Environmental
Impact Assessment
Proposed
Residential cum Passive Recreational Development
within "Recreation” (“REC”) Zone and “Residential (Group C)” Zone
at Various Lots in DD 104, Yuen Long, N.T.
(Volume I – Main Text and Appendices)
(Final Report)
Prepared by
ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited
in association with
Archiplus International Limited
AEC Limited
AECOM
KJL Limited
Urbis Limited
Date:
December 2013
Reference Number:
R0998_V6.F
Environmental
Impact Assessment
Proposed
Residential cum Passive Recreational
Development
within "Recreation” (“REC”) Zone
and “Residential (Group C)” Zone
at
Various Lots in DD 104, Yuen Long, N.T
|
Prepared by: |
|
|
Approved by: |
Henry Ng |
|
|
Tony Cheng |
ENVIRON Hong Kong Limited
Room 2403, 24/F, Jubilee Centre,
18 Fenwick Street, Wan Chai, Hong Kong
Tel: 34652888
Fax: 34652899
E-mail:
info.hk@environcorp.com
Q:\Projects\SHKFVRECEI00\Report\EIA Report\V6.Fa Final
rev\EIA Report_R0998_V6.Fa Consolidated_5 With LVIA EcollA.doc
Contents
1.4 EIAO
and Designated Projects
1.5 Continuous
Public Involvement
1.7 Objectives
of the EIA Study
1.10 Structure
of the EIA Report
2. Consideration of Alternatives
2.3 Consideration
of Alternatives
2.6 Construction
Methods and Sequences of Works.
3.3 Legislation,
Standards, Guidelines and Criteria
3.4 Ambient
Contribution (Background) for Evaluating Air Quality Impacts
3.6 Air
Quality Impact Assessment
3.8 Assessment
Results (Unmitigated Scenario)
3.10 Assessment
Results (Mitigated Scenario)
3.11 Environmental
Monitoring and Audit
4.3 Government
Legislation and Standards
4.4 Identification
of Potential Noise Impacts
4.5 Determination
of Noise Sensitive Receivers
4.7 Prediction
and Evaluation of Noise Impacts.
4.8 Evaluation
of Construction Noise Impacts After Noise Mitigation Measures (Mitigated
Scenario)
4.9 Cumulative
Construction Noise Impacts
5.2 Environmental
Legislation, Standards, Guidelines and Criteria
5.3 Existing
Environment and Sensitive Receivers
5.5 Water
Quality Impact Assessment Results
5.6 Summary
of Mitigation Measures
5.7 Environmental
Monitoring and Audit
6. Sewerage and Sewage Treatment
6.2 Assessment
Methodology and Assumptions
7.2 Environmental
Legislation and Standards
7.3 Potential
Land Contamination Due to Historic Land Use
7.4 Waste
Generation during Construction Phase
7.5 Construction Waste
Management Measures
7.6 Waste
Generation during Operational Phase
8.6 Evaluation
of Habitat Value
8.7 Potential
Ecological Impacts
8.10 Ecological Monitoring EM&A Programme
9.5 Prediction
and Evaluation of Impact
10.2 Relevant
Legislation & Guidelines
10.3 Assessment
Results of the CHIA
11.2 Alternative Layout
Options Considered During Design Process
11.3 Environmental
Legislation and Guidelines
11.4 Scope and Content of the Study
11.5 Methodology for Assessment of Landscape and Visual Impacts
11.6 Planning
and Development Control Framework
11.7 Consideration
of Concurrent Projects
11.8 Landscape and Visual Baseline Study
11.9 Potential Sources of Landscape and Visual Impact
11.10 Landscape Impact Assessment
11.11 Visual Impact Assessment..
11.12 Summary of Landscape and Visual Assessment
12. Summary
of Environmental Outcomes
12.4 Sewerage
and Sewage Treatment
13. Environmental
Monitoring and Audit Requirements
13.5 Sewerage
and Sewage Treatment
14. Project
Implementation Schedule
14.1 Proposed
Infrastructure and Mitigation Measures
15.4 Sewerage
and Sewage Treatment
Table 2‑1 Evaluation of
Development Options
Table 3‑1 Hong Kong Air
Quality Objectives (on and after 1 January 2014)
Table 3‑2 Locations of
Representative Air Sensitive Receivers
Table 3‑3 Planned Air
Sensitive Receivers
Table 4‑1 Noise Limits for
Daytime Construction Activities.
Table 4‑2 Relevant Road
Traffic Noise Standard
Table 4‑3 Relevant Noise
Standard for Fixed Noise Sources
Table 4‑4 Identified
Industrial Sites and Noise Sources
Table 4‑5 Identified
Existing Noise Sensitive Receivers For Construction Noise Assessment
Table 4‑6 Status of the
Proposed Near-by Sensitive Uses.
Table 4‑7 Representative
NSRs for Operational Phase Road Traffic Noise Assessment
Table 4‑8 Representative
NSRs for Operational Phase Noise Impact Assessment
Table 4‑9 Inventory of
Powered Mechanical Equipment To Be Used in Northern Portion (Unmitigated)
Table 4‑10 Inventory of Powered
Mechanical Equipment To Be Used in Southern Portion (Unmitigated)
Table 4‑12 Road Characteristics
During AM Peak Hour in Year 2035
Table 4‑13 Range of Predicted
Road Traffic Noise Levels at Representative NSRs
Table 4‑15 Baseline Noise
Measurement Location and Time Periods
Table 4‑16 Inventory of QPMEs
To Be Used in Northern Portion.
Table 4‑17 Inventory of QPMEs
To Be Used in Southern Portion.
Table 5‑3 Key Water Quality
Objectives for Inland Waters in Deep Bay Water Control Zone
Table 5‑4 Baseline Water
Quality Monitoring Results in August 2009
Table 5‑5 Average Baseline
Water Quality Monitoring Results in August 2009 and March 2010
Table 6‑1 Design Assumption
and Basis
Table 6‑2 Estimated Sewage
Flow from Project Site
Table 6‑3 Comparison of
Additional Sewage Flow with Capacity of Public Sewerage
Table 7‑1 Summary Table of
Estimated Materials to be Generated, Re-used and Disposed of
Table 8‑1 Ecological Values of the PS Assessed in
Relevant EIAs
Table 8‑2 Ecological Information on Wo Shang Wai (based
on EIA 144/2008)
Table 8‑4 Habitats in PS and
AA (ha)
Table 8‑11 Ecological
evaluation of reed within the PS
Table 8‑12 Ecological evaluation
of grassland/shrubland within the PS
Table 8‑13 Ecological
evaluation of urbanised area within the PS
Table 8‑14 Ecological
evaluation of pond within the PS
Table 8‑15 Ecological
evaluation of agricultural land within the PS
Table 8‑16 Ecological
evaluation of seasonally
wet grassland within the PS
Table 8‑17 Ecological
evaluation of abandoned irrigation ditch within the PS
Table 8‑18 Ecological
evaluation of reed within the AA
Table 8‑19 Ecological
evaluation of reed/marsh within the AA
Table 8‑20 Ecological
Evaluation of Urbanised Area within the AA
Table 8‑21 Ecological
Evaluation of Pond within the AA
Table 8‑22 Ecological
evaluation of grassland /shrubland within the AA
Table 8‑23 Ecological
Evaluation of Agricultural Land within the AA
Table 8‑24 Ecological
Evaluation of Seasonally Wet Grassland within the AA
Table 8‑25 Ecological
Evaluation of Drainage Channels within the AA
Table 8‑26 Ecological
evaluation of marsh within the AA
Table 8‑27 Ecological
Evaluation of Plantation within the AA
Table 8‑28 Ecological
Evaluation of Watercourse within the AA
Table 8‑29 Potential Direct
Ecological Impacts to Existing Habitats within the PS
Table 8‑30 Potential Direct
Ecological Impacts to Species of Interest within the PS
Table 8‑31a Potential Indirect
Habitat Loss through disturbance within the AA
Table 8‑33 Potential indirect
ecological impacts to birds of conservation importance within the AA
Table 8‑34 Summary of predicted
potential ecological impacts in the absence of mitigation measures
Table 8‑36 Summary of
Ecological Baseline Update for Current Project (during construction stage)
Table 9‑1 Annual pond fish
production and fish pond area.
Table 9‑2 Sizes of different
types of fish ponds.
Table 9‑3 Evaluation of
fisheries impact
Table 9‑4 Evaluation of
fisheries impact
due to the loss of the existing pond residue within PS
Table 11‑1 Assessment of Layout
Options against Landscape / Visual Criteria
Table 11‑2 Evaluation of Significance of Landscape
and Visual Impacts
Table 11‑3 Summary of existing
trees within the Project Site (in order of decreasing abundance)
Table 11‑4 Sensitivity of VSRs
Table 11‑5A Proposed Landscape Enhancement / Mitigation Measures –
Construction Phase
Table 11‑5B Proposed Landscape
Enhancement / Mitigation Measures – Operation Phase
Table 11‑6 Significance of
Landscape Impacts in Construction and Operational Phases
Table 11- 7A Proposed Visual
Enhancement / Mitigation Measures – Construction Phase
Table 11‑7B Proposed Visual
Enhancement / Mitigation Measures – Operation Phase
Table 11‑8 Magnitude of Change
in Views for VSRs
Table 11‑9 Significance of
Visual Impacts in Construction and Operational Phases
Table 14‑1 Implementation
Schedule of Recommended Mitigation Measures
List
of Figures
(Please refer to
Volume II for all the figures).
Figure 1-2 Locations
of Approved EIA Projects and Adjacent Planned Development Sites
Figure 2-1 Master
Layout Plan for the Proposed Development and the Environs
Figure 2-2 Layout
of the Option 1
Figure 2-3 Layout
of the Option 2
Figure 3-1 Locations
of Air Sensitive Receivers
Figure 3-2 Representative
ASRs Selected for Construction Phase Air Quality Assessment
Figure 4-1 Background
Noise Measurement Location
Figure 4-2A Representative NSRs for Construction
Phase Noise Assessment
Figure 4-2B Photographs
of NSRs Selected for Construction Phase Noise Assessment
Figure 4-2C Photographs
of NSRs Selected for Construction Phase Noise Assessment
Figure 4-3A Noise
Assessment Study Boundary and Separation Distance to Major Roads
Figure 4-4C Proposed Noise Mitigation Measures to
Shield Petrol Filling Station
Figure 4-5 Locations of Noise Assessment Points
for Existing Floodwater Pumping Station
Figure 4-6 Location of Construction Phase Noise
Barrier
Figure 4-6A Cross Sectional Diagrame of Proposed Fixed
Temporary Construction Noise Barrier
Figure 4-7 Summary of Proposed
Noise Mitigation Meausres at the time of Operation of this Project
Figure 5-1 Baseline Water Quality Sampling
Locations and Locations of Existing WSRs
Figure 5-3 Existing Drainage Condition
Figure 5-4 Proposed Drainage System
Figure 5-5 Construction Stage Drainage Condition
Figure 6-1 Proposed Sewer Connection
Figure 6-2 Proposed Ngau Tam Mei Trunk Sewerage
Figure 7-1 Location of Existing Petrol Filling
Station at Fairview Park
Figure 8-1 Project Site at Fairview Park and
Adjacent Areas of Conservation Importance
Figure 8-2A Habitat Map Within
the Project Site and Assessment Area at Fairview Park
Figure 8-2B Habitat Map Within
the Project Site and Assessment Area at Fairview Park
Figure 8-3 Transect Walked and Sub-areas for
Faunal Surveys
Figure 9-1 Pond Status Within the Assessment
Area
Figure 11-01 Extract
of Relevant OZP (As At 11.12.2013)
Figure 11-02A Landscape
Resources Plan (Within Project Site)
Figure 11-02B Landscape
Resources Plan (Outside Project Site)
Figure 11-03 Landscape
Resource Views – On Site and Adjacent to Site (Sheet 1 of 3)
Figure 11-04 Landscape
Resource Views – On Site and Adjacent to Site (Sheet 2 of 3)
Figure 11-05 Landscape
Resource Views – On Site and Adjacent to Site (Sheet 3 of 3)
Figure 11-06 Landscape
Character Area Plan
Figure 11-07 Landscape
Character Area Views
Figure 11-08 Landscape
Character Area Views
Figure 11-08A Landscape
Character Area Views
Figure 11-09 Zone
of Visual Influence and Visually Sensitive Receivers
Figure 11-10 Section
Showing Derivation of ZVI
Figure 11-11 Existing
VSR Views (Sheet 1 of 5)
Figure 11-12 Existing
VSR Views (Sheet 2 of 5)
Figure 11-13 Existing
VSR Views (Sheet 3 of 5)
Figure 11-14 Existing
VSR Views (Sheet 4 of 5)
Figure 11-15 Existing
VSR Views (Sheet 5 of 5)
Figure 11-16 Landscape
and Visual Mitigation Measures – Plan
Figure 11-17 Landscape
and Visual Mitigation Measures – Southern Site Plan
Figure 11-18 Landscape
and Visual Mitigation Measures – Northern Site Plan
Figure 11-19 Landscape
Master Plan
Figure 11-20 Typical
Section A-A (Sheet 1 of 7)
Figure 11-21 Typical
Section B-B (Sheet 2 of 7)
Figure 11-22 Typical
Section C-C (Sheet 3 of 7)
Figure 11-23 Typical
Section D-D (Sheet 4 of 7)
Figure 11-24 Typical
Section E-E (Sheet 5 of 7)
Figure 11-25 Typical
Section F-F (Sheet 6 of 7)
Figure 11-26 Typical
Section G-G (Sheet 7 of 7)
Figure 11-27 Residual
Impacts on Landscape Resources During Construction
Figure 11-28 Residual
Impacts on Landscape Resources During Operation (Day
1)
Figure 11-29 Residual
Impacts on Landscape Resources During Operation (Year
10)
Figure 11-30 Residual
Landscape Character Impacts During Construction
Figure 11-31 Residual
Landscape Character Impacts During Operation (Day 1)
Figure 11-32 Residual
Landscape Character Impacts During Operation (Year 10)
Figure 11-33 Residual
Visual Impacts During Construction
Figure 11-34 Residual
Visual Impacts During Operation (Year 10)
Figure 11-35 Landscape
and Visual Mitigation Measure – Photomontage (Sheet 1 of 6)
Figure 11-36 Landscape
and Visual Mitigation Measure – Photomontage (Sheet 2 of 6)
Figure 11-37 Landscape
and Visual Mitigation Measure – Photomontage (Sheet 3 of 6)
Figure 11-38 Landscape
and Visual Mitigation Measure – Photomontage (Sheet 4 of 6)
Figure 11-39 Landscape
and Visual Mitigation Measure – Photomontage (Sheet 5 of 6)
Figure 11-40 Landscape
and Visual Mitigation Measure – Photomontage (Sheet 6 of 6)
Figure 11-41 Visual
Illustration for Proposed Noise Barrier
List of Appendices
Appendix 1-1 Project
Construction Programme
Appendix 1-2 Preliminary
Project Construction Programme
Appendix 1-3 Project EIA Study Brief Checklist
Appendix 3-1A Construction
Programme of the Adjacent Planned Development Projects
Appendix 3-1B Background
Contribution from the PATH Output File
Appendix 3-2 Calculation of Hourly TSP Emission Rates of
this Project
Appendix 3-3 Calculation of Daily and Annual RSP Emission
Rates of this Project
Appendix 3-4 Summary Table of TSP Assessment Results
(Unmitigated Scenario)
Appendix 3-5 Summary Table of RSP and PM2.5 Assessment
Results (Unmitigated Scenario)
Appendix 3-6 Summary Table of TSP Assessment Results
(Mitigated Scenario)
Appendix 3-7 Summary Table of RSP and PM2.5 Assessment
Results (Mitigated Scenario)
Appendix 3-8 Phasing Construction During
Site Formation Stage
Appendix 3-9 Calculation of Dust Suppression Efficiency and
Annual Active Works Area
Appendix 3-10 RSP
/ TSP and PM2.5 / RSP Ratios
Appendix 4-1 Endorsed Traffic Forecast Data
Appendix 4-2 Road Traffic Noise Impact Assessment Results
Appendix 4-2A Road
Traffic Noise Sensitivity Test Results
Appendix 4-3 Calculation
of Construction Noise Levels (Unmitigated Scenario)
Appendix 4-5 Estimated
Construction Noise Levels Due to Adjacent Approved EIA Projects
Appendix 4-6A Estimated
Construction Noise Levels Due to Planned RD Site
Appendix 4-6B Estimated
Construction Noise Levels Due to Planned Kam Pok Road Site
Appendix 4-7 Calculation of Industrial Noise Levels
Appendix 4-7B Calculation
of Industrial Noise Levels (Worst Case Scenario) (Day-time)
Appendix 4-7E Operational Noise Due to a Petrol Filling
Station at Fairview Park (Unmitigated)
Appendix 4-7F Operational
Noise Due to a Petrol Filling Station at Fairview Park (Mitigated)
Appendix 4-7G Cumulative
Noise Levels Due to Industrial Noise Sources and Petrol Filling Station
Appendix 4-8 Baseline Noise Measurement Results
Appendix 4-8A Field
Visit Records and Additional Night-time Noise Survey Near
Industrial Sites
Appendix 4-9 Assigned
Reference Number of Proposed Residential Blocks Within
the Project Site
Appendix 5-1 Baseline
Water Quality Survey Results Conducted in August 2009 and March 2010
Appendix 6-1 Hydraulic Analysis
of Future Sewerage Systems
Appendix 7-1 Correspondence
from FSD
Appendix 7-2 Historic
Aerial Photos and Site Photographs
Appendix 7-3 Information
Extracted from the Approved EIA Reports
Appendix 8-1 Plant Species recorded within Project Site
Appendix 8-2 Bird Species recorded within Project Site
Appendix 8-3 Bird Flight Line Observed
Appendix 8-4 Herpetofauna Species recorded
Appendix 8-5 Butterfly Species recorded
Appendix 8-6 Dragonfly Species recorded
Appendix
8-7 Representative Photos Showing Each
Habitat Type
Appendix 10-1 Cultural
Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) Report
Appendix 11-1 Broad
Brush Tree Survey Information
Appendix 11-2 Indicative Mitigation Planting
Species List
The
Project Site comprises various lots in D.D. 104 near Fairview Park, Mai Po, Yuen Long. It has an area of about 9 ha. The site is sandwiched between Yau Pok Road
and Fairview Park. Figure
1-1 presents the location of the Project Site. A cycle track connecting North West New Territories with North East New Territories
– Tuen Mun to Sheung Shui Section is to be constructed by the Government at the
eastern boundary of the Project site beside Yau Pok Road.
The
Project Site is primarily
zoned
“Recreation” (“REC”) with
a small portion in the southern tip of the site zoned “Residential (Group C)” (“R(C)”)
on the
Approved Mai Po and Fairview Park Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) No. S/YL-MP/6
(Subject OZP). According to the Notes of
the Subject OZP, the planning intention of the “REC” zone is primarily for
recreational developments for the use of the general public. It encourages the development of active
and/or passive recreation and tourism/eco-tourism. Uses in support of the recreational
developments may be permitted subject to planning permission. Whereas, the planning
intention of the “R(C)” zone is primarily for low-rise, low-density residential
developments.
ENVIRON
Hong Kong Ltd. (the ENVIRON) has been commissioned by the Project Proponent, Capital Chance
Limited, who is also the registered owner of the private lots within the
Project Site, to conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed development.
A project profile
was submitted to EPD for the
proposed development on 04 May 2009. Pursuant to section 5(7)(a) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
(EIAO), EPD issued an EIA study brief (Ref. No. ESB-207/2009) on 12 June 2009 for this Project.
Subsequent to the
issuance of the EIA Study Brief, a small piece of private land zoned “R(C)” near
the junction of Yau Pok Road and Fairview Park Boulevard is included in the
Project Site following the acquisition of the said land by the Project
Proponent. As the land is small and already
designated by the Government for residential use under the OZP, its inclusion
in the Project Site does not alter the nature of the Project. The proposed residential development cum
passive recreational uses within the Deep Bay Buffer Zone 2 is a designated
project under Schedule 2 of the EIAO. Applications
to and approvals from relevant authorities such as the Town Planning Board, the
Building Departments for the proposed development will be obtained in
accordance with the Town Planning Ordinance, the Buildings Ordinance and other
relevant legislations in order to effect the proposed development.
The current EIA
submission is assessed on the basis of a worst case scenario. ENVIRON conducted this EIA (the Study) in
association with consultants from various fields. The consultants’ team
includes:
·
Planning
– TMA Planning & Design Limited
·
Architectural
– Archiplus International Limited
·
Ecological
– Asia Ecological Consultants Limited
·
Engineering
– AECOM
·
Landscape
and Visual – Urbis Limited
·
Traffic
- AECOM
·
Cultural
Heritage - AECOM
Figure
1-1 presents the location of the Project Site. The site has an area of about 9 ha. It is bounded by Ngau Tam Mei Drainage
Channel and Yau Pok Road to its immediate east and Fairview Park to its
immediate west, southwest
and northwest. Between the eastern
boundary of the site and Yau Pok Road, a cycle track linking the existing local
cycle track networks of Yuen Long to Sheung Shui will be constructed by the
Government under PWP Item 259RS with an Environmental Permit (EP) obtained.
Several existing residential developments including Palm Springs,
Royal Palms, Yau Mei San Tsuen and Wo Shang Wai are located to the further
north of the Project Site. Further to
the east of the site across the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel and Kam Pok Road
is an area designated by the Government for residential use under “Residential
(Group D)” (“R(D)”) and “Village Type Development” (“V”) zoning. Residential developments have been approved
by the Town Planning Board (TPB) for the “R(D)” sites
in this area, whereas existing villages such as Chuk Yuen Tsuen, Tai Yuen Villa,
Hang Fook Gardens and Ha San Wai Tsuen, and a few open storage uses are witnessed in
the “V” zone.
The Project comprises a residential development in the Southern
Portion,
and a
landscaped open area, landscape pond and some passive recreational and supporting
uses in the Northern Portion of the site. The existing ground level of the Project Site
mainly
varies from about +2mPD to about +5mPD, with an average level at about
+4mPD, whereas the proposed mean site formation level is about +5.4mPD.
Under the current proposal, the existing wasteland in the Northern
Portion
of the site (about 52% of the total Project Site area) will be replaced with a landscape
area,
landscape pond and some passive recreational uses (e.g. boardwalk, sitting area,
children’s play area, hobby farm, etc., permitted as of right within the
current “REC” zone) and supporting facilities (e.g. toilet,
management office, bike kiosk and eating place) complementary to the
Government’s cycle track project to be implemented at the eastern boundary of
the site and compatible with the nearby rural and natural landscape.
The existing wasteland in the Southern Portion of the site (about 48% of
the total Project Site area) will be replaced with a residential development
and ancillary uses (e.g. a residents’ clubhouse and swimming pool). A total of 106 houses [with 2 residential
storeys (6.6m) above ground level on the top of one storey basement carpark] and a
residents’ club house and ancillary facilities are proposed for this
portion of the site. The proposed development
is compatible with the existing Fairview Park residential development on the
adjoining “R(C)” site and the planned residential developments on the adjacent
“R(D)” sites.
The proposed development layout for the Project Site is shown in Figure 2-1, whereas the proposed
elements of the Project are depicted in Figure
11-19. Separate planning application
for the proposed development will be submitted by the Project Proponent to the
Town Planning Board (TPB) for consideration in accordance with the relevant
provisions under the Town Planning Ordinance (TPO).
According to Item P of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the
EIAO, residential or recreational development other than New Territories
exempted house (NTEH) within the Deep Bay Buffer Zone 1 or 2 is a Designated
Project. As the Project Site falls
within the Deep Bay Buffer Zone 2 and the proposed Project comprises residential
development cum passive recreational uses
other than NTEH, the Project is considered as a Designated Project, requiring
Environmental Permit (EP) from the Director of Environmental Protection prior
to the project implementation.
Continuous public
involvement (CPI) is one of the initiatives incorporated into the EIA process
for engaging the public. CPI involves
dialogue with local residents in parallel with the EIA preparation process in
soliciting their views and opinions on the Project.
The scope of the EIA
study covers the Project and its potential environmental impacts. The EIA addresses key issues as described
below:
l Noise impacts arising from construction and
operation of the Project;
l Dust impact arising from construction of the
Project to nearby air sensitive receivers (ASRs) and odor impact from the existing
and planned sewage treatment plants to the development and nearby ASRs;
l Landscape and visual impacts during
construction and operation of the Project;
l The potential water quality impacts caused
by site formation, drainage diversion, and any other works activities during
construction; the potential water quality impacts caused by the operation of
the Project;
l Potential impacts on historical
buildings/architectures and monuments;
l Direct and indirect terrestrial and aquatic
ecological impacts, in particular the potential impacts of disturbance and
fragmentation to the recognized sites of conservation importance in the
vicinity including, for example, the Mai Po Nature Reserve, Mai Po Inner Deep Bay
Ramsar Site, Mai Po Village Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Mai Po
Marshes SSSI, Wetland conservation Area (WCA) and Wetland Buffer Area (WBA) and
important habitats such as fishponds, egretries, due to the construction and
operation of the Project;
l Fisheries impacts during construction and
operation of the Project; and
l The maintenance and management of the
proposed landscape pond within the Project Site.
The objectives of the
EIA study are:
l to describe the Project and associated works
together with the requirements for carrying out the Project;
l to identify and describe elements of
community and environment likely to be affected by the Project and/or likely to
cause adverse impacts to the Project, including both the natural and man-made
environment;
l to identify and quantify all environmental
sensitive receivers, emission sources and determine the significance of impacts
on sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;
l to identify and quantify any potential
losses or damage to flora, fauna and wildlife habitats;
l to identify any negative impacts on sites of
cultural heritage and to propose measures to mitigate these impacts;
l to identify and quantify any potential
landscape and visual impacts and to propose measures to mitigate these impacts;
l to propose the provision of infrastructure
or mitigation measures so as to minimize pollution, environmental disturbance
and nuisance during construction and operation of the Project;
l to identify, predict and evaluate the
residual (i.e. after practicable mitigation) environmental impacts and the
cumulative effects expected to arise during the construction and operational phases of the Project
in relation to the sensitive receivers and potential affected uses;
l to identify, assess and specify methods,
measures and standards, to be included in the detailed design, construction and
operation of the Project which are necessary to mitigate these environmental
impacts and reducing them to acceptable levels;
l to investigate the extent of secondary
environmental impacts that may arise from the proposed mitigation measures and
to identify constraints associated with the mitigation measures recommended in
the EIA study, as well as the provision of any necessary modification;
l to identity, within the Assessment Area, any
individual project(s) that fall under Schedule 2 and/or Schedule 3 of the EIA
Ordinance; to ascertain whether the findings of this EIA study have adequately
addressed the environmental impacts of those projects; and where necessary, to
identify the outstanding issues that need to be addressed in any further
detailed EIA study; and
l to design and specify the environmental
monitoring and audit requirements, if required, to ensure the implementation
and the effectiveness of the environmental protection and pollution control
measures adopted.
Appendix 1-1
presents the implementation programme.
According to the programme, the construction works are tentatively scheduled
to begin in 2017 and to be completed in 2020, subject to the commissioning of
local public sewerage system (please refer to Chapter 6 for details). After
site formation works to raise the site formation level, the construction of
buildings, internal driveways and underground services will commence
within the Project Site. The
implementation of site hoarding will be scheduled to avoid peak winter bird season
(between October and March) to minimize disturbance.
A number of development projects are known to be implemented
near the Project Site. They include the followings:
l Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal under PWP Item 4235DS (EIA Application No.
EIA-094/2004);
l Cycle Tracks Connecting North West New Territories with North East New
Territories – Tuen Mun to Sheung Shui section (EIA Application No. EIA 159/2008);
l Proposed Residential Development within “Residential (Group D)” zone at
various lots in DD 104, Yuen Long, N.T. (Study Brief No. ESB - 204/2009)
(hereinafter referred to as the “RD Site”);
l Proposed Low-rise and Low-density Residential Development at Various
Lots and their Adjoining Government Land in D.D. 104, East of Kam Pok Road, Mai
Po, Yuen Long, N.T.
(Study Brief No. ESB - 210/2009) (hereinafter referred to as the “Kam
Pok Road Site”); and
l Comprehensive Development and Wetland
Protection near Yau Mei San Tsuen, Yuen Long (Study Brief No. ESB - 182/2008)
(hereinafter referred to as the “Yau Mei Site”).
The locations of the above-mentioned development
projects (including a section of the proposed public sewerage and cycle track near the Project Site) are also
shown in Figure 1-2. The works programme for the Project Site may
overlap with that for the above projects.
With regards to the above, the first two projects are
the government projects which have already obtained approval on their EIA
reports under the EIAO process. The
public sewerage project near Ngau Tam Mei Channel concerns the
construction of a section of gravity trunk sewer underneath Kam Pok Road and Yau Pok Road as well as construction of the
proposed Ngau Tam Mei Sewage Pumping Station
(NTMSPS) near the road junction between Kam Pok Road and Castle Peak Road. According
to the approved EIA report for this project (i.e. Agreement No. CE 66/2001(EP), EIA and TIA Studies for the
Stage 2 of PWP Item No. 215DS -
Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal (YLKTSSD), Environmental
Impact Assessment (Final), March 2004 (EIA Application No. 094/2004)), the
construction works would commence in
mid-2005 for completion by the end of 2007. However, there is currently no fixed construction programme for this
project.
For the cycle track project, a section of the cycle track will be constructed in the area between Yau
Pok Road and the Project Site. According to the approved EIA report for this cycle track project (i.e. Construction of
Cycle Tracks and the Associated Supporting Facilities From
Sha Po Tsuen to Shek Sheung River, December 2008 (EIA Application No.
EIA-159/2008)), the construction works would commence in mid-2009 for completion by early 2012. Currently, there is no fixed construction programme for this cycle track project.
As the above 2 projects have already obtained EIA
approval, overlapping of their works programme with that of the proposed residential
development project on the Project Site cannot be precluded at this stage, and hence
they are taken into
account in this EIA study.
For the last three private residential development
projects listed above, none of them have
obtained EIA approval. However, for both “Kam Pok Road Site” and “RD Site” projects, the respective planning
applications were approved by the Town Planning Board under the Town Planning
Ordinance. Based on the current best available information, the construction of
the planned “RD Site” project will commence in year 2016 for completion in 2019,
whereas the construction works for the planned “Kam Pok Road Site” project will
commence in 2015 for completion in 2016. In this regard, the programme of some of the construction works for these 2
projects may overlap with that for the Project Site.
For the planned “Yau Mei Site” project, no planning approval nor EIA approval has been obtained by
the respective project proponent so far.
The development programme shown in the project profile of the respective
project is also outdated. There is no
committed development programe/ information available. It is therefore considered that the programme
of the construction works for that project will not overlap with that for the Project
Site, and the “Yau Mei Site” project is not considered further in the
cumulative impact assessment of this EIA report.
This EIA presents the findings of the Study and contains the following Chapters
which demonstrate that the criteria in relevant Chapters of the Technical
Memorandum (TM) on the Environmental Impact Assessment Process of the EIAO (EIAO-TM)
are complied:
l
Chapter 1 (this Chapter) provides an introduction
of the Study.
l
Chapter 2 presents the background and the need for
this Study. It also describes the consideration
of possible development options, construction methods and sequence of works for
the Project.
l
Chapter 3 provides information of the air quality
impact assessment.
l
Chapter 4 describes the potential noise impact during
construction and operation of the Project and recommends mitigation measures.
l
Chapter 5 presents the water quality impact assessment.
l
Chapter 6 presents the sewerage and sewage
treatment implications.
l
Chapter 7 presents the waste management implications.
l
Chapter 8 presents the ecological impact assessment. It contains the findings of the baseline
survey and the identification of appropriate mitigation measures to avoid,
minimize and compensate for ecological impacts.
l
Chapter 9 presents the fisheries impact assessment.
l
Chapter 10 presents considerations of cultural heritage.
l
Chapter 11 presents the landscape and visual impact
assessment.
l
Chapter 12 is the summary of environmental outcomes.
l
Chapter 13 provides the environmental monitoring
and audit requirements
l
Chapter 14 is the Project implementation schedule
l
Chapter 15 presents the conclusions of the Study.
Appendix 1-3
presents the Study Brief checklist, which cross references the Chapters in this
EIA Report where issues in the Study Brief are addressed.
Volume I of this EIA
Report includes the main text and all the appendices attached with this report,
while Volume II of the same report contains all figures.
The EIA Study Brief
requires the consideration of alternative layout options with justifications
and evaluations for these alternatives.
The comparison of environmental merits and demerits of each alternative
layout option and the selection process for the preferred option also needs to
be documented. The preferred option
should avoid and minimize adverse environmental impact to the maximum extent.
As discussed in Section 1.3 above, the Project is mainly for
residential purpose with a landscape area, landscape pond
and some passive recreational uses and supporting facilities provided within
the site. The Project has a plot ratio (PR)
of 0.2. Alternative options including different development scenarios (at the same PR) are also considered for the purpose of comparison and evaluation. Due
to the elongated shape of the Project Site, different development scenarios
have been duly considered with residential development proposed either in the Southern
Portion or the Northern Portion of the Project Site, or spreading out across the
entire Project Site. When developing the
development scenarios, due consideration has also been given to avoid and
minimize the disturbance to the adjacent site of conservation importance
especially the Wetland Conservation Area (WCA) near Fairview Park.
Different factors
considered in the option selection and comparison of environmental benefits and
disbenefits of different development scenarios have been made with a view to
recommending the preferred option to avoid and minimize adverse environmental
effects to the maximum extent and enhance the landscape and visual quality in
the area.
This development option is shown in Figure 2-2. Under this
option, houses are proposed in both Northern and Southern Portions of the Project Site with
some small landscape ponds and landscape area scattered within the site.
In this development scenario, certain buffer to separate the
proposed houses from the WCA located further to the north is provided by means
of the proposed peripheral green features.
The development as a whole is considered compatible with the existing or
planned residential developments on the adjacent sites. However, the size of the existing pond
located in the north-western corner of the site will have to be reduced to make
way for the proposed houses and the associated facilities (e.g. EVA / internal
driveways). While the said pond is not
ecologically important and a number of smaller ponds will be provided within
the site to make the total pond area not less than that of the existing pond
for visual amenity purpose, the smaller ponds created will be inevitably highly
fragmented and isolated. In addition, as
the proposed houses are spread across the entire Project Site, the internal
road network required under this option will be slightly higher than that under
Options 2 and 3, and more existing trees may be affected, likely resulting
in a higher landscape impact. There will
also be a higher visual impact under this development scenario since there are
Visual Sensitive Receivers (VSRs) for both the Northern and Southern
Portions
of the Project Site. A detailed
comparison of pros and cons of this development scenario is provided in Table 2‑1. The overall environmental impacts of this
development scenario based on its current setting may outweigh the benefits,
thus it is not considered further.
This development option is shown in Figure 2-3. Under this
option, only the Northern Portion of the Project Site will be used for
residential purpose, whereas the southern portion of the site will be
exclusively used for a landscape area, landscape pond and some passive recreational uses
(e.g. boardwalk, sitting area, children’s play area, hobby farm, etc.,
permitted as of right within the “REC” zone) and supporting facilities (e.g. bike
kiosk, toilet, management office, eating place, and cycle parking and car park,
etc.).
This development option, which has all the houses in the Northern
Site only, will have a lower visual impact than the Option 1 due to a
smaller number of VSRs affected. The
required internal road network due to the residential development will also be
reduced and as such, more trees in the Southern Site could be retained. This development option is therefore subject
to less landscape impact than Option 1.
The landscape pond created in the Southern Site with a size comparable to
the existing pond located in the Northern Site would have a less fragmentation
effect than the provision of a number of small, scattered ponds in both
Northern and Southern Sites under the Development Option 1. Having said that, clustering all the houses/most of
the development intensity in the Northern Site within the WBA is
considered less desirable than both Options 1 and 3. Besides, the landscape pond created in the
Southern Site under this development option will be completely isolated by the
existing and proposed anthropogenic structures, and
thus less desirable in visual and landscape terms. In view of the above, this development
scenario is not considered further. A
detailed comparison of pros and cons of this development option is provided in Table 2‑1.
This option is to develop the proposed residential development in
the Southern Site only, where the land have been largely paved for the
previously approved golf driving range and related uses, and the
surrounding environment is already disturbed by the existing developments (e.g.
Fairview Park and adjacent road network) (Figure
2-1 refers).
