
hence this LR has a low sensitivity to change.
LR8 Fung Chuk Road Flood
Storage and Facilities
The floodwater storage
and facilities (Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station) occupies a relatively
small area within the Study Area. A planned low-rise residential development is
located to the north of this Station and proposed development site located to
its south.
It is a fenced off area which
comprises of a single storey pumping station and a series of retention ponds
along Fung Chuk Road. No vegetation is found within the facilities but some Melaleuca cajuputi subsp. cumingiana, less than 20 numbers are found at the periphery of the Station and some weedy trees
are found within the retention pond area. These trees are relatively young and have fair to poor condition. Given
its unpleasant appearance, it is manmade feature, its amenity value is relatively low and has
high tolerant to further changes, hence LR8 is considered to have a relatively
low sensitivity to change.
LR9 Development Areas
Low-rise residential
developments occupy a relatively extensive area within the
assessment area alongside of Ngau Tam Mei Channel. This resource contains a
combination of low-rise residential developments which are commonly found in
NWNT. Density of these developments is usually very high where only a few
patches of vegetation are found within the developments.
LR9.1 Fairview Park
Boulevard North Low-rise Residential Development Area
These 3-storey house
developments dominate the eastern section of Fairview Park Boulevard, only a
few palms, including species Roystonea regia,
Chrysalidocarpus lutescens and Phoenix hanceana etc., and small trees and shrubs including Ficus
microcarpa 'Golden Yellow', Mangifera indica, Plumeria rubra, Sabina chinese cv kaizuca and
Bougainvillea glabra etc., are observed within these developments with approximately 30 numbers of trees.
These amenity trees and vegetation are
relatively young and have a fair condition. They have very little contribution
to the local landscape because they are fenced off and planted in the private
garden of individual dwellings within the development. Given this LR is highly
urbanised, its amenity value is relatively low due to limited green coverage
and has high tolerant to further changes, hence LR9.1 is considered to have a
relatively low sensitivity to change.
LR9.2 Fairview Park Boulevard South Development Area
This resource is located
on the south side of Fairview Park Boulevard. Similar to LR9.1, this LR
comprised of smaller scale house developments, workshops and vacant sites
pending for developments. It has
almost the same density as Fairview Park Boulevard North. Approximately 50
amenity trees scattered within individual development, species include Roystonea
regia, Cinnamomum camphora and Plumeria
rubra etc., they are relatively young and have a fair condition. Some small
palms and shrubs, species including Ficus microcarpa 'Golden Yellow', Phoenix
hanceana, Sabina chinese cv kaizuca and Bougainvillea glabra, are observed. They are fenced off and planted in
the private garden of individual dwellings within the developments. Condition of vegetation is fair. Given this LR is highly urbanised, its amenity value is relatively low due to limited green
coverage and has high tolerant to
further changes, hence this LR is considered to
have a relatively low sensitivity to change.
LR9.3 Fairview Park
Low-rise Residential Development Area
This LR comprised of
high density 2-storey house development within Fairview Park. Small trees and
pot planting are found inside individual dwelling. Some 200 trees are found in
this LR. Major species include Archontophoenix
alexandrae, Callistemon viminalis, Ficus benjamina, Glyptostrobus pensilis,
Phoenix roebellini and Plumeria rubra etc. They are relatively young and
have a fair condition. Given most of garden areas are
fenced off, other vegetation are not obvious from views looking from public
footpath. Given the urbanised
nature of this resource, the scale and significance in the local context, this
LR is considered to have a medium
ability to accommodate change, hence it is considered to have a medium
sensitivity to change.
LR10 Open Yards
Open Yards is one of the major unpleasant landscape
resource occupied by open container storage, warehouses and workshops. They are
largely distributed along major road and highway.
LR10.1 Sheung Chuk Yuen
Open Yards
This LR is comprised of
a large scale warehouse for heavy vehicle repairing and relevant waste material
storage. 1 to 2- storey temporary structures are found in this LR. No vegetation is found. Given its unpleasant
appearance, it is highly industrialised, its amenity value is relatively low
and has high tolerant to further changes, hence LR10.1 is considered to have a
relatively low sensitivity to change.
LR10.2 Chuk Yuen Tsuen
Open Yards
Similar to LR10.1, this
LR comprised of warehouses for storage and selling of waste metal and open
container storage. They are located to the north and the east of Chuk Yuen
Tsuen adjacent to Castle Peak Road (Tam Mi Section). No vegetation is found. Given its unpleasant appearance, it is highly
industrialised, its amenity value is relatively low and has high tolerant to
further changes, hence LR10.1 is considered to have a relatively low
sensitivity to change.
LR10.3 Ha Chuk Yuen Road
Open Yards
This is a raised
platform bounded by Ha Chuk Yuen Road, Fung Chuk Road and Ha San Wai Road. This
LR covers the proposed development site. It was previous used for car parking
for heavy vehicles and coaches, construction material storage area and green
nursery. Now the area is largely abandoned and is pending for development. Only 4 numbers of Ficus microcarpa found within this LR.
They are have a multi-trunk and leaning form, poor health condition and decay
on the main trunk. A few self-seeded grass and weeds covered small portion of
the area, major species including Panicum
maximum and Leucaena leucocephala etc.. Condition of
vegetation is poor. Given this LR
has been highly disturbed, its amenity value is relatively low and has high
tolerant to further changes, hence LR10.3 is considered to have a relatively
low sensitivity to change.
LR10.4 Yau Pok Road South Open Yards
This LR is located
adjacent to Yau Pok Road to the south of the Fairview Park. It is currently used
for logistic supporting services, covered
storage area dominated the area. Approximately 50 nos. of the trees are
observed, majority of the trees are located along the fence wall of individual
premises including major species Callistemon
viminalis Celtis sinensis , Ficus benjamina, Lagerstroemia speciose, Leucaena
leucocephala, Livistona chinensis and Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa etc.. Tree
condition is fair. Other vegetation is not obvious. Given its unpleasant appearance, no vegetation coverage,
its amenity value is relatively low and has high tolerant to further changes,
hence LR10.4 is considered to have a relatively low sensitivity to change.
LR10.5 Kam Pok Road South Open Yards
This LR is located at
the junction of Kam Pok Road and Kam Pok Road East. The area is hard paved with
temporary built structures for car showroom. Approximately 10 nos. of Leucaena
leucocephala are found outside and along the western fence wall. Approximately 20 nos. of Sabina chinese cv kaizuca are observed in
planters alongsides of the fence wall of the workshop abutting Kam Pok
Road. These topiary junipers condition are fair. Given the nature of this resource, it is
considered to have a high ability to accommodate change therefore this LR has a
low sensitivity to change.
LR10.6 Yau Pok Road
North Open Yards
Not use.
LR10.7 Kam Pok Road North Open Yards
Not use.
For the purposes of this
assessment the landscape resources are
represented by the existing land coverage. The condition of these landscape
resources is also important in determining the landscape quality of the Study
Area and its sensitivity to change as described above. Therefore the
preservation and enhancement of the existing landscape resources is important
to the successful integration of the proposals within the landscape context of
the Study Area. Magnitude of change of these LRs and landscape impact are
assessed under Section 11-7.
Table 11‑5 Sensitivity
of landscape resources (LRs)
|
I.D. No. |
Landscape
Resources (LRs) |
Criteria |
Sensitivity |
|||||||
|
Area |
Approx. No. of Trees |
Other Vegetation |
Quality |
Importance/ Rarity |
Ability to accommodate change |
Local / Regional Significance |
Maturity |
|||
|
LR1.1 |
San Tin Highway |
4.87
ha |
0 |
Nil |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR1.2 |
San Tam Road |
0.72ha |
0 |
Nil |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR1.3 |
Ha San Wai Road |
0.41
ha |
0 |
Nil |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR1.4 |
Fairview Park Boulevard |
1.32
ha |
30 |
Shrubs in central median |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR1.5 |
Ha Chuk Yuen Road |
0.34
ha |
0 |
Nil |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR1.6 |
Kam Pok Road |
1.05
ha |
0 |
Nil |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR1.7 |
Yau Pok Road |
0.73 ha |
0 |
Nil |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR1.8 |
Castle Peak Road (Tam Mi Section) |
0.86 ha |
0 |
Nil |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR1.9 |
Fung Chuk Road |
0.12 ha |
0 |
Nil |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR2.1 |
San Wai Tsuen Village Settlement |
5.30 ha |
50 |
Not obvious |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR2.2 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen Village Settlement |
5.95
ha |
50 |
Self-seed grass, groundcover and small shrub. |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR2.3 |
Ha Sun Wai
Tsuen Village
Settlement |
1.82
ha |
50 |
Self-seed grass, groundcover and small shrub. |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium/Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
|
LR3.1 |
San Tin Highway Roadside Amenity |
1.15 ha |
500 |
A few amenity shrub planting |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium/Low |
High |
Medium |
|
LR3.2 |
Castle Peak Road (Tam Mi Section) Roadside Amenity |
0.33 ha |
100 One registered OVT |
Roadside amenity shrub planting |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium/Low |
High |
Medium |
|
LR3.3 |
San Tam Road Roadside Amenity |
3.10 ha |
150 |
Managed grass cover and shrubs and a few self-seeded plants. |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium/Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
|
LR3.4 |
Yau Pok Road Roadside Amenity |
1.96 ha |
300 |
Amenity shrub planting. |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium/Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
|
LR3.5 |
Fung Chuk Road Roadside Amenity |
0.58 ha |
210 |
Amenity shrub planting. |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium/Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
|
LR3.6 |
Ha Chuk Yuen Road Roadside Amenity |
0.24 ha |
400 |
Amenity shrub planting |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium/Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
|
LR3.7 |
Ha San Wai Road Roadside Amenity |
0.62 ha |
80 |
Amenity shrub planting |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium/Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
|
LR3.8 |
Kam Pok Road Roadside Amenity |
3.06 ha |
300 |
Amenity shrub planting |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium/Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
|
LR4.1 |
Yau Tam Mei Tsuen Grassland |
0.33 ha |
15 |
Self-seeded grass cover |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR4.2 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen Grassland |
2.92
ha |
0 |
Self-seeded grass cover |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR4.3 |
Fairview Park Road Golf Course (abandoned) |
8.41 ha |
0 |
Managed grass cover |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR4.4 |
Yau Pok Road North Grassland |
6.4
ha |
50 |
Self-seeded grass cover |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR4.5 |
Kam Pok Road North Grassland |
6.59
ha |
15 |
Self-seeded grass cover |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR4.6 |
Kam Pok Road East Grassland |
0.51
ha |
10 |
Self-seeded grass cover |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR5.1 |
Ha Chuk Yuen Road North Agricultural Field |
0.51 ha |
30 |
Vegetable |
Medium |
Low |
Medium |
Medium/Low |
Medium |
Medium |
|
LR5.2 |
Yau Pok Road North Agricultural Field |
0.34 ha |
0 |
A few sugar cane |
Medium |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR6.1 |
Ha San Wai Road North Fish Pond (Abandoned) |
0.34 ha |
0 |
Self-seeded grass cover |
Low |
Low |
Medium |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR6.2 |
Man Yuen Chuen East Fish Ponds |
6.98 ha |
10 |
Self-seeded grass cover |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium/Low |
Medium |
Medium |
|
LR6.3 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen South Ponds |
0.28ha |
15 |
Self-seeded grass cover the bunds |
Low |
Low |
Medium |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR7.1 |
San Tam Road Engineered Water Channel |
0.33 ha |
0 |
Nil |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR7.2 |
Ha San Wai Road Engineered Water Channel |
0.56 ha |
0 |
Nil |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR7.3 |
Ha Chuk Yuen Road Engineered Water Channel |
0.46 ha |
0 |
Nil |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR7.4 |
Ngau Tam Mei Engineered Water Channel |
2.92 ha |
0 |
Waterplants observed on channel embankment. |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium/Low |
Medium |
Medium |
|
LR7.5 |
Fairview Park Engineered Water Channel |
1.92 ha |
0 |
Nil |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR8 |
Fung Chuk Road Flood Storage and Facilities |
0.74 ha |
30 |
Nil |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR9.1 |
Fairview Park Boulevard North Low-rise Residential Development Area |
2.78
ha |
30 |
Small palms and shrub |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR9.2 |
Fairview Park Boulevard South Development Area |
8.21 ha |
50 |
Small palms and shrub |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR9.3 |
Fairview Park Low-rise Residential Development Area |
30 ha |
200 |
Not obvious |
Medium |
Low |
Medium |
Medium/Low |
Low |
Medium |
|
LR10.1 |
Sheung Chuk Yuen Open Yards |
0.74 ha |
0 |
Nil |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR10.2 |
Chuk Yuen Tsuen Open Yards |
0.91 ha |
0 |
Nil |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR10.3 |
Ha Chuk Yuen Road Open Yards |
7.00 ha |
4 |
Self-seeded grass cover and weeds |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR10.4 |
Yau Pok Road South Open Yards |
4.50
ha |
50 |
Not obvious |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR10.5 |
Kam Pok Road South Open Yards |
1.20
ha |
10 |
Junipers |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low/Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LR10.6 |
Not use |
|||||||||
|
LR10.7 |
Not use |
|||||||||
The landscape character
of the Study Area is characterized by a combination of lowland village
landscape surrounded by active/abandoned
agricultural fields, grassland, extensive open storage/warehouses and low-rise
residential areas bisected by the course of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel from
north to south. The Study Area composes of Fairview Park low-rise extensive
residential landscape, Yau Pok Road nullahside rural landscape, Kam Pok Road
nullahside rural landscape, San Tam Road rural residential lowland landscape,
Kam Pok Road low-rise residential landscape and Yau Pok Road open storage and
warehouse landscape. Detailed
descriptions of these LCAs are listed below. LCAs are mapped on Figure 11-4
and their photographic record is provided on Figure 11-5-1 to 11-5-2. Table 11-6
provides an assessment of the sensitivity of each of the identified LCAs.
Magnitude of change of these LCAs and landscape impact are assessed in Section 11.7 of this report.
LCA1 Fairview Park Low-rise Extensive Residential
Landscape
This LCA is located to
the west of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel. It’s character comprises of
landscape elements including extensive numbers of 2-storey houses associated
with internal access roads and car/coach parking areas, community facilities,
shopping centre, club house, primary and secondary schools, roadside amenity
planting, engineered water channel surrounding the whole development and an
abandoned golf practicing ground which now covered by grass and weeds. Given this landscape character area is largely
urbanised and manmade nature, it has a relatively high ability to accommodate
change, it is considered that the sensitivity to change of this LCA is low.
LCA2 Yau Pok Road
Nullahside Rural Landscape
This LCA is located to
the west of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel and occupies the north-western
portion of the Study Area. This area is largely covered by grass and vacant pending for planned residential and
recreational developments. The site was previously use for agriculture
activities, a very small scale of crop cultivation is left in the northern
portion of this LCA. Only a few trees found at the edge and inside the LCA and along Yau Pok
Road roadside amenity area. The
landscape character is pending to change following the completion of future
developments, the landscape quality is low as it has been highly disturbed,
hence it is relatively high ability to accommodate change, it is considered
that the sensitivity to change of this LCA is low.
LCA3 Kam Pok Road
Nullahside Rural Landscape
This LCA has a similar
character to LCA2. This area is located in-between Ngau Tam Mei Channel and
Chuk Yuen Tsuen, it largely comprises of grasslands and active agricultural
fields which cover only one-tenth of the area.
The area to the east and west of Ha Chuk Yuen Road is largely vacant pending for low-rise residential developments and extension of village settlement
respectively, only a few trees preserved within the area, these future developments will change the existing rural
landscape character. Two small scale abandoned ponds are found at the southern edge of this
LCA. Trees are found in roadside amenity area along Kam Pok Road and Hai Chuk
Yuen Road whilst a few of trees are scattered inside the villages and
surrounding the remnant ponds. Fung
Chuk Road Floodwater Storage and Facilities with the associated retention ponds
is located at the south-western portion of this LCA, very little vegetation is
found at the periphery of this fenced off area. It is an infrastructure element
in the landscape context. Given the
planned changes of the landscape context, and existing infrastructure landscape
elements, amenity value of this LCA is relatively low, and it has a high ability
to accommodate change, hence its sensitivity to change is low.
LCA4 San Tam Road Rural Residential Lowland
Landscape
This LCA covers the area
at the lower slope of Kai Kung Leng which was already interrupted by San Tin
Highway, Castle Peak Road (Tam Mi Section) bisecting Chuk Yuen Tsuen and San
Wai Tsuen into upper and lower portions. Roads and highway dominate the scenery of this landscape
character. Mature roadside planting comprise of common pioneer species which
are found all along the highway, these planting are planted as mitigation
measures when the roads were constructed. Given the proximity of the major road
and highway, the development of warehouses and open container storage
facilities are popular in the roadside area, and so the village settlements are further set back from
these unpleasant landscape elements. Village settlements in this LCA comprise
of clusters of 3-storey houses including Ha San Wai, Chuk Yuen Tsuen and Sheung
Chuk Yuen. Given the quality and nature landscape
elements and characters mentioned above, the area is highly disturbed by
infrastructure and open storage and warehouse activities, the amenity value of this LCA is relatively low
and the ability to accommodate change is medium, hence this LCA has a low
sensitivity to change.
LCA5 Kam Pok Road Low-rise Residential Landscape
This LCA covers the
areas to the north and south of Fairview Park Boulevard. The proposed
development site is located in the northern portion of this LCA. The development site
is surrounded by roads, drainage channels, warehouses and open container
storage facilities. The southern portion of this LCA are characterised by
low-rise residential developments and clusters of ponds. Ponds are preserved and covered over one-third of the area of this LCA. The western periphery of this LCA is bounded by
Ngau Tam Mei engineered water channel. Vegetation is concentrated in planting
areas along roads and channel which were originally planted as landscape
mitigation purposes for previous river training works. Fairview Park Boulevard is very busy road, frequently used by heavy duty
vehicles, as it is major access to the
adjacent warehouses and open container storage facilities in the area. Kam Pok Road has less
traffic frequent but heavy vehicle parking is always observed. A few trees are
found on the bunds of the ponds in the southern portion. Given that a large proportion of this area is
characterised by urbanised elements, the landscape and amenity value of this LCA is relatively low, the
ability of this LCA to accommodate change is considered to be high and its
sensitivity to change is low.
LCA6 Yau Pok Road Open Storage and Warehouse Landscape
This LCA covers the area
to the south of Fairview Park. It is largely occupied by open container storage
facilities and warehouses which are visually unpleasant
elements, its amenity value is low. Some trees are observed at the eastern edge of
the LCA inside the fenced off individual premises. The ability of this LCA to accommodate change is high and
hence this LCA has a low sensitivity to change.
Table 11‑6 Sensitivity
of Landscape Character Areas (LCAs)
|
I.D.
No. |
Landscape
Resources (LRs) |
Criteria |
Sensitivity |
|||||
|
Area |
Quality |
Importance/ Rarity |
Ability to accommodate change |
Local / Regional Significance |
Maturity |
|||
|
LCA1 |
Fairview Park Low-rise Extensive Residential
Landscape |
36.44 ha |
Low |
Low |
Medium |
Low |
Medium |
Low |
|
LCA2 |
Yau Pok Road Nullaside Rural Landscape |
9.15 ha |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LCA3 |
Kam Pok Road Nullahside Rural Landscape |
18.04 ha |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LCA4 |
San Tam Road Rural Residential Lowland Landscape |
31.40 ha |
Low |
Low |
Medium |
Low |
Medium |
Low |
|
LCA5 |
Kam Pok Road Low-rise Residential Landscape |
26.04 ha |
Low |
Low |
Medium |
Low |
Low |
Low |
|
LCA6 |
Yau Pok Road Open Storage and Warehouse Landscape |
6.49 ha |
Low |
Low |
High |
Low |
Low |
Low |
Existing Visual Context
Visual Envelope and Zones of
Visual Influence
The visual envelope, the
area from which the proposed development would be seen, is shaped by a
combination of adjacent lowland rural landscape, vegetation alongside the Ngau
Tam Mei Nullah and the surrounding low-rise residential / village settlements.
It extends to low-rise residential developments alongside Fairview Park
Boulevard in the south, open container storage facilities and warehouses
adjacent to Ha San Wai in the east, Fairview Park low-rise residential
development, Bethel High School and planned recreational areas (currently
abandoned) in the west, agricultural fields, Chuk Yuen Road Floodwater Storage
and Facilities and a planned low-rise residential development site in the
north.
There are glimpse views
of the proposed development from houses located along the eastern edge of
Fairview Park across the flat expanse of the grassland areas (abandoned /
planned recreational areas) however these low level views are largely screened
by a combination of roadside and nullahside vegetation, tall shrubs / grass and
the intervening structures in the foreground of the proposed development site.
The residents and
villagers in lowland settlements located in proximity to the proposed
development site are key VSRs, including those living in Helene Terrance, Ha
San Wai Village and Chuk Yuen Tsuen. These VSRs might only have glimpse views
of the proposed development because the majority of their low-level views to
the proposed site is largely obstructed by the existing topography or
vegetation in their foreground. They might have views of the upper part of the
future development when looking up above the surrounding landscape features.
Owing to their visual context dominated by the existing topography or
vegetation, the visual mitigation will come from the preservation of the
existing landform and vegetation, the overall layout, the scale and disposition
of the proposed development and the integration of the landscape features and
surrounding landscape context.
Other than the above
permanent VSRs, vehicle travellers and pedestrians along Fairview Park
Boulevard, Ha San Wai Road, Yau Pok Road, Kam Pok Road, Fung Chuk Road and Ha
Chuk Yuen Road, staff at Chuk Yuen Floodwater Storage and Facilities and future
users of planned recreational facilities in the areas to the east of Fairview
Park, will have overview at a higher level or partial views of the proposed
development. Owing to their transient nature, the visual mitigation will come
from the integration of the proposed development with its local landscape
context. As other planned development proposals adjacent to the site are being
studied, the visual envelope (VE) and potential VSRs is subject to change. The
extent of the visual envelope and the zones of visual influence are presented
in Figure 11-6. Photographic record of VSRs is put in Figures 11-7-1 to 11-7-4.
Visually Sensitive Receivers
Visually Sensitive
Receivers (VSRs) identified within the ZVI are grouped by receivers who have
views of the proposed development based on the preliminary assumption discussed
in the previous sections, are sensitive to change and are likely to be
subjected to adverse impacts as a result of the proposed development. The
sensitivity of a particular VSR is influenced by its location (sensitivity
tends to decrease with distance from the proposed scheme), direction and nature
of the view relative to the scheme (an open and full views will be more
sensitive to change than a partial of glimpse view), and VSR type. The VSRs are
represented by both transient or permanent receivers and their populations
range from large to small.
The principal VSRs
within the Study Area are the existing and planned residents of developments
and villagers and recreational users in lowland settlements, vehicle travellers
and other infrastructural facilities whom have a view of the proposed
development. The selected VSRs listed below are representative of the views
available to people at each location of the proposals. Table11-7 describes the sensitivity of the selected VSRs
within the ZVI, the quality of their existing views and their ability to
accommodate change. Table 11-12
identifies the magnitude of change and the potential impacts on their visual
amenity and the residual impact with recommended landscape mitigation measures
fully established. The potential visual
impacts are mapped in Figure 11-10.
PVSR
1 Residents of Planned Low-rise House
Development at Fung Chuk Road North
VSR
2 Workers at Chuk Yuen Floodwater
Pumping Station and Storage Pond
VSR
3 Vehicular Travellers and
Pedestrians along Fung Chuk Road
VSR
4 Villagers of Chuk Yuen Tsuen and
Hang Fook Gardens
VSR
5 Vehicular Travellers and
Pedestrians along Ha Chuk Yuen Road
VSR
6.1 Workers of Warehouses and Open
Container Storage at Ha San Wai Tsuen
VSR
6.2 Villagers of Ha San Wai and Area
Reserved for Village Extension
VSR
7 Residents of Low-rise House
Development along Ha San Wai Road
VSR
8 Residents of Low-rise House
Development along Fairview Park Boulevard
VSR
9 Vehicular Travellers and
Pedestrians along Fairview Park Road South
VSR
10 Residents of Low-rise House
Development at Fairview Park
VSR
11 Vehicular Travellers and
Pedestrians alongside of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel
PVSR12A
Future Residents of Planned Recreation
Zone to the east of Fairview Park
PVSR12B Future Recreational Users of Planned
Recreation Zone to the east of Fairview Park
PVSR
1 Residents of Planned Low-rise House
Development at Fung Chuk Road North
These VSRs are located
to the east of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel and to the north of Chuk Yuen
Floodwater Storage and Facilities who have panoramic views towards Ngau Tam Mei
Channel, Fairview Park and Chuk Yuen Tsuen. Due to the screening effect of a
combination of roadside vegetation at Fung Chuk Road and intervening structures
in pumping station and fence wall around the development, they will only have glimpse views of the roof of the
proposed development. The quality of their existing views is good, and their main
views are focused within the development. Views towards the proposed development in their further south are only
available to a relatively few number of VSRs living at the southern
periphery with the views blocked by the pumping station in the foreground. Given the disrupted views of these
VSRs, their visual context and quality, view is permanent in their living place, hence the sensitivity to change of these VSRs is high.
VSR
2 Workers at Chuk Yuen Floodwater
Storage and Facilities
These VSRs are staff and
users of Chuk Yuen Floodwater Storage and Facilities whose views at low-level are dominated by the retention ponds and pumping facilities in the foreground and planting
along Fung Chuk Road in the background. These VSRs will have a partial view to
the upper level of the proposed development. The quality of their existing views is poor and views looking towards
the proposed development are
generally only available to very few people. Given their restricted views, the infrastructural visual context, hence their sensitivity to change is low.
VSR 3 Vehicular
Travellers and Pedestrians along Fung Chuk Road
Visual context of these
VSRs is constrained by the road corridor, roadside planting and Chuk Yuen
Floodwater Storage and Facilities. These VSRs would have glimpse views towards
the proposed development through gap between
vegetation in roadside planting areas. Due to the screening effect of a
combination of roadside vegetation and intervening structures located adjacent
to the proposed development site, only glimpse views of the proposed
development are available to these VSRs.
These VSRs are very few in number and their visual quality is fair.
Given the
quality of visual context and
transient nature of these VSRs, their
viewing location is in proximity to the proposed development, hence their
sensitivity to change is medium.
VSR 4 Villagers
of Chuk Yuen Tsuen and Hang Fook Gardens
These VSRs are villagers
living in Chuk Yuen Tsuen which is bounded by Ha Chuk Yuen Road and San Tin
Highway. Their visual context is contained by the adjacent village houses due
to density of village development and highway structures, the quality of their
view is intervened by unpleasant warehouses and open container storage
facilities inside the village. Scattered vegetation and only a few trees can be
found in small public squares adjacent to the village community office or
ancestor hall. Given to their constrained visual context, only villagers living
at the western periphery of the village will have a partial view of the upper
level of the proposed development, their low level views looking towards the
site are intervened by the existing topography and dense mature vegetation
along Ha Chuk Yuen Road. These VSRs are small in number and their visual
quality is good, however their visual quality is subject to change according to
future extension of village settlement in their foreground. Given their visual
quality and permanent nature, further extension of village settlement, hence
their sensitivity to change is high.
VSR 5 Vehicular
Travellers and Pedestrians along Ha Chuk Yuen Road
Visual context of these
VSRs is framed by roadside planting. These VSRs would have glimpse views
towards Chuk Yuen Tsuen and the proposed development through gaps and spaces
between vegetation in roadside planting areas. These VSRs are very few in
number and their visual quality is fair. Given the quality of the visual
context and transient nature of these VSRs, confined views along road corridor, their viewing location is in proximity to the
proposed development, hence their sensitivity to change is medium.
VSR 6.1 Workers of Warehouses and Open Container
Storage at Ha San Wai Tsuen
Views of these VSRs are
confined within warehouses and open container storage facilities due to the
extensive material storage and enclosed built
structure. These are typical visually unpleasant landscape features in NWNT. No
vegetation is found within these areas.
Workers who are occasionally standing at the western periphery of the
warehouses and open container storage facilities might have glimpse views of
the upper level of the proposed development through the dense vegetation along
Ha Chuk Yuen Road. These VSRs are small in number and their visual quality is
poor. Given their visual quality and transient nature, hence their sensitivity
to change is low.
VSR 6.2 Villagers of Ha San Wai and Area Reserved
for Village Extension
These VSRs are villagers
living in Ha San Wai, where the majority of the village context is dominated by
warehouses and open container storage facilities in the west and bounded by San
Tin Highway in the east. Similar to villagers in Chuk Yuen Tsuen, their views
are contained by the adjacent village houses due to the density of village
development, open storage and warehouses
and highway structures surrounding the village. Scattered vegetation and only a
few trees can be found within the village. Given their constrained visual
context, only villagers living at the western periphery of the village will
have a glimpse view of the proposed development through gap between warehouses in their foreground. These
VSRs are small in number and their visual quality is poor. Given their poor visual quality and permanent in nature, intervening visually distracting uses in the village, and further extension of
village
blocking their views towards proposed development, hence their sensitivity to change is low.
VSR 7 Residents of Low-rise House Development along
Ha San Wai Road
These VSRs are located
to the south of Ha San Wai Road living in 3-storey town houses. Their
development frontage is facing Fairview Park Boulevard. Low level views from
their backyards are constrained by the engineered water channel and trees along
the
water channel in the foreground.
Only residents living on the top floor of the houses looking northwest will have glimpse views of the proposed development
through gap between the roadside vegetation along Ha San Wai Road. The visual
context of these VSRs focus towards the south which is their development
frontage, the screening effect of the existing vegetation and that the view is
permanent in nature, hence their sensitivity to change is medium.
VSR 8 Residents of Low-rise House Development along
Fairview Park Boulevard
These VSRs are located
to the south of Fairview Park Boulevard living in 3-storey town houses, views
from their development frontage towards the proposed development site are
intervened by busy traffic along Fairview
Park Boulevard. Low level views are
characterised by retail shops, billboards, planting and solid fence walls of individual developments. Only a few residents living on the top floor of the
houses and looking northwest might have glimpse views of the proposed
development intervening by houses in the
north. The visual context of these VSRs focus along Fairview Park Boulevard
which is their development frontage, the screening effect of existing
vegetation and built environment and that the view is permanent in nature,
hence their sensitivity to change is medium.
VSR 9 Vehicular
Travellers and Pedestrians along Fairview Park Road South
Visual context of these
VSRs is framed by roadside developments, open view along Ngau Tam Mei Water
Channel is only available at the entrance of Fairview Park. These VSRs,
majority of which are drivers on the road with a few pedestrians, will have an overview of the proposed development in
transient nature when approaching Fairview Park looking towards the
north-eastern direction. These VSRs are intermediate in number and their visual
quality is fair. Given their visual quality and their transient in nature,
quality of views, their sensitivity to change is low.
VSR 10 Residents of Low-rise House Development at
Fairview Park
Given the density of
this low-rise development, views of these VSRs are largely confined within the
development. Open views looking out towards the surrounding rural landscape are
only available to those residents living at the periphery of Fairview Park.
Only residents living on the top floor at the eastern periphery of Fairview
Park will have partial views of the proposed development as their foreground
views are intervened by fence walls, vegetation on grassland and nullahside
vegetation. Visual context of these VSRs is fair and they are intermediate in
numbers. Given their topography and the screening effect of the existing
vegetation and built environment and that the view is permanent in nature,
hence their sensitivity to change is medium.
VSR
11 Vehicular Travellers and Pedestrians alongside of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage
Channel
Visual context of these
VSRs is framed by roadside and nullahside planting, open views along Ngau Tam
Mei Water Channel and the adjoining low-rise residential and rural landscapes
are available at frequent locations. These VSRs are drivers on the road with a
few pedestrians. Visual quality of their transient view is good. Given their
visual quality and transient nature, quality of views, their sensitivity to
change is medium.
PVSR12A
Future Residents of Planned Recreation
Zone to the east of Fairview Park
These planned VSRs are residents of the future recreational facilities located
immediately between Fairview Park and Ngau Tam Mei Water Channel. Given these
VSRs are located at a lower elevation than the roads along the Channel, their
low level views looking towards the proposed development are screened by the
channelside vegetation as well as the future planting proposals within this residential
development. Their western views
are bounded by the development edge of Fairview Park. The visual context is
subject to change according to future design of development layout. Visual
context of these VSRs is fair and invert looking into the landscape area within
the development. Given their
topography and screening effect of the existing vegetation and surrounding
built environment and that the view is permanent in nature, hence their sensitivity to change is medium.
PVSR12B
Future Recreational Users of Planned
Recreation Zone to the east of Fairview Park
These planned VSRs are
users of future recreational facilities located immediately between Fairview Park
and Ngau Tam Mei Water Channel. Given these VSRs are located at a lower
elevation than the roads along the Channel, their low level views looking
towards the proposed development are screened by the channelside vegetation as
well as the future planting proposals within the recreational facilities. Their
western views are bounded by the development edge of Fairview Park. The visual
context is subject to change according to future development of the design of
these facilities. The scale of reserved land for recreational purposes under
the statutory plan is relatively large, it is assumed the number of
recreational users are intermediate. Visual context of these VSRs is fair.
Given their topography and screening effect of the existing vegetation and surrounding
built environment and that the view is transient in nature, hence their
sensitivity to change is medium.
Table 11‑7 Sensitivity of Visually Sensitive
Receivers (VSRs)
|
I.D. No. |
Visually
Sensitive Receivers (VSRs) |
Criteria |
Sensitivity/ Quality of VSR |
||||
|
Quality of View |
Availability and
Amenity of Alternative Views |
Type (Permanent or Transient)/ No. of VSRs (Few/Small/ Intermediate/ Large) |
Duration and Frequency
of Views to proposed Works |
Degree of
Visibility |
|||
|
PVSR1 |
Residents of Planned Low-rise House Development
at Fung Chuk Road North |
Fair |
Available/Fair The alternative views available to these VSRs are invert looking into
the landscape areas within the development and private garden of individual
dwellings. Views to the proposed
development are largely intervened by the Chuk Yuen Pumping Station in the
foreground. |
Permanent / Intermediate Only future residents living at the southern periphery of this planned
development will have glimpse views towards the upper level of the proposed
development. |
3 yrs. and Occasional |
Partial Only glimpse views of the upper level of the proposed development
might be available due to the screening effect of a combination of roadside
vegetation along Fung Chuk Road and intervened by built structures. |
High |
|
VSR2 |
Workers at Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station
and Storage Pond |
Poor |
Available/Poor Restricted views within the pumping station and associated facilities.
