11 Landscape & Visual impact Assessment

11.1 Introduction

This section presents the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment of the LNG terminal development at South Soko Island.

11.2 Assessment Methodology

The main components of the LVIA are as follows:

· Description of the Project;

· Review of planning and development control framework;

· Baseline study of landscape resources;

· Landscape impact assessment during construction and operation;

· Visual impact assessment during construction and operation;

· Recommendations for landscape and visual mitigation measures for both construction and operation stage;

· Assessment of night lighting and glare;

· Baseline study of landscape character;

· Landscape character impact assessment during construction and operation, and;

· Assessment of residual impact and conclusion on the acceptability of the Project.

11.3 Introduction & Project Description

The background to the project and the general description of the LNG terminal at South Soko Island is presented in Part 1, Section 3.

The following description of the major visual components of the LNG terminal and supporting infrastructure is based on the preliminary design which will be subject to further refinement at the detailed engineering design stage. The preliminary layout plan, which shows the key visual features of the proposal, is illustrated in Figure 11.1.

It must be noted that the layout presented in Figure 11.1 has been selected from a number of alternative site layouts in view of its minimisation of landscape and visual impacts to the Project area. The design, dimensions and location of the LNG terminal’s structures indicated in the preliminary layout are thus the result of a preliminary assessment which has enabled the optimisation of the LNG terminal’s design/layout in relation to the Project area’s landscape character (i.e. morphology, exposure to sensitive receivers, etc.).

11.3.1 Site Area

The LNG terminal will be constructed within a total site area of approximately 36.5 ha.

· Approximately 5 ha of level land which was previously a Vietnamese Detention Centre and which was demolished by Correctional Services Department in 1996.

· Approximately 14 ha of land will be created by further cutting the slopes to the existing north and south of the former Detention Centre.

· Approximately 0.6 ha which will be created through extending reclamation on the western sides of the site of the former Detention Centre and 1.1 ha of seawall modification.

The remaining 15-16 ha will be within the boundary fence line of the LNG terminal and will be physically undisturbed.

11.3.2 Construction Impacts.

Figure 11.2 shows the extent of construction areas. Approximate areas are as follows:

· Excavation / Site Levelling 15.3 ha

· Reclamation 0.6 ha

· Seawall Upgrades 0.8 ha

· New Seawalls 0.3 ha

· Cut / Slope stabilisation – 3.2 ha

· Temporarily affected areas – 1.8 ha

· Areas Requiring Soil Nailing / Boulder Stabilisation 3.4 ha

The majority of this area requires minor excavation and site levelling.

11.3.3 Land Excavation

Excavation of around 2 ha of land on the northern part of South Soko will require blasting, levelling and grading. This area and the demolished Detention Centre platform (approximately 5 ha) will be used for two of the proposed LNG storage tanks.

Site formation will involve cutting into the western side slopes of the northern hillcrest. The major visual components of this work will be the resultant cut-slopes up to a maximum height of 45m.

11.3.4 Land Reclamation

Reclamation will be approximately 0.6 ha of land within Sai Wan using marine sand fill and, if suitable and available, public filling materials. There will also be an additional 1.1ha of seawall modifications The works will involve construction of about 1.1 km of a vertical and sloping seawall. The reclamation area will be used primarily for the third expansion case LNG storage tank (in Sai Wan) and other associated facilities such as the service berths.

11.3.5 LNG Jetty

The LNG jetty will comprise one approximately 240 m long trestle leading to the jetty structures and unloading arms for LNG carriers to unload LNG. The trestle will be supported on piles and a concrete deck will be placed on top to serve as an access road to the jetty. The steel structure will also support pipe racks and associated facilities.

11.3.6 LNG Terminal Facilities

The LNG terminal facilities and expansion areas will include installation of the following:

(Note all dimensions are approximate based on a preliminary design)

· Two cryogenic LNG Tanks with space for a third tank for future expansion, nominal size of 90m diameter by 49m high to the top of the dome and capacity each of up to 180,000 cubic metres. Alternative tank sizes may be considered by CAPCO, however the capacity of the tanks will be similar. The potential size of these tanks could be 64 m high with a smaller diameter. In order to assess the worst case scenario, a total tank height of 70m PD (64m tank + 6m) is shown in the photomontages.

· Process Area

· Low Pressure and High Pressure pumping systems

· Vaporization (Re-gasification) Area including 6 sea water vaporizers

· LNG turbine generators (3) approximately 5m x 3.5m x 7m high plus stack approximately 1.8 x 6m

· Vents - the low pressure vent is 50m in height and the high pressure vent is 60m in height

· Maintenance Workshop (40m x 20m x 15m high)

· Administration Building (50m x 20m x 4m high)

· Guard House (10m x 5m x 4m high)

· Utility Area (40m x 20m x 4m high)

· Control Room (30m x 25m x 4m high)

· Compressor Shelter (20m x 20m x 8m high)

· Jetty control pulpit on jetty head (10m x 5m x 4m high)

· Unloading arms

· Living Quarter (20m x 20m x 18m high)

The major visual component will be the LNG storage tanks.

Separate buildings will be required for the Process Area, Maintenance Workshop, Administration Building, Guard House, Utility Area, Control Room and while these will be smaller visual components they will contribute to the overall industrial appearance of the site. Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) will be within the constructed area and no additional EVA access is to be created.

11.3.7 Submarine Gas Pipeline

A submarine natural gas pipeline of approximately 38km in length connecting the LNG terminal at South Soko and the Black Point Power Station will be required to deliver the re-gasified natural gas to Black Point.

The visual implications of the submarine gas pipeline will only arise during construction by the marine vessels and equipment used to lay and bury the pipeline. Therefore no operational visual impacts are expected.

11.3.8 Land-based Gas Pipeline

The land-based section of the pipeline would be laid in an open trench followed by direct burial. The pipeline would, typically, be buried at about 1.1 m below ground level within a trench approximately 1 m wide. An open cut method of construction would be used and the trench would then be backfilled as per the relevant design code. Since the pipeline will be buried, and will be within the existing Black Point Power Station so there will be no adverse landscape or visual impacts.

11.3.9 Tin Hau Temple

The existing Tin Hau temple is to be re-located to the small headland at Pak So Wan.

11.3.10 Gas Receiving Station

The pipeline from South Soko Island to the BPPS will terminate at a LNG Gas Receiving Station (GRS). The GRS will be sited on reclaimed land of approximately 100 x 100m and will contain facilities similar to the existing GRS at Black Point Power Station.

11.3.11 LNG Carrier

LNG can be transported to the receiving terminal in carriers of differing sizes. An LNG carrier with a 125,000 m³ capacity is approximately 285m LOA, 43m beam with a draft of 11.3m. A class of LNG carriers of up to 215,000 m³ may also be considered by CAPCO and these vessels are typically 315m LOA, 50m beam and 12m draft.

The discharge of LNG from the carrier will take approximately 18 hours. In addition, it will take approximately 3 hours for mooring, cool down, connecting the unloading arms, and cargo measurement. After discharging the LNG, it will also take approximately 3 hours for cargo measurement, purging of the unloading arms, disconnecting the arms, and unmooring. It is envisaged, based on the terminal throughput, that one LNG carrier will berth at the terminal every five to eight days.

In view of this frequency, the Visual Impact Assessment and associated photomontages in Section 11.12 includes the carrier moored, alongside the LNG jetty.

11.3.12 Construction program

The construction program is outlined in Part 2, Section 3 of this EIA.

The landscape and visual mitigation works are to be carried alongside the construction of the terminal where technically feasible.

11.4 Legislative Requirements and Evaluation Criteria

The methodology of the LVIA is based on Annexes 10 and 18 in the Hong Kong SAR Government's Technical Memorandum on the Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM) under the EIA Ordinance (Cap.499, S16), entitled "Criteria for Evaluating Visual and Landscape Impact" and "Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment", respectively and the EIAO Guidance Note No. 8/2002 “Preparation of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance.”

The landscape assessment considers the impact of the proposed development on the existing landscape resources within 500m of the development site and the landscape character areas within the viewshed.

In accordance with the requirements of Annex 10 of the EIAO-TM, the visual assessment analyses the impact of the proposed development on the existing views and the visual amenity, particularly from the Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSR) within the viewshed. In order to illustrate the visual impacts of the proposed LNG terminal, photomontages prepared from selected viewpoints compare the existing conditions with the anticipated view after construction.

11.4.1 Planning Issues

The Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs) and the Concept Plan for Lantau are relevant to the landscape setting and the visual context of the study area. The findings of a study entitled ‘The Landscape Value Mapping of Hong Kong” (Planning Department, The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, July 2005) also provides a benchmark for these island landscapes.

Figure 11.3 shows there are currently no OZPs covering the proposed South Soko site area. In view of this, the Landscape Concept Plan for Lantau provides a reference for future development in the area.

The Concept Plan for Lantau (see Figure 11.4) indicates a planning emphasis on nature conservation and environmentally sustainable uses. These include developments such as:

· Possible resort facilities at Tai Long Wan and Lower Cheung Sha Beach;

· Additional mountain bike trails for linking four existing mountain bike trails to form a continuous 37km network;

· 11km long cycle track network along the coast from Pui O to Shek Pik;

· Beachside boardwalk and water sports centres at Pui O Beach and Cheung Sha Beach;

· High quality camp sites at Pui O;

· Eco-trails and heritage trails extending to Fan Lau and Shui Hau; and,

· Potential Marine Park designation for the waters around Fan Lau and Peaked Hill.

The Concept Plan for Lantau does not address the Soko Islands, but it does acknowledge that there are proposals to further develop South Soko Island. North Soko Island presently is the location of a Low Level Radioactive Waste Storage Facility which is operated by the Environmental Protection Department.

11.4.2 The South West New Territories Development Plan

As a precursor the Concept Plan for Lantau, the South West New Territories Plan set out recommendations for the future of the area including the Soko Islands.

The report stated that generally the areas of high conservation value should be protected, and that development should focus on recreational and tourism activities.

11.4.3 Landscape Value Mapping of Hong Kong

The Landscape Value Mapping for Hong Kong study rates South Soko as having a high Terrestrial Landscape Character Area (LCA) Value. However the study does recognise that the landscape assessment was done at a strategic level (Landscape Value Mapping of Hong Kong, Executive Summary, July 2005, p35) and that more detailed character mapping may be desirable.

Such landscape character mapping has been undertaken for South Soko and is presented later in this report.

11.5 LANDSCAPE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

In accordance with Annex 18 of the EIAO-TM, the landscape impact assessment will cover the following:

· Describe the baseline landscape. This section identifies and describes the landscape resources within 500m of the development site. The existing landscape resources can be based on both topography and vegetation. This section will also describe edges as different Landscape Resources (LR’s).

· Map the distribution of the LR’s on South Soko. This maps both the distribution of the LR’s at present and illustrates how these have changed over time.

· A qualitative and quantitative assessment methodology. This is based on assessing thresholds that can determine the magnitude of change and sensitivity to change of particular LR’s.

· Analyse the landscape impact during construction and operation. This section analyses the extent to which these LR’s are affected by the proposal, using both quantitative and qualitative assessments.

· Discuss mitigation measures. This section examines landscape measures that will contribute to reducing landscape impacts and that will enhance the landscape associated with the development. This may include planting, new landscaped areas and re-vegetation. The residual landscape impacts are also analysed. Mitigation measures during construction and operation will be discussed, at day 1 of mitigation and at year 10 of mitigation. An analysis of the effectiveness of these mitigation measures is provided.

· Provide Conclusions on the impacts of the project. These are discussed along with the Visual Impact and Landscape Character Impacts in Section 11.21.

11.6 Baseline Landscape Description

As specified by the Study Brief, the area for the Landscape Impact Assessment covers the area within 500 metres of the proposed development. As this project is on South Soko Island, to provide a comprehensive assessment the baseline study has examined the whole island, which in some areas is slightly further than 500 metres from the proposed development.