A landscape area, landscape pond and some passive
recreational uses (e.g. boardwalk, sitting area, children’s play area, hobby
farm, etc., permitted as of right within the “REC” zone) and ancillary
facilities (e.g. bike kiosk, toilet, management office, eating place and cycle
parking and car park, etc.) are proposed in the Northern Site. The existing pond in the Northern Site will
be retained and slightly enlarged from 0.5 ha to 0.6 ha and properly landscaped
to enhance its visual amenity. This development
option is considered favourable in land-use planning, and visual and landscape
points of view for several reasons. As
the residential cluster is proposed in the Southern Site only, which has been
largely paved for the previously approved golf driving range and related uses, and
is disturbed
by the adjacent urbanized uses, the associated landscape impact are limited
when compared with Options 1 and 2. The
overall visual impacts are also reduced under this development option as there
are less VSRs if the residential use is largely confined to the Southern
Site. Compared with the other 2 development
options, this development option could enhance the overall landscape and visual
quality of the area due to better visual and landscape integration of the
proposed landscape area within the site with the natural rural setting further
to the north and northwest of the site.
A detailed comparison of pros and cons of this development scenario is
provided in Table 2-1.
This development
scenario maximizes the benefits of other development options while reducing the
environmental impacts to the minimum, thus it is preferred option for this
Project.
The abovementioned options are compared and evaluated in the Table 2‑1 below. The evaluation compares the relative
strengths and weaknesses of each development option in ecological, planning,
visual and landscape, environmental and engineering respects in the context of
specific project objectives.
Table 2‑1 Evaluation of Development Options
|
|
Objectives |
Option 1 |
Option 2 |
Option 3 (Preferred Scenario) |
|
Ecological |
Protecting the
ecological integrity of the fish ponds and wetland within the WCA and
preventing development that would have a negative off-site disturbance impact
on the ecological value of fish ponds within the WCA |
The fish ponds in
the north and the habitats within the WCA are buffered by the existing
Fairview Park; no impact to the ecological values of the WCA is anticipated. |
The fish ponds in the north and the habitats
within the WCA are buffered by the existing Fairview Park; no impact to the
ecological values of the WCA is anticipated |
The fish ponds in the north and the habitats
within the WCA are buffered by the existing Fairview Park; no impact to the
ecological values of the WCA is anticipated |
|
Minimizing
habitat fragmentation |
No ecological
linkage with other wetland habitats. Fragmentation effect is high as the proposed ponds are small and surrounded by houses. |
Some limited
ecological linkage for herpetofauna species via the channel south of Fairview
Park. |
Some limited
ecological linkage for herpetofauna species via the channel south of Fairview
Park. |
|
|
Minimizing
disturbance to surrounding habitats within the WCA |
The habitats
within the WCA will be buffered by the existing Fairview Park; no additional
ecological impacts are anticipated. |
The habitats within the WCA will be buffered
by the existing Fairview Park; no additional ecological impacts are
anticipated. |
The habitats within the WCA will be buffered
by the existing Fairview Park; no additional ecological impacts are
anticipated. |
|
|
Planning |
Comply with the TPB guidelines for the
developments within Deep Bay Area |
The
development option is in line with the TPB PG No. 12B regarding the
requirements on EcoIA submission (as part of this EIA Report), no net
increase in pollution load to Deep Bay Area (due to proper sewage disposal arrangement
proposed) and provision of visual buffer to the WCA (by means of both tree
planting and provision of small landscape ponds at or near the periphery of
the Northern Site). |
The
development option is in line with the TPB PG No. 12B regarding the
requirements on EcoIA submission (as part of this EIA Report), no net
increase in pollution load to Deep Bay Area (due to proper sewage disposal arrangement
proposed) and provision of visual buffer to the WCA (by means of tree
planting provided at the northern periphery of the Project Site). |
The
development option is in line with the TPB PG No. 12B regarding the
requirements on EcoIA submission (as part of this EIA Report), no net
increase in pollution load to Deep Bay Area (due to proper sewage disposal arrangement
proposed) and provision of visual buffer to the WCA (by means of provision of
a large landscape area in the Northern Site). |
|
Compatible with
surrounding residential developments |
As the Project Site is
surrounded by a number of existing and planned residential developments (with planning
permissions) and village settlements,
the proposed development comprising
residential element is considered
to be compatible with the surrounding developments in land use planning terms. |
As the Project Site is
surrounded by a number of existing and planned residential developments (with planning
permissions) and village settlements,
the proposed development comprising
residential element is considered
to be compatible with the surrounding developments in land use planning terms. |
As the Project Site is
surrounded by a number of existing and planned residential developments (with planning
permissions) and village settlements,
the proposed development comprising
residential element is considered
to be compatible with the surrounding developments in land use planning terms. In addition, most of the development
intensity is provided in the Southern Site which has been largely paved and
therefore suitable for house development, whereas the proposed landscape pond,
landscape area and passive recreational and ancillary uses in the Northern
Site is compatible with the natural landscape near the Deep Bay Area. |
|
|
Fully utilize the development potential of the Project Site |
With an appropriate form
of residential development and some passive recreational and supporting uses as proposed at both Northern and Southern Sites, the development potential (PR 0.2) of the Project Site can
be fully utilized. |
With an appropriate form
of residential development as proposed at Northern Site and some passive recreational and
supporting uses as proposed at the Southern Site, the development potential (PR 0.2) of the Project Site can
be fully utilized. |
With an appropriate form
of residential development as proposed at the Southern
Site and some passive recreational and supporting uses at the Northern Site, the development potential (PR 0.2) of the Project Site can
be fully utilized. |
|
|
Landscape and
Visual |
Minimise Potential Landscape Impact |
Spreading the house development
across the entire
Project Site will maximise
the required internal road network, thus increasing the landscape impact. Positioning the
houses around the perimeter of the site will inevitably affect more trees although they are mainly of poor to fair health and low
amenity value. |
Containing the house development to the Northern Site will reduce
the required internal road network compared to the layout under Option 1, thus reducing the landscape impact. The number of trees affected by the development will be minimised as more trees in the Southern Site can be
retained and incorporated into the landscape area. A single
large landscape area provided in the Southern Site is visually more desirable
than the fragment landscape area design/ layout under Option 1. |
Containing the house development to the Southern Site will reduce the required internal road network compared to
the layout under Option 1, thus reducing the landscape impact. The development layout has been designed to allow for retention of more trees in the
south as screen planting. By developing the Northern Site as a landscape area, landscape
pond and some passive recreational and ancillary uses, more trees in the Northern Site can be retained where appropriate and a
slight positive landscape impact will be
achieved. A single
large landscape area provided in the Northern Site integrating with the
existing greenry natural setting further to the north and northwest of the
site is visually more desirable than the fragment or isolated landscape area
design/ layout under Options 1 and 2. |
|
Avoid Potential Visual Impact to Sensitive
Receivers |
Positioning the houses around the perimeter of both Northern and Southern Sites will inevitably cause a relatively higher visual impact, affecting most potential VSRs
overlook in the site. |
Positioning all
housing in the Northern Site will reduce the number of VSRs affected
by the development, thereby reducing the overall visual impact when compared to Option 1. |
Positioning all housing in the Southern Site will further reduce the overall visual impact when compared with both
Options 1 & 2 as there are less VSRs overlooking this part of the site. In addition the
trees retained along the south- western boundary will
further mitigate the visual impact of the development. |
|
|
Engineering |
Practical and Feasible Hydrological System |
Drainage works are
required to collect surface runoff |
Drainage works are
required to collect surface runoff |
Drainage works are
required to collect surface runoff |
|
Environmental |
Minimise Site Formation Works and Retaining Works Required and
Associated Environmental Impacts |
The whole Project Site
(both northern and southern sites) will be filled
for site formation works. Several small,
isolated ponds will be created in both the northern and southern sites
for amenity purpose, and thus subject to
increased construction impacts due to extra construction / excavation works
for pond creation. |
The Northern Site will be filled for site formation works, while the proposed
landscape features proposed in the Southern Site will require less extensive site formation works. The pond created in the Southern Site locates on a higher elevation level (~4mPD) than the Northern Site (~2mPD),
and thus subject to increased construction impacts due
to more extensive excavation. |
The Southern Site area will be
filled for site formation works, while the retention of pond in the Northern Site will require less extensive site formation works. The pond retained in the Northern Site
locates on a lower elevation level (~2mPD) than the Southern Site (~4mPD). No further excavation work within the
existing pond area is considered necessary (subject to the authories and
engineering design), and thus is subject to less
construction impacts when compared to both Options 1
& 2. |
|
Minimise Potential Water Quality Impacts |
Surface run-off is to
divert to the constructed surface drains |
Surface run-off is to
divert to the constructed surface drains |
Surface run-off is to
divert to the constructed surface drains |
In view of the above,
Option 3 is considered most appropriate and preferred for the Project Site. This proposed development option is shown in Figure 2-1.
As discussed in Section 1.3, the proposed development comprises a residential development, landscape pond, landscape area and some passive recreational and supporting uses. Based on the preferred development
option, the Project Site is broadly divided into
two portions, with the Northern Portion proposed for a landscape
area, landscape pond and some passive recreational and supporting uses, and the Southern Site mainly used for residential purpose.
Since the Project Site
is adjacent to existing residential developments and school [e.g. Fairview Park,
Helene Terrace, Bethel High School and the nearby planned residential development sites
such as the Planned Yau Mei Site, planned RD Site, and planned Kam Pok Road
Site (see Figure 4-2A)], due consideration
shall be given to the construction methods and sequence of works so as to minimize
potential impacts during the construction period.
Similar to other general
building project, the sequence of works of this Project will generally involve foundation
(piling) works, site formation works, superstructure works, underground
services and utilities, roadworks.
Since
the Project Site is divided into Northern Portion and Southern Portion, works
can be arranged to be carried out at these two portions individually, and the
construction programme of the two portions are independent to each other. A preliminary construction programme was
established based on the shortest possible construction period (about 3 years)
(see Appendix 1-2), and the
construction programme for the Northern
Portion and Southern Portion is considered separately. This
programme has been developed merely based on construction sequence at each
respective site without considering potential cumulative impacts due to
concurrent works. However, based on this construction programe
there will be many overlapping of construction works between the Northern
Portion and the Southern Portion of the Project Site as depicted in the
construction programe shown in Appendix
1-2. Thus, significant impacts on
construction noise would arise due to the extensive construction area and
concurrent works. Significant
construction dust impact may also arise due to concurrent site formation works
undertaken at both the Northern Portion and Southern Portion of the Project
Site.
As such, an alternative
construction programe has been developed with due consideration on sequence of
works with a view to minimize concurrent construction at the Northern Portion
and Southern Portion of the Project Site (See Appendix 1-1). This programe
has provided due consideration to the potential cumulative construction impacts
and concurrent works are avoided as much as possible. According to this
alternative construction programe, some of the construction works (e.g. site
formation works) for the Northern Portion and the Southern Portion will be
undertaken separately. This arrangement
would minimize potential impacts on construction noise and construction dust
due to concurrent site formation works at the two portions of the Project
Site. In addition, the construction
programme has been extended to about four years so that overlapping of construction
activities, particularly between the Northern and Southern Portions is minimized as far as
possible. With this arrangement,
potential impacts due to construction activities can be significantly reduced
to a minimal as both the number and type of construction equipment to be used
during each construction phase is minimized (by avoiding concurrent works) when
compared to the original construction programme.
Asides from avoiding
concurrent works by extending the construction period, due
consideration has also been given to the sequence of works when developing the
construction programe. In order to avoid
unnecessary excavation between different phases of construction, construction
of underground services and utilities will be constructed before the roadworks
so that excavation of road surface to install underground services and
utilities can be avoided. This
arrangement will also avoid generation of unnecessary construction waste due to
excavation.
In
addition, since the Northern Site is relatively close to wetland than the Southern Site, the installation of the site hoarding (which will
screen off any potential disturbance from the construction works to wintering
birds) has also avoided the peak winter bird
season. Given to the above, the construction programme and
sequence of works presented in Appendix
1-1 is more preferable than the original construction programe shown in Appendix 1-2.
As discussed earlier, the Project is for construction of low-rise
residential development, a landscape area, landscape pond and some passive recreational and supporting uses,
thus the extent of
building structures construction will be minimum. Subject to the site condition,
piling works may be required for the proposed development. Piling works may be undertaken by percussive
piling method. However, this
construction method will generate significant level of construction noise and
is subject to Construction Noise Permit to be issued by EPD. In addition, there will be restriction on the
duration of piling works that can be undertaken each day. Given that sensitive receivers are located in
close proximity of the Project Site, this piling method is not preferred.
Instead, Continuous Flight Auger has been proposed to be used. The drilling method allows excavating in a wide variety of soils, dry or
water-logged, loose or cohesive. This piling method
is relatively quiet than the percussive piling method as no shocks or vibrations are induced when the system is performed. In addition, no bentonite mud is needed for
the excavation, thus handling of bentonite slurries will not be required.
The proposed development will require excavation and filling
works, thus excavated materials and filling materials will need to be handled
carefully in order to minimize waste generation. One way to handle excavated materials is by off-site disposal to
public fill facility and/or landfill site subject to the quality of excavated
materials. However, this would increase
the amount of waste generated by the
Project. Instead, due consideration has
been given to reduce waste generation and disposal, and the excavated material
will be utilized on site where possible as fill materials and for the
landscaping area. The Contractor will be required to reuse
materials on site as far as practicable and to minimize waste from
arising. This construction method would
reduce the amount of waste to be generated which requires off-site disposal. As excavated materials are re-used on-site,
the amount of fill materials required would be minimized as well.
This air quality impact
assessment is carried out in accordance with Section 3.9.1 of the EIA Study
Brief to qualify and quantify the potential air quality impacts associated with
the Project. This Chapter follows the
criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing air quality impacts as
stated in Section 1 of Annex 4 and Annex 12 of the EIAO-TM.
This
Chapter addresses the potential air quality impacts during construction phase
and operational phase of the Project. The Assessment Area for air quality impact
assessment is defined by a distance of 500 m from the boundary of the Project
Site as per the Study Brief requirements.
The proposed Project is
for residential purpose in the Southern Portion, and a landscape
area, landscape pond and some passive recreational and supporting uses in the Northern
Portion of the site. Detailed elements of the proposed development
and the MLP are provided in Figure 2-1 and Figure 11-16, which is also discussed in Section 1.3.
The principal legislation regulating air quality in Hong Kong is the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) (Cap. 311). Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) are set for the whole of Hong Kong, which specify the statutory limits for various criteria pollutants and the maximum number of exceedance allowed over a specified period of time. The prevailing AQOs specified under the Air Pollution Control (Amendment) Ordinance 2013, have been adopted in this air quality assessment.
The AQOs for Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2),
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), and Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP),
and Fine Suspended Particulates (PM2.5), which are relevant to this assessment,
are summarized in Table
3‑1 below.
Table 3‑1 Hong
Kong Air Quality Objectives (on and after 1 January 2014)
|
Pollutants |
Averaging
Period * |
Pollutants
Concentration (μg/m3) * |
No. of
Exceedances Allowed * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CO |
1 hour |
30,000 |
0 |
|
|
8 hours |
10,000 |
0 |
|
NO2 |
1 hour |
200 |
18 |
|
|
Annual |
40 |
N.A. |
|
SO2 |
10-min. |
500 |
3 |
|
|
Daily (24 hours) |
125 |
3 |
|
RSP |
Daily (24-hours) |
100 |
9 |
|
|
Annual |
50 |
N.A. |
|
PM2.5 |
Daily (24-hours) |
75 |
9 |
|
|
Annual |
35 |
N.A. |
Remark:
* Based
on the Air Quality Objectives under the Air Pollution Control (Amendment)
Ordinance 2013.
N.B. Concentrations
measured at 293 K and 101.325 kPa (one atmospheric pressure).
N.A. Not
applicable.
PM2.5 means suspended particles in air with
a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 μm or less.
RSP means suspended particles in air with a
nominal aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm or less
In addition to the AQOs,
an hourly Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) limit of 500 μg/m3 measured at 298K(25oC) and 101.325 kPa (one atmostphere) for construction dust impact assessment and
5 odour units based on an averaging time of 5 seconds for the odour prediction assessment is required according to the criteria for evaluating air quality impact under Annex 4 in EIAO-TM.
Construction dust is controlled under the Air Pollution Control
(Construction Dust) Regulation. Works such as site formation, construction of
the foundation and superstructure of buildings, road construction works are
classified as “notifiable work” under the Regulation. Any works which involve stockpiling of dusty
materials, loading, unloading or transfer of dusty materials, transfer of dusty
materials using a belt conveyor system, use of vehicles, debris handling,
excavation or earth moving, site clearance, etc. are regarded as “regulatory
work”.
A Schedule specifying
the dust control requirements for a variety of construction activities is
included in the Regulation. Contractors responsible for a construction site
where a notifiable work and/ or regulatory work are involved have to ensure
that the work is carried out in accordance with the Schedule with regards to
dust control.
According
to “Guidelines on Assessing the 'TOTAL' Air Quality Impacts” published in EPD’s
website, hour-by-hour background contribution is estimated using output of PATH
model. As such, background contributions
are based on PATH’s concentration output for the purpose of evaluating the
construction and operational phase air quality impacts.
Background
contribution of PM2.5 is not directly available from PATH model. According to
“Guidelines on the Estimation of PM2.5 for Air Quality Assessment in Hong
Kong”, background contribution of PM2.5 is deduced based on the following
conservative formula.
|
Daily(μg/m3): |
PM2.5 =
0.75 x RSP |
|
Annual(μg/m3): |
PM2.5 =
0.71 x RSP |
For
TSP background contribution, the RSP contribution in PATH’s concentration
output is adopted instead.
Regarding
the proposed development which falls within grid(20,40) in PATH system, the
background contributions of RSP is based on concentration of each hour in
PATH’s concentration output for grid(20,40).
For background contribution of PM2.5 and TSP, these are calculated based
on the RSP values as discussed above. As
construction of the proposed development is to be commenced in year 2017,
PATH’s concentration output for Year 2015 is adopted as a conservative
approach.
Appendix 3-1B shows details of
background contribution from the PATH output for grid (20,40).
Existing ASRs
Representative ASRs
within 500 m from the Project Site boundary are identified according to the criteria listed in the
EIAO-TM through site inspections and a review of land use plans. ASRs and their horizontal distance to the nearest emission source are
summarized in Table 3‑2 below.
Their geographical locations are also shown in Figure 3-1. The
representative ASRs selected for construction phase air quality impact
assessment are shown Figure 3-2.
Table
3‑2 Locations of Representative Air
Sensitive Receivers
|
Description |
Usage |
No. of Storeys |
Shortest Distance from Project Site Boundary (approx.), m ** |
Ground Level, mPD * |
|
Fairview Park @ |
Residential |
2-3 |
~ 11m |
3.9 – 4.6 |
|
Bethel High School (A10,
A10A) |
School |
3 |
~15m |
4.4 |
|
Wong Chan Sook Ying Memorial School (A14) |
School |
4 |
~98m |
4.4 |
|
Royal Palms (A25) |
Residential |
2 |
~ 410m |
4.9 |
|
Palm Springs (A17, A34,
A35) |
Residential |
2-3 |
~ 260m |
5.7 |
|
Yau Mei San Tsuen village
house (A18, A36, A07, A23) |
Residential |
2 |
~ 220m |
3.1 – 3.6 |
|
Hang Fook Garden (A20) |
Residential |
3 |
~ 430m |
4.2 |
|
Chuk Yuen Tsuen (A19, A08, A09) |
Residential |
2-3 |
~ 220m |
2.3 – 3.5 |
|
Ha San Wai Tsuen (A21, A22) |
Residential |
3 |
~ 403m |
3.5 – 4.2 |
|
Helen Terrace and Villa Camellia (A11, A12) |
Residential |
2 |
~ 125m |
4.5 – 6.5 |
|
Man Yuen Tsuen (A15) |
Residential |
3 |
~ 146m |
4.1 |
|
Hong Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long (A26) |
School |
3 |
~337m |
4.4 |
|
Christian Ministry Institute (A24) |
School |
2 |
~396m |
3.5 |
|
Existing building (near Ha San Wai Road) (A27) |
Commercial |
3 |
~189m |
4.5 |
|
Restaurant nearby Helene Terrace (A32) |
Commercial |
2 |
~87m |
4.5 |
Remark: * Existing
ground level of representative ASRs
** Shortest horizontal distance between
the ASRs and the nearest Project Site boundary.
@ Representative ASRs at
Fairview Park A01, A01A, A02, A02A, A03, A04, A05, A05A, A05B, A06, A06A, A13, A16,
A16A, A28, A29, A30, A31, A33 as shown in Figure 3-2.
Planned ASRs
Identification of potential planned/ committed ASRs has been based on best available
information such as relevant plans[1] , current Outline Zoning Plan (OZP No. S/YL-MP/6), and Town Planning Board (TPB) records, which have been reviewed. The registry of EIAO projects was also
reviewed for identifying EIA projects. Based on information
reviewed, there are a few planned residential development projects in the
vicinity of the proposed development site. These planned residential developments are also classified
as designated project under the EIAO; as such they have to go through the EIAO
process. These potential future
development cases are listed in Table 3‑3 below, and their geographical locations are
also shown in Figure 3-2.
Table
3‑3 Planned
Air Sensitive Receivers
|
Planned Site |
ASR ID |
EIAO Application
Number / Relevant Town Planning Board No. |
Description |
Appro-val from TPB |
Appro-val of EIAO |
Ground mPD Level,
(approx.) * |
No. of Storey * |
Distance, m ** |
|
Planned residential development projects |
|
|||||||
|
Yau Mei Site |
A1P |
ESB-182/2008 |
Comprehensive Development and Wetland Protection near Yau Mei San
Tsuen, Yuen Long |
No |
No |
2 |
3 |
~12 |
|
Kam Pok Road Site |
A2P |
ESB-210/2009. A/YL-MP/136; Also in
A/YL-MP/170 |
Proposed Residential Development at “R(D)” zone |
Yes |
No |
5 |
2 |
~70 |
|
A3P |
7 |
2 |
~79 |
|||||
|
RD Site |
A4P |
ESB-204/2009. Different scales of development and site areas were also under A/YL-MP/132, A/YL-MP/146,
A/YL-MP/193 and A/YL-MP/205 |
Proposed Residential
Development within “R(D)” Zone at Various Lots in DD 104. |
Yes |
No |
3 |
2 |
~75 |
|
A5P |
3 |
2 |
~86 |
|||||
|
“V” zone/ “R(D)” zone in OZP |
V01 |
A/YL-MP/172-3 and A/YL-MP/183-1 |
Proposed new territory
exempted village house development |
Yes |
- |
3 |
3 |
~270m |
|
V02, V03/ V04 |
Nil |
Village zone / ”R(D)” zone in OZP,
respectively |
- |
- |
2.4/ 4.8 |
3 |
~95m to ~213m |
|
Remark: * Based
on existing ground
level. According to the OZP, allowed
building height of the planned development sites are 6m high, it is therefore assumed
the planned developments are 2 storeys buildings. For Yau Mei Site, the maximum allowed
building is 3 storeys.
** Shortest horizontal
distance between the nearest Project site boundary and
the ASR locations shown in Figure 3-2.
None of the above residential development projects have obtained
approval from both the Town Planning Board (TPB) and provisions under the
EIAO. Although these development sites
have no committed development programme, these planned ASRs have also been taken
into account in the construction phase air quality impact assessment. Details of the assessment and assumptions
adopted have been provided in the following sections.
In
addition to the above planned development projects, there are also approved new
territories exempted house development sites on the opposite side of Ngau Tam
Mei Drainage Channel (e.g. case number A/YL-MP/172-3 and A/YL-MP/183-1) within
the Village Development (“V”) zone under the Outline Zoning Plan No. S/YL-MP/6 (“V01” in Figure 3-2
refers). Asides from the above, the existing “V” zone
and “R(D)” zone in the Outline Zoning Plan No. S/YL-MP/6 are also
selected for assessment (V02, V03, and V04 in Figure 3-2 refer). It is
expected that development within these areas will be typical 3 storeys
buildings. Although there is no committed development
programe for these development sites, the concerned development sites are also taken
into account in the air quality assessment.
During the operation, representative ASRs of this Project are the
proposed residential houses within the Project Site. Figure
2-1 shows the layout of the proposed houses.
The Project works
comprise construction of residential buildings (2 storeys
above a basement carpark) and ancillary facilities (e.g. residents’ club house), and a landscape pond,
landscaped open area and some passive recreational and supporting uses as discussed in Section 1.3. Since
the proposed development intensity is not high, significant air quality impacts due to
construction of foundation, building structures and the finishing
works are not anticipated. As
“ready-mixed” concrete will be used during the pile cap construction,
significant air quality impact is not expected.
As such, major sources of air quality impact during the
construction phase would be fugitive dust emissions during the site formation stage due to
earth movement activities and transportation of excavated/ fill materials. As suspended particles will be the main air
quality parameter concerned for construction works which involve handling of
excavated/ fill materials, TSP, RSP and PM2.5 have been identified as the
parameters for further air quality impact assessment for dust emission impact.
Emissions of other air pollutants such as carbon monoxide and
dioxide, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide generated by powered mechanical
equipment and vehicle exhausts on-site should not be significant since only limited amount of construction plants
will be used on-site. Therefore,
unacceptable impacts from the criteria pollutants (such as NOx, SO2,
and CO) are unlikely to occur as significant emissions of pollutants are not
anticipated, and further assessment is not necessary.
Given the Project Site area is relatively flat no rock crushing will be necessary. It is expected that no concrete batching plants will be used on-site. Concrete will be brought to the site in “ready-mixed” state or in pre-cast sections. Similarly, construction of pile caps for the residential buildings will use “ready-mixed” concrete. Thus emissions due to operation of cement works or rock crushing activities are not anticipated.
One small abandoned pond
is located in the Northern Portion of the Project Site (Figure 7-2 refers). Pond sediment may be
rich in organic matters and emit odour during earth movement. As the abandoned pond will form part of the proposed landscape pond at the same
location, no dredging of
sediment or pond filling activities will be required for this Project.
There are two sections
of fixed temporary noise barriers (with a barrier height of 9m and 5.5m,
respectively) proposed to be erected near the site boundary in adjacent to
Fairview Park during the construction phase (see Section 4.8.3 and Figure
4-6). Since the Project construction
site is in an open area, the proposed vertical noise barriers along a portion
of the Site boundary will not affect the dispersion of air pollutants from the construction
site or the ASRs. Thus,
no further assessment is necessary.
According to the
construction programme, the Project’s construction period will tentatively commence
in 2017 with the residential development ready for occupation by 2020. An indicative construction programme is shown
in Appendix 1-1.
During site formation stage, earth movement activities and transportation of excavated/ fill materials will be involved, which would attribute to dust emissions. As discussed earlier, TSP, RSP, PM2.5 have been identified as the parameter for air quality impact assessment during the site formation stage. Activities that would attribute to dust emissions are:
· Removal and unloading of soil materials by excavators;
· Earth loading/ unloading, and stockpiling;
· Bulldozing and surface compaction;
· Wind erosion on exposed ground; and
· Vehicle movements on haul roads;
During construction, the Contractor(s) will
be required to transport only the adequate amount of fill materials to the
Project Site in order to avoid cumulating filling materials on-site and the filled area shall be compacted as soon as
possible
(relevant requirement has been stated in Section 3.9.1). In addition, excavated materials will be reused as fill materials within the Project Site so as to minimize dust emission due to
transportation of fill materials. In case temporary stockpiling of small
amount of materials is required, the stockpiling location will be covered by
tarpaulin sheets and backfilled as soon as possible.
The potential air
quality impact is anticipated to be short-term and can be effectively
controlled through appropriate design and good site practice stipulated in the
Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation. Notwithstanding
the above, an EM&A programme will
be implemented to monitor the
construction process to facilitate the enforcement of dust controls and
modification of work methods in order to reduce the dust emission to an acceptable level.
An assessment on impact of TSP, RSP and PM2.5 emissions have also been undertaken for the Project works, and the results
are depicted in the following sections.
According to the approved EIA report, namely the “EIA and TIA
Studies for the Stage 2 of PWP Item No. 215DS - Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage
and Sewage Disposal” [2], a sewage pumping station (SPS)
(Ngau Tam Mei SPS), has been proposed at an offsite location about 345m northeast of the Project
Site. The approximate location of the
proposed SPS, based on the above EIA report, is shown in Figure 3-1.
Under the same project (current PWP Item 4235DS), a gravity trunk sewer
will be constructed along Castle Peak Road between Ngau Tam Mei and San Tin,
and a section of alignment will be constructed along the Ngau Tam Mei
Channel. The construction of the above
sewerage project has been assessed in the above-mentioned EIA report.
Currently, there is no
solid construction programme of the said sewage pumping system and the public
sewers. The EIA report has stated that
all works will be carried out in small section areas within a short period.
These activities should not generate significant amount of construction dust
and result in cumulative impact. It has
also recommended in the same report the construction works will be carried out in
50m segments. The contractor is also obliged to follow the procedures and
requirements given in the Air Pollution
Control (Construction Dust) Regulation. Therefore, the active areas should
be small. In addition, an
EM&A programme will be implemented for this project to ensure
implementation of and review of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.
Similarly,
based on the information in a separate EIA report for “Construction of Cycle
Tracks and the Associated Supporting Facilities from Sha Po Tsuen to Shek
Sheung River” (EIA Application No. EIA-159/2008), a cycle track will also be provided along the Castle
Peak Road and the Yau Pok Road as part of the cycle track project between Tuen
Mun and Sheung Shui under PWP Item 7259RS.
According to the EIA report, the concerned
construction of cycle track project will involve construction of a narrow strip
of cycle track, which will be constructed in sections. Typically, the
working area will be 40 m long by 4 m wide and no adjacent sections (200m between two neighbouring sections) will be
constructed simultaneously. Currently, there is
no fixed construction programme for the cycle track project. The
EIA report concluded that the construction dust can be controlled at source to
acceptable level with the
implementation of dust control measures as required under the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust)
Regulation. The approved EIA report has also recommended a series of
measures for suppressing dust on site,
including spraying the works area for site clearance with water both before,
during and after the operation so as to maintain the entire surface wet.
By the wetting of the whole
construction site and keeping the construction area small, the potential dust impacts
arising from the cycle track
construction works are expected to be minimal. Hence, no unacceptable impact is
anticipated. In addition, an EM&A programme will be implemented for
that Project during its construction
phase, to check the effectiveness of the recommended mitigation measures and
compliance with relevant statutory criteria.
Given that the concerned
construction works of the two approved EIA projects are relatively small in
scale (i.e. laying sewers along existing road, and construction of a cycle track),
and the construction will only be carried out in small sections (less than 50m
for the public sewers, and 40m for the cycle track), adverse dust impacts are
not expected from the concerned construction works with the implementation of
mitigation measures recommended in the approved EIA reports.
In addition, the contractors will be required to follow the
procedures and requirements as stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction
Dust) Regulation and dust emissions will be effectively controlled through
implementation of mitigation measures recommended in the above-mentioned EIA reports.
EM&A programmes will
also be implemented for this Project to monitor the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures during construction of the projects. As all of these approved projects will also
be subject to control under the EIAO, cumulative
air quality impact from this Project will be controlled through implementation
measures described in this report and those committed for the other projects.
According to the above-mentioned EIA reports, with the recommended mitigation measures, adverse
dust impacts are not expected to arise from these projects and the residual construction
air quality impacts are expected to be acceptable. As
such, no adverse air quality impacts due to the above-mentioned adjacent
projects are expected and are not considered further in this Study.
As discussed in Section 3.5.1, there are a few
planned development projects in adjacent to the Project Site. According to the EIA Study
Brief of these planned development projects, the proposed developments of
these projects are also for residential purpose (i.e. similar to this Project). Since all these projects are located in
relatively flat area, it is expected that the construction scale of these
project sites will be similar to this Project and major sources of air quality
impact during the construction of these planned development sites would be
fugitive dust emissions during the site formation stage.
As discussed in
Section 1.9, construction of planned Kam Pok Road Site and planned RD Site may
overlap with this Project and are selected for cumulative impact
assessment. Both the planned Kam Pok
Road Site and the planned RD Site are EIA projects under the EIAO and both of
them have previously obtained approval from the TPB, thus reference was made to
the published information as well as construction programe obtained from those
projects. Based on best available
information, the site formation works for the planned Kam Pok Road site will be
undertaken during year 2015, while site formation for the planned RD site will
be in year 2017 (see Appendix 3-1A).
While, the site formation of this
Project will commence in later year 2017 (Appendix
1-1 refers). Since construction
works of this Project will unlikely overlap with the adjacent planned
development sites, cumulative air quality impacts due to concurrent works are
very unlikely, and are not considered further in this assessment. Therefore, no adverse impact due to
cumulative construction activities is anticipated. Nevertheless, air quality impact from this Project will be
controlled through implementation measures described in this report and those
committed for the other projects under their
respective EIA studies.
According to Para
3.9.1.4 (iv) of the EIA Study Brief a quantitative
impact evaluation following the methodology in para. 3.9.1.4(v) shall be
carried out if the assessment indicates likely exceedance of the recommended
limits set forth in the TM on the Project Area and at nearby air sensitive
receivers (ASRs). There are no planned dust
generating or air pollutant emission sources from the operation of this
Project. Thus, the Project Site itself will
not contribute to any air pollution nuisance upon identified ASRs during the
operational phase.
Vehicular emissions from
off-site sources could be a potential source of air
pollution during the operational phase of the Project. However, since
sufficient setback distance has already been provided between the development
and the road networks, its
potential impacts are anticipated to be insignificant.
A review of chimney locations based
on EPD’s register previously obtained, were carried out. No chimneys
were identified within the Assessment Area.
Additional chimney
surveys were also conducted on 30th Mar., 2009, 10th Jul., 2009 and 29th
Oct., 2010 to verify the findings. There was no change to the site condition
observed during subsequent visits on 10th Dec., 2010, 28th Jul., 2011, 12th
Oct., 2011 and 18th Oct., 2013.
As no chimneys were identified within the Assessment Area, no air
quality impact related to chimney emissions is expected and therefore
not considered further in this assessment.
As there is no existing
sewage treatment plants within the 500m Assessment Area from the Project Area, potential
odour impacts are not a concern of this Project. The future Ngau Tam Mei Sewage
Pumping Station (SPS) is
planned to be located at the junction of Kam Pok Road and Castle Peak Road (about
345m northeast from the Northern Portion of this Project) (Figure 3-1 refers). With the
careful design of the pumping station and installation of odour removal system,
it is expected that odour impact due to the pumping station will be
insignificant.
During
the operational phase, the sewage generated by the proposed development will be
discharged to the planned public sewerage system at Yau Pok Road, which is to
be constructed under PWP No. 4235DS by Hong Kong SAR Government Drainage
Services Department (DSD). The Project will not have population intake until
the commissioning of the planned local public sewerage works (Please refer to Chapter 6 of this report for details). Thus, there will be no odour impact during the
Project operational phase.
The layout of the
facilities for the proposed development will be carefully planned such that the
refuse collection point (a potential odour source) will be away from the
residential area as far as possible but will be close to the main access
area connecting the main road. During the detailed design phase, the
minimisation of odour at the refuse collection point will be considered to
further reduce any localized impact.
As discussed earlier,
there is one small abandoned pond located in the Northern Portion of the
Project Site (Figure 7-2 refers).
As the landscape pond is also proposed at the same location, no pond filling
or dredging of sediment will be required for this Project. Thus, odour emission due to excavation of
pond sediment or bio-gas emission due to pond filling will not be a concern to
this Project and it is not assessed further.
Vehicular Emissions
Vehicular emissions
impact from the major roads (e.g. San Tin Highway (an Expressway) and Castle
Peak Road (a Rural Road)), are considered insignificant as the sensitive
receivers of this Project are located more than 500m from the concerned major
roads (Figure 3-1 refers), which can satisfy the buffer distance requirement stated in Chapter 9, Environment of the Hong Kong
Planning Standard and Guidelines (HKPSG) for Trunk Road (i.e. >20m) for active and
passive recreational uses.
As for nearby local access
roads (e.g. Fairview Park Boulevard, Yau Pok Road and Kam Pok Road), the
Project Site is also setback from these roads by existing roadside slopes
surrounding the Project Site. The
separation distance measured between the nearest sensitive uses of the Project
Site and the road edge was shown in Figure
3-1, which varies from 8m to over 22m.
The separation distance can already satisfy the buffer distance
requirement for Local Distributor (i.e. >5m) for active and passive
recreational uses according to Chapter 9 of the HKPSG.
Since the buffer distance provided can already satisfy the HKPSG
requirement, no adverse air
quality impacts due to vehicular emissions are expected. Thus, it is not assessed further in this
assessment.