Such infrastructural landscape is extended along Fung Chuk Road where its
intervened by mature roadside vegetation. |
Transient / Few |
3 yrs. and Occasional These VSRs will have glimpse views to the upper
level of the proposed development intervened by roadside vegetation at Fung
Chuk Road. |
Partial |
Low |
|
VSR3 |
Vehicular Travellers and Pedestrians along Fung Chuk Road |
Fair |
Available/Fair Views are confined by roadside vegetation. Immediate views to the
proposed development through the vegetation and disturbed views to open yards
in the east. |
Transient / Few |
3 yrs. and Occasional, Dynamic These VSRs will have glimpse views of the proposed development through
the existing roadside vegetation. |
Partial |
Medium |
|
VSR4 |
Villagers of Chuk Yuen Tsuen and Hang Fook Gardens |
Good |
Available/Fair Views
of these VSRs are largely confined within the village settlements. Those VSRs
living at the western periphery of the villages have views which extend to
the grassland and warehouses located to the west and south in the foreground
and mature vegetation along Ha Chuk Yuen Road in the background. |
Permanent / Intermediate |
3 yrs. and Frequent These VSRs will have glimpse views of the upper level of the proposed
development whilst the majority of the proposed development is screened by
mature vegetation along Ha Chuk Yuen Road. Views of these VSRs towards the
proposed development are subject to change upon implementation of village
settlement extension in their foreground. |
Partial |
High |
|
VSR5 |
Vehicular Travellers and Pedestrians along Ha Chuk Yuen Road |
Fair |
Available/ Fair Views are confined by roadside vegetation and engineered water channel
alongside the road. Immediate views to the proposed development through the
vegetation. Glimpse views of Chuk Yuen Tsuen and warehouses at Ha San Wai are
available only through the roadside vegetation. Chuk Yuen Pumping Station is
one of the major unpleasant elements in the views of these VSRs. |
Transient / Few |
3 yrs. and Occasional, Dynamic These VSRs will have glimpse views of the proposed development through
existing roadside vegetation. |
Partial |
Medium |
|
VSR6.1 |
Workers of Warehouses and Open Container Storage at Ha San Wai Tsuen |
Poor |
Available/Poor Views are confined within the warehouses due to its nature. Views
looking towards the south are bounded by Ha San Wai village settlements.
Those workers occasionally in the open areas to the west of the warehouses
will have glimpse views of the upper level of the proposed development, their
low level views are largely screened by existing roadside vegetation. |
Transient / Small |
3 yrs and Occasional due to their nature and internal views are
subject to change according to material storage. |
Partial |
Low |
|
VSR6.2 |
Villagers of Ha San Wai |
Poor |
Available/Poor Views are largely confined by village houses and warehouses and open
container storage facilities along Ha San Wai Road and San Tin Highway. Views
north towards the proposed development are largely intervened by warehouses
mentioned above. |
Permanent / Small |
3 yrs. and Frequent These VSRs will have glimpse views of the upper level of the proposed
development whilst low level views are intervened by warehouses and open storage
facilities in the foreground. |
Partial |
Low |
|
VSR7 |
Residents of Low-rise House Development along Ha San Wai Road |
Fair |
Available/Fair These VSRs are located to the south of Ha San Wai Road living in
3-storey town houses. Their development frontage faces Fairview Park
Boulevard. Views looking north towards the proposed development are
intervened by the engineered water channel and roadside vegetation. |
Permanent / Few |
3 yrs. and Frequent These VSRs will have glimpse views of the proposed development through
existing roadside vegetation in their foreground. |
Partial |
Medium |
|
VSR8 |
Residents of Low-rise House Development along Fairview Park Boulevard |
Fair |
Available/Poor These VSRs are located to the south of Fairview Park Boulevard living
in 3-storey town houses, views from their development frontage towards the
development site are intervened by busy traffic, planting along the road and
opposite house developments. Low level
views are characterised by retail shops, billboards, planting and solid fence
wall of individual development. |
Permanent / Small |
3 yrs. and Frequent These VSRs looking northwest might have glimpse views of the proposed
development through space between houses in the north. |
Partial |
Medium |
|
VSR9 |
Vehicular Travellers and Pedestrians along Fairview Park Road South |
Fair |
Available/Fair Visual context of these VSRs is framed by roadside developments; open
view along the Ngau Tam Mei Water Channel is only available at the entrance
of Fairview Park. |
Transient / Intermediate |
3 yrs. and Occasional, Dynamic These VSRs will have an overview of the proposed development in
transient nature when approaching Fairview Park and looking towards
north-eastern direction. |
Partial |
Low |
|
VSR10 |
Residents of Low-rise House Development at Fairview Park |
Fair |
Available/Fair Views of these VSRs are largely confined within the development. Open
views looking out towards the surrounding rural landscape are only available
to those residents living at the periphery of Fairview Park. |
Permanent / Intermediate |
3 yrs. and Frequent VSRs located at the
eastern periphery of Fairview Park will have partial views of the proposed
development as their foreground views are intervened by fence walls in the foreground,
vegetation on grassland and agricultural fields and channelside vegetation in
the middle ground. |
Partial |
Medium |
|
VSR11 |
Vehicular Travellers and Pedestrians alongside of Ngau Tam Mei
Drainage Channel |
Good |
Available/Fair Visual context of these VSRs is framed by roadside and channelside
plantation, open views along the Ngau Tam Mei Water Channel and adjoining
low-rise residential and rural landscapes are available at frequent
locations. |
Transient / Small |
3 yrs. and Occasional, Dynamic These VSRs will have transient views of the proposed development when
approaching the Site. |
Partial |
Medium |
|
PVSR12A |
Future Residents of Planned Recreation Zone to the east of Fairview
Park |
Fair |
Available/Fair These planned VSRs are future residents in a house development located
immediately between Fairview Park and the Ngau Tam Mei Water Channel. Given
these VSRs are located at a lower elevation than the roads along the Channel,
their low level views looking towards the proposed development are screened
by channelside vegetation as well as future planting proposals within the
recreational facilities. Their western views are bounded by the development
edge of Fairview Park. |
Permanent / Intermediate |
3 yrs. and Frequent. Existing views are subject to change due to
future planned recreational development. These VSRs will have glimpse views of the proposed development through
channelside planting in the foreground. |
Partial |
Medium |
|
PVSR12B |
Future Recreational Users of Planned Recreation Zone to the east of
Fairview Park |
Fair |
Available/Fair These planned VSRs are users of future recreational facilities located
immediately between Fairview Park and the Ngau Tam Mei Water Channel. Given these
VSRs are located at a lower elevation than the roads along the Channel, their
low level views looking towards the proposed development are screened by
channelside vegetation as well as future planting proposals within the
recreational facilities. Their western views are bounded by the development
edge of Fairview Park. |
Transient / Intermediate |
3 yrs. and Occasional. Existing views are subject to change due to
future planned recreational development. These VSRs will have glimpse views of the proposed development through
channelside planting in the foreground. |
Partial |
Medium |
Proposed residential development
comprises of site formation and building works and construction of noise
mitigation measures. Potential landscape and visual impacts would be restricted
to above ground construction works.
During the construction
stage, potential temporary landscape and visual Impacts would arise from:
-
Site formation Works - levelling the
site to accommodate house development associated with internal road network,
landscape areas, and minor slope regarding works at periphery of the site
involved.
-
Construction of 32 numbers of 2-storey
houses (max. 6.6m high) and a club house (one storey).
-
Construction of utilities facilities
including a sewage treatment plant (at 10.4mPD high as part of noise mitigation
measures).
-
Construction of noise barrier (4.5m
high) of 10.1mPD high at Ha Chuk Yuen Road and fence wall (2.5m high) at Ha San
Wai Road, Kam Pok Road and Fung Chuk Road integrated with landscape
buffer/landscape berm.
-
Contractor’s temporary works sites,
including site accommodation, material storage and parking areas.
During the operation
stage, potential landscape and visual Impacts would be related to the following
visible above ground structures:
-
Density, scale, massing and design of
proposed houses, recreation facilities and other above ground utilities facilities
and their compatibility of surrounding landscape context.
-
Scale, alignment and treatment of
proposed noise barrier and fence wall and their compatibility of surrounding
landscape context.
-
Residual impacts from loss of trees and
vegetation during the construction stage.
A preliminary tree
survey broadly
in accordance with LAO PN No. 7/2007 has been undertaken by ADI which forms part of
the assessment of the existing conditions and potential impacts to this
landscape resource. This tree survey contained in Appendix 11-1 involves the identification of individual trees
within or adjacent to the works area. Although there is some other existing trees and one registered OVT, No. LCSD YL/7 Melaleuca
cajuputi subsp. cumingiana located on footpath adjacent to Chuk Yuen Tsuen within the 500m LVIA study boundary, they are not in conflict with the proposed works, and hence
the tree survey has been limited to the works area and not the whole LVIA Study
Area. The survey includes the identification of individual trees, their
species, size, health condition, form, and amenity value.
The assessment found
approximately 364 trees within and closed to the
Development Site Boundary. 56 Leucanena leucocephala (銀合歡), undesirable weedy species are found within the
site. There is no dead trees are
found in the survey. As previously mentioned, the majority of trees found in
this survey are located at the vegetated slopes along Kam Pok Road, Fung Chuk
Road and Ha Chuk Yuen Road while only a few trees are located on the platform which was previously used for car
parking. No rare or protected tree
species (based on Forests and Countryside Ordinance, Cap. 96) or Champion Trees
(identified in the book Champion Trees in Urban Hong Kong’) were found to exist
on site. In addition, none of the trees surveyed were found to meet the
requirements for an Old and Valuable Tree ETWB TCW No. 29/2004 Registration of
Old and Valuable Trees, and Guidelines for their Preservation).
- Amenity tree planting within the
vegetated slopes along Fung Chuk Road are in direct conflict with the proposed
low-rise residential development;
- Existing trees located at the vegetated
slopes along Ha Chuk Yuen Road will be slightly affected by the construction of
noise barrier. Crown pruning of some of these trees maybe required;
- Existing trees at the southern
portion of the proposed development site will be in conflict with the proposed
development scheme;
- Existing trees located along the
western periphery of the proposed development site will be in conflict with the
construction works.
The proposed development
scheme has been designed to avoid any impact to the existing trees as far as
possible and so minimises impacts on the landscape character and amenity of the
Study Area. Based on the findings of the preliminary tree survey, it is
estimated that approximately 190
trees (52%) can be retained in their current locations.
It is inevitable that
despite the objective of preserving trees wherever possible that some trees
will be in conflict with the proposed works. These trees are first considered
for preservation through transplantation to a recipient site where they can
still contribute to the landscape and visual amenity of the local area. In
terms of assessing the feasibility for transplanting the existing trees, a
number of factors have been considered including their form, health and amenity
value. Also considered, are the existence of rare and /or protected and /or
native species, the accessibility for machinery required for transplantation;
age; and the availability and the technical feasibility of providing recipient
sites. Based on the preliminary tree survey and with consideration for the
factors described above, it is recommended that approximately 84 (23%) of the existing trees are suitable for
transplantation.
The tree transplantation
will be undertaken prior to the commencement of the proposed works. The trees
identified for transplantation include those of fair to good form and health
condition, having contribution to the local landscape context, relatively
younger and accessible by machinery. Tree species, such Bombax ceiba and Roystonea regia also have a higher predicted
survival rate after transplantation than other species. Wherever possible
native species such as Ficus spp.
which have a relatively high ecological and landscape value and are resilient
to disturbance are also recommended for transplantation. This transplanting
proposal is subject to review at detailed design stage and to submit for
government department’s approval.
Given the scale of the
proposed works and the need for temporary works areas, there will be impacts on
existing trees. The trees in conflict with the proposals are first considered
for transplantation. Where this is not possible, the trees will be recommended
for felling and as such it would not be feasible to retain or transplant
approximately 90 (25%) existing trees.
However for the majority of trees affected are Leucanena leucocephala (銀合歡), which is an undesirable weedy species that
has a low individual ecological and amenity value. All dead trees and undesirable species, Leucanena leucocephala are proposed to be removed following good
horticultural practices to avoid spreading of undesirable tree species and to
ensure public safety adjacent to dead trees.
Compensatory planting
forms a major part of landscape mitigation measures. The planting principles
will concentrate on planting new trees in the proposed amenity areas along the
internal access in between the residential houses, and provide infill planting
between the retained and transplanted trees; and on the existing slope areas.
Planting of more broadleaf tree species will be considered where space allows
for healthy tree establishment, this planting concept would create comfortable
shaded areas for pedestrians and visitors within the proposed development.
After the removal of Leucanena leucocephala on the sloping
area to the north of the site, the sloping area will be slightly regarded to a
gentler gradient for receiving some of the transplanted trees. These trees will
improve the amenity of the slope and areas along edge of the site and provide
instant greening effect to the proposed development.
Based on a preliminary
estimation, the above planting proposal would achieve a replanting ratio of
minimum 1:1 in terms of quantity and quality. This tree replanting ratio would compensate minimum as the number of tree loss within or adjacent to the
works area. The retention of existing trees through their preservation in-situ
and transplanting and the successful establishment of the newly planted trees
will enhance amenity within the proposed development site. The species
selection will utilise a range of native, ornamental
and amenity tree species in general in proposed gardens and landscape buffer. In addition,
bird-attracting and butterfly-attracting species will be introduced within and
surrounding the proposed landscape pond to further enhance the landscape and
ecological value of the site. These
proposals will be subject to further development during the detailed design
stage of the project.
As mentioned above, the
findings and recommendations of the preliminary tree survey report are subject
to the completion of a detailed tree survey and assessment and the preparation
of a felling application in accordance with LAO PN No.7/2007. This will be conducted during the detailed
design stage of the project and submitted to Lands Department for approval.
A Landscape Impact
Assessment has been undertaken to define the nature and scale of the potential
landscape impacts associated with the proposed development. The potential
landscape impacts are discussed specifically in terms of the existing landscape
character and resources. Broad mitigation measures have been identified and the
effectiveness and landscape opportunities have also been explored. The
acceptability of the development proposal will derive from the scale of
potential residual impacts and the ability of the proposals to mitigate them to
acceptable levels.
The assessment findings
will inform the future development proposal at the next stage. The conceptual
development proposal will be formulated through an iterative design process,
further refined and developed to accommodate the design requirements, and to
minimise the predicted residual landscape impacts. As the development proposal
is being further refined the broad assessment assumes the worst case scenario.
Refer to description of
tree impact within the development site above and Table 11-8 and 11-9, proposed development will have slight to
moderate impacts on existing trees in roadside amenity areas along Fung Chuk
Road (LR3.5) and Kam Pok Road (LR3.8) due to site formation works and
construction of noise mitigation and fence wall. Majority roadside trees on
slope along Ha Chuk Yuen Road (LR3.8) will be preserved. A few trees on the
open yards within the site (LR10.3) require tree felling due to site formation
and building works.
The predicted potential
impacts on Landscape Resources of the Study Area during construction and
operational period would be as follows:
·
Landscape impacts on the existing open yards and open container
storage and car parks which are largely hard paved as a result of
site formation works;
·
Landscape impacts on abandoned fishpond as a result
of site formation works;
·
Landscape impact on roadside amenity plantation
surrounding the development site which are relatively young in age and densely
planted, they make contribution to the roadside landscape in form of group
rather than individually;
·
Loss of existing trees which
are largely
located in amenity areas of Fung Chuk
Road and Kam Pok Road. A large proportion of these trees are
Leucanena leucocephala, an undesirable weedy species which has low individual
ecological and amenity value.
Based on potential
landscape impacts mentioned above as a result of proposed development, Table 11-8
presents the magnitude of change on individual LRs and summarised in the following
sections.
Large
According to the
assessment results in Table 11-8, having considered the determinants listed
under assessment methodology, a small scale of abandoned and disturbed pond
within the development site
(approx. 0.34 ha) will be replaced by house development. LR6.1 Ha San Wai Road
North Fish Pond (Abandoned) would
have a substantial change of quantity and quality.
Intermediate
LR3.5 Fung Chuk Road
Roadside Amenity and LR10.3 Ha Chuk Yuen Road Open Yards within the Study Area
would have an intermediate change as a result of site formation for the
proposed development.
Small
There would be a small
change in LR3.8 Kam Pok Road Roadside Amenity within the Study Area. The loss
of these LRs is not substantial as a result of site formation works within the
development site and tree preservation proposal at the periphery of the
development site.
Negligible
No LRs would have a negligible change.
No Change
Proposed development will not affect the remaining LRs within the Study Area
Table 11-9
presents the predicted unmitigated and mitigated (Day 1 and Yr. 10/residual)
impacts on the existing landscape resources resulting from the proposed
development during the construction and operational phases of the project.
These impacts are also mapped on Figure
11-8. The
mitigated (residual) impacts are assessed during the design year for the
purpose of this study and it is
taken at
Yr. 10 after the development opening when the proposed mitigation planting is
deemed to have reached a level of maturity, which is sufficient for it to
perform the design objectives. Significance of thresholds of unmitigated impact
are summarised as follows:
Unmitigated
Impact
Significant
Impact Significance
No LRs within the Study Area would have significant
impact due to the scale
of proposed development and its compatibility to existing landscape context.
Moderate Impact Significance
Only four LRs within the development site will be in conflict with the proposed
works including LR3.5 Fung Chuk Road Roadside Amenity, LR3.8 Kam Pok Road Roadside Amenity and LR6.1 Ha
San Wai Road North Fish Pond (Abandoned) and LR10.3 Ha Chuk Yuen Road Open
Yards, which have a low to medium sensitivity, and the magnitude of change as a
result of the proposed development on these LRs have a range
from small to large, these LRs therefore
would experience a moderate unmitigated impact due to loss of landscape
resources including existing trees, a small abandoned fishpond and open yard
(hard paved areas of the site) as a result of site formation for the proposed development.
The loss of LRs will be
mitigated through the reinstatement of roadside amenity, introduction of
landscape gardens within the development, preserved and created new landscape
buffer
and planting strip at the periphery
of the development site and preservation of existing trees in their current
location or through transplanting etc.
No Impact
With exception of LRs
mentioned above, the proposed development and
its associated works would not have any impact on all the remaining LRs outside
the development site.
The assessment contained
in Table 11-9 concluded that the proposed development would have a moderate impact on only four LRs within the Study Area, whilst the majority
of LRs within the assessment area remain unchanged. Through the introduction of new landscape
buffer and landscape areas within the
proposed development, in combination with the tree preservation proposals, these mitigation measures will mitigate the loss of landscape resources, will restore and enhance the disturbed
landscape context which is currently covered by hard paved areas. The
Conceptual Landscape Master Plan and landscape sections shown in Figures 11-11-1 and 11-11-2 illustrate the application of landscape mitigation measures. Figure 11-11-3 to 11-11-5 show the proposed
integrated design of new landscape
buffer/berm and noise mitigation at the periphery of the site as that will alleviate the potential
impact on the affected LRs. Figure
11-11-6 shows the provision of landscape pond for enhancement. The recommended landscape mitigation measures
and residual impact on these LRs is further discussed in Sections 11-13 and 11-14.
Table 11‑8 Potential magnitude of change for
landscape resources
|
ID |
Description
of Impacts |
Loss
(Ha)/Total Area of Resources (Ha); No. of Trees to be Felled (F) or
Transplanted (T)/Existing Trees |
Determinants
for Magnitude of Change |
Magnitude
of Change |
||||
|
Compatibility (N/A/Low/ Medium/ High) |
Scale (N/A/Small/ Intermediate /Large) |
Duration
of Impact (Construction/ Operation) |
Reversibility (N/A/Low/ Medium/ High) |
Construction
(Negligible/Small/ Intermediate/
Large) |
Operation
(Negligible /Small/ Intermediate/
Large) |
|||
|
LR1.1 San Tin Highway |
No direct impact on San Tin Highway as the proposed development will be
located away from this LR. |
0/4.87 ha 0% No tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR1.2 San Tam Road |
No direct impact on San Tam Road as the proposed development will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.72
ha 0% No tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR1.3 Ha San Wai Road |
No direct impact on Ha San Wai Road as the proposed development will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.41
ha 0% No tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR1.4 Fairview Park Boulevard |
No direct impact on Fairview Park
Boulevard as the proposed development
will be located away from this LR. |
0/1.32
ha 0% No tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR1.5 Ha Chuk Yuen Road |
No direct impact on Ha Chuk Yuen Road as the proposed development will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.34 ha 0% No tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
ID |
Description
of Impacts |
Loss
(Ha)/Total Area of Resources (Ha); No. of Trees to be Felled (F) or
Transplanted (T)/Existing Trees |
Determinants
for Magnitude of Change |
Magnitude
of Change |
||||
|
Compatibility (N/A/Low/ Medium/ High) |
Scale (N/A/Small/ Intermediate /Large) |
Duration
of Impact (Construction/ Operation) |
Reversibility (N/A /Low/ Medium/ High) |
Construction
(Negligible/Small/ Intermediate/
Large) |
Operation
(Negligible/Small/ Intermediate/
Large) |
|||
|
LR1.6 Kam Pok Road |
No direct impact on Kam Pok Road as the proposed development will be located away from this LR. |
0/1.05
ha 0% No tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR1.7 Yau Pok Road |
No direct impact on Yau Pok Road as the proposed development will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.73 ha 0% No tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR1.8 Castle Peak Road (Tam Mi Section) |
No direct impact on Castle Peak Road
(Tam Mi Section) as the proposed development
will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.86 ha 0% No tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR1.9 Fung Chuk Road |
No direct impact on Fung Chuk Road as the proposed development will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.12 ha 0% No tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR2.1 San Wai Tsuen Village Settlement |
No direct impact on San Wai Tsuen
Village Settlement as the proposed development
will be located away from this LR. |
0/5.30 ha 0% No tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR2.2 Chuk Yuen Tsuen Village Settlement |
No direct impact on Chuk Yuen Tsuen
Village Settlement as the proposed development
will be located away from this LR. |
0/5.95
ha 0% No tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR2.3 Ha Sun Wai Tsuen Village Settlement |
No direct impact on Ha Sun Wai Tsuen Village Settlement as the proposed
development will be located away from this LR. |
0/1.82 ha 0% No tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR3.1 San Tin Highway Roadside Amenity |
No direct impact on San Tin Highway Roadside Amenity as the proposed development will be located away from
this LR. |
0/1.15 ha 0% No tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR3.2 Castle Peak Road (Tam Mi Section) Roadside Amenity |
No direct impact on Castle Peak Road
(Tam Mi Section) Roadside Amenity as the proposed development will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.33 ha 0% No tree Loss OVT not affected |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR3.3 San Tam Road Roadside Amenity |
No direct impact on San Tam Road Roadside Amenity as the proposed development will be located away from this LR. |
0/3.10 ha 0% No tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR3.4 Yau Pok Road Roadside Amenity |
No direct impact on Yau Pok Road Roadside Amenity as the proposed development will be located away from this LR. |
0/1.96 ha 0% No tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR3.5 Fung Chuk Road Roadside Amenity |
Loss of roadside plantation at Fung Chuk Road due site formation of
proposed development. Loss of existing roadside amenity will be reinstated. |
0.2/0.58
ha 34% 55F/76T /210 |
Medium |
Medium |
Permanent |
Medium |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
|
LR3.6 Ha Chuk Yuen Road Roadside Amenity |
No direct impact on Ha Chuk Yuen Road Roadside Amenity as the proposed development will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.24
ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR3.7 Ha San Wai Road Roadside Amenity |
No direct impact on Ha San Wai Road Roadside Amenity as the proposed development
will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.62 ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR3.8 Kam Pok Road Roadside Amenity |
Loss of roadside plantation at Kam Pok Road due site formation of
proposed development. Loss of existing roadside amenity will be reinstated. |
0.38/3.06
ha 12% 31F/8T /210 |
Medium |
Small |
permanent |
High |
Small |
Small |
|
LR4.1 Yau Tam Mei Tsuen Grassland |
No direct impact on Yau Tam Mei Tsuen
Grassland as the proposed development will
be located away from this LR. |
0/0.33 ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
NA/ NA |
NA/ NA |
No change |
No change |
|
LR4.2 Chuk Yuen Tsuen Grassland |
No direct impact on Chuk Yuen Tsuen
Grassland as the proposed development
will be located away from this LR. |
0/2.92
ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR4.3 Ha Chuk Yuen Road North Grassland |
No direct impact on Ha Chuk Yuen Road North Grassland as the proposed
development will be located away from this LR. |
0/8.41 ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR4.4 Yau Pok Road North Grassland |
No direct impact on Yau Pok Road North
Grassland as the proposed development
will be located away from this LR. |
0/6.4 ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR4.5 Kam Pok Road North Grassland |
No direct impact on Kam Pok Road North Grassland as the proposed
development will be located away from this LR. |
0/6.59
ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR4.6 Kam Pok Road East Grassland |
No direct impact on Kam Pok Road East Grassland as the proposed
development will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.51
ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR5.1 Ha Chuk Yuen Road North Agricultural Field |
No direct impact on Ha Chuk Yuen Road
North Agricultural Field as the proposed
development will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.51 ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR5.2 Yau Pok Road North Agricultural Field |
No direct impact on Yau Pok Road North
Agricultural Field as the proposed development
will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.34 ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR6.1 Ha San Wai Road North Fish Pond (Abandoned) |
Loss of an abandoned fish pond due to site
formation of proposed development. |
0.34/0.34 ha 100% No Tree Loss |
Low |
Large |
permanent |
Low |
Large |
Large |
|
LR6.2 Man Yuen Chuen East Fish Ponds |
No direct impact on Man Yuen Chuen
East Fish Ponds as the proposed development will
be located away from this LR. |
0/6.98
ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR6.3 Chuk Yuen Tsuen South Ponds |
No direct impact on Chuk Yuen Tsuen South
Ponds as the proposed development will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.28
ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR7.1 San Tam Road Engineered Water Channel |
No direct impact on San Tam Road
Engineered Water Channel as the proposed
development will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.33 ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR7.2 Ha San Wai Road Engineered Water Channel |
No direct impact on Ha San Wai Road
Engineered Water Channel as the proposed
development will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.56 ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR7.3 Ha Chuk Yuen Road Engineered Water Channel |
No direct impact on Ha Chuk Yuen Road
Engineered Water Channel as the proposed
development will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.46 ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR7.4 Ngau Tam Mei Engineered Water Channel |
No direct impact on Ngau Tam Mei
Engineered Water Channel as the proposed
development will be located away from this LR. |
0/2.92 ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR8 Fung Chuk Road Flood Storage and Facilities |
No direct impact on Fung Chuk Road Flood Storage and Facilities as the
proposed development will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.74 ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR9.1 Fairview Park Boulevard North Low-rise Residential Development
Area |
No direct impact on Fairview Park
Boulevard North Low-rise Residential Development Area as the proposed development will be located away from this LR. |
0/2.78 ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR9.2 Fairview Park Boulevard South Development Area |
No direct impact on Fairview Park Boulevard South Development Area as
the proposed development will be located away from this LR. |
0/8.21ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LR9.3 Fairview Park Low-rise Residential Development Area |
No direct impact on Fairview Park
Low-rise Residential Development Area as the proposed development will be located away from this LR. |
0/30
ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR10.1 Sheung Chuk Yuen Open Yards |
No direct impact on Sheung Chuk Yuen
Open Yards as the proposed development
will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.74 ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR10.2 Chuk Yuen Tsuen Open Yards |
No direct impact on Chuk Yuen Tsuen
Open Yards as the proposed development
will be located away from this LR. |
0/0.91 ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR10.3 Ha Chuk Yuen Road Open Yards |
Loss of hard paved open yards, which was previously occupied by
warehouses, open container storage facilities and car parking, due to site
formation of proposed development. |
2.67/7.00 ha 38% 4F/0T/4 |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium/Long |
High |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
|
LR10.4 Yau Pok Road South Open Yards |
No direct impact on Yau Pok Road Open
Yards as the proposed development will be
located away from this LR. |
0/4.5
ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR10.5 Kam Pok Road South Open Yards |
No direct impact on Kam Pok Road Open
Yards as the proposed development will be
located away from this LR. |
0/1.20
ha 0% No Tree Loss |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A /N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LR10.6 Yau Pok Road North Open Yards |
Not use. |
|||||||
|
LR10.7 Kam Pok Road North Open Yards |
Not use. |
|||||||
Table 11‑9 Existing Landscape Resources and Predicted
Impacts
|
ID |
Sensitivity (Low / Medium/ High) |
Magnitude of Change |
Significance Threshold (Unmitigated) |
Mitigation Measures |
Significance Threshold (Mitigated) |
||||
|
Construction (Nil/Small / Intermediate
/Large) |
Operation (No change/ Negligible /Small /
Intermediate/Large) |
Construction Nil, Insubstantial, Slight,
Moderate and Significant (adverse or beneficial) |
Operation Nil, Insubstantial, Slight,
Moderate and Significant (adverse or beneficial) |
Construction Nil, Insubstantial, Slight,
Moderate and Significant (adverse or beneficial) |
Operation Nil, Insubstantial, Slight,
Moderate and Significant (adverse or beneficial) |
||||
|
Day 1 |
Year 10 (Residual) |
||||||||
|
LR1.1 San Tin Highway |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR1.2 San Tam Road |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR1.3 Ha San Wai Road |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR1.4 Fairview Park Boulevard |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR1.5 Ha Chuk Yuen Road |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR1.6 Kam Pok Road |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR1.7 Yau Pok Road |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR1.8 Castle Peak Road (Tam Mi Section) |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR1.9 Fung Chuk Road |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR2.1 San Wai Tsuen Village Settlement |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR2.2 Chuk Yuen Tsuen Village Settlement |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR2.3 Ha Sun Wai Tsuen Village Settlement |
Medium |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR3.1 San Tin Highway Roadside Amenity |
Medium |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR3.2 Castle Peak Road Tam Mi Section) Roadside Amenity |
Medium |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR3.3 San Tam Road Roadside Amenity |
Medium |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR3.4 Yau Pok Road Roadside Amenity |
Medium |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR3.5 Fung Chuk Road Roadside Amenity |
Medium |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
Moderate Adverse |
Moderate Adverse |
CP1, CP3, CP4, OP1, OP2, OP6 |
Slight Adverse |
Slight Adverse |
Insubstantial |
|
LR3.6 Ha Chuk Yuen Road Roadside Amenity |
Medium |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR3.7 Ha San Wai Road Roadside Amenity |
Medium |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR3.8 Kam Pok Road Roadside Amenity |
Medium |
Small |
Small |
Moderate Adverse |
Moderate Adverse |
CP1, CP3, CP4, OP1, OP2, OP6 |
Slight Adverse |
Slight Adverse |
Insubstantial |
|
LR4.1 Yau Tam Mei Tsuen Grassland |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR4.2 Chuk Yuen Tsuen Grassland |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR4.3 Ha Chuk Yuen Road North Grassland |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR4.4 Yau Pok Road North Grassland |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR4.5 Kam Pok Road North Grassland |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR4.6 Kam Pok Road East Grassland |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR5.1 Ha Chuk Yuen Road North Agricultural Field |
Medium |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR5.2 Yau Pok Road North Agricultural Field |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR6.1 Ha San Wai Road North Fish Pond (Abandoned) |
Low |
Large |
Large |
Moderate Adverse |
Moderate Adverse |
CP3,OP2, OP7 |
Moderate Adverse |
Moderate Adverse |
Slight Adverse |
|
LR6.2 Man Yuen Chuen East Fish Ponds |
Medium |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR6.3 Chuk Yuen Tsuen South Ponds |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR7.1 San Tam Road Engineered Water Channel |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR7.2 Ha San Wai Road Engineered Water Channel |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR7.3 Ha Chuk Yuen Road Engineered Water Channel |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR7.4 Ngau Tam Mei Engineered Water Channel |
Medium |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR7.5 Farview Park Engineered Water Channel |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR8 Fung Chuk Road Floodwater Storage & Facilities |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR9.1 Fairview Park Boulevard North Low-rise Residential Development
Area |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR9.2 Fairview Park Boulevard South Development Area |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR9.3 Fairview Park Low-rise Residential Development Area |
Medium |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR10.1 Sheung Chuk Yuen Open Yards |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR10.2 Chuk Yuen Tsuen Open Yards |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR10.3 Ha Chuk Yuen Road Open Yards |
Low |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
Moderate Adverse |
Moderate Adverse |
CP3,OP1, OP2 |
Slight Adverse |
Slight Adverse |
Slight
Beneficial |
|
LR10.4 Yau Pok Road Open Yards |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR10.5 Kam Pok Road Open Yards |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LR10.6 Yau Pok Road North Open Yards |
Not use |
||||||||
|
LR10.7 Kam Pok Road North Open Yards |
Not use |
||||||||
Due to the scale of the
proposed development, and its density and building height profile, limited loss of
landscape resources and responsive building design to its adjourning low-rise developments, village and rural
landscape characters, there are likely to be some adverse impacts on local
landscape character, however it would not be substantial as existing visually
unpleasant open storage and warehouses
or infrastructure uses will be replaced by quality residential landscape and
new tree planting.
The predicted potential
impacts on Landscape Character Areas of the Study Area during construction and
operational period would be as follows:
·
Removal of visual detracting landscape elements such as
warehouses, open container storage facilities and car parking within the Study Area would enhance the visual amenity along the Ngau Tam Mei Nullah.
·
Temporary loss of roadside plantation
during construction.
·
Introduction of noise mitigation
measures.
Table 11.10
describes the source of impacts as a result of proposed development and presents
the magnitude of change on individual LCAs. Magnitude of change on individual
LCAs is listed as follows:
Intermediate
According to the
assessment criteria set up in the assessment methodology and the results in Table 11-10,
given the scale of the proposed development and characters of the adjacent
landscape context, certain extent of perceptible change on landscape characters
as a result of the loss of landscape resources limited within the development
site within Kam Pok Road Low-rise Residential Landscape (LCA5), the magnitude
of change of this LCAs is intermediate.
No change
No change on the remaining LCAs within the assessment
area as a result of proposed
development, their landscape characters
remains unchanged.
