Highways Department

Key Requirements of the Project

2.1 The Project is to upgrade the remaining sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road from a substandard single two-lane carriageway into a standard 7.3 m wide carriageway, with the associated improvement of pedestrian facilities and public transport laybys.

Scope of the Project

2.2 The scope of the Project comprises:

(a) Upgrading of about 5.2 km long road section into standard width single two-lane carriageway;

(b) Provision of laybys and crossing facilities; and

(c) Associated slope and drainage works, traffic aids and street lighting modification, landscaping works and environmental mitigation measures if required.

The Need for the Project

2.3 The need to upgrade the remaining sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road is recognized in the Project Definition Statement (PDS) issued by the Environment, Transport and Works Bureau (ETWB) in January 2007. These remaining sections are single two-lane carriageway with sub-standard width. Road safety problems are compounded by fast vehicular traffic, sharp bends, hidden accesses, sub-standard gradients, inadequate lateral clearance, frequent usage of heavy vehicles, insufficient pedestrian crossing facilities and lack of bus-bays.

Encroachment of the Conservation Areas

2.4 The Project is a DP since part of its boundary encroaches upon the Conservation Area (CA) zoning as defined on relevant Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs), and as referred in Section 1.3 of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-170/2007. There are four encroachment areas which are shown in Figure 2.2, and described below:

CA at north of section between Chainage CHB 28+70 and CHB 30+10 of Kam Tin Road

· The proposed works within CA are construction of an earth retaining wall and reconstruction of existing footway. The concerned works are not arising from change of road alignment. The earth retaining wall is to upgrade an existing road side slope which is assessed to be below the current safety standards. The footway reconstruction is required from maintenance viewpoint.

CA at south of section between Chainage CHB 44+30 to CHB 44+80 of Lam Kam Road

· The proposed works within CA are widening of existing carriageway, and reconstruction of existing footway and carriageway. Options of road alignment have been explored at this section and the current alignment is the preferred option. Although it slightly encroaches upon CA, it can overall preserve more mature trees and reduce environmental impacts. More detailed description of the subject option comparison is at Section 2.5. As for the reconstruction works, they are required from maintenance viewpoint.

CA at south of section between Chainage CHB 48+00 to CHB 52+30 of Lam Kam Road

· The proposed works within CA are soil nailing of existing slopes and construction of 2m high retaining wall. The concerned works are not arising from change of road alignment. The proposed soil nailing is to upgrade the existing road side slopes which are assessed to be below the current safety standards. The proposed retaining wall is a safety measure to protect road users against the identified potential natural terrain hazards.

CA at north of section between Chainage CHB 50+20 to CHB 52+40 of Lam Kam Road

· The proposed works within CA are widening of existing footway and carriageway, soil nailing of an existing slope, and re-compaction of an existing slope. Options of road layout have been explored at this section and the current scheme is the preferred option which can minimise CA encroachment and geotechnical works. The proposed soil nailing and slope re-compaction are to upgrade an existing slope which is assessed to be below current safety standards. As revealed on site, there is a layer of waste materials on the concerned slope surface and hence a rather large scale re-compaction is considered necessary from safety viewpoint.

Alternatives for the Proposed Project

2.5 The sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road to be upgraded are rural roads serving many road side developments. Hence, the proposed road alignment follows closely with the existing alignment. In addition, the proposed road alignment is designed based on the principle of minimising land resumption and environmental impacts. The following measures have been taken to minimise the environmental impacts.

· In section between Chainage CHA17+10 and CHA 18+90 of Kam Tin Road, the existing single carriageway is proposed to be widened by converting it to dual carriageway. Although it involves resumption of larger area of private land, the adoption of this option can preserve 4 numbers of mature trees, 2 numbers of which are of 1m trunk diameter.

· In section between Chainage CHB41+90 and CHB49+30 of Lam Kam Road, two options have been considered. Option A is to widen the carriageway northwards to avoid encroachment of the CA thereat while Option B is to widen southwards. The sections forming the two alternative options are shown on Figures 9.15 M & N. Upon a detailed comparison, Option B is adopted as the preferred option. A brief summary of the assessment findings is described below:

(i) The preferred option can overall preserve 65 more mature trees. In particular, three numbers of trees of over 1m trunk diameter can be preserved.

(ii) The preferred option can avoid affecting the existing slopes at the north of the concerned road section. The reduced geotechnical works give rise to less waste, noise, air quality, landscape and visual impacts.

(iii) The preferred option slightly encroaches upon CA. However, the concerned area is a paved footway with isolated trees, and hence the potential impact to habitat loss/vegetation clearance is considered to be low. Detailed ecological impact assessment is in Section 7.

(iv) Apart from CA encroachment, another disadvantage of the preferred option is the need to resume larger area of private land.

· In section between Chainage CHB48+00 and CHB48+80 of Lam Kam Road, the southern footway is proposed to be set back in order to preserve the existing road side trees thereat.

· In section between Chainage CHB49+10 and CHB52+90 of Lam Kam Road, the preferred option upgrades the carriageway and the northern footway, but does not add footway at the southern sides of the carriageway. Such arrangement is to minimise the extent of CA encroachment. Besides, considering that extensive geotechnical works will be required for adding the concerned footway, such arrangement can reduce waste, noise, air quality, landscape and visual impacts.

Construction Program and Methodology

2.6 The construction programme is to commence works in the first quarter of 2011 for completion in the third quarter of 2015. The upgrading works are to be carried out by conventional open excavation method. The construction sequence is to upgrade in stages with two-way traffic maintained throughout the construction period.

Consideration of Alternatives Construction Methods and Sequences of Works

2.7 The upgrading of at-grade road sections is a straight forward construction process that will not involve complicated construction sequences and activities. For the purpose of the EIA Study, the construction sequences that have been reviewed are briefly described as follows:

(A) Upgrading both bounds of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road simultaneously:

· The most distinct advantage of this construction method is that a shorter construction period can be achieved thus resulting construction impacts of shorter term. However, there are drawbacks as follows:

- Higher impacts on noise and air quality during construction period;

- Complicated diversion schemes for traffic and utilities; and

- Higher risks to road users.

(B) Upgrading both bounds of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road in stages:

· Under this option, the remaining sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road will be upgraded in stages, i.e. bound by bound. Though the construction period will be longer, the following advantages can be achieved:

- Less noise and air quality impacts during construction period thus more manageable;

- Less complicated diversion schemes for traffic and utilities; and

- Less disturbance to existing road side developments.

2.8 In conclusion, the impacts and risks under the latter option, i.e. to upgrade the remaining sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road bound by bound, are more manageable and therefore this option is adopted.

Concurrent Project and Potential Cumulative Impacts

2.9 One Designated Project defined by the EIAO, namely, Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou - Shenzhen - Hong Kong Express Rail Link will be implemented and within 500m of the Project boundary. According to the Project Profile of this railway project (application no.: ESB-197/2008), the construction works is tentatively scheduled to commence in the 4th quarter of 2009 and complete by 2015 which would coincide with the construction period of the proposed Project. As the EIA study of this railway project is in progess, there is no detailed construction methods and programme can be reviewed. As such, the EIA study of this railway project should take into account the potential cumulative impacts arising from the proposed Project. In addition, the Project Contractor is required to ensure close liaison with relevant interfacing parties to avoid or minimise concurrent works activities and potential cumulative impacts.

2.10 Two other Designated Projects defined by the EIAO, namely, Yuen Long, Kam Tin, Ngau Tam Mei & Tin Shui Wai Drainage Improvement Stage 1, Phase 2B - Kam Tin Secondary Drainage Channel KT13 (CE 67/98) and Drainage Improvement in Sha Tin and Tai Po Design and Construction (CE 50/2001) will be implemented. However, no cumulative impacts are anticipated from these two projects as both are scheduled to be completed before the commencement of the Project, and both are located over 1 km from the proposed Project.