Industrial Emissions
As discussed in Section 3.6.2.1, no industrial chimneys were identified
within the Assessment Area. Thus, potential air quality impacts due to
emissions from chimneys are not anticipated for this Project. Thus, it is not assessed further.
Odour from Proposed Ngau Tam Mei SPS
A planned sewage pumping station (Ngau Tam Mei SPS) is about 345 m northeast
of the proposed development (Figure 3-1
refers). According to the approved EIA report of the said SPS project
(i.e.
Stage 2 of PWP Item No. 215DS – Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and
Sewage Disposal (EIA-094/2004)),
odour removal filtering system will be installed in the Ngau Tam Mei SPS and
the maximum odour concentration at the existing ASRs would be reduced to 0.093 OU
(Odour Unit), which is 1.9% of the 5 OU criteria. With the odour removal
filtering system and long buffer distance of the future SPS, its odour impact
on the proposed development is unlikely. Thus, no adverse impact is anticipated.
As discussed earlier,
fugitive dust could be generated during the site formation
stage, and TSP, RSP and PM2.5 have been identified as the parameter for air quality assessment. The following paragraphs describe the air quality
assessment methodology. For
the purpose of this air quality impact assessment, information such as boundaries of sub-zones and works programme
have been based on similar construction activities and information provided by the
Engineer. During the detailed design
stage, there may be minor amendment according to the site condition (e.g. the
boundaries of sub-zones). However, it is
expected that such minor amendments will not affect the outcome of assessment
results given that construction of each sub-zone would represent an average of
about 5% of the site area within either the Northern Portion or the Southern
Portion of the Project Site in any one time (area of each sub-zone is shown in Appendix 3-9).
In order to minimize
potential dust impacts, the construction programme for the Project Site (see Appendix 1-1) has been designed so that
site formation work for the Northern Portion and Southern Portion of the
Project Site will be constructed separately
without overlapping in construction programme.
According to the construction programme, site formation for the Southern
Portion will be carried out between November 2017 and middle of June 2018. For the Northern Portion of the Project Site,
the site formation works will be undertaken between later half of June 2018 and
January 2019.
In addition, the construction programme of
the Project Site will not overlap with the adjacent planned development sites
so that cumulative impacts can be avoided (Section 3.6.1.4 refers).
According to Section 3.6.1.2, the following activities
during site formation stage that would attribute to dust emissions have been taken into account in the assessment:
· Removal and unloading of soil materials by excavators;
· Earth loading/ unloading, and stockpiling;
· Bulldozing and surface compaction;
· Wind erosion on exposed ground; and
· Vehicle movements on haul roads;
Unmitigated Scenario
Emission rates of the dusty activities given above were based on
typical values and emission factors documented in Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors (AP-42) 5th Edition published by USEPA. In order to represent the worst case scenario, the
upper bound or the lower bound of the range of typical values provided in the
AP-42 document has been used in deriving the emission rates (i.e. higher
emission rate is adopted) (also refer to Appendix
3-2 for details). The
unmitigated scenario refers to the calculated emission rates based on AP-42 without
any mitigation measures. The works
area will refer to the corresponding site boundary for the Southern Portion and
Northern Portion of the Project Site, respectively, without any phasing
construction. It is expected that paved haul road will be constructed.
The identified dust emission sources have been modelled as area sources. Detailed calculation of emission rates corresponding to each of the activities described in Section 3.7.1.1, are also given in Appendix 3-2.
In the assessment, it has been assumed that the whole area of the
Southern Portion will be constructed at the same time and soil surface is
exposed to atmosphere. Similar
assumption has also been adopted for the construction of the Northern Portion.
Mitigated Scenario
Based on the above worst case emission rates calculated according to the
AP-42 document, the mitigated scenario refers to mitigated emission
rates after the implementation of proposed mitigation measures of this
Project and measures stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation (Section 3.9.1 of this report refers). Detailed calculation of mitigated emission
rates corresponding
to each of the activities described in Section 3.7.1.1, are
also given in Appendix 3-3.
Currently, the Project Site is a green field site and the whole Project
Site is covered by grass. During the
construction phase, construction works will be carried out in phases and the grass
land at the unaffected area will be maintained so that the soil underneath is
not exposed to the atmosphere (i.e. there will be no wind erosion).
In order to minimize dust emission during site formation, it is expected
that the Southern Portion will be divided into different sub-zones (a total of
19 sub-zones), and there will be only one sub-zone under construction in any
one time. As mentioned above, the
Project Site is currently a green field site, as such, the construction works
within the sub-zone will be only emission source as remaining area of the
Project Site is covered by grass and will not be affected (i.e. no dust
emission for the remaining areas). Once
construction for a sub-zone is completed, the works area will be compacted,
covered by tarpaulin sheet and hydroseeded before construction of another zone.
Watering will also be applied on regular
basis. Thus, there will be no cumulative
construction impacts. Similarly, the Northern
Portion of the Project Site will also be constructed in phases and only one
zone will be constructed in any one time.
According to the current construction programme
shown in Appendix 1-1. The site formation works for the Southern
Portion and the Northern Portion of the Project Site will require a
construction period of about 7.5 months, respectively. The site formation for the Southern Portion
will commence in November until half of June of next year, while the construction for the Northern Portion will
be undertaken between second half of
June
and January of next year. Accordingly, it is estimated that construction
of each construction sub-zone will take an average of about 12 calendar days to
complete, which
has also been adopted in the air quality assessment.
The
site formation of the Southern Portion will last for about 7.5 months, after that the site will be hard paved
and there is no significant air quality impact anticipated at the site. Thus, in assessing the short-term impact (i.e. hourly and daily), it is
based on 7.5 months’ construction period.
For the long-term impact (i.e. annually), there will be no contribution to RSP
and PM2.5 levels due to the Project works for the remaining 4.5 months during
the year, thus only background level is taken into account during
this period of time.
Similar
assumption has also been assumed for assessing the short term and long term
impact for the site formation works in the Northern Portion.
For the purpose of this air quliaty impact assessment, details of
locations of different sub-zones have been based on similar construction
activities and information provided by the Project Proponent and the Engineer
(see Appendix 3-8).
Due to the phased construction area, only limited space and construction
plants will be available for construction in any one time. Thus, the construction activities that would
contribute to dust emissions as identified in Section 3.7.1.1, particularly the
removal and unloading of soil materials by excavators; earth loading/ unloading,
stockpiling; and bulldozing and surface compaction, will unlikely to
operate at the same time. In fact, only
one of the above activities will operate in any one time. However, to be conservative, air quality impacts
due to simultaneous construction of these activities have been taken into
account in the assessment.
The TSP, RSP and PM2.5 were modelled using the software
"Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST)" developed by Trinity
Consultants Incorporated. The ISCST
model is based on the principle of Gaussian dispersion and is widely accepted
by authorities worldwide including the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) and the Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department (EPD).
Meteorological data derived using MM5 model has been adopted for the assessment.
Since the
representative ASRs nearby are mainly low-rise (2 to 3-storeys high) buildings,
the assessment height for the ASRs is taken from the ground level including 1.5m breathing zone up to 7.5m for the
upper floor at the ASRs.
Maximum 1-hour average TSP concentrations, as well as 24-hour
average, and annual average RSP and PM2.5 concentrations were predicted at the representative ASRs
and superimposed with the background level derived from the PATH output (see
Section 3.4) for comparison
with the air quality criteria specified in Table 3‑1 as well as the
1-hour TSP limit of 500mg/m3
specified in the EIAO-TM.
Contour plots of the above parameters are prepared based
on the worst hit level. Contour plots of the maximum
1-hour average TSP concentrations and the annual average RSP and PM2.5 concentrations, are based on the maximum predicted
level. Contour plots of the 24-hour
average RSP and PM2.5 concentrations are based on the 10th highest predicted
level in accordance with the relevant AQOs.
The following
assumptions have been adopted in the modeling exercise for both the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios:
·
The construction works will be undertaken from 0800
to 1800 hours during general
weekdays (i.e. day-time);
·
It is expected that there will be no construction
works during restricted hours (i.e. 1900 to 0700 hours of the next day, and any
time on a general holidays, including Sunday).
Construction works within restricted hours would require advance
application for a Construction Noise Permit from EPD;
·
The calculated emission rates in Section 3.7.1.2 have
been applied to day-time hours during general weekdays only (i.e. 0800 to 1800
hours) only. While the hours from 1800
to 0800
during
general workdays and on Sundays and general holidays are adopted for
impact assessment of wind erosion on the site;
·
The estimated maximum no. of
trucks during site formation is 10 trucks per hour according to the Engineer; and
·
According to the construction programe in Appendix 1-1, the site formation
works for the Northern Portion and Southern Portion of the Project Site will be
constructed separately without overlapping in construction programme, thus this
has been taken into account in the assessment;
For the
unmitigated scenario, it is assumed that the construction activities will be
carried out within the whole construction site of either the Northern Portion or
the Southern Portion, i.e. no phasing of the construction activities.
For the
mitigated scenario, the following assumptions have been adopted in the modeling exercise:
· The construction programe and duration of site formation works has been based on the construction programme in Appendix 1-1 and the phased construction method described in Appendix 3-8. As shown in Appendix 3-8, the construction site of both Northern and Southern Portion is divided into 19 sub-zones; and the construction period of each sub-zone is about 12 calendar days. Therefore, in assessing the air quality impact (both short-term and long-term), only one sub-zone is considered in the assessment, i.e. totally 38 scenarios covering both Northern and Southern Portion have been considered;
· As the construction will be carried out in phases, the duration of consturciton works affecting each ASR will be relatively short. The construction of each sub-zone that is nearest to one ASR, will only last for 12 calendar days, after that the construction works will be shifted to another sub-zone which is relatively far away from the ASR (i.e. less affected by construction works). In order to simulate the phased construction approach, 12 calendar days is set for each sub-zone and the model is driven by the obtained hourly meteorological data (i.e. 8,760 hours/ year) in order to obtain the hourly TSP, RSP and PM2.5 emission levels. Based on which, the maximum hourly TSP level, daily average RSP and PM2.5 levels, as well as annual average RSP and PM2.5 levels have been derived accordingly;
· During construction of each sub-zone, construction activities within that sub-zone will be the only dust emission source, while the remaining area of the Project Site is currently covered by grass and will not contribute to any dust emission (i.e. zero contribution);
·
The
designated haul road should be hard paved (this requirement has been stated in
Section 3.9.1, and will be followed by the Contractor(s)
of this Project);
·
Dust suppression measures in terms of frequent watering are proposed. Water will be sprayed frequently during day-time (e.g. eight
times a day) with water browser or manually. The calculated dust suppression efficiency taken
into account the dust suppression measures is also provided in Appendix 3-9. A
dust suppression efficiency of 90% is adopted in this assessment. The concerned dust suppression efficiency has
been applied to both the short-term impacts (e.g. hourly and daily) and
long-term impacts (e.g. annual); and
·
Relevant requirement of the above has also been stated
in Section 3.9.1 and will be included in the Project
EM&A Manual for implementation.
As
discussed in Section 3.6.2.2, the proposed
development can satisfy the
HKPSG requirements in terms of buffer distance from nearby roads and there are
no industrial chimneys identified within the Assessment Area. Thus, no adverse air quality impacts due to
vehicular and industrial emissions are anticipated and are not assessed
further.
The Project does not
involve any pond filling activity or pond sediment dredging activity, thus
there will be no air quality impacts due to handling of dredged sediment.
The predicted
unmitigated maximum hourly TSP concentrations as well as daily average and annual average RSP
and PM2.5 concentrations due to construction of this Project were assessed according to the
methodology described in Section 3.7.1, and the results
are presented in Tables 3-4 to 3-13. Location map of representative
ASRs selected for construction dust assessment is presented in Figure 3-2.
Details of the
calculated emission rates are also provided in Appendices 3-2 and 3-3. Details of assessment results are also
presented in Appendices 3-4 and 3-5. Contour
plots based on the worst hit level (Section 3.7.1.3 refers) are
also provided in Figures 3-3A to 3-7B.
Table
3‑4 Predicted Maximum Hourly TSP
Concentrations Due to This Project Southern Portion of the Project Site (Unmitigated
Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
TSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6993 / 3501 / 1977 |
7157 / 3665 / 2141 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5093 / 3141 / 1885 |
5257 / 3306 / 2050 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6593 / 3281 / 2220 |
6758 / 3446 / 2384 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7681 / 4165 / 2459 |
7846 / 4329 / 2624 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5887 / 3364 / 2346 |
6051 / 3528 / 2511 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6314 / 3350 / 2396 |
6478 / 3515 / 2560 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1356 / 1330 / 1280 |
1520 / 1495 / 1445 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2230 / 2068 / 1784 |
2394 / 2233 / 1949 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1327 / 1279 / 1190 |
1491 / 1444 / 1354 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
894 / 875 / 840 |
1058 / 1040 / 1004 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
853 / 816 / 773 |
1018 / 980 / 938 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
610 / 603 / 588 |
775 / 767 / 752 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1168 / 1109 / 1021 |
1333 / 1274 / 1185 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1234 / 1205 / 1149 |
1399 / 1369 / 1313 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6445 / 3454 / 2124 |
6609 / 3618 / 2289 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5427 / 2827 / 1759 |
5591 / 2991 / 1923 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2775 / 2503 / 2047 |
2939 / 2668 / 2211 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1554 / 1470 / 1315 |
1719 / 1634 / 1479 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6898 / 4524 / 2782 |
7063 / 4688 / 2947 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4044 / 3458 / 2588 |
4209 / 3622 / 2752 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1955 / 1879 / 1773 |
2119 / 2043 / 1937 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
880 / 865 / 835 |
1045 / 1029 / 1000 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1000 / 980 / 942 |
1164 / 1144 / 1106 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
570 / 564 / 552 |
734 / 728 / 716 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
736 / 718 / 684 |
900 / 883 / 848 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1113 / 1088 / 1040 |
1277 / 1252 / 1204 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2432 / 2309 / 2081 |
2596 / 2473 / 2246 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1707 / 1610 / 1433 |
1871 / 1774 / 1598 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1721 / 1668 / 1568 |
1886 / 1833 / 1732 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
626 / 620 / 607 |
791 / 784 / 771 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
521 / 515 / 505 |
685 / 680 / 670 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
617 / 604 / 578 |
781 / 768 / 743 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
621 / 614 / 600 |
785 / 778 / 765 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2797 / 2593 / 2234 |
2962 / 2758 / 2398 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
734 / 720 / 691 |
899 / 884 / 856 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
817 / 810 / 796 |
981 / 974 / 961 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3586 / 2722 / 2373 |
3751 / 2887 / 2537 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
736 / 724 / 700 |
900 / 888 / 865 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3581 / 3070 / 2295 |
3746 / 3234 / 2459 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
848 / 834 / 805 |
1013 / 998 / 970 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
532 / 526 / 515 |
697 / 691 / 679 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
563 / 558 / 547 |
728 / 722 / 712 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
815 / 794 / 753 |
980 / 958 / 917 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
938 / 917 / 876 |
1102 / 1081 / 1041 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4824 / 3808 / 2534 |
4989 / 3972 / 2698 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3135 / 2598 / 2285 |
3299 / 2763 / 2450 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2012 / 1762 / 1670 |
2177 / 1927 / 1834 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
844 / 827 / 793 |
1008 / 991 / 958 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3391 / 3063 / 2507 |
3555 / 3228 / 2671 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
908 / 894 / 866 |
1073 / 1058 / 1031 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2362 / 2073 / 1601 |
2527 / 2238 / 1765 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3925 / 3314 / 2419 |
4089 / 3478 / 2584 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
7681 |
7846 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
500 |
500 |
Remark: * Concentration due to contribution of
Project Site.
** Total concentration due to contribution of the Project
Site as well as background concentration in the PATH output. The
predicted TSP level due to this Project has already exceeded the relevant air
quality criteria regardless the background level (i.e. mitigation measures will
be required regardless the background level), thus in calculating the total concentration
of TSP (i.e. background + Project contribution), the maximum hourly RSP level
from the PATH output file (i.e. 164.4 µg/m3 according to Appendix 3-1B) is used as a conservative approach.
Table
3‑5 Predicted Maximum Hourly TSP
Concentrations Due to This Project Northern
Portion of the Project Site (Unmitigated
Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
TSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1296 / 1264 / 1202 |
1460 / 1428 / 1367 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1038 / 992 / 907 |
1203 / 1157 / 1072 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1826 / 1773 / 1672 |
1990 / 1937 / 1837 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2062 / 1989 / 1853 |
2226 / 2154 / 2017 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1727 / 1636 / 1470 |
1892 / 1800 / 1634 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2312 / 2161 / 1961 |
2476 / 2326 / 2125 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5637 / 3299 / 1827 |
5801 / 3463 / 1992 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5161 / 2622 / 1863 |
5325 / 2786 / 2028 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6381 / 3194 / 1706 |
6545 / 3358 / 1870 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5056 / 2958 / 2018 |
5220 / 3123 / 2182 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4801 / 3041 / 2149 |
4965 / 3206 / 2314 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2119 / 1960 / 1679 |
2283 / 2124 / 1843 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1508 / 1428 / 1282 |
1672 / 1593 / 1447 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1552 / 1483 / 1355 |
1717 / 1648 / 1519 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1501 / 1365 / 1185 |
1665 / 1530 / 1350 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1381 / 1280 / 1177 |
1545 / 1445 / 1342 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
828 / 814 / 786 |
993 / 978 / 951 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
717 / 695 / 654 |
881 / 860 / 818 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
649 / 634 / 611 |
814 / 799 / 775 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
775 / 750 / 702 |
940 / 914 / 866 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
971 / 944 / 892 |
1135 / 1108 / 1056 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3504 / 3058 / 2445 |
3669 / 3222 / 2609 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5275 / 3325 / 2367 |
5440 / 3490 / 2531 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
892 / 857 / 799 |
1057 / 1022 / 963 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1095 / 1009 / 883 |
1259 / 1173 / 1048 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
850 / 824 / 773 |
1015 / 988 / 938 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1116 / 1088 / 1034 |
1281 / 1253 / 1199 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1308 / 1281 / 1228 |
1473 / 1445 / 1392 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
458 / 456 / 452 |
622 / 620 / 616 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1804 / 1713 / 1546 |
1968 / 1878 / 1710 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1552 / 1479 / 1342 |
1717 / 1643 / 1506 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
889 / 864 / 817 |
1053 / 1029 / 982 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
899 / 871 / 819 |
1064 / 1036 / 983 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
840 / 808 / 749 |
1004 / 973 / 913 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7825 / 3517 / 2060 |
7989 / 3681 / 2224 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7735 / 3438 / 2045 |
7900 / 3603 / 2209 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4942 / 3604 / 2501 |
5107 / 3769 / 2666 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2355 / 2222 / 1987 |
2519 / 2387 / 2151 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
708 / 694 / 668 |
872 / 859 / 832 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2656 / 2399 / 1990 |
2821 / 2563 / 2154 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1197 / 1177 / 1143 |
1362 / 1342 / 1308 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
959 / 949 / 928 |
1124 / 1113 / 1093 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1597 / 1517 / 1368 |
1762 / 1681 / 1532 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5966 / 3323 / 2213 |
6131 / 3488 / 2377 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1076 / 1049 / 995 |
1241 / 1213 / 1160 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1762 / 1650 / 1450 |
1927 / 1815 / 1614 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2540 / 2104 / 1855 |
2704 / 2268 / 2019 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1936 / 1866 / 1734 |
2101 / 2030 / 1899 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1266 / 1218 / 1128 |
1430 / 1382 / 1292 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1578 / 1451 / 1251 |
1743 / 1615 / 1415 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
721 / 690 / 680 |
886 / 855 / 844 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
987 / 966 / 925 |
1151 / 1130 / 1090 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
7825 |
7989 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
500 |
500 |
Remark: * Concentration due to contribution of
Project Site.
** Total concentration due to contribution of the Project
Site as well as background concentration in the PATH output. The
predicted TSP level due to this Project has already exceeded the relevant air
quality criteria regardless the background level (i.e. mitigation measures will
be required regardless the background level), thus in calculating the total
concentration of TSP (i.e. background + Project contribution), the maximum
hourly RSP level from the PATH output file (i.e. 164.4 µg/m3
according to Appendix 3-1B) is used as a conservative approach.
Table
3‑6 Predicted Daily Average RSP
Concentrations Due to This Project Southern
Portion (Unmitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
RSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
414 / 197 / 124 |
537 / 319 / 246 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
309 / 187 / 104 |
431 / 309 / 226 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
379 / 199 / 118 |
501 / 322 / 240 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
337 / 184 / 113 |
459 / 307 / 235 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
306 / 178 / 104 |
428 / 300 / 226 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
276 / 154 / 100 |
398 / 276 / 222 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
67 / 64 / 57 |
190 / 186 / 180 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
80 / 75 / 66 |
202 / 197 / 189 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
61 / 59 / 55 |
184 / 181 / 177 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
38 / 37 / 36 |
161 / 160 / 158 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
45 / 44 / 42 |
168 / 167 / 165 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
14 / 14 / 14 |
137 / 136 / 136 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
38 / 37 / 35 |
160 / 159 / 157 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 31 / 29 |
154 / 153 / 152 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
301 / 174 / 98 |
424 / 296 / 221 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
281 / 173 / 101 |
403 / 295 / 224 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
59 / 54 / 48 |
181 / 177 / 170 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
35 / 34 / 31 |
158 / 156 / 153 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
303 / 199 / 118 |
426 / 322 / 240 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
201 / 170 / 126 |
324 / 292 / 248 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
71 / 65 / 55 |
194 / 188 / 178 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
24 / 24 / 23 |
147 / 146 / 145 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
27 / 27 / 26 |
149 / 149 / 148 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
18 / 18 / 17 |
140 / 140 / 140 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
14 / 14 / 13 |
136 / 136 / 136 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
29 / 29 / 28 |
152 / 151 / 150 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
39 / 38 / 36 |
161 / 160 / 158 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
48 / 47 / 44 |
170 / 169 / 167 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
34 / 33 / 32 |
157 / 156 / 154 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
18 / 18 / 17 |
140 / 140 / 140 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
16 / 15 / 15 |
138 / 138 / 137 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 11 / 11 |
134 / 134 / 134 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
19 / 19 / 18 |
141 / 141 / 141 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
54 / 51 / 45 |
177 / 173 / 168 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
39 / 38 / 36 |
161 / 160 / 158 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
42 / 40 / 38 |
164 / 163 / 161 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
157 / 128 / 95 |
280 / 250 / 218 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
35 / 34 / 33 |
157 / 156 / 155 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
74 / 66 / 56 |
196 / 189 / 178 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
28 / 28 / 27 |
151 / 150 / 149 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
25 / 24 / 24 |
147 / 147 / 146 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
14 / 14 / 14 |
137 / 136 / 136 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
16 / 15 / 15 |
138 / 138 / 138 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
31 / 30 / 29 |
154 / 153 / 152 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
138 / 115 / 86 |
260 / 237 / 208 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
134 / 111 / 83 |
257 / 234 / 206 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
66 / 61 / 56 |
188 / 183 / 178 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
27 / 26 / 25 |
149 / 149 / 148 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
71 / 68 / 62 |
193 / 190 / 185 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
27 / 26 / 25 |
149 / 148 / 148 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
82 / 77 / 69 |
204 / 199 / 191 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
86 / 75 / 59 |
208 / 197 / 181 |
|
Max.
Conc. - |
|
- |
414 |
537 |
|
|
No.
of exceedance @ |
|
|
>9 |
>9 |
|
|
Criteria - |
|
- |
100
(no.
of exceedance allowed <= 9) |
||
Remark: The
above results are based on the 1st highest daily average
concentrations.
@ According to
Appendix 3-5, the no. of exceedance would exceed the relevant air quality
criteria/ AQOs as the 10th highest value would also exceed the
relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs.
* Concentration due to contribution of Project Site.
** Total concentration due to contribution of the Project
Site as well as background concentration in the PATH output. The
predicted RSP level due to this Project at some of the ASRs nearby has already
exceeded the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs regardless the background level, thus in
calculating the total concentration of RSP (i.e. background + Project
contribution), the maximum daily average RSP level from the PATH output file
(i.e. 122.4 µg/m3 according to Appendix 3-1B) is used as a conservative approach.
Table
3‑7 Predicted Daily Average RSP
Concentrations Due to This Project Northern
Portion (Unmitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
RSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
68 / 67 / 63 |
191 / 189 / 186 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
55 / 54 / 51 |
178 / 176 / 174 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
62 / 59 / 55 |
184 / 182 / 177 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
72 / 68 / 62 |
194 / 190 / 184 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
96 / 88 / 77 |
218 / 211 / 199 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
165 / 142 / 111 |
288 / 265 / 233 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
307 / 156 / 97 |
429 / 279 / 219 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
291 / 152 / 90 |
413 / 274 / 213 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
360 / 165 / 104 |
482 / 287 / 226 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
225 / 140 / 89 |
348 / 262 / 212 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
186 / 119 / 76 |
308 / 241 / 198 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30 / 29 / 27 |
153 / 151 / 149 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
37 / 35 / 32 |
160 / 158 / 154 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
35 / 33 / 30 |
157 / 156 / 153 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 86 / 76 |
213 / 208 / 199 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
90 / 87 / 79 |
213 / 209 / 202 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
21 / 21 / 20 |
144 / 143 / 142 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
21 / 21 / 20 |
144 / 143 / 142 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 31 / 30 |
155 / 154 / 152 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
26 / 25 / 24 |
148 / 147 / 146 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
21 / 21 / 20 |
143 / 143 / 143 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
150 / 117 / 93 |
272 / 240 / 215 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
252 / 147 / 101 |
375 / 270 / 224 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
39 / 37 / 34 |
162 / 160 / 157 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
40 / 39 / 36 |
163 / 161 / 158 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
21 / 20 / 19 |
143 / 142 / 141 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
17 / 16 / 15 |
139 / 139 / 138 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
17 / 17 / 16 |
140 / 139 / 139 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 11 / 10 |
133 / 133 / 133 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
24 / 23 / 20 |
146 / 145 / 143 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
21 / 19 / 18 |
143 / 142 / 140 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
38 / 37 / 34 |
160 / 159 / 157 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 31 / 29 |
155 / 154 / 151 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
24 / 23 / 22 |
146 / 146 / 145 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
322 / 173 / 102 |
444 / 295 / 225 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
346 / 174 / 100 |
468 / 297 / 222 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
235 / 173 / 112 |
357 / 295 / 235 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
112 / 96 / 76 |
234 / 219 / 198 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
24 / 23 / 22 |
146 / 146 / 145 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
131 / 104 / 83 |
253 / 226 / 205 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
54 / 51 / 47 |
176 / 174 / 169 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 31 / 29 |
155 / 153 / 151 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
48 / 46 / 42 |
171 / 168 / 165 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
250 / 136 / 83 |
372 / 258 / 206 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30 / 29 / 28 |
152 / 152 / 150 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
62 / 56 / 48 |
184 / 179 / 170 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
92 / 77 / 61 |
214 / 200 / 183 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
78 / 74 / 66 |
201 / 196 / 188 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
22 / 21 / 20 |
144 / 144 / 143 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
46 / 44 / 42 |
168 / 166 / 164 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
27 / 26 / 25 |
149 / 148 / 147 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
26 / 25 / 24 |
148 / 147 / 146 |
|
Max.
Conc. - |
|
- |
360 |
482 |
|
|
No.
of exceedance @ |
|
|
>9 |
>9 |
|
|
Criteria |
- |
|
100
(no. of exceedance
allowed <= 9) - |
||
Remark: The above results are based on the 1st
highest daily average concentrations.
@
According to Appendix 3-5, the no. of exceedance would
exceed the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs as the 10th highest
value would also exceed the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs.
* Concentration due to contribution of Project Site.
** Total concentration due to contribution of the Project Site as well as background concentration in the PATH output. The predicted RSP level due to this Project at some of the ASRs nearby has already exceeded the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs regardless the background level, thus in calculating the total concentration of RSP (i.e. background + Project contribution), the maximum daily average RSP level from the PATH output file (i.e. 122.4 µg/m3 according to Appendix 3-1B) is used as a conservative approach.
Table
3‑8 Predicted Daily Average PM2.5
Concentrations Due to This Project Southern
Portion (Unmitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
124 / 59 / 37 |
216 / 151 / 129 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
93 / 56 / 31 |
184 / 148 / 123 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
114 / 60 / 35 |
206 / 152 / 127 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
101 / 55 / 34 |
193 / 147 / 126 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
92 / 53 / 31 |
184 / 145 / 123 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
83 / 46 / 30 |
174 / 138 / 122 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
20 / 19 / 17 |
112 / 111 / 109 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
24 / 22 / 20 |
116 / 114 / 112 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
18 / 18 / 16 |
110 / 109 / 108 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 11 / 11 |
103 / 103 / 103 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
14 / 13 / 13 |
105 / 105 / 104 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 4 / 4 |
96 / 96 / 96 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 11 / 11 |
103 / 103 / 102 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
10 / 9 / 9 |
101 / 101 / 101 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
90 / 52 / 30 |
182 / 144 / 121 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
84 / 52 / 30 |
176 / 144 / 122 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
18 / 16 / 14 |
109 / 108 / 106 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 10 / 9 |
102 / 102 / 101 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
91 / 60 / 35 |
183 / 152 / 127 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
60 / 51 / 38 |
152 / 143 / 130 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
21 / 20 / 17 |
113 / 111 / 108 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7 / 7 / 7 |
99 / 99 / 99 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
8 / 8 / 8 |
100 / 100 / 100 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 5 / 5 |
97 / 97 / 97 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 4 / 4 |
96 / 96 / 96 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
9 / 9 / 8 |
101 / 100 / 100 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
12 / 11 / 11 |
103 / 103 / 103 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
14 / 14 / 13 |
106 / 106 / 105 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
10 / 10 / 9 |
102 / 102 / 101 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 5 / 5 |
97 / 97 / 97 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 5 / 5 |
96 / 96 / 96 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
95 / 95 / 95 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6 / 6 / 5 |
97 / 97 / 97 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
16 / 15 / 14 |
108 / 107 / 105 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
12 / 11 / 11 |
103 / 103 / 103 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
13 / 12 / 11 |
104 / 104 / 103 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
47 / 38 / 29 |
139 / 130 / 120 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
10 / 10 / 10 |
102 / 102 / 102 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
22 / 20 / 17 |
114 / 112 / 108 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
8 / 8 / 8 |
100 / 100 / 100 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7 / 7 / 7 |
99 / 99 / 99 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 4 / 4 |
96 / 96 / 96 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 5 / 5 |
96 / 96 / 96 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
9 / 9 / 9 |
101 / 101 / 101 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
41 / 35 / 26 |
133 / 126 / 118 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
40 / 33 / 25 |
132 / 125 / 117 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
20 / 18 / 17 |
112 / 110 / 109 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
8 / 8 / 8 |
100 / 100 / 99 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
21 / 20 / 19 |
113 / 112 / 110 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
8 / 8 / 8 |
100 / 100 / 99 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
24 / 23 / 21 |
116 / 115 / 112 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
26 / 22 / 18 |
117 / 114 / 110 |
|
Max. Conc. - |
|
- |
124 |
216 |
|
|
No. of exceedance @ |
|
|
>9 |
>9 |
|
|
Criteria |
- |
|
75 (no. of exceedance
allowed <= 9) - |
||
Remark: The above results are based on the 1st
highest daily average concentrations.
@
According to Appendix 3-5, the no. of exceedance would
exceed the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs as the 10th highest
value would also exceed the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs.
* Concentration due to contribution of Project Site.
** Total concentration due to contribution of the Project Site as well as background concentration in the PATH output. The predicted PM2.5 level due to this Project at some of the ASRs nearby has already exceeded the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs regardless the background level, thus in calculating the total concentration of PM2.5 (i.e. background + Project contribution), the maximum daily average PM2.5 level from the PATH output file (i.e. 91.8 µg/m3 according to Appendix 3-1B) is used as a conservative approach.
Table
3‑9 Predicted Daily Average PM2.5
Concentrations Due to This Project Northern
Portion (Unmitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
20 / 20 / 19 |
112 / 112 / 111 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
17 / 16 / 15 |
108 / 108 / 107 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
19 / 18 / 16 |
110 / 110 / 108 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
21 / 20 / 19 |
113 / 112 / 110 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
29 / 27 / 23 |
120 / 118 / 115 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
50 / 43 / 33 |
141 / 135 / 125 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
92 / 47 / 29 |
184 / 139 / 121 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
87 / 45 / 27 |
179 / 137 / 119 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
108 / 49 / 31 |
200 / 141 / 123 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
68 / 42 / 27 |
159 / 134 / 119 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
56 / 36 / 23 |
148 / 127 / 115 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
9 / 9 / 8 |
101 / 100 / 100 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 11 / 9 |
103 / 102 / 101 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 10 / 9 |
102 / 102 / 101 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
27 / 26 / 23 |
119 / 117 / 115 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
27 / 26 / 24 |
119 / 118 / 116 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6 / 6 / 6 |
98 / 98 / 98 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6 / 6 / 6 |
98 / 98 / 98 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
10 / 9 / 9 |
101 / 101 / 101 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
8 / 7 / 7 |
99 / 99 / 99 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6 / 6 / 6 |
98 / 98 / 98 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
45 / 35 / 28 |
137 / 127 / 120 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
76 / 44 / 30 |
167 / 136 / 122 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
12 / 11 / 10 |
104 / 103 / 102 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
12 / 12 / 11 |
104 / 103 / 103 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6 / 6 / 6 |
98 / 98 / 97 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 5 / 5 |
97 / 97 / 96 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 5 / 5 |
97 / 97 / 97 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
95 / 95 / 95 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7 / 7 / 6 |
99 / 99 / 98 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6 / 6 / 5 |
98 / 98 / 97 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 11 / 10 |
103 / 103 / 102 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
10 / 9 / 9 |
102 / 101 / 101 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7 / 7 / 7 |
99 / 99 / 98 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
97 / 52 / 31 |
188 / 144 / 122 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
104 / 52 / 30 |
196 / 144 / 122 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
70 / 52 / 34 |
162 / 144 / 126 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
34 / 29 / 23 |
125 / 121 / 115 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7 / 7 / 7 |
99 / 99 / 98 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
39 / 31 / 25 |
131 / 123 / 117 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
16 / 15 / 14 |
108 / 107 / 106 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
10 / 9 / 9 |
101 / 101 / 100 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
15 / 14 / 13 |
106 / 106 / 104 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
75 / 41 / 25 |
167 / 133 / 117 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
9 / 9 / 8 |
101 / 101 / 100 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
18 / 17 / 14 |
110 / 109 / 106 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
28 / 23 / 18 |
119 / 115 / 110 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
24 / 22 / 20 |
115 / 114 / 111 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7 / 6 / 6 |
98 / 98 / 98 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
14 / 13 / 12 |
106 / 105 / 104 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
8 / 8 / 7 |
100 / 100 / 99 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
8 / 7 / 7 |
99 / 99 / 99 |
|
Max. Conc. - |
|
- |
108 |
200 |
|
|
No. of exceedance @ |
|
|
>9 |
>9 |
|
|
Criteria |
|
- |
75 (no. of exceedance
allowed <= 9) - |
||
Remark: The above results are based on the 1st
highest daily average concentrations.
@
According to Appendix 3-5, the no. of exceedance would
exceed the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs as the 10th highest
value would also exceed the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs.
* Concentration due to contribution of Project Site.
** Total concentration due to contribution of the Project Site as well as background concentration in the PATH output. The predicted PM2.5 level due to this Project at some of the ASRs nearby has already exceeded the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs regardless the background level, thus in calculating the total concentration of PM2.5 (i.e. background + Project contribution), the maximum daily average level PM2.5 from the PATH output file (i.e. 91.8 µg/m3 according to Appendix 3-1B) is used as a conservative approach.