Given the replacement of
visual detracting uses with residential development associated with landscape
proposals, the character of the proposed development would fit into its
adjacent low-rise residential and rural landscape context, the remaining LCAs,
particularly for LCA1 Fairview Park Low-rise Extensive Residential Landscape, LCA2 Yau Pok Road and LCA3 Kam Pok Road
Nullahside Landscape would be indirectly enhanced by the proposed development.
It should be noted that the majority of LCA2 and LCA3 are subject to the
implementation of planned recreational and low-rise developments immediately to
the north of the development site hence the proposed development would enhance
both existing and planned landscape characters within the Study Area.
Table 11-11
presents the predicted unmitigated and mitigated (residual) impacts on the
existing landscape character areas resulting from the proposed development
during the construction and operational phases. These impacts are also mapped
on Figure 11.9. The mitigated
(residual) impacts are assessed during the design year for the purpose of this
study and taken as being between 10 and 15 years after the schemes opening when
the proposed mitigation planting is deemed to have reached a level of maturity,
which is sufficient for it to perform the design objectives. The predicted
mitigated (residual) impacts are further discussed in Section 11-11.
Table 11-11
presents the predicted unmitigated impacts and are discussed in the following
sections.
·
LCA5 Kam Pok Road Low-rise Residential Landscape
– Given this LCA comprises of
low-rise residential developments along Kam Pok Road and Fairview Park
Boulevard
and open storage and warehouses along Kam Pok Road and Ha San Wai Road. Vegetation
and greening is seldom found within these existing developments. Frequent heavy duty vehicular traffic along the roads and uses within this
LCA are major visual detracting landscape elements. Replacement of existing uses with residential
development would better fit into the existing and planned residential landscape context along Ngau Tam Mei Channel. Furthermore, the landscape proposal for this
residential development will further enhance the local landscape character.
Given the low sensitivity of this LCA and the intermediate change on the local
landscape character as a result of the proposed development, this LCA will be
subject to a moderate adverse unmitigated impact due to loss of landscape
resources and change of landscape character during the construction and operational phases of the project.
·
Given there
is no change of landscape resources and elements within the remaining LCAs, no impact on these LCAs. However the nature of the
proposed development and its associated landscape
proposals
would fit into the planned
residential developments in LCA2 and LCA3 in a long
term and would benefit the quality of
the existing
channelside and planned residential landscape characters within the Study
Area. The quality and amenity of LCA1, LCA2 and LCA3 adjacent to the
development site would be benefit by this
residential development.
Table
11‑10 Potential Magnitude of Change
for Landscape Character Areas (LCAs)
|
ID |
Description
of Impacts |
Loss
(Ha)/ Total
Area of Resources (Ha) |
Determinants
for Magnitude of Change |
Magnitude
of Change |
||||
|
Compatibility (N/A/Low/ Medium/ High) |
Scale (N/A/Small/ Intermediate /Large) |
Duration
of Impact (Construction/ Operation) |
Reversibility (N/A/Low/ Medium/ High) |
Construction
(No change/ Negligible/ Small/ Intermediate/Large) |
Operation
(No change/ Negligible/ Small/ Intermediate/Large) |
|||
|
LCA1 Fairview Park Low-rise Extensive Residential Landscape |
No direct impact on Fairview Park residential development as the
proposed development will be located away from this LCA. Replacement of existing use with residential development within the
development site adjacent to this LCA would fit into the residential
landscape context in the longer term. |
0/36.44 ha 0% |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A/ N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LCA2 Yau Pok Road Nullahside Rural Landscape |
No direct impact on nullahside landscape resources and elements as the
proposed development will be located away from this LCA. Replacement of existing use with residential development within the
development site adjacent to this LCA would fit into the existing nullahside and
planned residential development landscape
context in the longer term. |
0/9.15 ha 0% |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A/ N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LCA3 Kam Pok Road Nullahside Rural Landscape |
No direct impact on nullahside landscape resources and elements as the
proposed development will be located away from this LCA. Planned low-rise residential development within this LCA adjacent to
Chuk Yuen Pumping Station together with the proposed development would fit
into the nullahside and planned residential development landscape context in the longer term. |
0/18.04 ha 0% |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A/ N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LCA4 San Tam Road Rural Residential Lowland Landscape |
No direct impact on vegetation along San Tin Highway and within village
settlements of Chuk Yuen and San Wai Tsuen as the proposed development will
be located away from this LCA. |
0/31.40 ha 0% |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A/ N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
|
LCA5 Kam Pok Road Low-rise
Residential Landscape |
The proposed development site occupies less than 15% of this LCA. Replacement of existing use with residential development within the
development site adjacent to this LCA would fit into the residential
landscape context in the longer term. |
3.75/26.04 ha 14% |
High |
Small |
Permanent |
Medium |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
|
LCA6 Yau Pok Road Open Storage and Warehouse Landscape |
No direct impact on the warehouses and material storage area as
the proposed development will be located away from this LCA. |
0/6.49 ha 0% |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A/ N/A |
N/A |
No change |
No change |
Table 11‑11 Existing Landscape Character
Areas (LCAs) and Predicted Impacts
|
ID |
Sensitivity (Low / Medium/ High) |
Magnitude of Change |
Significance Threshold (Unmitigated) |
Mitigation Measures |
Significance Threshold (Mitigated) |
||||
|
Construction (No change/ Negligible
/Small / Intermediate /Large) |
Operation (No change/ Negligible
/Small / Intermediate/Large) |
Construction Nil, Insubstantial, Slight,
Moderate and Significant (adverse or beneficial) |
Operation Nil, Insubstantial, Slight,
Moderate and Significant (adverse or beneficial) |
Construction Nil, Insubstantial, Slight,
Moderate and Significant (adverse or beneficial) |
Operation Nil, Insubstantial, Slight,
Moderate and Significant (adverse or beneficial) |
||||
|
Day 1 |
Year 10 (Residual) |
||||||||
|
LCA1 Fairview Park Low-rise Extensive Residential Landscape |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LCA2 Yau Pok Road Nullahside Rural Landscape |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LCA3 Kam Pok Road Nullahside Rural Landscape |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LCA4 San Tam Road Rural Residential Lowland Landscape |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
LCA5 Kam Pok Road Low-rise
Residential Landscape |
Low |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
Moderate Adverse |
Moderate Adverse |
CP1, CP3, CP4, OP1,OP2, OP5, OP6 and OP7 |
Slight Adverse |
Slight Adverse |
Slight Beneficial |
|
LCA6 Yau Pok Road open storage and warehouse Landscape |
Low |
No change |
No change |
Nil |
Nil |
N/A |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
The potential visual impacts (unmitigated) on identified
VSRs resulting from the proposed development during the construction and
operational phases of the Project are summarised in the following sections and
listed in Table 11-12. These
impacts are also mapped on Figure 11-10. The mitigated
(residual) impacts are assessed during the design year which for the purpose of
this study is taken as being between 10 and 15 years after the schemes opening
when the proposed mitigation planting is deemed to have reached a level of
maturity, which is sufficient for it to perform the design objectives. The
residual impacts (mitigated) are discussed under Section 11-11.
Significant Impact Significance
Although some visual amenity of VSRs will be
spared impact due to implementation of the proposed development, there are
likely to be some significant adverse impacts on the visual amenity of some
VSRs in the absence of mitigation measures during construction and operation
phases due to their location in proximity to the development site, such as Vehicular
travellers and pedestrians along Fung Chuk Road (VSR 3), Ha Chuk Yuen Road
(VSR5) and alongside of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel (VSR11). They are few in
numbers and transient in nature. Previous open storage and warehouse and car
parking uses faded out from the context and the visual amenity looking towards
the site from these transient VSR will be changed to low-rise residential
development, the proposed landscape area and noise mitigation measures at the
periphery of the site will be dominant in their views. Residents
of Low-rise House Development along Ha San Wai Road (VSR 7), who live at the northern boundary, will have glimpse view of proposed
development through the trees and built structures along Ha San Wai Road and will be subjected to a large change of visual
context and amenity with the temporary loss of roadside landscape areas and
vegetated sloping areas, their proximity to the works and the introduction of
the house development and noise barrier or fence wall. However, the majority of
the works areas will be reinstated with provision for new landscape gardens and
landscape buffer within the proposed development.
Moderate Impact Significance
Due to the viewing distance further away from
the proposed development, nature of VSRs and their extent of views are usually
intervened by built structures or vegetation in their foreground or middle
ground, VSRs such as, Residents and/or Villagers
of Chuk Yuen Tsuen and Hang Fook Gardens (VSR 4), Ha San Wai (VSR6.2), in low-rise house developments along Fairview Park Boulevard (VSR 8), and at Fairview Park (VSR 10) will
be subjected to a small to intermediate change of visual context and amenity
due to the introduction of house development.
It should be noted that their views looking towards the development site
have been disturbed or screened by intervening built environment and/ or
existing vegetation in the foreground. It should be noted that viewshed
of these VSRs are largely confined within the development.
Workers at Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station
and Storage Pond (VSR 2) and Warehouses and Open Container Storage at Ha San
Wai Tsuen (VSR 6.1) and vehicular travellers and pedestrians along Fairview
Park Road South (VSR 9) will subject to an intermediate change of their
confined visual context, they are located in proximity to the proposed
development.
However, the majority of the works areas will be
reinstated with provision for new landscape gardens and landscape buffer within
the proposed development. The proposed houses and noise barrier are designed
with a responsive height profile and aesthetic appearance to the existing
context. Their visual amenity contained by urbanised or infrastructural
landscapes would be subjected to intermediate change. Hence these permanent /
transient VSRs mentioned above would experience a moderate unmitigated impact
in the absence of mitigation measures during the construction and operation
phase.
Visual context of some future residents and
recreational uses of planned low-rise house developments at Fung Chuk Road
North (PVSR 1) and planned recreation zone to the east of Fairview Park
(PVSR12A&12B) will subject to an intermediate change if the proposed
development comes after the above planned development. These planned
developments form a major component of the residential landscape character
along the Ngau Tam Mei Nullah.
Slight or Insubstantial Impact Significance
Referring to the
assessment result, no VSR within the ZVI will experience a slight or
insubstantial impact without the implementation of landscape mitigation
measures during construction and operation phases of the proposed development.
Table 11‑12 Visually Sensitive Receivers and
Predicted Impacts
|
ID |
Sensitivity |
Determinants for Magnitude of Change |
Magnitude of Change (Construction /Operation Phase) |
Impact Significance Threshold (Unmitigated) |
Mitigation Measures |
Impact Significance Threshold (Mitigated) |
|||||||||
|
|
Viewing Distance (m) / Blockage of View |
Compatibility with Surrounding Landscape |
Scale |
Reversibility |
Duration Construction/ Operation |
Construction |
Operation |
Construction |
Operation |
||||||
|
Day 1 |
Year 10 |
||||||||||||||
|
PVSR
1 Residents of Planned Low-rise House Development at Fung Chuk Road North |
High |
118m These VSRs
enjoy extended views along Ngau Tam Mei Channel and constrained views within
the planned house development and partial views towards Chuk Yuen Tsuen. Only VSRs
living at the southern periphery will have partial views of the proposed development
through spaces between the pumping station and facilities in their
foreground. Given views
looking towards the proposed development have been largely blocked by pumping
station and roadside planting along Fung Chuk Road, there is no further blockage
of view as a result of the proposed development. No blockage of view. |
High Low-rise
residential developments. |
Intermediate |
Irreversible |
3yrs / permanent |
Intermediate / Intermediate Given intervening
built structures and roadside planting in the foreground of these VSRs, the proposed development will not
be a major component in the lowland context. |
Moderate
Adverse |
Moderate
Adverse |
CP1, CP2, CP5, OP3,OP6 |
Slight Adverse |
Slight Adverse |
Insubstantial Further to the
establishment of tree preservation proposals and new tree planting proposals
in the landscape buffer, the proposed development will be largely screened as
in their original visual context. |
||
|
VSR 2
Workers at Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station and Storage Pond |
Low |
50m Visual
context of these VSRs is largely contained by pumping utilities, open views
to the south across flooding ponds towards roadside planting along Ha Chuk
Yuen Road. These VSRs
will have glimpse views of the upper level of the proposed houses through
vegetation along Fung Chuk Road. No blockage of
view. |
High |
Intermediate |
Irreversible |
3yrs / permanent |
Intermediate/
Intermediate Given their
nature and visual quality, the disrupted visibility of these VSRs, proximity
to the proposed development, the proposed development is a relatively major
component in in their view. |
Moderate
Adverse |
Moderate
Adverse |
CP1, CP2, CP5, OP3,OP6 |
Slight Adverse |
Slight Adverse |
Insubstantial Further to the
establishment of tree preservation proposals and new tree planting proposals
in the landscape buffer, the proposed development will be largely screened as
in their original visual context. |
||
|
VSR 3
Vehicular Travellers and Pedestrians along Fung Chuk Road |
Medium |
Immediate Views of
these VSRs are confined by roadside planting and pumping facilities along the
road. Partial
views of the proposed development through spaces between vegetation. No blockage of
view. |
Medium |
Large |
Irreversible |
3yrs / permanent |
Large /
Large Due to the removal of temporary roadside
vegetation and slope regarding works. |
Significant Adverse |
Significant Adverse |
CP1, CP2, CP5, OP3,OP4,
OP5, OP6 |
Moderate
Adverse |
Moderate
Adverse |
Slight Adverse Further to the establishment of tree preservation and
transplanting proposals and new tree planting proposals in the
landscape buffer, the proposed development will be largely screened as in
their original visual context. |
||
|
VSR 4 Villagers
of Chuk Yuen Tsuen and Hang Fook Gardens Photomontage
refer to Figure 11.12.7 &8 |
High |
200m Views of
these transient VSRs extend to roadside planting along Ha Chuk Yuen Road. Low level
views of the proposed development and noise barrier will be screened by
roadside vegetation. Existing views
is subject to change further to extension of village settlement in their
foreground. Existing views towards proposed development will be replaced by
landscape area with noise mitigation and upper floor of the proposed house
development. |
Medium |
Intermediate |
Irreversible |
3yrs / permanent |
Intermediate/
Intermediate Given
intervened roadside planting in the foreground of the proposed development
and will not be a major component in the lowland context. |
Moderate
Adverse |
Moderate
Adverse |
CP2, OP3,OP4, |
Slight Adverse |
Slight Adverse |
Insubstantial Further to
establishment of tree preservation and new tree planting along Ha Chuk Yuen
Road, visual intrusion of the proposed development and noise barrier will be
effectively alleviated. View of these VSR towards
proposed development will be blocked by village extension. |
||
|
VSR 5 Vehicular
Travellers and Pedestrians along Ha Chuk Yuen Road Photomontages
refer to Figures
11.12.5,6,9&10 |
Medium |
Immediate Views of these
VSRs are confined by roadside planting and engineered water channel along the
road. Partial
views of the proposed development through spaces between vegetation. No blockage of
view. |
Medium |
Large |
Irreversible |
3yrs / permanent |
Large /
Large Due to removal of temporary roadside
vegetation and slope regarding works. |
Significant Adverse |
Significant Adverse |
CP1, CP2, CP5, OP3,OP4,
OP5, OP6 |
Moderate
Adverse |
Moderate
Adverse |
Slight Adverse Further to the
establishment of tree preservation proposals and new tree planting proposals
in the landscape buffer, the proposed development will be largely screened as
in their original visual context. |
||
|
VSR 6.1 Workers of
Warehouses and Open Container Storage at Ha San Wai Tsuen Photomontage
refer to Figures 11.12.7 &8 |
Low |
115m Visual
context of these VSRs is largely contained within warehouses, open storage
and workshops. These VSRs
will have glimpse views of the upper level of the proposed development
occasionally at spaces outside the workshops. Existing views to the abandoned yards will be replaced by
landscape area with noise mitigation and the sewage treatment plant of the
proposed development. |
High |
Intermediate |
Irreversible |
3yrs / permanent |
Intermediate/
Intermediate Given their
nature and visual quality, the disrupted visibility of these VSRs, proximity
to the proposed development, the proposed development is a relatively major
component in in their view. |
Moderate
Adverse |
Moderate
Adverse |
CP1, CP2, CP5, OP3,OP4,
OP5, OP6 |
Slight Adverse |
Slight Adverse |
Insubstantial Further to
the establishment of tree preservation proposals and new tree planting
proposals in the landscape buffer, the proposed development will be largely
screened as in their original visual context. |
||
|
VSR
6.2 Villagers of Ha San Wai Photomontage
refer to Figures
11.12.11 &12 |
Low |
230m Visual
context of these VSRs are largely confined by existing uses along Ha San Wai Road and San Tin Highway. Low level
views of the proposed development are largely screened by intervening built
structures in the middle ground. These VSRs will have partial views of the
top of noise barrier. Landscape area with noise mitigation and the sewage
treatment plant of proposed
development visually intruded in the background of their views behind
the warehouses along Ha San Wai Road |
Medium |
Intermediate |
Irreversible |
3yrs / permanent |
Intermediate/
Intermediate Given
intervening built structures and roadside planting in the foreground of these
VSRs, the proposed development will not be a major
component in the lowland context. |
Moderate
Adverse |
Moderate
Adverse |
CP2, OP3, OP4, OP5, OP6 |
Slight
Adverse |
Slight Adverse |
Insubstantial
Responsive
design of the building height profile and massing and innovative design of
noise barrier. Upon full establishment of new tree planting
proposals in landscape buffer, visual impact will be alleviated |
||
|
VSR 7
Residents of Low-rise House Development along Ha San Wai Road Photomontage refer to Figures 11.12.13&14 |
Medium |
10m Major views
of these VSRs are fronting Fairview Boulevard. Views from
their backyard looking towards the proposed development are intervened by
engineered water channels and roadside vegetation. No blockage of existing view. |
Medium |
Large |
Irreversible |
3yrs / permanent |
Large/ Large Given the
proximity to the proposed development, intervening built structures and
roadside planting in the foreground of these VSRs, the proposed development will not be a major component in the
lowland context. |
Significant
Adverse |
Significant
Adverse |
CP1, CP2, OP3,
OP4, OP5, OP6 |
Moderate
Adverse |
Moderate Adverse |
Slight
Adverse Responsive
design of the building height profile and massing and innovative design of
noise barrier. Upon full establishment of transplanting
proposals in landscape area of Ha San Wai Road, visual impact will be
alleviated |
||
|
VSR 8
Residents of Low-rise House Development along Fairview Park Boulevard |
Medium |
5m Major views
of these VSRs are fronting Fairview Boulevard. Views looking
towards the proposed development are large screened by busy traffic and
residential development alongside the road. No blockage of existing view. |
High |
Small |
Irreversible |
3yrs / permanent |
Small/
Small Given
intervening built structures in the foreground of these VSRs, the proposed development will not be a major
component in the lowland context. |
Moderate
Adverse |
Moderate
Adverse |
CP2, OP3, OP4, OP5 |
Slight
Adverse |
Slight Adverse |
Insubstantial
Responsive
design of the building height profile and massing and innovative design of
noise barrier. Upon fully established of transplanting
proposal in landscape area of Ha San Wai Road, visual impact will be
alleviated |
||
|
VSR 9
Vehicular Travellers and Pedestrians along Fairview Park Road South Photomontage refer to Figures 11.12.15&16 |
Low |
115m Visual
context of these VSRs extends along the road and Ngau Tam Mei Nullah. Overview of
the proposed development when approaching the entrance of Fairview Park. No blockage of existing view. |
Medium |
Intermediate |
Irreversible |
3yrs / permanent |
Intermediate / Intermediate Given the
proximity to the proposed development and nature of their view, the proposed
development is not a major component in their dynamic views. |
Moderate
Adverse |
Moderate
Adverse |
CP2, OP3, OP4, OP5 |
Slight
Adverse |
Slight
Adverse |
Insubstantial
Responsive
design of the building height profile and massing. Upon full establishment of tree
preservation, transplanting and new planting proposals in the roadside
landscape area of Kam Pok Road, visual impact will be alleviated |
||
|
VSR 10
Residents of Low-rise House Development at Fairview Park Refer to
vantage point photograph Figure 11.10.7 & 11.10.8 |
Medium |
800m Only residents
living at elevated floors of the houses at the eastern periphery of this
development will have glimpse views of the proposed development, views are
largely intervened by extensive grassland in their foreground and vegetation
along the channel. No blockage of existing view. |
High |
Intermediate |
Irreversible |
3yrs / permanent |
Intermediate
/ Intermediate Given
intervening built structures in the foreground of these VSRs, the proposed development will not be a major
component in the lowland context. |
Moderate Adverse |
Moderate Adverse |
CP1, OP6 |
Slight Adverse |
Slight Adverse |
Insubstantial Responsive
design of the building height profile and massing. Upon full establishment of tree
preservation, transplanting and new planting proposals in the roadside landscape
area of Kam Pok Road, visual impact will be alleviated |
||
|
VSR 11 Vehicular
Travellers and Pedestrians alongside of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel Photomontage
refer to Figure
11.12.17&18 |
Medium |
80m Visual
context of these VSRs extends along the road and Ngau Tam Mei Nullah. Overview of
the proposed development intervened by channelside vegetation. No blockage of existing view. |
Medium |
Large |
Irreversible |
3yrs / permanent |
Large/
Large Given their
open views extend along Ngau Tam Mei Nullah and location in proximity to the
proposed development, it forms a major component in their views but
intervened by channelside vegetation. |
Significant
Adverse |
Significant
Adverse |
CP2, OP3, OP4, OP5 |
Moderate
Adverse |
Moderate
Adverse |
Slight Adverse Responsive
design of the building height profile and massing. Upon full establishment of tree
preservation, transplanting and new planting proposals in the roadside
landscape area of Kam Pok Road, visual impact will be alleviated |
||
|
PVSR 12A Future
Residents of Planned Recreation Zone to the east of Fairview Park |
Medium |
100m Visual
context of these VSRs confined within the planned
residential development. Glimpse views
of the proposed development intervened by channelside vegetation. No blockage of existing view |
Medium |
Large |
Irreversible |
3yrs / permanent |
Intermediate/ Intermediate Given their
open views extend along Ngau Tam Mei Channel and location in proximity to the
proposed development, it forms a major component in their views but
intervened by channelside vegetation. |
Moderate Adverse |
Moderate Adverse |
CP1, CP2, CP5, OP3 , OP5,
OP6 |
Slight Adverse |
Slight Adverse |
Slight Beneficial Responsive
design of the building height profile and massing. Upon full establishment of tree
preservation, transplanting and new planting proposals in the roadside
landscape area of Kam Pok Road, visual impact will be alleviated |
||
|
PVSR 12B Future
Recreational Users of Planned Recreation Zone to the east of Fairview Park |
Medium |
100m Visual
context of these VSRs confined with the planned recreational facilities. Glimpse
views of the proposed development intervened by channelside vegetation. No blockage of existing view. |
Medium |
Intermediate |
Irreversible |
3yrs / permanent |
Intermediate/ Intermediate Given their
open views extend along Ngau Tam Mei Channel and location in proximity to the
proposed development, it forms a major component in their views but
intervened by channelside vegetation. |
Moderate Adverse |
Moderate Adverse |
CP1, CP2, CP5, OP3,OP5, OP6 |
Slight Adverse |
Slight Adverse |
Slight Beneficial Responsive design
of the building height profile and massing. Upon full establishment of tree
preservation, transplanting and new planting proposals in the roadside
landscape area of Kam Pok Road, visual impact will be alleviated |
||
This section reviews the
projects planned currently in progress or planned within the Study Area, such
as Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal, Construction of Cycle
Tracks and the Associated Supporting Facilities From Sha Po Tsuen to Shek
Sheung River, planned residential developments and permitted New Territories exempted house developments, which will result in landscape and visual
cumulative impacts including the degradation of landscape character and visual
amenity during construction, the loss of landscape resources and change of
local landscape characters.
Construction of a
section of gravity trunk sewer under Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal
Works and Cycle Tracks Works along Ngau Tam Mei Channel and Yau Pok Road
respectively will be constructed in future. Although these works do not have a
direct landscape impact on the proposed development, however visual amenity of
VSRs located to the west of the development site have been degraded during the
construction of the above works, hence the cumulative impact as a result of
further development at Kam Pok Road would not be substantial.
Besides, there are three
planned developments approved by Town Planning Board and/ or under the EIAO,
which include low-rise house development to the north of Chuk Yuen Pumping
Station (71 nos. of 3-storey houses+ 1 basement)), low-rise residential cum
recreation (106 houses, 2-storeys) in the Recreation Zone (REC) to the east of
Fairview Park along Yau Pok Road, and low-rise residential development with
wetland restoration proposal (70 houses, 3-storeys) in the Comprehensive
Development and Wetland Protection Area zone (OU) at Yau Mei San Tsuen. Scale of proposed
development under this EIA is relatively small, hence cumulative impact would
not be substantial.
Besides, within the
village settlements at Ha Chuk Yuen and Ha San Wai, some proposed land and pond
filling for permitted New Territories exempted house developments are
undertaken. Given to the scale of building
works is comparatively small, the
cumulative impact as a result of further development at Kam Pok Road would not
be substantial.
These potential planned
VSRs are considered in the visual impact assessment. Their construction
programme will be earlier or very much in line with the proposed development
under this EIA, the existing open storage and warehouse landscape will fade out and the remaining scattered
abandoned fish ponds will be replaced by residential or village developments,
hence the proposed development under this EIA will fit into the planned
landscape context upon completion of the above concurrent projects.
Mitigation measures to
address the potential cumulative impacts would be incorporated into the design
of each of the approved projects. The resulting changes to the existing
landscape character, landscape resources and visual amenity have been taken
into account in the baseline assessment.
Cumulative impacts from these projects are therefore taken into account
through their inclusion in the baseline conditions for this EIA.
The landscape mitigation
measures described in this report are at a level which both demonstrate their
effectiveness to alleviate the potential landscape and visual impacts
identified in the assessment and also to allow the proposals to be carried
forward during the detailed design stage. The measures are designed to address
both the construction and operational phases of the project. More detailed
landscape and compensatory planting proposals will be developed during the
detailed design of this project and will seek approval from the relevant
departments at that stage.
The landscape and visual
mitigation measures are described both in a generic sense for measures, which
apply to the works area and in terms of the proposed landscape strategy for the
proposed development. The aims of the mitigation measures are to:
¡ Alleviate where possible those landscape and visual
impacts which are unavoidable through the review of alternative schemes and
method of site formation and slope regarding works.
¡ Establish a coherent and integrated landscape
strategy creating a framework which draws together visually disparate components
of the proposed scheme and where possible reduces their visual prominence and
enhances the integration of the structures within their landscape setting.
¡ Enhance the existing landscape character and
visual amenity of the surrounding areas.
¡ Provide a co-ordinated approach between the
noise, ecological and landscape mitigation proposals where there is an
interface.
The Landscape Master
Plan, Landscape Sections, Design of Landscape Berms and Provision of
Landscape Pond presented in Figures 11-11-1 to 11-11-6 demonstrate the
main landscape and visual mitigation strategies and the application of design
mitigation measures including an integrated architectural and engineering and
landscape design approach, compensatory and new roadside planting proposals, slope
treatment and design of landscape berms, pond and gardens. It is recommended that the Environmental,
Monitoring and Audit Requirements (EM&A) for landscape resources such as
existing trees described in Section
11.14 of this report is undertaken during the detailed design stage and
both the construction and operational phases of the Project.
In accordance with the
EIAO-TM, the hierarchy for landscape and visual impact mitigation is first avoidance
of impact, then minimisation of impact and finally compensation of impact. As has been described in the Project
description in this report, the current scheme have been undertaken to fulfil
the following objectives:
¡ Minimisation of potential impacts on landscape
resources such as existing trees by review of house disposition and alignment
of noise barrier and fence wall, and building set back to preserve existing
roadside amenity areas as far as technically feasible.
¡ Restoration and enhancement of existing
landscapes through planting of ornamental trees with a combination of varies stock
sizes in proposed landscape gardens
within the development, and broadleaf native trees in new and preserved landscape buffer at
the periphery of the site. This will create an instant greening effect, be
apparent in the enhancement of both ecology and landscape context and relief the
appearance of noise mitigation measures.
¡ Review provision of landscaped areas within the
development to ensure that sufficient space is reserved for compensatory
planting and other landscape works.
In accordance with the
EIAO-TM, mitigation measures for the construction and operational phases of the
project have been designed to minimise predicted landscape and visual impacts,
and to compensate for loss of landscape resources, enhance the landscape and
visual context as far as is possible given the Project constraints.
The design objectives for the Landscape Master Plan are to:
¡ Integrate the proposed development from a
landscape and visual perspective with the existing and planned landscape
context.
¡ Soften the form of the built environment
including the boundary wall and noise mitigation measures through the use of
green measures. Integrate preserved, transplanted and new tree planting to form
a continuous landscape buffer/berm along periphery of the Site for screening of
the built structures.
¡ Respond to the character of the architectural
scheme and its rural and low-rise residential context with an aesthetically
appropriate landscape treatment.
¡ Create a distinctive and high quality landscape
setting for the featured communal gardens associated with clubhouse facilities.
¡ Maximise the opportunities for outdoor passive
recreational facilities to promote a sense of social interaction and
neighbourhood cohesion.
¡ Utilise ornamental and/or flowering tree and
shrub species with an interesting form, colour and foliage texture to enrich
the landscape experience and provide architectural highlights.
¡ Enhance the sustainability of the proposals
through for example of the use of a green roof system on top of sewage
treatment plant.
¡ Provide compensation for the loss of existing
trees.
¡ Maximise opportunities for greening through
planting of new trees and shrubs to enhance the landscape and ecology value of
context.
¡ Provision of adequate open space for future
residents in accordance with the requirements of HKPSG Chapter 4, Recreation,
Open Space and Greening for the provision of local open space with the
objective of providing high quality active and passive recreational facilities
that will satisfy the needs of the residents; and
¡ Provision of adequate greening coverage in
accordance with recent Building Department Practices Notes no. ATP-152 Sustainable
Building Design Guidelines.
The landscape design shown
on Figure 11-11-1 and 11-11-6 will be subject to review during the detailed
design stage of the Project, however the following seeks to establish some
general principles that are important in establishing the landscape as part of
the general mitigation for the development.
Landscape Master Plan is at this stage indicative and shows the type of
elements which form the basis of the design.
¡ Entrance Plaza - The landscape of the main site
entrance at Kam Pok Road has been designed as a small plaza lined with feature/
avenue trees and shrubs planting with decorative paving towards the roundabout
to create a threshold between the development and its context. Establishing the
character and quality of the development at the point of entry and creating a
sense of arrival.
¡ Streetscape Design – Introduction of new tree
and shrub planting to create visual interests at street level, enhancing the
green character of the development and to visually soften the form of the built
environment in view from pedestrian. Broadleaf tree planting provides
comfortable shaded walking environment within the development.
¡ Landscape Buffer Treatment – Allows building
setback from northern, eastern and western site boundary to preserve and create
a continuous 5 to 8m wide landscape buffer/landscape berm. (Figures 11-11-3 to 11-11-5 refer). This
buffer will retain a number of existing trees and vegetation, in combination of
transplanted trees and new tree planting, that would create an instant greening
effect effectively screened proposed boundary wall (2.5m high), sewage
treatment plant of +10.4mPD and noise barrier of +10.1mPD. Introduction of a
combination of tree species already found in context will create a naturalistic
effect integrated with the rural landscape. Shade tolerant shrub and ground
cover, preferably native species will be planted under trees that would
reinforce the naturalistic effect.
¡ Residential Landscape/Recreation Core – the core
extends from the main site entrance to Clubhouse and to adjacent landscaped
areas accommodating both active and passive recreation areas for the enjoyment
of future residents. It forms a social and landscape focus of this residential
development. And then to more
intimate and tranquil courtyard gardens. Planting design will utilise a
naturalistic approach crating a relaxing environment for resident to enjoy the
nature whilst overlook their children in the play area.
¡ Landscape Pond – a landscape pond (wet garden)
within the Project Site during operation phase. It will enhance the amenity, ecological and landscape value of the site with planting of a combination of bird-attracting
and butterfly-attracting plant species within and surrounding the pond area.
Fauna, including birds and butterflies, living in the surrounding areas may
extend their livelihood activities to the proposed water body and planting
area.
¡ Green roof - In addition to at grade planting areas, multi-levelled
greening measure is considered on roof of utility facilities such as plant room
or sewage treatment plant as far as technically feasible. Introduction of
grass, shrub or trailing plant on the roof will disguise the functional
appearance of these facilities and maximise visible greenery within the
development.
¡ Landscape softworks –
The landscape design will, where
practicable, maximise the opportunities for tree and shrub planting to create a
high quality of living environment and maintain the local rural landscape
character. The basis for the proposed planting scheme would be to provide a
green and comfortable environment. The planting proposal in proposed gardens and landscape buffer, which will utilise a combination of native and
ornamental species, in addition bird-attracting and butterfly-attracting plant species will be introduced within and
surrounding the landscape pond to further enhance the landscape and ecological value of the Site. For example,
plants producing berry will enhance the food resources of birds. Nectar plants
will also provide food resources for butterflies. Both fauna groups will
benefit from landscape planting. The planting of trees will also provide
roosting habitats for birds. The plant selection
will also consider the form, colour and foliage texture and also include
species which are designed architectural
highlights. The following bird-attracting and butterfly-attracting
plant species will be incorporated into the detailed planting design of the landscape
pond:
Trees (bird-attracting): Celtis sinensis Cinnamomum camphora, Elaeocarpus hainanensis, Ficus
benjamina, Ilex rotunda, Osmanthus fragrans, Pongamia pinnata, Schefflera
octophylla, Sterculia lanceolata and Syzygium jambos etc.
Shrubs (bird-attracting): Rhaphiolepis indica Rhodomyrtus tomentosa, Psychotria rubra and Litsea
rotundifolia etc.
Butterfly attracting plant species: Maesa perlarius, Rhodomyrtus tomentosa, Gardenia jasminoides, Lantana camara and Melastoma candidum etc..
Water plant species: Cyperus
alternifolius, Hedychium coronarium, Nymphaea rubra and Sagittaria
sagtittifolia etc.
A series of mitigation
measures designed to alleviate impact and where possible compensate for loss of
landscape resources, change of landscape character and visual amenity for VSRs
resulting from the construction and operational phases of the project. The
implementation, funding, and management and maintenance for the landscape areas
associated with the proposed works will be undertaken by project proponent.