The landscape resources of the island have been categorized according to the presence of common elements. These include factors such as:

· Topography;

· Vegetation type (both species and age);

· Built forms;

· Evidence of human modifications;

· Land use (past and present); and

· Edges.

11.6.1 Broad Brush Tree Survey

As outlined in the EIAO Guidance Note No. 8/2002 “Preparation of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance.” a broad-brush tree survey has been carried out. A total of 61 tree groups were recorded within the proposed project boundary. The tree species were dominated by exotic fast growing trees Acacia confusa, and accompanied by a few native tree species such as Litsea glutinosa, Microcos paniculata, Celtis chinensis and Sapium discolor.

None of the trees recorded in the proposed project area are rare, protected by law or of significant amenity value. They are mostly exotic plantation species with native shrubs and trees found at the understorey. Most of the tree species especially Acacia confusa, Casuarina equisetifolia and the native tree species such as Litsea glutinosa and Microcos paniculata have reached maturity. Most of these trees possessed poor tree form due to overcrowding of the plantation.

Extensive patches of trees (around 50 to 85 individuals) were located at the north of the abandoned reservoir, which was an Acacia plantation around 20 years old. Scattered patches of trees (1 to 10 individuals) were found along the rocky shore of Sai Wan and surrounding the former Detention Centre helipad area. Climbing plants were found smothering the trees, especially near to the platform area, which has resulted in the death of some of the trees. All of the trees were between 2 and 10 metres in height, whilst the crown spread was on average 3 metres. The understorey was densely occupied by some native shrub species including Litsea rotundifolia and Psychotria rubra.

The identified tree groups and their quantities are outlined below and illustrated on Figure 11.18.

1 Acacia confusa 2

2 Ficus microcarpus 1

3 Ficus microcarpus, Ficus superba 2

4 Melia azedarach, Ficus superba 3

5 Ficus microcarpus 1

6 Ficus superba 1

7 Acacia confusa, Ficus microcarpus, Litsea glutinosa, Ficus hispida, Microcos paniculata 10

8 Araucaria heterophylla 3

9 Schefflera octophylla 1

10 Araucaria heterophylla, Melia azedarach 3

11 Acacia confusa 4

12 Casuarina equisetifolia 1

13 Acacia confusa, Schefflera octophylla, Litsea glutinosa 8

14 Acacia confusa 1

15 Acacia confusa, Rhus succedanea 4

16 Acacia confusa, Schefflera octophylla, Mallotus paniculatus 5

17 Microcos paniculata 1

18 Acacia confusa, Litsea glutinosa 7

19 Acacia confusa 3

20 Acacia confusa 3

21 Acacia confusa 1

22 Casuarina equisetifolia, Sapium discolor, Litsea glutinosa, Cratoxylum cochinchinense, 10

23 Casuarina equisetifolia, Melia azedarach, Sapium discolor, Ficus microcarpus 10

24 Melia azedarach, Ficus microcarpus 5

25 Acacia confusa, Litsea glutinosa, Ficus microcarpus , Celtis chinensis 7

26 Litsea glutinosa, Acacia confusa, Ficus hispida, Bridelia tomentosa, Sapium discolor 3

27 Celtis chinensis 1

28 Acacia confusa, Ficus hispida, Sapium discolor 8

29 Acacia confusa 5

30 Acacia confusa, Litsea glutinosa 7

31 Acacia confusa, Microcos paniculata, Schefflera octophylla 8

32 Acacia confusa, Celtis chinensis 2

33 Litsea glutinosa, Acacia confusa, Ficus hispida, Celtis chinensis, Microcos paniculata 21

34 Acacia confusa, Microcos paniculata, Litsea glutinosa, Sapium discolor 4

35 Acacia confusa, Sapium discolor 17

36 Acacia confusa, Sapium discolor, Litsea glutinosa, Microcos paniculata, 13

37 Acacia confusa 3

38 Acacia confusa, Sapium discolor 42

39 Acacia confusa, Aporusa dioica, Litsea glutinosa, Microcos paniculata 58

40 Acacia confusa, Litsea glutinosa, Microcos paniculata 51

41 Acacia confusa, Litsea glutinosa, Microcos paniculata, Machilus chinensis 47

42 Acacia confusa, Microcos paniculata, Machilus chinensis 41

43 Acacia confusa 31

44 Acacia confusa, Litsea glutinosa, Microcos paniculata 85

45 Acacia confusa, Litsea glutinosa, Machilus chinensis 65

46 Litsea glutinosa, Schefflera octophylla 3

47 Acacia confusa, Litsea glutinosa, Microcos paniculata, Viburnum odoratissimum 34

48 Acacia confusa, Sapium discolor, Viburmum odoratissimum, Microcos paniculata 27

49 Acacia confusa, Litsea glutinosa, Microcos paniculata, 50

50 Acacia confusa, Litsea glutinosa, Rhus succedanea 50

51 Acacia confusa, Litsea glutinosa, Rhus succedanea, Melia azedarach 35

52 Acacia confusa, Litsea glutinosa, Celtis chinensis, Machilus chinensis 8

53 Acacia confusa, Celtis chinensis, 22

54 Acacia confusa, Litsea glutinosa, Sapium discolor, Celtis chinensis ,Cratoxylum cochinchinense, Zanthoxylum avicennae 32

55 Acacia confusa, Litsea glutinosa, Microcos paniculata, Schefflera octophylla 10

56 Acacia confusa, Microcos paniculata, 46

57 Acacia confusa, Celtis chinensis 22

58 Ficus superba, Viburnum odoratissium, Celtis chinensis 40

59 Acacia confusa, Microcos paniculata, 40

60 Acacia confusa, Litsea glutinosa, Sterculia lanceolata, Schefflera octophylla 40

61 Acacia confusa, Litsea glutinosa, Schefflera octophylla, Cerbera manghas, Sampium sebiferum 44

11.7 Landscape Resources

Landscape Resources (LR’s) have been identified as the following:

LR1 Secondary Woodland

LR2 Plantation

LR3 Shrubland

LR4 Backshore Shrubland

LR5 Grassland

LR6 Abandoned Wet and Dry Agricultural Land

LR7 Abandoned Reservoir

LR8 Disturbed Area

LR9 Rock Shoreline

LR10 Sandy Beaches

LR11 Artificial Shore

LR12 Tin Hau Temple

An understanding of the sensitivity to change of the LR’s is important when analysing the overall landscape impact of the project upon the LR’s.

Factors affecting the sensitivity of change for evaluation of landscape are:

· Quality of landscape resources;

· Importance and rarity of special landscape elements;

· Ability of the landscape to accommodate change;

· Significance of the change in the local and regional context; and

· Maturity of the landscape.

The degree of sensitivity of the landscape resources is classified as follows:

· High – important components or landscape of particularly distinctive character susceptible to small changes;

· Medium – a landscape of moderately valued characteristics reasonably tolerant to change;

· Low – a relatively unimportant landscape which is able to accommodate extensive change.

The following section describes each of the landscape resources.

11.7.1 Secondary Woodland (LR 1)

Secondary Woodland (LR1) has an upper canopy height of between 5 and 10m. It is dominated by Celtis chinensis, Cinnamomum camphora, Machilus chinensis, Ficus microcarpus and Dimocarpus longan.

Figure 11.5 Secondary Woodland (LR 1)

Small patches of secondary woodland (approximately 1 ha) are located at the west of the abandoned reservoir and at the fringe of shrubland. It covers approximately 0.9% of the island.

Although this LR has the tallest canopy of any LR on the island, it varies somewhat in canopy size. Some areas appear well established, with other areas appearing as an immature landscape that is re-establishing opportunistically in the wetter areas.

The Secondary Woodland is considered to have a high sensitivity to change.

11.7.2 Plantation (LR 2)

The canopy species of the plantations were 10 to 12 meters in height. The plantation was dominated by Acacia confusa established 10 to 20 years ago. Some of the native shrubs and tree saplings in the understorey developed as canopy species after the degeneration of individuals of Acacia confusa. The canopy species was dominated by Acacia confusa and Casuarina equisetifolia. There were 54 plant species recorded within the plantation and all of them are common or very common in Hong Kong.

Figure 11.6 Plantation (LR 2)

The Plantation areas account for just over 10% of the islands resources and are mainly found in the middle of the island and at the fringe of the buildings and facilities of Detention Centre. The plantation extended to the west of Pak Tso Wan and the western side of Tung Wan. Plantation is considered to have a medium sensitivity to change.

11.7.3 Shrubland (LR 3)

The Shrubland LR has an upper canopy height of approximately 1.5m and is dominated by native species of Downy Rose Myrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa) and Cratoxylum cochinchinensis. Embelia laeta is the most common vine species.

Figure 11.7 Shrubland (LR 3)

Shrubland is common on the hill-side areas on the island and covers approximately 80% of the island. It is an immature landscape that has formed as a result of past tree canopy clearance and farming practices. In many respects it represents the initial re-establishment of vegetation. Shrubland is considered to have a medium sensitivity to change.

11.7.4 Backshore Shrubland (LR 4)

Backshore Shrubland also has an upper canopy height of approximately 1.5m however it differs from Shrubland by the presence of Pandanus (Pandanus tectorius).

Figure 11.8 Backshore Shrubland (LR 4)

Backshore Shrubland is a relatively small component on the island and confined to two small areas and covers approximately 1% of the island’s area. Backshore Shrubland is considered to have a high sensitivity to change.

11.7.5 Grassland (LR 5)

Grassland areas are less than 1m in height and are dominated by Batiki Bluegrass (Ischaemum aristatum).

Figure 11.9 Grassland (LR 5)

The Grassland area is a disturbed area that was partly created during the formation of a helipad in the 1990’s. It differs from the other disturbed areas in that vegetation is re-establishing on the cleared ground, which was never concreted.

The Grassland LR covers approximately 2.5% of the island’s area.

Grassland is considered to have a low sensitivity to change.

11.7.6 Abandoned Wet and Dry Agricultural Land (LR 6)

There are two small areas on the island that are recently abandoned agricultural land.

Figure 11.10 Agricultural Land (LR 6)

The figure above shows this abandoned agricultural land which is relatively flat and contains mostly grasses and small shrubs. Some shrubland is visible on the sloping areas on either side of the abandoned agricultural land.

These areas contain two seasonal streams of short length with small catchment areas.

The abandoned wet and dry agricultural land unit covers approximately 1.5% of the island’s area.

Abandoned Agricultural Land is considered to have a low sensitivity.

11.7.7 Disturbed Area (LR 7)

The Disturbed Area LR is the site of the former detention centre, and its associated facilities (concreted and abandoned areas) and is located in the centre of the island.

The Disturbed Area LR area has some cut engineered slopes and flat concrete areas; however, it does contain several landscape plants including Norfolk Island Pine (Araucaria heterophylla) and Beefsteak Plant (Acalypha wilkesiana).

Figure 11.11 Disturbed Area (LR 7)

This area covers approximately 6% of the island.

The Disturbed Area is considered to have a low sensitivity to change.

11.7.8 Abandoned Reservoir (LR 8)

The reservoir is man made, however it is mostly natural in appearance as surrounding vegetation has re-colonised the banks.

Figure 11.12 Abandoned Reservoir (LR 8)

The Abandoned Reservoir has a high sensitivity to change.

11.7.9 Rocky shoreline (LR 9)

The Rocky Shoreline LR is the most common edge to the island and merges into the dominant Shrubland Landscape Resource.

Figure 11.13 Rocky Shoreline (LR 9)

Along the indented rocky shore there are steep rock-faces which extend up from the shore with occasional inlets leading to small sea caves.

The Rocky Shoreline LR generally provides the border to the Shrubland LCU as it meets the sea. The Rocky Shoreline comprises approximately 85% of the perimeter of South Soko Island.

The Rocky Shoreline is considered to have a high sensitivity to change.