2.11 Table 2.1 summarises other non-designated projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project.

2.12 For item (i), minor works will be undertaken during or after 2010 along a 50m section of Kam Tin Road close to the junction of Fan Kam Road. As such, the cumulative environmental impacts of such minor activities shall be minimal.

2.13 For item (ii), mains laying works shall be at least 1 km away from the Project and hence cumulative impacts shall also be minimal.

Table 2.1 Concurrent Non-designated Projects

Item	Agreement No.	Project Title	Implementation
(i)	CE 1/2005	Replacement and Rehabilitation of Water mains Stage 2; Mains in New Territories West – Investigation, Design and Construction	2007 - 2011
(ii)	CE 6/2005	Replacement and Rehabilitation of Water mains Stage 2; Mains in New Territories East – Investigation, Design and Construction	2007 - 2011
(iii)	CE 10/2008	Replacement and Rehabilitation of Water mains Stage 4; Mains in New Territories – Investigation, Design and Construction	Mid 2010 - 2015
(iv)	PWP 337WF	Alternative Raw Water Supply to Yau Kom Tau Water Treatment Works from Au Tau Raw Water Pumping Station	End 2010 - 2014
(v)	PWP 4235DS	Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal	See text

2.14 For item (iii), minor works will be undertaken during or after 2010. Total six active site area in small local-scale within the Project boundary. There shall be only one active construction site within 300 m due to necessary traffic management arrangements. Therefore, there will not increase the total number of active construction site along am Tin Road and Lam Kam Road. As such, it is recommended that the Project Contractor ensures close liaison with relevant interfacing parties and that the works be scheduled to avoid or otherwise control cumulative environmental impacts to within acceptable limits.

2.15 For item (iv), no significant cumulative environmental impacts are anticipated as these water mains laying works are anticipated to be implemented at least 300 metres from the western end of the Project area.

2.16 For item (v), the laying of sewerage pipes along Kam Tin Road and Kam Sheung Road is anticipated from 2010 which would coincide with the construction period of the proposed Project. There shall be only one active construction site within 300 m due to necessary traffic management arrangements. Therefore, there will not increase the total number of active construction site along am Tin Road and Lam Kam Road. As such, the Project Contractor is required to ensure close liaison with relevant interfacing parties to avoid or minimise concurrent works activities and potential cumulative impacts.

Operational Traffic Forecast

2.17 Traffic flow predictions for the year 2030 (i.e. 15 year after Project commencement) have been adopted to support the operational air quality and noise impact assessment studies in Sections 3 and 4, respectively, as appropriate. Full details of the adopted traffic forecast data accepted by the Transport Department is presented in Appendix A1. The letter of acceptance by the Transport Department is provided in Appendix A2.

3.0 Air Quality Impact Assessment

Introduction

3.1 The air quality impacts during the construction and operational phases of the Project have been assessed in accordance with the guidelines referred in Annex 12 of the Technical Memorandum of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIA-TM).

3.2 Representative air sensitive receivers within the Project area have been identified, and following assessment by modelling techniques, mitigation measures shall be proposed as appropriate to control impacts to within acceptable levels.

Environmental Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

3.3 The criteria to evaluate the air quality impacts are set out in Annex 4 of the EIA-TM specify the compliance of the Air Quality Objectives (AQOs). Table 3.1 presents the applicable AQOs for the impact assessment.

Table 3.1 Hong Kong Air Quality Objectives

Pollutant	Concentration (mg/m³)⁽¹⁾ Averaging Time
Pollutant	1 Hour⁽²⁾	8 Hours⁽³⁾	24 Hours⁽³⁾	3 Months⁽⁴⁾	1 Year⁽⁴⁾
Sulphur Dioxide (SO₂)	800	-	350	-	80
Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)	-	-	260	-	80
Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP)⁽⁵⁾	-	-	180	-	55
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂)	300	-	150	-	80
Carbon Monoxide (CO)	30000	10000	-	-	-
Photochemical Oxidants (as ozone⁽⁶⁾)	240	-	-	-	-
Lead	-	-	-	1.5	-

Notes:

(1) Measured at 298 K and 101.325 kPa (one atmosphere).

(2) Not to be exceeded more than three times per year.

(3) Not to be exceeded more than once per year.

(4) Arithmetic means.

(5) Respirable suspended particulates means suspended particles in air with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less.

(6) Photochemical oxidants are determined by measurement of ozone only.

3.4 The EIAO-TM stipulates that the hourly TSP level should not exceed 500 µgm^-3 (measured at 25°C and one atmosphere) for construction dust impact assessment.

Baseline Conditions

3.5 The major pollution sources of the study area are the vehicle emissions of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road. By considering the geographical constituency to which the site belongs, TSP, RSP and NO₂ concentrations were extracted from the EPD’s Tai Po Air Quality Monitoring Station (AQMS), instead of the EPD’s Yuen Long AQMS. According to the EPD’s “Guideline on Assessing the ‘Total’ Air Quality Impact”, the latest five years (i.e., 2003 – 2007) average monitoring data should be adopted as the background concentration. Table 3.2 summarizes the annual average concentrations of the pollutants (NO₂, RSP and TSP) in the latest five years.

Table 3.2 Annual Average Concentrations of Pollutants in the Latest Five Years (Year 2003 - 2007) at Tai Po Air Quality Monitoring Station

Pollutant	Annual Average Concentration in the Latest Five Years (µg/m^-3)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂)	53
Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP)	52
Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)	68

Air Sensitive Receivers (ASRs)

3.6 Representative existing ASRs, within the study area (i.e. 500 m from the proposed Project boundary), have been identified according to Annex 12 of the EIA-TM.

3.7 For future ASRs, all planned sensitive uses within the study area as referred on each relevant Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) have been identified. The relevant OZPs are referred to Shek Kong (Plan no.: S/YL-SK/9), Pat Heung (Plan no.: S/YL-PH/11), Lam Tsuen (Plan no.: S/NE-LT/11), Kam Tin North (Plan no.: S/YL-KTN/7) and Kam Tin South (Plan no.: S/YL-KTS/11). As there is no detailed layout of the planned ASRs during the preparation of the EIA report, the assessment points of the planned ASRs is located at the site boundary to simulate the worst-case scenario.