The proposed landscape
and visual impact mitigation measures are summarised in Tables 11-13 and 11-16, and illustrated in Figures
11-11-1 to 11-11-6 and 11-12-1 to 11-12-18.
The proposed landscape impact mitigation measures in the
construction phase are summarized in Table
11-13. Details requirements are also
provided below.
Table 11‑13 Proposed Construction Phase Landscape
Mitigation
Measures
|
Mitigation Code |
Mitigation Measure |
|
CP1 |
Preservation of Existing Vegetation -
The proposed works shall avoid disturbance to the existing trees and vegetation as far
as practicable within the works areas. The tree preservation proposals shall be
coordinated with
the layout and design of the engineering and architectural works. It is recommended that a full tree
survey and felling application shall
be undertaken and submitted for approval by the relevant
government departments in accordance with LAO PN No. 7/2007 Tree Preservation
and Tree Removal Application for Building Development in Private Projects
during the detailed design phase of the Project. All preserved
trees shall
be protected by means
of fencing where appropriate to prevent potential damage to tree canopies and
root zones from vehicles and storage of materials. Specifications for tree
protection measures will be formulated at detailed
design stage and to be implemented by contractors before site formation/
construction works commenced. |
|
CP3 |
Implementation
of Mitigation Planting and Planting Species Selection -
Replanting of existing / disturbed vegetation will be
undertaken at the earliest possible stage of the construction phase of the
Project. Predominantly native and / or ornamental plant species shall be
utilised. Proposed
mitigation planting will not only be limited to conventional amenity
planting, but also consider alternative greening measures such as vertical
greening for screening and softening of the built structures and green roof
on built structures for enhancing the visual amenity. Small shrubs, climbing
plants, lawn and groundcovers shall be used
in specific locations where technically feasible. |
|
CP4 |
Transplantation
of Existing Trees – Some specimens which have
relatively higher amenity value will be considered for transplanting. The
final recipient site will be in planting areas within the proposed
development. These trees continue
their contribution to the local landscape context as well as the future
residential landscape. The transplanting proposal is subject to review
at detailed design stage and seeks for the approval from the relevant
government departments in accordance with LAO PN No. 7/2007 Tree Preservation
and Tree Removal Application for Building Development in Private Projects. The
implementation programme for the proposed works will reserve enough time for
the advanced tree transplanting preparation works to enhance the survival of
the transplanted trees. |
The proposed landscape impact mitigation measures
in the operational phase are summarized in Table
11-14. Detailed requirements are
also provided below.
Table 11‑14 Proposed Operational Phase
Landscape
Mitigation Measures
|
Mitigation Code |
Mitigation Measure |
|
OP1 |
Roadside
and Amenity Planting – The planting proposals will
utilise native and ornamental species
and broadleaf trees in combination of shade tolerant shrub planting and
climbing plants in proposed landscape buffer surrounding the site to soften
the horizontal emphasis of proposed noise barrier and fence wall. It will
form a continuous landscape buffer at the periphery of the development site
in combination with tree preservation proposal. Enough soil depth of 1200mm will be reserved for
tree planting area to ensure healthy planting establishment. High clearance
tree planting will be utilised alongside of internal road and not to interfere
the EVA requirement. The implementation of new planting shall be
undertaken as soon as technically feasible after completion of building works
to ensure the effectiveness of this mitigation during operational stage. (Figure 11-11-1 refers). |
|
OP2 |
Compensatory Planting
Proposals – As the works are largely located within rural and
low-rise development areas and alongside existing roads, the planting
proposals have sought to utilise all of the available space for new tree and
shrub planting to create a comprehensive landscape framework which is
connected to areas of retained and preserved vegetation and designed to
integrate the proposals within their future landscape setting. The new planting will be maintained in accordance
with good horticultural practice in order to realise the objectives of the
mitigation measures. This includes the replacement of defective plant species
in the new planting areas to enhance the aesthetic, landscape and ecological
quality of the proposals. Both native and ornamental species
will be utilised. The compensatory planting proposal will be
developed at detailed design stage in accordance with the requirements listed
in the LAO PN No. 7/2007 ‘Tree Preservation and Tree Removal Application for
Building Development in Private Project’. New tree planting will utilise
heavy standard size trees at selected area as
accent, standard to light standard size trees in
general landscape and roadside planting areas. Smaller planting stock will be
used on slope and landscape buffer. Figure
11-11-1
shows the indicative tree planting locations that will create an instant
greening and screening effect to the proposed development. Based on a preliminary estimation, the planting
proposal would achieve a replanting ratio of minimum 1:1 in terms of quantity
and quality upon the completion of proposed development. The development has
sought to preserve 274 existing trees (75.2%) through retention in their
current locations or tree transplanting and plant 126 compensatory trees and
65 amenity trees. Upon the completion of the tree preservation and planting
proposal, proposed development could accommodate 465 trees in combination of
tree preservation and new tree planting; there is a net gain of 101 trees
within the proposed development. The above recommendations are subject to
change at detailed design stage. The
findings and recommendations on existing trees are subject to review at
detailed design stage and a tree felling and transplanting application will
be prepared in accordance with LAO PN 7/2007 Tree Preservation and Tree
Removal Application for Building Development in Private Projects and
submitted to DLO for approval. The
planting proposal in proposed gardens and landscape buffer, which will
utilise a combination of native and ornamental species, in addition
bird-attracting and butterfly-attracting plant species will be introduced
within and surrounding the landscape pond to further enhance the landscape
and ecological value of the Site. For example, plants producing berry will
enhance the food resources of birds. Nectar plants will also provide food
resources for butterflies. Both fauna groups will benefit from landscape
planting. The planting of trees will also provide roosting habitats for
birds. There would be improvement in the environmental condition considering
that the Project Site only supports low plant diversity and covered by mainly
exotic species (including the invasive plant Leucaena leucocephala) in existing condition. |
|
OP5 |
Design
of Engineering Structure – Alternative greening measures including greening on the roof and/or
vertical greening on the structures and on regarded sloping areas will be
used wherever possible to disguise their function appearance in both medium
and long distance views and maximise the greening opportunities. Tree preservation, new tree planting and
alternative greening measures on and adjacent to the engineering structures
will create an instant greening effect soften the visual mass. (Figures 11-11-2 to 11-11-5 refer). |
|
OP6 |
Creation
of Landscape Buffer - Native and
ornamental tree and shrub planting and climbing plants will be utilised for
the creation of landscape buffer (5-8m wide)along
noise barrier and sewage treatment plant at Ha Chuk Yuen Road as
well as Kam Pok and Fung Chuk Road to enhance the aesthetic and
landscape diversity of the local context. These measures provide screening
effect to the noise mitigation measures and fence
wall of proposed development. Treatment of Slopes should be aesthetically enhanced
through the use of soft landscape works including tree and shrub planting to
create a more natural appearance blending into the local rural landscape. (Figures
11-11-2 to 11-11-5 refer). |
|
OP7 |
Provision of
Landscape Pond – a landscape pond (wet garden) (110m2) will be designed
within the Project Site. It will enhance the amenity and
landscape value by planting a combination of native and ornamental,
bird-attracting and butterfly-attracting plant species within and surrounding
the pond area. Fauna, including birds and butterflies, living in the
surrounding areas may extend their livelihood activities to the proposed
water body and planting area. (Figures 11-11-1 and 11-11-6
refer). |
The proposed visual impact mitigation measures in
the operational phase are summarized in Table 11.15.
Detailed requirements are also provided below.
Table 11‑15 Proposed Construction Phase Visual Mitigation Measures
|
Mitigation Code |
Mitigation Measure |
|
CP1 |
Preservation of Existing
Vegetation – The tree preservation proposals will coordinate with the layout and
design of the engineering and architectural layout at detailed design stage. The preservation of existing
trees will provide instant greening and
screening effect for the works. |
|
CP2 |
Works Area and Temporary Works
Areas – The landscape of the works areas will be restored to their original condition or enhanced
through the introduction of new amenity planting areas or open spaces
following the completion of the construction phase. The construction sequence
and construction programme will be optimized in order to minimise the
duration of impact. Construction site controls will be enforced including the
storage of materials, the location and appearance of site accommodation and
site storage; and the careful design of site lighting to prevent light
spillage. Hoarding designed with recessive colour will be set up around
the construction site providing screening effect for the construction works. The site office or temporary
above-ground structures will be sited at less visual prominent locations. |
|
CP5 |
Coordination with Concurrent
Projects - Coordinated
implementation programme with concurrent projects to minimise potential impacts
and where possible reduce the period of disturbance. |
The proposed visual impact mitigation measures in
the operational phase are summarized in Table 11.16.
Detailed requirements are also provided below.
Table 11‑16 Proposed Operational Phase
Visual Mitigation Measures
|
Mitigation Code |
Mitigation Measure |
|
OP3 |
Responsive Design of Buildings - The design of the proposed building structures, road network and
utility facilities will incorporate features as part of visual mitigation
measures including: Integrated design approach Responsive
design of built structures considered the location of houses and utilities structures.
The disposition and height profile of the houses and above ground utilities
structures respond to the existing context. Design measures include the
creation of setbacks, articulating the development frontage and incorporation
of view corridors/breezeway, avoid abrupt transitions between the existing
and proposed built environment, reduce the apparent visual mass to enhance
the sense of visual integration with the existing low-rise development
context. Building Treatment The
architectural design seeks to reduce the apparent visual mass of the
structures further through the use of recessive colour palette. Incorporation of alternative
greening measures such as green roof /vertical greening on built structures
where condition allows and particularly at where fronting to the public
realm. Non-reflective finishes also recommended to reduce the potential glare effect. (Figures 11-12-1 to 11-12-18 refer) |
|
OP4 |
Noise Mitigation Structures – To implement the noise
barriers along Ha Chuk Yuen Road. The
design of noise barrier should reduce the visual effect of the structure
through the use of form, materials and textures colours. Setting back with
articulated alignment from the site boundary to create a continuous landscape
buffer (5-8m wide) with both preserved and new planted trees forming an
instant screening effect to the engineering structures. Introduction of
landscape berms, by virtue of its height and natural form, would reduce the
perceived scale and height of the noise barriers. Integrated the proposed
sewage treatment plant with noise barrier to reduce the engineering mass
making the appearance
blending into the rural setting. The
design of engineering structures should avoid unnecessary visual cluster,
this would be achieved through the co-ordination of the various engineering
disciplines involved to arrive at innovative design solutions. (Figures 11-12-1 to 11-12-18 refer) |
|
OP5 |
Design of Engineering
Structure –
Particularly attention on the design, the appearance and construction methods
of the structures of proposed engineering structures such as fence wall,
noise barrier, sewage treatment plant and regarded sloping areas etc. The
landscape consultants will work in liaison with the engineers on the
aesthetic aspects of the structures and their relationship with the
landscape. Alternative
greening measures including greening
on the roof and/or vertical greening on the structures and on regarded
sloping areas will be used wherever possible to disguise their function
appearance in both medium and long distance views and maximise the greening
opportunities. Tree
preservation, new tree planting and alternative greening measures on and
adjacent to the engineering structures will create an instant greening effect
soften the visual mass. (Figures 11-12-1 to 11-12-18 refer) |
|
OP6 |
Creation of Landscape Buffer- Native and ornamental tree
and shrub planting and climbing plants will be utilised for the creation of
landscape buffer along noise barrier and sewage treatment plant at Ha Chuk
Yuen Road to enhance the aesthetic and landscape diversity of the local
context. Appropriate height and form of the landscape buffer/ berm to
integrate with the noise mitigation measures and provide screening effect to
the built structures. Treatment
of Slopes should be aesthetically enhanced through the use of soft landscape
works including tree and shrub planting to create a more natural appearance
blending into the local rural landscape. The
creation of landscape buffer at the periphery of the site, the height and
form of the landscape berms and planting proposals have key role in
mitigating the visual mass of the external fence walls of 2.5m high, the
sewage treatment plant of roof at 10.4mPD and the noise barriers of height at
10.1mPD high. (Figures 11-12-1 to 11-12-18 refer) |
The landscape works will
closely follow the completion of setting out the planting areas. The design year
for the purpose of this study is taken as approximately 10 to 15 years after
the scheme opening when the planting fill established. The implementation
schedule of mitigation measures is presented in Section 14 in this report and also presented in the EM&A
Manual.
The agencies responsible
for the funding, implementation, management and maintenance of the mitigation
measures are identified in Tables 11-17
and 14-1.
Table 11‑17 Landscape and Visual Mitigation
Measures/Works Funding and Implementation
Construction Phase Landscape Mitigation Measures
|
ID No. |
Landscape Mitigation Measure |
Funding Agency |
Implementation
Agency |
|
CP1 |
Preservation of
Existing Vegetation |
Project Proponent |
Project Architect/ Landscape Architect/
Contractor |
|
CP3 |
Implementation of
Mitigation Planting and Planting Species Selection |
Project Proponent |
Project Architect/ Landscape Architect/
Contractor |
|
CP4 |
Transplantation of
Existing Trees |
Project Proponent |
Project Architect/ Landscape Architect/
Contractor |
Operational Phase Landscape Mitigation Measures
|
ID No. |
Landscape
Mitigation Measure |
Funding Agency |
Implementation
Agency |
Management Agency |
Maintenance Agency |
|
OP1 |
Roadside and Amenity Planting |
Project Proponent |
Project
Landscape Architects/ Contractor |
Project Proponent/ Property Management Agent |
Project Proponent/ Property Management Agent |
|
OP2 |
Compensatory Planting Proposals |
Project Proponent |
Project
Landscape Architects/ Contractor |
Project Proponent/ Property Management Agent |
Project Proponent/ Property Management Agent |
|
OP5 |
Design of Engineering
Structure |
Project Proponent |
Project
Landscape Architects/ Contractor |
Project Proponent/ Property Management Agent |
Project Proponent/ Property Management Agent |
|
OP6 |
Creation of Landscape Buffer |
Project Proponent |
Project
Landscape Architects/ Contractor |
Project Proponent/ Property
Management Agent |
Project Proponent/ Property
Management Agent |
|
OP7 |
Provision
of Landscape Pond |
Project Proponent |
Project
Landscape Architects/ Contractor |
Project Proponent/ Property Management Agent |
Project Proponent/ Property Management Agent |
Construction Phase Visual Mitigation Measures
|
ID No. |
Visual Mitigation
Measure |
Funding Agency |
Implementation
Agency |
|
CP1 |
Preservation of Existing Vegetation |
Project
Proponent |
Project Engineers/ Architects/ Landscape
Architects/ Contractor |
|
CP2 |
Works Area and Temporary Works Areas |
Project
Proponent |
Project
Architect/ Contractor |
|
CP5 |
Coordination with Concurrent Projects - Coordinated
implementation programme with concurrent projects to minimise potential
impacts and where possible reduce the period of disturbance. |
Project
Proponent |
Project
Engineers/ Architects/ Landscape Architects/ Contractor |
Operation Phase Visual Mitigation Measures
|
ID No. |
Visual Mitigation
Measure |
Funding Agency |
Implementation
Agency |
Management Agency |
Maintenance Agency |
|
OP3 |
Responsive Design of Buildings |
Project
Proponent |
Project
Landscape Architects |
Project Proponent/ Property
Management Agent |
Project Proponent/ Property
Management Agent |
|
OP4 |
Noise Mitigation Structures |
Project
Proponent |
Project
Engineers/ Architects |
Project Proponent/ Property
Management Agent |
Project Proponent/ Property Management
Agent |
|
OP5 |
Design of Engineering
Structure |
Project
Proponent |
Project
Engineers/ Architects/ Landscape Architects |
Project Proponent/ Property
Management Agent |
Project Proponent/ Property
Management Agent |
|
OP6 |
Creation of Landscape Buffer |
Project Proponent |
Project
Engineers/ Architects/ Landscape Architects |
Project Proponent/ Property
Management Agent |
Project Proponent/ Property
Management Agent |
Overall, in terms of residual
landscape and visual impacts the main effects will primarily result from the
replacement of the existing open storage and warehouse landscapes with residential development, disturbance to
roadside amenity and loss of existing trees. As the work site will be
reinstated or enhanced through provision of landscape proposals for the
development, it is evident that the predicted impacts will be alleviated upon
full establishment of landscape and visual mitigation measures.
For the most part, the
landscape character of the Study Area will not be degraded when compared to the
existing condition after the full establishment of the recommended mitigation
measures, as:
¡ Responsive scale and building height profile
integrated with rural context will be adopted.
¡ Integration as far as technically feasible new
built structures with existing or planned adjacent developments.
¡ Responsive noise barrier design and alignment
and other engineering structures integrated with the new and preserved
landscape buffer and landscape gardens within the development.
¡ Provision of landscaped gardens and landscape
buffer within the development to enhance the local landscape context and visual
amenity.
¡ Incorporation of green roofs on built structures
as far as technically feasible.
¡ Tree preservation and new tree planting
proposals, where space allows, will be implemented within and at the periphery
of the development site.
The planting proposals
also form part of the compensatory planting proposals for the loss of landscape
resources, it will benefit the future landscape and ecology context within the
Study Area.
Landscape mitigation
measures recommended and mitigated (residual/Yr10) impact for individual LRs
assessed in Table 11-9 and summarised as follows.
Landscape resources include LR3.5
Fung Chuk Road Roadside Amenity, LR3.8 Kam Pok Road Roadside Amenity and LR6.1
Ha San Wai Road North Fish Pond (Abandoned) and LR10.3 Ha Chuk Yuen Road Open
Yards, which have a low to medium sensitivity, and the magnitude of change as a
result of the proposed development on these LRs have a range from small to
intermediate, these LRs therefore would experience a moderate impact due to
temporary loss of landscape resources as a result of site formation for the
proposed development.
Slight Impact Significance
The moderate impacts (Unmitigated, Day 1 construction and operation) on LR6.1 Ha San Wai Road North Fish Pond (Abandoned) will
be alleviated to slight adverse (Yr10). The loss of LR mitigated through the establishment of the mitigation measures discussed in Section 11.9 including creation of new
landscape areas within the development including provision of landscape
pond where condition allows.
Insubstantial Impact Significance
The moderate impacts on LRs including LR3.5 Fung Chuk Road Roadside
Amenity, LR3.8 Kam Pok Road Roadside Amenity and LR10.3 Ha Chuk Yuen Road Open Yards will be alleviated to
slight adverse (Day 1 construction and operation) to Insubstantial (Yr10). The loss of LRs
mitigated through full
establishment of the mitigation measures discussed in Section 11.9 including preservation/ reinstatement of existing
roadside amenity with new tree planting, reinstatement of roadside slope with
both native and amenity species integrated with preserved trees, creation of
new landscape areas within the development and landscape berms at the periphery
of the site and other forms of greening measures adjacent to engineering
structures where condition allows.
Referring to Section 11.7.6, the planting proposal
would achieve a replanting ratio of not less than 1:1 in terms of quantity and
quality. Based on preliminary estimation, in combination with tree retention
and transplanting, compensatory planting and new amenity tree planting, there
is a net gain of new amenity trees when compared to the existing trees found on
site. This tree replanting ratio would compensate minimum as the number of tree
loss. The retention of existing trees in-situ or through transplanting in
combination of the establishment of the newly planted trees will enhance
amenity within the proposed development site and benefit to the neighbourhood
landscape context. The species
selection will utilise a range of native, ornamental
and amenity tree species. The planting proposal is subject to further
development during the detailed design stage of the Project.
As mentioned above, the
findings and recommendations of the preliminary tree survey report are subject
to review for
the preparation of a formal felling application in accordance with LAO PN No.7/2007. The application will be conducted during the detailed design stage of the Project and submit to Lands Department for approval.
Landscape and visual
mitigation measures recommended and mitigated (residual) impact for individual
LCAs assessed in Table 11-11
and summarised as follows.
Insubstantial Impact Significance
The unmitigated moderate impact on LCA5 Kam Pok Road Low-rise
Residential Landscape due to the temporary loss of roadside planting, abandoned
fishpond and open yards and replacement of open storage and warehouse to residential landscape
character will be alleviated to a
slight level during the construction and operation phases (Day 1) of the
project, the impact will be further reduced to a Insubstantial level during
operation phase (Year 10) of the Project upon full establishment of the landscape and visual mitigation
measures particularly the planting proposals. Replacement of the existing uses with residential
development would fit into the existing channelside and planned residential
landscape context.
In addition, there are
many planned residential and recreational developments undertaken surrounding the
site along the Ngau Tam Mei Channel. Although the proposed development do not
have direct impact on the LCA1 Fairview Park Low-rise Extensive Residential
Landscape, LCA2 Yau Pok Road Nullaside Rural Landscape and LCA3 Kam Pok Road
Nullahside Rural Landscape, the change of local landscape character due to the
above planned developments in combination with the proposed development in LCA5
will replace the visually unpleasant uses in
the context, enhance and benefit the existing landscape and visual quality of
the Study Area.
Landscape and visual
mitigation measures recommended and mitigated (residual) impact for individual
VSRs assessed in Table 11-12
and summarised as follows.
Residual Impact Significance during Construction Phase
Due to the scale of the
residential development, planned residential and recreational development in
adjacent areas and general planning intention for replacing the visually
detracting uses in the New Territories, mitigation measures implemented during
construction including preservation of existing trees, responsive hoarding,
tidy site management and careful planning of the construction program,
responsive construction method, the predicted level of impacts on the views of
the majority of VSRs would be alleviated to a moderate to slight.
Residual Impact Significance during Operation Phase
Moderate to Slight
Adverse Impact
Significance
The visual amenity of
VSRs in proximity to the development site, such as VSR 3 Vehicular Travellers
and Pedestrians along Fung Chuk Road, VSR 5 Vehicular Travellers and
Pedestrians along Ha Chuk Yuen Road, VSR 7 Residents of Low-rise House
Development along Ha San Wai Road and VSR 11 Vehicular Travellers and
Pedestrians alongside Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel will be changed
significantly due to the introduction of the house development, site formation
works, sewage treatment plant, noise barrier and temporary loss of roadside
amenity. This potential visual intrusion resulting from built structures will
be alleviated to an extent through responsive building disposition, building
height profile, architectural and engineering design; and the restoration of
the disturbed areas with new amenity tree and shrub planting and in the
continuous landscape buffer/landscape berm at the periphery of the site, and the use of a green roof
on the sewage treatment plant. These mitigations create high quality landscape
areas for the enjoyment of future residents as well as provide enhanced visual
amenity in the wider context of Ngau Tam Mei nullahside rural and low-rise
development context. Although these measures might not fully screen the built
structures, the measures will effectively soften the development mass and
create a greater sense of visual integration and enhance the overall landscape
of Ngau Tam Mei. With full establishment of landscape and visual mitigation
measures, the significant impact on the visual amenity of these VSRs mentioned
above will be mitigated to moderate during operation phase (Day 1) and slight
adverse during operation phase (Year 10).
Slight to Insubstantial Impact Significance
Works areas will be
restored following the completion of the building works with residential
proposals. Good quality residential
landscape and continuous landscape buffer/ new tree planting will be
established and the responsive design of built structures will be adopted. Through the implementation of the proposed
mitigation strategies replacing visually detracting elements in the visual context
with quality architectural and landscape components, the effect of visual
intrusion of the house development will be reduced. The moderate visual impacts
on VSRs,
including PVSR 1 Residents of Planned Low-rise
House Development at Fung Chuk Road North, VSR 2 Workers at Chuk Yuen Floodwater
Pumping Station and Storage Pond, VSR 4 Villagers of Chuk Yuen Tsuen and Hang
Fook Gardens, VSR 6.1 Workers of Warehouses and Open Container Storage at Ha
San Wai Tsuen, VSR 6.2 Villagers of Ha San Wai, VSR 8 Residents of Low-rise
House Development along Fairview Park Boulevard, VSR 9 Vehicular Travellers and
Pedestrians along Fairview Park Road South and VSR 10 Residents of Low-rise House Development at Fairview
Park,
will be mitigated to an extent to slight during operation phase (Day 1) and insubstantial during operation phase (Year 10) following the
full establishment of the recommended mitigation measures.
Slight Beneficial Impact Significance
The moderate visual
impacts on VSRs in planned residential and/or recreational developments along the
Channel, including PVSR 12A Future Residents of Planned Recreation Zone to
the east of Fairview Park and PVSR
12B Future Recreational Users of Planned Recreation
Zone to the east of Fairview Park, will be mitigated to an extent to slight level during operation phase (Day 1). The implementation of the
planned developments in combination of proposed development under this EIA and
their associated landscape enhancement proposals will fade out the unpleasant
uses in the context and will benefit the visual quality and amenity of VSRs
along the Channel during operation
phase (Year 10) following the full establishment of the recommended mitigation measures.
A series of computer
generated images or photomontages have been prepared for the proposed works
demonstrating a worst case scenario for the identified VSRs and are presented
in Figures 11-12-1 to 11-12-18. The photomontages of the proposed development
show the existing conditions, Day 1 of Operational Phase after the completion
of the construction phase in the absence of mitigation measures and Day 1 of
Operational Phase with mitigation measures. Year 10 of Operational Phase with
mitigation measures to demonstrate the predicted residual impacts, which would
exist in the design year during the operational phase taken as between 10 and
15 years after the completion of the construction phase.
Photographs are used to
demonstrate the existing view. The photomontages of those views cannot cover
the whole development in one single shot due to the effects of perspective and
so are presented as a series of individual images.
Vantage Point A
(Looking southeast
towards the development site from Yau Pok Road representing views from
transient VSRs along Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel (VSR11), Future Residential and Recreational Users of Planned Recreation Zone to
the east of Fairview Park (PVS12A&B)
and Workers at Chuk Yuen Pumping Station and Storage Pond (VSR2), and permanent
VSRs Residents of Planned Low-rise House Development at Fung Chuk Road North
(PVSR1) and Fairview Park (VSR10).
This vantage point (Figures 11-12-1 and 11-12-2
refer) shows the proposed development at street level of Yau Pok Road across
the Ngau Tam Mei Channel. The viewpoint
is located approximately 120m from the proposed development. Low level views of
these VSRs are dominated by vegetation alongside Ngau Tam Mei Channel, Kam Pok
Road and Chuk Yuen Pumping Station. The view is at a relatively close distance
and is taken at pedestrian level to
demonstrate the potential change of visual amenity of visitors to the Ngau Tam
Mei Channel, vehicle travellers and
pedestrian along Yau Pok Road and Kam Pok Road.
The image shows the
proposed development in an oblique angle in relation to the adjacent channelside
landscape and demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed landscape visual
mitigation measures. The existing low-level views along the Channel are
intervened by the channelside vegetation. These vegetation outside
the development site will be
preserved. Although unavoidable a few existing trees along the western periphery of the site required to be removed due to site formation and building works, compensatory tree will be in filled along the
landscape buffer to mitigate the impact.
The mitigation measures perceived in the
image including responsive
architectural design and building height profile and creation of landscape buffer along Kam
Pok Road. Climbing plants will be added at the
base of the boundary wall as to
further soften the development mass. The proposed mitigation measures would
alleviate the potential visual impacts on these VSRs to insubstantial significance, restore and enhance the roadside and channelside visual amenity.
Vantage Point B
(Looking southeast towards
the development site from a channel crossing connecting Yau Pok Road and Kam
Pok Road representing views from transient VSRs along Ngau Tam Mei Drainage
Channel (VSR11), Future Residents and Recreational
Users of Planned Recreation Zone to the east of Fairview Park (PVS12), and
permanent VSRs Residents of Fairview Park (VSR10).
This vantage point (Figures 11-12-3 and 11-12-4
refer), similar to vantage point A, is located approximately 25m from the
proposed development. Low level views of these VSRs are dominated by vegetation
alongside the Ngau Tam Mei Channel and Kam Pok Road. The view is at a
relatively close distance and is taken at pedestrian level to demonstrate the potential change of visual amenity of visitors to the Ngau Tam Mei Channel, vehicle
travellers and pedestrian along Yau Pok Road and Kam Pok
Road.
The image shows the
proposed development in an oblique angle in relation to the adjacent nullahside
landscape and demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed landscape
mitigation measures. The existing low-level views along the Channel are
intervened by the channelside vegetation. These vegetation outside
the development site will be
preserved. Although unavoidable a few existing trees along the western periphery of the site required to be removed due to site formation and building works, compensatory tree will be in filled along the
landscape buffer to mitigate the impact.
The mitigation measures perceive in the image
including responsive and integrated
architectural design and creation of landscape buffer along Kam Pok Road. Climbing plants will be added at the base of the boundary wall as to further soften the
development mass. Low-rise development profile responds to its neighbourhood development
such as Fairview Park which located opposite to the site across the Channel. Upon full establishment of new tree planting in the
landscape buffer in combination of preserved trees within the development site along Kam Pok Road, screening effect on the development mass is apparent in this view.
The proposed mitigation measures would alleviate the potential visual
impacts
on these VSRs to slight level, restore and enhance the roadside and channelside visual amenity.
Vantage Point C
(Looking southwest towards the development site at
street level at the junction of Fung Chuk Road and Ha Chuk Yuen Road
representing views from transient VSRs along Ha Chuk Yuen Road (VSR5) and
Workers at Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station and Storage Pond (VSR2))
This vantage point (Figures 11-12-5 and 11-12-6
refer) is located immediately adjacent to the proposed development at street
level of Ha Chuk Yuen Road. Views of these VSRs are confined by roadside
vegetation, pumping station and engineered water channel. The view is at a
relatively close distance and is taken at pedestrian level to demonstrate the
potential change of the visual amenity of vehicle travellers and pedestrians
along Fung Chuk Road and Ha Chuk Yuen Road and workers in pumping station.
This image shows the
proposed development in an oblique angle behind the existing trees and demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed
landscape
and visual mitigation measures. The amenity area at
the junction of Fung Chuk Road and Ha Chuk Yuen Road is located outside the
site and will be preserved. In combination of tree preservation on slope along
the eastern periphery of the site, only glimpse views of noise barrier and top
of houses can be seen from this view.
The mitigation measures perceive in the view
including responsive low profile architectural design, responsive noise barrier design
and alignment, tree preservation and
creation of new landscape buffer. Transplanted trees in the landscape buffer in combination of preserved
trees will create an instant greening effect and form a
continuous landscape buffer from Fung Chuk Road to Ha Chuk Yuen Road. Upon fully establishment of tree preservation and planting
proposals in the proposed landscape
buffer
at the northern periphery of the site, proposed development
is hardly to be seen in the view. Visual impacts on the
VSRs will be alleviated to slight to insubstantial level.
Vantage Point D
(Looking southwest
towards the development site at street level adjacent to Hang Fook Gardens of
Chuk Yuen Tsuen representing views from transient/permanent VSRs in Warehouses
and Open Container Storage at Ha San Wai (VSR6.1) and Villagers
of Chuk Yuen Tsuen and Hang Fook Gardens (VSR4))
This vantage point (Figures 11-12-7 and 11-12-8
refer) is located approximately 175m from the proposed development at street
level adjacent to Hang Fook Gardens. Views of these VSRs extend west across
vacant land pending village extension with mature trees along Ha Chuk Yuen Road
in the background. Viewshed to the south is blocked by warehouses adjacent to
Ha San Wai, these are visually detracting elements in their visual context.
This image demonstrates
the potential change of visual amenity of views
available to the residents of Hang Fook Gardens and workers in the warehouses.
It should be noted that this visual context will be changed upon the implementation of village extension. The image shows the proposed house development
and noise barrier behind trees along Ha Chuk Yuen Road and demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed
landscape and
visual mitigation measures. Only glimpse view of the houses and noise barrier
can be seen behind the existing trees through adopting a responsive height
profile. Landscape buffer along Ha Chuk Yuen Road with combination of preserved
trees and in-filled trees within the site will create an instant greening
effect to the development. Upon full establishment of planting proposals,
proposed development is hardly to be seen in the view and fit into the landscape character of its neighbourhood village development. Visual impacts on the VSRs will
be alleviated to Insubstantial.
Vantage Point E
(Looking southwest towards the development site at
street level from Ha Chuk Yuen Road representing views from transient VSRs along
Ha Chuk Yuen Road (VSR5))
The viewpoint is located approximately 20m from the
proposed development. Low level views of these VSRs are dominated by vegetation
alongside Ha Chuk Yuen Road and the engineered water channel.
This vantage point (Figures 11-12-9 and 11-12-10
refer) is located immediately adjacent to the proposed development at street
level of Ha Chuk Yuen Road. Similar to vantage point C, views of these VSRs are
confined by the roadside vegetation and engineered water channel. The view is
at a relatively close distance and is taken at pedestrian level to demonstrate the potential change of visual amenity of vehicular travellers and pedestrians along Ha Chuk Yuen Road. The image shows the
proposed noise barrier and demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed
landscape and
visual mitigation measures. Although
unavoidable some existing trees on slope are affected by the construction of
noise barrier and maintenance access to sewage treatment plant, the roadside planting will be reinstated. The house development is almost not able to be
seen from this view through the adoption of responsive height profile and building set back. The functional appearance of the
noise barrier will be effectively disguised
through the adoption of responsive alignment behind the landscape buffer and
integrated design with the boundary wall.
Although unavoidable some existing in the
buffer required to be removed due
to the
construction of noise barrier,
compensatory planting proposal will reinstated the
sloping area and alleviate the impacts. Upon full establishment of planting in landscape buffer,
screening effect is apparent in this view. Visual impacts on the
VSRs will be alleviated to slight level.
Vantage Point F
(Looking west towards
the development site at street level from Ha San Wai representing views from
permanent VSRs of Villagers of Ha San Wai and Area Reserved for Village
Extension (VSR6.2) and Residents of Low-rise House Development along Ha San Wai
Road (VSR7))
This vantage point (Figures 11-12-11 and 11-12-12
refer) is located immediately adjacent to village houses and abandoned Ming Tak
village school at Ha San Wai looking west towards the proposed development. The
viewpoint is located approximately 200m from the proposed development. Low
level views of these VSRs are confined by vegetation and warehouses along Ha
San Wai Road in the foreground. The view is taken from pedestrian level to
demonstrate the potential change of visual amenity of villagers and residents living in Ha San Wai and along Ha
San Wai Road. Given the nature of views which are largely intervened by the
built environment, only a partial view of the proposed development can be seen
in the view.