11.7.10 Sandy Beaches (LR 10)

Sandy Beaches are relatively uncommon on South Soko. One sandy beach has formed in front of an artificial shore as sand has been deposited by coastal processes.

Figure 11.14 Sandy Beaches (LR 10)

Sandy Beaches only account for 6% of the island’s perimeter and are considered to have a high sensitivity to change.

11.7.11 Artificial Shore (LR 11)

Artificial Shore has been constructed using rock embankments some 3m to 4m in height.

Figure 11.15 Artificial Shore (LR 11)

Artificial Shore comprises approximately 9% of the island’s perimeter.

There are no trees in this landscape resource.

The artificial shore is considered to have a low sensitivity to change.

11.7.12 Tin Hau Temple (LR12)

A Tin Hau Temple was identified within the Project Area. The Temple is a simple one floor pitched roof structure. The surfaces of the temple walls are covered with modern red tiles, while the floor is covered with orange or reddish colour tiles. Plaques on display in the Temple state that the Tong Fuk village committee contributed to the renovation of the Temple in 2000. Remains of the original foundations of a Temple on the site can still be identified on the ground. Refer Part 2 Section 12 for a more detailed assessment of the Tin Hau Temple.

11.8 The Distribution of LR’s

Over the last 40 years for which aerial photographic records exist, it is apparent that changes have occurred in the distribution, and in some cases, the location of landscape resources.

11.8.1 The 1963 distribution of landscape resources

The distribution of LR’s at South Soko has changed due to human activity and development. The earliest aerial photographs depict a landscape that is dominated by human agricultural activity.

Figure 11.16 shows that in 1963 much of the central portion of the island was used for agricultural activity. The dominant LR, especially on the western end of the island, is the Shrubland area. This may have evolved due to clearance of woodland trees for construction and firewood over many years. Thus even this snapshot of the landscape units almost fifty years ago is of a landscape that has been modified by human intervention for many years.

11.8.2 The 1986 distribution of landscape resources

Figure 11.17 shows that by 1986 the distribution of the LR’s was altered further. The areas of Shrubland were still dominant, however the Plantation areas were larger due to the ceasing of agricultural activity. Taller tree species began colonizing the areas of better soil which had previously been used for agriculture.

The Disturbed area was also much smaller than at present and there was no Artificial Shore.

11.8.3 The 2005 distribution of landscape resources

By 2005 the distribution of the LR’s had altered again. Figure 11.18 shows the present distribution of LR’s on South Soko Island (2005). The most dominant unit is Shrubland (78.9% of the island’s area), followed by Plantation. Disturbed Areas make up approximately 6% of the island’s surface.

Table 11.1 Summary Table of Baseline Conditions (2005)

This Table shows the dominance of Shrubland and Rocky Shoreline as the most common LR’s. Shrubland may be the result of past clearance that removed the taller canopy trees, which are starting to redevelop in other areas, giving rise to the Plantation LR.

11.9 Landscape Resource Impacts

The two key factors that affect the evaluation of Landscape Resource impacts are the magnitude of change and the sensitivity of the Landscape Resources. The sensitivity to change for each of the LR’s has been described above and the factors affecting the magnitude of change are outlined below.

Factors affecting the magnitude of change for assessing landscape impacts are:

· Compatibility of the project with the surrounding landscape, i.e.; how well will the proposed development fit in with its surroundings. For example, a new housing development constructed in an area with other housing developments or built forms will have a higher compatibility.

· Scale of the development, i.e.; how big is the development relative to its surroundings. For example a 30 storey building constructed on Hong Kong harbour is considered ‘small scale’. However, the same development constructed in Sai Kung would be considered ‘large scale’

· Reversibility of change. This refers to how easily the changes on the landscape can be reversed. For the purposes of this assessment, we have assumed the terminal changes are ‘irreversible’.

The magnitude of change is therefore classified as follows:

· Large – ranging from notable change in the landscape characteristics over an extensive area ranging to very intensive change over a more limited area;

· Intermediate – moderate changes to a local area;

· Small – changes to specific components;

· Negligible – no substantial changes to the baseline condition.

The landscape impact is a product of the magnitude of change and the sensitivity of the Landscape Resources. Table 11.2 below shows the significance threshold of the Landscape Resource impacts.

Table 11.2 Significance Threshold of Potential Landscape Resource Impact

	Sensitivity to Change
Magnitude of Change caused by Proposals		Low	Medium	High
	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate/Significant Impact	Significant Impact
	Intermediate	Slight / Moderate Impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate / Significant Impact
	Small	Slight Impact	Slight / Moderate Impact	Moderate Impact
	Negligible	Negligible Impact	Negligible Impact	Negligible Impact

Table 11.3 provides some definitions of the significance thresholds for Landscape Impacts.

Table 11.3 Adverse / Beneficial Impact of Landscape Impact

Significant:	Moderate:	Slight:	Negligible
Adverse / beneficial impact where the proposal would cause significant degradation or improvement in existing landscape baseline conditions	Adverse / beneficial impact where the proposal would cause noticeable degradation or improvement in existing landscape baseline conditions	Adverse /beneficial impact where the proposal would cause a barely noticeable degradation or improvement in existing landscape conditions or where the changes brought about by the project would not be apparent in visual terms	The proposal does not affect the existing landscape baseline conditions

11.10 Unmitigated Landscape Impacts During Construction

Table 11.4 shows the potential impact of the proposed development on each of the LR’s and the potential overall impact based on the preceding Significance Threshold of Potential Landscape Impact matrix.

This overall impact does not take into account the effects of remediation and mitigation works after construction, this will be discussed in Section 11.11.

Table 11.4 Unmitigated Landscape Impact Significance Threshold Matrix

LR	Description	Area / Length (2005)	Area affected by proposed development (temporary and permanent)	% of LR Area / Length affected	No of trees affected (approx.)	Sensitivity to Change	Magnitude of Change	Significance Threshold of Landscape Impact
1	Secondary Woodland	1 ha	0.2 ha	20%	70	High	Intermediate	Moderate/Significant
2	Plantation	11.4 ha	3.3 ha	32%	1330	Medium	Intermediate	Moderate
3	Shrubland	85.7 ha	8.3 ha	10%	200	Medium	Small	Slight/Moderate
4	Backshore Shrubland	0.5 ha	Nil	0%	Nil	High	Negligible	Negligible
5	Grassland	2.1 ha	1.8 ha	90%	Nil	Low	Large	Moderate
6	Abandoned Wet and Dry Agricultural land	1.4 ha	0.5 ha	36%	Nil	Low	Small	Slight
7	Disturbed Area	6.5 ha	5.6 ha	83%	10	Low	Large	Moderate
8	Abandoned Reservoir	0.2 ha	Nil	0%	Nil	High	Negligible	Negligible
12	Tin Hau Temple	25m^2	25m^2	100%	Nil	High	Large	Significant
Total Area		108.8 ha	19.7 ha
9	Rocky Shoreline	6 km	0.27 km	4%	Nil	High	Small	Moderate
10	Sandy Beaches	0.4 km	0.035 km	13%	Nil	High	Large	Significant
11	Artificial Shore	0.6 km	0.56km	100%	Nil	Low	Large	Moderate
Total Length ([1])		7.0 km	0.865 km

The proposed development will impact on approximately 19.7 ha of the land area and approximately an additional 1.05 km of the perimeter of South Soko. Approximately 1,610 trees will be affected. Figure 11.19 shows the unmitigated potential impacts on the Landscape Resources of South Soko.

11.10.1 Summary of Landscape Impacts

Significant Landscape Impacts

Potential significant landscape impacts have been identified on the Sandy Beach LR’s. The Sandy Beaches are a more highly valued Landscape Resource therefore the impact on 13% of the beaches is considered significant. This impact will not be actively mitigated as part of the project. However, it is anticipated that coastal processes have created a sandy beach in front of the existing artificial walls will form again. Therefore this impact will likely be mitigated in time by natural processes that duplicate those that have already occurred on the island.

During construction the Tin Hau temple will be relocated. During this process, the impact will be significant; however the relocation process will fully mitigate this impact.

Moderate/Significant

The removal of 20% of the Secondary Woodland will have a moderate/significant impact as the LR is of a high sensitivity. Mitigation of this impact will be accomplished through re-planting of appropriate species.

Moderate Impacts

The removal of 4% of the rocky shoreline of South Soko will be a moderate impact. Although this is a small percentage, because this landscape unit is natural in appearance the impacts are considered to be much higher. The utilization of natural rocks in the artificial walls will partly compensate for this impact, however this is an impact of the development that will not be able to be fully mitigated.

There will be moderate impacts on the Plantation, Grassland, Disturbed Area and Artificial Shore. The Disturbed Areas and Artificial Shore will be replaced with similar man-made structures.

Slight/ Moderate Impacts

There will be a slight/moderate impact on the Shrubland LR’s. A small percentage (10%) of the Shrubland is affected which, is of medium sensitivity to change. The Shrubland impacts will be mitigated with new plantings.

Slight Impacts

There will be slight impacts on the Abandoned Wet and Dry Agricultural land. These areas are of low sensitivity and will be replaced with similar landscape elements.

Negligible Impacts

There will be negligible impacts on the Backshore Shrubland and the Abandoned Reservoir.

11.10.2 Offsite Landscape Impacts

Gas Receiving Station (GRS)

A GRS will be constructed on an area of reclaimed land adjacent to the existing power generating facilities at Black Point. The new station will be of a similar appearance to the existing LNG receiving station at Black Point. Given that the new station will be located within the existing facilities, there will be negligible landscape impacts associated with the new receiving station.

Water Main

A new water main is required to supply South Soko Island with fresh water from the existing Shek Pik Reservoir. The works will include a new water main along an existing road, between the reservoir and the sea.

The landscape impacts of this work will only occur during the construction period. Following excavation and installation of the new water main, the trench will be backfilled and the landscape reinstated. The residual landscape impacts will be negligible.

11.10.3 Landscape Resource Impacts During Operation

No impacts on the Landscape Resources are expected during operation.

11.11 Landscape Mitigation

The final detailed Landscape Mitigation Measures will be the subject of a Landscape Master Plan that will be submitted for approval to the relevant Authority prior to construction. This plan will investigate further measures to mitigate the impacts of the development including the feasibility of the use of techniques to green the tanks with vegetation.

As mentioned in Section 11.2, the preliminary layout assessed in this EIA Report has been selected from a number of alternative site layouts in virtue of its minimisation of landscape and visual impacts. The selection of the preferred preliminary layout was determined by a preliminary landscape and visual impact assessment of the alternative layouts. Figures 11.20a and 11.20b clearly show the difference that the reduction in the size of the terminal will potentially have on the landscape.

The landscape mitigation measures proposed will be installed progressively throughout the construction of the LNG terminal where technically safe and practical. This will assist in enhancing the effectiveness of the mitigation measures from the first day of operation.

Proposed mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on the existing Landscape Resources and provide a potential enhancement of the existing landscape quality are as follows:

LMM 1 – Cultivation of areas compacted during construction. Areas compacted during the construction phase that are not required during the operation phase, are to be cultivated to a depth of up to 300mm in accordance with the future Landscape Specification.

LMM 2 – Soil stabilisation and planting. During the design phase, a soil stabilisation and embankment planting strategy will be developed to ensure that land affected by slope excavation can be replanted. Soil preparation and the selection and provision of suitable growing medium is to be completed in accordance with the relevant best practice guidelines.

LMM 3 – Tree and shrub planting. Planting of trees and shrubs is to be carried out in accordance with the Landscape Details and the relevant best practice guidelines. Plant species and densities are to be provided in future detailed design documents and are to be selected so as to achieve a finished landscape that matches the surrounding equivalent landscape.

Note: LMM2 and LMM3 are to provide a minimum compensatory planting area of 0.2ha of Secondary Woodland, 1.9ha of Shrubland and 1.3ha of Grassland.

LMM4 – Utilising natural rock for reclamation. The reclamation areas shall utilise natural rocks for the engineered sea-walls.