Table
3‑10 Predicted Annual Average RSP
Concentrations Due to This Project Southern
Portion (Unmitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
RSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
146 / 69 / 37 |
190 / 112 / 81 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
118 / 74 / 44 |
162 / 118 / 87 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
92 / 43 / 24 |
135 / 87 / 67 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
67 / 34 / 19 |
110 / 77 / 63 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
141 / 62 / 31 |
184 / 105 / 75 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
75 / 35 / 23 |
118 / 79 / 66 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
12 / 12 / 11 |
55 / 55 / 54 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
12 / 12 / 11 |
56 / 55 / 54 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 10 / 10 |
54 / 54 / 53 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6 / 6 / 5 |
49 / 49 / 49 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7 / 6 / 6 |
50 / 50 / 49 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
44 / 44 / 44 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
124 / 68 / 36 |
167 / 111 / 79 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
110 / 62 / 32 |
153 / 105 / 76 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
47 / 46 / 46 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
87 / 58 / 36 |
131 / 101 / 79 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
32 / 27 / 21 |
75 / 70 / 64 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 4 / 3 |
47 / 47 / 46 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
46 / 46 / 46 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 4 / 3 |
47 / 47 / 47 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
46 / 46 / 46 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
44 / 44 / 44 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 2 |
46 / 46 / 46 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
46 / 46 / 46 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
44 / 44 / 44 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
44 / 44 / 44 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
44 / 44 / 44 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
44 / 44 / 44 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 4 / 4 |
48 / 47 / 47 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6 / 6 / 6 |
50 / 49 / 49 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7 / 7 / 6 |
50 / 50 / 50 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
29 / 25 / 20 |
72 / 68 / 63 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 5 / 5 |
48 / 48 / 48 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 5 / 4 |
49 / 48 / 47 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 4 / 4 |
48 / 47 / 47 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 4 / 3 |
47 / 47 / 47 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
44 / 44 / 44 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
47 / 47 / 47 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
16 / 13 / 10 |
59 / 56 / 53 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
17 / 15 / 11 |
61 / 58 / 54 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
8 / 7 / 7 |
51 / 51 / 50 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 5 / 5 |
48 / 48 / 48 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
45 / 45 / 44 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6 / 6 / 5 |
50 / 49 / 49 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
9 / 8 / 6 |
52 / 51 / 50 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
146 |
190 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
50 |
50 |
Remark: * Concentration due to contribution of
Project Site.
** Total concentration due to contribution of the Project Site as well as background concentration in the PATH output. The predicted RSP level due to this Project at some of the ASRs nearby has already exceeded the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs regardless the background level, thus in calculating the total concentration of RSP (i.e. background + Project contribution), the maximum annual average RSP level from the PATH output file (i.e. 43.2µg/m3 according to Appendix 3-1B) is used as a conservative approach.
Table
3‑11 Predicted Annual Average RSP
Concentrations Due to This Project Northern
Portion (Unmitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
RSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
8 / 8 / 7 |
51 / 51 / 51 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6 / 6 / 5 |
49 / 49 / 49 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 11 / 10 |
54 / 54 / 53 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
13 / 13 / 12 |
57 / 56 / 55 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 10 / 9 |
54 / 53 / 53 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
24 / 20 / 17 |
67 / 64 / 60 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
112 / 67 / 40 |
155 / 110 / 83 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
99 / 62 / 39 |
142 / 105 / 83 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
144 / 73 / 39 |
187 / 116 / 82 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
64 / 33 / 18 |
107 / 76 / 62 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
50 / 29 / 16 |
93 / 72 / 59 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
47 / 47 / 46 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
46 / 46 / 46 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 2 |
46 / 46 / 46 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
10 / 10 / 9 |
54 / 53 / 52 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 10 / 10 |
54 / 54 / 53 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
44 / 44 / 44 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
44 / 44 / 44 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
47 / 46 / 46 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
46 / 46 / 45 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
44 / 44 / 44 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
26 / 20 / 15 |
69 / 64 / 58 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
53 / 28 / 17 |
96 / 71 / 61 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6 / 6 / 5 |
49 / 49 / 49 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 4 / 4 |
47 / 47 / 47 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
45 / 45 / 44 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
44 / 44 / 44 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
44 / 44 / 44 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
44 / 44 / 44 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
46 / 46 / 46 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
44 / 44 / 44 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
58 / 25 / 13 |
101 / 68 / 56 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
89 / 42 / 21 |
132 / 85 / 65 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
61 / 41 / 28 |
104 / 85 / 72 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
19 / 16 / 12 |
62 / 59 / 55 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
45 / 45 / 44 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
25 / 20 / 15 |
68 / 63 / 58 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6 / 6 / 6 |
50 / 49 / 49 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 4 / 4 |
48 / 48 / 47 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 4 / 4 |
48 / 48 / 47 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
73 / 37 / 20 |
116 / 81 / 63 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 5 / 5 |
49 / 48 / 48 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
14 / 12 / 10 |
57 / 55 / 53 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
8 / 7 / 7 |
51 / 51 / 50 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
45 / 45 / 44 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 5 / 4 |
48 / 48 / 47 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
44 / 44 / 44 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
45 / 45 / 45 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
144 |
187 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
50 |
50 |
Remark: * Concentration due to contribution of
Project Site.
** Total concentration due to contribution of the Project Site as well as background concentration in the PATH output. The predicted RSP level due to this Project at some of the ASRs nearby has already exceeded the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs regardless the background level, thus in calculating the total concentration of RSP (i.e. background + Project contribution), the maximum annual average RSP level from the PATH output file (i.e. 43.2 µg/m3 according to Appendix 3-1B) is used as a conservative approach.
Table
3‑12 Predicted Annual Average PM2.5
Concentrations Due to This Project Southern
Portion (Unmitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
44 / 21 / 11 |
75 / 51 / 42 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
36 / 22 / 13 |
66 / 53 / 44 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
28 / 13 / 7 |
58 / 44 / 38 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
20 / 10 / 6 |
51 / 41 / 37 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
42 / 19 / 9 |
73 / 49 / 40 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
22 / 11 / 7 |
53 / 41 / 37 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 3 / 3 |
34 / 34 / 34 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 4 / 3 |
34 / 34 / 34 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
34 / 34 / 34 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
33 / 33 / 33 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
37 / 20 / 11 |
68 / 51 / 41 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
33 / 18 / 10 |
64 / 49 / 40 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
26 / 17 / 11 |
57 / 48 / 41 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
10 / 8 / 6 |
40 / 39 / 37 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 31 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
33 / 33 / 32 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
33 / 33 / 33 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
9 / 7 / 6 |
39 / 38 / 37 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 4 / 3 |
35 / 35 / 34 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 4 / 3 |
36 / 35 / 34 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
33 / 33 / 33 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
33 / 33 / 32 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 2 / 2 |
33 / 33 / 33 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
44 |
75 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
35 |
35 |
Remark: * Concentration due to contribution of
Project Site.
** Total concentration due to contribution of the Project Site as well as background concentration in the PATH output. The predicted PM2.5 level due to this Project at some of the ASRs nearby has already exceeded the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs regardless the background level, thus in calculating the total concentration of PM2.5 (i.e. background + Project contribution), the maximum annual average PM2.5 level from the PATH output file (i.e. 30.7 µg/m3 according to Appendix 3-1B) is used as a conservative approach.
Table
3‑13 Predicted Annual Average PM2.5
Concentrations Due to This Project Northern
Portion (Unmitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
33 / 33 / 33 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
34 / 34 / 34 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 4 / 4 |
35 / 35 / 34 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
34 / 34 / 33 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7 / 6 / 5 |
38 / 37 / 36 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
34 / 20 / 12 |
64 / 51 / 43 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30 / 19 / 12 |
60 / 49 / 42 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
43 / 22 / 12 |
74 / 52 / 42 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
19 / 10 / 5 |
50 / 41 / 36 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
15 / 9 / 5 |
46 / 39 / 36 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 31 / 31 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
34 / 34 / 33 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 3 |
34 / 34 / 34 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
8 / 6 / 4 |
38 / 37 / 35 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
16 / 8 / 5 |
47 / 39 / 36 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
33 / 32 / 32 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
17 / 7 / 4 |
48 / 38 / 35 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
27 / 13 / 6 |
57 / 43 / 37 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
18 / 12 / 9 |
49 / 43 / 39 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6 / 5 / 4 |
36 / 35 / 34 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7 / 6 / 4 |
38 / 37 / 35 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
33 / 33 / 32 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
22 / 11 / 6 |
53 / 42 / 37 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 4 / 3 |
35 / 34 / 34 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
33 / 33 / 33 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
32 / 32 / 32 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
31 / 31 / 31 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
43 |
74 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
35 |
35 |
Remark: * Concentration due to contribution of
Project Site.
** Total concentration due to contribution of the Project
Site as well as background concentration in the PATH output. The predicted
PM2.5 level due to this Project at some of the ASRs nearby has already exceeded
the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs regardless the background level, thus in
calculating the total concentration of PM2.5 (i.e. background + Project
contribution), the maximum annual average PM2.5 level from the PATH output file
(i.e. 30.7 µg/m3 according to Appendix 3-1B) is used as a conservative approach.
Based on the above
results, in the absence of any mitigation measures the unmitigated TSP, RSP and PM2.5 levels due to construction of the Project Site would exceed the relevant air quality
criteria/ AQOs as well as the no. of exceedance allowed
under the AQO, regardless the background level. Thus,
mitigation measures as stipulated in Section 3.9.1 will be
required to be implemented in order to alleviate adverse impacts.
To ensure compliance
with the AQOs at the ASRs at all times, it is recommended to include
requirements of good site practice in the contract clauses in order to minimize
cumulative dust impact and to implement a dust monitoring and audit programme to
ensure proper implementation of the identified mitigation measures. The
Contractor shall follow the requirements stipulated in the Air Pollution Control
(Construction Dust) Regulation to ensure
constructional dust impacts are controlled within the relevant standards.
Good site management
practices are important in reducing potential air quality impacts. As a general guidance, the contractor shall
maintain high standard of housekeeping to prevent emission of fugitive dust
emission. Loading, unloading, handling
and storage of fuel, raw materials, products, wastes or by-products should be
carried out in a manner so as to minimize the release of visible dust emission.
Dusty materials should be covered to prevent erosion and dust could be
suppressed by regular site watering. For
example, site watering twice a day could reduce dust contribution from exposed
area by 50%. Increasing the watering frequency would
achieve a higher dust suppression efficiency. Based on
the assessment in Appendix 3-9, it is recommended that the active works areas within the construction site should be watered 8 times a day
during day time from 0800 to 1800 hours.
The speed of the trucks
travelling on haul roads within the Project Site will be controlled at 10 kph
or below in order to reduce dust impact and for safe movement around the
Project Site. Any piles of materials accumulated
on or around the work areas shall be cleaned up regularly. Cleaning, repair and maintenance of all plant
facilities within the work areas shall be carried out in a manner without
generating fugitive dust emissions. The material shall be handled properly to
prevent fugitive dust emission before cleaning.
It is expected
that no concrete batching will be required for the Project works, and concrete will be brought to the site in
“ready-mixed” state or in pre-cast sections instead.
However, if concrete batching is required at the site, the plant should
be cleaned and watered regularly as a good practice. Cement and other fine grained materials
delivered in bulk should be stored in enclosed silos fitted with high level
alarm indicator. Wet mix batching process is preferred over dry mix
batching. A specified process licence
shall be obtained from the authority which will give guidelines on dust
mitigation measures required as terms and conditions.
General
Mitigation Measure
All the relevant dust
control measures stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction
Dust) Regulation would be fully implemented. Typical mitigation measures
include:
·
The
designated haul road should be hard paved to minimize fugitive dust emission;
·
During the site formation works, the active works areas should
be water sprayed with water browser or sprayed manually eight times during day-time from 0800 to 1800 hours including holidays. The Contractor(s) should ensure that the amount of water spraying
is just enough to dampen the exposed surfaces without over-watering which could
result in surface water runoff;
·
Dump
trucks for transporting dusty materials should be totally enclosed using impervious
sheeting;
·
Any
excavated dusty materials or stockpile of dusty materials should be covered
entirely by impervious sheeting or sprayed with water so as to maintain the
entire surface wet, and recovered or backfilled or reinstated as soon as possible;
·
Dusty
materials remaining after a stockpile is removed should be wetted with water;
·
The
area where vehicle washing takes place and the section of the road between the
washing facilities and the exit point should be paved with e.g. concrete,
bituminous materials or hardcore or similar;
·
The
Contractor(s) shall only transport adequate amount of fill materials to the Project
Site to minimize stockpiling of fill materials on-site, thus reducing fugitive
dust emission due to wind erosion;
·
Should
temporary stockpiling of dusty materials be required, it shall be either
covered entirely by impervious sheeting, placed in an area sheltered on the top
and the 3 sides; or sprayed with water so as to maintain the entire surface
wet;
·
All
dusty materials shall be sprayed with water prior to any loading, unloading or
transfer operation so as to maintain the dusty material wet;
·
Vehicle
speed to be limited to 10 kph except on completed access roads;
·
The
portion of road leading only to a construction site that is within 30 m of a
designated vehicle entrance or exit should be kept clear of dusty materials;
·
Every
vehicle should be washed to remove any dusty materials from its body and wheels
before leaving the construction sites;
·
The
load of dusty materials carried by vehicle leaving a construction site should
be covered entirely by clean impervious sheeting to ensure that the dusty
materials do not leak from the vehicle;
·
The
working area of excavation should be sprayed with water immediately before,
during and immediately after (as necessary) the operations so as to maintain
the entire surface wet; and
·
Use of
effective dust screens, sheeting or netting to be provided to enclose dry
scaffolding which may be provided from the ground floor level of the building
or if a canopy is provided at the first floor level, from the first floor
level, up to the highest level (maximum three floors high for this Project) of the scaffolding where
scaffolding is erected around the perimeter of a building under construction.
Site-specific
Mitigation Measures
As mentioned in Section 2.6.2, alternative construction
programme/ phasing has been considered in developing the construction
programme with a view to minimize potential construction impacts.
In order to minimize
potential cumulative dust impacts, the Contractor(s) shall carry out site formation works for the Northern
Portion and Southern Portion of the Project Site separately without overlapping
in construction programme. In addition, to minimize dust
emission, the site formation works is expected to carry out in phases (i.e.
different zones), and there will be only one zone under construction in any one
time (Section 3.7.1.2 and Appendix 3-8
refer). Once construction for a zone is
completed, the works area will be compacted, covered by tarpaulin sheet and
hydroseeded before construction of another zone. Watering will also be applied
on regular basis. Thus, there will be no
cumulative construction dust impacts.
Works area shall be properly covered at the end of working day to minimize
wind erosion.
Precautionary Measures for Odour Impact
No excavation of pond
sediment is expected during the construction and no significant odour impact
due to excavation of sediment is therefore anticipated. However, as a precautionary measure, should
any excavation of sediment be required during the construction, the following measures
shall be implemented:
·
Exposed
surface shall be immediately filled by filling materials;
·
All
malodorous excavated material, if any, should be placed as far as possible from
any ASRs;
·
The
stockpiled malodorous materials should be removed from Project Area within 24
hours or as soon as practicable;
·
The
stockpiled malodorous materials should be covered entirely by plastic tarpaulin
sheets;
·
Odour
patrol during excavation of pond sediments to examine the effectiveness of the
above control measures; and
·
Should
disposal of excavated sediment be required, it shall follow the requirements
stated in Buildings Department’s PNAP No. 252 for “Management Framework for
Disposal of Dredged/ Excavated Sediment”.
With proper measures, potential odour impact
will be short-term and controllable. In
addition, odour patrol will be carried out during excavation of pond sediments
in order to examine the effectiveness of these control measures.
Air quality aspect has been taken into
account during the Project planning by providing
adequate buffer distance between the Project Site and the nearby roads (Section
3.6.2.2 refers). Thus, the potential
impacts in terms of air quality during the operational phase are insignificant and, and no specific
mitigation measures are required.
The predicted mitigated maximum hourly TSP concentrations as
well as daily average and annual average RSP and PM2.5 concentrations due to
construction of this Project with the implementation of mitigation measures
provided in Section 3.9.1, were assessed
according to the methodology described in Section 3.7.1, and the results
are presented in Tables 3-14 to 3-23. Location map of representative
ASRs selected for construction phase air
quality impact assessment is
presented in Figure 3-2.
Details of the
calculated emission rates are also provided in Appendices 3-2 and 3-3. Details of assessment results are also
presented in Appendices 3-6 and 3-7. Contour
plots based on the worst hit level (Section 3.7.1.3 refers) are
also provided in Figures 3-8A to 3-12B.
Table
3‑14 Predicted Maximum Hourly TSP
Concentrations Due to This Project Southern
Portion of the Project Site (Mitigated
Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
TSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
165 / 69 / 45 |
229 / 164 / 164 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
195 / 98 / 57 |
326 / 203 / 166 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
126 / 70 / 46 |
173 / 164 / 164 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
335 / 81 / 46 |
405 / 164 / 164 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
143 / 102 / 62 |
179 / 164 / 164 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
178 / 122 / 84 |
225 / 166 / 164 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
34 / 32 / 29 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
35 / 34 / 33 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
30 / 28 / 26 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
16 / 16 / 15 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
20 / 20 / 19 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
9 / 9 / 8 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
23 / 21 / 19 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
25 / 24 / 22 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
104 / 70 / 44 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
138 / 64 / 50 |
217 / 164 / 164 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
31 / 28 / 24 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
22 / 21 / 19 |
165 / 165 / 165 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
121 / 81 / 54 |
215 / 182 / 167 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
108 / 80 / 49 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
36 / 35 / 33 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
14 / 14 / 13 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
16 / 15 / 15 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7 / 7 / 7 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
8 / 8 / 8 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
19 / 18 / 17 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
49 / 47 / 42 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
17 / 16 / 15 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
22 / 21 / 20 |
165 / 165 / 165 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7 / 7 / 7 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6 / 6 / 6 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7 / 7 / 7 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7 / 7 / 7 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
61 / 57 / 49 |
167 / 167 / 166 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
18 / 17 / 16 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
19 / 19 / 18 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
78 / 73 / 65 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
13 / 13 / 12 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
60 / 52 / 40 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
12 / 12 / 12 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
9 / 8 / 8 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
8 / 7 / 7 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
9 / 9 / 9 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
19 / 19 / 17 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
90 / 68 / 40 |
165 / 165 / 165 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
98 / 86 / 65 |
181 / 170 / 164 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
47 / 43 / 37 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
10 / 10 / 10 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
40 / 36 / 28 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
12 / 12 / 12 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
41 / 37 / 31 |
178 / 175 / 169 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
94 / 82 / 63 |
164 / 164 / 164 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
335 |
405 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
500 |
500 |
Remark: * Concentration due to contribution of
Project Site.
** The above results have included the background level
extracted from the PATH Output (year 2015).
The hour-by-hour background contribution is estimated using output of
PATH model, and added hour-by-hour to the Project contribution.
Table
3‑15 Predicted Maximum Hourly TSP
Concentrations Due to This Project Northern
Portion of the Project Site (Mitigated
Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
TSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
22 / 21 / 21 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
10 / 10 / 9 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
29 / 29 / 27 |
161 / 160 / 158 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
31 / 30 / 28 |
162 / 161 / 159 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
26 / 23 / 18 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
50 / 38 / 30 |
170 / 169 / 167 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
141 / 109 / 65 |
254 / 222 / 179 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
146 / 77 / 48 |
216 / 183 / 161 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
197 / 75 / 44 |
232 / 158 / 158 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
134 / 76 / 41 |
183 / 158 / 158 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
192 / 108 / 47 |
232 / 158 / 158 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
31 / 30 / 28 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
19 / 18 / 17 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
23 / 22 / 19 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
20 / 18 / 15 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
23 / 22 / 21 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
8 / 8 / 8 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
9 / 8 / 8 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
10 / 10 / 9 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6 / 6 / 6 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
16 / 15 / 14 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
63 / 54 / 40 |
172 / 164 / 159 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
164 / 59 / 29 |
182 / 159 / 158 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
19 / 18 / 17 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
18 / 17 / 16 |
168 / 167 / 167 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
16 / 15 / 14 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
9 / 9 / 8 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
12 / 12 / 11 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 4 / 4 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
15 / 15 / 14 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
19 / 18 / 17 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
14 / 13 / 13 |
169 / 169 / 168 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
10 / 10 / 9 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
12 / 12 / 11 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
65 / 54 / 46 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
178 / 76 / 40 |
194 / 158 / 158 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
135 / 110 / 74 |
266 / 241 / 205 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
76 / 70 / 58 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
10 / 10 / 9 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
77 / 63 / 42 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
21 / 20 / 19 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
15 / 15 / 13 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
16 / 15 / 14 |
165 / 164 / 164 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
131 / 68 / 37 |
253 / 181 / 165 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
13 / 13 / 12 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
29 / 27 / 24 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
93 / 63 / 42 |
202 / 187 / 166 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
64 / 57 / 46 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
35 / 34 / 31 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
47 / 44 / 38 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
13 / 13 / 12 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
10 / 10 / 9 |
158 / 158 / 158 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
197 |
266 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
500 |
500 |
Remark: * Concentration due to contribution of
Project Site.
** The above results have included the background level extracted from the PATH Output (year 2015). The hour-by-hour background contribution is estimated using output of PATH model, and added hour-by-hour to the Project contribution.
Table
3‑16 Predicted Daily Average RSP Concentrations
Due to This Project Southern Portion
(Mitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
RSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
13 / 5 / 2 |
117 / 112 / 111 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
8 / 5 / 2 |
114 / 113 / 112 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 5 / 2 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7 / 2 / 1 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 5 / 2 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
14 / 4 / 2 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 1 / 1 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 3 / 2 |
112 / 111 / 111 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 3 / 2 |
113 / 112 / 111 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 4 / 3 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 4 / 2 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 2 / 2 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A32 |
A Restaurant
near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 1 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 3 / 2 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
111 / 111 / 111 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 1 / 1 |
112 / 112 / 111 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
14 |
117 |
|
No. of Exceedance |
|
|
|
- |
2 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
100 (no. of exceedance
allowed <= 9) |
|
Remark: The above results are based on the 1st
highest daily average concentrations.
* Concentration due to contribution of Project Site.
** The above results have included the background level extracted from the PATH Output (year 2015). The hour-by-hour background contribution is estimated using output of PATH model, and added hour-by-hour to the Project contribution.
Table
3‑17 Predicted Daily Average RSP Concentrations
Due to This Project Northern Portion
(Mitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
RSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 2 / 1 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 4 / 2 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 3 / 2 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 4 / 3 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
11 / 3 / 1 |
123 / 122 / 122 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
10 / 4 / 2 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 3 / 2 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
13 / 3 / 1 |
123 / 122 / 122 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
5 / 2 / 1 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
9 / 3 / 2 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
7 / 3 / 2 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 3 / 2 |
123 / 122 / 122 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
6 / 3 / 2 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
10 / 3 / 2 |
131 / 123 / 122 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 2 / 2 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
122 / 122 / 122 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
13 |
131 |
|
No. of Exceedance |
|
|
|
- |
3 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
100 (no. of exceedance
allowed <= 9) |
|
Remark: The above results are based on the 1st
highest daily average concentrations.
* Concentration due to contribution of Project Site.
** The above results have included the background level extracted from the PATH Output (year 2015). The hour-by-hour background contribution is estimated using output of PATH model, and added hour-by-hour to the Project contribution.
Table
3‑18 Predicted Daily Average PM2.5
Concentrations Due to This Project Southern
Portion (Mitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 1 / 1 |
85 / 83 / 83 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 1 / 1 |
84 / 84 / 83 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 1 / 1 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 2 / 1 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 1 / 1 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
84 / 83 / 83 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 1 / 1 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 1 / 1 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 0 / 0 |
83 / 83 / 83 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
4 |
85 |
|
No. of Exceedance |
|
|
|
- |
2 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
75 (no. of exceedance
allowed <= 9) |
|
Remark: The above results are based on the 1st
highest daily average concentrations.
* Concentration due to contribution of Project Site.
** The above results have included the background level extracted from the PATH Output (year 2015). The hour-by-hour background contribution is estimated using output of PATH model, and added hour-by-hour to the Project contribution.
Table
3‑19 Predicted Daily Average PM2.5
Concentrations Due to This Project Northern
Portion (Mitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 1 / 1 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 1 / 1 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 1 / 1 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 1 / 0 |
92 / 91 / 91 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 1 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
92 / 91 / 91 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
4 / 1 / 0 |
92 / 92 / 91 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 1 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 1 / 1 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 1 |
92 / 91 / 91 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
2 / 1 / 1 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
3 / 1 / 1 |
94 / 92 / 91 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 1 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
92 / 92 / 91 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
91 / 91 / 91 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
4 |
94 |
|
No. of Exceedance |
|
|
|
- |
3 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
75 (no. of exceedance
allowed <= 9) |
|
Remark: The above results are based on the 1st
highest daily average concentrations.
* Concentration due to contribution of Project Site.
** The above results have included the background level extracted from the PATH Output (year 2015). The hour-by-hour background contribution is estimated using output of PATH model, and added hour-by-hour to the Project contribution.
Table
3‑20 Predicted Annual Average RSP Concentrations
Due to This Project Southern Portion
(Mitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
RSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
1 / 0.4 / 0.2 |
44.2 / 43.6 / 43.5 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.7 / 0.4 / 0.2 |
43.9 / 43.6 / 43.5 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.4 / 0.2 / 0.1 |
43.7 / 43.4 / 43.4 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.2 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.4 / 43.4 / 43.3 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.7 / 0.3 / 0.2 |
43.9 / 43.6 / 43.4 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.5 / 0.2 / 0.1 |
43.7 / 43.5 / 43.4 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.4 / 0.2 / 0.1 |
43.7 / 43.5 / 43.4 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.3 / 0.2 / 0.1 |
43.6 / 43.5 / 43.4 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.4 / 0.3 / 0.2 |
43.7 / 43.5 / 43.4 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.2 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.4 / 43.4 / 43.3 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.2 / 43.2 / 43.2 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.2 / 43.2 / 43.2 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.2 / 0.2 / 0.1 |
43.4 / 43.4 / 43.4 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.4 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
1.0 |
44.2 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
50 |
50 |
Remark: * Concentration due to contribution of
Project Site.
** The above results have included the background level extracted from the PATH Output (year 2015). The hour-by-hour background contribution is estimated using output of PATH model, and added hour-by-hour to the Project contribution.
Table
3‑21 Predicted Annual Average RSP
Concentrations Due to This Project Northern
Portion (Mitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
RSP Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.4 / 43.4 / 43.3 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.5 / 0.3 / 0.1 |
43.8 / 43.5 / 43.4 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.6 / 0.3 / 0.2 |
43.9 / 43.5 / 43.4 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.6 / 0.3 / 0.1 |
43.8 / 43.5 / 43.4 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.5 / 0.2 / 0.1 |
43.7 / 43.4 / 43.3 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.4 / 0.2 / 0.1 |
43.7 / 43.4 / 43.3 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.2 / 43.2 / 43.2 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.2 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.4 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.3 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.6 / 43.4 / 43.3 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.2 / 43.2 / 43.2 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.2 / 43.2 / 43.2 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.2 / 43.2 / 43.2 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.2 / 43.2 / 43.2 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.2 / 43.2 / 43.2 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.2 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.4 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.3 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.5 / 43.4 / 43.3 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.4 / 0.2 / 0.2 |
43.6 / 43.5 / 43.4 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.2 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.4 / 43.4 / 43.3 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.2 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.5 / 43.4 / 43.3 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.4 / 0.2 / 0.1 |
43.7 / 43.4 / 43.3 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
43.3 / 43.3 / 43.3 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
0.6 |
43.9 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
50 |
50 |
Remark: * Concentration due to contribution of
Project Site.
** The above results have included the background level extracted from the PATH Output (year 2015). The hour-by-hour background contribution is estimated using output of PATH model, and added hour-by-hour to the Project contribution.
Table
3‑22 Predicted Annual Average PM2.5
Concentrations Due to This Project Southern
Portion (Mitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.3 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
31 / 30.8 / 30.8 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.2 / 0.1 / 0.1 |
30.9 / 30.8 / 30.8 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.8 / 30.7 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.2 / 0.1 / 0 |
30.9 / 30.8 / 30.8 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.8 / 30.7 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.8 / 30.7 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.8 / 30.7 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.8 / 30.8 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
0.3 |
31 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
35 |
35 |
Remark: * Concentration due to contribution of
Project Site.
** The above results have included the background level extracted from the PATH Output (year 2015). The hour-by-hour background contribution is estimated using output of PATH model, and added hour-by-hour to the Project contribution.
Table
3‑23 Predicted Annual Average PM2.5
Concentrations Due to This Project Northern
Portion (Mitigated Scenario)
|
ASR No. |
Description |
Ground Level, mPD |
Height Above Ground, m |
PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without Background * |
With Background ** |
|
A01 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A01A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A02 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A02A |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A03 |
Fairview
Park |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A04 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A05 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.2 / 0.1 / 0 |
30.9 / 30.8 / 30.7 |
|
A05A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.2 / 0.1 / 0 |
30.9 / 30.8 / 30.7 |
|
A05B |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.2 / 0.1 / 0 |
30.9 / 30.8 / 30.7 |
|
A06 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.8 / 30.7 |
|
A06A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.8 / 30.7 |
|
A07 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A08 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
2.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A09 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A10 |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A10A |
Bethel
High School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A11 |
Helene
Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A12 |
Villa
Camilla |
6.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A13 |
Fairview
Park |
4.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen village house |
4.1 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A16 |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A16A |
Fairview
Park |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A17 |
Palm
Springs |
5.7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A18 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A19 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen village house |
3.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A20 |
Hang
Fook Garden |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A21 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
4.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A22 |
Ha
San Wai village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A23 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.6 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A24 |
Christian
Ministry Institute |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A25 |
Royal
Palms |
4.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A26 |
Hong
Chi Morninglight School Yuen Long |
4.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A27 |
Existing
building |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A28 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A29 |
Fairview
Park |
4.3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A30 |
Fairview
Park |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.8 / 30.8 |
|
A31 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A32 |
A
Restaurant near Helene Terrace |
4.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A33 |
Fairview
Park |
3.9 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A34 |
Palm
Springs |
5.2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A35 |
Palm
Springs |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A36 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen village house |
3.5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A1P |
Planned
Yau Mei Site |
2 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0.1 / 0.1 / 0 |
30.8 / 30.8 / 30.7 |
|
A2P |
Planned
Kam Pok Road Site |
5 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A3P |
Planned Kam Pok Road Site |
7 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A4P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
A5P |
Planned RD Site |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
V01 |
Planned NT exempted houses |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
V02 |
Planned “V” zone |
2.4 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
V03 |
Planned “V”zone |
3 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
V04 |
Planned “RD” zone |
4.8 |
1.5 / 4.5 / 7.5 |
0 / 0 / 0 |
30.7 / 30.7 / 30.7 |
|
Max. Conc. |
- |
|
- |
0.2 |
30.9 |
|
Criteria |
- |
|
- |
35 |
35 |
Remark: * Concentration due to contribution of
Project Site.
** ** The above results have included the background level
extracted from the PATH Output (year 2015).
The hour-by-hour background contribution is estimated using output of
PATH model, and added hour-by-hour to the Project contribution.
It is found that with
the implementation of general mitigation measures listed out in Section 3.9.1;
and the proposed site-specific measures,
the dust level can be significantly reduced and can comply with the relevant
air quality criteria/ AQOs for TSP, RSP and PM2.5, respectively. Thus, no
further mitigation measures will be necessary.
As the dust level can comply with the relevant air quality criteria/
AQOs, no residual impact is anticipated.
With regard to the
above, the air quality impact of construction activities has
been assessed using a conservative emission rate (Section 3.7.1.2 and Appendices 3-2 and 3-3 refer), in order to represent a worst case scenario. To be conservative, simultaneous construction
of construction activities as identified in Section 3.7.1.1 (i.e. removal and
unloading of soil materials by excavators; earth loading/ unloading,
stockpiling; and bulldozing and surface compaction), has also been assumed. Thus, the predicted air quality impact upon ASRs as shown above is based
on a conservative approach. However, the concerned activities are
considered unlikely to operate at the same time due to the phased construction
method, where there are only limited space and construction plants available
for construction in any one time. Thus,
it is expected that the actual air quality impact due to construction works
would be less significant.
The
site formation works of this Project will only last for 7.5
months for the Southern
Portion and the Northern Portion, respectively.
After that, the site will be hard paved and there will be no significant
air quality impact at the site over the long term. In addition, due to the adoption of phased
construction method, the construction duration of each sub-zone will only last
for about 12 calendar days, after that the construction activities will be
moved to another sub-zone and so on. As
a result, the air quality impact upon ASRs will be relatively short-term and
temporarily as the nearest dust emission sources of individual ASR will not
last for the whole period of site formation stage and will discontinue after a
short period of time.
It should also note that practical mitigation
measures have already been proposed in Section 3.9.1; the works
area will be constructed in phases with each sub-zone representing an average
of about 5% of the site area within either the Southern Portion or the Northern
Portion, respectively (see Appendix 3-9),
which cannot be practically reduced further; frequent watering will be applied;
exposed surfaces will be compacted, covered by tarpaulin sheets and hydroseeded
after works.
Thus, the air quality impact due to construction of this Project has
already been reduced to a minimal and practical mitigation measures have been
exhausted.
Given the mitigated TSP, RSP and PM2.5 levels
(with implementation of recommended mitigation measures) can comply with the
relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs, no adverse impact will be anticipated due
to the Project works, and no environmental
monitoring and audit (EM&A) will be necessary.
Nevertheless, in order
to ensure the effectiveness of implementation of mitigation measures, it is
proposed that an environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A) program is carried
out during construction to monitoring the short-term impacts. The Environmental Team (ET) shall check the
contractor(s)’ practice and ensure the above recommendations are properly
implemented. Should adverse dust impacts
be identified, the source of fugitive dust emission should be identified. Additional mitigation measures shall be
proposed by the Contractor(s) before concerned construction works is continued.
Details of the EM&A requirements are provided in Chapter 13 of this report.
Through implementation
of dust control measures required under the Air Pollution Control (Construction
Dust) Regulation;
recommended specific measures in the EIA report; and good housekeeping practice by the works contractors, construction
dust impacts can be controlled to acceptable levels. Practical mitigation
measures have already been proposed for this Project to alleviate potential
impacts. The concerned site formation
works will only be short-term and potential air quality impacts have been reduced to a minimal through recommended mitigation measures
and can comply with the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs. Thus, no adverse impact is anticipated. There is no residual impact as a result.
Although the Project is not expected to generate excessive
construction phase air quality impact, an EM&A programme as well as an
odour patrol
have
been recommended to demonstrate compliance with air quality criteria/ AQOs
and the proper implementation of mitigation measures.
Appropriate precautionary measures (e.g.
peripheral setback from the site boundaries) have been incorporated in the
layout to alleviate potential vehicular emissions impacts. It was found that the Project Site can
satisfy the buffer distance requirements stated in the HKPSG for both active
and passive recreational uses, thus no unacceptable air quality impacts due to
vehicular emission are expected. No
unacceptable air quality impacts due to industrial emissions are expected as no industrial emission sources were identified within 500m
from the Project boundary.
During the operational stage, the sewage generated by the proposed
development will be discharged to the planned public sewers at Yau
Pok Road. Thus, no adverse odour residual impacts are envisaged for the construction and operational
phase of the Project.
A noise impact
assessment has been undertaken in accordance with Section 3.9.2 of the EIA
Study Brief to define the nature and scale of potential noise impacts
associated with the Project. The Assessment
Area for the noise impact assessment is defined by a distance of 300m from the
boundary of the Project Site as per the EIA Study Brief. This Chapter also follows the criteria and
guidelines for evaluating and assessing noise impacts as stated in Annex 5 and
Annex 13 of the TM.
The Project Site is
currently vacant, and the existing land uses in its vicinity comprise village
development, Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel, and road networks such as Kam Pok Road,
Fairview Park Road and Yau Pok Road. This
Chapter also addresses the potential noise impact associated with the
construction of the proposed development as well as the operational phase noise
impact due to nearby road networks and industrial noise activities further east
of the Project Site. According to the approved EIA report, namely
the “EIA
and TIA Studies for the Stage 2 of PWP Item No. 215DS - Yuen Long and Kam Tin
Sewerage and Sewage Disposal2”, Ngau Tam Mei SPS has been proposed to be located at an offsite
location over 670m northeast of the proposed NSRs of this Project Site, which
is outside the 300m Study boundary specified in the Study Brief. Thus, adverse impacts due to construction and
operation of the pumping station are not anticipated. The approximate location of the proposed SPS,
based on the above EIA report, is shown in Figure
4-5. According to the same, this
future SPS will be self-protected with openings or louvers directed away from
NSRs. It is a requirement in the above
approved EIA Report2 that the SPS has to be designed to minimize potential noise impact to
the nearby NRS locations. Mitigation
measures such as acoustic enclosure, silencer at inlet and outlet,
anti-vibration spring mount, and acoustic louver are required during the
detailed design of the SPS. It is also a
requirement in the EIA report that the maximum permissible Sound Power Level
(SWL) at the louver location of the SPS should not exceed 83.3dB(A).