3.8 Table 3.3 and Figure 3.1 summarize the description and location of the ASRs for impact assessment.

Table 3.3 Identified ASRs for Construction and Operational AQIA

ASR	Description	Sensitive Use	Horizontal Distance from the Nearest Work Site Boundary (m)
A4	Village house near Petrol Station	Residential	24
A6	Kam Tin Clinic	Clinical	7
A8	Quarter of Shek Kong Barrack	Residential	13
A10	Village house of Shek Kong San Tsuen	Residential	11
A11	Education Centre of Shek Kong Barrack	Educational	7
A13	Village house near Season Villas	Residential	3
A14	Church of Shek Kong Barrack	Place of worship	13
A18	Village house, Chung Ying Yuen	Residential	19
A19	Village house, Ching Yuen	Residential	7
A24	Village house, Lee Ka Yuen	Residential	13
A27	Village house near Petrol Station (under construction)	Residential	6
A31	Village house, 30, Wang Toi Shan Lo Uk Tsuen	Residential	15
A32	Block 9, Evergreen Intl Hong Kong Association	Home for Aged	25
A33	Village house	Residential	19
A34	Village house, Fau Wan Court	Residential	26
A35	Village house near Pine Hill Villa	Residential	29
A38	Village house	Residential	24
A39	Village house near Pat Heung Old Temple	Residential	3
A40	Pat Heung Rural Committee	Office	18
A43	Village house	Residential	22
A45	Village house	Residential	27
A49	Village house	Residential	12
A50	Village house	Residential	27
A51	Village house (No. 151 Lam Kam Road)	Residential	22
A53	Village house (No. 70 Lam Kam Road)	Residential	7
A54	Village house (opposite Kadoorie Experimental Farm)	Residential	11
P01	Planned village development (V Zone)	Residential	34
P02	Planned residential development (R(D) Zone)	Residential	At Project Boundary
P03	Planned village house	Residential	36
P04	Planned residential development (R(D) Zone)	Residential	At Project Boundary
P05	Planned village development (V Zone)	Residential	75
P06	Planned village development (V Zone)	Residential	At Project Boundary
P07	Planned residential development (R(D) Zone)	Residential	At Project Boundary
P08	Planned residential development (R(C)2 Zone)	Residential	At Project Boundary
P09	Planned village development (V Zone)	Residential	At Project Boundary
P10	Planned village development (V Zone)	Residential	At Project Boundary
P11	Planned residential development (R(D) Zone)	Residential	At Project Boundary
P12	Planned village development (V Zone)	Residential	At Project Boundary
P13	Planned village development (V Zone)	Residential	At Project Boundary

3.9 Three elevations of 1.5 m above local ground level (which is the average height of the human breathing zone), 4.5 m and 7.5 m above local ground level have been chosen for the assessment.

Construction Air Quality Impact Assessment

Impacts Identification and Evaluation

3.10 Fugitive dust may be generated from works activities including site clearance, excavation, handling of construction materials, concrete breaking and from minor wind erosion. Due to site constraints and road traffic management arrangements for Kam Tin Road section between CH0+00 and CH19+00, each active construction activity location shall occupy about 50 m in length of the Project alignment at any one time, and with a distance separation more than 300m between each location. The area of the work front would be about 175 m² (50 m x 3.5 m). The total volume of generated C&D materials is estimated to be 45,000 m³. The construction programme is about 54 working months and 26 working days for each working month are assumed for this Project. Therefore, the amount of excavated/handled materials for all work fronts per day is about 32 m³, which is small amount of excavated materials. Given that each works area and the amount of excavated/handled materials for all work fronts is small, dust impacts during the construction phases are anticipated to be insignificant with the adoption of mitigation measures stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation. As such, a quantitative dust impact assessment is not necessary.

3.11 In addition, activities that may induce significant dust emissions such as extensive site formation and blasting are not required for Project development.

3.12 Small amount of sulphur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and smoke shall be emitted from the diesel-powered construction equipment, Under normal operation, however, such properly maintained equipment shall not contribute any significant smoke or gaseous emissions. As such, it is not anticipated that Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) for these pollutants would be exceeded during the construction phase.

Potential Cumulative Impacts

3.13 As stated in Section 2, there is only one designated project within 500m of the Project boundary (i.e., Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou - Shenzhen - Hong Kong Express Rail Link) and will potentially be constructing concurrently with this project. As the EIA study of this railway project is in progess, there is no detailed construction methods and programme can be reviewed. As such, the EIA study of this railway project should take into account the potential cumulative impacts arising from the proposed Project. According to the Project Profile of this railway project (application no.: ESB-197/2008), most of the construction works would be carried out in underground condition. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated. Concurrent non-designated projects have been summarized in Section 2, and specifically Table 2.1. Only minor local-scale dust impacts arising from the construction activities of these projects are anticipated. For the concurrent water mains and sewerage projects undertaken along the Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road, there shall be only one active construction site within 300 m due to necessary traffic management arrangements. Regarding the water mains laying works near Au Tau (PWP 337WF), these shall be at 300 m from the proposed Project. In general, the construction works of water and sewerage project will likely be constructed section by section in small work front areas within a short period. Therefore, the quantity of the spoil materials from the concurrent water mains and sewerage projects unlikely to be large enough to cause a significant dust nuisance. As such, the cumulative dust impacts as a result of concurrent works within the study area are not expected given the large distance separation and provided that the recommended dust suppression measures are implemented.

Mitigation Measures

3.14 Although no adverse construction phase air quality impacts are anticipated, as a best practice measure to ensure compliance with the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation it is suggested that the following control measures be incorporated into contract documentation:

· Works area for site clearance shall be sprayed with water before, during and after the operation so as to maintain the entire surface wet;

· All dusty materials shall be sprayed with water immediately prior to any loading, unloading or transfer operation so as to maintain the dusty materials wet;

· Hoarding of not less than 2.4 m above ground shall be provided, as far as practicable, along the site boundary which is next to the public areas;

· Restricting heights not higher than 1.5m above ground from which materials are to be dropped, as far as practicable to minimise the fugitive dust arising from unloading/ loading;

· Any stockpile of dusty materials shall be covered entirely by impervious sheeting; and/ or placed in an area sheltered on the top and 4 sides;

· Immediately before leaving a construction site, all vehicles shall be washed to remove any dusty materials from its body and wheels; and

· Where a vehicle leaving a construction site is carrying a load of dusty materials, the load shall be covered entirely by clean impervious sheeting to ensure that the dusty materials do not leak from the vehicle.

Residual impacts

3.15 No adverse residual impacts are anticipated during the construction phase.

Operational Air Quality Impact Assessment

Impact Identification

3.16 Vehicular emissions from open road sections of the existing and widened Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road are the potential air impact to the surrounding ASRs during Project operation.

Methodology

3.17 Fuel combustion of road vehicles generate air pollutants such as Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂) and Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP). Owing to much higher AQO limit comparing with other major parameters of air quality impact, non-compliance of CO is not envisaged in general given that the NO₂ concentrations are below the AQO standards. Therefore, NO₂ and RSP are considered as the key air pollutant parameters and the averaging time of the 1-hour concentration of NO₂ and 24-hour concentrations of NO₂ and RSP were selected for the assessment of air quality impact associated with vehicular emission and compared against the AQO limits.

3.18 The EPD recommended air dispersion model, CALINE4, was adopted to predict the pollution of vehicle exhaust from the Project and surrounding roads. All major roads within the study area were included in the model.

3.19 The completion of the Project would be in Year 2015. The predicted peak traffic flows in year 2030 is the highest compared to those within the next 15 years after the operation of the Project. As such, the morning and afternoon peak traffic flows in year 2030 is adopted to represent the worst-case scenario and is given in Appendix A1.

3.20 The hourly profile in year 2008 was adopted and assumed as the hourly profile of all roads within the Study Area. The same traffic breakdown was applied for all hours.

3.21 The methodology and assumptions of producing the hourly profile in 2008, traffic flow and traffic breakdown in 2030 were accepted by Transport Department (see Appendix A2).

Fleet Average Emission Factors

3.22 The emission model EMFAC-HK was adopted to calculate the vehicle emission factors of NO_x and RSP. The following details the input assumptions of the model.

Vehicle Classes

3.23 The vehicle composition of the roads was broken down into 16 vehicle classes according to the EMFAC-HK model. The vehicle classifications as detailed in Appendix I – EMFAC-HK Vehicle Classification (July 2005) have been provided by EPD.