LMM5 – Natural accretion of sand. It is anticipated that sand will naturally form at the base of the new sea walls creating a beach area similar to the existing beach. This process is dependent on natural forces, but is likely to occur within ten years. It must be noted that this is a natural process and is out of the control of the project proponent.

LMM6 – Cut Stabilisation. Areas of cut to be stabilised for operational requirements. Materials and finishes of stabilisation to be selected to complement the surrounding landscape where this is technically feasible. This includes the addition of pigments and aggregates in the finished slope that complement the existing geology of the area.

LMM7 – Bench Plantings. Cut Slopes to have benches created to allow for plantings. Plantings will include Shrubs and climbers to minimise the visual impact of the slope and mitigate impact on vegetation.

LMM8 - Relocation. Landscape Resources of value to be re-located where practically feasible.

LMM9 – Landscape Berm/Planter 2 metre high landscape berm/planter is to be constructed. Fast growing indigenous tree species to be installed to help screen the tanks and reduce the scale of the terminal. A typical detail for this measure is shown in detail 5 on Figure 11.21a.

LMM10 – New Access Construction of a new pier to allow public access to the southern area of the site.

LMM11 – Early Planting Works. Where technically feasible, new plantings are to be installed as early as possible during the construction works. Due to the unknown nature of the construction timing, this mitigation is not shown on Figure 11.20.

LMM12 – Site hoardings to be compatible with the surrounding environment. Where possible site hoardings to be coloured to complement the surrounding areas. Colours such as green and light brown are recommended. As the proposed locations are not yet known this mitigation measure is not shown on Figure 11.20.

Due to the land take and operational requirements of the LNG terminal, some landscape impacts cannot be mitigated. The trees that are to be removed for the terminal, will be compensated by planting new trees in other parts of the island. This will help restore some of the existing degraded areas to a more natural landscape.

Table 11.5 describes the predicted un-mitigated impacts on the landscape resources of South Soko in both construction and operation phases. It also shows the predicted mitigated impacts during construction, day 1 of operation and year 10 of operation after the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures.

Table

Table 11.5 Mitigated Landscape Impacts

No mitigation measures are proposed for LR’s 4 and 8 as there will be no impact on these resources. No mitigation measures are proposed for LR’s 7 and 11 as these resources will be replaced with similar resources as a result of the new Terminal.

11.11.1 Effectiveness of Landscape Resource Mitigation Measures

Due to the land take and operational requirements of the LNG terminal, some landscape impacts cannot be mitigated.

The trees that are to be removed will be compensated by new plantings in other parts of the island. This will help restore some of the more degraded areas to a historically more natural landscape.

Where mitigation measures are proposed they are effective measures, and will contribute to the mitigation of the affected Landscape Resources.

11.12 Residual Landscape Impacts

The residual landscape impacts are those landscape impacts that will remain after all mitigation measures have been implemented. Figure 11.22 shows the residual landscape impacts and they are quantified in Table 11.6.

Table 11.6 Residual Landscape Impacts

LR	Description	Area / Length (2005)	Area affected by proposed development	Mitigated Area	Residual Impact
1	Secondary Woodland	1 ha	0.2 ha	0.2ha	Nil
2	Plantation	11.4 ha	3.3 ha	Nil	3.3ha
3	Shrubland	85.7 ha	8.3 ha	1.9ha	6.4ha
4	Backshore shrubland	0.5 ha	Nil	Nil	Nil
5	Grassland	2.1 ha	1.8 ha	1.3ha	0.5ha
6	Abandoned wet and dry agricultural land	1.4 ha	0.5 ha	Nil	0.5ha
7	Disturbed area	6.5 ha	5.6 ha	5.6ha	Nil
8	Abandoned Reservoir	0.2 ha	Nil	Nil	Nil
9	Rocky Shoreline	6 km	0.27 km	Nil	0.4km
10	Sandy beaches	0.4 km	0.035 km	Nil	0.05km
11	Artificial Shore	0.7 km	0.56km	0.7km	Nil
12	Tin Hau Temple	25m^2	25m^2	25m^2	Nil

11.12.1 Residual Impact Summary

Due to the operational and safety requirements of the Terminal, the cultivation of vegetation on the cut-slopes behind the tanks is not appropriate. Bio-engineering of these slopes cannot meet the technical requirements for the integrity of the slope, and for safety reasons vegetation cannot be established on these slopes. Approximately 3.4 ha of impacted areas will be mitigated. Since Secondary Woodland is of a higher value and covers a smaller area than Shrubland, in general terms, the impact on the Secondary Woodland will be fully mitigated. As Shrubland is the next most valued landscape resource, the remaining areas available for mitigation will reinstate Shrubland resources. This however will leave a residual impact of approximately 6.4 hectares. The disturbed areas and artificial shore areas are to be replaced with similar resources (i.e., the new terminal) there will be no residual impacts on these areas. The Tin Hau temple is to be re-located to a suitable area on the island, therefore the residual impact will be negligible.

11.12.2 Mitigation Installation and Maintenance Responsibilities

The project proponent will be ultimately responsible for the installation and maintenance of the mitigation measures.

A specialist Landscape Sub-Contractor should be employed by the Contractor(s) for the implementation of landscape construction works and subsequent maintenance operations during a 24 month establishment period.

11.13 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

In undertaking the visual assessment, the following tasks were undertaken:

1. Define the viewshed that would be potentially impacted and map the areas of visual impact. This section describes the viewshed of the LNG terminal which is based on both the planning guidelines and the parameters of human vision. This section then utilises Geographical Information System (GIS) software to determine areas that can potentially see the LNG terminal. The GIS analysis is based solely on topography and does not take into account the screening potential of vegetation, which further reduces the actual viewshed. GIS analysis also maps the visibility of the LNG terminal from roads and houses.

2. Discuss atmospheric conditions. This section discusses the effects of weather, particularly sea haze and rainfall.

3. Identify and assess indicative viewpoints as a means of assessing the visual impact on the broader landscape. This section describes a number of key Visually Sensitive Receiver (VSR) viewpoints around the LNG terminal which were selected as representative of the range of views from accessible locations within the viewshed. Several viewpoints will also have photomontages or visual simulations prepared which show the existing landscape and the landscape with the proposed LNG terminal site. The VSR’s will be discussed to assess the visual compatibility and severity of any obstructions or visual impacts.

4. Discuss visual mitigation measures. This section examines measures incorporated into the design that will reduce potential visual impacts such as, positioning of structures, planting of vegetation and recommendations for material and finishes. These measures will also help improve the overall amenity of the proposal. Residual impacts are also discussed.

5. Assess night lighting and glare impacts. This section examines the potential glare and night lighting impacts associated with the proposal.

11.13.1 Viewshed determination & areas of potential visual impact

The baseline for a visual assessment is an understanding of the existing visual qualities within the region that can be visually affected by a proposed development. This area is referred to as the “viewshed” or sometimes the zone of visual influence (ZVI), or the “visual envelope” All terms refer to the same thing, however this report will use the term “viewshed”.

Defining an appropriate viewshed is the starting point to understand the visual impacts of a development as the area of the viewshed will vary depending on the nature and scale of the proposed development. The larger a development the greater the viewshed as it may be visually apparent from a greater distance. Once the viewshed is established, locations can be identified within the viewshed that are either particularly sensitive or indicative of the visual impact for a number of locations. In some circumstances, viewpoints may be identified beyond the viewshed to recognise the visual impact on locations of particularly high sensitivity.

As the viewer moves further away from the LNG terminal, the visual impact decreases until the LNG terminal is no longer visible. However, before the point of invisibility is reached, the LNG terminal has reduced in scale such that it no longer has a significant visual impact on the landscape. In most landscapes, especially those which have some degree of human intervention, the limit of the viewshed is defined as the point at which the LNG terminal would have an insignificant effect on the view.

11.13.2 Types of Viewshed

Recognising that the viewshed is not the limit of visibility, but rather the extent to which an LNG terminal would have an insignificant visual impact on the landscape, the extent of a viewshed differs in the context of different landscapes.

A viewshed in a man-modified landscape is different to a viewshed in a pristine landscape or landscapes where there are no apparent signs of human influence. This is because in landscapes that appear ‘natural’ or pristine, a man made element such as an LNG terminal placed inside the viewshed, can visually influence the landscape for as long as a viewer can discern that newly introduced element. A man made element in a pristine landscape irrevocably changes the landscape from natural to man modified. Therefore, viewsheds in pristine areas are extended to the limit of human visibility.

However in man modified landscapes, in which there are many other existing built forms or modifications to the landscape, the viewshed extends to that distance at which the LNG terminal become a minor element or blends in with the existing landscape. The LNG terminal may still be visible beyond this viewshed, however relative to the other surrounding structures it is considered to have an insignificant visual impact.

Therefore the viewshed is the area that is most likely to be visually impacted and once again, it is stressed that particularly sensitive locations beyond the viewshed may still need to be reviewed.

11.13.3 Viewshed Determination

The visual impact of a development can be quantified by reference to the degree of influence on a person’s field of vision. The following diagrams illustrate the typical parameters of human vision and are based on anthropometric data (Human Dimension & Interior Space – A Source Book of Design Reference Standards, Julius Panero and Martin Zelnik, The Architectural Press Ltd. London, 1979). This data provides a basis for assessing and interpreting the impact of a development by comparing the extent to which the development would intrude into the central field of vision (both horizontally and vertically).

Horizontal cone of view

The central field of vision for most people covers an angle of between 50^O and 60^O. Within this angle, both eyes observe an object simultaneously. This creates a central field of greater magnitude than that possible by each eye separately. This central field of vision is termed the 'binocular field' and within this field images are sharp, depth perception occurs and colour discrimination is possible.

These physical parameters are illustrated in Figure 11.23 opposite.

The visual impact of a development will vary according to the proportion to which the development consumes the central field of vision. Developments, which take up less that 5% of the central binocular field, are usually insignificant in most landscapes (5% of 50^O = 2.5^O).

In assessing the visual impact of the proposed LNG terminal it is assumed that the largest horizontal component is the entire terminal, which is approximately 400m wide.

Table 11.7 Visual Impact based on the Horizontal Field of View

Horizontal Field of View	Impact	Distance from an observer to a 400m wide facility
<2.5^O of view	Insignificant The development will take up less than 5% of the central field of view. The development, unless particularly conspicuous against the background, will not intrude significantly into the view. The extent of the vertical angle will also affect the visual impact.	>9,000m
2.5^O – 30^O of view	Potentially noticeable The development may be noticeable and its degree of visual intrusion will depend greatly on its ability to blend in with its surroundings and how far someone is from the terminal.	700 m –9,000m
>30^O of view	Potentially visually dominant Developments that fill more than 50 percent of the central field of vision will always be noticed and only sympathetic treatments will mitigate visual effects.	< 700m

Vertical Field of View

A similar analysis can be undertaken based upon the vertical line of sight for human vision. As can be seen in Figure 11.24 opposite the typical line of sight is considered horizontal or 0 ^O. A person’s natural or normal line of sight is normally a 10 ^O cone of view below the horizontal and, if sitting, approximately 15 ^O.

Objects which take up 5% of this cone of view (5% of 10 ^O = 0.5 ^O) would only take up a small proportion of the vertical field of view, and are only visible when one focuses on them directly. Objects that take up such a small proportion of the vertical view cone are not dominant, nor do they create a significant change to the existing environment when such short objects are placed within a disturbed or man-modified landscape. They may however be more noticeable in a pristine environment.

Table 11.8 below shows the relationship between impact and the proportion that the development occupies within the vertical line of sight.