It is estimated that this development project
will not be subject to any unacceptable noise level.
The proposed Project is
for residential purpose with a landscape
pond, landscaped open area and some passive recreational uses and supporting facilities.
Detailed elements of the proposed development and the MLP are discussed
in Section 1.3.
Construction noise is
controlled under the Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) which prohibits the use of
powered mechanical equipment (PME) during the restricted hours (7 p.m. to 7
a.m. on normal weekdays and any time on a public holiday, including Sunday) without
a valid Construction Noise Permit (CNP) granted by the Authority. The criteria
and procedures for issuing such a permit are specified in the “Technical
Memorandum on Noise from Construction Works Other than Percussive Piling”
(TM1).
For construction works
other than percussive piling, although TM1 do not provide control over daytime
construction activities, noise limits are set out in Annex 5 of the EIAO-TM.
The TM applies to designated projects, including residential or recreational
development planned within Deep Bay Buffer Zones 1 or 2. The relevant noise standards are summarised
in Table
4‑1 below.
Table 4‑1 Noise Limits for Daytime Construction
Activities
|
NSR |
0700 to 1900 hours on any day not being a
Sunday or general holiday Leq (30 min.) dB (A) |
|
All domestic
premises including temporary housing accommodation |
75 |
|
Educational
institutions including kindergartens, nurseries. |
70 65 (during
examination) |
N.B.
(i) The above
standards apply to uses which reply on opened windows for ventilation.
(ii) The above
standards shall be viewed as the maximum permissible noise levels assessed at
1m from the external facade.
Noise impacts arising from general construction activities (excluding percussive piling) conducted during the restricted hours (19:00-07:00 hours on any day and anytime on Sunday or general holiday) and percussive piling during anytime are governed by the Noise Control Ordinance (“NCO”).
For carrying out of any general construction activities involving the use of any Powered Mechanical Equipment (“PME”) within restricted hours, a Construction Noise Permit (CNP) is required from the Authority under the NCO.
The noise criteria and the assessment procedures for issuing a CNP are specified in Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work Other Than Percussive Piling (GW-TM) under the NCO.
The use of Specified PME (“SPME”) and/or the carrying out of Prescribed Construction Work (“PCW”) within a Designated Area (“DA”) under the NCO during the restricted hours are also prohibited without a CNP. The relevant technical details can be referred to Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Work in Designated Areas (DA-TM) under NCO.
Designated areas, in which the control of SPME and PCW shall apply, are established through the Noise Control (Construction Work Designated Areas) Notice made under Section 8A(1) of the NCO.
According to the latest Designated Area defined under the NCO [Plan No.: EPD/AN/NT-01 by the Environment Bureau], the Project Area is within Designated Areas.
During the construction phase, the Contractor has the responsibility to check the latest status and coverage of the Designated Areas at time of construction of the project.
Percussive piling is only permitted when the Authority has granted a CNP. Technical Memorandum on Noise from Percussive Piling (PP-TM) under the NCO sets out the permitted hours of operation of percussive piling and Acceptable Noise Level (“ANL”) requirements, which are dependent on the level of exceedance of the Acceptable Noise Level (“ANL”). For this Project in particular, percussive piling is not considered necessary at this stage.
Regardless of any description or assessment made in this Chapter,
in assessing a filed application for a CNP the Authority will be guided by the
relevant Technical Memoranda. The
Authority will consider all the factors affecting their decision taking
contemporary situations/ conditions into account. Nothing in this report shall pre-empt the
Authority in making their decisions, and there is no guarantee that a CNP will
be issued. If a CNP were issued, the
Authority may include any conditions they consider appropriate and such
conditions are to be followed while the works covered by the CNP are being
carried out. Failing to do so may lead
to cancellation of the permit and prosecution action under the NCO.
The land uses surrounding the Project Site include existing private
residential developments, drainage channel and roads. The dominant noise sources are domestic premises
to the west of the Project Site and the surrounding road networks (e.g. Yau Pok
Road, Kam Pok Road, Fairview Park Road and Fairview Park Boulevard). Castle Peak Road and San Tin Highway are
located to the further east of the Project Site with separation distance of
over 500m from the proposed residential development of this Project (Figure 4-3A). Existing village developments (e.g. Chuk Yuen
Tsuen, Hang Fuk Garden, and Golden Age Home for Senior Citizens) located in
between this Project and the roads, shield the Project Site from traffic noise
generated from these roads. As Castle Peak
Road and San Tin Highway are outside the 300m radius Assessment Area specified
in the Project EIA Study Brief, these roads are not considered further in this
noise assessment.
Within 300m radius from the boundary of the Project Site, there are also
a few existing industrial activities outside the
Project Site boundary to the east.
However, these industrial activities are relatively far away from the
Project Site, and the horizontal distance between the Noise Sensitive Receivers
of the proposed Development and the identified industrial noise sources is over
250m. During operation of this Project, direct
line of sight from the Project Site to these industrial activities will be blocked
by the proposed residential development within “Residential (Group D)” zone to the east of Ngau Tam Mei Channel
(i.e. Approved S16 application No. A/YL-MP/170).
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO)
Noise criteria for the assessment of road traffic noise impact on
the Project are provided in Table 1A
of Annex 5 of EIAO-TM and are summarised below.
According to the guidelines, the maximum allowed road traffic noise
level, measured in terms of L10(1‑hr),
at typical facades of new dwellings of the proposed Project is to be 70 dB(A).
Noise
standards are recommended in Table 1A
of the Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process for
planning against possible noise impact from road traffic, railway and
aircrafts. According to the guidelines,
the maximum allowed road traffic noise level, measured in terms of L10(1‑hr.), at typical facades of new dwellings like
the proposed development is recommended to be 70 dB(A).
Table
4‑2 Relevant Road Traffic Noise Standard
|
Common Uses |
Road Traffic
Noise L10 (1 hour),
dB(A) |
|
All domestic premises including temporary housing
accommodation |
70 |
|
Hotel and hostels |
70 |
|
Offices |
70 |
|
Educational institutions including kindergartens,
nurseries and all others where unaided voice communication is required |
65 |
|
Places of public worship and courts of law |
65 |
|
Hospital, clinics, convalescences and homes for the
aged, diagnostic rooms, wards |
55 |
Note:
(i) The above standards apply to uses which
reply on opened windows for ventilation;
(ii)
The above standards shall be viewed as the maximum permissible noise levels
assessed at 1m from the external façade.
Noise Control Ordinance (NCO)
The Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) provides the statutory framework for the control of fixed plant. It defines statutory limits applicable to the fixed plants used during the operational phase of the Project. The Technical Memorandum for the Assessment of Noise from Places other than Domestic Premises, Public Places or Construction Sites (IND-TM) sets the criteria - Acceptable Noise Level (ANL) for governing fixed plant noise.
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO)
According to the Table 1A of EIAO-TM, the noise impact due to fixed noise sources shall comply with the following criteria:
l 5 dB(A) below the appropriate Acceptable Noise Levels (ANLs) given in Table 2 of the IND-TM; or
l The prevailing background noise levels where it is 5 dB(A) below the ANL.
Noise sensitive receivers (NSR) are classified according to the
Area Sensitivity Rating (ASR). Any NSR
shall be assigned an ASR of "C" if it is within 100 m of a zone
designated as "Industrial" or "Industrial Estate" on a
statutory Outline Zoning Plan, or an ASR of "B" if it is between 100
m and 250 m from such a zone, except for cases which indicate an ASR of
"C".
As Project Site is
located in rural area, to be conservative, the Area Sensitive Rating (ASR) of
“A” has been assumed, and the planning noise standard of “ANL–5 dB(A)” should
be 55 dB(A) for day-time and evening time periods, and 45 dB(A) for night time
accordingly. The ANL for Area Sensitivity Ratings of “A” is depicted in Table
4‑3.
Table 4‑3 Relevant Noise Standard for
Fixed Noise Sources
|
Standards |
Criteria in
relevant Time Periods |
Acceptable Noise Level (ANL) |
Criteria (ANL-5 dB(A)) |
|
NCO |
Day
and Evening (07:00 – 23:00) |
60 dB(A) and |
55 dB(A) and |
|
NCO |
Night
(23:00 – 07:00) |
50 dB(A) |
45 dB(A) |
It should be noted that fixed plant noise is controlled under
Section 13 of the NCO during operation of the plant. In exercising the control,
the Noise Control Authority shall determine the noise impact from concerned
fixed noise sources on the basis of prevailing legislation and practices in
force, and taking into account the prevailing conditions/ situations of
adjoining land uses. The Area Sensitivity Ratings (ASRs) proposed in this EIA
are intended for assessment only. Nothing in the EIA shall bind the Noise
Control Authority in the context of enforcement against any of the fixed noise
sources identified and assessed in the future.
The potential noise
impacts associated with construction and operational phases of the proposed development, are identified and described in this Chapter.
Noise impacts arising
from construction of the proposed development are mainly due to the use of
powered mechanical equipment (PME) for various construction activities. The
construction work for the proposed development is generally divided into the
following stages:
·
Stage A
– Site Formation, Filling and Excavation;
·
Stage B
– Construction of Underground Services and Utilities;
·
Stage C
– Construction of Roadworks;
·
Stage D
– Foundation;
·
Stage E
– Superstructure; and
·
Stage F
– Sub-structure (pile cap)
Stage
A works mainly involve site formation,
excavation and filling activities.
While, Stages B to F involve construction of underground utilities, roadworks,
foundation, infrastructure and superstructure works, as well as landscaping
works of the residential portion at the Project Site. Prior to the above construction works, there
will be site clearance to removal surface vegetation within the Project Site
manually by hand tools, and preparation works to fence off the construction
site (shown as “site clearance and preparation” in the construction programme
provided in Appendix 1-1).
Non-percussive piling method
shall be used for the foundation works of the proposed development. The construction activities that are likely to
cause noise impacts include excavation, piling, materials loading and unloading
and concreting. No noisy operations are
expected during the landscaping works and the “finishing” activities inside the
buildings. The landscaping works would involve planting of various plantations;
while the “finishing” activities would be carried out within the buildings. The potential noise impact during the
construction phase of the development was assessed quantitatively in later Sections.
Traffic Noise Impact
It is expected that the
traffic noise from the nearby road networks is the dominant noise source for
the proposed development. Detailed
traffic noise impact assessments are described in Section 4.7.2 below.
Existing and
Planned Pumping Stations
As
discussed in earlier Sections, there is an existing Chuk Yuen Floodwater
pumping station to the east of the Project Site on the opposite side of Ngau
Tam Mei Channel, which is managed by the Hong Kong SAR Government Drainage
Services Department (DSD). Operational noise
level during the operation of the pumping station could potentially affect the
Project Site. The potential noise
impacts due to the existing pumping station have been further assessed in the
following Sections. The location of the existing pumping station is also
depicted in Figure 4-5.
There
are also planned public sewerage networks and a sewage pumping station (i.e.
Ngau Tam Mei SPS) in the area. According to the approved EIA report, namely the “EIA and TIA
Studies for the Stage 2 of PWP Item No. 215DS - Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage
and Sewage Disposal2”, Ngau Tam Mei SPS has been proposed to be located at an offsite
location distant away from the Project Site. The approximate location of the
proposed SPS, based on the above EIA report, is shown in Figure 4-5. The proposed
pumping station is about 345m away from the northern site boundary of this
Project where non-noise sensitive uses are proposed (i.e. landscape pond and some passive recreational and supporting uses). The concerned pumping station is also over 670m
away from the proposed residential uses in the Southern Portion of the Project
Site. As the pumping station is beyond
300m Assessment Area specified in the Project EIA Study Brief, adverse noise
impact due to the pumping station is not expected. Nevertheless, this future SPS will be
self-protected with openings or louvers directed away from NSRs that are
located in between the future SPS and the Project Site. It is also a requirement in the above
approved EIA Report2 that the SPS has to be designed to minimize potential noise impact to
the nearby NRS locations. Mitigation
measures such as acoustic enclosure, silencer at inlet and outlet, anti-vibration
spring mount, and acoustic louver are required during the detailed design of
the SPS. Thus, it is estimated that this
Project will not be subject to any unacceptable noise level due to the pumping
station.
Industrial Noise
Sources
Existing industrial activities within the 300 m radius from the Project
Site are identified to the east of the Project Site (Figure 4-4A refers). These
include:
·
An open storage site for
precast units with associated warehouse (Fan Keung Kee); and
·
A totally enclosed godown (Tai Sang Hong);
Although the identified industrial sites are
within 300m from the Project Site, they are relatively far away. The horizontal
distance between the NSRs of this Project and the nearest industrial noise
sources at Fan Keung Kee, is over 250m. Although the totally enclosed godown (Tai Sang Hong) is within 300m
radius from the Project boundary, the horizontal distance between the proposed
NSRs of this Project and the identified noise sources, is over 300m (Figure 4-4A refers).
Table
4‑4 summarises the
identified industrial noise sources and number of plants. The respective locations
and photos of the identified industrial sites are also depicted in Figure 4-4A and Figure 4-4B, respectively.
Table 4‑4 Identified
Industrial Sites and Noise Sources
|
Source
ID |
Description |
Consideration of Shielding Effect |
Identified Noise Source |
Max. No. of Plants Used in Noise
Assessment |
|
S1-1 |
Fan
Keung Kee (sheltered warehouse) |
The
concerned warehouse is within a sheltered area with hoarding erected on 3
sides and the top, which shields the Project Site from this warehouse. |
Operating
noise |
General
operating noise of the warehouse |
|
S2-3 |
Fan
Keung Kee (open storage). |
- |
Loading
and unloading using forklift |
One
forklift |
|
S2-1 |
Fan
Keung Kee (for open storage of precast units) |
- |
Movement
of Lorry |
Movement
of one lorry |
|
S2-2 |
Fan
Keung Kee (for open storage of precast units) |
- |
Lifting
of container by a mobile crane |
One
mobile crane |
|
S10-1 |
Totally
enclosed godown (Tai Sang Hong) |
The
structure of the godown shields the Project Site. |
Loading
and unloading using forklift |
One
forklift |
|
S10-2 |
Totally
enclosed godown (Tai Sang Hong) |
The
structure of the godown shields the Project Site. |
Movement
of lorry |
One
lorry |
Site visits were carried out between February 2008
and December 2009, to identify industrial activities in the vicinity of the
site. Patterns of operation of these
industrial sites and number and type of noisy plants were also documented
during the site visits. Further visits
were also conducted between March 2010 and October 2013 including both daytime
and nighttime periods to verify the previous findings. Details of the site visits are also provided
in Appendix 4-8A.
The open storage site (i.e. S1-1 and S2-1 to S2-3
in Table
4‑4) is for storage of precast units.
There is also a warehouse within the open storage site, which is
sheltered on 3 sides and the top by site hoarding. While the godown (i.e.
S10-1 and S10-2 in Table 4‑4) is a totally enclosed building. It is understood from the
operator that both the godown and the open storage site do not have night-time
operation. Subsequent field observations
from February 2008 to October 2013 confirm the above findings that they were closed around 7:00pm. Night-time
surveys were also carried out during the above-mentioned period and identified
that these activities did not have any operation in night-time.
Noise sources within these industrial sites were
identified during the field visits. The
identified plants within the open storage site (i.e. Fan Keung Kee) include one
mobile crane, one lorry, one forklift, and the general operating noise of the sheltered
warehouse. While, one
forklift and one lorry were found within the godown. Sound Power Level
(SWL) of the identified plants, based on site measurement, was used for the
noise assessment. Please refer to
Section 4.6.2.2 and Section 4.7.3.2 for details of
the noise measurement.
Potential noise impacts due to operation of these
industrial operations are further assessed in the following Sections.
Petrol Filling
Station within Fairview Park
There is also a small petrol filling station within
Fairview Park to the south of the Project Site (Figure 4-4C refers). As the
petrol filling station is within Fairview Park (a private development) and is
separated from other public roads by an existing vehicular entrance/ security
gate, the main users of the station will be the residents of Fairview Park
(e.g. using private vehicles) and heavy vehicles serving the commercial centre
at Fairview Park. Since Fairview Park is a residential estate and the
commercial centre is surrounded by residential houses, visits of heavy vehicles
during night-time period after 11:00pm is unlikely. To be conservative, noise impact due to movement of heavy vehicles has been taken into account in the
noise assessment.
The petrol filling station does not provide any
vehicle repairing services, and the movement of vehicles in and out of the
station and during refilling of the underground storage tank will be the only
noise source during its operation during day-time. According to on-site
observation, vehicles entering and leaving the petrol filling station would
travel in a slow speed due to the small size of the petrol filling
station. Thus,
the noise generated due to movement of vehicles within the station is not
significant due to the slow motion of movement of vehicles.
According to the operator of the petrol filling
station, refilling of underground storage tank by oil tanker will only be
arranged during day-time (usually around 10:00am to 1:00pm) in order to avoid
potential noise impact due to the close proximity of nearby existing
residential buildings within Fairview Park.
As mentioned above, the petrol filling station is within the boundary of
Fairview Park, thus visit by heavy vehicles at night will be controlled through
Fairview Park’s existing vehicular entrance/ security gate. It shall also be noted that there are existing
residential houses surrounding the petrol filling station at Fairview Park with
a separation distance as short as about 23m (see Figure 4-4C). These existing
residential houses would be worst affected by the operation of the petrol
filling station.
Site visits undertaken in July 2011, September 2011,
and subsequent visits between August 2012 and October 2013 also confirm the
above observation (i.e. noise sources at the petrol filling station are due to
movement of vehicle within the station, and refilling of underground storage
tank only occurs during day-time) (see Appendix
4-8A for the field survey records).
Based on on-site observation, the refilling of
underground storage tank itself does not generate noise impact as no mechanical movement of equipment is involved in the refilling
process. Instead, movement of the oil
tanker within the petrol filling station will be noise source, which has been
taken into account in the day-time noise assessment.
Fixed Noise Source
Due to the Proposed Development
During the operational stage, the sewage generated by the proposed
development will be discharged to the public sewerage system. Thus,
no adverse impacts are envisaged for the operational phase of the
Project (i.e. there will be no sewage treatment plant within the Project Site).
With reference to Annex
13 of the EIAO-TM, noise sensitive receivers are identified within the 300m
assessment area. These NSRs included all existing NSRs. The uses and
description of the identified representative existing noise sensitive uses
within the Assessment Area are shown in Table
4‑5. The
locations of assessment points for construction noise impact assessment are also
shown in Figure 4-2A, photographs of
the selected NSRs are also provided in Figure
4-2B.
Table 4‑5 Identified Existing Noise Sensitive
Receivers For Construction Noise Assessment
|
NSR ID |
Description |
Current Use |
No. of Storey |
Ground mPD Level,
m |
mPD level at Upper
Floor, m * |
|
N1 |
Fairview
Park |
Residential |
3 |
4.4 |
11.2 |
|
N2 |
Fairview
Park |
Residential |
3 |
4.4 |
11.2 |
|
N3 |
Fairview
Park |
Residential |
3 |
4.4 |
11.2 |
|
N4 |
Fairview
Park |
Residential |
3 |
4.3 |
11.1 |
|
N5 |
Fairview
Park |
Residential |
3 |
4.2 |
11 |
|
N6 |
Fairview
Park |
Residential |
2-3 |
4.3 |
11.1 |
|
N7 |
Yau
Mei San Tsuen |
Residential |
2 |
3.1 |
7.1 |
|
N8 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen |
Residential |
2 |
2.3 |
6.3 |
|
N9 |
Chuk
Yuen Tsuen |
Residential |
3 |
3.5 |
10.3 |
|
N10 |
Bethel
High School |
Education |
3 |
4.4 |
12.6 ** |
|
N11 |
Helene
Terrace |
Residential |
3 |
4.5 |
11.3 |
|
N12 |
Villa
Camllia |
Residential |
3 |
6.5 |
13.3 |
|
N13 |
Fairview
Park |
Residential |
2 |
4.6 |
11.4 |
|
N14 |
Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School |
Education |
4 |
4.4 |
15.6 |
|
N15 |
Man
Yuen Tsuen |
Residential |
3 |
4.1 |
10.9 |
|
N16 |
Fairview
Park |
Residential |
2-3 |
4.2 |
11 |
|
N17 |
Palm
Springs |
Residential |
3 |
5.7 |
12.5 |
|
N18 |
Temp.
house at Yau Mei San Tsuen |
Residential |
2 |
3.5 |
7.5 |
|
N19 |
Existing
village house |
Residential |
2 |
4.5 |
8.5 |
|
N20 |
Fairview
Park |
Residential |
3 |
4.3 |
11.1 |
Remark: * As the NSR is
3-storey high building, the mPD level is based on 1.2m above the floor level on
the third floor. The floor height is
assumed to be 2.8m and has taken into account the relevant ground mPD
level. For example: NSR N1 is a 3-storey
building. The mPD level at upper floor is
calculated by 4.4m (existing ground mPD level) + 2.8m/ per floor) x 2 floors) +
1.2m above the ground floor on the third floor).
** The
Bethel High School is a 3 storeys building.
The floor to floor height for the ground floor is taken to be 4m while
the floor to floor height for classrooms on 1/F and 2/F are taken to be 3m high.
Information
such as relevant plans[3]
, current Outline Zoning Plan No. S/YL-MP/6, and Town Planning Board (TPB)
records have been reviewed in order to identify potential planned/ committed
NSRs. The registry of EIAO projects was
also reviewed for EIA projects. Based on
information reviewed, there are a few residential development projects in the
vicinity of the proposed development site. These residential developments are
also classified as designated project under the EIAO; as such they have to go
through the EIAO process. These potential future development cases are listed
in Table
4‑6 below.
Table 4‑6 Status of the Proposed Near-by Sensitive
Uses
|
Planned Site |
NSR ID |
Relevant Town
Planning Board / EIAO Application Number |
Description |
Appro-val of TPO |
Appro-val of EIAO |
Ground mPD Level,
m |
mPD Level at Upper
Floor, m |
|
Planned residential development proposals |
|||||||
|
Yau Mei Site |
N1P |
ESB-182/2008 |
Comprehensive Development and Wetland Protection near Yau Mei San
Tsuen, Yuen Long |
No |
No |
2.2 |
9.4
* |
|
Kam Pok Road Site |
N2P |
ESB-210/2009. A/YL-MP/136; Also in A/YL-MP/170 |
Proposed Residential Development at R(D) zone |
Yes |
No |
4.8 |
9 * |
|
N3P |
6.5 |
10.7 * |
|||||
|
RD Site |
N4P |
ESB-204/2009. Different scales of development and site areas were also under A/YL-MP/132, A/YL-MP/146,
A/YL-MP/193 and A/YL-MP/205 |
Proposed Residential
Development within R(D) Zone at Various Lots in DD
104. |
Yes |
No |
2.4 |
6.6
* |
|
N5P |
2.4 |
6.6
* |
|||||
Remark: *
According to the OZP, allowed building height of the planned development sites
are 6m high. Thus, it is assumed the
planned developments are 2 storeys buildings with floor to floor height at 3m. For Yau Mei Site, the maximum allowed
building is 3 storeys in OZP No. S/YL-MP/6, thus it is assumed to be 3-storey
building and each floor is assumed to be 3m high. The mPD level shown in the table is based on
1.2m above the upper floor level. For example,
the mPD level for N4P is calculated by 2.4m (existing ground mPD level) + 3m/
per floor + 1.2m above the ground floor = 6.6mPD).
None of the above residential development proposals
have obtained approval from both the Town Planning Ordinance (TPO) and under the
EIAO, and there is no committed development programme for these planned development
sites. For Kam Pok
Road Site and RD Site, planning application was previously submitted and
approved under the Town Planning Ordinance, thus these two planned project
sites have been considered in the noise assessment. Noise impacts upon these potential planned NSRs due to construction of this Project as well as the potential concurrent construction activities has been addressed in Sections 4.9.3 and Section 4.8.2.
For Yau Mei Site, the project has not yet been approved by both the TPO
and EIAO. According to the OZP No. S/YL-MP/6, it is
within the Other Specified Uses (Comprehensive Development and Wetland
Protection Area) (OU(CDWPA)) zone. Residential houses development may be
permitted upon application to the TPB.
Since residential uses may be permitted, it is considered as a potential
future NSRs in this noise assessment.
According to TPB records, there are approved
new territories exempted house development sites on the opposite side of Ngau
Tam Mei Drainage Channel (e.g. case number A/YL-MP/172-3 and A/YL-MP/183-1)
within the Village Development (“V”) zone under the Outline Zoning Plan No. S/YL-MP/6 near to the Chuk Yuen Tsuen (see Figure 4-2A). It is expected
that these proposed new territories exempted village houses will be typical 3
storeys buildings. There is currently no
committed development programe for these village houses at the moment. Since these planned village houses are further
setback from Kam Pok Road, and NSRs that are worst affected by the construction
of this Project have already been taken into account in the construction noise
assessment (e.g. the planned Kam Pok Road site, and existing village houses N8,
N9) have already been taken into account in the construction noise assessment,
the concerned planned village houses development is not considered further in
the following noise assessment.
Noise sensitive uses of this Project are the planned residential blocks
within the Southern Portion of the Project Site. A unique reference number has been assigned
for each of the proposed residential blocks and are shown in Appendix 4-9. These reference numbers are merely to
facilitate the assessment and to clearing define the location of residential
blocks which would require mitigation measures. Representative sensitive uses proposed under this Project, which are selected
for operational phase road traffic noise assessment and industrial noise impact
assessment, are provided in Table
4‑7 and Table
4‑8, respectively.
Table 4‑7 Representative NSRs for Operational
Phase Road Traffic Noise Assessment
|
NSR ID |
Proposed No. of Residential Storey |
mPD Level (1.2m
Above Floor Level) * |
|
N01A to N22 |
2 |
6.6 (G/F) – 10.2
(1/F) |
Remark: Please refer to Figures 4-3B for the locations of the NSRs.
* The proposed site formation level is 5.4mPD. The proposed
floor to floor height is 3.6m for the ground floor and 3.0m for the first
floor, respectively. Thus, mPD level of
the ground floor is calculated by 5.4 (ground mPD level) + 1.2m above ground
level = 6.6mPD; and the mPD level of the first floor is calculated by 5.4
(ground mPD level) + 3.6m (G/F) + 1.2m above floor level = 10.2mPD.
Table 4‑8 Representative NSRs for Operational
Phase Noise Impact Assessment
|
NSR ID |
Proposed No. of Residential
Storey |
mPD Level (1.2m
Above Floor Level) * |
|
Representative NSRs
Selected for Fixed Noise Sources Impact Assessment |
||
|
N-ind1 |
2 |
6.6 (G/F) – 10.2
(1/F) |
|
N-ind2 |
2 |
|
|
N-ind2A |
2 |
|
|
N-ind2B |
2 |
|
|
N-ind3 |
2 |
|
|
N-ind9 |
2 |
|
|
Representative NSRs
Selected for Existing Petrol Filling Station Noise Impact Assessment |
||
|
N-Ind5 ## |
2 |
6.6 (G/F) – 10.2
(1/F) |
|
N-ind6 ## |
2 |
|
|
N-ind7 ## |
2 |
|
|
N-ind8 ## |
2 |
|
|
N-ind9 |
2 |
|
|
N-ind2 |
2 |
|
|
N-ind2A |
2 |
|
|
Representative NSRs
Selected for Existing/ Proposed Pumping Stations Noise Assessment |
||
|
N-ind4 # & ## |
2 |
6.6 (G/F) – 10.2
(1/F) |
|
N-ind3A # |
2 |
6.6 (G/F) – 10.2
(1/F) |
Remark: Please refer to Figure 4-4A, Figure 4-4C, and Figure
4-5 for the locations of NSRs.
* The proposed site formation level is 5.4mPD. The
proposed floor to floor height is 3.6m for the ground floor and 3.0m for the
first floor, respectively. Thus, mPD
level of the ground floor is calculated by 5.4 (ground mPD level) + 1.2m above
ground level = 6.6mPD; and the mPD level of the first floor is calculated by
5.4 (ground mPD level) + 3.6m (G/F) + 1.2m above floor level = 10.2mPD.
# NSRs N-ind4 and N-ind3A were selected for the
noise estimation of existing/ proposed pumping stations as they are the nearest
NSRs affected by the concerned pumping stations (Figure 4-5 refers).
## NSRs are not selected for noise assessment
of fixed noise sources as they are outside the 300m study radius from the
concerned fixed noise sources. Thus,
these NSRs are not assessed further.
The approach used in the
assessment of noise from construction works other than percussive piling is
based on standard acoustic principles, and the guidelines given in Para. 5.3 and 5.4 of Annex 13 of the EIAO-TM. The methodology adopted is the same as that
presented in TM1.
Noise impact arising
from the construction works of this Project have been predicted using the
following typical procedures: -
l Based on the tentative construction
programme (see Appendix 1-1). The
worst construction scenarios of each construction activities were identified;
l Identify the corresponding SWL of each
preliminary planned powered mechanical equipment (PME) as listed in the
Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Works other than Percussive
Piling of the Noise Control Ordinance and EPD’s Quality PMEs (QPMEs) inventory,
where appropriate;
l Select representative NSRs for the
construction noise impact assessment;
l Identify the notional source position for
each representative assessment point (RAP). The identification of the notional
source position will follow the methodology given in the Section 2 of the
Technical Memorandum on Noise from Construction Works other than Percussive
Piling of the Noise Control Ordinance;
l Calculate the Predicted Noise Level (PNL)
based on distance attenuation from notional source positions to the
representative NSRs;
l With consideration of the effect of facade
reflection at the NSRs, the Corrected Noise Level (CNL) at the NSRs was
predicted; and
l Based on a comparison of the CNL with the
noise criteria presented in Table
4‑1, situations/ locations where the need for
noise mitigation measures can be identified.
As discussed in earlier
paragraphs, the Project Site involves construction of residential buildings
within the Southern Portion and a landscaped open area, landscape
pond and some passive
recreational uses and supporting facilities within the Northern Portion. Thus, construction noise level due to
construction activities within the Northern Potion and the Southern Potion are
considered respectively in this noise assessment. The location of the Northern Portion and Southern
Portion is also shown in Figure 4-2A.
As the Project Site is adjacent to the existing residential development
at Fairview Park, thoughtful consideration has been undertaken when developing
the Project construction programme/ sequence, type of equipment to be used, and
construction method in order to minimize potential construction noise impact to
adjacent NSRs. The Project construction
programme has also been designed in such a way that concurrent construction
activities are avoided as much as possible.
The current construction programme within indication of concurrent
construction activities of this Project is provided in Appendix 1-1.
Table 4‑9 and Table 4‑10 show the list of plant inventory for construction
works practicable of each construction phase within the Northern Portion and
the Southern Portion, respectively. The inventory was provided by the Project
Engineer (AECOM). As confirmed by the
Project Engineer and the Project Proponent, the plant inventory and the number of
equipment are considered to be appropriate and practical for completing works
within the proposed works programme. Cumulative construction noise due to
potential concurrent construction activities of this Project (construction
programme in Appendix 1-1 refers),
and also due to other nearby planned development projects, were also estimated
in order to represent the worst case scenario.
With regard to noise
level due to travelling of dump trucks on haul road within the Project
construction area, it was evaluated based on maximum number of dump trucks as
advised by the Project Engineer, and the noise level is estimated according to
the procedure given in British Standard, Noise Control on Construction and Open
Sites, BS 5228: Part 1:2009 with the equation below:
LAeq = SWL – 33 + 10log10 Q – 10 Log10 V – 10log10
D
Where,
SWL =
Sound Power Level of the dump truck
Q is
the number of vehicles per hour (no. of veh./hr)
V is
the average speed (10 km/hr)
D is the distance of receiver position from the haul road
(m).
Table 4‑9 Inventory of Powered Mechanical
Equipment To Be Used in Northern Portion
(Unmitigated)
|
Construction Activity |
Sub.
Work Group # |
Powered Mechanical Equipment |
TM Ref. |
Quantity |
SWL per unit,
dB(A) |
|
|
Site Formation, Filling and Excavation |
A1 |
Excavation and Filling |
Air Compressor |
CNP003 |
4 |
104 |
|
|
|
Excavator |
CNP081 |
6 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP101 |
6 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Dump Truck |
CNP067 |
6 |
117 |
|
|
A2 |
Breaking excavated hard/
oversize materials |
Breaker, Excavator mounted |
CNP027 |
2 |
122 |
|
|
Excavator |
CNP081 |
1 |
112 |
|||
|
A3 |
Ground Compression |
Roller, vibratory |
CNP186 |
8 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Bulldozer |
CNP030 |
8 |
115 |
|
|
Construction of Underground Services and Utilities |
B1 |
Earthwork |
Breaker, Excavator mounted |
CNP027 |
1 |
122 |
|
|
|
Dump Truck |
CNP067 |
3 |
117 |
|
|
|
|
Excavator |
CNP081 |
3 |
112 |
|
|
B2 |
Utilities laying |
Air Compressor |
CNP003 |
2 |
104 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP101 |
3 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
CNP141 |
2 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Water Pump, Submersible
(Electric) |
CNP283 |
3 |
85 |
|
|
B3 |
Ground reinstatement |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
2 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Power Rammer (Petrol) |
CNP169 |
2 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, Vibratory,
Hand-held |
CNP170 |
2 |
113 |
|
|
|
|
Roller, Vibratory |
CNP186 |
2 |
108 |
|
|
Road works |
C1 |
Earthwork |
Dump Truck |
CNP067 |
3 |
117 |
|
|
|
Excavator |
CNP081 |
2 |
112 |
|
|
C2 |
Concreting Works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
2 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP101 |
3 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, Vibratory,
Hand-held |
CNP170 |
2 |
113 |
|
|
C3 |
Road Finishing |
Air Compressor |
CNP003 |
2 |
104 |
|
|
|
|
Asphalt Paver |
CNP004 |
2 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP101 |
3 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
CNP141 |
2 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Power Rammer (Petrol) |
CNP169 |
2 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Road Roller |
CNP185 |
2 |
108 |
|
|
Foundation |
D1 |
General foundation
construction |
Air Compressor |
CNP003 |
4 |
104 |
|
|
|
Bar bender and cutter
(electric) |
CNP021 |
6 |
90 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
3 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Drill/grinder, hand-held
(electric) |
CNP065 |
6 |
98 |
|
|
|
|
Saw, circular, wood |
CNP201 |
3 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Water pump, submersible
(electric) |
CNP283 |
6 |
85 |
|
|
|
|
Excavator |
CNP081 |
4 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
CNP141 |
3 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Mobile Crane |
CNP048 |
2 |
112 |
|
|
D2 |
Piling works |
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
3 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Continuous Flight Auger
(CFA) piles (piling, earth auger) |
CNP167 |
3 |
114 |
|
|
D3 |
Concreting works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
3 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
3 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, vibratory,
hand-held |
CNP170 |
3 |
113 |
|
|
Superstructure |
E1 |
General construction works |
Air Compressor |
CNP003 |
4 |
104 |
|
|
|
Bar bender and cutter
(electric) |
CNP021 |
6 |
90 |
|
|
|
|
Mobile Crane |
CNP048 |
2 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Drill/grinder, hand-held
(electric) |
CNP065 |
6 |
98 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
4 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Saw, circular, wood |
CNP201 |
10 |
108 |
|
|
E2 |
Concreting works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
4 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Concrete Pump |
CNP047 |
2 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
4 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, vibratory,
hand-held |
CNP170 |
3 |
113 |
|
|
Dump Trucks Travelling on Haul Road during site
formation (Veh./hr) |
F |
Dump Truck (Moving on Haul
Road) |
Dump Truck |
CNP067 |
10 |
117 |
Remark: #
Each Construction Activity has been divided into several sub. work groups based on the sequence of construction
works. The respective sub-work groups
of each Construction Activity will not overlap with one another.
The calculated highest SWLs of each Construction Activity used for construction noise impact assessment, are provided in Appendix 4-3.
Table 4‑10 Inventory of Powered Mechanical Equipment To Be Used in Southern Portion
(Unmitigated)
|
Construction Activity |
Sub.