The image shows the
proposed noise barrier and sewage treatment plant behind existing built structures
and vegetation in Ha San Wai and
demonstrates the effectiveness of the
proposed landscape mitigation measures.
Although unavoidable there is some visual intrusion of engineering
structures in the views of these VSRs, the functional appearance of these
engineering structures will be effectively disguised through the adoption of an integrated design
of engineering structures and creation of landscape buffer in front. The
landscape buffer will be created on berms, utilised broadleaf trees, shade
tolerant shrubs and climbing plants.
Upon full establishment of planting proposal, the built structures will be
largely screened and not apparent in this view. Visual impacts on the VSRs will be alleviated
to Insubstantial.
Vantage Point G
(Looking northwest
towards the development site at street level from Ha San Wai Road representing
views from permanent VSRs Residents of low-rise developments along Ha San Wai
Road (VSR7).)
This vantage point (Figures 11-12-13 and 11-12-14
refer) is located immediately adjacent to the proposed development at Ha San
Wai Road. The viewpoint is located approximately 100m from the proposed
development. Low level views of these VSRs are dominated by vegetation
alongside the engineered water channel in the south, house developments,
warehouses and open container storage facilities in the north adjacent to the
Site. Low level views of residents of house developments along Ha San Wai Road are
confined by vegetation along the water channel and warehouses adjacent to the proposed development. It
should be noted that major views of these VSRs are facing Fairview Park
Boulevard, only views from the upper floors of these house developments facing
north will have partial views of the proposed development through existing
vegetation. The view is taken at pedestrian level to demonstrate the change of visual
amenity of residents living in Ha
San Wai Road. Given the nature of views, only a partial view of the proposed
development would be seen in these VSRs.
The image shows part of the integrated noise barrier and sewage treatment plant structure with
landscape buffer in front and tree planting along Ha San Wai Road. It demonstrates
the effectiveness of the proposed landscape mitigation measures. The proposed houses
will not able to be seen through the adoption of responsive building height
profile and setback. Proposed tree planting along the development edge will
enhance the visual amenity of Ha San Wai Road. The introduction of landscape buffer with tree and shrub planting in
front of the integrated noise barrier and sewage treatment plant structure will
disguise its functional appearance. Although
unavoidable there is some visual intrusion of engineering structures in the
views of these VSRs, it should be noted that
their visual context have been interrupted by unpleasant built structures in Ha San Wai, upon full establishment of the landscape and visual mitigation measures
and planting proposal mentioned
above the development
mass will be soften. Visual impacts on these VSRs will be alleviated
to a slight to insubstantial level.
Vantage Point H
(Looking northeast
towards the development site from the road junction of Kam Pok Road and
Fairview Park Boulevard representing views from transient VSRs along Ngau Tam
Mei Drainage Channel (VSR11) and Future Residents and Recreational Users of Planned Recreation Zone to
the east of Fairview Park (PVS12A&B))
This vantage point (Figures 11-12-15 and 11-12-16
refer), is located approximately 25m immediately adjacent to the proposed
development. Low level views of these VSRs are open to Ngau Tam Mei Channel and
dominated by vegetation alongside of Kam
Pok Road and Ha San Wai Road. The view is at a relatively close distance and is
taken at pedestrian level to demonstrate the change of visual
amenity of visitors to the Ngau Tam
Mei Channel, vehicle travellers and
pedestrians along Kam Pok Road.
The image shows the
proposed development in an oblique angle in relation to the adjacent channelside
landscape and demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed landscape
mitigation measures. Although
unavoidable there is some visual intrusion of built structures in the views of these VSRs, the development
mass will be soften through building setback, responsive building height
profile and the retention of roadside amenity areas in front along Kam Pok
Road. Landscape buffer reserved along Kam Pok Road will comprise of preserved
trees and in-filled tree planting. In addition, tree transplanting allocated at
the south-western corner of the site will create an instant screening effect to
the development. Climbing plants proposed at the base of boundary wall will
further soften the development mass. Upon full establishment of planting proposals, the potential visual impact on these VSRs will be
alleviated to Insubstantial and proposed development
will fit into the roadside and channelside landscape and visual context.
Vantage Point I
(Looking
southeast towards the development site from a channel crossing connecting Yau
Pok Road and Kam Pok Road representing views from transient VSRs along Ngau Tam
Mei Drainage Channel (VSR11), Future Residents and Recreational Users of Planned Recreation Zone to
the east of Fairview Park (PVS12), and permanent VSRs Residents of Fairview
Park (VSR10).
This
vantage point (Figures 11-12-17 and
11-12-18 refer), is similar to vantage points A&B,
and is located approximately 80m from the proposed development at Yau Pok Road
across Ngau Tam Mei Channel. Pedestrians at Yau Pok Road and visitors to Ngau
Tam Mei Channel have an open view of the proposed development and their low
level views are dominated by roadside and channelside
vegetation. Given that the VSRs in Fairview Park and planned recreational sites
along Yau Pok Road are located at a lower elevation and their views are
intervened by existing built structures and vegetation in their foreground,
only partial views of the proposed development will be perceived. The view is
at a relatively close distance and is taken at pedestrian level to demonstrate
the potential change in the amenity of views available to visitors to the Ngau
Tam Mei Channel, vehicle traveller and pedestrians along Yau Pok Road and Kam
Pok Road, residents in Fairview Parks and Future users of a planned recreational
site along Yau Pok Road. The image shows the proposed development in an oblique
angle in relation to the adjacent channelside landscape and demonstrates the
effectiveness of the proposed landscape mitigation measures.
Although
unavoidable a few
existing trees along the western periphery of the site required to be removed due to site formation and building works, compensatory tree will be in-filled
along the landscape buffer to mitigate the impact.
The
mitigation measures perceive in the image including responsive architectural design and building height
profile and creation of landscape buffer along Kam Pok Road. Climbing plants will be added at the
base of the boundary wall as to
further soften the development mass. Low-rise development
profile responds to its neighbourhood developments along Yau Pok Road. Upon full establishment of new tree planting in the
landscape buffer in combination of preserved trees within the development site along Kam Pok Road, screening effect is apparent in this view. Upon full establishment of
planting proposals, the potential
visual impacts on these VSRs will be alleviated to Insubstantial
and the channelside landscape and visual context will be enhanced by replacing
visually detracting elements with residential landscapes.
The design,
implementation and maintenance of landscape and visual mitigation measures
should be checked to ensure that they are fully realised, thus EM&A for these mitigation
measures should be undertaken. Design measures shall
be incorporated at the detailed design stage. Implementation of the mitigation measures such as tree
protection and preservation shall be monitored through site audit programme.
The proposed house
development will have direct impact on a Residential (Group D) zone under S/YL-MP/6 Mai Po & Fairview Park OZP.
There is no impact on adjacent zonings under S/YL-KTN/9 Kam Tin North, S/YL-NTM/12 Ngau Tam Mei and S/YL-NSW/8 Nam
Sang Wai OZPs. The proposed development is low-rise and low-density residential
developments which complied with the existing and planned land uses and
planning intention. The proposal will not affect its viability in terms of
being a landscape planning designation. The introduction of a high quality
residential landscape in the Study Area assists the fading out of unpleasant uses in the New
Territories. The proposed development is thus considered to be tolerable to the
planning intention of the development control framework with full establishment
of the recommended landscape and visual mitigation measures. The
proposed development is found integrated with
the future outlook of the rural landscape context
in combination with other planned low-rise residential and recreational
developments along Ngau Tam Mei Channel.
Section 16 planning application of the development scheme in
this EIA has been approved by Town
Planning Board on 7 February 2014.
Construction impacts on all affected landscape
resources (LRs) and landscape character area
(LCA) would be mitigated to
moderate to slight level through the implementation of mitigation measures
including preservation of existing
vegetation, transplantation
of existing trees, implementation of mitigation
planting as
early as technically feasible and selection of plant species which will enhance both
landscape and ecological value of the site.
With the adoption of responsive design of architecture, noise barrier
and associated utilities and built structures, tree preservation, full establishment of planting proposals inside the
development site, creation of continuous landscape buffer/tree planting at the periphery of the development site, provision of landscape pond, and restoration of the disturbed areas, the
residual impacts on the all affected landscape
resources (LRs)
would be slight to insubstantial impact significance (Yr10).
Impact on existing trees will be compensated by new tree planting with a replanting ratio of not less than 1:1 in terms of quantity and quality. Tree planting in landscaped gardens and landscape
buffer will utilise both native and ornamental species with a
combination of various planting stock sizes from heavy standard to light
standard to create an instant and natural greening effect. Roadside trees provide
thermal comfort of future residents and pedestrians. The retention of existing
trees in-situ or through transplanting in combination with the establishment of the newly planted trees within the
development form roadside amenity and residential landscape. Tree planting proposal will fully compensate the tree loss and provide new amenity trees where space
allows enhancing the landscape, visual amenity and ecological value of the
context. In combination of new tree planting and tree preservation, there will be a net gain of approximate 101 new trees within the Site.
In the wider landscape
context, the existing open storage and warehouses landscape
will be faded out. Planting proposal for the development creates an identity for the residential development and quality residential
landscape will enhance the visual amenity along Ngau Tam Mei Channel. Given the above design approach, the proposed
residential development will fit into the local low-rise residential and
nullahside landscape context as well as the wider rural landscape context.
Proposed innovative and
responsive design of houses and associated noise attenuation measures and utilities,
creation of landscape buffer, pond and gardens and the introduction of extensive tree and shrub planting integrated with the preserved trees will serve to mitigate
most of the potential adverse impacts. It is likely that upon full establishment of the proposed landscape mitigation measures and the growth to maturity
of the proposed planting proposals, the
proposed development will form a relatively small component within the future
residential landscape context of Kam Pok Road (LCA5), will fit into its
surroundings of planned residential and recreational developments, and thus
considered to have a Insubstantial residual impact (Yr. 10) on this LCA.
In addition, there are
many planned residential and recreational developments currently undertaken surrounding the site along the Ngau
Tam Mei Channel. Although the proposed development do not have
direct impact on the LCA1 Fairview Park Low-rise Extensive Residential
Landscape, LCA2 Yau Pok Road Nullahside Rural Landscape and LCA3 Kam Pok Road
Nullahside Rural Landscape, the change of local landscape character due to the
above planned developments in combination with the proposed development in LCA5
will improve
the landscape quality along the Channel, will enhance
and benefit to the whole Study Area.
As has been described
above, the proposed development is located in a visual context pending for
further house developments with planning intention of fading out the unpleasant
open
storage and warehouses in the New
Territories replacing by high quality residential, village and recreational
developments. The proposed development site, which is currently part vacant and partly occupied by car parking and was once occupied by open
storage and warehouses, the
provision of landscape areas within the development and the continuous
landscape buffer/ tree planting surrounding the development will change the
visual amenity following the completion of the construction phase of the house
development from an visually unpleasant landscape
to a quality residential landscape. It is compatible to future developments along the Channel. Key mitigation measures for the proposed
development including the adoption of innovative and responsive design for the
proposed houses and associated engineering structures, sewage treatment plant
and noise barrier, responsive building disposition and height profile, creation of landscape buffer and green roof on built structures, creation
of landscape areas within the development and preservation of existing roadside
amenity areas and existing trees, will soften the
development mass and enhance the visual amenity. As such the level of visual intrusion arising from the
implementation of the proposed low-rise, low-density development will further mitigated by the proposed planting and
greening proposals within the development and therefore the visual impact
will be alleviated to an extent.
Due to the scale of the
residential development, mitigation measures implemented during construction
including preservation of existing trees, responsive hoarding, tidy site
management and careful planning of the construction program, responsive
construction method, the predicted level of impacts on the majority of VSRs would be alleviated to moderate to
slight impact significance.
The visual amenity of
VSRs in proximity to the development site, such as VSR 3 Vehicular Travellers
and Pedestrians along Fung Chuk Road, VSR 5 Vehicular Travellers and
Pedestrians along Ha Chuk Yuen Road, VSR 7 Residents of Low-rise House
Development along Ha San Wai Road and VSR 11 Vehicular Travellers and
Pedestrians alongside Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel will experience a
significant unmitigated impact with the
implementation of the proposed development. This potential visual intrusion resulting from built
structures will be alleviated to an extent through the responsive building
disposition, building height profile, architectural and engineering design; and
the restoration of the disturbed areas with new amenity tree and shrub planting
within the development and in the continuous landscape buffer at the periphery
of the site, and the use of green roof on the sewage treatment plant. These
mitigations create high quality landscape areas for the enjoyment of future
residents as well as provide an enhanced visual amenity in the wider context of
the Ngau Tam Mei channelside rural and low-rise development context. Although
these measures might not fully screen views of the built structures within the
development, the measures will effectively soften the development mass and
create a greater sense of visual integration to the overall landscape of Ngau Tam Mei. With the adoption of
these measures, the potential significant impact to the visual amenity of these
VSRs will be mitigated to moderate during operation phase (Day 1) and slight
adverse during operation phase (Year 10).
The visual intrusion of the
house development and noise barrier will be significantly reduced through the implementation of the proposed
mitigation strategies and replaced visually
detracting elements in the visual context. The moderate visual impacts on VSRs, including PVSR 1 Residents of Planned Low-rise House
Development at Fung Chuk Road North, VSR 2 Workers at Chuk Yuen Floodwater
Pumping Station and Storage Pond, VSR 4 Villagers of Chuk Yuen Tsuen and Hang
Fook Gardens, VSR 6.1 Workers of Warehouses and Open Container Storage at Ha
San Wai Tsuen, VSR 6.2 Villagers of Ha San Wai, VSR 8 Residents of Low-rise
House Development along Fairview Park Boulevard, VSR 9 Vehicular Travellers and
Pedestrians along Fairview Park Road South and VSR 10 Residents of Low-rise House Development at Fairview
Park will be mitigated to an extent to slight during operation phase (Day 1)
and insubstantial during operation phase (Year 10)
following the full establishment of the recommended mitigation measures.
The implementation of
the planned low-rise developments along the Ngau Tam Mei Channel in combination with proposed development under this EIA and their associated
landscape enhancement within individual developments will fade out the unpleasant
uses in the context and will benefit the visual quality and amenity of VSRs
along the Channel
including PVSR 12A Future Residents
of Planned Recreation Zone to the east of Fairview Park and PVSR 12B Future
Recreational Users of Planned Recreation Zone to the east of Fairview Park. Impacts on these
VSRS will be mitigated to an
extent to slight during operation
phase (Day 1). Upon full establishment of the recommended mitigation measures including planting on the landscape
buffer/berm will benefit to the visual amenity of these VSRs during operation phase (Year 10) of proposed
development.
In accordance with Annex
10 of the EIAO-TM, the landscape and visual impacts as a result of the proposed development would be ‘acceptable with mitigation measures’
that is to say ‘there would be some adverse effects, but these can be
eliminated, reduced or offset to a large extent by specific measures’.
Summary of Landscape and Visual Impact
|
ID |
Sensitivity |
Magnitude of Change |
Significance Threshold (Unmitigated) |
Mitigation Measures* |
Significance Threshold (Mitigated) |
|||
|
Construction Phrase |
Operation Phrase |
Construction Phrase |
Operation Phrase |
Construction Phrase/ Operation Phase Day
1 (Mitigated) |
Operation Phrase |
|||
|
Year 10 (Residual) |
||||||||
|
1.0 Key Landscape
Resources (LRs) – Insubstantial
to Slight residual impact significance |
||||||||
|
LR3.5 Fung
Chuk Road Roadside Amenity |
Medium |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
Moderate Adverse |
Moderate Adverse |
CP1, CP3, CP4, OP1, OP2, OP6 |
Slight Adverse |
Insubstantial |
|
LR3.8 Kam Pok
Road Roadside Amenity |
Small |
Small |
CP1, CP3, CP4, OP1, OP2, OP6 |
|||||
|
LR6.1 Ha San
Wai Road North Fish Pond (Abandoned) |
Low |
Large |
Large |
CP3,OP2, OP7 |
Moderate
Adverse |
Slight Adverse |
||
|
LR10.3 Ha Chuk
Yuen Road Open Yards |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
CP3,OP1, OP2 |
Slight
Adverse |
Insubstantial |
|||
|
2.0 Key Landscape
Character Areas (LCAs) – Insubstantial
residual impact significance |
||||||||
|
LCA5
Kam Pok Road Low-rise Residential Landscape |
Low |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
Moderate Adverse |
Moderate Adverse |
CP1, CP3, CP4, OP1, OP2, OP5, OP6, OP7 |
Slight Adverse |
Insubstantial |
|
3.1 Visually
Sensitive Receivers (VSRs) - slight residual impact significance |
||||||||
|
VSR 3 Vehicular
Travellers and Pedestrians along Fung Chuk Road |
Medium |
Large |
Large |
Significant Adverse |
Significant Adverse |
CP1, CP2, CP5,
OP3, OP4, OP5, OP6 |
Moderate
Adverse |
Slight Adverse Further to the
establishment of tree preservation and transplanting proposals and new tree
planting proposals in the landscape buffer, the proposed development will be
largely screened as in their original visual context. |
|
VSR 5 Vehicular Travellers and Pedestrians along
Ha Chuk Yuen Road |
CP1, CP2, CP5,
OP3, OP4, OP5, OP6 |
Slight Adverse Further to the
establishment of tree preservation proposals and new tree planting proposals
in the landscape buffer, the proposed development will be largely screened as
in their original visual context. |
||||||
|
VSR 7
Residents of Low-rise House Development along Ha San Wai Road |
CP1, CP2, OP3,
OP4, OP5, OP6 |
Slight Adverse Responsive
design of the building height profile and massing and innovative design of
noise barrier. Upon full establishment
of transplanting proposals in landscape area of Ha San Wai Road, visual
impact will be alleviated |
||||||
|
VSR 11 Vehicular Travellers and Pedestrians
alongside of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel |
CP2, OP3, OP4,
OP5 |
|||||||
|
3.2 Visually
Sensitive Receivers (VSRs) – Insubstantial
impact significance |
||||||||
|
PVSR 1
Residents of Planned Low-rise House Development at Fung Chuk Road North |
High |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
Moderate
Adverse |
Moderate
Adverse |
CP1,
CP2, CP5, OP3, OP6 |
Slight Adverse |
Insubstantial |
|
VSR 4 Villagers of Chuk Yuen Tsuen and Hang Fook
Gardens |
CP2, OP3,OP4, |
|||||||
|
VSR 8 Residents of Low-rise House Development
along Fairview Park Boulevard |
Medium |
Small |
Small |
Moderate
Adverse |
Moderate
Adverse |
CP2, OP3, OP4,
OP5 |
Slight Adverse |
Insubstantial |
|
VSR 10 Residents of Low-rise House Development at
Fairview Park |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
CP1, OP6 |
|||||
|
VSR 2 Workers
at Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station and Storage Pond |
Low |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
Moderate
Adverse |
Moderate
Adverse |
CP1, CP2, CP5,
OP3,OP6 |
Slight Adverse |
Insubstantial |
|
VSR 6.1 Workers of Warehouses and Open Container
Storage at Ha San Wai Tsuen |
CP1, CP2, CP5,
OP3,OP4, OP5, OP6 |
|||||||
|
VSR 6.2 Villagers of Ha San Wai |
CP2, OP3, OP4,
OP5, OP6 |
|||||||
|
VSR 9 Vehicular Travellers and Pedestrians along
Fairview Park Road South |
CP2, OP3, OP4,
OP5 |
|||||||
|
3.3 Visually
Sensitive Receivers (VSRs) – beneficial impact significance |
||||||||
|
PVSR 12A Future Residents
of Planned Recreation Zone to the east of Fairview Park |
Medium |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
Moderate
Adverse |
Moderate
Adverse |
CP1, CP2, CP5,
OP3, OP5, OP6 |
Slight Adverse |
Slight
Beneficial Responsive design
of the building height profile and massing. Upon full
establishment of tree preservation, transplanting and new planting proposals
in the roadside landscape area of Kam Pok Road, visual impact will be
alleviated |
|
PVSR 12B Future
Recreational Users of Planned Recreation Zone to the east of Fairview Park |
||||||||
Note: Only key LRs, LCA and VSRs with impact as a result of
proposed works are summarised in the table. Detail assessments refer to EIA
Report Chapter11.
* Proposed Landscape and/or Visual
Mitigation
Measures
|
|
Mitigation Code |
Mitigation Measures |
Landscape/Visual |
|
Construction Phase |
CP1 |
Preservation of Existing Vegetation |
L/V |
|
CP2 |
Works Area and Temporary Works Areas |
V |
|
|
CP3 |
Implementation of Mitigation Planting and Planting
Species Selection |
L |
|
|
CP4 |
Transplantation of Existing Trees |
L |
|
|
CP5 |
Coordination
with Concurrent Projects - Coordinated implementation programme with
concurrent projects to minimise potential impacts and where possible reduce the
period of disturbance. |
V |
|
|
Operational Phase |
OP1 |
Roadside and Amenity Planting |
L |
|
OP2 |
Compensatory Planting Proposals |
L |
|
|
OP3 |
Responsive Design
of Buildings |
V |
|
|
OP4 |
Noise Mitigation
Structures |
V |
|
|
OP5 |
Design of Engineering Structure |
L/V |
|
|
OP6 |
Creation of Landscape Buffer |
L/V |
|
|
OP7 |
Provision of Landscape Pond |
L |
Environmental
impacts due to both construction and operation of the Project have been
assessed in this EIA study.
The assessment covers assessment area specified in the Project EIA study
brief. Where necessary, mitigation
measures have been recommended to alleviate any adverse environmental impact
down to an acceptable level.
Environmental outcomes of the Project are summarized in below
paragraphs.
The proposed low density and low
rise residential development will bring in environmental benefits to the area
when compared with the existing car parking use and abandoned pond.
Environmental disturbance such as
noise level, air quality and dust from the existing car park is relatively
higher than that of the proposed residential development which is with less
vehicular movement (particularly large-sized/ heavy vehicles). In fact, it is expected that there will be a
decline in traffic flow during operation phase when compared with existing car
parking operation (see Section 8.8.3). Hence, the Project will result in decline of
disturbance of traffic to the surrounding areas.
The Project Site is currently
utilized as car park and most areas are covered by bare concrete areas with low
vegetation cover. With the
implementation of landscape planting programme of the Project, the vegetation
cover and green area in the Project Site will increase (coverage of green area of 30% of the total area of the Project Site is required
for this Project).
Through implementation of dust control measures
required under the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation; recommended specific
measures in this EIA report; and good housekeeping practices by the works contractors, construction dust impacts upon surrounding
ASRs can be controlled to an acceptable level. Practical mitigation
measures have already been proposed for this Project to alleviate potential
impacts. The concerned site formation
works will be undertaken in stages and only be short-term and potential air
quality impacts have been reduced to a minimal
through recommended mitigation measures and can comply with the relevant air
quality criteria/ AQOs. Thus, no adverse
impact is anticipated. As a result, there is no residual impact.
During the construction
phase, the concerned sediment at existing pond is intended to be left in place
and not to be disturbed as far as possible.
Potential odour impact is therefore not considered to be an issue. During the operational stage, appropriate
precautionary measures (e.g. peripheral set back from the site boundaries) have
been incorporated in the layout, which can satisfy the buffer
distance requirements stated in the HKPSG for both active and passive
recreational uses. No unacceptable air
quality impact due to industrial emission is expected as no industrial emission
source has been identified within the
Assessment Area. The existing open storage site and an enclosed godown to the east of the Project Site are unlikely to
have adverse air quality impact upon the development. Thus, no adverse air
quality impact is anticipated.
Given the scale of the Project (for small houses
development), there are no major planned dust generating or air
pollutant emission sources from the proposed development that would contribute
to any adverse impact on air quality. In
addition, vehicular emission due to additional traffic generated/ attracted by
this Project is found to be insignificant.
Thus, the Project Site itself is unlikely to generate any air pollution
nuisance.
During the operational phase, a licensed waste
collector will be employed to collect domestic waste on daily basis and RCP
will be provided for the residential development.
During the operational
stage, an interim sewage treatment plant is proposed within the
Project Site before connection to the public sewerage system becomes
available. The interim sewage treatment
plant will be within a totally enclosed building with biological treatment, membrane filtration and Reverse Osmosis
processes to be located underground. The
exhaust will be directed away from nearby ASRs and odour
removal system will be provided. With
the careful design and effective odour
removal filtering system, adverse odour impact due to operation of the interim
sewage treatment plant is not anticipated.
The Noise Control Ordinance will be complied
throughout the Project. The predicted
traffic noise and industrial noise results at the NSRs of proposed development
fully comply with the noise criteria with the proposed noise mitigation
measures. With construction phase
mitigation measures such as the use of quiet type equipment, movable and fixed
temporary noise barriers as well as recommended best practices on construction
sites, construction noise can comply with the relevant noise criteria. Potential visual impact of noise barrier and
its design are also addressed (see Landscape and Visual Chapter).
With the layout shown in the MLP, the Project Site is
not adversely affected by road traffic noise.
It was found that with the provision of noise mitigation measures
including noise barrier and placing noise tolerant use (i.e. STP) as well as
those recommended for the proposed interim STP, no adverse noise impact is
anticipated during operation of the Project.
No adverse noise impact is expected due to the
existing Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station, and no noise mitigation measure
is needed.
The major impact during construction works of this
Project is surface runoff and soil erosion due to exposed surfaces. Peripheral site drainage comprising precast
concrete u-channels, sedimentation basins, sand traps and similar facilities
together with those good site practices stipulated in ProPECC Note PN 1/94, have been recommended. Collected construction site runoff will be
discharged into nearby existing stormwater drains, and via
which into the NTMDC following the
existing flow regime. With the adoption of the recommended good practices on-site, adverse water quality impact
is not expected. The Contractor shall apply for a
discharge licence under the WPCO and the discharge shall comply with the terms
and conditions of the licence.
During operation, an interim sewage treatment plant will be used for
treatment of sewage generated from the proposed development site until the
public sewerage system becomes available.
Treated effluent from the interim STP will be
discharged to the adjacent NTMDC and it has demonstrated compliance
with the no net increase in pollution loading requirement. Thus, no adverse water quality
impact is anticipated. The
discharge is also subject to EPD’s discharge licence requirements.
Surface runoff from the development site will be
discharged to the NTMDC. Pollutants, if
any, will be pre-treated and settled before discharge. It was estimated that the increase in surface
runoff due to this Project is negligible when compared with the design capacity
of the NTMDC. Best Management Practices
have been proposed in order to abate first flush pollution in stormwater runoff
such as design measures to minimize soil erosion; design of drainage system to
collect surface runoff; street level planting; selection of tree species; and
control of application of fertilizer. In
addition, screening facilities such as gully grating, trash frille, and road
gullies with silt traps and oil interceptor will be incorporated into the
drainage design to control pollution.
Asides from the above, administrative measures such as regular cleaning
and sweeping of road surface/ open area as well as stormwater
gullies and ditches to remove pollution source by property management company,
have also been recommended. With the
recommended measures, there will be no unacceptable impacts to the water
quality in the Deep Bay.
It is also recommended that emergency response plans to deal
with inclement weather and emergencies for both construction and operation
phases, will be developed.
Potential cumulative impacts due to construction and
operation of nearby approved designated projects as well as planned development
sites, have been assessed. All these
identified concurrent projects will implement their own mitigation measures to
ensure discharge can comply with the relevant WPCO as well as EIA requirements.
Project-specific mitigation measures are also recommended for this Project to
ensure construction site runoff is collected and treated before discharge. The
discharge will be controlled through implementation of committed measures
described in the respective EIA reports of those projects as well as those
recommended in this Project. Further
site inspections and regular water quality monitoring are also recommended to
monitor the water quality level at nearby drainage channels during the
construction phase of this Project, and Event and Action plan is proposed to
rectify any deficiencies. Thus, no
adverse cumulative impact is expected.
No residual impact is anticipated during the construction
or operation of the Project.
Sewage generated from the proposed
development will be discharged into the planned trunk sewer at Kam Pok Road
under PWP No. 4235DS, as permanent measure.
The quantity of sewage effluent generated from the proposed development
is relatively small amount when compared with the spare capacity of the
downstream sewerage facilities. Thus, no adverse impact is anticipated.
An interim STP has been proposed for
treatment of sewage generated from the proposed development site until the
planned public sewerage system becomes available. The proposed development will not impose any
adverse sewerage impact on the surrounding areas by co-treatment of water abstracted
from existing Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel. The interim STP has been designed
such that it can meet the no net increase in pollution loading requirement in
Deep Bay. The discharge of treated effluent from the interim STP should follow
the discharge licence requirements under the WPCO as well as the terms and
conditions specified in the EP under the EIAO. Thus, the development is
considered acceptable in sewerage terms.
With the proposed measures, adverse environmental impacts due to the long term
and interim sewerage scheme are not
anticipated. No adverse sewerage impact will be incurred as a result of the development.
No waste related regulatory non-compliance and
unacceptable environmental impacts are expected to arise due to construction of
proposed residential development. Waste
management measures as well as control/ mitigation measures have been
recommended during the construction accordingly.
The Project Site is vacant and partially used as open air
car park. No historic and/ or existing land uses at the Project Site that would
result in potential land contamination
has been identified. Thus, land contamination at the Project Site
is not expected.
Refuse collection chambers shall be provided and a
licensed waste collector will be employed to collect domestic waste during the
operational phase.
The Project would cause
loss of 3.17ha of urbanized/disturbed, 0.3ha of plantation and 0.33 ha of an abandoned pond. Due to the low ecological value of the abandoned
fishpond, potential impact was ranked
as minor. No corresponding
mitigation is required and the residual impact is acceptable.
The Project would cause Moderate impact to birds
utilisating the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Drainage due to construction
disturbance during construction phase. Runoff during construction phase will cause
Low to Moderate Impact. Other potential
impact during construction and operation phase is considered
Insignificant. A number of mitigation
measures will be implemented to minimize the potential impacts during both
construction and operation phases.
Utilisation of the section of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel will be
monitored between October and March during construction phase for evaluation of
effectiveness of the recommended mitigation measures for minimization of
construction noise and dust.
The Project would cause
loss of 0.33 ha of an abandoned pond. Direct impact on fisheries due to
the implementation of the Project was anticipated to be Insignificant. .
Indirect impacts during construction and operation phases would also be
insignificant.
According to the assessment
findings, no sites of
archaeological interest or areas of archaeological interest, declared/ proposed
monuments, historical villages, cultural landscaped features, and graves were identified within the Study Area. The identified Built Heritage Items (BH1 to
BH4,
i.e. the temple in Chuk Yuen Tsuen and three graded historic buildings in San
Wai Tsuen) (about 250m-280m
from the Project Site) are
considerably far from the Project Site.
No impact during
construction and operational phase is anticipated.
The proposed development will not encroach
upon any known sites of archaeological interest or areas of archaeological
interest, and will not have any
direct or indirect impacts on any
declared monuments, graded or proposed graded historic buildings,
cultural landscape features,
graves or historical village during construction and operational
phases.
Proposed development will not
lead to a degradation of the landscape setting of the area following full establishment of the
recommended mitigation measures, on the contrary it is an improvement to the
landscape setting along Ngau Tam Mei Channel. It will not affect its viability in terms of being a landscape planning
designation. The introduction of high quality residential
landscape within the development will assist the fading out of unpleasant open storage and warehouses in NT.
Proposed development thus considered to be tolerable to the planning intention
of development control framework with full establishment of recommended
landscape and visual mitigation measures and hence they will be integrated with
the future outlook of this rural, recreation and residential landscape context.
Residual impact significance on the affected LRs
and LCAs during the construction phase will be alleviated to moderate to slight
adverse levels with implementation of tree preservation and transplanting
proposal and mitigation planting. With the implementation of responsive design
of architecture, noise barrier and associated utilities in combination with
full establishment of planting proposals within proposed development, on
landscape buffer/berm/tree planting at periphery of the development site and on
built structures, design of landscape pond and gardens, tree preservation
proposal and restoration of the disturbed areas following the completion of the
works during operation phase, the residual impact significance on all the
affected landscape resources and Kam Pok Road Low-rise Residential Landscape
Character (Yr10) would be slight adverse to Insubstantial. The development
proposals will replace the unpleasant open storage and warehouses along the
Channel, enhance and benefit the existing landscape and visual quality of the whole Study
Area.
This potential visual
intrusion resulting from built structures will be alleviated to an extent
through the responsive building disposition, building height profile,
architectural and engineering design, and the
restoration of the disturbed areas with planting proposals within
the development, at the periphery of the
site and on
built structures. These
mitigation measures create high
quality landscape areas for the enjoyment of future residents as well as provide
enhanced visual amenity in the wider context of Ngau Tam Mei channelside rural and
low-rise development context. Although these measures might not fully screen
views of built structures of the
development, these measures will effectively soften the development
mass and create a greater sense of visual integration and enhancement to the
overall landscape of Ngau Tam Mei. With the adoption of these measures the
potential significant to moderate adverse unmitigated impacts on the majority
of VSRs will be mitigated to moderate to slight adverse (during construction
phase/ Year 1 of operation phase) and slight adverse to Insubstantial
(Year 10 of operation phase). By incorporating all the proposed visual
mitigation measures, the Project will slightly beneficial to the visual context
and quality of some VSRs at planned residential and recreational developments adjacent
to the Site.
The planting proposal in
proposed gardens and landscape buffer, which will utilise a combination of native and ornamental species, in addition bird-attracting and butterfly-attracting
plant species will be introduced within and surrounding the landscape pond to enhance the landscape and ecological value
of the Site. For example, plants producing berry will enhance the food
resources of birds. Nectar plants will also provide food resources for
butterflies. Both fauna groups will benefit from landscape planting. The
planting of trees will also provide roosting habitats for birds. There would be
improvement in the environmental condition considering that the Project Site
only supports low plant diversity and covered by mainly exotic species
(including the invasive plant Leucaena
leucocephala) in existing condition.
There will be a landscape
pond (wet garden) within the Project Site during operation phase. Similarly, it
will enhance the amenity and landscape value by planting a combination of
native and ornamental, bird-attracting and butterfly-attracting plant species
within and surrounding the pond area. Fauna, including birds and butterflies,
living in the surrounding areas may extend their livelihood activities to the
proposed water body and planting area.