Table 11.8 Extent of Impact Based on Distance to Tanks

Vertical Line of Sight	Impact	Distance from an observer to a 70m high facility
< 0.5^O of vertical angle	Insignificant A thin line in the landscape.	>6,000m
0.5^O – 2.5^O of vertical angle	Potentially noticeable The degree of visual intrusion will depend on the development’s ability to blend in with the surroundings.	1,260 – 6,000m
> 2.5^O of vertical angle	Visually evident Usually visible, however the degree of visual intrusion will depend of the width of the object and its placement within the landscape.	< 1,260m

An apparent discrepancy in the distance of the viewshed occurs when analysing horizontal and vertical parameters separately. Generally, the more conservative figures form the basis for the visual impacts assessment. For the LNG terminal it is proposed to extend the viewshed to 9,000m, although it could be argued that a lesser extent would also be valid.

For the proposed LNG terminal it is proposed that the distances in Table 11.9 are used for the Viewshed analysis.

Table 11.9 Viewshed and Degrees of Visual Influence

Impact	Distance from an observer to the LNG terminal
Negligible A thin line in the landscape, both horizontally and vertically	>9,000m
Potentially noticeable The degree of visual intrusion will depend on the development’s ability to blend in with the surroundings.	1,260 – 9,000m
Visually evident Usually visible, however the degree of visual intrusion will depend on the degree to which the development will blend into the landscape.	< 1,260m

It must be noted that the areas that define the viewshed are a guide only. Simply because a viewer moves from 1260m from the Terminal to 1270m, this will not result in the impact moving from ‘Visually Evident’ to ‘Potentially Noticeable’. Similarly just because a viewpoint is within either of these zones does not indicate that a view within the viewshed will experience an impact. Other factors such as terrain, vegetation and human-made elements in the landscape can reduce or even remove visual impacts within the viewshed.

11.13.4 Areas of potential visual impact

A GIS analysis can determined those areas that can potentially be visually impacted by the development. The GIS analysis is based on topography only, and shows those areas that would be screened by intervening hills etc. It does not account for intervening vegetation or buildings, nor does it take into account small variations in topography, such as road cuttings. Therefore it is a conservative assessment of those areas that may be potentially visually impacted by the LNG terminal and the storage tanks.

Figure 11.25 shows an analysis of those areas within a 9000m viewshed that may be able to see any part of the proposed terminal. As the storage tanks are the largest element, they will be visible from the greatest distance and therefore the assessment is based on the height of the tanks (70m PD) as it is a worst case scenario.

The viewshed is divided into two zones. The zones of greatest potential visual impact include those areas within 1,260m of the LNG terminal. This zone mainly lies over the water between South Soko and North Soko Island.

The second zone is between 1,260m to 9,000m from the terminal and is still primarily ocean as South Soko lies approximately 5km south of Lantau. It is the main land areas of Lantau that could potentially see the LNG terminal since they lie within the second zone.

Table 11.10 Analysis of the areas that lie within the viewshed where part of the LNG tanks would be visible

This analysis shows that the main views to the entire LNG terminal will be from the water. Land based viewing locations are only available within 5.6% of the 368km² viewshed.

A similar analysis showing those areas from which the entire LNG tankwould be visible was conducted to identify those areas of greatest potential impact. This analysis showed far less impacts than in the preceding analysis since it precludes areas that may be able to see a proportion but not all of the LNG terminal.

Figure 11.26 shows those areas that will be able to view any entire LNG tank down to ground level and these areas are mainly from the ocean, to the east or west and from a very small area to the south west of Lantau.

Table 11.11 Analysis of the areas that lie within the viewshed where an entire LNG tank would be visible

This analysis demonstrates that the majority of the area that may be potentially impacted lies on the ocean. Land based vantage points are very limited and only represent 0.8% of the total viewshed of 364km².

The next section of the visual analysis will focus on viewpoint locations on land that lie within those areas that can potentially view the proposed LNG terminal. Those areas are generally restricted to coastlines, where intervening topography cannot screen views, and along ridges in the higher areas that also have views towards South Soko. As there will also be some marine VSR’s affected, these are also assessed.

11.13.5 Atmospheric Factors which will affect visual impact

Many climatic conditions such as sea haze, rainfall and other atmospheric conditions will alter the visibility of the LNG terminal. The diminution of visual clarity bought about by atmospheric conditions increases with distance. As the proposed site is located approximately 5km from Lantau, the impact of sea haze and other atmospheric conditions will reduce visibility of the terminal.

Sea Haze

Sea haze is a climatic condition along coastlines that can reduce visibility even on days when the weather is clear. Wind which blows across the ocean can cause a sea haze, limiting views to the site and the proposed LNG terminal from surrounding areas. Sea haze is unlikely to have much impact on the visibility of the LNG terminal when viewed from close proximity, (i.e., less than 1.2km). However, when the same features are viewed from greater distances within the viewshed the effect of sea haze will greatly reduce visibility and any potential visual impact. This was evident in 2005 when ERM was first asked to assess South Soko. In the first six months of 2005 there were very few days of sufficiently clear visibility to undertake a photographic survey from vantage points on Lantau Island.

Rainfall

The effect that rainfall has on visibility can be measured in two ways. Firstly the event of falling rain reduces visibility as the water droplets obscure vision. This varies greatly depending on the heaviness of the precipitation, but even light rain greatly obscures distant objects.

Secondly, the event of rain, particularly sustained rain periods, reduces visitor numbers. Therefore, the overall visual impact is reduced on those days as less viewers will be visiting the area and looking at the site.

Figure 11.27 Hong Kong Weather. Source: Hong Kong Observatory

Figure 11.27 shows that during the wetter months, particularly from May through to September, Hong Kong receives on average approximately 10 millimetres per day. Thus during these rain periods, visibility is reduced.

11.13.6 Assessment Scenarios

Whilst the above section 11.13.5 describe some of the climatic conditions that reduce the visibility of the LNG Terminal, the following assessment will be based on a worst case scenario that assumes perfectly clear viewing conditions. Mitigation measures will then be proposed reduce these impacts.

11.13.7 Baseline Visual Character

The area within the viewshed (The Soko Islands and South Lantau) is a region of relatively high visual quality. The area is characterised by following:

· The steeply sloping peaks of Lantau Island;

· The Ocean areas;

· The offshore islands (including the Sokos);

· The beach areas and;

· The man modified areas, which generally comprises of roads and villages of a typical height of 3 storeys that are visible on Lantau Island.

These elements combine to create a visually appealing landscape.

11.13.8 Visually Sensitive Receivers

To determine the likely Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSR’s), a desktop assessment and detailed site assessment were carried out. The most sensitive VSR’s were then identified and to encompass the likely range of potentially affected people. The identified VSR’s are in the following areas:

· Lantau Residents; including Villages such as Cheung Sha, Pui O and Tong Fuk;

· Lantau visitors; including the Lantau Trail and the Big Buddha;

· Road transiting visitors; these include the main roads

· Visitors on marine vessels; these include visitors on passing ferries as well as recreational boats in the area.

All of the VSR’s selected are from located to the north of the proposed development as there are no populated area to the south of the site. There are some passing ships, however these are generally outside HKSAR waters. It is expected that any visual impacts from experienced from passing marine vessels to the south of the site would be similar to those to the north.

11.13.9 VSR Assessment

There are a number of factors that must be considered when carrying out the visual impact assessment on the VSR’s.

VSR Sensitivity

The first set of criteria relate to the sensitivity of the VSR’s. They include:

· Value and quality of existing views;

· Availability and amenity of alternative views;

· Type and estimated number of receiver population;

· Duration of frequency of view; and

· Degree of visibility.

The views available to the identified VSRs are rated in accordance with their sensitivity to change using high, medium or low as defined below:

· High –

i. The nature of the viewer groups expect a high degree of control over their immediate environment, (e.g., people residing in their homes); and

ii. The viewer groups in close proximity to the Project which may include viewers aboard recreational marine vessels.

· Medium -

i. The nature of the viewer groups expect a medium degree of control over their immediate environment, (e.g. hikers on a walking trail);

ii. People in transit (e.g., drivers and passengers in vehicles);

· Low –

i. The nature of the viewer groups does not expect a high degree of control over their immediate environment, (e.g. people at their place of employment or temporarily in attendance at the VSR location).

Magnitude of Change

This set of criteria is related to the specific details of the proposal; how it relates to the existing landscape and the visible magnitude of change it will cause.

The criteria to be assessed are:

· Compatibility of the project with the surrounding landscape;

· Scale of the development;

· Reversibility of change;

· Viewing distance;

· Potential blockage of view; and

· Duration of impact under construction and operation phases.

The magnitude of change to a view is rated as large, intermediate, small or negligible, as follows:

· Large - major change in view.

· Intermediate - moderate change in view.

· Small - minor change in view.

· Negligible - no discernible change in view.

The degree of visual impact or significance threshold is rated in a similar fashion to the landscape impact (significant, moderate, slight and negligible). The impacts may be beneficial or adverse, however with this project, it is assumed that all visual impacts will be adverse. Therefore, the visual impact is a product of the magnitude and degree of change to the existing baseline conditions, the landscape context and the sensitivities of VSR’s. The significance threshold of visual impact is rated for the construction phase and for Day 1 and Year 10 of the operation phase as described in Table 11.27

11.13.10 Photomontage Preparation

The visual assessments are also partly based on photomontages, which show the view with and without the terminal.

Photographs that form the base of the photomontages are taken with a 70mm Nikon lens on a 35mm film single lens reflex camera. A 70mm lens has a picture angle of 34.34^O and a horizontal angle of view of 28.84^O. (http://www.europepress.com/lenses/nikon_standard_zoom.htm). When two photographs taken with a 70mm lens are overlapped approximately 1/3, the resultant image has a picture angle of approximately 50^O, which is very similar to the central cone of view of human vision.

Figure 11.28 Two photographs overlapped 1/3 to create an image approximately the same as the central cone of view of human vision

As discussed above, the central field of human vision is approximately 50^O - 60^O. Two photographs taken with a 70mm lens with approximately 1/3 overlap best show this static view. A 50mm lens (picture angle 48.45^O, horizontal field of view 39.59^O) is often used for visual assessments as it is called a ‘normal lens’ because it produces roughly the same picture angle as the human eye (about 50°). However, the 70mm lens slightly increases the apparent size of objects in the middle and far distance and hence increases the apparent size of the terminal in the photomontages. For this reason this 1/3 overlap technique has been adopted for the photomontages preparation within this report.

11.13.11 Visual Impact Assessment from Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSR)

Figure 11.29 shows the indicative viewpoints from publicly accessible locations, which have been selected for analysis.

As mentioned previously the land based VSR’s are generally along the coastline, where intervening topography cannot screen views, and along ridges in the higher areas that also have views towards South Soko.

As well as these land based viewpoints, other locations have been selected as sea based VSR’s that can be used to represent the view from shipping / ferry lanes and therefore ocean based views.

These viewpoints have been selected to represent the range of views from publicly accessible locations. The selected viewpoints are representative of four different viewing types, which are described below.

Views from Country Parks and Scenic Lookouts

Six viewpoints have been selected to represent the views from Country Parks and Scenic Lookouts. These are:

VSR3 Tong Fuk Temple

VSR4 Cheung Sha Beach Lower

VSR6 Pui O Beach

VSR7 Big Buddha Statue

VSR12 Sunset Peak

VSR15 Fan Lau

Photomontages have been prepared for all viewpoints with the exception of VSR12 and VSR15, which have had computer simulations prepared of the potential view. The computer simulations were created as clear photos of the site from these viewpoints could not be obtained during the site visits. These simulations give a ‘worst case scenario’ as they do not account for local atmospheric conditions.

Views from Villages

Four viewpoints have been selected to represent the views from Villages. These are:

VSR1 Tai Long Wan Tsuen

VSR5 Cheung Sha Ha Tsuen

VSR13 Chi Ma Wan Peninsula (Visual Simulation)

VSR 14 Shek Kwu Chau (Visual Simulation)

Views from Road Network

The local road network provides limited opportunities to view the LNG terminal from publicly accessible locations. Indicative viewpoints have been selected from the surrounding road network and have been chosen at locations where views are uninterrupted by roadside vegetation / road cuttings etc. The two viewpoints were chosen at the southern end of Lantau and on an elevated location towards the centre of South Soko Island.