Work Group # |
Powered Mechanical Equipment |
TM Ref. |
Quantity |
SWL per unit,
dB(A) |
|
|
Site Formation, Filling and Excavation |
A1 |
Excavation and Filling |
Air Compressor |
CNP003 |
3 |
104 |
|
|
|
Excavator |
CNP081 |
4 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP101 |
3 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Dump Truck |
CNP067 |
4 |
117 |
|
|
A2 |
Breaking excavated hard/
oversize materials |
Breaker, Excavator mounted |
CNP027 |
1 |
122 |
|
|
Excavator |
CNP081 |
1 |
112 |
|||
|
A3 |
Ground Compression |
Roller, vibratory |
CNP186 |
4 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Bulldozer |
CNP030 |
4 |
115 |
|
|
Construction of Underground Services and Utilities |
B1 |
Earthwork |
Breaker, Excavator mounted |
CNP027 |
1 |
122 |
|
|
|
Dump Truck |
CNP067 |
2 |
117 |
|
|
|
|
Excavator |
CNP081 |
2 |
112 |
|
|
B2 |
Utilities laying |
Air Compressor |
CNP003 |
3 |
104 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP101 |
4 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
CNP141 |
2 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Water Pump, Submersible
(Electric) |
CNP283 |
2 |
85 |
|
|
B3 |
Ground reinstatement |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
2 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Power Rammer (Petrol) |
CNP169 |
2 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, Vibratory,
Hand-held |
CNP170 |
2 |
113 |
|
|
|
|
Roller, Vibratory |
CNP186 |
2 |
108 |
|
|
Road works |
C1 |
Earthwork |
Dump Truck |
CNP067 |
4 |
117 |
|
|
|
Excavator |
CNP081 |
3 |
112 |
|
|
C2 |
Concreting Works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
3 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP101 |
4 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, Vibratory,
Hand-held |
CNP170 |
2 |
113 |
|
|
C3 |
Road Finishing |
Air Compressor |
CNP003 |
3 |
104 |
|
|
|
|
Asphalt Paver |
CNP004 |
3 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP101 |
3 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
CNP141 |
2 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Power Rammer (Petrol) |
CNP169 |
2 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Road Roller |
CNP185 |
2 |
108 |
|
|
Foundation |
D1 |
General foundation
construction |
Air Compressor |
CNP003 |
6 |
104 |
|
|
|
Bar bender and cutter
(electric) |
CNP021 |
6 |
90 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
4 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Drill/grinder, hand-held
(electric) |
CNP065 |
6 |
98 |
|
|
|
|
Saw, circular, wood |
CNP201 |
5 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Water pump, submersible
(electric) |
CNP283 |
6 |
85 |
|
|
|
|
Excavator |
CNP081 |
3 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
CNP141 |
3 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Mobile Crane |
CNP048 |
3 |
112 |
|
|
D2 |
Piling works |
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
4 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Continuous Flight Auger
(CFA) piles (piling, earth auger) |
CNP167 |
3 |
114 |
|
|
D3 |
Concreting works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
4 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
4 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, vibratory,
hand-held |
CNP170 |
4 |
113 |
|
|
Superstructure |
E1 |
General construction works |
Air Compressor |
CNP003 |
7 |
104 |
|
|
|
Bar bender and cutter
(electric) |
CNP021 |
11 |
90 |
|
|
|
|
Mobile Crane |
CNP048 |
5 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Drill/grinder, hand-held
(electric) |
CNP065 |
11 |
98 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
7 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Saw, circular, wood |
CNP201 |
11 |
108 |
|
|
E2 |
Concreting works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
4 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Concrete Pump |
CNP047 |
2 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
6 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, vibratory,
hand-held |
CNP170 |
3 |
113 |
|
|
Sub-structure (pile cap) |
F1 |
General pile cap
construction |
Bar bender and cutter
(electric) |
CNP021 |
10 |
90 |
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
5 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
CNP141 |
2 |
112 |
|
|
F2 |
Concreting works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
4 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Concrete Pump |
CNP047 |
2 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP101 |
6 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, vibratory, hand-held |
CNP170 |
3 |
113 |
|
|
F3 |
Backfill and reinstate |
Excavator |
CNP081 |
2 |
112 |
|
|
|
|
Roller, vibratory |
CNP186 |
1 |
108 |
|
|
Dump Trucks Travelling on Haul Road during site
formation (Veh./hr) |
F |
Dump Truck (Moving on Haul
Road) |
Dump Truck |
CNP067 |
10 |
117 |
Remark: #
Each Construction Activity has been divided into several sub. work groups based on the sequence of construction
works. The respective sub-work groups
of each Construction Activity will not overlap with one another.
The calculated highest SWLs of each Construction Activity used for construction noise impact assessment, are provided in Appendix 4-3.
Noise standards are
recommended in Table 1 of the EIAO-TM and the Hong Kong Planning Standards and
Guidelines (HKPSG) for planning against noise impact from sources such as road
traffic, railway, and aircraft, etc. According to the HKPSG, the maximum noise
level from road traffic, measured in terms of L10 (1 hr) is recommended to be
70 dB(A) at typical facades of new dwellings.
The assessment involves
the prediction of the maximum hourly L10 level at the noise sensitive receivers
(NSRs) of the proposed development due to the projected traffic flow from major
road 300 m from the proposed development.
The assessment involves the prediction of the maximum hourly L10 traffic noise level at noise sensitive receivers (NSRs) of
the proposed development due to the
projected peak hour traffic flow
on
the adjacent major road
networks (e.g. Kam Pok Road, Fairview
Park Road, and Fairview Park Boulevard). As
discussed in Section 4.3.2, Castle
Peak Road and San Tin Highway are located outside the 300m radius Assessment
Area specified in the Project EIA Study Brief (more than 500m), thus these
roads are not considered further in this noise assessment. In addition, existing village developments
are also located between the Project Site and the concerned roads, thus these
roads are not considered further in this noise assessment. With considering the tentative operation
information of the residential development projects along Kam Pok Road as well
as the future Kam Pok Road Extension, the projected peak hour traffic flow data for year 2035, which is
considered to be the worst case
scenario within 15 years upon completion of the development projects, is
used for the noise assessment. The
nearby residential development projects that have been considered in the
traffic forecast include but not limited to the two residential developments at
the R(D) zone east of the Project site, and the residential development at the
OU(CDWPA) zone northwest of the Project site, etc. The traffic flow data was predicted by the
Project traffic consultant. Further
details of the projected traffic flow data is described in the following
paragraphs.
The UK Department of
Transport's procedures - “Calculation of Road Traffic Noise” has been used in
the prediction of the road traffic noise at the representative noise sensitive
receivers of the proposed development. The existing topographic details, such
as existing village houses, have been considered in the assessment.
The
noise prediction was carried out using the in-house computer noise model,
Traffic Noise Impact Assessment System (TNIA) V2.0, which is a computerized
model developed on the basis of the UK
Department of Transport’s Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN)
procedures.
The extent of noise assessment was based on an area
within 300m radius from the Project Site boundary. The identified industrial noise sources
include an open storage site and a godown as discussed in Section 4.4.2. The pattern of operation of these industrial
sites and the type and number of equipment used, were identified during site
surveys. Background noise was also
measured near the Project Site for the noise assessment.
In evaluating the impact
of these industrial sites, Sound Power Levels (SWL) of the identified plants are based on site measurement and general acoustic principal (see Appendix 4-7). Noise measurements were by using Brüel & Kjaer (B&K) Precision
Integration Sound Level Meter Type 2238, which complies with International
Electrotechnical Commission Publications 651:1979 (Type 1) and 804:1985 (Type
1). The weather condition was good with calm
wind condition (<5m/s) during measurement, which satisfies the required
criteria. The equipment was properly calibrated immediately prior to and
following each measurement by a B&K Sound Level Calibrator Type 4321. The noise levels before and after measurement
agreed to within 1.0dB. During the noise
measurement, the noise level was dominated by the identified noise source.
In assessing the noise
level, it is assumed that the identified noisy equipment
is located at the notional noise source location in order to represent a worst
case scenario (see Figure 4-4A).
To predict the noise level at the future
noise sensitive uses, the following correction factors have been accounted for:
·
Distance correction:
based on the slant distance between the identified noise sources and the NSR,
the distance correction is projected based on standard acoustical principle for
point source;
·
As observed during the
site visits, the noise sources were found to operate occasionally. Although it is unlikely that all the identified industrial sources will
be in operation simultaneously, to be conservative, it has been assumed that all the identified noise sources are in operation at the same time,
which also represents a worst case scenario.
Noise sources are assumed to operate continuously instead of in occasion
as observed onsite and all noise sources are regarded as point source;
·
Façade correction: a
+3dB(A) correction is applied to account for noise reflection from façade; and
·
Barrier correction: The barrier attenuation is calculated based
on Path Difference Method. Maekawa
equation is applied in the calculation of barrier effect.
Corrected Noise
Level (CNL) at the NSRs of the proposed development can be calculated by
applying the above corrections to the measured SWL of the noise sources in
accordance with the following formula:
CNL = SWL + Cdist
+ Cfac + Cbarr
Where,
CNL is the corrected
noise level at the Noise Sensitive Receiver in dB(A)
SWL is the measured
sound power level of the industrial plant in dB(A)
Cdist is
the distance correction in dB(A) in accordance with
the Technical Memorandum on Noise From Construction Works Other than Percussive
Piling.
Cfac is
façade correction, +3 dB(A)
Cbarr is
the barrier correction in dB(A). The barrier attenuation is calculated based
on Path Difference Method. Maekawa
equation and general acoustic principle is applied in the calculation of
barrier effect.
As there are existing residential development sites that
are much closer to the concerned industrial sites than the Project Site and
with a separate distance of about 48m (from Villa Camllia) and 59m (from Ha San
Wai Village), respectively (see Figure
4-4A), these village houses would be worst affected by the concerned
industrial sites when compared with the Project Site. The potential industrial noise impact under
the worst case scenario was then checked. For establishment of worst case
scenario, it is assumed that the existence of NSRs would limit the extent and
scale of operation as noise emissions would be capped by the ANL (60/50 dB(A) day/night) under the NCO.
According to the EIAO-TM, the construction noise standard for domestic
premises is Leq (30 minutes) 75 dB(A) and
that for education institute is Leq (30 minutes) 70 dB(A) (65 dB(A)
during examination period).
Construction noise levels due to this Project has been assessed based on
the plant inventory shown in Table
4‑9 and Table 4-10 for the Northern Portion and
Southern Portion of the Project Site, respectively. Noise due to concurrent construction works is
also assessed. The construction
programme and duration of concurrent construction activities are also provided
in Appendix 1-1. Table
4‑11 below
shows the predicted unmitigated construction noise levels at the representative
NSRs due to construction of this Project, which represents the unmitigated
scenario. The geographical locations of
the NSRs are also depicted in Figure 4-2A.
Based on the results, the unmitigated noise levels due to construction
activities of this Project at the representative NSRs would exceed the relevant
noise criteria specified in Table
4‑1 above. SWL information used for the noise
calculation, NSRs separation distance information, detailed results of
calculated construction noise levels at the NSRs, and sample calculations are also
provided in Appendix 4-3. As such, noise mitigation measures would be
required to alleviate the potential construction noise impacts (see Sections 4.8.1 and 4.8.2).
Table 4‑11 Estimated Unmitigated Construction Noise
Levels at Existing NSRs Under Worst Case Scenario
Note:
Please refer to Appendix 4-3
for the sample calculation and Figure 4-2A
for the NSR locations.
* Please
refer to Table 4‑9 and Table 4‑10 and Appendix 1-1 for the equipment
inventory, construction programme and duration of concurrent construction
activities.
Hatched numbers indicate
exceedance of the relevant noise criteria for construction activities.
The local road network
(i.e. Kam Pok Road, Yau Pok Road, Fairview Park Road and Fairview Park
Boulevard) are considered as the major noise sources potentially
affecting the proposed
development. The Project Site is bounded by
Yau Pok Road at the east, Kam Pok Road to the further east, and Fairview Park
Road and Fairview Park Boulevard at the south, respectively.
The information
on peak hour traffic volume and
percentage of heavy vehicle using these roads were provided by the Project traffic consultant and are shown in Table 4‑12, which represents the worst case scenario
of projected traffic flows. The
concerned traffic forecast data has been endorsed by TD (Appendix 4-1 refers). The
traffic projection has taken into account other nearby residential development
projects as well as the future Kam Pok Road Extension. Nearby residential development projects that
have been considered in the traffic forecast include but not be limited to the two
proposed residential developments at the R(D) zone east
of the Project Site, and proposed residential development at the OU(CDWPA) zone
northeast of the Project Site, etc.
As the projected
traffic flows during the peak hour in the morning (AM peak hour) is generally
higher than those in the afternoon, the peak hour traffic flows in the morning
were used for the assessment. A comparison
table between the projected AM and PM peak hour traffic flows is also provided
in Appendix 4-1 for reference.
Table 4‑12 Road Characteristics During
AM Peak Hour in Year 2035
|
Road Name |
Road Section |
Total, Veh./hr |
% Heavy Veh. |
Road Surface Type |
Speed, km/h |
|
Fung
Chuk Road |
- |
100 |
20 |
Impervious |
50 |
|
Ha
Chuk Yuen Road |
- |
100 |
20 |
Impervious |
50 |
|
Kam
Pok Road |
Fairview
Park Boulevard to Ha Chuk Yuen Road |
400 |
30 |
Impervious |
50 |
|
Kam
Pok Road |
Ha
Chuk Yuen Road and Castle Peak Road |
500 |
28 |
Impervious |
50 |
|
Yau
Pok Road |
- |
100 |
20 |
Impervious |
50 |
|
Fairview
Park Boulevard - EB |
- |
950 |
20 |
Impervious |
50 |
|
Fairview
Park Boulevard - WB |
- |
600 |
35 |
Impervious |
50 |
|
Fairview
Park Road South - EB |
- |
1050 |
5 |
Impervious |
50 |
|
Fairview
Park Road South - WB |
- |
650 |
5 |
Impervious |
50 |
In
addition, a sensitivity test on road traffic noise has also been undertaken
based on projected traffic flow data (year 2028) from the nearby approved
planning application (i.e. A/YL-MLP/170).
To be conservative, a 1% annual traffic flow growth rate has been used
in order to represent peak hour traffic flow in the assessment year of this
Project (i.e. year 2035). The projected
traffic flow data and the assessment results are also provided in Appendix 4-2A for reference.
An
assessment on the road traffic noise level at the NSRs based on the above
traffic flow data has been conducted and the results are presented in Appendix 4-2 and Appendix 4-2A, respectively, as unmitigated scenario. Based on the assessment results, the predicted
road traffic noise would exceed the relevant noise criteria.
As such, precautionary noise measures have been proposed
for this Project to
alleviate road traffic noise impacts, these
measures have been included in the road traffic noise assessment as mitigated
scenario (Figure 4-3B refers). The concerned measures include:
·
2.5m to 4m tall noise barriers along portion of the southern and southeastern site boundary above a
site formation level of 5.4mPD.
·
Fixed glazing or blank façade facing Yau Pok Road
at residential buildings R100 and R94, as shown in Figure 4-3B).
Incorporation of the above mentioned precautionary
measures have been accepted by the Project Proponent and the Project Architect.
With
these precautionary noise measures, the mitigated road traffic noise levels
(based on projected traffic flow data of this Project) at the representative
NSRs are presented in Table
4‑13 below. Details of the estimated road traffic noise
levels are also depicted in Appendix 4-2.
The assessment results show that all
representative NSRs will not be subject to unacceptable traffic noise impact
from the surrounding road networks. A
100% compliance of the noise criterion of L10(1
hour) 70 dB(A) is expected, and no additional noise mitigation measures
would be necessary.
Table 4‑13 Range of Predicted Road Traffic Noise
Levels at Representative NSRs
|
NSR ID |
Noise Criteria, dB(A) |
Range of Estimated Noise Level, L10dB(A) |
|
N01A – N30A |
70 |
51 - 69 |
Remark:
Please refer to Appendix 4-2 for the
estimated noise levels at each NSR and Figures
4-3B for the geographical locations of NSRs.
In
addition to the above, a sensitivity test on road traffic noise based on
projected traffic flow data from the nearby approved planning application (i.e.
A/YL-MLP/170) was also carried out. The
assessment results are provided in Appendix
4-2A for reference. According to the
assessment results, a 100% compliance of the noise criterion of L10 (1 hour) 70dB(A) is expected with the proposed precautionary noise
measures. Thus, no additional noise
mitigation measures would be necessary.
As discussed in Section
4.4.2 above, there is an
existing floodwater pumping station (i.e. Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station)
in the Assessment Area. The potential impacts
due to operation of the pumping station are evaluated further in the following
paragraphs.
It
was found that the totally enclosed Chuk Yuen Floodwater pumping station,
managed by Hong Kong Government Drainage Services Department (DSD) is located
to the east of the Project Site on the opposite side of the existing Ngau Tam Mei
Channel. This pumping station is a
completely enclosed structure and it is designed for discharge of collected
rainwater during heavy rainfall, i.e. it will only operate under extreme
condition when there is a threat of flooding in the area under extreme storm
event.
According
to the approved EIA report of this pumping station under the “Main Drainage
Channels for Ngau Tam Mei, Yuen Long and Kam Tin” project, Sound Pressure Level
immediately outside the louver at the pumping station is 79 dB(A). Thus, noise level at the representative NSR
location of this Project is calculated, and the result is also presented in Table 4‑14. Geographical
locations of the NSRs are also shown in Figure
4-5.
Table 4‑14 Calculated
Noise Level at the Existing Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station and Sound
Pressure Level from Approved EIA Report
|
NSR ID |
Noise Level in the Approved EIA report, dB(A) |
Horizontal Distance between NSR and the Pumping
Station, m |
Distance Correction, dB(A) |
Façade
Correc-tion, dB(A) |
Calculated Noise Level at NSR, dB(A) |
|
NInd-4 |
79 # |
91 |
-47.2 |
3 |
35 |
|
Nind-3A |
79 # |
168 |
-53 |
3 |
29 |
Remark: #
According to Sections 8.3.6 and 8.3.7 of the “Main Drainage Channels for Ngau
Tam Mei, Yuen Long and Kam Tin” EIA Report in year 1996, the reverberant noise
Sound Pressure Level inside the plant room is 85dB(A). While the Sound Pressure level immediately
outside the louver at the pumping station is estimated by subtracting 6dB(A) from the reverberant Sound Pressure level (i.e. 85-6
= 79dB(A)).
Based
on information in the EIA report of the “Main Drainage Channels for Ngau Tam
Mei, Fan Long and Kam Tin” in year 1996, the noise level at nearby NSR location
of this Project is within the noise criteria described in Table 4‑3 above.
As
for the proposed sewage pumping station, according to the
approved EIA report, namely the “EIA and TIA Studies for the Stage 2 of PWP Item No.
215DS - Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal”, Ngau Tam Mei SPS has been proposed about 345m north-east from the Northern
Portion of the Project Site and over 670m from the proposed residential
development within the Southern Portion of the Project Site. The approximate location of the proposed SPS,
based on the above EIA report, is shown in Figure
4-5. According to the same, this
future SPS will be self-protected with openings or louvers directed away from
NSRs. It is a requirement in the approved
EIA Report that the SPS has to be designed to minimize potential noise impact
to the nearby NRS locations. Mitigation
measures such as acoustic enclosure, silencer at inlet and outlet,
anti-vibration spring mount, and acoustic louver are required during the detailed
design of the SPS.
Since the separation distance between the SPS and proposed
NSRs of this Project is over 670m, it is anticipated that the proposed
development will not be subject to any unacceptable noise impact due to
operation of the proposed SPS in the future.
Site Survey Results and Background
Measurement
Although there are a few existing industrial
activities located outside the Project Site boundary, they are relatively far
away from the Project Site. Based on interview results
with operators of these industrial sites, these sites have no night-time
operation. Further on-site observation/
visits conducted between February 2008 and
October 2013 also
confirm this finding and the industrial sites were found to be closed around
7pm.
In addition to the
above, night-time noise measurements were also carried out for 7 consecutive
days near the industrial sites during nighttime period (2300 hrs to 0300 hrs)
in May 2009 using Brüel &
Kjaer (B&K) Precision Integration Sound Level Meter Type 2238, which
complies with International Electrotechnical Commission Publications 651:1979
(Type 1) and 804:1985 (Type 1). The
noise measurement location is shown in Figure
App 4-8A-1 in Appendix 4-8A. This noise measurement location has been
selected as it has a direct line of sight to the concerned industrial sites and
is not affected by the nearby road traffic such as Fairview Park Boulevard and
Kam Pok Road, thus it is considered representative. The weather condition was good with calm wind
condition (<5m/s) during measurement, which satisfies the required criteria.
The equipment was properly calibrated immediately prior to and following each
measurement by a B&K Sound Level Calibrator Type 4321. The noise levels
before and after measurement agreed to within 1.0dB. The
microphone was oriented and pointed towards Ha Chuk Yuen Road and was mounted above the existing
hoarding at the peripheral of Project site boundary using an extension rod in a
free-field condition to obtain a more representative baseline condition of the
Project Site. Noise levels were
recorded in 5 minutes intervals during each noise measurement time period and
for 7 consecutive days. A +3 dB(A) correction factor has been applied to the measured
noise levels in order to represent the façade noise levels. At the time of noise measurement, there was
no noise generating activities within the Project Site as well as the
industrial sites, and the noise reading was due to surrounding environment such
as road traffic, dog barking and crowd noise from the nearby village
development at Ha Chuk Yuen Tsuen.
According to the night-time noise survey results, the measured noise
level (with facade correction) ranged from 45 dB(A) to
51 dB(A), with an average value of 49 dB(A), which further confirms the absence
of noisy industrial activities during the night-time period. Please refers to Appendix 4-8A for details of the noise data.
Furthermore, background
noise measurement was also undertaken near the Project Site boundary during
night-time period (2300 hrs to 0300 hrs) to measure the prevailing background noise
level using Brüel & Kjaer (B&K) Precision Integration Sound Level Meter
Type 2238 and 2236, which comply with International Electrotechnical Commission
Publications 651:1979 (Type 1) and 804:1985 (Type 1). The weather condition was good with calm wind
condition (<5m/s) during measurement, which satisfies the required criteria.
The equipment was properly calibrated immediately prior to and following each
measurement by a B&K Sound Level Calibrator Type 4321. The noise levels
before and after measurement agreed to within 1.0dB. The microphone was
oriented and pointed towards Kam Pok Road and is 1.2m above
ground level in a free-field condition to obtain a
representative baseline condition of the Project Site. Noise levels were recorded in 5
minutes intervals during the above noise measurement time period. A +3 dB(A)
correction factor has been applied to the measured noise levels in order to
represent the façade noise levels.
The noise
measurement period and duration of the baseline noise measurement are also
summarized in Table 4‑15. The background noise measurement locations
are shown in Figure 4-1, and details
of the background noise measurement results are also provided in Appendix 4-8.
Table
4‑15 Baseline Noise Measurement Location and
Time Periods
|
Date |
Measurement Location |
Measurement Time |
|
Night-time
Background Noise Measurement: |
||
|
26/08/2010
to 27/08/2010 |
At
Project Site boundary |
from 23:00 to 03:00 on the following day |
|
22/02/2013
to 23/02/2013 |
At
Project Site boundary |
from 23:00 to 03:00 on the following day |
At the
time of measurement, there was no operation at the identified industrial
sites. The noise reading recorded at the
Northern Portion of the Project Site was due to surrounding environment such as
local road traffic noise, dog barking and crowd noise from the nearby residential
development at Fairview Park. While the
noise reading recorded at the Southern Portion of the Project Site was mainly
due to road traffic from the adjacent Fairview Park Boulevard and noise from
the residential development at Fairview Park.
Therefore, the measured noise level is representative of the background
noise level at the Project Site.
According
to the noise data, the average background noise level (Leq, façade level)
recorded at the Project Site during the above-mentioned night-time period was 55dB(A) at location B1 and 51dB(A) at location B2 (see Appendix 4-8). As the lowest noise level recorded at the Project Site during the
night-time background noise measurement was 51dB(A)
(façade noise level), which is higher that of the “ANL-5” criteria (i.e.
45dB(A)), the “ANL-5” noise criteria is used for the noise assessment
accordingly.
In addition to the
night-time noise survey, day time background noise measurement was also
undertaken near the Project Site in March 2010, July 2010, and February
2013. During the noise measurement, the recorded
noise levels were dominant by the surrounding environment such as
road traffic and crowd noise from the nearby Fairview Park. The recorded average background noise level
(façade level) was 63dB(A) at location B1 and 56dB(A)
at location B2. As the lowest noise level recorded at the
Project Site during the day-time background noise measurement was 56dB(A) (façade noise level), which is higher that of the
“ANL-5” criteria (i.e. 55dB(A)), the “ANL-5” noise criteria is used for the
noise assessment accordingly. The
background noise measurement location is shown in Figure 4-1, and the noise data is also provided in Appendix 4-8.
Industrial Noise Assessment Results (Based on
Field Survey)
There are several
industrial operations identified within the Project Assessment Area (Figures 4-4A and 4-4B refer). As discussed above
the identified industrial sites have no night-time operation based on site
observations from February 2008 to October 2013 (over 5 years’ observations). In
addition, night-time noise measurements were carried out and no operation of
the industrial sites during night-time period was observed.
Additional night-time
noise surveys have also been undertaken for 7 consecutive days, which further confirms
the absence of noisy industrial activities during the night-time period. As night-time operation of
industrial sites was not observed, day-time noise assessment was undertaken
below.
For the industrial
noise assessment, the identified industrial noise sources, number of plants,
and the observed existing condition on-site are summarised in Table
4‑4 and Figure
4-4A, which are also reproduced below:
Open Storage Site:
·
Loading and unloading using
forklift x 1 No.
·
Lifting of container/ materials by mobile
crane x 1 No.
·
Moving in/out of lorry x 1 No.
·
General operation of
warehouse x 1 No.
Enclosed Godown :
·
Loading and unloading using
forklift x 1 No.
·
Moving in/out of lorry x 1 No.
The recorded number of plants at each industrial site and sound power
levels of the plants are also summarized in Appendix 4-7-1 in Appendix
4-7, which are used in the noise assessment for projecting the noise level
at the planned NSRs under this Project. The geographical locations of NSRs used
for the noise assessment is provided in Figure
4-4A.
Although it is
unlikely that all the identified industrial noise sources will be in operation
simultaneously, to be conservative, it has been assumed that all the
identified noise sources are in operation at the same time, which also represents
a worst case scenario. Noise sources are assumed to operate continuously
instead of in occasion as observed onsite and all noise sources are regarded as
point source.
Detailed noise calculations and assumptions based on field observations are
provided in Appendix 4-7. Based on the noise assessment results, the
estimated noise levels due to identified fixed noise sources can comply with
the day-time noise criteria specified in Table
4‑3 above (i.e.
55dB(A)). Therefore, no unacceptable industrial noise impact is
anticipated, and no noise mitigation measure will be required for this Project.
During operation of this Project, direct line of
sight from the Project Site to these industrial activities will be blocked by
an approved residential development (planning application No.
A/YL-MP/170) within “Residential (Group D)” zone to the east of Ngau Tam Mei
Channel and its associated 7.5m high with 0.5m cantilevered noise barrier along
the eastern site boundary. Thus, it is
expected that noise impacts to the Project Site due to operation of these
industrial activities are not significant. Nevertheless, to be conservative, the above
noise assessment was based on the absence of the concerned planned noise
barrier.
Further Industrial Noise Assessment Based on Worst Case Scenario
As mentioned in Section 4.4.2 above, the
concerned two industrial sites include an open storage site and its associated
warehouse, and an enclosed godown. The type and no. of noisy
equipment used for the above noise assessment has been verified through continuous site surveys,
which can represent the operational activities of the concerned industrial
sites to date.
It shall be noted there are existing
NSRs nearby the Project Site and the industrial sites, which are worst affected by the concerned industrial
activities (due to shorter separation distance) (Section 4.6.2.2
refers). These
existing NSRs include Villa Camilla to the south of the open storage site and
village houses at Ha San Wai village to the southeast of the godown as shown in Figure 4-4A. The operation of the concerned
industrial sites will also need to comply with the relevant noise criteria
(ANL) with respect to these existing NSRs. For establishment of worst case scenario, it
is therefore assumed that the existence of NSRs would limit the extent and
scale of operation as noise emissions would be capped by the ANL (60/50 dB(A) day/night) under the NCO. Details are provided in the following
paragraphs.
Open Storage Site
For the open
storage site, as the majority of the site is used for storage of precast
units, the remaining land area would limit the maximum no. of noisy equipment
that can be used in any one time. Also,
for safety reason it is unlikely that additional mobile crane can be used
on-site within a limited site
area. Taking into account the site condition
and the ANL at nearest NSR, a sensitivity test has been carried out by assuming
a maximum of 2 lorries to be used during day-time
(i.e. one lorry leaving the site while another lorry arriving the site). This would represent the worst case scenario
of the operation of this industrial site
during day-time. For the night-time operation,
although no night-time works were observed, assumption has been made by
assuming the workshop operates during night-time in the worst case scenario. These are summarised below:
·
Day-time:
-
Loading and unloading using
forklift x 1 No.
-
Lifting of container/ materials by mobile
crane x 1 No.
-
Moving in/out of lorry x 2 Nos.
-
General operation of
warehouse x 1 No.
·
Night-time:
-
General operation of
warehouse x 1 No.
Enclosed Godown
For the enclosed godown, based on site observation, operation of this site will involve loading
and unloading by forklift and movement of lorry with limited traffic flow in
and out of the godown. Taking into
account the site condition (where most of the site area is occupied by totally
enclosed building structures with limited open
space available for parking of equipment) and the ANL at its nearest NSR at Ha
San Wai village, a sensitivity test has been carried out by assuming a maximum
of 3 lorries (i.e. one leaving the site; one unloading materials; and one
arriving the site) and a maximum of 2 forklifts (one loading materials onto the
lorry and one unloading materials from lorry), respectively during day-time. Further increase in equipment will not be
feasible due to site constraints. For
the night-time operation, although no night-time works were observed at this
site, assumption has been made by assuming that the forklifts are used at night
within the godown. These are summarised
below:
·
Day-time:
-
Loading and unloading using
forklift x 2 No.
-
Moving in/out of lorry x 3 Nos.
·
Night-time:
-
Loading and unloading using
forklift x 2 No.
The above assumptions regarding the open storage
site and the godown have been counter-checked against the ANL at existing
nearest NSR for each of the industrial sites, and the results are shown in Appendix 4-7A. Based on the assumption mentioned above, the
ANLs at the nearest NSR (both day-time and
night-time) can just be met. Thus,
the assumption on noisy equipment would represent the operation of industrial
sites under a worst case scenario.
As such, the noise level at the Project Site was
then projected based on the same assumption.
According to the assessment results (Appendix 4-7B and Appendix
4-7C), the calculated noise levels at the NSRs of this Project would comply
with the relevant noise criteria (ANL -5) for both day time and night-time
period. Therefore, the Project Site is
not affected by the industrial noise sources and no noise mitigation measures
will be necessary.
To be conservative, cumulative noise level due
to the existing Chuk Yuen Pumping Station and the identified industrial noise
sources at the representative NSR locations are also calculated and the results
are provided in Appendix 4-7D.
Based on the results, the estimated cumulative
noise levels can comply with the relevant noise criteria specified in Table
4‑3 above.
Therefore, no unacceptable industrial noise impact is anticipated.
As discussed in Section 4.4.2, there is a small existing petrol filling station
within the boundary of Fairview Park and to the south of the Project Site. The petrol filling station is
within Fairview Park and access is controlled by an existing vehicular
entrance/ security gate at Fairview Park. According to Section 4.4.2, the noise sources due to operation of the petrol
filling station include movement of vehicles in
and out of the station, and the refilling process of the underground storage
tank during day-time. While, movement of
vehicles in and out of the station is the only noise source identified during
night-time as there is no refilling of underground storage tank at night. It shall be noted that there are existing residential houses surrounding the
petrol filling station at Fairview Park with a separation distance as short as
about 23m (Figure 4-4C) and would be
worst affected by the operation of the petrol filling station. In addition, access to the petrol filling
station will be controlled through the existing vehicular access/ security gate
at Fairview Park.
Background noise measurement was undertaken in
adjacent to Fairview Park as detailed in Section 4.3.2.2. As background
noise level recorded in adjacent to Fairview Park was 63dB(A)
during day-time and 55 dB(A) at night (see Section 4.3.2.2), the ANL-5 criteria (i.e. 55dB(A) for day-time and
45dB(A) for night-time) has been adopted in the noise assessment.
Day-time Petrol Filling Station Operation Noise Impact
Noise estimation was undertaken at
representative NSR locations (Figure 4-4C
refers) based on the same methodology described in Section 4.6.2.2. The selected NSRs
are representative as they are nearest to the filling station and are
considered worst affected by the filling station. Based on the assessment results (Appendix 4-7E refers), the unmitigated
noise level due to the day-time operation of the petrol filling station (up to 58dB(A)) would exceed the above-mentioned day-time noise
criteria (55dB(A)). Thus, noise mitigation measures would be required.
It is estimated that a section of 4m to 4.5m tall noise barrier above a
site formation level of 5.4mPD will be required between the petrol filling
station and the Project Site in order to shield its operational noise (Figure
4-4C refers). With the proposed
noise barrier, the noise level would be within the day-time noise criteria and
no adverse noise impact is anticipated.
The proposed
noise barrier along the southern boundary of the site is required not only to
alleviate noise impact from the petrol filling station, but also to screen off such
visually intrusive use from the future residents.
Night-time Petrol Filling Station Operation Noise Impact
As
the petrol filling station will also operate at night, a further noise
assessment taking into account the noise source of the petrol filling station during
night-time period as identified in Section 4.7.3.4 (i.e. movement of
vehicles within the petrol filling station during nighttime operation), has
also been provided in Appendix 4-7F.
Based
on the assessment results provided in Appendix
4-7F, the unmitigated noise levels (up to 53dB(A))
would exceed the relevant night-time noise criteria (i.e. 45dB(A)) at NSRs. With the proposed 4m to 4.5m tall boundary noise
barriers as shown in Figure 4-4C,
the noise level due to night-time operation of the petrol filling station would
comply with the relevant night-time noise criteria (45dB(A)), and no adverse
noise impact is anticipated.
Cumulative Noise Due to Petrol Filling
Station and Industrial Noise Sources
A
cumulative noise impact assessment taking into account operation of the petrol
filling station and operation of the fixed noise sources (i.e. open storage site and the godown to the east of the
Project Site), have been conducted.
According to the assessment results with mitigations presented in Appendix 4-7G, the cumulative noise
level would be within the relevant noise criteria. Thus, no adverse noise impact is expected.
As discussed in
Section 4.7.2 above, 2.5m to 4m tall noise barriers have been proposed along portion of the southern and southeastern site boundary in order to
alleviate road traffic noise impacts. Fixed glazing or blank façade is also proposed for residential
buildings R100 and R94. Please refer to Figure 4-3B for details.
Noise impacts due to operation of petrol filling
station have also been assessed accordingly in Section 4.7.3.4. It is found that a section of 4m to 4.5m tall
noise barrier will be required between the petrol filling station and the
Project Site in order to provide noise shielding to the proposed houses at the
rear side (Figure 4-4C refers). As boundary noise
barriers are also proposed at the same location due to road traffic noise, the concerned
4.5m tall barrier can be combined with those
proposed for road traffic noise to serve both purposes (see Figure 4-7).
For industrial sites to the east of the Project
Site, they are relatively far away from Project Site (over 200 m), thus no
adverse noise impacts are anticipated due to operation of the industrial
sites. An assessment based on worst
case scenario has been undertaken (see Section 4.7.3.2) and the estimated noise levels at NSRs of this
Project was found to be within the relevant noise criteria, thus no noise
mitigation measures will be necessary.
With the above noise mitigation measures, noise
impact assessment results have shown that the relevant noise criteria would be
complied with and there will be no adverse noise impact. The proposed noise
mitigation measures are practicable and welly adopted practices, no side
effects or constraints due to inclusion of such measures are expected.
To summarise the findings, Figure 4-7 summarises the proposed noise mitigation measures
during the operational phase.
Since the estimated unmitigated noise level at
NSRs would exceed the relevant noise criteria, EPD’s quality powered mechanical
equipment (QPME) inventory is reviewed and proposed to be used wherever
possible as a noise mitigation measure. The
Contractor of this Project should diligently seek equivalent models of quiet/
silenced PMEs, and the requirement will be included in the Project EM&A
Manual. The updated equipment inventory is
shown in Table 4-16
and Table 4-17.
Table
4‑16 Inventory of QPMEs To
Be Used in Northern Portion
|
Construction Activity |
Sub.