A detailed EM&A Manual has been prepared for this
project as required under the Study Brief and in accordance with Annex 21 of
the EIAO-TM. The following sections
provide a summary of the need for monitoring and auditing of the individual
environmental aspects. Details of which
are also provided in the Project EM&A Manual.
In the course of EIA study, no significant adverse residual impacts on
air quality, noise aspect, water quality, sewerage, waste management, ecology
and fisheries, and landscape and visual aspects are identified with the
proposed mitigation measures in place.
It is expected that the relevant standards/ guidelines can be complied
with after the proposed mitigation measures.
Regular monitoring as well as site inspections and audits have been
recommended for the Project to ensure the effectiveness of the proposed
mitigation measures. Given the findings of EIA study,
it is proposed that real-time monitoring and reporting is not needed for this
Project.
Although the Project is not expected to generate
excessive dust during construction, an EM&A program including regular air
quality monitoring is recommended to ensure compliance with relevant air
quality criteria during the Project construction phase, and the proper
implementation of mitigation measures. The
corresponding implementation schedule is tabulated in Table 14‑1.
The EM&A program will
include monitoring on air quality level during the Project construction phase,
and the implementation of good practices by the works contractor. Details of the EM&A requirements are
provided in the Project EM&A Manual.
No particular monitoring is required during the
Project operational phase.
According to the
construction noise assessment results, with implementation of proper noise
mitigation measures, no residual noise impact is expected. The type of noise mitigation measures and
their implementation schedule are tabulated in Table 14‑1. EM&A programme would be required for the
Project construction works, which is detailed in the Project EM&A Manual.
Operational phase noise
impacts due to road traffic noise levels and that from fixed noise sources have
been examined. As the predicted noise
levels can comply with the relevant noise criteria with the precautionary
measures in place, no further noise mitigation measures are considered to be
necessary and no residual noise impact is anticipated. The concerned precautionary measures that
need to be considered during the detailed design are tabulated in Table 14‑1.
A water quality monitoring and site auditing programme
has been proposed during construction phase, which is included in the EM&A
Manual to ensure that mitigation measures will be implemented to protect the
water bodies in the sensitive area.
Through the implementation of EM&A programme,
effectiveness of recommended mitigation measures will be assessed and the water
quality will be monitored to ensure the relevant water quality criteria can be
complied with and that the water quality at the nearby sensitive receivers
would not deteriorate.
There is
currently no existing public sewerage system in vicinity of the Project Site.
The Project will be connected to the planned public sewer as permanent
scheme. Operation
and maintenance requirements of the interim sewage treatment plant have also
been provided in the EIA and included in the EM&A Manual. With these measures in place, no adverse sewerage impact will be envisaged as a result of the Project. Nevertheless, specific monitoring requirements have been proposed to
monitor and implementation of the interim STP and its performance, which will
also be licensed under the WPCO and implemented under the EP conditions of the
Project. The water
quality at Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel will also be monitored regularly. The satisfaction of no net increase in
loading will be reviewed annually. The EM&A programme is detailed in the Project EM&A Manual.
No unacceptable environmental impacts are expected as
a result of handling, storage, transportation and disposal of construction
waste arising from the proposed development or due to operation of the
Project. Details of the recommended
mitigation measures are described in Chapter 14.
An EM&A programme is recommended to be in place to
check that the waste generated from the construction site are being managed in the
accordance with the recommended procedures.
The programme is detailed in the Project EM&A Manual. No specific EM&A requirements is
recommended during the operational phase.
Ecological monitoring of utilization of the section of Ngau
Tam Mei Drainage Channel within the Assessment Area by birds between October
and March during construction phase is proposed. Baseline surveys will be conducted prior to
the site construction work. Observations
during construction phase monitoring will be compared against the baseline
data, and the effectiveness of the recommended mitigation measures will be evaluated. Regular site audit will be conducted for
checking the implementation of the proposed good site practice.
As no significant fisheries impact is anticipated.
Other than the water quality monitoring programme at nearby water courses/ channels
during the construction phase, no specific fisheries EM&A programme would
be required during the construction and operation phases of the Project.
According to the assessment
findings, no sites of
archaeological interest or areas of archaeological interest, declared/ proposed
monuments, historical villages, cultural landscaped features, and graves were identified within the Study Area. The identified Built Heritage Items (BH1 to
BH4,
i.e. the temple in Chuk Yuen Tsuen and three graded historic buildings in San
Wai Tsuen) (about 250m-280m
from the Project Site) are
considerably far from the Project Site.
No impact during
construction and operational phase is anticipated.
The proposed development will not encroach
upon any known sites of archaeological interest or areas of archaeological
interest, and will not have any
direct or indirect impacts on any
declared monuments, graded or proposed graded historic buildings,
cultural landscape features,
graves or historical village during construction and operational
phases. No specific EM&A requirement is considered necessary.
Tables 11-13 to 11-16 have recommended
that EM&A for landscape and visual resources is undertaken during the design,
construction and operational phases of the project. The design, implementation
and maintenance of landscape mitigation measures should be checked to ensure
that any potential conflicts between the proposed landscape measures and any
other works of the Project would be resolved as early as practical without
affecting the implementation of the mitigation measures.
The proposed mitigation measures for landscape and
visual impacts are summarised in Table
14-1 Implementation Schedule of Recommended Mitigation Measures and shown on Figures 11-11-1 to 11-11-23. These
measures proposed will be incorporated in the detailed landscape, building and
engineering design during design phase.
The construction phase mitigation measures will be adopted and audited from
the commencement of construction throughout the entire construction
period. Mitigation measures for the
operational phase will be adopted during the detailed design and be built as
part of the construction works so that they are in place on commissioning of
the Project.
Based on the findings of this EIA, temporary
fixed noise barriers together with other noise mitigation measures have been proposed
during the construction phase in order to alleviate construction noise impact. The proposed construction phase noise mitigation measures have been
summarised and presented in Figure 4-3A. During the operational phase, noise barriers have been proposed along
the eastern site boundary to alleviate operational noise sources to the east,
which are shown in Figure 4-9.
All domestic sewage generated at the Project will be
discharged to the planned public sewerage.
An interim sewage treatment plant will be
provided if the planned public sewerage is not available at the time of
occupation. The interim
sewage treatment plant will be inside a totally enclosed building and there
will be no net increase of pollution loading during operation of the interim sewage treatment plant (Sections 1.1, 6.9, 6.11, and 6.12 refer).
In addition, other mitigation measures have also been
proposed for both the construction and operational phase of the Project and are
presented in the respective chapters of this EIA report. The implementation schedules for the
recommended mitigation measures for each environmental aspect covered in this
EIA are also tabulated below
as appropriate.
The Project Proponent will
be responsible for funding and implementation of all the mitigation measures,
while the operation and maintenance will be carried out by the future property
management company and the Incorporated Owners. The Project Proponent would
assume the responsibilities of all the mitigation measures contained in the EIA
report until an agreement is reached between the Project Proponent and relevant
parties on the funding, implementation, management and maintenance of
mitigation measures.
Table 14‑1 Implementation Schedule of Recommended
Mitigation Measures
|
EIA Ref. |
EM&A Ref. |
Recommended
Environmental Protection Measures/ Mitigation Measures |
Objectives of the
recommended measures & main concerns to address |
Who to implement
the measures? |
Location / Timing
of implementation of Measures |
What requirements
or standards for the measures to achieve? |
|
Air Quality |
||||||
|
During Construction Phase: |
||||||
|
3.9.1 |
4.9.2 |
Good site management practices are important in reducing
potential air quality impacts. As a general guidance, the contractor shall
maintain high standard of housekeeping to prevent emission of fugitive dust
emission. Loading, unloading, handling
and storage of fuel, raw materials, products, wastes or by-products should be
carried out in a manner so as to minimise the release of visible dust
emission. It is recommended that the active works areas within the construction site to be watered regularly during the construction
period so as to supress dust emission effectively. |
Air Quality (fugitive dust) Control during Construction Phase |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
Annex 4 and Annex 12 of EIAO -TM, Air
Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation |
|
3.9.1 |
4.9.3 |
The speed of the trucks travelling on haul roads within the
Project Site to be controlled at 10 kph in order to reduce dust impact and
for safe movement around the Project Site.
Any piles of materials accumulated on-site to be cleaned up
regularly. Cleaning, repair and
maintenance of all plant facilities within the work areas to be carried out
in a manner without generating fugitive dust emissions. The material to be
handled properly to prevent fugitive dust emission before cleaning. |
Air Quality (fugitive dust) Control during Construction Phase |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
Annex 4 and Annex 12 of EIAO -TM, Air
Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation |
|
3.9.1 |
4.9.4 |
If concrete batching is required on-site, the plant should be
cleaned and watered regularly as a good practice. Cement and other fine grained materials
delivered in bulk should be stored in enclosed silos fitted with high level
alarm indicator. Wet mix batching process is preferred over dry mix
batching. In addition, concrete
batching plant shall comply with the specified process (SP) licence requirements
including specified emission limits and dust control measures. |
Air Quality (fugitive dust) Control during Construction Phase |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
Annex 4 and Annex 12 of EIAO -TM, Air
Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation |
|
3.9.1 |
4.9.5 |
All the relevant dust control measures stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust)
Regulation would be fully implemented: |
Air Quality (fugitive dust) Control during Construction Phase |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
Annex 4 and Annex 12 of EIAO -TM, Air
Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation |
|
3.9.1 |
4.9.5 |
· The
designated haul road should be hard paved to minimize fugitive dust emission; · During the site formation works, the active works areas should be water sprayed with
water browser or sprayed regularly during
the construction period. The
Contractor(s) should ensure that the amount of water spraying is just enough to dampen the exposed surfaces without
over-watering which could result in surface water runoff; ·
Dump trucks
for material transport should be totally enclosed using impervious sheeting; ·
Any excavated
dusty materials or stockpile of dusty materials to be covered by impervious sheeting
or sprayed with water so as to maintain the entire surface wet, and recovered
or backfilled or reinstated as soon as practicable; · Dusty
materials remaining after a stockpile is removed should be wetted with water; · The
area where vehicle washing takes place and the section of the road between
the washing facilities and the exit point should be paved with e.g. concrete,
bituminous materials or hardcore or similar; · The
Contractor(s) shall only transport adequate amount of fill materials to the
Project Site to minimise stockpiling of fill materials on-site, thus reducing
fugitive dust emission due to wind erosion; · Should
temporary stockpiling of dusty materials be required, it shall be either
covered entirely by impervious sheeting, placed in an area sheltered on the
top and the 3 sides; or sprayed with water so as to maintain the entire
surface wet; |
Air Quality (fugitive dust) Control during Construction Phase |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
Annex 4 and Annex 12 of EIAO -TM, Air
Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation |
|
3.9.1 |
4.9.5 |
·
All dusty materials shall be
sprayed with water prior to any loading, unloading or transfer operation so
as to maintain the dusty material wet; ·
Vehicle speed to be limited to 10
kph except on completed access roads; ·
The portion of road leading only
to a construction site that is within 30 m of a designated vehicle entrance
or exit should be kept clear of dusty materials; ·
Every vehicle should be washed to
remove any dusty materials from its body and wheels before leaving the
construction sites; ·
The load of dusty materials
carried by vehicle leaving a construction site should be covered entirely by
clean impervious sheeting to ensure that the dusty materials do not leak from
the vehicle; ·
The working area of excavation
should be sprayed with water before, during and after (as necessary) the
works so as to maintain the entire surface wet; |
Air Quality (fugitive dust) Control during Construction Phase |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
Annex 4 and Annex 12 of EIAO -TM, Air
Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation |
|
3.9.1 |
4.9.5 |
· Use
of effective dust screens, sheeting or netting to be provided to enclose dry
scaffolding which may be provided from the ground floor level of the building
or if a canopy is provided at the first floor level, from the first floor
level, up to the highest level (maximum four floors for this Project) of the
scaffolding where scaffolding is erected around the perimeter of a building
under construction. |
Air Quality (fugitive dust) Control during Construction Phase |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
Annex 4 and Annex 12 of EIAO -TM, Air
Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation |
|
3.9.1 |
4.9.6 |
In
order to minimize potential fugitive dust impacts, the site formation works should be carried out in stages.
Regular site watering will be applied
within the construction site in order to effectively supress dust emission,
and that dusty materials will be properly covered to prevent wind
erosion. Works area shall be properly
covered at the end of working day to minimize wind erosion. |
Air Quality (fugitive dust) Control during Construction Phase |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
EIA |
|
3.9.1 |
4.9.7 |
The
concerned sediment at existing pond is intended to be left in place and not
to be disturbed as far as possible.
However, in case pond sediment is involved during construction at the
abandoned pond area, the following precautionary measures are proposed: |
Odour control during construction |
Contractors |
During construction at the abandoned pond (in case pond sediment is
involved during construction) |
EIA |
|
3.9.1 |
4.9.7 |
·
Exposed surface shall be filled
by filling materials; ·
Malodorous material, if any,
should be placed as far as possible from any ASRs; ·
Malodorous materials should be
covered by plastic tarpaulin sheets; and ·
Regular odour patrol to examine
the effectiveness of the above control measures. |
Odour control during construction |
Contractors |
During construction at the abandoned pond (in case pond sediment is
involved during construction) |
EIA |
|
During Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
3.9.2 |
4.10.6 |
During operation, RCP will be provided for the
residential development. A licensed
waste collector shall be employed to collect domestic waste on daily
basis. |
Odour control during operation |
Project Proponent |
During operational stage |
EIA |
|
3.9.2 |
4.10.3, 4.10.2 |
During the operational stage, an
interim sewage treatment plant is proposed within the Project Site before
connection to the public sewerage system becomes available. Detailed design
of the interim STP has yet been carried out, but the interim sewage treatment
plant will be within a totally enclosed building with biological treatment,
membrane filtration and Reverse Osmosis processes to be located underground.
The concerned facility will only be temporary and will be carefully planned
such that the brine disposal during maintenance (a potential odour source)
will be away from the residential area as much as possible and will be close
to the vehicular access connecting the nearby road. |
Odour control
during operation |
Project Proponent |
During operational stage |
EIA |
|
3.9.2 |
4.10.4 |
The STP will be equipped with odour removal system (with an
odour removal efficiency of not less than 99.5%). In addition, the exhaust of the STP will be
directed away from nearby ASRs. |
Odour control during operation |
Project Proponent |
During operational stage |
EIA |
|
3.9.2 |
4.10.8 |
In terms of vehicular emission impacts, the required minimum separation distance between
air quality sensitive uses of this Project and the edge of nearby roads surrounding the Project Site should be >5m as
stipulated in Chapter 9 of HKPSG. The
current proposed development (with separation distance of 7m to over 104m
between air quality sensitive uses of this Project and the edge of nearby
roads surrounding the Project Site) can satisfy the above-mentioned minimum
separation distance (Figure 3-1
refers). |
Vehicular emission during operation |
Project Proponent/ Project architect |
During operational stage |
EIA, HKPSG |
|
Noise Quality |
||||||
|
During Construction Stage: |
||||||
|
4.8.2 & 4.8.1 |
5.7.3, 5.7.4, & 5.7.6 |
EPD’s quality
powered mechanical equipment (QPME) inventory is reviewed and proposed to be
used wherever possible as a noise mitigation measure. The Contractor of this Project should
diligently seek equivalent models of quiet/ silenced PMEs. Asides from
QPMEs mentioned above, additional noise mitigation measures in terms of movable
noise barriers are also proposed.
Movable noise barriers are proposed to shield construction
plants. The movable noise barriers
should have sufficient surface density of at least 10 kg/m2 or
material providing equivalent acoustic performance to block the line of sight
from the sensitive receivers. There should not be any gaps and openings at
the noise barriers to avoid noise leakage.
The design of the noise barriers shall be proposed by the work
contractor(s), and approved by the Engineer’s Representative (ER) and the
Environmental Team in accordance with the Project EM&A Manual. |
Noise control during construction |
Contractors, ER |
Construction areas near the specified locations during the
construction period |
EIA, Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.3 |
5.7.11 |
It
is also recommended that good housekeeping activities shall also be carried
out to further minimise the potential construction noise impact, and these
are summarised below. The following
good site practices are also recommended for incorporation into the
contractual requirements: |
Noise control during construction |
Contractors, ER |
Construction areas near the specified locations during the
construction period |
EIA, Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.3 |
5.7.11 |
·
Before the
commencement of any work, the Contractor shall submit to the Engineer for
approval the method of working, equipment and sound-reducing measures
intended to be used at the Project Site; ·
Contractor shall
comply with and observe the Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) and its current
subsidiary regulations; ·
Contractor
shall devise and execute working methods that will minimise the noise impact
on the surrounding environment; and shall provide experienced personnel with
suitable training to ensure that these methods are implemented; ·
Only
well-maintained plants should be operated on-site; ·
Plants should
be serviced regularly during the construction programme; ·
Machines that
may be in intermittent use should be shut down or throttled down to a minimum
between work periods; ·
Silencer and
mufflers on construction equipment should be utilised and should be properly
maintained during the construction programme; |
Noise control during construction |
Contractors, ER |
Construction areas near the specified locations during the
construction period |
EIA, Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.3 |
5.7.11 |
·
Noisy
activities can be scheduled to minimise exposure of nearby NSRs to high
levels of construction noise. For
example, noisy activities can be scheduled for midday or at times coinciding
with periods of high background noise (such as during peak traffic hours); ·
Noisy
equipment such as emergency generators shall always be sited as far away as
possible from noise sensitive receivers; ·
Provision of
mobile noise barriers in adjacent to construction plants, piling machine, or
provision of acoustic screens by the
Contractor(s); ·
Mobile plants
should be sited as far away from NSRs as possible; ·
Material
stockpiles and other structures should be effectively utilised as noise
barrier, where practicable; ·
The contractor(s) is also
encouraged to arrange construction activities with care so that concurrent
construction activities are avoided as much as possible. The contractor(s) should closely liaise
with the school so that noisy activities are not undertaken during school’s
examination period. With the above
noise mitigation measures in place and good site practices, residual noise
impact at the school would be temporary and unacceptable noise impact is not
expected; |
Noise control during construction |
Contractors, ER |
Construction areas near the specified locations during the
construction period |
EIA, Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.3 |
5.7.11 |
·
EM&A will be carried out for
this Project during the Project construction phase in order to monitor the
construction noise level and to verify the effectiveness of the noise
mitigation measures. A Project Environmental
Team will be formed as part of the Project EM&A works, which will closely
monitor contractor(s)’ performance and the residual noise level at the
school. Should unacceptable construction noise level be identified during the
construction noise monitoring, necessary actions following the standard Event
and Action Plan specified in the Project EM&A Manual, will be required by
the Project Environmental Team. |
Noise control during construction |
Contractors, ER |
Construction areas near the specified locations during the
construction period |
EIA, Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.9.4 |
5.7.7 to 5.7.10 |
Since
site hoarding will be erected along the site boundary, the proposed temporary
fixed noise barriers may be combined with the site hoarding. It is proposed
that 3m tall temporary fixed noise barrier would be required along the
western site boundary in order to shield N8 (i.e. the Bethel High School)
from construction site of this Project.
Figure 4-8 of EIA report refers. It
shall be noted that these proposed temporary fixed noise barriers are only
required when this Project is constructed concurrently with the nearby
approved EIA projects (namely, the approved cycle track project; the approved
public sewerage project). The
exact alignment and design of these temporary noise barriers is subject to
the contractor(s) and the prior approval from the Engineer’s Representative
(ER). To minimize potential impact,
erection of temporary fixed noise barriers will be carried out section by
section and precast units will be used for the foundation of the noise
barrier. These noise barriers shall be erected before the commencement of
construction works of this Project.
The temporary fixed noise barriers should have sufficient surface density
of at least 10 kg/m2 or material providing equivalent acoustic
performance. There should not be any gaps and openings at the noise barriers
and site hoardings to avoid noise leakage.
The design of the noise barriers shall be proposed by the work contractor(s),
and approved by the Engineer’s Representative (ER) and the Environmental Team
in accordance with the Project EM&A Manual |
Noise control during construction |
Contractors, ER |
Construction areas near the specified locations during the
construction period |
EIA, Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
During Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
4.4.3, 4.8.4 |
5.8.3, 5.8.2 |
The
permissible SWL of STP is 74dB(A). According
to the approved “EIA and TIA Studies for the Stage 2 of PWP Item No.
215DS-Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal”, maximum
permissible SWLs at louvre of sewage pumping station are reported to be in
the range of 64 – 74dB(A) by the same noise mitigation measures such as
acoustic silencer and enclosure. During
detailed design, the acoustic performance of the STP should be reviewed and
acoustic treatments such as provision of acoustic silencer and acoustic
enclosure shall be proposed so that the SWL of STP should be 74dB(A) or below
in order to meet the noise criteria. |
Noise control during operation at STP |
Project architect and Project Proponent |
During detailed design stage and operation |
EIA, Noise Control Ordinance |
|
4.8.4 |
5.8.1 |
Given to the site condition and the presence of industrial noise
sources in adjacent to the Project Site and the proposed interim STP,
proactive noise protection measures have already been incorporated into the
design of the proposed development, which include setback from Kam Pok Road,
placing noise tolerant uses such as the proposed STP (with 10.4mPD at roof
level) between the proposed house and the industrial noise source; a noise
barrier along the remaining eastern site boundary with a minimum 4.5m tall
solid boundary wall; and recommended noise mitigation measures for the
proposed interim STP (as mentioned above). The locations of the
above-mentioned noise barriers and noise tolerant uses as proactive measures
are shown in Figure 4-8. |
Noise control during operation |
Project architect and Project Proponent |
During detailed design stage and operation |
EIA, Noise Control Ordinance |
|
Water Quality |
||||||
|
During Construction Phase: |
||||||
|
5.5 |
6.3.3 |
The Contractor shall apply for a discharge licence under the WPCO and the discharge shall
comply with the terms and conditions of the licence. Contractor(s) of this Project is
required to submit a Construction Phase Drainage Management Plan with details
such as design of the temporary site drainage system; wastewater treatment
facilities; and maintenance of drainage system for the approval of the
Engineers Representative (ER) and the Environmental Team in order to ensure
that the mitigation measures are in place. The concerned drainage management
plan should include recommended mitigation measures as well as best practices
listed out in the EM&A Manual. |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5 |
6.3.4 |
The Drainage Management Plan and recommended mitigation measures
and best practices shall be implemented by the Contractor(s) and inspection
shall be carried out regularly (e.g. weekly) by the Engineer’s Representative
(ER), and Environmental Team (ET) in order to ensure all mitigation measures
are effectively implemented, in particular to ensure that no off-site
spillage of runoff from the project site.
Any deficiencies identified shall be timely rectified by the
Contractor(s). |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
The BMPs given in the ProPECC PN 1/94 shall be implemented in
controlling water pollution during the whole construction phase. The main practices provided in the
above-mentioned document (i.e. ProPECC PN 1/94) are also summarized in the
following paragraphs which should be implemented by the contractor during the
construction phase, where practicable : |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
· High
loading of suspended solids (SS) in construction site runoff shall be
prevented through proper site management by the contractor; |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
· The
boundary of critical work areas shall be surrounded by ditches or
embankment. Accidental release of soil
or refuse into the adjoining land should be prevented by the provision of
site hoarding or earth bunds, etc. at the site boundary. These facilities should be constructed in
advance of site formation works and roadworks; |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Consideration should be given to
plan construction activities to allow the use of natural topography of the
Project Site as a barrier to minimise uncontrolled non-point source discharge
of construction site runoff; |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Temporary ditches, earth bunds
should be provided to facilitate directed and controlled discharge of runoff
into storm drains via sand/ silt removal facilities such as sand traps and
sedimentation basins. Oil and grease
removal facilities should also be provided where appropriate, for example, in
area near plant workshop/ maintenance areas; ·
Sedimentation basins and sand
traps designed in accordance with the requirements of ProPECC Note PN 1/94 should
be installed at the construction site for collecting surface runoff; |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Sand and silt removal facilities,
channels and manholes should be maintained and the deposited silt and grit
should be removed regularly by the contractor, and at the onset of and after
each rainstorm to ensure that these facilities are functioning properly; |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Slope exposure should be minimised
where practicable especially during the wet season. Exposed soil surfaces should be protected
from rainfall through covering the temporary exposed slope surfaces or
stockpiles with tarpaulin or the like; |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Haul roads should be protected by
crushed rock, gravel or other granular materials to minimise discharge of
contaminated runoff; |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Slow down water run-off flowing
across exposed soil surfaces; |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Plant workshop/ maintenance areas
should be bunded and constructed on a hard standing. Sediment traps and oil interceptors should
be provided at appropriate locations; |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Manholes (including newly
constructed ones) should be adequately covered or temporarily sealed so as to
prevent silt, construction materials or debris from getting into the drainage
system; |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Construction works should be
programmed to minimise soil excavation works where practicable during rainy
conditions; |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Chemical stores should be
contained (bunded) to prevent any spills from contact with water bodies. All fuel tanks and/ or storage areas should
provide with locks and be sited on hard surface; |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Chemical waste arising from the
Project Site should be properly stored, handled, treated and disposed of in
compliance with the requirements stipulated under the Waste Disposal
(Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation; |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Drainage facilities must be adequate
for the controlled release of storm flows. |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Vehicle wheel washing facilities
should be provided at the site exit such that mud, debris, etc. attached to
the vehicle wheels or body can be washed off before the vehicles leave the
work site. |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, WPCO, EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Section of the road between the
wheel washing bay and the public road will be paved to reduce vehicle
tracking of soil and to prevent site run-off from entering public road drains |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, WPCO, EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Bentonite slurries, if any to be
generated, shall be reconditioned and reused as far as practicable. Spent bentonite should be kept in a
separate slurry collection system for disposal at a marine spoil grounds
subject to obtaining a marine dumping licence from EPD. If used bentonite slurry is to be disposed
of through public drainage system, it should be treated to meet the
respective applicable effluent standards for discharges into sewers, storm
drains or the receiving waters |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, WPCO, EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Appropriate peripheral drainage system
shall be constructed along the Project Site boundary to divert away surface
runoff in accordance with requirements stipulated in ProPECC PN 1/94 in order
to collect surface runoff and discharge it into the nearby existing
stormwater drains, and via which into the existing NTMDC |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, WPCO, EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Temporary drains, sedimentation
basins, sand traps and similar facilities shall be provided during the
construction works in accordance with the ProPECC PN 1/94. |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, WPCO, EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Sewage generated from the
construction workforce should be contained in chemical toilets before
connection to public foul sewer becomes available. Chemical toilets should be provided at a
minimum rate of about 1 per 50 workers. The facility should be serviced and
cleaned by a specialist contractor at regular intervals; |
Sewage and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.1 |
6.3.5 |
·
Spillage of fuel oils or other
polluting fluids should be prevented at source. It is recommended that all stocks should be
stored inside proper containers and sited on sealed areas, preferably
surrounded by bunds. |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.2 |
6.3.7 |
During
construction, temporary drains, peripheral site drainage comprising precast concrete
u-channels, sedimentation basins, sand traps and similar facilities will
be provided along the Site boundary. Figure 5-3 of EIA report shows the indicative site drainage during construction
phase. The construction of water extraction facility
for interim STP should be carried out in dry season so that to avoid affecting
water quality at the channel. Silt curtain or sand bags should be provided to
carve out the working area so as to bypass the channel flow and to avoid any
solids/materials arising from the construction activities from entering the
channel during construction phase.
The work sites at the NTMDC for construction of
water abstraction facilities should be maintained in dry conditions. Regular visual inspections
should also be carried out by the Environmental Team and Contractor to ensure
there is no spillage into the channel. |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.2 |
6.3.8 |
The existing abandoned pond will be filled up
by imported fill materials. The pond sediment
is intended to be left in place and not to be disturbed as far as
possible. However, in case any
sediment is encountered during construction, preventative measures are
proposed. Temporary access roads of Project Site
should be protected by crushed stone or gravel. Offsite
disposal should be avoided and pond sediment should be re-used on-site. For the purpose of
prevention of soil erosion, temporary exposed surfaces should be covered by
tarpaulin sheets to prevent materials from washing away. Appropriate site drainage should be
provided, as part of the construction phase drainage system, to ensure
surface runoff is properly collected and treated and there should be no
spillage to offsite location. In addition, intercepting channels should be provided along the edge of
pond to divert surface runoff away from this pond and to prevent storm runoff
from washing across exposed surfaces (Figure 5-3 refers). Arrangements should always be in place to
ensure that adequate surface protection measures can be safely carried out
well before the arrival of a rainstorm. |
Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
During construction at existing abandoned pond |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.2 |
6.3.9 |
As the concerned existing abandoned pond will
be filled up to the proposed site formation level
during construction, remaining
water in the pond will be absorbed by soakaway mechanism and no discharge to
off-site location is expected. Site drainage should be provided
around the existing abandoned pond to divert surface runoff away from this
pond during pond filling. Draining of pond water and discharge to
surrounding area should be avoided as far as possible. |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
During construction at the existing abandoned pond |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.2 |
6.3.9 |
In case there is
still surplus pond water, the pond water will be on-site re-used for the construction
activities such as dust suppression and wheel washing facilities to minimize
the water consumption of project as well as the volume of pond water that
needs to be handled. In case there is a
need for disposal, on-site treatment should be proposed by the Contractor(s)
and the discharge of treated effluent will be subject to agreement with EPD
and DSD, where necessary. The contractor(s) will be required to properly treat the water
on-site with the quality
of the treated water complying with the requirement
of the discharge license to be issued by the EPD. |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
5.5.3 |
6.3.10 |
During construction period, in order to
better control potential water pollution due to site runoff during inclement
weather and emergencies, the Contractor(s) will be required to prepare and
implement an Emergency Response Plan (ERP). As a general indication, the ERP should
include but not limited to the design of drainage facilities/ system;
maintenance of drainage system; recommended measures and best practices
identified in the EIA study; an event and action plan during inclement
weather and emergencies condition; emergency procedures and emergency contact
details; and responsibility of relevant parties and follow up actions. In particular, the plan should provide
details of procedure and actions required both before and after forecasted
rainstorm such as checking/ inspection before onset of rainy season/
rainstorm that all drains are cleared from blockage and functioning properly;
checking standby plant and equipment are ready for use; frequency of updating
weather conditions; persons who will implement the measures and follow up
actions; ensuring easily loose construction materials are well covered; more
frequent inspection and cleansing preferably before and after every rainstorm
event. In case of severe weather
condition, upon the instruction from the Engineer’s Representative (ER), to
stop works for the sake of safety reasons. |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
ProPECC PN1/94, Water Pollution Control Ordinance |
|
During Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.12, 6.3.13 |
All domestic sewage generated will be
discharged to the public sewerage system via a proposed rising main from the
Project Site. The discharge from the club house and
swimming pool shall apply for a discharge licence under the WPCO, and the
discharge shall comply with the terms and conditions of a licence and the
standards for effluents specified in the licence, as well as conditions in Environmental Permit. |
Sewage Pollution Control |
Project Proponent to implement, and property management company /
Incorporated Owners to maintain. |
During operation |
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.14, 6.3.12 |
An interim STP will be proposed with discharge
of the treated effluent to the adjacent NTMDC in case the public sewerage is
not available when the Project is in operation. Samples of treated effluent will be taken
regularly and tested according to the discharge licence under the Water
Pollution Control Ordinance to ensure compliance with discharge standards as well as conditions in Environmental Permit of
this Project under the EIAO. |
Sewage Pollution Control |
Project Proponent to implement, and property management company /
Incorporated Owners to maintain |
During operation |
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.14 |
The proposed interim sewerage system will be
designed in such a way to facilitate the future connection to the planned
Ngau Tam Mei sewerage system with the flow direction to be controlled by
several flow control devices such as valves or stop-log, etc. The interim STP will be decommissioned and
converted to a sewage pumping station once the trunk sewer becomes available
for connection. Small amount of
residual sewage left in the interim STP would be tankered away. No sewage will be discharged into the
nearby water body during decommissioning of the interim STP. |
Sewage Pollution Control |
Project Proponent to implement |
During operation |
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.15 |
Precautionary
measures have also been proposed in Section 6.12 and 6.6 of EIA report to
deal with sewage overflow, emergencies
discharge, and change in flow regime. In addition, equalization
tank will be provided in the
STP for temporary storage of sewage in case of outage of the
interim STP, and tank away will be provided for
proper disposal at designated sewage treatment works to be assigned by DSD |
Sewage Pollution Control |
Project Proponent to implement, and property management company /
Incorporated Owners to maintain |
During operation |
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.2 |
6.3.16 |
Best Management
Practices (BMPs) have been proposed for the development, which are summarised
and grouped under the following categories: Design Measures · Exposed surface shall be avoided within the proposed development to
minimize soil erosion. Development
site shall be either hard paved or covered by landscaping area where
possible. · The landscaped open area
should be managed and maintained by the property management company (and its
contractor) during operation. · Paved area of development has been minimized by a
simpler and more effective internal road layout, at
which proposed houses are allocated on both sides of the road. Thus hard paved area of internal access
road as well as increase in surface runoff, can be minimized; ·
The roadside channel surrounding the Project Site will be
retained to maintain the original flow path. The drainage system will be designed
to avoid flooding; |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Project Proponent to implement, and property management company /
Incorporated Owners to maintain |
During operation |
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.2 |
6.3.16 |
· Drainage system of the development shall be designed
in such a way that surface runoff from the residential area is directed
towards the internal access road, where appropriate drainage system with
control facilities have been proposed.
Additional paved U-channels with screening facilities are also provided
along site boundary to avoid uncontrolled spillage of runoff. ·
Street level
tree planting should be introduced along roadside of internal access road,
which can help to reduce soil erosion and as a buffer zone between the
residential area and the drainage system along roadside. · Broadleaf and evergreen species, which in general
generate relatively smaller amount of fallen leaves, should be selected where
possible (e.g. at landscape berm at the periphery of the site). · Fertilizer will only be applied on landscape area
when needed. If required, the
fertilizer should be applied in early Spring and in later summer in order to
avoid major rainy season as far as possible.