VSR2 – View from Shek Mun Sha

VSR8 – View from Tung Chung Road

Views from the Ocean

The ocean provides opportunities to easily view South Soko and the proposed LNG terminal and in fact the GIS analysis has shown that the greatest potential viewing locations are from the surrounding ocean, not from the land. However these ocean views are not static, as people on marine vessels experience a changing view due to vessel motion and other ships, landforms and structures can obscure views. To simulate the potential for ocean views locations have been chosen which are expected to have greatest numbers of users, such as along the Macau Ferry route.

11.13.12 VSR1 – View from Tai Long Wan Tsuen

Tai Long Wan Tsuen is a small village on the coastline approximately 6.3km north west of the proposed Terminal. This location is also popular with weekend visitors, for the purposes of the assessment, both types of VSR’s are given the same sensitivity.

Figure 11.29 VSR1 Tai Long Wan Tsuen

Table 11.12 Sensitivity / Quality of VSR

Value and quality of view	High
Visitor numbers	Medium
Availability and amenity of alternative views	High
Duration and frequency of views to facility	Short and Variable
Degree of visibility	Low-medium
Sensitivity/Quality of VSR	High

The duration and frequency of views is short and variable as at this distance there is a high availability of other views and the terminal will occupy a very small part of the field of view.

Table 11.12a Magnitude of Change

Table 11.12b Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Table 11.12c Significance Threshold during Operation

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Photomontage 1 shows that the LNG terminal may be visible on clear days. This VSR has a high degree of sensitivity however, given the long distance from this viewpoint and the high availability of other views, and the partial screening provided by other Islands there will be a Moderate visual impact.

11.13.13 VSR2 – View from Shek Mun Sha

Shek Mun Sha lies at the southern end of Lantau and approximately 5km to the north of the proposed LNG terminal. It is considered the closest land based potential viewing point. This VSR is classified as road users.

Figure 11.32 VSR2 Shek Mun Sha

Table 11.13 Sensitivity / Quality of VSR

Table 11.13a Magnitude of Change

Table 11.13b Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Table 11.13c Significance Threshold during Operation

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Photomontage 2 shows that the LNG terminal will only be discernable on the clearest of days. The majority of the proposed LNG terminal is also partly hidden by North Soko and the northern ridgeline of South Soko and therefore there will be a Slight visual impact.

11.13.14 VSR3 – View from Tong Fuk Temple

The Tong Fuk Temple is located approximately 6.9km NNE from the proposed LNG terminal. This VSR is classified as a scenic lookout however this location is also popular with weekend visitors and there are nearby residents of Tong Fuk. For the purposes of the assessment, all types of VSR’s are given the same sensitivity.

Figure 11.34 VSR3 Tong Fuk Temple

Table 11.14 Sensitivity / Quality of VSR

Value and quality of view	High
Visitor numbers	Low - Medium
Availability and amenity of alternative views	High
Duration and frequency of views to facility	Short and Variable
Degree of visibility	Low
Sensitivity/Quality of VSR	High

Table 11.14a Magnitude of Change

Table 11.14b Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Table 11.14c Significance Threshold during Operation

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Photomontage 3 shows that views from this location are screened by both the Lantau headland and North Soko. Therefore as the LNG terminal is not visible from this location, its visual impact will be Negligible.

VSR4 – View from Cheung Sha Beach Lower

This viewpoint also lies to the NNE of South Soko, approximately 7.7km from the nearest LNG Tank. This VSR is classified as a scenic lookout.

Figure 11.36 VSR4 – View from Cheung Sha Beach Lower

Table 11.15 Sensitivity / Quality of VSR

Table 11.15a Magnitude of Change

Table 11.15b Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Table 11.15c Significance Threshold during Operation

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Photomontage 4 on the following page shows that views from this location are partly screened by the Lantau headland and North Soko, however a tiny section of a tank may be visible above North Soko Island on days of exceptionally good visibility.

The above tables are a guide only and show the significance threshold as Moderate. However since a tiny fragment of the LNG terminal is only partly visible and the distance is large, the visual impact will be Slight.

11.13.15 VSR5 – View from Cheung Sha Ha Tsuen

Cheung Sha Ha Tsuen is a residential VSR and lies to the NNE of South Soko, approximately 6.9km from the nearest LNG Tank.

Figure 11.38 VSR5 - Cheung Sha Ha Tsuen

Table 11.16 Sensitivity / Quality of VSR

Value and quality of view	High
Visitor numbers	Small
Availability and amenity of alternative views	High
Duration and frequency of views to facility	Short and Variable
Degree of visibility	Low
Sensitivity/Quality of VSR	High

The duration and frequency of views is short and variable as at this distance there is a high availability of other views and the terminal will occupy a very small part of the field of view.

Table 11.16a Magnitude of Change

Table 11.16b Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Table 11.16c Significance Threshold during Operation

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Photomontage 5 shows views from this location are screened by the Lantau headland and North Soko. Therefore since the LNG terminal is not visible, the visual impact would be Negligible.

11.13.16 VSR6 – View from Pui O Beach

Pui O Beach is on the coast approximately 10.5km to the north east of the proposed LNG terminal. At this distance the beach is outside of the viewshed, however since it is an important weekend tourist destination it was included to illustrate the impact of the LNG terminal may have at this distance. This VSR is classified as a scenic lookout due to its popularity with tourists. The site is also a residential area so for the purposes of the assessment, both types of VSR’s are given the same sensitivity.

Figure 11.40 VSR6 Pui O Beach

Table 11.17 Sensitivity / Quality of VSR

Value and quality of view	High
Visitor numbers	Medium
Availability and amenity of alternative views	High
Duration and frequency of views to facility	Short and Variable
Degree of visibility	Low
Sensitivity/Quality of VSR	High

Table 11.17a Magnitude of Change

Table 11.17b Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Table 11.17c Significance Threshold during Operation

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Photomontage 6 on the following page shows that the LNG terminal will not be discernable on any but the clearest of days. The proposed Terminal is also partly hidden by North Soko and the northern ridgeline of South Soko. Given the long distance from this viewpoint and the high availability of other views, there will be Negligible visual impact.

11.13.17 VSR7 – View from Big Buddha Statue

The Big Buddha Statue is located on a ridgeline in Lantau approximately 9.5km north of the LNG terminal. Although it is theoretically beyond the viewshed, its importance as a tourism and cultural destination warranted its consideration within the visual assessment. It is also one of the few high points from which views to the LNG terminal are possible. This VSR is classified as a scenic lookout due to its popularity with tourists.

Figure 11.42 VSR7 Big Buddha Statue

Table 11.18 Sensitivity / Quality of VSR

Value and quality of view	High
Visitor numbers	High
Availability and amenity of alternative views	High
Duration and frequency of views to facility	Short and Variable
Degree of visibility	Low
Sensitivity/Quality of VSR	High

Table 11.18a Magnitude of Change

Table 11.18b Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Table 11.18c Significance Threshold during Operation

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

This VSR is possibly the most sensitive given its cultural value and the high number of tourists that visit the site.

Photomontage 7 on the following page shows that views from this location are partly screened by the Lantau headland and North Soko. As the site is a long distance away and there is only a very small magnitude of change, the visual impact will be Slight.

11.13.18 VSR8 – View from Tung Chung Road

This VSR is assessed as part of the road network. Tung Chung Road is a steeply sloping road towards the centre of Lantau on the edge of the viewshed. On some of the ridges that it crosses, the previous GIS analysis highlighted the possibility of views towards the LNG terminal. However existing roadside vegetation largely screens most views towards the site and as is apparent in the photographs, atmospheric conditions make the visibility of the Soko Island group difficult. The photomontage prepared shows the ocean view from Tung Chung Road, and the terminal is not visible.

Figure 11.44 VSR8 Tung Chung Road

Table 11.19 Sensitivity / Quality of VSR

Table 11.19a Magnitude of Change

Table 11.19b Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Table 11.19c Significance Threshold during Operation

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Photomontage 8 on the following page shows that the above factors along with the large distance to the site indicate that from this VSR the visual impact will be negligible.

11.13.19 VSR9 – View from Macau Ferry Route

The Macau Ferry route runs along the northern edge of North Soko, just south of Lantau.

Figure 11.46 VSR9 Macau Ferry Lane

Table 11.20 Sensitivity / Quality of VSR

Value and quality of view	High
Visitor numbers	High
Availability and amenity of alternative views	High
Duration and frequency of views to facility	Short
Degree of visibility	Medium - High
Sensitivity/Quality of VSR	Medium

Table 11.20a Magnitude of Change

Table 11.20b Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Table 11.20c Significance Threshold during Operation

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Photomontage 9 on the following page shows that the Terminal will be visible. Views will be very short however, and will depend on the seating arrangement of the viewer. The visual impact from this location will therefore be more likely to be Slight-Moderate.

11.13.20 VSR10 – View from North Soko Bay

North Soko Bay is one of the few viewing locations that are within 1.2km of South Soko. It is approximately 900m to the north of the LNG terminal. This viewpoint has been chosen as it represents the most commonly visited area. There are no paths or walking trails to elevated points on North Soko. This VSR is classified as a scenic lookout as it may be visited by recreational marine traffic.

Figure 11.48 VSR10 North Soko Bay

Table 11.21 Sensitivity / Quality of VSR

Value and quality of view	High
Visitor numbers	Low
Availability and amenity of alternative views	Medium
Duration and frequency of views to facility	Medium
Degree of visibility	Medium
Sensitivity/Quality of VSR	High

Table 11.21a Magnitude of Change

Table 11.21b Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Table 11.21b Significance Threshold during Operation

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Photomontage 10 on the following page shows that some components of the LNG terminal will be visible. The sites position is such that the eastern peak of South Soko will screen much of the views to the terminal from this viewpoint. It should be noted that there are very low visitor numbers to North Soko and from this viewpoint the visual impact will be Moderate-Significant.

11.13.21 VSR11 – View from Off South Soko

This view is taken 417m west of the proposed facility which is the closest ocean viewing point to the proposed LNG terminal. This site was selected as it is a view typically experienced by visitors aboard vessels travelling to the Soko Islands. The view from the ocean as shown in VSR 11 is the worst case as people arrive by boat, their sensitivities will be greatest at this point as it is their first full view of the terminal. This VSR is classified as views from the ocean.

Figure 11.50 VSR11 Off South Soko

Table 11.22 Sensitivity / Quality of VSR

Value and quality of view	High
Visitor numbers	Low
Availability and amenity of alternative views	Low
Duration and frequency of views to facility	Long and frequent
Degree of visibility	High
Sensitivity/Quality of VSR	High

Table 11.22a Magnitude of Change

Table 11.22b Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Table 11.22c Significance Threshold during Operation

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Photomontage 11 on the following page shows that the LNG terminal will be clearly visible, and the impact will be Significant. However as discussed above there are low visitor numbers to this location who will experience this impact.

11.13.22 VSR12 – Visual Simulation from Sunset Peak

Sunset Peak is located on a ridgeline in Lantau approximately 10.8km NNE of the LNG terminal. Although it is also beyond the viewshed, its importance as a tourism destination warranted its consideration within the visual assessment. Like the Big Buddha statue, it is one of the few high points from which views to the LNG terminal are possible although at this distance atmospheric affects will be important. Views from this distance are so limited by atmospheric effects that on numerous occasions when this location was visited to photograph the site, South Soko was not visible. Therefore the photomontages have been based on a computer simulation. This VSR is classified as Country Park and Scenic Lookout.

Figure 11.52 VSR12 Sunset Peak

Table 11.23 Sensitivity / Quality of VSR

Value and quality of view	High
Visitor numbers	Med
Availability and amenity of alternative views	High
Duration and frequency of views to facility	Short and Variable
Degree of visibility	Low
Sensitivity/Quality of VSR	High

Table 11.23a Magnitude of Change

Table 11.23b Significance Threshold

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Table 11.23c Significance Threshold

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

This VSR has a high degree of sensitivity based on the medium level of user numbers. Whilst the table shows a Moderate impact, given that tiny parts of the terminal may be visible, the impact is assessed as Slight.