Work Group # |
Powered Mechanical Equipment |
TM Ref. |
Quantity |
SWL per unit,
dB(A) |
|
|
Site Formation, Filling and Excavation |
A1 |
Excavation and Filling |
Air Compressor |
CNP001 |
4 |
100 |
|
|
|
Excavator |
KATO model HD820V (EPD-01233) |
6 |
99 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP103 |
6 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Dump Truck |
EPD * |
6 |
105 |
|
|
A2 |
Breaking excavated hard/
oversize materials |
Breaker, Excavator mounted |
EPD * |
2 |
115 |
|
|
Excavator |
KATO model HD820V (EPD-01233) |
1 |
99 |
|||
|
A3 |
Ground Compression |
Roller, vibratory |
SAKAI model SW250-1 (EPD-00509) |
8 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Bulldozer |
Komatsu model D21A-8 |
8 |
102 |
|
|
Construction of Underground Services and Utilities |
B1 |
Earthwork |
Breaker, Excavator mounted |
EPD * |
1 |
115 |
|
|
|
Dump Truck |
EPD * |
3 |
105 |
|
|
|
|
Excavator |
EPD * |
3 |
94 |
|
|
B2 |
Utilities laying |
Air Compressor |
CNP001 |
2 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP103 |
3 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
EPD * |
2 |
105 |
|
|
|
|
Water Pump, Submersible
(Electric) |
CNP283 |
3 |
85 |
|
|
B3 |
Ground reinstatement |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
2 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Power Rammer (Petrol) |
Dynapac model LT700 (EPD-00536) |
2 |
107 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, Vibratory,
Hand-held |
EPD * |
2 |
102 |
|
|
|
|
Roller, Vibratory |
SAKAI model SW250-1 (EPD-00509) |
2 |
95 |
|
|
Road works |
C1 |
Earthwork |
Dump Truck |
EPD * |
3 |
105 |
|
|
|
Excavator |
KATO model HD820V (EPD-01233) |
2 |
99 |
|
|
C2 |
Concreting Works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
2 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP103 |
3 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, Vibratory,
Hand-held |
EPD * |
2 |
102 |
|
|
C3 |
Road Finishing |
Air Compressor |
CNP001 |
2 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
Asphalt Paver |
VOLVO model. No.
ABG5770 (EPD-01226) |
2 |
104 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP103 |
3 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
EPD * |
2 |
105 |
|
|
|
|
Power Rammer (Petrol) |
Dynapac model LT700 (EPD-00536) |
2 |
107 |
|
|
|
|
Road Roller |
HITACHI model CP220-3 (EPD-01183) |
2 |
97 |
|
|
Foundation |
D1 |
General foundation
construction |
Air Compressor |
CNP001 |
4 |
100 |
|
|
|
Bar bender and cutter
(electric) |
CNP021 |
6 |
90 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP103 |
3 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Drill/grinder, hand-held
(electric) |
CNP065 |
6 |
98 |
|
|
|
|
Saw, circular, wood |
CNP201 |
3 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Water pump, submersible
(electric) |
CNP283 |
6 |
85 |
|
|
|
|
Excavator |
KATO model HD820V (EPD-01233) |
4 |
99 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
EPD * |
3 |
105 |
|
|
|
|
Mobile Crane |
Hitachi Sumitomo SCX700,
132kW |
2 |
101 |
|
|
D2 |
Piling works |
Generator, standard |
CNP103 |
3 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Continuous Flight Auger
(CFA) piles (piling, earth auger) |
CNP167 |
3 |
114 |
|
|
D3 |
Concreting works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
3 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP103 |
3 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, vibratory,
hand-held |
EPD * |
3 |
102 |
|
|
Superstructure |
E1 |
General construction works |
Air Compressor |
CNP001 |
4 |
100 |
|
|
|
Bar bender and cutter
(electric) |
CNP021 |
6 |
90 |
|
|
|
|
Mobile Crane |
Hitachi Sumitomo SCX700,
132kW |
2 |
101 |
|
|
|
|
Drill/grinder, hand-held
(electric) |
CNP065 |
6 |
98 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP103 |
4 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Saw, circular, wood |
CNP201 |
10 |
108 |
|
|
E2 |
Concreting works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
4 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Concrete Pump |
CNP047 |
2 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP103 |
4 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, vibratory,
hand-held |
EPD * |
3 |
102 |
|
|
Dump Trucks Travelling on Haul Road during site
formation (Veh./hr) |
F |
Dump Truck (Moving on Haul
Road) |
Dump Truck |
CNP067 |
10 |
117 |
Remark: # Each Construction Activity has been
divided into several sub. work groups based on the
sequence of construction works. The
respective sub-work groups of each Construction Activity will not overlap with
one another.
The calculated highest SWLs of each Construction Activity
used for construction noise impact assessment, are provided in Appendix 4-4.
* EPD
website: http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/application_for_licences/guidance/files/OtherSWLe.pdf
Table
4‑17 Inventory of QPMEs To
Be Used in Southern Portion
|
Construction Activity |
Sub.
Work Group # |
Powered Mechanical Equipment |
TM Ref. |
Quantity |
SWL per unit,
dB(A) |
|
|
Site Formation, Filling and Excavation |
A1 |
Excavation and Filling |
Air Compressor |
CNP001 |
3 |
100 |
|
|
|
Excavator |
KATO model HD820V (EPD-01233) |
4 |
99 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP103 |
3 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Dump Truck |
EPD * |
4 |
105 |
|
|
A2 |
Breaking excavated hard/
oversize materials |
Breaker, Excavator mounted |
EPD * |
1 |
115 |
|
|
Excavator |
KATO model HD820V (EPD-01233) |
1 |
99 |
|||
|
A3 |
Ground Compression |
Roller, vibratory |
SAKAI model SW250-1 (EPD-00509) |
4 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Bulldozer |
Komatsu model D21A-8 |
4 |
102 |
|
|
Construction of Underground Services and Utilities |
B1 |
Earthwork |
Breaker, Excavator mounted |
EPD * |
1 |
115 |
|
|
|
Dump Truck |
EPD * |
2 |
105 |
|
|
|
|
Excavator |
EPD * |
2 |
94 |
|
|
B2 |
Utilities laying |
Air Compressor |
CNP001 |
3 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP103 |
4 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
EPD * |
2 |
105 |
|
|
|
|
Water Pump, Submersible
(Electric) |
CNP283 |
2 |
85 |
|
|
B3 |
Ground reinstatement |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
2 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Power Rammer (Petrol) |
Dynapac model LT700 (EPD-00536) |
2 |
107 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, Vibratory,
Hand-held |
EPD * |
2 |
102 |
|
|
|
|
Roller, Vibratory |
SAKAI model SW250-1 (EPD-00509) |
2 |
95 |
|
|
Road works |
C1 |
Earthwork |
Dump Truck |
EPD * |
4 |
105 |
|
|
|
Excavator |
KATO model HD820V (EPD-01233) |
3 |
99 |
|
|
C2 |
Concreting Works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
3 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP103 |
4 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, Vibratory,
Hand-held |
EPD * |
2 |
102 |
|
|
C3 |
Road Finishing |
Air Compressor |
CNP001 |
3 |
100 |
|
|
|
|
Asphalt Paver |
VOLVO model. No.
ABG5770 (EPD-01226) |
3 |
104 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, Standard |
CNP103 |
3 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
EPD * |
2 |
105 |
|
|
|
|
Power Rammer (Petrol) |
Dynapac model LT700 (EPD-00536) |
2 |
107 |
|
|
|
|
Road Roller |
HITACHI model CP220-3 (EPD-01183) |
2 |
97 |
|
|
Foundation |
D1 |
General foundation
construction |
Air Compressor |
CNP001 |
6 |
100 |
|
|
|
Bar bender and cutter
(electric) |
CNP021 |
6 |
90 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP103 |
4 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Drill/grinder, hand-held
(electric) |
CNP065 |
6 |
98 |
|
|
|
|
Saw, circular, wood |
CNP201 |
5 |
108 |
|
|
|
|
Water pump, submersible
(electric) |
CNP283 |
6 |
85 |
|
|
|
|
Excavator |
KATO model HD820V (EPD-01233) |
3 |
99 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
EPD * |
3 |
105 |
|
|
|
|
Mobile Crane |
Hitachi Sumitomo SCX700,
132kW |
3 |
101 |
|
|
D2 |
Piling works |
Generator, standard |
CNP103 |
4 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Continuous Flight Auger
(CFA) piles (piling, earth auger) |
CNP167 |
3 |
114 |
|
|
D3 |
Concreting works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
4 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP103 |
4 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, vibratory,
hand-held |
EPD * |
4 |
102 |
|
|
Superstructure |
E1 |
General construction works |
Air Compressor |
CNP001 |
7 |
100 |
|
|
|
Bar bender and cutter
(electric) |
CNP021 |
11 |
90 |
|
|
|
|
Mobile Crane |
Hitachi Sumitomo SCX700,
132kW |
5 |
101 |
|
|
|
|
Drill/grinder, hand-held
(electric) |
CNP065 |
11 |
98 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP103 |
7 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Saw, circular, wood |
CNP201 |
11 |
108 |
|
|
E2 |
Concreting works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
4 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Concrete Pump |
CNP047 |
2 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP103 |
6 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, vibratory,
hand-held |
EPD * |
3 |
102 |
|
|
Sub-structure (pile cap) |
F1 |
General pile cap
construction |
Bar bender and cutter
(electric) |
CNP021 |
10 |
90 |
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP103 |
5 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Lorry |
EPD * |
2 |
105 |
|
|
F2 |
Concreting works |
Concrete Lorry Mixer |
CNP044 |
4 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Concrete Pump |
CNP047 |
2 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
Generator, standard |
CNP103 |
6 |
95 |
|
|
|
|
Poker, vibratory,
hand-held |
EPD * |
3 |
102 |
|
|
F3 |
Backfill and reinstate |
Excavator |
KATO model HD820V (EPD-01233) |
2 |
99 |
|
|
|
|
Roller, vibratory |
SAKAI model SW250-1 (EPD-00509) |
1 |
95 |
|
|
Dump Trucks Travelling on Haul Road during site
formation (Veh./hr) |
F |
Dump Truck (Moving on Haul
Road) |
Dump Truck |
EPD * |
10 |
105 |
Remark: # Each Construction Activity has been
divided into several sub. work groups based on the
sequence of construction works. The
respective sub-work groups of each Construction Activity will not overlap with
one another.
The calculated highest SWLs of each Construction Activity
used for construction noise impact assessment, are provided in Appendix 4-4.
* EPD
website: http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/application_for_licences/guidance/files/OtherSWLe.pdf
Asides from QPMEs,
additional noise mitigation measures in terms of movable noise barriers are
also proposed to shield construction plants
from NSRs (see plant inventory in Appendix
4-4), and acoustic shielding material should also be provided to shield the
piling machine (i.e. Continuous Flight Auger).
The movable noise barriers/ acoustic shielding materials should have sufficient surface density of at
least 10 kg/m2 or material providing equivalent acoustic performance
to block the line of sight from the sensitive receivers. There should not be
any gaps and openings at the noise barriers and site hoardings to avoid noise
leakage. The design of the noise
barriers shall be proposed by the work contractor(s), and approved by the
Engineers Representative (RE) and the Environmental Team in accordance with the
Project EM&A Manual.
According to EIAO Guidance Note No. 9/2010, with
provision of noise barriers, a 5dB(A) noise reduction for movable plant, 10
dB(A) for stationary plant and 15 dB(A) for enclosed ones are assumed.
The estimated noise level at both existing
and planned NSRs with the adoption of QPMEs and movable noise barriers are
provided in Table 4‑18 and Appendix
4-4.
According to the
results, with the adoption of QPMEs and movable noise barriers, the
construction noise levels can be significantly reduced and would comply with
the relevant noise criteria. The only
exception is at Bethel High School (i.e. N10), which slightly exceeds the noise
criteria specified for schools (i.e. 70dB(A)). Thus, further noise mitigation measures would
be required at this location.
Table 4‑18 Estimated Mitigated Construction Noise
Levels at NSRs With the Use of QPMEs and
Movable Noise Barriers
Note:
Please refer to Appendix 4-4 for the sample calculation and Figure 4-2A for the NSR locations.
* Please refer to the Table 4-16 and Table 4-17 and Appendix 1-1 for the construction plant
inventory, construction programme and the duration of concurrent construction
activities.
Hatched numbers indicate exceedance of the relevant noise criteria for
construction activities.
In addition to the above-mentioned noise
mitigation measures, fixed temporary noise barrier is also proposed in adjacent
to the school (i.e. NSR N10) in order to alleviate the elevated construction
noise level over there. The existing NSRs
N3 and N4 nearby will also be benefited by the proposed fixed temporary noise
barrier.
In order to ensure construction noise is
controlled throughout the construction period, fixed noise barriers shall be
erected before the commencement of construction works. It is estimated that 9m high temporary fixed
noise barriers (with top level at 14.4mPD level) shall be sufficient to shield
the concerned school from construction activities within the Project Site. Temporary
fixed noise barrier (5.5m tall and with top level at 10.9mPD) can also provide
additional noise shielding to adjacent NSRs such as N3 and N4. Also, standard site hoarding of 3m tall will
also be erected along the site boundary. Since site hoarding will be erected
along the site boundary, the concerned noise barrier may be combined with the
site hoarding.
Figure 4-6 shows
the indicative location of the proposed temporary noise barriers. Since site hoarding will be erected along the
site boundary, the concerned noise barrier may be combined with the site
hoarding. The exact alignment and design is subject to the contractor(s) and
the prior approval from the Resident Engineer (RE). Cross sectional diagram showing the proposed
noise barrier and nearby sensitive uses are also provided in Figure 4-6A. As the proposed temporary fixed noise barrier
will be 9m tall, there will be excavation and filling activities to level up
the existing ground level for the foundation of the noise barrier. To minimize potential impact, erection of
temporary fixed noise barriers will be carried out section by section and
precast units will be used for the foundation of the noise barrier. These noise barriers
shall be erected before
the commencement of construction works.
The temporary fixed
noise barriers should have sufficient surface density of at least 10 kg/m2
or material providing equivalent acoustic performance. There should not be any
gaps and openings at the noise barriers and site hoardings to avoid noise leakage. The design of the noise barriers shall be
proposed by the work contractor(s), and approved by the Engineers
Representative (RE) and the Environmental Team in accordance with the Project
EM&A Manual.
The
estimated noise level at N10, N3 and N4 with the adoption of temporary fixed
noise barriers, are depicted in Appendix
4-4A. By using a combination of QPMEs, movable noise barriers, and temporary
fixed construction noise barriers, the mitigated construction noise levels at the
concerned NSR would be significantly reduced and would comply with the relevant
noise criteria. All the proposed noise
mitigation measures are practicable and welly adopted in construction industry,
no side effects or constraints due to inclusion of such measures are expected.
All the mitigated construction noise levels would comply with the relevant
construction noise standard and no unacceptable noise impact is anticipated.
Table 4‑19 summarises the estimated
noise levels at the NSRs with the proposed noise mitigation measures. Based on
the assessment results, with the adoption of the above-mentioned noise
mitigation measures, the construction noise level due to this Project would be
within the relevant noise criteria.
Table
4‑19 Mitigated Construction Noise Levels With the Use of QPMEs, Movable Noise Barriers and Temp.
Fixed Noise Barriers #
Note: Please
refer to Appendix 4-4 and Appendix 4-4A for the sample
calculation and Figure 4-2A for the
NSR locations.
* Please refer to Appendix 1-1 for the construction
programme and the duration of concurrent construction activities.
# With
regard to the above, the mitigated noise level for the NSRs are based on those
presented in Table 4‑18 with the adoption of QPMEs and movable noise barriers. While, the mitigated noise levels for NSR N10
and N3 are based on those presented in Appendix
4-4A with the adoption of QPMEs, movable noise barriers and temp. fixed noise barrier. For NSR N4, the proposed temp. fixed noise barrier will also provide noise shielding to the
Southern Portion as shown in the noise calculation in Appendix 4-4A.
It is also recommended that good housekeeping activities shall also be
carried out to further minimize the potential construction noise impact, and
these are summarised below. The
following good site practices are also recommended for incorporation into the
contractual requirements.
l
Contractor shall comply with and observe the
Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) and its current subsidiary regulations;
l
Before the commencement of any work, the
Contractor shall submit to the Engineer for approval the method of working,
equipment and sound-reducing measures intended to be used at the Project Site;
l
Contractor shall devise and execute working
methods that will minimize the noise impact on the surrounding environment; and
shall provide experienced personnel with suitable training to ensure that these
methods are implemented;
l
Only well-maintained plants should be operated
on-site;
l
Plants should be serviced regularly during the
construction programme;
l
Machines that may be in intermittent use should
be shut down or throttled down to a minimum between work periods;
l
Silencer and mufflers on construction equipment
should be utilised and should be properly maintained during the construction
programme;
l
Noisy activities can be scheduled to minimize
exposure of nearby NSRs to high levels of construction noise. For example, noisy activities can be
scheduled for midday or at times coinciding with periods of high background
noise (such as during peak traffic hours);
l
Noisy equipment such as emergency generators
shall always be sited as far away as possible from noise sensitive receivers;
l
Provision of mobile noise barriers in adjacent
to construction plants (e.g. Continuous Flight Auger) shall also be considered
by the Contractor(s) where necessary;
l
Mobile plants should be sited as far away from
NSRs as possible; and
l
Material stockpiles and other structures should
be effectively utilised as noise barrier, where practicable.
l
The
contractor(s) is also encouraged to arrange construction activities with care
so that concurrent construction activities are avoided as much as
possible. The contractor(s) should
closely liaise with the school so that noisy activities are not undertaken
during school’s examination period. With
the above noise mitigation measures in place and good site practices, residual
noise impact at the school would be temporary and unacceptable noise impact is
not expected.
l Similar to other EIA projects, EM&A will be carried out for this Project during the Project construction phase in order to monitor the construction noise level and to verify the effectiveness of the noise mitigation measures. A Project Environmental Team will be formed as part of the Project EM&A works, which will closely monitor contractor(s)’ performance and the residual noise level at the school. Should unacceptable construction noise level be identified during the construction noise monitoring, necessary actions following the standard Event and Action Plan specified in the Project EM&A Manual, will be required by the Project Environmental Team.
Several development
projects have been identified nearby the Project Site, a list of which is
provided in Section 1.9. These include
approved EIA projects as well as planned development projects. For the approved EIA projects (i.e. the
planned public sewerage project; cycle track project), there is currently no
fixed construction programme available and overlapping of their works programme
with this Project cannot be precluded at this stage. However, to be conservative, these approved
projects have been taken into account in the cumulative noise assessment of
this Project. For the planned
development projects, since there is no committed development programme
available only those projects which have obtained approval from either the Town
Planning Ordinance or the EIA Ordinance (i.e. with public available information
regarding their development programme) have been taken into account in the
cumulative impact assessment. Planned
development projects which may overlap with this Project (i.e. planned “RD
Site” and planned “Kam Pok Road Site”) have been selected for cumulative noise
impact assessment. For the remaining
planned development project (i.e. planned “Yau Mei Site”), since no public
available information regarding its development programme is available and it
has not yet obtained any approval from the Government for the proposed
development, there is no information available for assessment and is not
considered further in the cumulative impact assessment.
Potential cumulative
impacts have been addressed in the following paragraphs.
Within the Assessment Area, there is a proposed public sewerage project
near Ngau Tam Mei Channel and Castle Peak Road between Ngau Tam Mei and San Tin
under PWP Item 4235DS. The concerned
public sewerage project has been assessed in a separate EIA report for “Yuen
Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Stage 2” (EIA Application No. EIA-094/2004). The concerned public sewerage project near
Ngau Tam Mei covers the construction of a section of gravity trunk sewer
underneath Kam Pok Road and Yau Pok Road as well as construction of proposed
Ngau Tam Mei Sewage Pumping Station (NTMSPS) near the road junction between Kam
Pok Road and Castle Peak Road.
The section of proposed public sewers and the NTMSPS are shown in Figure 4-2A. The construction of the above sewerage project has been addressed in the
above-mentioned EIA report. The EIA
report has stated that all works will be carried out in small section areas
within a short period. These activities should not generate significant amount
of construction dust and result in cumulative impact. It has also recommended in the same report
the construction works will be carried out in 50m segments. Since the concerned SPS is outside the 300m
radius Assessment Area (Figure 4-2A
refers), it is not considered further in this noise assessment.
There is currently no fixed construction programme for the
above-mentioned public sewerage project.
Since overlapping of construction programme of these projects with the
construction programme of this Project cannot be precluded at this stage,
cumulative construction noise due to construction of the public sewers and the
construction of this Project has been considered in this assessment as a worst
case scenario. Information such as the
plant inventory and SWLs has been extracted from the corresponding EIA report,
which is also summarised in Appendix 4-5. The calculated construction noise levels due
to these approved EIA projects are also presented in Appendix 4-5.
Asides from the proposed public sewerage works, there is also a proposed
alignment of cycle track between Sha Po Tsuen and Shek Sheung River (EIA
Application No. EIA 159/2008). The section of cycle track near the Project
Site will be constructed along the edge of Yau Pok Road on the other side of
existing Ngau Tam Mei Channel. According to the EIA report, the concerned
construction of cycle track project will involve construction of a narrow strip
of cycle track, which will be constructed in sections. Typically, the
working area will be 40 m long by 4 m wide and no adjacent sections (200m between two neighbouring sections) will be
constructed simultaneously. Currently, there is
no fixed construction programme for the cycle track project.
Construction plant inventory presented in the approved EIA report of the
above-mentioned projects has been adopted in this noise assessment. Although
concurrent construction of the above-mentioned approved EIA projects and this
Project is unlikely, cumulative construction noise impact has been assessed
based on the highest noise level predicted for the above approved projects (using
the shortest separation distance) and the highest noise level predicted for
this Project, and the results are presented in the following paragraphs. Since
the concerned approved EIA projects will be constructed in short sections (50m
for cycle track and 40m for public sewers), both the noise strength and duration
of construction nearby the NSRs would be smaller than that predicted in this
assessment.
As discussed earlier (Sections 1.9 and 4.9.1), there are other
planned development projects in adjacent to the Project Site which may overlap
in terms of time with works of this Project.
As the concerned planned development projects will be subject to approval
from both TPB and EIAO, and also subject to fulfillment of relevant approval
conditions, it is expected that overlapping of the peak construction activities
of these development sites will unlikely to occur. Thus, adverse impacts due to concurrent
construction of peak construction activities of these projects are not
anticipated. Having
said that, a sensitivity test based on the assumption of concurrent works has
been conducted to provide a more conservative assessment.
According to the EIA Study Brief of these planned development
projects, the development intentions of these projects are also for residential
purpose
(similar to this Project). Since all
these projects are located in relatively flat area, it is expected that the
construction scale of these project sites will be similar to this Project. Thus, the construction scale and plant
inventory of these projects in this noise assessment have been based on best
available information and assumptions, which is also presented in Appendix 4-6A to Appendix 4-6B.
Since all these planned development Projects will also be controlled
under the EIAO with regard to construction impacts, it is expected that noise
mitigation measures (e.g. QPMEs and movable noise barriers) would be adopted
for this Projects during the construction.
Thus, this noise assessment has taken into account these noise
mitigation measures for the purpose of this noise assessment. The calculated
construction noise levels due to these planned development projects are also presented
in Appendix 4-6A to Appendix 4-6B.
As the Project Site is subject to both the approved EIA projects as well
as adjacent planned development projects, cumulative construction noise impact
due to these projects has also been assessed. The assessment has been conducted
for both the existing NSRs and planned NSRs based on the following assumptions.
For existing NSRs, cumulative construction noise levels due to the
adjacent approved EIA projects as well as planned development sites have been
estimated.
As for planned NSRs discussed in Section 4.9.3 above, although these planned development projects have no
committed development programme, a sensitivity noise assessment have been
undertaken for these planned projects, and two scenarios have been assumed :
·
Scenario A – the planned development sites are
already occupied during the construction of this Project; and
·
Scenario B – the planned development sites are
constructed at the same time during the construction of this Project.
Results of the estimated cumulative construction noise levels are presented in
Table 4-20. The calculation of
cumulative construction noise due to concurrent projects should be based on the
construction programme of the respective projects and its plant inventory for
evaluation of cumulative impacts.
However, due to lack of committed construction programme of the
concerned nearby project sites, the noise levels presented is based on a
conservative approach by assuming concurrent construction of the peak
construction activities of these projects (i.e. calculation of cumulative noise
is based on highest noise level to be generated from the nearby project sites),
which is not very likely to occur. As
discussed in Section 4.9.3 above, some of these projects would still subject to
approval from both the EIAO and TPB, due to the delay, concurrent construction
is not very likely to occur.
Based on the assessment results (Table 4-20),
the calculated cumulative construction noise levels with noise mitigation
measures would comply with the relevant noise criteria at most of the NSR
locations (except N4, N15, N2P and N3P). However, for these few NSRs, their noise level
is dominant by other construction projects while the contribution due to this
Project is negligible.
For existing NSR N4, because of its
proximity to the approved projects of public sewer and cycle track, cumulative
noise impact might be a concern and may exceed the relevant noise criteria if
the Project Site is constructed simultaneously with the above approved
projects. As such, a short section of fixed
temporary noise barrier (5.5m tall above a site formation level of 5.4mPD) is
also proposed in adjacent to N4 in order to alleviate the cumulative construction
noise level over there due to above-mentioned approved projects (dotted green
line as shown in Figure 4-6 refers),
and the mitigated noise level is presented in the following paragraphs.
The temporary fixed noise barriers should have sufficient surface
density of at least 10 kg/m2 or material providing equivalent
acoustic performance. There should not be any gaps and openings at the noise
barriers to avoid noise leakage and can be combined with the site hoarding of
Project Site. The design of the noise
barriers shall be proposed by the work contractor(s), and approved by the
Engineers Representative (RE) and the Environmental Team in accordance with the
Project EM&A Manual.
Although the mitigated noise level at the school (i.e. N10) would comply
with the noise criteria for schools (i.e. 70dB(A) during non-examination
period), the Contractor is also required to closely liaise with the school so
that noisy works of this Project are avoided during the school examination
periods in order to minimize potential noise impacts. The Project Environmental
Team shall closely monitor contractor(s)’ performance and residual noise level
at nearby sensitive receivers. Should
unacceptable construction noise level be identified during the construction,
the concerned construction works shall be stopped temporarily and necessary
actions following the standard Event and Action Plan specified in the Project
EM&A Manual, shall be implemented.
The above requirement will be included in the EM&A manual of this
Project for implementation.
Table
4‑20 Estimated Mitigated Cumulative
Construction Noise Levels at NSRs With the Use of
QPMEs, Movable Noise Barriers, and Temporary Fixed Noise Barriers
Note:
* Please refer to Appendix 4-5 and Appendix 4-6A and 4-6B for the calculation of construction noise level as a result of
the approved EIA projects and planned development projects, respectively. Since
the planned development sites (i.e. the RD Site, and Kam Pok Road Site) are
subject to approval from both the TPB and EIAO, the estimated construction
noise levels of these projects are presented for reference only based on best
available information and assumptions with the adoption of QPMEs and movable
noise barriers for the purpose of this noise assessment.
# The calculated mitigated noise level
due to construction of this Project is provided in Appendix 4-4 and Appendix
4-4A.
Please
refer to Figure 4-2A for the NSR
locations.
Hatched
numbers indicate exceedance of the relevant noise criteria for construction
activities.
.
With regards to
the above, since a 9m tall temporary fixed noise barrier is proposed for this
Project to shield the school (i.e. N10) from construction activities of the
Project Site (Figures 4-6 and 4-6A refer), the concerned temporary
fixed noise barrier would also completely shield the school from the concerned
approved EIA projects as well as the nearby planned development sites. Please also note that there are also cluster
of existing 3-storey high buildings at Fairview Park, which provides additional
noise shielding to the school from construction activities of the nearby
approved EIA projects and planned development sites. Given the proposed noise barrier at the
school and additional noise shielding provided by nearby existing 3-storey
buildings, a correction factor of -10dB(A) has been applied to the above
calculated noise level for school, and the resultant noise level is presented
as below:
Remark: * Given the noise
barrier effect of the proposed fixed temporary noise barrier and additional
noise shielding due to nearby existing residential buildings at Fairview Park,
a -10dB(A) correction factor has been applied to the calculated noise levels
due to the approved/ planned EIA projects as presented in Table 4‑20 above.
Thus, the noise
level at the school would comply with the relevant noise criteria. In addition, the concerned classrooms at the school
abutting the Project Site have already been equipped with air-conditioners,
thus the actual noise level experienced in the classroom would be smaller than
that estimated above. Furthermore, as mentioned before, the
concerned approved EIA projects will only be carried out in small segments
(i.e. 50m for public sewerage works and 40m for proposed cycle track project),
thus the duration of concerned construction works will be short-term and
temporary.
During construction,
the Contractor of this Project will be required to closely liaise with the
school so that noisy works of this Project are avoided during the school
examination periods in order to minimize potential noise impacts. The construction noise level will also be
closely monitored to ensure compliance with the relevant noise criteria.
Construction plant
inventory presented in the approved EIA report of the above-mentioned projects
has been adopted in this noise assessment. Cumulative construction noise impact
has also been assessed based on the highest noise level predicted for the above
approved projects (using the shortest separation distance) and that predicted
for this Project in order to represent the worst case scenario, and the results
are presented in the following paragraphs.
Since the concerned approved EIA projects will be constructed in short
sections, concurrent construction of the above-mentioned approved EIA projects
and this Project is not very likely.
Nevertheless, cumulative construction noise has been assessed in this
study.
For NSRs N4 and N3,
as discussed in Section 4.9.2, it shall be noted
the concerned approved EIA projects (i.e. the cycle track project and the
public sewer project) will be constructed in short sections, thus simultaneous
construction of these projects and the construction work of this Project is not
very likely. As such, the noise level
presented in Table 4‑20 above is
very conservative.
Since temporary
fixed noise barriers (dotted green line in Figure
4-6) are proposed directly in front of these NSRs (N3 and N4), the
concerned noise barriers will also shield these NSRs from the concerned approved EIA
projects. Taken into account this
additional noise shielding effect, a correction factor of -5dB(A)
has been applied to the calculated noise levels presented in Table 4‑20 for these NSRs,
and the resultant noise level is presented as below.
Remark: * Given the noise
barrier effect of the proposed fixed temporary noise, a -5dB(A) correction
factor has been applied to the calculated noise levels from the approved EIA
projects as presented in Table 4‑20 above.
Based on the
assessment results, with the proposed fixed temporary noise barriers the
cumulative noise level at N3 and N4 would comply with the noise criteria and no
adverse noise impact is anticipated.
It shall be noted
that the concerned noise barrier (dotted green line in Figure 4-6) will only be required should there be concurrent
construction activities with the approved projects of public sewer and cycle
track. This is also stated in Figure 4-6 as well.
Nevertheless, during
the construction the Contractor will be required to avoid noisy works near N4
when there is any known concurrent construction due to the approved public
sewer project in order to avoid cumulative noise impacts. The Project Environmental Team shall closely
monitor contractor(s)’ performance and residual noise level at nearby sensitive
receivers. Should unacceptable
construction noise level be identified during the construction, the concerned
construction works shall be stopped temporarily and necessary actions following
the standard Event and Action Plan specified in the Project EM&A Manual,
shall be implemented. The above
requirement will be included in the EM&A manual of this Project for
implementation.
To conclude, with
the implementation of the recommended noise mitigation measures, unacceptable
construction noise impact is not anticipated. Cumulative construction noise impact from this
Project will be controlled through implementation measures described in this
report and those committed for the other projects.
Construction noise due to construction of this Project has been
assessed. Noise mitigation measures such as use of quiet type equipment,
scheduling of construction programme to avoid concurrent works, and provision
of movable/ fixed temporary noise barriers have been proposed in order to
mitigate the noise levels. It was found that with the implementation of
proposed noise mitigation measures and good practices, construction noise level
at the NSRs due to construction of this Project alone would comply with the
noise standard.
There is currently no committed construction programme of the adjacent
approved/ planned EIA projects, thus it cannot be ascertain the occurrence of
cumulative construction noise impacts due to these projects. Cumulative
construction noise impact from this Project will be controlled through
implementation measures described in this report and those committed for the
other projects. A sensitivity noise assessment for the cumulative noise impacts has
been undertaken to provide a more conservative assessment. It was found that
the cumulative noise levels at NSRs are mainly dominant by the approved EIA
Projects and planned development projects rather than construction works of this
Project. As such, with the proposed
mitigation measures of this Project in place, no residual adverse noise impact
is expected.
Operational phase noise impacts due to road traffic noise levels have
been examined. It is found that with the
proposed noise mitigation measures in terms of boundary noise barriers and
fixed glazing/ blank façade (Section 4.7.2 and Figure 4-3B refer), the predicted road
traffic noise levels would be within the relevant noise criteria.
There is a petrol filling station located within Fairview Park and in
adjacent to the Project Site. The operational
noise of the petrol filling station has been assessed. With the proposed 4m to 4.5m tall noise
barrier between the petrol filling station and the Project Site (Section 4.7.3.4 and Figure
4-4C), the noise level would comply with the relevant noise criteria.
As for industrial noise due to open storage site and godown, the noise
impact assessment has found that the noise level
would comply with the relevant noise criteria and no noise mitigation measures
would be necessary for this Project.
It is found that with the proposed noise
mitigation measures, the relevant noise criteria would be complied with and
there will be no adverse noise impact.
As various noise
mitigation measures have been proposed for different noise sources and
representing different scenarios, noise mitigation measures proposed have been
summarised and presented in Figure 4-7.
This Chapter presents an
assessment of the potential water quality impact that may arise from
construction and operation of the Project.
The assessment has been carried out in accordance with the requirements
given in Clause 3.9.3 of the EIA Study Brief and the criteria and guidelines as
stated in Annexes 6 and 14 of the EIAO-TM respectively. The Assessment area for the water quality
impact assessment is defined by a distance of 500m from the boundary of the
Project Site as per the EIA Study Brief.
The assessment area covers
surrounding areas in the larger Deep Bay Catchment Area of the Deep Bay Water
Control Zone (WCZ) and the Ramsar Site.
The proposed Project is
for residential purpose with a landscape
pond, landscaped open area and some passive recreational uses and supporting facilities.
Detailed elements of the proposed development and the MLP are discussed
in Section 1.3.
The Water Pollution
Control Ordinance (WPCO) (Cap. 358) enacted in 1980 is the principal
legislation controlling water quality in Hong Kong. Under the WPCO, Hong Kong waters are
classified into 10 Water Control Zones (WCZ).
Statutory Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) are specified for each
WCZ. The WQOs for any particular waters,
as defined in the WPCO, shall be the quality, which should be achieved and
maintained in order to promote conservation and best use of those waters in the
public interest. The Project Site is
situated within the catchment area of the Deep Bay WCZ.
The Technical Memorandum
on “Standards for Effluent Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage Systems,
Inland and Coastal Waters” (TM-Effluents) issued under Section 21 of the WPCO
defines acceptable discharge limits of effluent to different types of receiving
waters. Under the Ordinance, any
discharge into the WCZ requires licensing and must comply with the terms and
conditions specified in the licence, except for domestic sewage discharged into
public foul sewers, and unpolluted water into storm water drains and river
courses.
The
Project Site is surrounded by existing road networks to the south and east;
existing residential development at Fairview Park to the west; and agricultural
activities in the north. There is no existing fishpond within or immediately
adjacent to the Project Site. However,
existing fishponds are located to the further north of the Project Site between
Fairview Park and Palm Springs outside the Project boundary, and may
potentially be affected indirectly in case of uncontrolled discharge from the
Project Site although it is unlikely to occur.
As such, the discharge limits of effluent discharged into inland water
Group D has been adopted for the Project Site, while Group C standards is
adopted for potentially affected fishponds at off-site locations. The effluent discharge limits for Group D
and Group C uses are provided in Table 5‑1 and Table 5‑2. The
applicable key WQOs designated for inland waters in Deep Bay WCZ is also provided
in Table 5‑3.
Other legislation and
requirements relevant to the Assessment Area include the subsidiary regulations
of the WPCO such as the Water Pollution Control (General) Regulations and the
Water Pollution Control (Sewerage) Regulations.
In addition, the Project is also subject to the EIAO and as well as
Annexes 6 and 14 of the EIAO-TM.
The proposed development
should comply with all relevant legislations during both the construction and
operational stages.