3.24 Table 3.4 summarizes the 16 vehicle classes to be modelled using EMFAC-HK.

Table 3.4 Vehicle Classes in EMFAC-HK Model

Vehicle Class*	Description	Fuel	Gross Weight
MC1	Petrol Private Cars (PC) & Light Goods Vehicles (LGV)	Petrol	all
MC3	Diesel PC & LGV	Diesel	<=2.5t
MC4	Diesel PC & LGV	Diesel	>2.5-3.5t
MC5	Public Light Buses (PLB)	LPG, Diesel	all
MC6	LGV	Diesel	>3.5-5.5t
MC7	Medium & Heavy Goods Vehicles (MGV & HGV)	Diesel	>5.5-15t
MC8	MGV & HGV	Diesel	>15t
MC10	Double Deck Franchised Buses (DDFB)	Diesel	all
MC11	Motor Cycles (MC)	Petrol	all
Taxi3	Taxi	LPG	all
Taxi4	Private Light Buses (PrLB)	LPG, Diesel	<=3.5t
Taxi5	PrLB	LPG, Diesel	>3.5t
Taxi6	Non-franchised Buses (NFB)	Diesel	<=6.4t
Taxi7	NFB	Diesel	>6.4-15t
Taxi8	NFB	Diesel	>15t
Taxi10	Single Deck Franchised Buses (SDFB)	Diesel	all

* MC/Taxi – Sub-model of EMFAC – HK: EMFAC – HK MC v1.2/ EMFAC – HK Taxi v1.2; e.g. MC1 – Vehicle Class 1 defined in the sub-model EMFAC – HK MC v1.2

Road Grouping

3.25 As the road characteristics within the study area is similar and the speed limit of the road was 50kph except a portion of Kam Tin Bypass (as shown in Appendix A1) was 70kph. Only single road type was assumed and a single set of emission factors were calculated.

Modelling Modes

3.26 As suggested in EPD guideline, “Burden mode” was selected. Vehicular emissions for each hour and for daily totals were output.

Technology Fractions

3.27 In different years each vehicle class has a different exhaust technology group index and technology fraction. Each technology group represents a distinct emission control technology. The technology fractions input to the model are based on the “Up to Date Vehicle Licensed Number by Age and Technology Group Fractions” provided by EPD. Since the exhaust technology fractions are only presented up to the year 2003, those after this time have been projected in accordance with the EPD Guideline on Modelling Vehicle Emissions Appendix II - “The Implementation Schedule of Vehicle Emission Standards in Hong Kong (Updated as at 17 August 2005)” and Appendix III - “The Technology Group Indexes”.

3.28 Since sufficient information is not available for the projected breakdown in percentage of the exhaust technology fractions for petrol PC & LGV, diesel PC & LGV and PrLB (> 3.5t, diesel & LPG) from Year 2004 to 2030, the projected breakdowns have been made reference to the default values of the EMFAC-HK model. It is justified that the existing vehicle emission control programs were included in the model according to the EPD’s “Guideline on Modeling Vehicle Emissions”.

3.29 For SDFB, the Euro II emission standards were assumed in Year 2001 – 2005. The emission standards after Year 2005 have been followed the “Implementation Schedule of Vehicle Emission Standards in Hong Kong”.

3.30 The technology fractions adopted have been presented in Appendix B1. The fractions for the period 2025 – 2030 were assumed to be the same as those for the year 2024.

3.31 Default values were used for the evaporative technology fraction.

Vehicle Population

3.32 As recommended in EPD’s “Guideline on Modelling Vehicle Emissions”, the latest vehicle age distribution data provided in the EPD’s website (i.e. the Vehicle Population in 2003) was adopted, except the population of private car and taxi. Corresponding population has been calculated and shown in Appendix B2. Details on the rationales adopted for the abovementioned vehicle population are presented below.

Private Car

3.33 As the implementation of Vehicle Emission Standards, there was no new registration of diesel private car in Hong Kong after 1998. Hence, population of private car is considered 100% using petrol fuel in this Study, and number of diesel private car subsequent to year 1998 is regrouped into petrol type.

Taxi

3.34 As the implementation of Vehicle Emission Standards, new registration of diesel taxi was banned in Hong Kong on from 2001. 100% of LPG taxi was therefore assumed in this study and diesel taxi subsequent to year 2001 was regrouped into LPG fuel type.

Light Bus

3.35 Environment, Transport and Works Bureau (ETWB) implemented an incentive scheme to encourage the early replacement of diesel light buses with LPG or electric ones since 2002. As a conservative approach, the incentive scheme for light buses would not be considered in this assessment as a conservative approach.

Accrual Rate

3.36 The “Default values and compositions” were adopted referred to EMFAC-HK Guideline.

Diurnal Variation of Daily Trips

3.37 The daily trips were used to estimate the cold start emissions of the petrol vehicles only. Hence, trips for vehicle other than petrol type vehicle would be assumed zero. The number of vehicle trips in the study area was calculated by the following equation:

Vehicle Trip of Class 1 in the Study Area at hour 1 = VMT for vehicle Class 1 in the Study Area at hour 1 x Vehicle trip of Class 1 in the territory / VMT for vehicle Class 1 in the territory.*

* Default data of EMFAC-HK model

Diurnal Variation of Daily Vehicle Mile-Travelled (VMT)

3.38 The VMT was calculated by multiplying the number of vehicles from the forecast hourly traffic flow in Year 2030 by the length of road travelled. The adopted daily trips and VMT are summarized in Appendix B3.

Hourly Temperature and Relative Humidity Profile

3.39 According to the information provided by Hong Kong Observatory (HKO), Shek Kong meteorological station was the nearest station of the Project and was adopted for the model input. As Year 2007 meteorological data from the Shek Kong meteorological station more than 10% data are invalid, Year 2006 meteorological data for hourly temperature and relative humidity profiles were adopted.

Speed Fraction

3.40 The speed limits of all roads within the Study Area (except a portion of Kam Tin Bypass) would be 50kph, whereas the speed limit of the portion of Kam Tin Bypass would be 70kph. It was assumed that all vehicle classes had the same speed profile in the model.

3.41 To simulate the effect of different road speed during the rush and non-rush hour, sensitivity test had been carried out. The design road speed limits were assumed for representing the situation during non-rush hour; while the vehicle speed of peak hour flow in Year 2030 was adopted representing the situation during the rush hour. The estimated speed fractions provided by the traffic consultant were shown in Appendix B4 and the acceptance by the Transport Department is provided in Appendix A2.

3.42 In the model, same road speeds were applied to all hours to demonstrate the effect of using peak flow speed and design speed. A sensitivity test based on 2015 model year has been conducted to compare the total emission for all vehicle classes using design road speed limits and peak hour speed profile at morning peak and afternoon peak traffic flow respectively.

3.43 From the results of the sensitivity test shown in Appendix B5, it indicated that higher total daily NO_x and RSP emissions would be obtained at morning peak hour traffic flow. Therefore, the emission factor at morning peak traffic flow was considered worse than that of afternoon peak traffic flow.

3.44 In addition, the results of the sensitivity test indicated a higher total daily NO_x and RSP emissions would be obtained at a lower road speed. Therefore, the peak hour flow speed at speed limit of 50kph of roads was applied to all hours for predicting the total hourly emissions in this assessment as a conservative approach.

Model Year

3.45 For the purpose of finding the worst emission year, a sensitivity test has been conducted to calculate the vehicle exhaust emissions in different year by using the same VMT and the flow speed fractions. By using the peak hour flow speed at speed limit of 50kph of roads at all hours and Year 2030 morning peak VMT, the total daily NO_x an RSP emissions by 16 vehicle classes in different vehicle exhaust emission year from 2015 to 2030 are summarized in Appendix B6.

3.46 Comparing the total daily NO_x and RSP emissions under different vehicle exhaust emission years from Year 2015 to 2030, the highest vehicle emissions were found in Year 2015 and were decreased from Year 2015 to 2030. Therefore, as a conservative approach, the emissions using emission control scenario in Year 2015 were adopted for this Project.