11.13.23 VSR13 – Visual Simulation from Chi Ma Wan Peninsula

This VSR is residential and is taken on the edge of the Chi Ma Wan Peninsular. It is approximately 9.2km to the north east of the proposed LNG terminal, and it is just on the edge of the 9km viewshed. Atmospheric conditions, when visiting this location, did not permit views to South Soko, so computer simulations have been used to show the potential impact on days of perfect visibility.

Figure 11.54 VSR13 Chi Ma Wan Peninsula

Table 11.24 Sensitivity / Quality of VSR

Value and quality of view	High
Visitor numbers	Low
Availability and amenity of alternative views	High
Duration and frequency of views to facility	Short and Variable
Degree of visibility	Low
Sensitivity/Quality of VSR	High

The duration and frequency of views is short and variable as at this distance there is a high availability of other views and the terminal will occupy a very small part of the field of view.

Table 11.24a Magnitude of Change

Table 11.24b Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Table 11.24c Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Photomontage 13 on the following page shows that the LNG terminal will only be discernable on the clearest of days. The proposed Terminal is also partly hidden by North Soko and the northern ridgeline of South Soko. Given the long distance from this viewpoint and the high availability of other views, there will be negligible visual impact.

11.13.24 VSR14 Visual Simulation from Shek Kwu Chau

This is a residential VSR and is 8.2km from the site. As this location is on the outer limits of the viewshed for the project, a visual simulation has been prepared.

Figure 11.56 VSR14 Shek Kwu Chau

Table 11.25 Sensitivity / Quality of VSR

Value and quality of view	High
Visitor numbers	Low
Availability and amenity of alternative views	High
Duration and frequency of views to facility	Short and Variable
Degree of visibility	Low
Sensitivity/Quality of VSR	High

The duration and frequency of views is short and variable as at this distance there is a high availability of other views and the terminal will occupy a very small part of the field of view.

Table 11.25a Magnitude of Change

Table 11.25b Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Table 11.25c Significance Threshold during Operation

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

From this viewpoint, the terminal may be visible on very clear days. Therefore due to the long distance, the visual impact will be Negligible.

11.13.25 VSR15 – Visual Simulation from Fan Lau

Fan Lau is classified as a Country Park/Scenic Lookout and is located on Lantau approximately 7.1km NW of the LNG terminal. This photomontages has been created using a computer simulation.

Figure 11.58 VSR15 Fan Lau

Table 11.26 Sensitivity / Quality of VSR

Value and quality of view	High
Visitor numbers	Low
Availability and amenity of alternative views	High
Duration and frequency of views to facility	Short and Variable
Degree of visibility	Medium
Sensitivity/Quality of VSR	High

Table 11.26a Magnitude of Change

Table 11.26b Significance Threshold during Construction

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Table 11.26b Significance Threshold during Operation

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

Photomontage 15 on the following page shows that given the sites location, this VSR has a high degree of sensitivity. Whilst the above significance threshold shows a Moderate impact, the photomontage shows that the impact will be small, therefore the visual impact will be as Slight-Moderate.

11.14 Visual Mitigation Measures

The final detailed Visual Mitigation Measures will be the subject of a Landscape Master Plan that will be submitted for approval to the relevant Authority prior to construction.

The above analysis has shown that 6 of the 15 VSR’s selected will experience a Negligible visual impact. However for those VSR’s that are expected to experience an impact, the following Visual Mitigation Measures (VMM’s) are proposed to reduce these impacts and provide a potential enhancement of visual quality.

VMM 1 Design of Structures

Where possible, built structures will be utilise appropriate designs to complement the surrounding landscape. Materials and finishes will also be considered during detailed design.

VMM 2 Colours

Colours for the terminal can be used to complement the surrounding area. Lighter colours such as shades of light grey and light brown may be utilised where technically feasible to reduce the visibility of the terminal.

VMM 3 Plantings

In addition to the landscape mitigation plantings proposed in Section 11.10 of this report, appropriate new plantings will be installed as appropriate to help integrate the new structures into the surrounding landscape.

11.14.1 Alternative Site Layouts

Section 2 of this EIA discusses the layout changes to the South Soko Terminal that have been undertaken in order to provide a comparison and therefore reduce the visibility of the major visible elements.

11.14.2 Mitigated Visual Impacts

Table 11.27 predicts the potential mitigated visual impacts during construction and operation. It also predicts the mitigated visual impacts during construction, day 1 and year 10 of operation.

Table 11.27 Mitigated Visual Impacts

11.15 Summary of Visual Impacts

Of the 15 VSR’s analysed in this study, 1 VSR group will experience a significant impact, 1 VSR group will experience a moderate-significant impact, 1 VSR group will experience a moderate impact, 2 VSR’s will have a slight-moderate impact 4 VSR’s will experience a slight impact and 6 VSR’s will experience a negligible impact.

11.16 Night Lighting and Glare

The above analysis examined the visual impacts of the proposal during daylight hours. Although distance between land based VSR’s and the project is greater than 5km, lighting associated with the terminal may create a night time visual impact. While detailed lighting plans and specifications are not available at this preliminary design stage, the following lighting practices will be considered during the detailed design stage.

· Security lighting of the site boundary. These are generally spot lights mounted on the external fencing and will have the beams directed towards the ground.

· General access lighting. This will provide safe access and operational lighting conditions around the site. Baffles will be fitted where possible to reducing upward light spill.

· Emergency lighting. These lights will provide safe levels of illumination to facilitate evacuations or repairs in emergency situations. The use of these lights will be infrequent.

· Aviation lighting. It is anticipated that some lighting will be required at the tops of the storage tanks and vent stacks to provide aviation safety. These lights are typically flashing coloured lights that are visible from large distances, however they will not have a large contribution to the overall ambient light levels of the site.

11.16.1 Distances between Source lighting and VSR’s.

The distances between the land based VSR’s and the project are greater than 5 kms. While the visibility of individual light fittings from these distances is low, the general night time glow and aviation lighting on the tops of the tanks will be visible. It should also be noted that some previously discussed climatic conditions such as rain events and sea haze, also apply to light visibility and are expected to reduce night time visibility. However, occasionally, cloud cover can increase the visibility of night lighting in the form of reflected light. This will occur when a heavy cover of low cloud sits above the site and consequently reflects the light from beneath.

11.16.2 The Surrounding Ambient Light of the VSR

Night lighting from a source is more visible when one is observing in darkness. As the surrounding ambient light increases, the visibility of distant objects reduces. This includes viewers in cars, near street lights, or inside illuminated homes. Due to its remote location, viewers looking towards the terminal site in darkness are expected to be very low in number.

11.16.3 The Surrounding Lighting Conditions of the Source.

The main form of lighting in the area surrounding the site is from passing vessels, the existing lighting of the Low Level Nuclear Waste Storage facilities located on North Soko Island and the lighting associated with the villages and roads on Lantau. Lighting on the shipping lanes ranges from that required for small fishing boats, to the more extensive lighting associated with larger commercial shipping and passenger vessels such as the Macau Ferry. These all have varying levels of lighting, however their presence creates several sources of light in the vicinity of the project. The area around South Soko is therefore not a ‘light free’ area.

11.16.4 Visual impact of night time lighting

The above analysis indicates that potential night time lighting impacts will be low. This is due to the following:

· The lighting for the proposal will generally be provided by spot lights angled downwards and while this will result in an illuminated glow from the site, and the overall impact is expected to be low.

· The large distances between the site and the majority of VSR’s and associated atmospheric conditions will reduce any lighting impacts;

· Most views towards the site will occur in areas with existing ambient lighting levels, therefore reducing the visibility of distant lights;

· A variety of marine vessels with night lighting are commonly in the vicinity and South Soko Island is not in an area free of lighting sources.

· All of the major light sources will be pointed inward and downwards to reduce light spill.

11.17 Existing Landscape Character

To analyze the effects on the overall pattern of landscape elements that give rise to landscape character, one must first describe the existing landscape character of the site and of the surrounding areas that fall within the viewshed.

11.17.1 Landscape Value Mapping

The study ‘Landscape Value Mapping of Hong Kong’[2] recognized the value in these island landscapes:

“The remoteness and outlying locations mean that in some cases (notably at Tung Ping Chau) they form unique landscapes, rich in nature conservation interests.”

South Soko Island currently exhibits a remoteness which plays an important role in the make-up of its landscape character. Most of the island landscapes are given a High Terrestrial LCA Value although the study does recognize that landscape sensitivity is less where:

“The landscape is in poor condition when the pattern of natural resources which make up the landscape is highly degraded. This means that there will be almost total disturbance to natural terrain, natural features and water courses with little or no vegetation.”

The ‘Landscape Value Mapping of Hong Kong’ also found that South Soko generally has a high terrestrial Landscape Character Area value in good condition with a

‘..reasonably intact pattern of topography, built and natural features.’

The study also noted that major development would

‘..likely have a significant effect on the character of the landscape’

However, while many of the islands around Hong Kong are undoubtedly in good condition and more sensitive to development, as noted previously South Soko and North Soko contain man made modifications. The Detention Centre at South Soko led to the construction of a number of roads, and these built upon previous infrastructure that goes back to the 1960’s when South Soko contained fishing villages. Similarly North Soko has also been partially developed and altered. It contains a low level radioactive waste storage facility that was completed in the last two years. Both of the islands previously supported village developments from 1800’s through to the 1950’s-60’s.

The mapping within the ‘Landscape Value Mapping of Hong Kong’ does not differentiate between the lesser sensitivity inherent within man modified island landscapes such as those of South Soko and the more pristine islands such as Tung Ping Chau to the north east. Whilst South Soko Island shows obvious signs of human activity in some areas of the island, other areas, particularly those to the south west, are more natural in appearance.

11.17.2 Topography

The topography of South Soko has a varied form and shape. In general, the terrain is moderate with broad convex hillcrests with a few rugged and steep slopes with rocky outcrops.

The island has four main rises in the landform, with two at the northern headland and two to the south. A ridge line runs from northeast to southwest; with the highest peak approximately 150m in height to the south, followed by an 85m high hill at the headland.

Figure 11.60 Existing topography

The figure above illustrates the view looking to the ridge line on the south from the northern ridgeline across the former detention centre site.

11.17.3 Landscape Character Areas

The Landscape Value Mapping of Hong Kong describes the general Landscape Character Type of South Soko as ‘Coastal Waters Landscape’ and it is given a high Landscape value. There are four Landscape Character Areas within the area and they are:

LCA 1 – Island Landscape

LCA 2 – Abandoned Institutional Landscape

LCA 3 – Offshore Water Landscape

LCA 4 – Inshore Water Landscape

LCA 1 Island Landscape

This LCA is typical of the outlying Islands found in Hong Kong. Its Landscape Character is dominated by rocky shorelines, with undulating vegetated slopes. Figure 11.61 below shows a typical area of the Island Landscape which includes paths and access roads that are a result of the previous construction of the Detention Centre.

Figure 11.61 Island Landscape

LCA 2 Abandoned Institutional Landscape

This area comprises the former Vietnamese Detention Centre. The area is characterized by large expanses of concrete in a state of disrepair and large cut-slopes to the north and south of the main concrete platform.

Figure 11.62 Abandoned Institutional Landscape

LCA 3 Offshore Water Landscape

The Offshore Waters are characterized by large open expanses of ocean with scattered off shore islands. There are also passing marine vessels, mostly container ships. These areas experience high degree of remoteness.

Figure 11.63 Offshore Waters Landscape

LCA 4 Inshore Water Landscape

The Inshore Waters experience a greater interaction with LCA 1 as the Islands visually enclose the inshore waters areas. This LCA tends to be calmer than LCA 3 with a reduced sensation of remoteness as the Islands offer sanctuary to the elements.