Slow release fertilizer should be selected as far as possible to
minimize the amount of nutrient to be washed out by rain. Application of fertilizer should not be
arranged before forecasted heavy rainfall, and over dosing should be
avoided. Application of fertilizer should
be managed by an experienced contractor through the property management company. |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Project Proponent to implement, and property management company /
Incorporated Owners to maintain |
During operation |
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.2 |
6.3.16 |
Devices/ Facilities to Control Pollution · Screening facilities such as standard gully grating and trash grille,
with spacing which is capable of screening off large substances such as
fallen leaves and rubbish should be provided at the inlet of drainage system
as well as at upstream location of the u-channels. ·
Road gullies with
standard design and silt traps and oil interceptors should be incorporated
during the detailed design to remove particles present in stormwater
runoff. ·
Drainage
outlet of any covered car park should be connected to foul sewers via petrol
interceptors or similar facilities. |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Project Proponent to implement, and property management company /
Incorporated Owners to maintain |
During operation |
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.2 |
6.3.16 |
In the event of emergency (e.g. car accident)
where there is a major spillage of oil, chemical or fuel, dispersants or firefighting
foam, etc., a system of contaminant bunding will be implemented as
appropriate. |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Project Proponent to implement, and property management company /
Incorporated Owners to maintain |
During operation |
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.2 |
6.3.18 |
Good management
measures such as regular cleaning and sweeping of road surface/ open areas is
suggested. The
road surface/ open area cleaning should also be carried out prior to
occurrence of rainstorm |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Project Proponent to implement, and property management company /
Incorporated Owners to maintain |
During operation |
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.2 |
6.3.19 |
Stormwater gullies and ditches provided among
the residential development will be regularly inspected and cleaned (e.g.
monthly) by the property management company. Additional inspection and
cleansing should be carried out if heavy rainfall is forecasted. |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Project Proponent to implement, and property management company /
Incorporated Owners to maintain |
During operation |
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.2 |
6.3.20 |
During operation,
in order to control/ minimize water pollution during inclement weather and
emergencies, an Emergency Response Plan should be established and
implemented. As a
general indication, the ERP should include but not limited to record plans of
drainage facilities/ system; maintenance of drainage system; recommended
measures and best practices identified in the EIA study; an event and action
plan during inclement weather and emergencies condition; emergency procedures
and emergency contact details; and responsibility of relevant parties and
follow up actions. In particular, the plan should provide
details of procedure and actions required both before and after forecasted
rainstorm such as checking/ inspection before onset of rainy season/
rainstorm that all drains are cleared from blockage and functioning properly;
checking standby plant and equipment are ready for use; frequency of updating
weather conditions; persons who will implement the measures and follow up
actions; more frequent inspection and cleansing preferably before and after
every rainstorm event. |
Stormwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Project Proponent to implement, and property management company /
Incorporated Owners to maintain |
During operation |
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
Sewerage and Sewage Treatment |
||||||
|
During Construction Phase: |
||||||
|
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
During Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
6.5 |
7.2.1 |
With
reference to the routing of the planned trunk sewerage in the vicinity,
sewage from the Project Site is proposed to be discharged to the planned public
gravity trunk sewer via a rising main to be constructed and maintained by the
subject development for eventual discharge to the existing YLSTW. The
proposed rising main for conveying sewage from the Project Site to the future
public sewer will be in the form of twin rising mains, so as to provide
continued operation of the pumping system when one of the mains is
damaged. The rising main will run
underneath the internal roads within the Project Site and then northward
along Kam Pok Road to a new sewage manhole at immediate upstream of San Tin
No.1 Sewage Pumping Station. The
section of rising main within the development will be constructed before the
occupation intake to minimize disruption to the residents. The construction
programme of the remaining rising main along public road will be discussed
with relevant departments at later stage to cope with the construction
programme of the trunk sewerage project. Agreements
will be sought from all relevant authorities for the construction of the
proposed sewerage, connection to the planned public sewerage system, and the
associated future maintenance responsibility. |
Sewage management during operation |
Project Proponent |
During operation stage (permanent scheme) |
EIA, WPCO, Contractual requirements |
|
6.6 |
7.1.2 |
In
view of the programme gap between the provision of public sewerage and the
occupation of the proposed development, it is necessary to consider the
provision of STP as an interim measure to handle the sewage generated from
the development before the availability of public sewerage for
connection. To minimize disturbance to the residents, all sewers
within the development for connection to the public system in the future will
also be constructed together with the construction of this Project. |
Sewage management during operation |
Project Proponent |
During operation stage |
EIA, WPCO, Contractual requirements |
|
6.7 |
7.2.4 |
The treated effluent will be discharged into the new
drainage system within the development and conveyed to the adjacent Ngau Tam
Mei Channel via existing twin cell box culvert. The channel water will be co-treated in the interim
STP with the sewage generated by the development. Considering the influent
characteristic, the process of biological treatment, membrane filtration and
Reverse Osmosis (such as MBR + RO), is proposed for the interim STP. The interim STP will adopt RO system after membrane
filtration process to further polish the effluent quality in order to cover
fluctuation of pollutants in Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel water, to ensure
that the Target Effluent Quality can be met. After
successful operation of the interim STP for a period not less than one year,
and the end of year result showing no net increase in pollution loading is
confirmed, the operation frequency of the RO system will then be reviewed. Before reviewing the performance of the RO system, sufficient
performance data including influent quality and effluent quality of the RO
system should be collected. The RO system can be served as a backup process
to further polish the upstream effluent and eliminate the residual pollution
loads of the STP, competent personnel will be responsible to constantly
review the effluent water quality and decide the need of the RO system as it
is readily available for operation when upstream system experienced
deficiency in handling the fluctuation of the influent. |
Sewage management during operation |
Project Proponent |
During operation stage |
EIA, WPCO, Contractual requirements |
|
6.10 |
7.2.11 |
In order to offset the additional pollution
load due to the development, it is proposed to abstract water from Ngau Tam
Mei Drainage Channel for co-treatment in the interim STP. The water
abstraction facility which is to be located within the application site is
subject to detailed design and relevant approval for construction access and
government land matters. The
construction of water abstraction facility should be carried out in dry
season. Silt curtain or sand bags
should be provided to carve out the working area so as to bypass the channel
flow and to avoid any solids/materials arising from the construction
activities from entering the channel during construction phase. The work sites at the NTMDC for
construction of water abstraction facilities should be maintained in dry
conditions. Regular visual inspections should also be carried out by the
Environmental Team and Contractor to ensure there is no spillage into the
channel. |
Sewage management during operation |
Project Proponent / Contractor |
During construction of water abstraction facility |
EIA, WPCO, Contractual requirements |
|
6.11 |
7.2.6 |
Proper operation and maintenance
of interim sewage treatment plant is essential to safeguard the quality of
discharge effluent, subject to the following aspects: ·
Competent
technicians to be employed by the development management office to operate
the sewage treatment plant (STP). They
are to be fully conversant with the operating procedures as stipulated in the
operation and maintenance manuals. ·
The proposed
STP only serves the proposed development and thus the operation and
maintenance (O&M) cost would be borne by the future management office of
the development. The Applicant will ensure the design of STP is
cost-effective such that the O&M cost imposed is reasonable. ·
The STP is to
be kept in a tidy state. This includes regular hosing down, scraping of the walkways, whitewashing the walls,
cleaning and painting the metalwork, and maintaining adequate lighting and
ventilation. |
Sewage management during operation |
Project Proponent |
During operation stage |
EIA, WPCO, Contractual requirements |
|
6.11 |
7.2.6 |
·
Where parts
of the STP are sited beneath ground, forced ventilation will be provided. ·
Online sensors will be installed in the STP to monitor the
parameters of Ammonia, Nitrite & Nitrate, and TSS. Easily accessible
sampling point will also be provided for sampling of the treated effluent for
laboratory testing. ·
Turbidity meter will be installed at the outlet of
membrane filtration as well as the outlet of Reverse Osmosis (RO) to indicate
the efficiency of pollutant removal from the corresponding process units,
adjustment of RO system can then be made to suit the variation of pollutants. ·
Samples of treated effluent and abstracted channel water
will be documented weekly, such that the lows and highs of the pollutant
variations can be captured. Results will be compared against the total annual
loadings, adjustment of water abstraction amount, membrane backwash
frequency, RO unit operation will be fine-tuned to ensure effluent quality meet
discharge license under the Water Pollution Control Ordinance and the target
effluent quality in Table 6-6. ·
Based on the pollutant offsetting approach, co-treating
sewage with abstracted channel water will be subject to the amount of
pollutants in the channel water for offsetting. The proposed target effluent quality of the
STP has taken it into account. The annual pollution loading in
abstracted channel water (kg) and annual pollution loading in effluent of the
interim STP (kg) would be balanced. ·
A check and balance system monitor the pollutant loading
every week. Monthly or quarterly report shall be submitted. By the end of
each year, the exceeding and shortcoming amount will be balanced to quantify
no net increase in pollutant loading achieved based on total pollutant
reduction of the year. ·
The production of sludge is estimated to be approx.
4 m3/d. While the reject water from the RO unit is normally
around 20% of the influent depends on the quality of RO influent. The sludge
and reject water will be transported by tankers from the interim private STP
to government’s STW for offsite treatment. A storage tank with capacity of
150 m3 will be provided for storage of the RO reject water. ·
The Project Proponent will be responsible for the future
sewer connection upon its available in the future and STP decommissioning
with connection details subject to agreement of DSD. Appropriate conditions
could be imposed in the Environmental Permit (EP) to ensure the EP holder to
take up the responsibility to ensure connection to public sewer when trunk
sewer is ready. ·
The Project Proponent will be responsible for the
maintenance of the proposed water abstraction facilities and the associated
pipelines. The proposed water abstraction
facilities will be decommissioned together with the interim STP once the
public sewer becomes available. · The discharge of treated effluent from the interim
STP should follow the discharge licence requirements under the WPCO as well
as the terms and conditions specified in the EP under the EIAO. |
Sewage management during operation |
Project Proponent |
During operation stage |
EIA, WPCO, Contractual requirements |
|
6.12 |
7.2.8 |
The following measures will be adopted
in order to eliminate adverse impact due to potential sewage overflow,
emergencies discharge and change in flow regime beyond the expectation of
this assessment: ·
Adequate
spare parts for the plant will have to be made readily available by storage. ·
Qualified personnel will be hired to inspect the plant
condition and carry out maintenance on a regular basis. ·
Regular test, maintenance and replacement of membranes and
plant equipment will be carried out in accordance to the recommendations from
manufacturers or as recommended by the qualified personnel after inspection. ·
Equalization tank with capacity of 168 m3 (~ 3
days of sewage storage depending on actual flow condition) will be provided
in case of entire outage of the interim STP. ·
Tank away will be provided for prolonged outage of the
interim STP, for disposal of sewage to Government operated public sewage
treatment works to be assigned by DSD. In case of abnormal effluent
quality is detected from water sampling, discharge of treated effluent will be
suspended and all sewage will be diverted to the equalization tank for
temporary storage until the problem is rectified. In case of entire outage of the STP,
channel water will not be abstracted from Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel. And if prolonged outage of the interim STP
is anticipated, tankers will be arranged to transport the sewage for disposal
to Government operated public sewage treatment works to be assigned by DSD. |
Sewage management during operation |
Project Proponent |
During operation stage |
EIA, WPCO, Contractual requirements |
|
Waste Management |
||||||
|
During Construction Phase: |
||||||
|
7.4.4 |
8.3.2 |
Cross contamination of inert C&D materials by other waste
categories shall be minimised as far as practicable through provision of storage
facilities for storage of different categories of waste. Inert materials
including soil, rock, concrete, brick, cement plaster/ mortar, inert building
debris, aggregates and asphalt should be segregated from and stored
separately from other waste categories to ensure proper handling and reuse.
The on-site temporary facilities should be equipped with dust control
measures where necessary. |
Waste management during construction |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
EIA, Waste Disposal Ordinance, ETWB TC(W) No. 19/2005 |
|
7.4.4 |
8.3.32 |
Spent bentonite slurries, if any, will be handled and disposed
of properly in accordance with the requirements set out in the Practice Note for
Professional Persons (PN1/94) Construction Site Drainage. |
Waste management during construction |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
EIA, Waste Disposal Ordinance, ETWB TC(W) No. 19/2005, PN1/94. |
|
7.4.4 |
8.3.2 |
Wooden boards can be reused on-site or off-site, though the
reusability and quantity of final waste to be generated will be subject to
the quality, size and shape of the boards proposed by the contractor(s). Timbers which cannot be reused shall be sorted
and stored separately from all other inert waste before disposal |
Waste management during construction |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
EIA, Waste Disposal Ordinance,ETWB TC(W) No. 19/2005 |
|
7.4.4 |
8.3.3 |
Should construction site hoarding be erected, metal fencing or
building panels, which are more durable than wooden panels, are recommended
to be used as far as practicable.
Opportunity shall also be sought to re-use any wooden boards used in
site fencing on-site or off-site.
Concrete and masonry can be crushed and used as fill material if
practicable. On-site burning of wooden waste is prohibited |
Waste management during construction |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
EIA, Waste Disposal Ordinance, ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005 |
|
7.4.4 |
8.3.4 |
In order to avoid dust, odour and erosion impacts, any stockpile
areas within the Project Site should be covered with tarpaulin or impermeable
sheeting. Any vehicle carrying C&D waste should have their load covered
when leaving the works area. Vehicles should be routed as far as possible to
avoid sensitive receivers in the area |
Waste management during construction |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
EIA, Waste Disposal Ordinance, ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005 |
|
7.4.5 |
8.3.5 |
Chemical waste that could be generated from construction works
would primarily arise from chemicals used in operation and maintenance of
on-site equipment. These may include fuel, oil, lubricants, cleaning fluids,
and solvents arising from leakage or maintenance of on-site equipment and
vehicles. Chemical generated from
daily operation of the construction works shall be recycled/ reused on-site
as far as practicable |
Waste management during construction |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
|
7.4.5 |
8.3.6 |
If off-site disposal of chemical waste is required, they should
be collected and delivered by a licensed contractor, and disposed of strictly
following the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
Waste management during construction |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
|
7.4.5, 7.5.3 |
8.3.7 |
The contractors shall register with EPD as chemical waste
producers when chemical waste is produced. All chemical waste shall be
properly stored, labelled, packaged and collected in accordance with the
Regulation. |
Waste management during construction |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
|
7.4.5 |
8.3.7 |
Fossil fuel and used lubricants from trucks and machinery are
classified as chemical waste. |
Waste management during construction |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
|
7.4.5 |
8.3.8 |
Chemical waste generated has to be stored in suitable containers
and away from water bodies so that leakage or spillage is prevented during the
handling, storage, and subsequent transportation |
Waste management during construction |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
|
7.4.5 |
8.3.9 |
The Contractor shall prevent fuel and lubricating oil leakage
from plant and storage sites from contaminating the construction site. All compounds in work areas shall be
positioned on areas with hard paving and served by drainage facility. Sand/ silt traps and oil interceptors shall
be provided at appropriate locations prior to the discharge points |
Waste management during construction |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
|
7.4.6 |
8.3.10 |
General refuse
generated at the construction site should be stored separately from
construction and chemical wastes to avoid cross contamination. A reliable
waste collector shall be employed by the Contractor to remove general refuse
from the construction site on a daily basis where appropriate to minimise the
potential odour, pest and litter impacts |
Waste management during construction |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005 |
|
7.4.6 |
8.3.11 |
Open burning for the disposal of construction waste or the
clearance of the Project Site in preparation for construction work is
prohibited under the Air Pollution Control (Open Burning) Regulation |
Waste management during construction |
Contractors |
At all construction areas of the site during the entire construction
period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, Air Pollution
Control (Open Burning) Regulation |
|
7.5 |
8.3.12 |
To ensure the appropriate handling of the C&D materials, it
is recommended that a Waste Management Plan (WMP) shall be developed by the
contractor and incorporated in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) in
accordance with ETWB TCW No. 19/2005 – Environmental Management on
Construction Sites at the commencement of the construction works. |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.14 |
In
formulating the EMP in respect to waste management, the following hierarchy
should be considered: · Avoidance and
minimization to reduce the potential quantity of C&D materials generated; · Reuse of
materials as practical as possible; · Recovery and
Recycling as practical as possible; and · Proper
treatment and disposal in respect to relevant laws, guidelines and good
practice. |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.12 |
The EMP shall be submitted to the Engineer’s Representative (ER)
and the Project Environmental Team Leader (ETL) for approval, and shall be
implemented throughout the Project. |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.15 |
The EMP should be developed taking
into account the recommended control measures given in the EIA report where
appropriate, including: |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.15 |
·
A waste management policy,
organization chart, and responsibility |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.15 |
·
An estimation on the location, type,
nature, quality and quantity of different waste streams to be generated from
the Project works, and the corresponding waste management methodology |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.15 |
·
A method statement for demolition
and transportation of the excavated materials and other construction wastes |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.15 |
·
The potential for recycling or
reuse should be explored and opportunities taken if waste generation is
unavoidable |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.15 |
·
Recommendations for appropriate
disposal routes if waste cannot be recycled. |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.15 |
·
A system to control the disposal
of C&D materials and C&D waste to public fill reception facilities,
sorting facilities and landfills respectively through a trip-ticket system in
accordance with the PNAP ADV-19 |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.15 |
·
A system to record the disposal,
reuse and recycling of C&D materials/ wastes for monitoring purposes |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.15 |
·
The EMP should be approved before
the commencement of construction. All mitigation measures in the approved EMP
should be fully implemented. |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.16 |
·
The Project Proponent/ ER will ensure
that the day-to-day operations comply with the approved EMP. |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.16 |
·
The Project Proponent/ ER shall
require the contractor to separate public fill from C&D waste for
disposal at appropriate facilities. In addition, the Project Proponent/ ER
shall regularly audit Contractor(s)’ records for the disposal, reuse and
recycling of C&D materials for monitoring purposes. |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.17 |
Based
on the above waste management recommendations, a detailed management and
control plan shall be formulated during the detailed design stage. A good
management and control can prevent the generation of significant amount of
waste. On-site sorting of construction
wastes will be recommended. Secondary on-site sorting can be achieved by
avoiding the generation of “mixed waste” through good site control. Construction wastes shall be sorted to
remove contaminants, with the inert materials broken up into small pieces
before being transported to the public fill reception facilities. |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.18 |
Chemical
and oily wastes generated from the construction activities, vehicle and plant
maintenance and oil interceptors should be disposed of as chemical waste in
strict compliance with the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General)
Regulations |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
EIA, Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
|
7.5 |
8.3.19 |
The
demolition and construction work shall be considered in the planning and
design stages to reduce the generation of C&D waste where possible.
Landfill disposal shall only be considered as the last resort |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.20 |
Construction
methods with minimum waste generation quantity and other environmental
impacts shall be considered in the detailed design |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.21 |
In
addition, the Project Proponent shall require the contractor to reuse inert
C&D materials (e.g. excavated soil) on-site or in other suitable
construction sites as far as possible, in order to minimize the disposal of
C&D materials to public fill reception facilities |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.21 |
The
Project Proponent shall encourage the contractor to maximize the use of
recycled or recyclable C&D materials, as well as the use of non-timber
formwork to further minimize the generation of construction waste. |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.22 |
The following additional control/ mitigation
measures are recommended to be followed by the Contractor |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.22 |
·
Storage of different waste types – different types
of waste should be segregated and stored in different containers, skips or
stockpiles to enhance reuse or recycling of materials and their proper
disposal. An on-site temporary storage
area equipped with required control measures (e.g. dust control) should be
provided; |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.22 |
·
Trip-ticket system – in order to monitor the proper
disposal of non-inert C&D waste to landfills and to control fly-tipping,
a trip-ticket system should be included as one of the contractual
requirements and audited by the Environmental Team; |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.22 |
· Records of
Wastes – a recording system should be proposed to record the amount of wastes
generated, recycled and disposed of (including the location of disposal sites); |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.22 |
· Training –
The contractor should provide his workers with proper training of appropriate
waste management procedure to achieve waste reduction as far as practicable
and cost-effective through recovery, reuse and recycling and avoid
contamination of reusable C&D materials; |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.22 |
·
Incorporate good practice in “Recommended Pollution
Control Clauses for Construction Contracts” published by EPD in respect to
removal of waste material from the construction site into the contract of the
contractor. |
Waste management during construction |
ER, Project Proponent |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5 |
8.3.24 |
In additional to the above, the following
construction waste pollution clauses shall be included in construction
contracts: |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.1 |
8.3.24 |
·
The Contractor shall submit to
the Engineer for approval a waste management plan with appropriate mitigation
measures including the allocation of an area for waste segregation and shall
ensure that the day-to-day site operations comply with the approved waste
management plan. |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.1 |
8.3.25 |
·
The Contractor shall minimise the
generation of waste from his work. Avoidance and minimisation of waste
generation can be achieved through changing or improving design and
practices, careful planning and good site management. |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.1 |
8.3.26 |
·
The Contractor shall ensure that
different types of wastes are segregated on-site and stored in different
containers, skips or stockpiles to facilitate reuse/recycling of waste and,
as the last resort, disposal at different outlets as appropriate |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.1 |
8.3.27 |
·
The reuse and recycling of waste
shall be practised as far as possible. The recycled materials shall include
paper/cardboard, timber and metal etc. |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.1 |
8.3.28 |
· The
Contractor shall ensure that Construction and Demolition (C&D) materials are
sorted into public fill (inert portion) and C&D waste (non-inert
portion). The public fill which comprises soil, rock, concrete, brick, cement
plaster/mortar, inert building debris, aggregates and asphalt shall be reused
in earth filling, reclamation or site formation works. The C&D waste
which comprises metal, timber, paper, glass, junk and general garbage shall
be reused or recycled and, as the last resort, disposal of at landfills. |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.1 |
8.3.29 |
· The
Contractor shall record the amount of wastes generated, recycled and disposed
of (including the disposal sites) |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.1 |
8.3.30 |
· The
Contractor shall implement a trip ticket system in accordance with the
Construction and Demolition Waste in PNAP ADV-19 for public fill, C&D materials and C&D waste to public fill
reception facilities, sorting facilities and landfills respectively |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.1 |
8.3.31 |
· Training
shall be provided for workers about the concepts of site cleanliness and
appropriate waste management procedure, including waste reduction, reuse and
recycling |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.2 |
8.3.33 |
· The
Contractor shall not permit any sewage, wastewater or effluent containing sand,
cement, silt or any other suspended or dissolved material to flow from the
Project Site onto any adjoining land or allow any waste matter [or refuse]
which is not part of the final product from waste processing plants to be
deposited anywhere within the Project Site [or onto any adjoining land]. He
shall arrange removal of such matter from the Project Site [or any building
erected or to be erected thereon] in a proper manner to the satisfaction of
the Engineer in consultation with the Director of Environmental Protection |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste Disposal Ordinance, PNAP
ADV-19, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.3 |
8.3.34 |
· The
Contractor shall observe and comply with the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste)
(General) Regulation |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
|
7.4.3 & 7.5.4 |
8.2.5 to 8.2.6, & 8.3.23 |
Minimization/
Avoidance of Excavation of Pond Sediment During
construction, the concerned abandoned pond within Project Site will be filled
up. The concerned pond sediment is
intended to be left in place and not to be disturbed as far as possible. However, should pond sediment be
encountered during construction, it should be temporarily stored and re-used
on-site and no offsite disposal is expected (for example, re-use as fill
material during site formation stage.
Subject to detailed design stage, mixing pond sediment with cement
material may be required so that its
quality can meet the engineering requirements). If
solidified materials will not be reused on-site and to be used as public
filling materials, prior approval from Public Fill Committee of Civil
Engineering and Development Department should be sought beforehand in
accepting the solidified materials at public fill. As
this Project will require imported fill materials in order to raise the site
level to the proposed site formation level, this also provides an incentive
for contractor(s) to reduce the amount of materials to be excavated provided
that the materials can be re-used and its quality can meet the engineering
requirements. The Contractor(s) will be required to minimize the amount of materials
to be excavated and to re-use excavated materials on-site. |
Waste management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout the entire construction period |
EIA, Waste Disposal Ordinance.PNAP ADV-19 |
|
During Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
7.6 |
8.4.1 |
Refuse collection points (RCP) will be
provided for the residential development.
A licensed waste collector shall be employed to collect domestic waste
on daily basis. |
Waste management during operation |
Project Proponent |
During operation |
EIA, Waste Disposal Ordinance |
|
7.6 |
8.4.2 |
Separate collection bins for used aluminium
cans, waste paper and plastic bottles should be provided at strategic
locations within the residential development area and adjacent to the passive
recreational facilities in order to promote and encourage recycling during
the operational phase |
Waste management during operation |
Project Proponent |
During operation |
EIA, Waste Disposal Ordinance |
|
Ecology |
||||||
|
During
Construction Phase: |
||||||
|
8.9.2 |
10.4.1 |
Site hoarding made of opaque, non-reflective
materials and painted with colour blending with the environment should be
erected to properly delineate the works site boundary and screen disturbance
to the nearby habitats before the wintering season of waterbirds from October
to March during construction phase. |
Reduce the potential disturbance to wildlife utilizing habitats near
the Project Area |
Construction contractor |
Works area before construction
phase |
EIA |
|
8.9.2 |
10.4.2 |
Construction noise will be minimised
by the use of quiet construction piling method (non-percussive) and
quiet/silenced equipment (QPMEs), provision of mobile noise barriers in
adjacent to construction plants or provision of acoustic screens by the
Contractor(s). |
Reduction of potential impact from construction noise |
Construction contractor |
Works area during construction phase |
EIA, NCO |
|
8.9.2 |
10.4.2 |
Measures proposed in compliance with
the Noise Control Ordinance will also be enforced and monitored as a
mitigation measure under the Noise Impact Assessment (details see Chapter 4
of this report). |
Reduction of potential impact from construction noise |
Construction contractor |
Works area during construction phase |
EIA, NCO |
|
8.9.2 |
10.4.3 |
Dust control measures listed in
Section 3.9.1 of this report |
Avoid construction impacts due to dust |
Construction contractor |
Works area during construction phase |
EIA, APCO |
|
8.9.2 |
10.4.4 |
Submission of a Construction Phase Drainage
Management Plan with details such as design of the temporary site drainage system;
wastewater treatment facilities; and maintenance of drainage system for the
approval of the Engineers Representative (ER) and the Environmental Team in
order to ensure that the mitigation measures are in place. |
Avoid impact to aquatic habitat due to water quality deterioration |
Construction contractor |
Works area during construction phase |
EIA, WPCO |
|
8.9.2 |
10.4.5 |
Good site practice and precautionary
measures (e.g. those in Section 5.5 of the EIA report. |
Avoid construction impacts due to runoff |
Construction contractor |
Works area during construction phase |
EIA, WPCO |
|
8.9.2 |
10.4.6 |
Good
site practice listed
as follows would
be implemented to minimise potential impacts due to noise, dust and runoff on the surrounding environment. ·
Regular checking should be undertaken
to ensure that the work site boundaries are not exceeded and that no damage
occurs to surrounding areas; ·
Implementation of mitigation
measures specified in ProPECC PN 1/94 to control site runoff and drainage at
all work sites during construction; ·
Implementation of noise control
measures at all construction sites to reduce impacts of construction noise to
wildlife habitats adjacent works areas; ·
Implementation of dust control
measures at all construction sites to minimise dust nuisance to adjacent wildlife
habitats during construction activities; |
Avoid
construction impacts |
Construction
contractor |
Whole
construction site |
EIA |
|
8.9.2 |
10.4.6 |
·
Construction debris and spoil
should be covered up and/or properly disposed of as soon as possible to avoid
being washed into nearby waterbodies by rain; ·
Construction effluent, site
run-off and sewage should be properly collected and/or treated. Wastewater
from a construction site should be managed with the following approach in
descending order; ·
Dusty materials remaining after a
stockpile is removed should be wetted with water; ·
All dusty materials shall be
sprayed with water prior to any loading, unloading or transfer operation so
as to maintain the dusty material wet; ·
Proper locations for discharge
outlets of wastewater treatment facilities well away from the natural
streams/rivers should be identified; and ·
Supervisory staff should be
assigned to station on site to closely supervise and monitor the works. |
Avoid construction impacts |
Construction contractor |
Whole construction site |
EIA |
|
8.10 |
10.2.2 – 10.2.4 |
·
Conduct
baseline survey of bird uses of
the section of Ngau Tam Mei drainage channel within the Assessment Area |
Provide baseline information for evaluation
of effectiveness of the recommended mitigation measure to minimise impact to
birds in Ngau Tam Mei drainage channel from disturbance during construction
phase |
Construction contractor |
Prior to commencement of site construction
works; Section of Ngau Tam Mei drainage channel
within the Assessment Area |
EIA |
|
8.10 |
10.2.5 – 10.2.6 |
·
Monitoring of
bird uses of the section of Ngau Tam Mei drainage channel within the
Assessment Area between October and March annually |
Evaluate the effectiveness of the recommended
mitigation measure to minimise impact to birds in Ngau Tam Mei drainage
channel from construction disturbance |
Construction contractor |
During construction phase; Section of Ngau Tam Mei drainage channel
within the Assessment Area |
EIA |
|
8.10 |
10.2.7 |
·
Regular
site audit on weekly basis. |
Checking the
implementation of good site practice during construction phase |
Construction
contractor |
Works area during
construction phase |
EIA |
|
During Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
8.9.2 |
10.5.1 |
Minimization of bird
collision will be taken into account in the design of noise barrier. Materials which are opaque, non-reflective
panels with colour will be used for construction of noise barriers to reduce
the risk of bird collision, particularly under dim condition (e.g., dusk and
dawn) to reduce bird collision. |
Avoidance/ minimization of bird collision |
Property management company; incorporated
owners |
Noise
barrier along eastern site boundary |
EIA |
|
8.9.2 |
10.5.2 |
Extent of glass panels of the
noise barrier will be reduced by incorporation of the interim sewage
treatment plant as part of the noise mitigation measures. |
Avoidance/ minimization of bird collision |
Property management company; incorporated
owners |
Noise
barrier along eastern site boundary |
EIA |
|
8.9.2 |
10.5.3 |
Setback area (with houses at
least 30m from the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel) on the western side of the
Project Area will increase the distance between houses and Ngau Tam Mei
Drainage Channel. |
Minimise the potential
disturbance to waterbirds in the channel due to human activities and noise. |
Property management company; incorporated
owners |
During operation |
EIA |
|
8.9.2 |
10.5.4 |
A continuous 5-8m wide
landscape buffer will be included in the northern, eastern and western
boundary of the Project Area. |
Minimize the potential impact
to wildlife in the surrounding areas, particularly waterbirds in the Ngau Tam
Mei Drainage Channel, due to human activities and noise in the Project Area
during operation phase. |
Property management company; incorporated
owners |
During operation |
EIA |
|
8.9.2 |
10.5.5 |
The layout proposed will only
involve the construction of low-rise buildings with a maximum height of
6.6m. |
Minimize the potential barrier
effect to bird flights |
Property management company; incorporated
owners |
During operation |
EIA |
|
Fisheries |
||||||
|
During Construction Phase: |
||||||
|
9.7 |
10.6.3 |
Standard
site practice detailed in Chapter 5 of the EIA would be implemented to avoid or
minimise the impacts on water quality on site, which are summarized as
follows: |
Avoid
causing water quality impacts on the surround watercourses |
Construction
contractor |
Works area
during construction |
EIA, WPCO |
|
9.7 |
10.6.3 |
- Implementation of mitigation measures specified in ProPECC
PN 1/94 to control site runoff and drainage at all work sites during
construction; - Construction debris and spoil should be covered up
and/or properly disposed of as soon as possible to avoid being washed into
nearby waterbodies by rain; |
Avoid
causing water quality impacts on the surround watercourses |
Construction
contractor |
Works area
during construction |
EIA, WPCO |
|
9.7 |
10.6.3 |
·
Construction
effluent, site run-off and sewage should be properly collected and/or
treated; ·
Proper
locations for discharge outlets of wastewater treatment facilities well away
from the natural streams/rivers should be identified; and ·
Supervisory
staff should be assigned to station on site to closely supervise and monitor
the works |
Avoid causing water quality impacts on the
surround watercourses |
Construction contractor |
Works area during construction |
EIA, WPCO |
|
9.6.2 |
10.6.4 |
Provide adequate site drainage to
ensure that site runoff and wastewater will be properly contained and treated
prior to discharge into the surrounding water courses. |
Avoid causing water quality impacts on the
surround watercourses |
Construction contractor |
Works area during construction |
EIA, WPCO |
|
During Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Cultural Heritage |
||||||
|
During Construction Phase: |
||||||
|
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
During Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Landscape and Visual |
||||||
|
Landscape Mitigation Measures |
||||||
|
During Construction Phase: |
||||||
|
11.9, Table 11-13 |
Table 9.1 CP1 |
Preservation of Existing
Vegetation: |
|
|
|
|
|
11.9.5 |
CP1.1 |
Avoid disturbance to the
existing trees and vegetation as far as practicable within the works areas. |
Coordinate with the layout and
design of the engineering and architectural works to minimise the disturbance
on existing trees. |
Project Architects/Landscape
Architects (Detailed Design Consultants)/ Engineers/ Contractor |
Site / Throughout the design
and construction phase. |
EIAO TM- Annex 18, DEVB TCW
No. 7/2015, LAO PN 7/2007 |
|
11.9.5 |
CP1.2 |
Creation of Tree
Protection Zone around
trees/tree groups
to be retained and to be fenced off from construction works. |
To
ensure the success of the tree preservation proposals. |
Contractor |
Set up at the areas with preserved trees before construction works commence and maintained
throughout construction phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18, DEVB TCW No. 7/2015, LAO PN 7/2007 |
|
11.9.5 |
CP1.3 |
Prohibition of the
runoff from construction activities, the storage of materials including fuel, the
movement of construction vehicles, and the refuelling and washing of
equipment including concrete mixers within the Tree
Protection Zone. |
To
ensure the success of the tree preservation proposals. |
Contractor |
Site
/ Throughout construction phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18,
DEVB TCW No. 7/2015, LAO PN 7/2007 |
|
11.9.5 |
CP1.4 |
All works affecting the trees
identified for retention and transplantation will be carefully
monitored. This includes the key stages
in the preparation of the trees, the implementation of protection measures
and health monitoring throughout the construction period |
To
ensure the success of the tree preservation proposals. |
Contractor |
Site
/ Throughout construction phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18,
DEVB TCW No. 7/2015, LAO PN 7/2007 |
|
11.9.5 |
CP1.5 |
Detailed landscape and tree
preservation proposals will be submitted to the relevant government
departments for approval. |
To
ensure the tree preservation and planting proposals are integrated with the
existing landscape context and that the landscape resources are preserved
where appropriate. |
Project
Landscape Architect (Detailed Design
Consultants) |
Site
/ Throughout design phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18, DEVB TCW No. 7/2015,
LAO PN 7/2007, , HKPSG |
|
11.9.5 |
CP1.6 |
The tree preservation works
should be implemented by qualified softworks contractor. Works
will be inspected
by a competent person of the ET. A tree protection specification would be included within
the contract documents. |
To
ensure the tree preservation and planting proposals are integrated with the
existing landscape context and that the landscape resources are preserved
where appropriate. |
Project
Proponent/Project Management Team |
Site
/ Throughout design and construction phases |
EIAO TM- Annex 18, DEVB TCW No. 7/2015, LAO PN 7/2007 |
|
11.9.5 |
CP3 |
Implementation of Mitigation
Planting and Planting Species Selection |
|
|
|
|
|
11.9.5 |
CP3.1 |
Replanting of existing/disturbed vegetation will be undertaken at the earliest
possible stage of the construction phase. |
To
minimise the disturbance to existing landscape resources and minimise the impacts on the visual
amenity of the area. |
Contractor |
Site
/ After the site formation or on completion of planting areas. |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.5 |
CP3.2 |
Use of predominantly
native
and/or ornamental species and broadleaf plant species in the planting design. |
To
enhance the local landscape and ecological value. |
Project
Landscape Architect (Detailed Design Consultants) |
Site
/ Throughout the design phase. |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.5 |
CP3.3 |
Proposed
mitigation planting will not only limit to conventional amenity planting, but
also consider alternative greening measures such as vertical greening for
screening and softening of the built structures and green roof on built
structures for enhancing the visual amenity. Small shrubs, climbing plants, lawn
and groundcovers shall be used in specific locations where technically
feasible. |
To
maximise the greening opportunities and screening effects. |
Project
Landscape Architect (Detailed Design Consultants) |
Site
/ Throughout the design phase. |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.5 |
CP3.4 |
The tree planting works should
be implemented by qualified softworks contractors. Inspected by
the ET/Landscape Architects. A tree planting specification would be included within the
contract documents. |
To
ensure the tree preservation and planting proposals are integrated with the
existing landscape context and that valuable landscape |
Project
Proponent/Project Management Team/Project Landscape
Architect (Detailed
Design Consultants) |
Site
/ Throughout design and construction phases |
TM-EIA Annex 18 |
|
11.9.5 |
CP4 |
Transplantation of Existing Trees |
|
|
|
|
|
11.9.5 |
CP4.1 |
The tree transplanting works should
be implemented by qualified softworks contractors. Inspected by
the ET/Landscape Architects. A tree protection /
transplanting specification would be included within the contract documents. |
To
ensure the success of tree transplanting |
Project Landscape Architect (Detailed Design Consultants) |
Site
/ Throughout design and construction phases |
TM-EIA Annex 18 |
|
11.9.5 |
CP4.2 |
Approximately 78 existing trees to be
transplanted, majority of them shall be relocated to future planting areas within
the development. |
To
retain their contribution to the local landscape context. |
Project
Landscape Architects (Detailed Design Consultants)/
Contractor |
Site
/ Throughout design and construction phases |
TM-EIA Annex 18, DEVB TCW No. 7/2015, LAO PN 7/2007 |
|
11.9.5 |
CP4.3 |
Tree to be replanted will be kept in the temporary
holding nurseries which closely monitoring by softwork contractors before replanting to the
final recipient site. |
To
enhance the survival rate of the transplanted trees |
Project
Landscape Architects (Detailed Design Consultants)/
Contractor |
Site
/ Throughout construction phase until the completion of new planting
areas in the site |
TM-EIA Annex 18, DEVB TCW No. 7/2015, LAO PN 7/2007 |
|
11.9.5 |
CP4.4 |
Phased segmental root pruning
for preparation of tree transplanting over a suitable period (determined by
species and size). |
To
ensure the success of tree transplanting |
Contractor |
Site
/ Throughout construction phase |
TM-EIA Annex
18, DEVB TCW No. 7/2015, LAO PN
7/2007 |
|
11.9.5 |
CP4.5 |
Pruning of the branches of transplanted trees to be based on the
principle of crown thinning that would maintain their original tree
form and amenity
value. |
To
ensure the success of tree transplanting |
Contractor |
Site
/ Throughout construction phase |
TM-EIA Annex
18, DEVB TCW No. 7/2015, LAO PN
7/2007 |
|
11.9.5 |
CP4.6 |
The
implementation programme for the proposed works will reserve enough time for the
advance tree transplanting preparation works. |
To
enhance the survival rate of the transplanted trees |
Project
Landscape Architects (Detailed Design Consultants)/
Contractor |
Site
/ Throughout design and construction phases |
TM-EIA Annex 18 |
|
11.9.5 |
CP4.7 |
Detailed
tree transplanting proposals will be submitted to the relevant government departments
for approval. |
To
enhance the survival rate of the transplanted trees |
Project
Landscape Architects (Detailed Design
Consultants) |
Site
/ Throughout design phase |
TM-EIA Annex
18, DEVB TCW No. 7/2015, LAO PN
7/2007 |
|
During Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
11.9.6, Table 11-14 |
Table 9.2 OP1 |
Roadside and Amenity Planting |
|
|
|
|
|
11.9.6 |
OP1.1 |
Utilise native and ornamental species and
broadleaf trees in combination of shade tolerant shrub planting and climbing plants
in proposed landscape buffer to soften the horizontal emphasis of proposed
noise barrier and fence wall. |
Provide a linkage with the existing
roadside landscape context and create a more coherent landscape framework |
Project Landscape Architects(Detailed
Design Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design and operation
phases |
TM-EIA Annex 18, DEVB TCW No. 7/2015, LAO PN 7/2007 |
|
11.9.6 |
OP1.2 |
Enough
soil depth of 1200mm will be reserved for tree planting area to ensure
healthy planting establishment. High clearance tree planting will be utilised
alongside of internal road and not to interfere the EVA requirement. |
Healthy Tree Establishment |
Project Landscape Architects(Detailed
Design Consultants)/ Project Proponent |
Site / Throughout design and operation
phases |
TM-EIA Annex 18, DEVB TCW No. 7/2015, LAO PN 7/2007 |
|
11.9.6 |
OP1.3 |
The
implementation of new planting shall be undertaken as soon as technically
feasible after completion of building works to ensure the effectiveness of
this mitigation during operational stage. |
To enhance the greening effect and
shortening the duration of impact. |
Contractor |
Site / Throughout the
construction abnd operation phases |
V Annex 18, DEVB TCW No. 7/2015, LAO PN 7/2007. |
|
11.9.5 |
OP2 |
Compensatory Planting Proposals |
|
|
|
|
|
11.9.6 |
OP2.1 |
Utilise
all available spaces for new tree and shrub planting to create a
comprehensive landscape framework which is connected to areas of retained and
preserved vegetation and designed to integrate the proposals within their future
landscape setting. |
To restore and enhance the
local landscape context and ecological value. |
Project Landscape Architects
(Detailed Design Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design
phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18,
DEVB TCW No. 7/2015, LAO PN 7/2007 |
|
11.9.6 |
OP2.2 |
The
new planting will be maintained in accordance with good horticultural
practice in order to realise the objectives of the mitigation measures. This
includes the replacement of defective plant species in the new planting areas
to enhance the aesthetic, landscape and ecological quality of the proposals. |
To restore and enhance the
local landscape context and ecological value. |
Contractor |
Site / Throughout operation
phase |
TM-EIA Annex 18, DEVB TCW No. 7/2015, LAO PN 7/2007 |
|
11.9.6 |
OP2.3 |
The
planting proposals for the proposed development will achieve a compensatory
planting ratio of minimum 1:1 (new planting: trees recommended for felling).