Predicted Emission Factors by EMFAC-HK

3.47 As the output hourly emissions from the EMFAC-HK model are in tonnes per hour, they were firstly divided by the 2030 morning VMT to obtain the emission factors in grams per mile per vehicle. The calculated hourly maximum vehicle emission factors, as displayed by Table 3.5, at particular hours were then selected for incorporation into the air dispersion model as a conservative approach. These factors were adopted together with the forecasted morning peak traffic flow for year 2030 for the assessment. The calculation of fleet vehicle emission by 16 vehicle classes is provided in Appendix B7.

Table 3.5 Emission Factors for Year 2015 for Different Vehicle Classes

Vehicle Class	Description	2015 Emission Factors (grams/mile/vehicle)
Vehicle Class	Description	NO_x	RSP
MC1	PC & LGV	0.1846	0.0099
MC3	Diesel PC & LGV<2.5t	0.5041	0.2159
MC4	Diesel PC & LGV 2.5-3.5t	0.3198	0.1234
MC5	PLB	0.4030	0.3769
MC6	LGV>3.5t	2.7024	0.2785
MC7	MGV & HGV 5.5-15t	5.5289	0.4734
MC8	MGV & HGV >=15t	6.8559	0.4344
MC10	DDFB	3.8658	0.1683
MC11	MC	1.0838	0.0703
Taxi3	Taxi	0.2987	0.0415
Taxi4	PrLB <3.5t	0.3525	0.2783
Taxi5	PrLB >3.5t	0.4467	0.3955
Taxi6	NFB <6.4t	2.0539	0.1411
Taxi7	NFB 6.4-15t	4.7710	0.3132
Taxi8	NFB >15t	4.9947	0.2675
Taxi10	SDFB	0.0000*	0.0000*

* The value is zero since there is no single deck franchised bus (SDFB) travelled within the study area

Inputs for CALINE4 Model

3.48 The composite fleet emission factors for the road links were calculated based on the Year 2030 morning peak hour traffic flow, vehicle composition and the fleet vehicle emission factors as presented in Table 3.5. The detailed calculation of the composited fleet average emission factors as inputs to the CALINE4 model are provided in Appendix B8.

3.49 The following are the meteorological conditions as inputs to the CALINE4 model:

· Wind speed: 1 m/s

· Wind direction: worst case wind directions

· Stability class: D

· Wind variability: 12°

· Surface roughness: 1 m

· Mixing height: 500 m

3.50 Since CALINE4 model can only predict maximum hourly concentrations, the 24-hour average pollutants levels have been calculated by multiplying the 1-hour pollutants levels by a factor of 0.4, which is suggested by “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources, Revised, USEPA, EPA-454/R-92-019”. NO₂ has been modelled by the ambient ratio method which assumes 20% of NO_x to be NO₂.

Impact Prediction and Evaluation

3.51 Taking into account vehicle emissions from open road networks and the background pollutant concentrations, the predicted 1-hour average NO₂, 24-hour average NO₂ and 24-hour average RSP concentrations were predicted and the highest pollutant concentrations at each ASR under the worst wind directions were calculated. Table 3.6 summarized the predicted maximum 1-hour average NO₂, 24-hour average NO₂ and 24-hour average RSP concentrations and the detailed predicted pollutant concentrations at different assessment levels are provided in Appendix B9.

Table 3.6 Predicted Maximum Pollutiant Concentrations at the ASRs (Background Concentration Included)

ASR	Pollutant Concentration (µg/m³)
ASR	NO₂ (1-hour)	NO₂ (24-hour)	RSP (24-hour)
AQO	300	150	180
A4	75	62	57
A6	133	85	69
A8	90	68	60
A10	79	63	58
A11	93	69	61
A13	126	82	68
A14	90	68	60
A18	87	67	59
A19	110	76	64
A24	80	64	57
A27	113	77	64
A31	81	64	57
A32	76	62	57
A33	80	64	57
A34	68	59	55
A35	78	63	57
A38	70	60	55
A39	107	75	63
A40	78	63	57
A43	85	66	58
A45	66	58	55
A49	86	66	59
A50	66	58	55
A51	68	59	55
A53	70	60	56
A54	73	61	56
P01	85	66	59
P02	91	68	60
P03	74	62	56
P04	106	74	62
P05	117	79	66
P06	144	89	72
P07	128	83	68
P08	77	63	57
P09	119	79	65
P10	111	76	63
P11	116	78	64
P12	110	76	63
P13	114	77	66

3.52 Based on the assessment results presented above, the predicted concentrations of the key air pollutant parameters (i.e., 1-hour average NO₂, 24-hour average NO₂ and 24-hour average RSP) would comply with the AQO.

3.53 From the results shown in Appendix B9, it is found that the maximum pollutant concentrations would occur at 1.5m above ground. The predicted maximum hourly average NO₂, 24-hour average NO₂ and 24-hour average RSP concentration contours at 1.5m above local ground are shown in Figures 3.2 to 3.4 respectively. As illustrated in Figures 3.2 to 3.4, there is no ASR within the contours of exceeding AQO limits.

3.54 As all the predicted NO₂ and RSP concentrations comply with the AQOs, no mitigation measure is required.

Residual impacts

3.55 No adverse residual impact is predicted during the operational phase of the Project.

Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A)

3.56 It is recommended that construction phase EM&A is carried out with details provided in the separate EM&A manual.

3.57 Operational phase EM&A is considered not necessary as AQO are predicted to be achieved at all representative ASRs.

Conclusion

3.58 With proper implementation of dust control measures as required under the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation, construction dust can be controlled to acceptable levels and no significant impacts are anticipated. Gaseous emissions from the construction equipment are expected to be minimal. Operational air quality impacts are also expected to be insignificant.

4.0 Noise Impact Assessment

Introduction

4.1 This section addresses the noise impacts during the construction and operational phases of the Project. The noise impacts have been evaluated and assessed in accordance with Annexes 5 and 13 of the EIA-TM.

Environmental Legislation, Standards and Guidelines

4.2 Relevant environmental legislations governing noise control are Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) (Cap 400) and Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap 499). Relevant assessment criteria and guidelines of the assessment approaches have been given in the following Technical Memoranda issued under the NCO and EIAO:

· Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work other than Percussive Piling (GW-TM);

· Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work in Designated Areas (DA-TM); and

· Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process (EIA-TM).

Construction Noise

4.3 Construction noise criteria for daytime hours of 07:00-19:00 hours on any day not being a Sunday or general holiday are stipulated in Annex 5 of EIA-TM and shown in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 Noise Criteria for Daytime Construction Activities

Uses / Noise Sensitive Receivers	0700 to 1900 hours on any day not being a Sunday or general holiday Leq(30 min) dB(A)
Domestic Premises	75
Educational institutions including kindergartens, nurseries and all others where unaided voice communication is required	70 (65 During Examinations)

Note: The above standards apply to uses which rely on opened windows for ventilation.

Operational Noise

4.4 Annex 5 of the EIA-TM stipulates the traffic noise criteria during the operational phase, as shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Relevant Road Traffic Noise Criteria

Uses / Noise Sensitive Receivers	Peak Hour Traffic L_{10 (1 hour)} dB(A)
Domestic Premises	70
Educational institutions, Places of Public Worship	65
Clinics, homes for the aged	55

Note: The above standards apply to uses which rely on opened windows for ventilation.

4.5 The above noise criteria shall be viewed as the maximum permissible noise levels assessed at 1m from the external façade of the noise sensitive uses which rely on opened windows for ventilation.