Figure 11.64 Inshore Waters Landscape

11.17.4 Factors Affecting the Sensitivity of the LCA’s

To assess the impact the LNG terminal will have on the Landscape Character of South Soko, it is important to establish how sensitive the landscape is to change. Generally, the more natural the landscape character, the higher the sensitivity. The following factors will have an affect on the sensitivity of the Landscape Character Areas

· The general landscape quality and landscape elements of the area;

· The importance and rarity of the area or special features;

· The ability of the LCA to accommodate change;

· Significance of the change in a local and regional context; and

· The maturity of the landscape.

Table 11.28 Landscape Character Sensitivity Matrix

11.17.5 Factors Affecting The Magnitude of Change to the LCA’s

To establish the degree of impact on the LCA’s, the same criteria for assessing the magnitude of change as described previously was used;

· The projects compatibility with the surrounding landscape;

· Duration of the impacts under construction and operation

· The scale of the development (relative to the baseline conditions of the LCA); and

· The reversibility of change.

Table 11.29 Landscape Character Magnitude of Change Matrix

11.18 Landscape Character Impacts

LCA 1 – Islands Landscape

Table 11.30 Impacts on Islands Landscape Matrix

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

The table above shows that for LCA1, the proposal will have a Significant adverse impact on the landscape character of this LCA.

LCA 2 – Abandoned Institutional Landscape

Table 11.31 Impacts on Abandoned Institutional Landscape Matrix

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

The table above shows that for LCA 2, there will be a Slight-Moderate adverse impact on the landscape character of the Abandoned Institutional Landscape.

LCA 3 – Offshore Waters Landscape

Table 11.32 Impacts on Offshore Waters Landscape Matrix

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

The table above shows that for LCA 3, there will be a Moderate impact on the existing landscape character of the Offshore Waters Landscape.

LCA 4 Inshore Water Landscape

Table 11.33 Impacts on Inshore Water Landscape Matrix

		Sensitivity / Quality			Beneficial
		Low	Medium	High
Magnitude of Change	Large	Moderate Impact	Moderate -Significant impact	Significant impact
	Intermediate	Slight– Moderate impact	Moderate Impact	Moderate – Significant impact	Adverse
	Small	Slight impact	Slight – Moderate impact	Moderate impact
	Negligible	Negligible impact	Negligible impact	Negligible impact

The above table shows that there will be a Moderate-Significant impact on the Inshore Waters Landscape

11.18.1 Impacts on ‘Remoteness’

A factor that requires some consideration is the change to the feeling of ‘remoteness’ of the Soko Islands. Whilst obvious signs of human activity exist, the Islands are currently un-inhabited. The introduction of permanent human activity to the islands, regardless of form and function will reduce the ‘remote experience’ of that specific island. It is noted, however, that there are abandoned village houses and over 50 private lots on North Soko Island which could be developed under the New Territories Housing Policy at any point in time.

11.19 Landscape Character Mitigation Measures

All of the Landscape Mitigation Measures proposed in section 11.11 along with the Visual Mitigation Measures proposed in section 11.14 will also mitigate the impacts on the LCA’s. The final detailed Landscape and Visual Mitigation Measures will be the subject of a Landscape Master Plan that will be submitted for approval to the relevant Authority prior to construction.

A summary of the effectiveness of these measures in reducing the LCA impacts is provided below:

LMM 1 – Cultivation of areas compacted during construction. This will assist in the re-vegetation of these areas. This will contribute to establishing more native plants that are found in the Island Landscape LCA

LMM 2 – Soil stabilisation and planting. The addition of vegetation on the cut slopes will reduce the visibility of the slopes and therefore assist in the ability of the LCA’s to accommodate the project

LMM 3 – Tree and shrub planting. This will contribute to the vegetation common to the Island Landscape LCA.

LMM4 – Utilising natural rock for reclamation. This will help integrate the edge of the reclamation into the natural rocky edge of the island which will reduce impacts to LCA’s 1,3 and 4.

LMM5 – Natural accretion of sand. This will help integrate a portion of the edge of the reclamation into the sandy beaches of the island which will reduce impacts to LCA’s 1,3 and 4.

LMM6 – Cut Stabilisation. Where the use of shot-crete is un-avoidable, the addition of pigments will help to reduce the visibility of the cut-slopes.

LMM7 – Bench Plantings. The addition of vegetation on the cut slopes will reduce the visibility of the slopes and therefore assist in the ability of the LCA’s to accommodate the project

LMM8 - Relocation. The relocation of the Tin Hau temple will ensure that this structure of value will remain useable.

LMM9 – Landscape Berm/Planter The berm/planter and associated plantings will reduce the visibility of the tanks and the scale of the terminal.

LMM10 – New Access The new pier will allow visitors to explore the southern end of the island without the need to move through the terminal.

LMM11 – Early Planting Works. This will help to reduce impacts as early as possible.

LMM12 – Site hoardings to be compatible with the surrounding environment. This will help to reduce the impacts of the terminal during construction.

VMM 1 Design of Structures – The sensitive design of structures will help to complement LCA1 Island Landscape.

VMM 2 Colours – The selection of suitable complementary colour will help the LCA’s accommodate the terminal.

VMM 3 Plantings - Plantings will reduce the visibility of the tanks and the scale of the terminal.

Design Measures – Reducing the tank height from 70mPD to 61m PD will reduce the scale of the terminal.

Figure 11.51a shows the conceptual view of the terminal with the addition of the Landscape Berm/Planter and the reduced tank height of 70mPD to 61mPD.

11.19.1 Avoidance

The refinements discussed in section 11.2 of this report show how the potential impacts on the Landscape Character of South Soko have been mitigated. Figures 11.20a and 11.20b show the reduction in scale of the terminal from its pre-EIA layout to the EIA layout. The impacts on the Landscape Character have been reduced by:

· The reduction of the extent of the reclamation;

· The clustering of the tanks closer together;

· The positioning of the tanks behind the hill at the northern end of South Soko;

· The overall reduction in the scale of the terminal.

Table Table 11.34 LCA Mitigated Landscape Character Impacts

Table 11.34 above shows that when all Landscape and Visual Mitigation Measures are in place, along with the mitigating conditions of the improved design of the terminal, the impacts on the LCA’s will reduce one order if significance threshold.

11.20 Cumulative Impacts

At present there are no committed projects that could have cumulative impacts with the construction of the terminal at South Soko.

11.21 Evaluation of Residual Environmental Impacts

Taking into consideration the baseline landscape, landscape character and visual conditions and along with the mitigation measures, residual impacts have been identified occurring as a result of the proposed terminal

Section 4.4.3 of the Technical Memorandum identifies a number of factors that are to be considered when considering residual impacts. These are outlined in Table 11.34. For the purposes of the evaluation, an overall assessment of the impacts on the LR’s, LCA’s and VSR’s has been carried out. It must also be noted that this assessment is based on the overall impacts.

Table 11.35 Residual Impact Analysis

Evaluation Criteria	Residual Impact Type
	Landscape Resources (LR’s)	Landscape Character Areas (LCA’s)	Visual Impacts (VSR’s)
Effects on Public health and health of biota or risk to life	No effects applicable to LR’s	No effects applicable to LCA’s	No effects applicable to VSR’s
The magnitude of the adverse environmental impacts	Overall the impacts on the LR’s will be small.	Overall there will be slight to moderate-significant impacts on the LCA’s.	Overall the impacts on the VSR’s will be moderate with some significant impacts in close proximity to the terminal.
The geographic extent of the adverse environmental impacts	The impacts on the LR’s will be confined to the works area of South Soko Island.	The impacts on Landscape Character will be confined to the Soko Islands.	The larger impacts in the VSR’s will be largely confined to areas in close proximity to South Soko.
The duration and frequency of the adverse environmental impacts	The impacts on the LR’s will be for approximately 4 years during terminal construction.	The impacts on LCA’s will be continuous for as long as the project exists.	The visual impacts will be continuous for as long as the project exists.
The likely size of the community or the environment that may be affected by the adverse impacts	The area of the affected environment will be the works area of South Soko Island.	The impacts on Landscape Character will be confined to the Soko Islands.	Visitors to or near The Soko Islands
The degree to which the adverse environmental impacts are reversible or irreversible	During operation the impacts on the LR’s are irreversible. Construction phase impacts can be mitigated through landscaping measures.	During operation the impacts on the LCA’s are irreversible. Construction phase impacts can be mitigated to the full extent practicable.	During operation the impacts on the VSR’s are irreversible.
International and regional importance	The adverse impacts on the LR’s do not affect an issue of international or regional concern.	The landscape character of the Soko Islands is valued by residents of South Lantau, users of the grave sites and recreational visitors. There will be moderate-significant adverse impacts to the existing landscape character of South Soko.	The visual quality of the Soko Islands is valued by residents of South Lantau, users of the grave sites and recreational visitors. There will be significant adverse impacts to the existing visual quality when the terminal is viewed at close range.
Both the likelihood and degree of uncertainty of adverse environmental impacts	The detailed assessment shows there are no uncertainties regarding the impacts on the LR’s	The detailed assessment shows there are no uncertainties regarding the impacts on the LCA’s	The detailed assessment shows there are no uncertainties regarding the impacts on the VSR’s

Table 11.35 above shows that the impacts on the Landscape Resources will have no effect on public health and are confined to the works area at South Soko Island. No areas of international or regional importance are affected and there are no uncertainties regarding the impact.

The impacts on the LCA’s will have no effect on public health and they are considered overall to be moderate in magnitude. However the impacts will be confined to areas in close proximity to South Soko Island. Whilst the impacts are irreversible construction phase impacts can be mitigated to the full extent practicable. There are no adverse residual impacts on the terrestrial ecology of the area. The landscape character of the Soko Islands is valued by several sections of the public and there will be adverse impacts on this landscape character. However this impact will be limited to the Soko Islands. There are no uncertainties regarding the impact.

The impacts on the VSR’s will have no effect on public health, they will be generally moderate in magnitude and will mostly be confined to areas in close proximity to South Soko Island. Whilst there will be significant visual impacts from 1 VSR group in close proximity to the terminal, the impact will only affect the small number of visitors to the Soko. There are no uncertainties regarding the impact. Therefore, the overall residual impact is considered acceptable.

11.22 CONCLUSION

· Compensatory planting of indigenous species will mitigate the effects of the development on many of the Landscape Resources. The effects on the rocky shoreline can be partially mitigated by the use of natural rock in the reclamation areas and the sandy beach will be partially mitigated by the natural accretion of sand. The overall residual impacts on the Landscape Resources are assessed as slight.

· Visually the main land based viewing locations are located on the periphery of the viewshed from which the proposed development will not cause a significant change to the view. Most land based viewing locations particularly those to the north and east of the Soko Islands, will experience negligible to slight visual impacts. The VSR’s to the western side may experience slight-moderate adverse impacts. There will be moderate-significant visual impacts from areas within the Soko Islands, however there are very low visitor numbers to these areas. The significance of the residual visual impact has been assessed in table 11.35. On balance, the overall residual visual impact is assessed as moderate.

· Potential night time glow and visibility of maritime and aviation lighting may be visible on clear nights from land based and ocean based viewing locations, however given that lighting already exists on North Soko, the other night lighting sources as well as lighting associated with shipping and maritime uses, the additional night lighting from the proposed LNG terminal is considered acceptable.

· The residual impacts on the existing Landscape Character of South Soko will vary from slight to moderate-significant. The overall impact on the LCA’s is assessed as moderate.

According to the Technical Memorandum on the Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM) the Landscape and Visual Impacts are considered acceptable with mitigation.

---

([1]) The areal coverage of these intertidal habitats is 0.6ha.

[2] Landscape Value Mapping of Hong Kong, Executive Summary, Planning Department, Government of Hong Kong SAR, July 2005.