Plant 126 compensatory trees and 65 amenity trees to compensate the loss of
existing trees. |
To compensate the loss of
existing trees and restore the landscape context. |
Project Landscape Architects
(Detailed Design Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design and operation
phases |
EIAO TM- Annex 18,
DEVB TCW No. 7/2015, LAO PN 7/2007 |
|
11.9.6 |
OP2.4 |
The
proposed compensatory and new tree planting will utilise heavy standard size
tree at selected area as accent, standard to light standard size tree in
general landscape and roadside planting areas. Smaller planting stock will be
used on slope and landscape buffer. |
To ensure the planting
proposals will create a naturalistic effect that responds to the existing and
planned landscape context. |
Project Landscape Architects
(Detailed Design Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design and operation
phases |
TM-EIA Annex 18, ETWB TCW No. 2/2004, LAO PN 7/2007 |
|
11.9.6 |
OP2.5 |
Detailed
compensatory planting proposals will be submitted to the relevant government
departments for approval. |
To enhance the landscape
context. |
Project Landscape
Architects (Detailed Design
Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design
phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18,
DEVB TCW No. 7/2015, LAO PN 7/2007 |
|
11.9.6 |
OP2.6 |
Selection
of native and ornamental planting species in proposed gardens and landscape
buffer and bird-attracting and butterfly-attracting plant
species in and surrounding the proposed landscape pond. |
To
enhance the landscape and ecological value of the Site. |
Project Landscape
Architects (Detailed Design
Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design
phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.6 |
OP5 |
Design of Engineering Structures |
|
|
|
|
|
11.9.6 |
OP5.1 |
Alternative
greening measures including greening on the roof and/or vertical greening
adjacent to the structures and regarded sloping areas will be used. |
To ensure the proposals are integrated
with the existing landscape and visual context, and avoid cluster effect. |
Project Engineers and
Architects and Landscape Architects
(Detailed Design Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design and operation
phases |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.6 |
OP5.3 |
Treatment of Slopes should be aesthetically
enhanced through the use of soft landscape works including tree and shrub
planting to give man-made slopes a more natural appearance blending into the
local rural landscape. |
To ensure the proposals are integrated
with the existing landscape and visual context, and avoid cluster effect. |
Project Engineer and
Architects and Landscape Architects
(Detailed Design Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design and operation
phases |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.5 |
OP6 |
Creation of Landscape Buffer |
|
|
|
|
|
11.9.6 |
OP6.1 |
Native and ornamental tree and shrub mix, climbing
plants will be utilised for the creation of landscape buffer (5-8m wide) along noise
barrier and sewage treatment plant at Ha Chuk Yuen Road as well as Kam Pok Road and Fung Chuk Road. |
To enhance the aesthetic and
landscape diversity of the local context. These measures provide screening
effect to the noise mitigation measures. |
Project Architects and Landscape Architects (Detailed Design
Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design and operation
phases |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.6 |
OP6.2 |
Treatment of Slopes should be aesthetically
enhanced through the use of soft landscape works including tree and shrub
planting |
To create a more natural appearance
blending into the local rural landscape |
Project Landscape Architects
(Detailed Design Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design and operation
phases |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.5 |
OP7 |
Provision of Landscape
Pond |
|
|
|
|
|
11.9.6 |
OP7 |
A Landscape Pond (110m2) proposed in the
landscape core of proposed development and will be composed of water plants
and/or plant species attracting birds and butterfly. |
To compensate the
loss of abandoned ponds |
Project Landscape Architects
(Detailed Design Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design and operation
phases |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
Visual Mitigation
Measures |
|
|
|
|
||
|
During
Construction Phase |
|
|
|
|
||
|
11.9, Table 11-15 |
Table 9.3 CP1 |
Preservation of Existing
Vegetation |
|
|
|
|
|
11.9.7 |
CP1.1 |
The tree preservation
proposals will coordinate with the layout and design of the engineering
and architectural works at detailed design stage. |
To maintain
visual quality of the context |
Project Engineers and Architects and Landscape Architects (Detailed Design
Consultants) |
Site / Throughout the design
phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.7 |
CP1.2 |
The preservation of existing tree shall provide
instant greening and screening effect for proposed works. |
To maintain
visual quality of the context |
Project Engineers and Architects and Landscape Architects (Detailed Design
Consultants) |
Site / Throughout the design
phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.4 |
CP2 |
Works Area and Temporary Works Areas |
|
|
|
|
|
11.9.7 |
CP2.1 |
The landscape of the works
areas will be restored
to their original condition or enhanced through the introduction of new
amenity planting areas or open spaces following the completion of the
construction phase. |
To minimise the
duration of impact. |
Contractor |
Site / Throughout
the construction phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.7 |
CP2.2 |
Optimize the construction sequence and construction
programme. |
To minimise the
duration of impact. |
Project Engineers and Architects and Landscape Architects (Detailed Design
Consultants)/ Project Management Team |
Site / Throughout
the construction phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.7 |
CP2.3 |
Construction site controls will be
enforced including the storage of materials, the location and appearance of
site accommodation and site storage; and the careful design of site lighting to
prevent light spillage. |
To minimise the
source of visual impact. |
Contractor/
Project Management Team |
Site / Throughout
the construction phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.7 |
CP2.4 |
Hoarding designed with recessive colour shall be
set up around the construction site providing screening effect for the
construction works. |
To
minimise disturbance to the visual context. |
Contractor/
Project Management Team |
Site / Throughout
the construction phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.7 |
CP2.5 |
The site office or temporary above-ground
structures shall be sited at less visual prominent locations. |
To minimise the
source of visual impact. |
Contractor/
Project Management Team |
Site / Throughout
the construction phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.4 |
CP5 |
Coordination with Concurrent Projects |
|
|
|
|
|
11.9.7 |
CP5.1 |
Coordinated implementation
programme with concurrent projects. |
To minimise cumulative
impacts to the visual context. |
Project Engineers and Architects and Landscape Architects (Detailed Design
Consultants)/ Contractor |
Site / Throughout design and
construction phases |
EIAO TM-Annex 18. |
|
During Operational Phase |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.9, Table 11-16 |
Table 9.4 OP3 |
Responsive Design of Building
and Structure |
|
|
|
|
|
11.9.8 |
OP3.1 |
Integrated Design Approach Responsive
design of built structures considered the location of houses and utilities
structures. The disposition and height profile of the houses and above ground
utilities structures respond to the existing context. Design measures include
the creation of setbacks, articulating the development frontage and
incorporation of view corridors/breezeway, avoid abrupt transitions between
the existing and proposed built environment, reduce the apparent visual mass
to enhance the sense of visual integration with the existing low-rise
development context. |
To soften the development mass
and enhance their visual integration within the future landscape context. |
Project Architects (Detailed Design Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.8 |
OP3.2 |
Building Treatment The
architectural design seeks to reduce the apparent visual mass of the
structures further through the use of recessive colour palette. Incorporation of alternative greening
measures such as green roof /vertical greening on built structures where
condition allows and particularly at where fronting to the public realm.
Non-reflective finishes also recommended reducing the potential glare effect.
|
To restore and enhance
existing landscape context and visual amenity. |
Project Architects (Detailed Design Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.5 |
OP4 |
Noise Mitigation Structures |
|
|
|
|
|
11.9.8 |
OP4.1 |
The design of noise barrier
should reduce the visual effect of the structure through the use of form, materials
and textures colours. Setting back with articulated alignment from the site
boundary to create a continuous landscape buffer (5-8m wide) with both
preserved and new planted trees forming an instant screening effect to the
engineering structures. Introduction of landscape berms, by virtue of its
height and natural form, would reduce the perceived scale and height of the
noise barriers. Integrated the proposed sewage treatment plant with
noise barrier to reduce the engineering mass making the appearance blending into the
rural setting |
To ensure the proposals are integrated
with the existing landscape and visual context. |
Project Engineers and Architects (Detailed Design Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.8 |
OP4.2 |
The
design of engineering structures should avoid unnecessary visual cluster,
this would be achieved through the co-ordination of the various engineering
disciplines involved to arrive at innovative design solutions. |
To ensure the proposals are integrated
with the existing landscape and visual context. |
Project Engineers and Architects (Detailed Design Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.5 |
OP5 |
Design of Engineering Structures |
|
|
|
|
|
11.9.8 |
OP5.1 |
The
detailed design landscape consultants will work in liaison with the engineers
on the aesthetic aspects of the structures and their relationship with the
landscape. |
To ensure the proposals are integrated
with the existing landscape and visual context. |
Project Engineers and Architects and Landscape Architects (Detailed Design
Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.8 |
OP5.2 |
Alternative greening
measures including greening on the
roof and/or vertical greening on the structures and on regarded sloping areas
will be used wherever possible to disguise their function appearance in both
medium and long distance views and maximise the greening opportunities. |
To enhance visual
amenity |
Project Engineers and Architects and Landscape Architects (Detailed Design
Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.8 |
OP5.3 |
Tree
preservation, new tree planting and alternative greening measures on and adjacent
to the engineering structures will create an instant greening effect soften
the visual mass. |
To ensure the proposals are
integrated with the existing landscape and visual context. |
Project Engineers and Architects and Landscape Architects (Detailed Design
Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.5 |
OP6 |
Creation of Landscape Buffer |
|
|
|
|
|
11.9.8 |
OP6.1 |
Native and ornamental tree and
shrub planting and climbing plants will be utilised for the creation of landscape
buffer along noise barrier and sewage treatment plant at Ha Chuk Yuen Road to
enhance the aesthetic and landscape diversity of the local context. |
To ensure the proposals are integrated
with the existing landscape and visual context, and avoid cluster effect. |
Project Engineers and Architects and Landscape Architects (Detailed Design
Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.8 |
OP6.2 |
Appropriate height and form of
the landscape buffer/ berm to integrate with the noise mitigation measures
and provide screening effect to the built structures. |
To ensure the proposals are integrated
with the existing landscape and visual context. |
Project Engineers and Architects and Landscape Architects (Detailed Design
Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.8 |
OP6.3 |
Treatment of Slopes should be
aesthetically enhanced through the use of soft landscape works including tree
and shrub planting to create a more natural appearance blending into the
local rural landscape. |
To ensure the proposals are integrated
with the existing landscape and visual context. |
Project Engineers and
Architects and Landscape Architects
(Detailed Design Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
|
11.9.8 |
OP6.4 |
The creation of landscape
buffer at the periphery of the site, the height and form of the landscape
berms and planting proposals have key role in mitigating the visual mass of
the external fence walls of 2.5m high, the sewage treatment plant of roof at
10.4mPD and the noise barriers of height at 10.1mPD high. |
To ensure the proposals are integrated
with the existing landscape and visual context. |
Project Engineers and Architects and Landscape Architects (Detailed Design
Consultants) |
Site / Throughout design phase |
EIAO TM- Annex 18 |
Through implementation of dust control measures required
under the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation; recommended specific
measures in the EIA report; and good housekeeping practice by the works contractors, construction
dust impacts can be controlled to acceptable levels. Practical mitigation measures have already been
proposed for this Project to alleviate potential impacts. The concerned site formation works will only
be short-term and potential air quality impacts have been reduced to a
minimum through
recommended mitigation measures and can comply with the relevant air quality
criteria/ AQOs. Thus, no adverse impact
is anticipated. There is no residual
impact as a result.
During the construction,
the concerned sediment at existing pond is intended to be left in place and not
to be disturbed as far as possible.
Potential odour impact is therefore not considered to be an issue.
During the operational stage,
appropriate precautionary measures (e.g. peripheral set back from the site
boundaries by means of landscape area) have been incorporated in the layout to
alleviate potential vehicular emissions impacts. It was found that the Project Site can
satisfy the buffer distance requirements stated in the HKPSG for both active
and passive recreational uses, thus no unacceptable air quality impacts due to
vehicular emission are expected. No
unacceptable air quality impact due to industrial emission is expected as no
industrial emission source has been identified within 500m from the Study
boundary. The existing open storage site and an enclosed
godown to the east of the Project Site are unlikely to have adverse air quality
impact upon the development. Thus, no adverse air quality impact is
anticipated.
Given the scale of the Project (for small houses
development), there are no major planned dust generating or air
pollutant emission sources from the proposed development that would contribute
to any adverse impact on air quality. In
addition, vehicular emission due to additional traffic generated/ attracted by
this Project is found to be insignificant. Thus, the Project Site itself is
unlikely to generate any air pollution nuisance. During the operational phase,
licensed waste collector will be employed to collect domestic waste on a daily basis
and RCP will be provided for the residential development. Localized
impact and minimization of odour nuisance will be considered during detailed
design. Thus, no adverse odour impact is anticipated.
During the operational
stage, an interim sewage treatment plant may be proposed within
the Project Site before connection to the public sewerage system becomes
available. The interim sewage treatment
plant will be within a totally enclosed building with biological treatment, membrane
filtration and Reverse Osmosis processes to be located underground. The
exhaust will be directed away from nearby ASRs and odour
removal system will be provided. Thus, adverse odour impact is not
expected. Brine disposal during
maintenance will be away from residential area as much as possible and close to
the vehicular access connecting the nearby road. With the careful design and odour control
measures, adverse odour impact due to operation of the interim sewage treatment
plant is not anticipated.
With the implementation of noise mitigation measures,
construction noise levels at the NSRs will comply with the noise standard.
With the implementation of noise mitigation measures
in terms of noise barrier along eastern boundary; placing noise tolerant uses such as the proposed
STP between the proposed house and the industrial noise source; as well as recommended noise mitigation measures for the proposed
interim STP (e.g. acoustic treatments such
as provision of acoustic silencer and acoustic enclosure), no adverse noise impact due to industrial noise sources in adjacent
site as well as proposed interim STP is anticipated. No adverse noise impact is expected due to
operation of the existing Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station.
With the proposed layout including setback from Kam
Pok Road as shown in the MLP, no adverse traffic noise impact is anticipated
for the proposed development.
The major impact during construction works of this
Project is surface runoff and soil erosion due to exposed surfaces. Peripheral site drainage comprising precast
concrete u-channels, sedimentation basins, sand traps and similar facilities
together with those good site practices stipulated in ProPECC Note PN 1/94, have been recommended. Collected construction site runoff will be
discharged into nearby existing stormwater drains, and via
which into the NTMDC following the
existing flow regime. With the adoption of the recommended good practices on-site, adverse water quality impact
is not expected. The Contractor shall apply for a
discharge licence under the WPCO and the discharge shall comply with the terms
and conditions of the licence.
During operation, an interim sewage treatment plant will be used for
treatment of sewage generated from the proposed development site until the
public sewerage system becomes available.
Treated effluent from the interim STP will be
discharged to the adjacent NTMDC and it has demonstrated compliance
with the no net increase in pollution loading requirement. Thus, no adverse water quality
impact is anticipated. The
discharge is also subject to EPD’s discharge licence requirements.
Surface runoff from the development site will be
discharged to the NTMDC. Pollutants, if
any, will be pre-treated and settled before discharge. It was estimated that the increase in surface
runoff due to this Project is negligible when compared with the design capacity
of the NTMDC. Best Management Practices
have been proposed in order to abate first flush pollution in stormwater runoff
such as design measures to minimize soil erosion; design of drainage system to
collect surface runoff; street level planting; selection of tree species; and
control of application of fertilizer. In
addition, screening facilities such as gully grating, trash frille, and road
gullies with silt traps and oil interceptor will be incorporated into the
drainage design to control pollution.
Asides from the above, administrative measures such as regular cleaning
and sweeping of road surface/ open area as well as stormwater
gullies and ditches to remove pollution source by property management company,
have also been recommended. With the
recommended measures, there will be no unacceptable impacts to the water
quality in the Deep Bay.
Potential cumulative impacts due to construction and
operation of nearby approved designated projects as well as planned development
sites, have been assessed. All these
identified concurrent projects will implement their own mitigation measures to
ensure discharge can comply with the relevant WPCO as well as EIA
requirements. Project-specific
mitigation measures are also recommended for this Project to ensure
construction site runoff is collected and treated before discharge. The discharge will be controlled through
implementation of committed measures described in the respective EIA reports of
those projects as well as those recommended in this Project. Further site inspections and regular water
quality monitoring are also recommended to monitor the water quality level at
nearby drainage channels during the construction phase of this Project. Event and Action Plan will be implemented to
rectify any deficiencies. Thus, no
adverse cumulative impact is expected.
It is also recommended that emergency response plans to deal
with inclement weather and emergencies for both construction and operation
phases, will be developed.
No residual impact is anticipated during the
construction or operation of the Project.
Sewage generated from the proposed
development will be discharged into the planned trunk sewer at Kam Pok Road
under PWP No. 4235DS, as permanent measure.
The quantity of sewage effluent generated from the proposed development
is relatively small amount when compared with the spare capacity of the downstream
sewerage facilities. Thus, no adverse impact is anticipated.
An interim STP has been proposed for
treatment of sewage generated from the proposed development site until the
planned public sewerage system becomes available. The proposed development will not impose any
adverse sewerage impact on the surrounding areas by co-treatment of water
abstracted from existing Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel. The interim STP has
been designed such that it can meet the no net increase in pollution loading
requirement in Deep Bay. The discharge
of treated effluent from the interim STP should follow the discharge licence
requirements under the WPCO as well as the terms and conditions specified in
the EP under the EIAO. Thus, the development is considered acceptable in sewerage
terms.
With the proposed measures, adverse environmental impacts due to the long term
and interim sewerage scheme are not
anticipated. No adverse sewerage impact will be incurred as a result of the development.
There is
no historic and/ or existing land use at the Project Site in accordance with Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of Annex 19
in the EIAO-TM that would have potential land contamination issue. No potential land contamination
of the Project Site is anticipated.
With the implementation of recommended measures, no
waste related regulatory non-compliance and unacceptable environmental impacts
are expected to arise during the construction phase. Waste management measures as well as control/
mitigation measures have been recommended during the construction
accordingly. Opportunities for reduction
in waste generation through recovery, reuse or recycling are also identified.
Refuse collection chambers will be provided and a
licensed waste collector will be employed to collect domestic waste during the
operational phase.
A literature review and field surveys
have been conducted to establish the ecological baseline condition of the Assessment Area and assessment of potential impacts
conducted in accordance with the EIAO-TM requirements. The Project would cause losses of 3.17 ha of urbanized/disturbed, 0.3 ha of plantation and 0.33 ha of an abandoned pond of very low ecological value. With implementation of recommended mitigation
measures, no significant residual ecological impact due to the
Project during both construction and operational phases is anticipated. Ecological monitoring of utilization of the Ngau
Tam Mei Channel by birds between October and March during construction phase is
proposed.
A literature review has
been conducted to establish the fisheries baseline condition of the assessment
area and assessment of potential impacts conducted in accordance with the
EIAO-TM requirements. The Project would
cause a loss of 0.33 ha of an abandoned pond.
Potential impacts on fisheries of the study area are ranked as minimal.
No mitigation is required and the residual impact is acceptable. Other than the water quality monitoring
programme proposed during construction phase EM&A, no specific fisheries
EM&A programme would be required.
According to the assessment
findings, no sites of
archaeological interest or areas of archaeological interest, declared/ proposed
monuments, historical villages, cultural landscaped features, and graves were identified within the Study Area. The identified Built Heritage Items (BH1 to
BH4,
i.e. the temple in Chuk Yuen Tsuen and three graded historic buildings in San
Wai Tsuen) (about 250m-280m
from the Project Site) are
considerably far from the Project Site.
No impact during
construction and operational phase is anticipated.
The proposed development will not encroach
upon any known sites of
archaeological interest or areas of archaeological interest
and will not have any direct or indirect impacts on any declared monuments, graded or
proposed graded historic buildings,
cultural landscape features,
graves or historical village during construction and operational
phases. No specific EM&A requirement is considered necessary.
Proposed development will
not lead to a degradation of the landscape setting of the area following full establishment of the
recommended mitigation measures, on the contrary it is an improvement to the landscape
setting along Ngau Tam Mei Channel. It will not
affect its viability in terms of
being a landscape planning designation. The introduction of high quality residential
landscape within the development will assist the fading out of unpleasant open storage and warehouses uses in
NT. Proposed development thus considered to be tolerable to the planning
intention of development control framework and fit into the
future outlook of this rural, recreation and residential landscape context.
Residual impact
significance on the affected LRs and LCAs during the construction phase will be
alleviated to moderate to slight adverse levels with mitigation measures. With
the implementation of landscape mitigation measures and full establishment of
planting proposals during the operational phase, the residual impact
significance on the affected LRs and LCAs would be slight adverse to
insubstantial. The development proposals will replace the unpleasant uses along
the Channel, enhance and benefit the existing landscape and visual quality
along Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel.
With the adoption of visual
mitigation measures the potential significant to moderate adverse unmitigated
impacts on the majority of VSRs will be mitigated to moderate to slight adverse
(during construction phase/ Year 1 of operation phase) and slight adverse
to Insubstantial (Year 10 of operation phase). The Project will also bring
slight benefit to some VSRs during operation. These mitigation measures create
high quality landscape areas for the enjoyment of future residents as well as
provide enhanced visual amenity in the wider context of Ngau Tam Mei
channelside rural and low-rise development context.
The compliance of landscape
design and works are considered to be checked during design phase and upon
completion of the softworks. Monitoring the condition of preserved trees
required through site auditing programme. No other specific EM&A requirement is considered.
In
accordance with Annex 10 of the EIAO-TM, the landscape and visual impacts as a result of the proposed development would be ‘acceptable with
mitigation measures’ that is to say ‘there would be some adverse effects, but
these can be eliminated, reduced or offset to a large extent by specific
measures’.
[1]
According to information available on Planning Department’s website (available
at: http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/tp_plan/index.html),
the Project Site is not covered by existing Development Permission Area
Plans. Instead, it is currently covered
by the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) No. S/YL-MP/6.
Records of both the adopted and draft departmental plans in the area
were obtained from Planning Department.
According to the records obtained, relevant plans were reviewed such as
the “L/YL-FP/1C
Residential Layout - Fairview Park Access Road, Yuen Long” adopted in year
1982; as well as the draft departmental plan “DP/NWNT/1C North West New
Territories - Development Plan” approved in year 1984. As all of these plans were prepared in
1980s’, planned uses indicated in these plans are outdated and are superseded
by the existing OZP. As advised by
Planning Department, the existing OZP is the latest version regarding planned
land uses in the area.
[2]
Agreement No. CE 66/2001(EP), EIA and
TIA Studies for the Stage 2 of PWP Item No. 215DS -
Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal (YLKTSSD), Environmental
Impact Assessment (Final), March
2004.
[3]
According to information available on Planning Department’s website (available
at: http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/tp_plan/index.html),
the Project Site is not covered by existing Development Permission Area
Plans. Instead, it is currently covered
by the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) No. S/YL-MP/6.
Records of both the adopted and draft departmental plans in the area
were obtained from Planning Department.
According to the records obtained, relevant plans were reviewed such as
the “L/YL-FP/1C
Residential Layout - Fairview Park Access Road, Yuen Long” adopted in year
1982; as well as the draft departmental plan “DP/NWNT/1C North West New
Territories - Development Plan” approved in year 1984. As all of these plans were prepared in
1980s’, planned uses indicated in these plans are outdated and are superceded
by the exsiting OZP. As advised by
Planning Department, the existing OZP is the latest version regarding planned
land uses in the area.
[4]
According to information available on Planning Department’s website (available
at: http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/tp_plan/index.html),
the Project Site is not covered by existing Development Permission Area
Plans. Instead, it is currently covered
by the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) No. S/YL-MP/6.
Records of both the adopted and draft departmental plans in the area
were obtained from Planning Department.
According to the records obtained, relevant plans were reviewed such as
the “L/YL-FP/1C
Residential Layout - Fairview Park Access Road, Yuen Long” adopted in year
1982; as well as the draft departmental plan “DP/NWNT/1C North West New
Territories - Development Plan” approved in year 1984. As all of these plans were prepared in
1980s’, planned uses indicated in these plans are outdated and are superceded
by the exsiting OZP. As advised by
Planning Department, the existing OZP is the latest version regarding planned
land uses in the area.
[5]
River Water Quality In Hong Kong (various years), Environmental
Protection Department of the HKSAR
Government.
[6]
The estimated surface
runoff discharge flow rate before the construction (taking into account the current partially paved site condition) is
about 1.33 m3/s, while the surface runoff during construction (for a
100% unpaved area) is about 0.36 m3/s in a 1 in 10 years storm
event. Thus, the decrease in surface runoff
flow rate is about 0.97 m3/s.
[7] According to Appendix 5-2, in approved EIA report for "Agreement No. CE 61/2007 (CE) North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study - Investigation".
[8]
Advisory Note
No. 3, “Protecting Your Premise from Flood Damages, an easy guide for reference
of property managers and owners, published by HKSAR Gov. Drainage Services
Department (available at: http://www.dsd.gov.hk/EN/Files/publications_publicity/publicity_materials/leaflets_booklets_factsheets/Urban_Flooding_Notes_EN.doc).
[9]
The
concerned increase in surface runoff (i.e. 186m3/day) is smaller
than that presented in the approved EIA report of “Yau Mei Site” (i.e. 203 m3/day in appendix
5-2B under application no. EIA-227/2015). This is due to the fact
that the approved “Yau Mei Site” EIA report (which was submitted before the EIA report of this Project), has adopted a more conservative approach by assuming that all the site area of this Project is transformed from unpaved area into paved area,
which is not the case based on the current proposed scheme.
[10] Agreement No. CE 66/2001(EP), EIA and TIA
Studies for the Stage 2 of PWP Item No. 215DS -
Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal (YLKTSSD), Environmental
Impact Assessment (Final), March 2004 (EIA
Application No. 094/2004). Sections 12.4
and 12.5 and Figures 12.9 and 12.10
[11] Construction of
Cycle Tracks and the Associated Supporting Facilities From Sha Po Tsuen to Shek
Sheung River” (EIA Application No. EIA-159/2008). December 2008, Section 8.6 and Figures
2-1, 8-1 to 8-3.
[12]
Construction
of Cycle Tracks and the Associated Supporting Facilities From Sha Po Tsuen to
Shek Sheung River” (EIA Application No. EIA-159/2008). December 2008, Section 8.6 and Figures
2-1, 8-1 to 8-3.
[13]
Agreement No. CE
66/2001(EP), EIA and TIA Studies for the Stage 2 of PWP Item No. 215DS - Yuen
Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal (YLKTSSD), Environmental Impact
Assessment (Final), March 2004 (EIA Application
No. 094/2004). Sections 12.4 and 12.5
and Figures 12.9 and 12.10.