4.6 For the operational noise impact assessment on road traffic, roads within 300 m from the Project boundary have been included. Traffic noise impacts for the following scenarios are predicted:

1. Original Scenario: assessment based on the peak hour traffic flow at the design year, i.e., maximum traffic projection within a 15 years period without the Project;

2. Unmitigated Scenario: assessment based on the maximum traffic projection within 15 years of the design year after completion of the modification works;

3. Mitigated Scenario: assessment with the proposed mitigation measures, only necessary when significant traffic noise impact is predicted; and

4. Prevailing Scenario: assessment on existing traffic noise level only necessary when residual impact is predicted.

4.7 Given Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road (i.e., rural roads) are not within the meaning of Item A.1 of Schedule 2 of EIAO, the traffic noise impact is significant if the following conditions are met:

· Predicted unmitigated traffic noise level (i.e., “Unmitigated Scenario”) at the representative NSRs exceeds the noise criteria as listed in Table 4.2 by 1.0 dB(A) or more; and

· Predicted unmitigated traffic noise level at the representative NSRs with the Project is greater than that without the Project (i.e., “Original Scenario”) by 1.0 dB(A) or more.

4.8 If any of the NSR cannot be protected by the proposed direction noise mitigation measures, indirect technical remedies for those NSR may be adopted provided that the residual impacts satisfy all three criterion below:

1. Predicted overall traffic noise level at the NSR must be above the specified noise level as listed in Table 4.2;

2. Predicted overall noise level is at least 1.0 dB(A) more than the prevailing traffic noise level; and

3. Noise contribution from the proposed road project (i.e. the new road) to the increase in predicted overall noise level is at least 1.0 dB(A).

Baseline Conditions

4.9 The assessment area is rural in nature. The dominant existing source comes from the road traffic on Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road.

Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSRs)

4.10 Existing and planned NSRs within 300 m from the Project boundary were identified in accordance with Section 3 in Annex 13 of the EIAO-TM.

4.11 In addition, it is confirmed that no noise sensitive uses within Pat Heung Division Police Station and Pat Heung Fire Station (refer to Appendix C4).

4.12 With reference to the confirmation from the Government Secretariat (refer to Appendix C2), there is no development schedule on the change of uses in the Shek Kong Barracks. In addition, the Government Secretariat also confirmed that there are some dormitory exists within the Shek Kong Barracks. According to the survey map published by Lands Department, “Church” and “Education Centre” was labelled within the Shek Kong Barracks. As confirmed by the Government Secretariat (refer to Appendix C2), the premises labelled as “Church” and “Education Centre” is currently used as office/recreational centre and warehouse, respectively, which is not considered as a NSR according to Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. Therefore, only the dormitory has been included in this assessment.

4.13 According to the map of the Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden (KFBG) provided in the KFBG’s website and the site survey had been conducted within the KFBG in November 2008. No noise sensitive uses were found within the farm and only reception, office and animal exhibit were identified at nearby the Project boundary. As confirmed by the KFBG (refer to Appendix C3), there is no noise sensitive uses within KFBG.

4.14 Besides, planned NSRs on relevant published land use plans, including plans and drawings published by Lands Department has been checked and identified. These NSRs include all existing NSRs as well as potential planned/ committed noise sensitive uses earmarked on the relevant Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs), Outline Development Plans (ODPs) and layout plans.

4.15 According to Planning Department’s record, there is no Outline Development Plan (ODP) within 300 m study area. With reference to the information in the Statutory Planning Portal of the Town Planning Board (TPB), all planned sensitive uses of all approved planning applications within the study area have been identified.

4.16 Representative NSRs considered to be potentially most affected by noise were selected for the assessment. In order to assess the worst-case scenario of the noise impacts upon the planned NSRs, representative assessment locations for the planned NSRs have been selected at the site / zoning boundary facing the Project. Even though a new NSR have been constructed and occupied before the commencement of the road works within the zoning, the selected planned NSRs already representing as the worst-case scenario. The representative NSRs for the construction and operational noise impact assessment are summarised in Table 4.3 below, with their locations illustrated in Figure 4.1. Photographs of the identified existing representative NSRs are provided in Appendix C1.

Table 4.3 Summary of the Identified Representative NSRs

NSR	Description	No. of Storeys	Assessment Level	mPD	Sensitive Use
N1	Kam Kwong Nepali Christian Church	1	1F	8.9	Place for Worship
N2	Village house at Kong Tai Road	1	1F	7.4	Residential
N3	Village house near Shek Kong	2	1F 2F	10.1 12.9	Residential
N4	Village house near Petrol Station	2	1F 2F	10.0 12.8	Residential
N5	Residential development near Kiu Tau Tsuen (under construction)	3	1F 2F 3F	9.9 12.9 15.9	Residential
N6	Kam Tin Clinic	2	1F 2F	10.1 13.1	Medical
N7	Village house, 18E, Shek Kong San Tsuen	1	1F	10.8	Residential
N8	Dormitory of Shek Kong Barrack	3	1F 2F 3F	11.7 14.5 17.3	Residential
N9	Village house of Shek Kong San Tsuen	1	1F	11.6	Residential
N10	Village house of Shek Kong San Tsuen	1	1F	10.9	Residential
N12	Low-rise residential building, 136, Season Villas	2	1F 2F	12.7 15.5	Residential
N13	Village house near Season Villas	2	1F 2F	14.6 17.4	Residential
N15	Village house near Season Villas	2	1F 2F	12.3 15.1	Residential
N16	Village house, 265, Kam Tin Road	2	1F 2F	13.0 15.8	Residential
N17	Village house near Shek Kong Vegetable Marketing Cooperation Society Limited	2	1F 2F	16.0 18.8	Residential
N18	Village house, Chung Ying Yuen	2	1F 2F	16.8 19.6	Residential
N19	Village house, Ching Yuen	2	1F 2F	17.2 20.0	Residential
N20	Village house, Lin Yuen	3	1F 2F 3F	18.0 20.8 23.6	Residential
N21	Village house near Pat Heung Police Station	2	1F 2F	18.2 21.0	Residential
N22	Village house, 82, Green Villa	3	1F 2F 3F	19.7 22.5 25.3	Residential
N24	Village house, Lee Ka Yuen	2	1F 2F	19.8 22.6	Residential
N25	Village house, 28A – 28B, Wang Toi Shan Yau Uk Tsuen	3	1F 2F 3F	21.9 24.7 27.5	Residential
N26	Yan Wo Home for Aged	3	1F 2F 3F	23.0 25.8 28.6	Home for Aged
N27	Village house near Petrol Station (under construction)	3	1F 2F 3F	23.0 25.8 28.6	Residential
N28	Village house, 94B, Wang Toi Shan San Tsuen	3	1F 2F 3F	23.9 26.7 29.5	Residential
N29	Village house, 46 – 47, Wang Toi Shan Lo Uk Tsuen	3	1F 2F 3F	24.3 27.1 29.9	Residential
N30	Shun Fook Home for Aged	3	1F 2F 3F	23.6 26.4 29.2	Home for Aged
N31	Village house, 30, Wang Toi Shan Lo Uk Tsuen	2	1F 2F	25.0 27.8	Residential
N32	Block 9, Evergreen International Hong Kong Association	3	1F 2F 3F	26.0 28.8 31.6	Home for Aged
N33	Village house	2	1F 2F	29.4 32.2	Residential
N34	Village house, Fau Wan Court	3	1F 2F 3F	38.8 41.6 44.4	Residential
N35	Village house near Pine Hill Villa	2	1F 2F	43.0 45.8	Residential
N36	Village house opposite to Pine Hill Villa	2	1F 2F	42.6 45.4	Residential
N37	Village house, Pine Hill Villa	3	1F 2F 3F	47.7 50.5 53.3	Residential
N38	Village house	3	1F 2F 3F	47.7 50.5 53.3	Residential
N39	Village house near Pat Heung Old Temple	2	1F 2F	45.0 47.8	Residential
N41	Village house of Kiu Court	3	1F 2F 3F	45.8 48.6 51.4	Residential
N42	Village house near Pat Heung Rural Committee	2	1F 2F	47.8 50.6	Residential
N43	Village house	3	1F 2F 3F	51.0 53.8 56.6	Residential
N44	Village house near Route Twisk	3	1F 2F 3F	52.4 55.2 58.0	Residential
N45	Village house	1	1F	54.1	Residential
N46	Cheung Chau Court	5	1F 2F 3F 4F 5F	59.9 62.9 65.9 68.9 71.9	Residential
N47	4, Shropshire Road	2	1F 2F	71.4 74.4	Residential
N48	Village house	1	1F	61.8	Residential
N49	Village house	1	1F	71.5	Residential
N50	Village house	2	1F 2F	84.1 86.9	Residential
N51	Village house (No. 151 Lam Kam Road)	1	1F	99.2	Residential
N52	Village house	2	1F 2F	135.7 138.5	Residential
N53	Village house (No. 70 Lam Kam Road)	1	1F	151.6	Residential
N54	Village house (opposite side of Kadoorie Experimental Farm)	1	1F	158.7	Residential
P01 ⁽¹⁾	Planned village development (V Zone) at Kam Tin South OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-KTS/11]	3*	1F 2F 3F	9.0 11.8 14.6	Residential
P02 ⁽¹⁾	Planned residential development [R(D) Zone] at Kam Tin South OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-KTS/11]	2*	1F 2F	9.1 12.1	Residential
P03	Planned village house [Planning Application Case No.: A/YL-PH/540]	3**	1F 2F 3F	29.7 32.5 35.3	Residential
P04 ⁽¹⁾	Planned residential development [R(D) Zone] at Pat Heung OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-PH/11]	2*	1F 2F	54.8 57.8	Residential
P05 ⁽¹⁾	Planned village development (V Zone) at Kam Tin North OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-KTN/7]	3*	1F 2F 3F	8.8 11.6 14.4	Residential
P06 ⁽¹⁾	Planned village development (V Zone) at Kam Tin North OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-KTN/7]	3*	1F 2F 3F	9.4 12.2 15.0	Residential
P07 ⁽¹⁾	Planned residential development (R(D) Zone) at Kam Tin North OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-KTN/7]	2*	1F 2F	11.1 14.1	Residential
P08 ⁽¹⁾	Planned residential development (R(C)2 Zone) at Kam Tin North OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-KTN/7]	3*	1F 2F 3F	10.3 13.3 16.3	Residential
P09 ⁽¹⁾	Planned village development (V Zone) at Pat Heung OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-PH/11]	3*	1F 2F 3F	21.1 23.9 26.7	Residential
P10 ⁽¹⁾	Planned village development (V Zone) at Pat Heung OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-PH/11]	3*	1F 2F 3F	26.7 29.5 32.3	Residential
P11 ⁽¹⁾	Planned residential development (R(D) Zone) at Pat Heung OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-PH/11]	2*	1F 2F	32.9 35.9	Residential
P12 ⁽¹⁾	Planned village development (V Zone) at Shek Kong OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-SK/9]	3*	1F 2F 3F	47.4 50.2 53.0	Residential
P13 ⁽¹⁾	Planned village development (V Zone) at Shek Kong OZP [Statutory Plan No.: S/YL-SK/9]	3*	1F 2F 3F	51.9 54.7 57.5	Residential

Note:

⁽¹⁾ For the planned NSR at the land use zoning of “V” or “R”, the calculation of construction noise level is excluded as no information showing the actual location of future noise sensitive development during Project construction.

* Permitted maximum building height or number of storey stated in the approved Outline Zoning Plan

** Number of storey stated in the approved planning application

Construction Noise Impact Assessment

Impact Identification

4.17 In order to complete the works within scheduled timeframe, the use of Powered Mechanical Equipment (PME) is unavoidable. Therefore, the use of PME in daytime is expected to be the major noise source during the construction of the Project. No construction works are scheduled to be undertaken during noise control restricted hours of all days during the evening and night-time (i.e. 19:00-07:00 hours); and all time during Sundays and public holidays. Notwithstanding, it will be the Contractor’s responsibility to apply for a Construction Noise Permit (CNP) for any construction works planned to be undertaken during restricted hours in accordance with the Noise Control Ordinance (NCO). No percussive piling works will be required within the proposed project area.

Assessment Assumptions and Methodology

4.18 The Project is scheduled to commence in first quarter of 2011 and to be completed in third quarter of 2015. All construction tasks would be carried out during unrestricted hours (0700 to 1900 hours Monday to Saturday excluding general holidays). Details of construction tasks are as follows:

· Road upgrading (including minor excavation and minor slope works);

· Road paving;

· Geotechnical Work (Soil Nailing); and

· Soldier Pile Wall Construction.

4.19 Due to temporary road traffic management is not allowing long road closure on one lane for dual carriageway, each active construction activity location shall be about 50 m in length at one lane of the road alignment at any one time. Assumed 50 m road work is constructed, the operation duration of each PME is estimated and tabulated in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Operation Duration of PME for the Construction of Road Work

Construction Stage	Involved PME	Duration
Road Breaking	Breaker + Generator	1 – 2 day(s)
Excavating	Excavator	1 – 2 day(s)
Road Paving	Asphalt Paver	0.5 day
Road Compacting	Vibratory Roller	0.5 day

4.20 The geotechnical works and the soldier pile wall construction will only occur at the locations as indicates in Figure 4.1. There is only one work site for construction of soldier pile wall (as shown in Figure 4.1d). The geotechnical works have been included in the assessment on NSRs where locates within 100m from the work site. To represent a reasonable worst-case scenario it has been assumed that the geotechnical works will be undertaken concurrently with road works, unless specified in the later sections.

4.21 The construction of soldier pile wall has been included in the noise impacts assessment on NSRs N33, N34, N35 and P03. It is noted that there will be no concurrent use of PME for road works and construction of soldier pile wall except the use of breaker and generator within each work front.

4.22 The exact number and type of PME used for various construction activities will only be known after appointment of the works Contractor. However, assessment has been conducted based on the assumed PME inventory as listed in Appendix D1. The number for each PME has been assumed to be one within each construction work front. The percentage on-time for each PME has been assumed to be 100%, based on 30-minute working periods, except 50% on-time assumed for dump truck and lorry and 70% on-time assumed for rotary driller. The Project Proponent has confirmed that the PME inventory with the percentage on-time is practicable and practical to complete the works within scheduled timeframe and are available in Hong Kong (Appendix D2).

4.23 Similar to the assumptions on the PME inventory, the exact staging or phasing of construction arrangement will be determined by the contractor after appointment of the works. Assessment has been conducted based on the assumption that the length of each active construction site is up to 50m; and the minimum separation of construction sites is 300m. With reference to the findings in the Traffic Impact Assessment of the Project, the assumption is considered reasonable practicable. As such, cumulative construction noise from concurrent works of active construction sites is not anticipated. Accordingly, it is anticipated that each NSR can only be affected by one active construction site at any one time.

4.24 The construction noise impact at representative NSRs has been assessed based on standard acoustic principles and the assessment methodology as specified in the GW-TM and Annex 13 of the EIAO-TM.

4.25 The Sound Power Level (SWL) of the PME was determined from Table 3 of the GW-TM. The SWL also made reference to the British Standards BS 5228: Part 1:1997 – “Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites”.

4.26 It is assumed that all PME required for a particular construction activity would be located at the notional probable source position of the road section where such activity is to be performed. To predict the noise level, PME is divided into groups required for each construction task / stage. The sound pressure level of each construction task is calculated based on the number of PME and distance from the NSR. The noise levels at NSRs are then predicted by adding up the SWLs of all concurrent construction tasks.

4.27 A positive 3 dB(A) façade correction is added to the predicted noise levels in order to account for the facade effect at each NSR.

Potential Cumulative Impacts

4.28 As identified in Section 2, two of the designated projects (i.e., Yuen Long, Kam Tin, Ngau Tam Mei & Tin Shui Wai Drainage Improvement Stage 1, Phase 2B - Kam Tin Secondary Drainage Channel KT13 (CE 67/98) and Drainage Improvement in Sha Tin and Tai Po Design and Construction (CE 50/2001)) and one non-designated project (i.e., Replacement and Rehabilitation of Water mains Stage 2; Mains in New Territories East – Investigation, Design and Construction (CE 6/2005)) will be located at more than 1 km from this Project boundary. And 1 non-designated project (i.e. Alternative Raw Water Supply to Yau Kom Tau Water Treatment Works from Au Tau Raw Water Pumping Station (Agreement No.: PWP 337WF)) will be located at more than 300 m. Therefore, there should be no cumulative impacts from those projects.

4.29 Apart from the above, there are three non-designated projects (i.e., Replacement and Rehabilitation of Water mains Stage 2 (Agreement No.: CE 1/2005), Replacement and Rehabilitation of Water mains Stage 4 (Agreement No.: CE 10/2008) and Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal (Agreement No.: PWP 4235DS)) which will potentially be constructing concurrently with this project. However, according to the temporary traffic arrangement concerns, the distance separation of more than 300 m should be maintained between the two active construction sites. Given there will be sufficient distance separation between two construction sites, no cumulative construction noise impacts are anticipated. In addition, there is one designated project (i.e., Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou - Shenzhen - Hong Kong Express Rail Link) will potentially be constructing concurrently with this project. As the EIA study of this railway project is in progess, there is no detailed construction methods and programme can be reviewed. As such, the EIA study of this railway project should take into account the potential cumulative impacts arising from the proposed Project. According to the Project Profile of this railway project (application no.: ESB-197/2008), most of the construction works would be carried out in underground condition. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated.

Assessment of Construction Noise Impacts (un-mitigated scenario)

4.30 Table 4.5 summarizes the predicted maximum construction noise levels at the representative NSRs under the un-mitigated scenario. Detailed calculations of the noise levels are provided in Appendix D3.

Table 4.5 Predicted Maximum Construction Noise Levels at the Representative NSRs (Un-mitigated Scenario)

NSR	Description	Predicted Noise Levels [Leq (30min)], dB(A)	Noise Criteria, dB(A)
N1	Kam Kwong Nepali Christian Church	70	70
N2	Village house at Kong Tai Road	63

				C1022//EIA/001 Issue 3 February 2009

Construction Agreement No. WD 7/2007 Upgrading of Remaining Sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road Environmental Impact Assessment Report


	Approved for Issue by:
	Mark Cheung
	Position:	Project Director
	Date:


Highways Department Works Division 16/F Skyline Tower 39 Wang Kwong Road Kowloon Bay, Kowloon.			Mannings (Asia) Consultants Ltd in association with BMT Asia Pacific Ltd Units A-B, 14/F, Skyline Tower, 18 Tong Mei Road, Mongkok, Kowloon

1.7	According to the EIA study brief, the objectives of the study are to:
	(a)	Describe the Project and associated works together with the requirements for carrying out the Project;
	(b)	Identify and describe elements of community and environment likely to be affected by the Project and/or likely to cause adverse impacts to the Project, including natural and man-made environment and the associated environmental constraints;
	(c)	Provide information on the consideration of alternatives to avoid and minimize potential environmental impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and other sensitive uses; to compare the environmental benefits and dis-benefits of each of different options; to provide reasons for selecting the preferred option(s) and to describe the part environmental factors played in the selection of preferred option(s);
	(d)	Identify and quantify all environmental sensitive receivers, emission sources and determine the significance of impacts on sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;
	(e)	Identify and quantify any potential losses or damage to flora, fauna and natural habitats;
	(f)	Identify and quantify any potential landscape and visual impacts and to propose measures to mitigate these impacts;
	(g)	Identify any negative impacts on sites of cultural heritage and propose measures to mitigate these impacts;
	(h)	Propose provision of mitigation measures so as to minimize pollution, environmental disturbance & nuisance during construction & operation of Project;
	(i)	Investigate the feasibility, practicability, effectiveness and implications of the proposed mitigation measures;
	(j)	Identify, within the study area, any individual project(s) that fall under Schedule 2 and/or Schedule 3 of the EIAO; to ascertain whether the findings of this EIA study have adequately addressed the environmental impacts of those projects; and where necessary, to identify the outstanding issues that need to be addressed in any further detailed EIA study;
	(k)	Identify, predict and evaluate the residual environmental impacts (i.e. after practicable mitigation) and the cumulative effects expected to arise during the construction and operation phases of the Project in relation to the sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;
	(l)	Identify, assess and specify methods, measures and standards, to be included in the detailed design, construction and operation of the Project which are necessary to mitigate these environmental impacts and cumulative effects and reduce them to acceptable levels;
	(m)	Investigate the extent of the secondary environmental impacts that may arise from the proposed mitigation measures and to identify constraints associated with the mitigation measures recommended in the EIA study, as well as the provision of any necessary modification; and
	(n)	Design and specify environmental monitoring and audit requirements to ensure the effective implementation of the recommended environmental protection and pollution control measures.

1.1	Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road together form a critical route serving the local areas in Yuen Long east and Tai Po south. Sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road have been upgraded under the following projects: (a) Lam Kam Road Improvement Stage I and II, completed in 1986 and 1994 respectively, upgraded the section between Kadoorie Farm and Lam Kam Road Interchange; (b) Improvement to Kam Tin Road Stage I, completed in 2002, widened the section of Kam Tin Road between Au Tau Roundabout and Ko Po Tsuen from single two-lane carriageway to dual two-lane carriageway; and (c) Kam Tin Bypass, completed in 2004, constructed dual two-lane carriageway to bypass traffic from Kam Tin Road between Ko Po Tsuen and Kiu Tau Tsuen.
1.2	The remaining sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road are located at Kam Tin Road between Kam Tin Bypass and Lam Kam Road, and Lam Kam Road between Kam Tin Road and Kadoorie Farm. These sections comprise a substandard single two-lane carriageway. Road safety problems are compounded by fast vehicular traffic, sharp bends, hidden accesses, sub-standard gradients, inadequate lateral clearance, frequent usage of heavy vehicles, insufficient pedestrian crossing facilities, significant jay-walking and lack of bus-bays. On road safety grounds, the project titled “Upgrading of Remaining Sections of Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road” (hereinafter known as the “Project”) was initiated in 2007.
1.3	Kam Tin Road and Lam Kam Road are rural roads. The Project does not include 100 m long road bridge or 800 m long road tunnel. In addition, it does not have any additional traffic lane or long road extension. However, it encroaches upon existing conservation areas. Hence, the Project is a Designated Project (DP) under item Q.1 of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the EIAO: “All projects including new access roads, railways, sewers, sewage treatment facilities, earthworks, dredging works and other building works partly or wholly in an existing or gazetted proposed country park or special area, a conservation area, an existing or gazetted proposed marine park or marine reserve, a site of cultural heritage, and a site of special scientific interest.”
1.4	The Highways Department (HyD) submitted an application for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study brief with a project profile in September 2007. Pursuant to Section 5(7)(a) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO), the Environmental Protection Department issued the EIA study brief (ESB-170/2007) for the Project in October 2007.
1.5	In March 2008, Mannings (Asia) Consultants Limited in association with BMT Asia Pacific Limited was employed by the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, represented by HyD, to undertake the EIA for the Project.
1.6	This report presents the approach and findings of the EIA study which conducted in accordance with the requirements in the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-170/2007.