Table 5‑1 Standards for effluent discharged into
Group D inland waters (All units in mg/L unless otherwise stated; all figures
are upper limits unless otherwise indicated)
|
Flow Rate (m3/day) Determinant |
£
200 |
>
200 and £
400 |
>
400 and £
600 |
>
600 and £
800 |
>
800 and £
1000 |
>
1000 and £
1500 |
>
1500 and £
2000 |
>
2000 and £
3000 |
|
pH (pH units) |
6-10 |
6-10 |
6-10 |
6-10 |
6-10 |
6-10 |
6-10 |
6-10 |
|
Temperature (°C) |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
|
Colour (lovibond
units) (25mm cell length) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Suspended solids |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
|
BOD |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
|
COD |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
80 |
|
Oil & Grease |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
|
Iron |
10 |
8 |
7 |
5 |
4 |
2.7 |
2 |
1.3 |
|
Boron |
5 |
4 |
3.5 |
2.5 |
2 |
1.5 |
1 |
0.7 |
|
Barium |
5 |
4 |
3.5 |
2.5 |
2 |
1.5 |
1 |
0.7 |
|
Mercury |
0.1 |
0.05 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
|
Cadmium |
0.1 |
0.05 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
|
Other toxic
metals individually |
1 |
1 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
|
Total toxic
metals |
2 |
2 |
1.6 |
1.6 |
1 |
1 |
0.5 |
0.4 |
|
Cyanide |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.05 |
|
Phenols |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
|
Sulphide |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Sulphate |
800 |
600 |
600 |
600 |
600 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
|
Chloride |
1000 |
800 |
800 |
800 |
600 |
600 |
400 |
400 |
|
Fluoride |
10 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
|
Total phosphorus |
10 |
10 |
10 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
5 |
5 |
|
Ammonia nitrogen |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
10 |
|
Nitrate + nitrite
nitrogen |
50 |
50 |
50 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
20 |
|
Surfactants
(total) |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
|
E. coli
(count/100 ml) |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
Table 5‑2 Standards for effluent discharged into
Group C inland waters (All units in mg/L unless otherwise stated; all figures
are upper limits unless otherwise indicated)
|
Flow Rate (m3/day) Determinant |
£
100 |
>
100 and £
500 |
>
500 and £
1000 |
>
1000 and £
2000 |
|
pH (pH units) |
6-9 |
6-9 |
6-9 |
6-9 |
|
Temperature (°C) |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
|
Colour (lovibond
units) (25 mm cell length) |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Suspended solids |
20 |
10 |
10 |
5 |
|
BOD |
20 |
15 |
10 |
5 |
|
COD |
80 |
60 |
40 |
20 |
|
Oil & Grease |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Boron |
10 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
|
Barium |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Iron |
0.5 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
|
Mercury |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
|
Cadmium |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
0.001 |
|
Silver |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
|
Copper |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
|
Selenium |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
|
Lead |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
|
Nickel |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
|
Other toxic metals individually |
0.5 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
|
Total toxic
metals |
0.5 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
|
Cyanide |
0.05 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
0.01 |
|
Phenols |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
|
Sulphide |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.1 |
|
Fluoride |
10 |
7 |
5 |
4 |
|
Sulphate |
800 |
600 |
400 |
200 |
|
Chloride |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
|
Total phosphorus |
10 |
10 |
8 |
8 |
|
Ammonia nitrogen |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
Nitrate + nitrite
nitrogen |
30 |
30 |
20 |
20 |
|
Surfactants
(total) |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
E. coli
(count/100 ml) |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
1000 |
Table 5‑3 Key
Water Quality Objectives for Inland Waters in Deep Bay Water Control Zone
|
Parameter |
WQOs |
|
pH
range |
6-9 |
|
Maximum
5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand, mg/L |
5 |
|
Maximum
Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg/L |
30 |
|
Maximum
Annual Median Suspended Solids, mg/L |
20 |
|
Minimum
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L |
4 |
|
Unionised
Ammonia (annual mean), mg/L |
0.021 |
|
E.
coli (count/100 ml) |
1,000 |
Remark: WQO follows River Water Quality in Hong Kong in
2009, published by EPD.
The
Project Site is surrounded by existing road networks to the south and east
directions; existing residential development at Fairview Park to the west; and
agricultural activities in the north. Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel
(NTMDC) is also situated to the further east of the Project Site.
The Project Site is
currently surrounded by existing u-channels.
Along the western Project Site boundary is the existing Fairview Park
Nullah. There are a few short sections
of existing drainage ditch within the Project Site. They collect surface runoff
from the Site only and discharge it to the Fairview Park Nullah nearby. The concerned drainage ditches within the
Project Site will be removed, however, appropriate new drainage system will be provided within
the proposed residential development (see Section 5.5.2) to collect surface runoff. Thus,
there will be no adverse water quality impact.
There are also
stormwater u-channels along roadside of Yau Pok Road with outfalls connected to
the NTMDC. Thus, surface runoff within
the Project Site is currently discharged into Fairview Park Nullah and the
NTMDC. Please refer to Figure 5-1. Asides from the above, there is also an
existing abandoned pond at the Northern Portion of Project Site. The concerned pond is abandoned and its
location is shown in Figure 5-1. The concerned pond will be retained.
With regard to the NTMDC,
it is an engineered channel which is divided into upstream section (Section B –
upstream of San Tin Highway) and downstream section (Section A – between San
Tin Highway and Kam Tin River). The river training works for Section B and
Section A were completed in 2003 and early 2005 respectively under the project
“Construction of Main Drainage Channels for Ngau Tam Mei” by DSD. The NTMDC is located about 20m to the east of
the Project Site with Yau Pok Road situated between the NTMDC and the Project
Site.
Currently, the Project Site and the surrounding areas are not equipped
with any public sewerage system.
According to the information by Drainage Services Department, the Ngau
Tam Mei Trunk Sewerage is being designed and will be constructed by Drainage
Services Department under Agreement No. CE30/2006(DS) Yuen
Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal – Design and Construction. This trunk sewerage is a part of the PWP No.
4235DS.
The Project Site is
generally low-lying in terrain and the geographical characteristic of the
Project Site is relatively flat. The
existing ground level for most area within the Project Site varies from around
2mPD to 4mPD with an average level at 3mPD. The Project Site is proposed to be
raised to about +5.4mpD level due to drainage consideration in order to avoid
flooding of the Site during operation.
As discussed above, the
Project Site is currently surrounded by existing u-channels. There are also
stormwater u-channels along roadside of Yau Pok Road with outfalls connected to
the NTMDC. Thus, surface runoff within
the Project Site is currently discharged into Fairview Park Nullah and the
NTMDC. The existing drainage ditches within
the Project Site, which collect surface runoff from the Site only and discharge
it to the Fairview Park Nullah nearby, will be replaced by appropriate new drainage
system within the proposed residential development (see Section 5.5.2) to collect surface runoff. Thus,
there will be no adverse water quality impact.
During the construction
of the proposed landscape water pond at the Northern Portion, excavation will
be carried out in adjacent to the existing abandoned pond as part of the
construction of the landscape water pond (please refer
to Section 5.5.1). The
location of the existing abandoned pond is shown in Figure
5-1. As
draining of pond water is not expected and proper temporary drainage system will be constructed to divert surface runoff
away from the concerned abandoned pond, significant water quality impact on nearby
water bodies is not anticipated. Details of assessment on water
quality impact are provided in Section 5.5.1.
During operational
period, appropriate drainage system will be provided to collect surface runoff
from the Project Site before discharging it into the nearby existing stormwater
drains and via which into the NTMDC after passing through sand traps. Thus, significant
water quality impact on nearby water bodies during operation of the Project is
not anticipated. The sewage generated by the proposed development
(incl. residential development, club house, and swimming pool in the South Portion
and food and beverage and public toilets in the Northern Portion) is proposed
to be discharged into the public sewerage system at Yau Pok Road. Thus, there will be no adverse water quality impact as there will be no discharge of sewage into
nearby water bodies during operational phase.
Please refer to
Section 5.5.2 for details of assessment.
As the concerned Fairview
Park Nullah and NTMDC will be the receiver of surface runoff from the Project
Site, they are identified to be the existing Water Sensitive Receivers (WSRs)
that may be affected by the Project during both construction and operational
phase. One small abandoned pond is
located in the Northern Portion of the Project Site, which will be converted
into a larger landscape pond within the Northern Portion of the Project Site,
thus the proposed landscape pond will be the future WSRs. The proposed landscape pond will be
self-contained and no pond water discharge is expected. There
are no other known planned WSRs in adjacent that would be affected by this
Project.
Within the 500m Assessment Area, there are other key potential water
sensitive receivers at off-site locations such as ponds to between Fairview
Park and Palm Springs to the further north of the Project Site; ponds near Yau
Mei San Tsuen, a watercourse along the southern boundary of Palm Springs. To the further east of NTMDC, there are
existing drainage ditches along Ha San Wai Road as well as those along Ha Chuk Yuen Road. The drainage ditches along Ha Chuk Yuen Road
are connected to DSD’s water storage pond for Chuk Yuen
Floodwater Pumping Station, which operates during heavy rainfall. Please refer
to Figure 5-1. The Deep Bay Water Control Zone, the Ramsar
Site and the Mai Po Nature Reserve are also the indirect sensitive receivers
but are further away from the Project Site and there will be no
discharge to these areas due to this Project, thus they are
unlikely affected as they are physically separated from the Project Site and
are not connected to the Project Site. As such, these sensitive receivers are not
WSRs of this Project and are not considered further.
Baseline Water Quality Survey in August 2009 and March 2010
Information on baseline water quality at the Project Site and its vicinity water bodies was collected by
sampling. Water
samples were collected at the identified WSRs that may be affected
by the Project (see Section 5.3.2) and tested by a
HOKLAS accredited laboratory in August 2009.
Water samples were collected from both the NTMDC and Fairview Park
Nullah. Water samples were also
collected from the existing abandoned pond in the Northern Portion of the
Project Site. The water quality sampling
locations (i.e. W1, W3, W4, WE3 and WE1) are shown in Figure 5‑1, and the
results of water quality survey are also provided Table 5‑4.
General speaking, water quality at the water sampling locations was
found to be in poor condition. Based on
the test results, lower levels of Dissolved Oxygen (DO), and higher
concentrations of ammonia-nitrogen content, SS, BOD5, COD, and E. coli were detected at most of the
sampling locations. Other parameters
tested were either within the water quality criteria or below the reporting
limit.
Further water samplings were also carried out in March 2010. Additional
water samples were also collected at Fairview Park Nullah near the Northern
Portion of the Project Site (i.e. WE2 shown in Figure 5-1). During the
sampling in March 2010, the water sampling point at W1 of the NTMDC was not
accessible, thus an alternative sampling location further downstream was
selected for sampling (i.e. W2 in Figure
5-1). Since the sampling location at
W2 is adjacent to the original W1 and is also within the NTMDC, it is
considered representative to show baseline water quality at NTMDC.
As discussed above, a few parameters were identified to be in poor
condition during the first water sampling exercise (i.e. year 2009) such as DO,
ammonia-nitrogen, SS, BOD5, COD, and E. coli. Thus, a close
monitoring on these selected parameters was conducted during the subsequent
water sampling and testing exercise in March 2010. Testing on the key WQO parameters stated in Table 5‑3 were
also carried out. Details of test
results are shown in Appendix 5-1, and
the average water quality levels are also
depicted in Table 5‑5 to present the baseline condition.
Additional
Baseline Water Quality Survey between September 2012 and January 2013
In order to
establish the baseline water quality at the WSRs with due regard to natural and
seasonal variation, further water samplings were carried out during the wet
season in September 2012 and October 2012, as well as during the dry season in
December 2012 and January 2013. The
water sampling locations are shown in Figure
5-2 and the raw test results are provided in Appendix 5-2. During the wet season surveys, water samples were collected from the sampling locations three times per
week and for a duration of four consecutive
weeks. The water sampling and testing
were performed by a HOKLAS accredited laboratory.
According to the
test results, water quality at the water sampling locations was found to be in
poor condition. It was found that there
were lower levels of Dissolved Oxygen (DO), and higher concentrations of
ammonia-nitrogen content, SS, BOD5, COD, and E. coli at most of the sampling locations during the wet season
surveys. Other parameters tested were
either within the water quality criteria or below the reporting limit. The finding on water quality is similar to
that conducted earlier in August 2009 and March 2010.
Thus, the
above-mentioned parameters were selected for a close monitoring during the
subsequent water sampling and testing in the dry season. Testing on the key WQO parameters stated in Table 5‑3 were
also carried out in dry season. As no significant variation/particular pattern of water quality was
observed during the wet season surveys, water samples in the dry season were collected once per week and for four
consecutive weeks. The dry season water
quality survey results were found to be similar to that in wet season (i.e. low
in DO, but high in ammonia-nitrogen content, SS, BOD5, COD, and E. coli). No specific pattern of natural
or seasonal variation was observed.
Table 5‑6 and Table 5‑7
summarise this additional baseline water quality survey results during both the
wet season and dry season, while the raw data is also provided in Appendix 5-2.
Table 5‑4 Baseline Water Quality Monitoring
Results in August 2009
|
Parameters |
Effluent Discharge
Std. (Gp. D)# |
WQO # |
NTMDC |
Fairview Park Nullah |
Existing Abandoned Pond Within Project Site |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
W1 |
W3 |
W4 |
WE1 |
WE3 |
||||||||
|
Salinity
(ppt) |
- |
- |
0.69 |
1.84 |
2.09 |
0.50 |
1.49 |
|
||||||||
|
Water
flow (m/s) |
- |
- |
0.02 |
0.03 |
0.02 |
0.06 |
0.01 |
|
||||||||
|
Water
depth (m) |
- |
- |
1.8 |
1.9 |
1.9 |
1.1 |
0.3 |
|
||||||||
|
Water
Temperature (°C) |
30 |
- |
29.2 |
30.7 |
31.8 |
34.0 |
32.6 |
|
||||||||
|
pH
Value |
6-10 |
6-9 |
7.07 |
7.40 |
7.67 |
7.53 |
8.86 |
|
||||||||
|
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/L) |
- |
4 |
4.56 |
4.07 |
2.27 |
1.21 |
7.79 |
|
||||||||
|
Dissolved
Oxygen Saturation (%) |
- |
- |
59.60 |
55.10 |
31.25 |
17.10 |
108.70 |
|
||||||||
|
Turbidity
(NTU) |
- |
- |
13.50 |
16.05 |
16.00 |
15.20 |
54.30 |
|
||||||||
|
BOD5
(mg/L) |
20 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
26 |
16 |
|
||||||||
|
COD
(mg O2/L) |
80 |
30 |
16 |
20 |
24 |
68 |
116 |
|
||||||||
|
Total
Phosphorous (mg/L) |
5-10 |
- |
0.50 |
0.50 |
0.50 |
2.60 |
1.10 |
|
||||||||
|
Ortho-Phosphate
(mg/L) |
- |
- |
0.41 |
0.37 |
0.40 |
2.24 |
0.49 |
|
||||||||
|
Oil
and Grease (mg/L) |
10 |
|
<5
* |
<5
* |
<5
* |
<5
* |
6 |
|
||||||||
|
Conductivity
(mS/cm) |
- |
- |
1310 |
3240 |
3670 |
929 |
2770 |
|
||||||||
|
Suspended
Solids (mg/L) |
30 |
20 |
14 |
18 |
19 |
15 |
81 |
|
||||||||
|
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) |
- |
- |
3.9 |
4.8 |
5.1 |
7.5 |
4.4 |
|
||||||||
|
Ammonia-nitrogen
(mg/L) |
10-20 |
0.021 |
2.68 |
3.52 |
3.80 |
3.85 |
0.08 |
|
||||||||
|
E-coli
(count/100 ml) |
1,000 |
1,000 |
5,400 |
7,200 |
6,200 |
45000 |
39 |
|
||||||||
|
F-coli
(cfu/100 ml) |
- |
- |
15,000 |
13,000 |
8,800 |
62000 |
47 |
|
||||||||
|
Aluminum
(mg/L) |
- |
Waste
discharges shall not cause the toxins in water to attain such levels as to
produce significant toxic carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic effects in humans, fish or any
other aquatic organisms, with due regard to biologically cumulative effects
in food chain and to toxicant
interactions with each other. |
0.25 |
0.37 |
0.30 |
0.04 |
0.46 |
|
||||||||
|
Copper
(mg/L) |
- |
<0.01
* |
<0.01
* |
<0.01
* |
<0.01
* |
<0.01
* |
|
|||||||||
|
Chromium
(mg/L) |
- |
<0.01
* |
<0.01
* |
<0.01
* |
<0.01
* |
<0.01
* |
|
|||||||||
|
Lead
(mg/L) |
- |
<0.01
* |
<0.01
* |
<0.01
* |
<0.01
* |
<0.01
* |
|
|||||||||
|
Zinc
(mg/L) |
- |
0.06 |
0.02 |
0.03 |
<0.01
* |
0.02
* |
|
|||||||||
|
Cadmium
(mg/L) |
0.001-0.1 |
0.004 |
<0.002 * |
<0.002 * |
<0.002
* |
<0.002
* |
|
|||||||||
|
Sulphide
as S2- |
1 |
- |
<0.2
* |
<0.2
* |
<0.2
* |
<0.2
* |
<0.2
* |
|
||||||||
|
Nitrate
as N |
20-50
** |
- |
0.47 |
0.34 |
0.29 |
<0.01
* |
<0.01
* |
|
||||||||
|
Nitrite
as N |
20-50
** |
- |
0.17 |
0.17 |
0.16 |
<0.01
* |
<0.01
* |
|
||||||||
Remark:
*
denotes that the measured concentration is below the laboratory’s reporting
limit.
** Effluent discharge
standard for "Nitrate + nitrite nitrogen"
#
According to the standards stated in Section 5.2.2 above.
All
sampling and measurements were undertaken by the laboratory, ALS Technichem
(HK) Pty Ltd., in August 2009.
Parameters such as Water Depth, Water Flow
Rate, Salinity, Water Temperature, pH Value, Dissolved
Oxygen, Dissolved Oxygen Saturation and Turbidity were measured in-situ by
using portable meters by the same laboratory.
F. coli stands for Faecal coliforms.
E. coli stands for Escherichia coli.
Table 5‑5 Average Baseline Water Quality
Monitoring Results in August 2009 and March 2010
|
Sampling Location Parameters |
Effluent Discharge
Std. # |
WQO # |
NTMDC |
Fairview Park Nullah |
Existing Abandoned Pond Within Project Site |
|||
|
|
|
W1/W2 |
W3 |
W4 |
WE1 |
WE2 |
WE3 |
|
|
Salinity
(ppt) |
- |
- |
5.73 |
6.38 |
2.09 |
3.73 |
2.45 |
1.5 |
|
Water
flow (L/s) |
- |
- |
2074.2 |
5279.1 |
** |
122.6 |
5.7 |
** |
|
Water
depth (m) |
- |
- |
1.4 |
1.9 |
1.9 |
0.6 |
0.1 |
0.3 |
|
Water
Temperature (°C) |
30 |
- |
22.2 |
22.7 |
31.82 |
24.1 |
17.7 |
32.6 |
|
pH
Value |
6-10 |
6-9 |
7.21 |
7.21 |
7.67 |
7.90 |
7.41 |
8.86 |
|
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/L) |
- |
4 |
3.58 |
3.10 |
2.27 |
5.76 |
7.57 |
7.79 |
|
Dissolved
Oxygen Saturation (%) |
- |
- |
42.7 |
37.7 |
31.25 |
71.57 |
81.18 |
108.70 |
|
Turbidity
(NTU) |
- |
- |
31.5 |
39.2 |
16.00 |
39.73 |
27.73 |
54.30 |
|
BOD5
(mg/L) |
20 |
5 |
8 |
7 |
3 |
22 |
7 |
16 |
|
COD
(mg/L) |
80 |
30 |
20 |
20 |
24 |
97 |
39 |
116 |
|
Suspended
Solids (mg/L) |
30 |
20 |
34 |
44 |
19 |
68 |
44 |
81 |
|
Ammonia-nitrogen
(mg/L) |
10-20 |
0.021 |
6.15 |
6.36 |
3.80 |
6.70 |
1.00 |
0.08 |
|
E-coli
(cfu/100 ml) |
1,000 |
1,000 |
13,800 |
13,067 |
6,200 |
2,846 |
67,500 |
39 |
Remark:
Average levels based on the water sampling in August 2009 and March
2010. Please refer to Appendix 5-1 for details of the
results.
# According to the standards stated in Section 5.2.2 above.
The original sampling location at W1 at NTMDC was not accessible during
the sampling in March 2010. Thus, an
alternative location W2 was selected for sampling.
E. coli stands for
Escherichia coli.
** no measurement on flow rate in L/S was undertaken in the
survey.
Table
5‑6 Average Baseline Water Quality
Monitoring Results During Wet Season in September 2012
and October 2012
|
Parameters |
Effluent Discharge
Std. (Gp. D)# |
WQO # |
NTMDC |
Fairview Park Nullah |
Existing Abandoned Pond Within Project Site |
||||
|
|
|
|
W1 |
W2 |
W3 |
W4 |
WE1 |
WE2 |
WE3 |
|
Salinity
(ppt) |
- |
- |
1.1 |
5.4 |
5.9 |
6.3 |
7.7 |
8.9 |
9.5 |
|
|
Water
flow (L/s) |
- |
- |
128 |
269 |
183 |
175 |
<1.0
* |
1.8 |
- |
|
|
Water
depth (m) |
- |
- |
1.0 |
0.9 |
1.0 |
0.9 |
1.0 |
0.4 |
0.2 |
|
|
Water
Temperature (°C) |
30 |
- |
27.8 |
27.8 |
27.1 |
26.7 |
26.6 |
27.2 |
27.2 |
|
|
pH
Value |
6-10 |
6-9 |
7.4 |
7.3 |
7.2 |
7.2 |
7.2 |
7.3 |
7.3 |
|
|
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/L) |
- |
4 |
6.6 |
4.7 |
2.9 |
2.9 |
2.6 |
4.0 |
5.3 |
|
|
Dissolved
Oxygen Saturation (%) |
- |
- |
85.2 |
60.8 |
38.2 |
39.0 |
34.0 |
52.6 |
70.9 |
|
|
Turbidity
(NTU) |
- |
- |
48 |
83 |
146 |
247 |
9 |
20 |
38 |
|
|
BOD5
(mg/L) |
20 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
8 |
|
|
COD
(mg O2/L) |
80 |
30 |
19 |
28 |
33 |
32 |
31 |
34 |
70 |
|
|
Total
Phosphorous (mg/L) |
5-10 |
- |
0.5 |
0.7 |
0.8 |
1.1 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.5 |
|
|
Reactive-Phosphate
(mg/L) |
- |
- |
0.25 |
0.39 |
0.45 |
0.46 |
0.73 |
0.72 |
0.72 |
|
|
Oil
and Grease (mg/L) |
10 |
|
<5
* |
<5
* |
<5
* |
<5
* |
<5
* |
<5
* |
<5
* |
|
|
Conductivity
(mS/cm) |
- |
- |
1998 |
8099 |
9003 |
9347 |
11827 |
14029 |
14382 |
|
|
Suspended
Solids (mg/L) |
30 |
20 |
45 |
67 |
82 |
70 |
8 |
17 |
38 |
|
|
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) |
- |
- |
3.4 |
5.2 |
5.7 |
5.7 |
6.4 |
4.1 |
4.8 |
|
|
Ammonia-nitrogen
(mg/L) |
10-20 |
0.021 |
1.86 |
3.35 |
3.73 |
3.74 |
3.73 |
2.40 |
1.52 |
|
|
E-coli
(count/100 ml) |
1,000 |
1,000 |
12450 |
10775 |
18517 |
24775 |
3041 |
5642 |
13293 |
|
|
F-coli
(cfu/100 ml) |
- |
- |
20042 |
16675 |
27950 |
35400 |
9601 |
7998 |
17020 |
|
|
Aluminum
(mg/L) |
- |
Waste
discharges shall not cause the toxins in water to attain such levels as to
produce significant toxic carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic effects in humans, fish or any
other aquatic organisms, with due regard to biologically cumulative effects
in food chain and to toxicant
interactions with each other. |
0.91 |
1.31 |
2.6 |
4.70 |
0.08 |
0.51 |
0.12 |
|
|
Copper
(mg/L) |
- |
0.007 |
0.008 |
0.013 |
0.023 |
0.003 |
0.006 |
0.004 |
||
|
Chromium
(mg/L) |
- |
<0.01
* |
<
0.01 * |
0.02 |
0.04 |
<0.01
* |
<0.01
* |
<0.01
* |
||
|
Lead
(mg/L) |
- |
0.006 |
0.006 |
0.010 |
0.017 |
<0.001
* |
0.004 |
0.002 |
||
|
Zinc
(mg/L) |
- |
0.07 |
0.11 |
0.16 |
0.24 |
0.02 |
0.08 |
0.03 |
||
|
Cadmium
(mg/L) |
0.001-0.1 |
0.0003 |
0.0003 |
0.0003 |
0.0008 |
<0.0002
* |
0.0003 |
<0.0002
* |
||
|
Sulphide
as S2- |
1 |
- |
<0.1
* |
<0.1
* |
<0.1
* |
<0.1
* |
<0.1
* |
<0.1
* |
0.7 |
|
|
Nitrate
as N |
20-50
** |
- |
1.88 |
1.16 |
1.12 |
1.15 |
0.35 |
0.53 |
0.14 |
|
|
Nitrite
as N |
20-50
** |
- |
0.19 |
0.31 |
0.34 |
0.36 |
0.16 |
0.23 |
0.09 |
|
Remark:
*
denotes that the measured concentration is below the laboratory’s reporting
limit.
** Effluent discharge
standard for "Nitrate + nitrite nitrogen"
#
According to the standards stated in Section 5.2.2 above.
All sampling and measurements were undertaken by
the laboratory, ALS Technichem (HK) Pty Ltd.
F. coli stands for Faecal coliforms.
E. coli
stands for Escherichia coli.
Table
5‑7 Average Baseline Water Quality
Monitoring Results During Dry Season in December 2012
and January 2013
|
Parameters |
Effluent Discharge
Std. (Gp. D)# |
WQO # |
NTMDC |
Fairview Park Nullah |
Existing Abandoned Pond Within Project Site |
||||
|
|
|
|
W1 |
W2 |
W3 |
W4 |
WE1 |
WE2 |
WE3 |
|
Salinity
(ppt) |
- |
- |
0.5 |
2.7 |
5.6 |
5.9 |
7.7 |
5.8 |
11.1 |
|
|
Water
flow (L/s) |
- |
- |
19 |
78 |
35 |
54 |
<1.0
* |
<1.0
* |
- |
|
|
Water
depth (m) |
- |
- |
0.3 |
0.4 |
0.5 |
0.5 |
0.4 |
<0.1
* |
0.1 |
|
|
Water
Temperature (°C) |
30 |
- |
18.4 |
17.8 |
17.1 |
16.6 |
17.6 |
16.9 |
17.7 |
|
|
pH
Value |
6-10 |
6-9 |
7.3 |
7.2 |
7.3 |
7.3 |
7.6 |
7.8 |
7.5 |
|
|
Dissolved
Oxygen (mg/L) |
- |
4 |
7.2 |
4.7 |
4.0 |
4.1 |
4.4 |
9.1 |
2.2 |
|
|
Dissolved
Oxygen Saturation (%) |
- |
- |
76.7 |
49.8 |
42.1 |
43.0 |
49.0 |
97.4 |
24.2 |
|
|
Turbidity
(NTU) |
- |
- |
30 |
201 |
149 |
619 |
17 |
6 |
70 |
|
|
BOD5
(mg/L) |
20 |
5 |
5 |
10 |
9 |
12 |
13 |
3 |
39 |
|
|
COD
(mg O2/L) |
80 |
30 |
16 |
36 |
39 |
80 |
33 |
21 |
168 |
|
|
Oil
and Grease (mg/L) |
10 |
|
<5
* |
<5
* |
<5
* |
<5
* |
<5
* |
<5
* |
<5
* |
|
|
Suspended
Solids (mg/L) |
30 |
20 |
33 |
105 |
138 |
323 |
23 |
8 |
80 |
|
|
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) |
- |
- |
3.2 |
6.0 |
7.0 |
8.8 |
6.4 |
2.8 |
7.8 |
|
|
Ammonia-nitrogen
(mg/L) |
10-20 |
0.021 |
2.04 |
3.92 |
5.54 |
5.28 |
3.95 |
1.44 |
2.59 |
|
|
E-coli
(count/100 ml) |
1,000 |
1,000 |
11525 |
26550 |
51000 |
54000 |
23660 |
3873 |
1365 |
|
|
Nitrate
as N |
20-50
** |
- |
2.72 |
2.10 |
1.56 |
1.52 |
0.38 |
1.31 |
0.03 |
|
|
Nitrite
as N |
20-50
** |
- |
0.12 |
0.15 |
0.25 |
0.28 |
0.17 |
0.46 |
0.03 |
|
Remark:
*
denotes that the measured concentration is below the laboratory’s reporting
limit.
** Effluent discharge
standard for "Nitrate + nitrite nitrogen"
#
According to the standards stated in Section 5.2.2 above.
All
sampling and measurements were undertaken by the laboratory, ALS Technichem
(HK) Pty Ltd.
E. coli stands for Escherichia coli.
In addition to the water
sampling, there is also an EPD’s river water quality
monitoring station at downstream location at Fairview Park Nullah. The Fairview Park Nullah is an engineering channel within the Fairview
Park residential development to the west of the Project Site. Data of key water
quality parameters measured at that station during year 2007 and year 2012 by
EPD[4] was also summarised in Table 5‑8 for reference.
Table 5‑8 Summary of River Water Quality at Nearby
Fairview Park Nullah in the Deep Bay Water Control Zone between 2007 and
2012 by
EPD
|
Parameters |
*WQO |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
|
pH |
6.0-9.0 |
7.7 (7.2-9.3) |
7.4 (6.8-9.3) |
7.8 (7.3-8.9) |
7.8 (7.2–9.0) |
7.8 (7.1-8.9) |
7.5 (7.3-8.5) |
|
BOD5 (mg/L) |
≤ 5 |
15 (4-21) |
8 (3-19) |
8 (4 – 26) |
11 (3 - 37) |
11 (4-20) |
5 (3-14) |
|
COD (mg/L) |
≤ 30 |
40 (13-70) |
30 (16-51) |
33 (18 – 87) |
28 (16 – 61) |
30 (13-46) |
22 (12-54) |
|
SS (mg/L) |
≤ 20 |
36 (16-62) |
30 (6-64) |
36 (14-64) |
40 (11–150) |
29 (6-49) |
26 (11-56) |
|
DO (mg/L) |
≥ 4 |
7.7 (3.2-17.7) |
6.7 (3.9-12.9) |
7.3 (2.1-18.6) |
7.5 (3.5-15.1) |
9.2 (3.9-17.2) |
5.5 (3.8-11.7) |
|
E. coli) (count/100 ml) |
≤ 1000 |
44,000 (2,200-900,000) |
16,000 (2,200-75,000) |
23,000 (4,400-1,000,000) |
31,000 (4,600-220,000) |
18,000 (4,200-97,000) |
16,000 (2,800-330,000) |
|
Ammonia-nitrogen
(mg/L) |
Annual average ≤0.021 |
4.35 (1.70-7.90) |
3.45 (0.27-6.80) |
2.90 (0.80-7.20) |
4.30 (1.40-6.70) |
4.55 (0.74-5.60) |
4.15 (2.30-6.60) |
|
Nitrate-nitrogen (mg/L) |
-- |
0.52 (0.16-2.10) |
1.10 (0.40-3.50) |
0.45 (<0.01-1.20) |
0.52 (0.31-0.89) |
0.56 (0.10-1.00) |
0.96 (0.35-1.30) |
|
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/L) |
- |
6.90 (3.10-12.00) |
5.35 (1.60-8.20) |
5.70 (1.80-8.30) |
6.10 (5.10-8.80) |
6.15 (4.00-11.00) |
5.85 (3.30-7.80) |
|
Oil & grease (mg/L) |
- |
0.7 (0.5-1.7) |
0.9 (<0.5-6.8) |
<0.5 (<0.5-0.9) |
<0.5 (<0.5-2.4) |
0.7 (<0.5-2.0) |
<0.5 (<0.5-0.7) |
|
Aluminum (μg/L) |
Waste discharges
shall not cause the toxins in water to attain such levels as to produce
significant toxic carcinogenic, mutagenic or
teratogenic effects in humans, fish or any other aquatic organisms,
with due regard to biologically cumulative effects in food chain and to
toxicant interactions with each other. Waste discharges
shall not cause a risk to any beneficial uses of the aquatic environment. |
170 (110-420) |
225 (<50-350) |
255 (160-610) |
285 (100-750) |
170 (60-400) |
240 (110-470) |
|
Cadmium (μg/L) |
0.1 (0.1-0.1) |
<0.1 (<0.1-0.2) |
<0.1 (<0.1-0.1) |
<0.1 (<0.1-0.3) |
<0.1 (<0.1-<0.1) |
<0.1 (<0.1-<0.1) |
|
|
Chromium (μg/L) |
1 (1-1) |
1 (<1-2) |
<1 (<1-2) |
1 (<1-3) |
<1 (<1-2) |
1 (<1-3) |
|
|
Copper (μg/L) |
3 (2-6) |
5 (3-27) |
4 (3-8) |
5 (2-17) |
3 (2-5) |
3 (2-7) |
|
|
Lead (μg/L) |
2 (1-7) |
3 (<1-15) |
4 (2-5) |
4 (1-14) |
2 (<1-4) |
2 (1-7) |
|
|
Zinc (μg/L) |
30 (20-100) |
45 (10-120) |
45 (20-100) |
35 (20-110) |
35 (20-170) |
30 (10-120) |
Remark: Data
presented is based on River Water Quality in Hong Kong (various years),
published by EPD.
Figures
in brackets are annual ranges.
E. coli
stands for Escherichia coli.
General speaking, water quality at the water sampling locations was
found to be in poor condition. Based on
the test results, water quality at NTMDC is generally poor. Based on the test results, lower levels of
Dissolved Oxygen (DO), and higher concentrations of ammonia-nitrogen content,
SS, BOD5, COD, and E. coli
were detected at most of the sampling locations .
According to the water quality data collected by EPD at Fairview Park
Nullah (Table 5‑8 refers), the level of compliance of relevant
river water quality objectives at the nullah, was generally low in the past few
years. General speaking, the recorded
levels of BOD5, COD, SS, Ammonia-nitrogen, and E.coli had exceeded
the WQOs. However, the river water quality in the Fairview Park Nullah is
gradually improving over years.
Overall, pollution of the major rivers in the Northwest New Territories
was still serious because of the remaining livestock farms and unsewered
villages in the area. However, with the
continued implementation of the Voluntary Surrender of Poultry and Pig Farm
Licence Schemes, livestock waste pollution in the rivers should reduce
significantly. The North District Sewerage Master Plan and Yuen Long & Kam
Tin Sewerage Master Plan have included plans to provide public sewers to most
of the unsewered villages, and the river water quality in the Northwest New
Territories should gradually improve as these schemes are implemented (EPD 2009[5]).
It shall be noted that there will be no
discharge of sewage due to the Project during operation as sewage generated
will be discharged into the public sewerage system at Yau Pok Road. Thus, the nearby water bodies will not be
affected due to discharge. Currently
surface runoff from the Project Site will be discharged into the nearby
existing drainage channels. There will be no additional discharge during the
operation and the collected surface runoff from the Project Site will be
discharged into nearby existing public stormwater drains after passing through
sand traps. Thus, it is expected that
there will be no significant water quality impact on nearby water bodies during
operation of the Project.
During heavy rainfall, overflow of the nearby drainage channels and
surface runoff carrying sediment laden could occur.
Livestock farms and
unsewered village upstream of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel generate
particulates, BOD5 and other pollutants, which result in poor water
quality in the Inner Deep Bay area.
Construction of the
Project includes site formation, superstructure works and construction of other
associated facilities for the residential development. A landscape water pond
and some passive recreational uses and supporting facilities will be provided in the Northern
Portion of the Project Site. There is
one small abandoned pond located in the Northern Portion of the Project Site (Figure 9-1 refers) where the landscape
water pond is proposed.
If not properly
controlled, the stormwater runoff from construction site may bring along
pollutants (e.g. sediment laden) and pollute the nearby water bodies depending
upon the topography. Superstructure
works are typical of many building construction works, which would generate
insignificant impact on water quality.
Particulates as well as
effluent, liquid spillage and the like will be generated during the construction
works. Pollutants can runoff to nearby
water bodies as non-point discharge if not properly controlled. Major potential
sources of water pollution during the construction may include the followings:
l Runoff of sediment laden from exposed soil
surface;
l Runoff from stockpiling area;
l Fuels and lubricants from machinery and
trucks;
l Liquid spillage such as chemical, oil,
diesel, and solvent; and
l General waste material;
Water pollution due to
site facilities such as toilets could also be a source of pollution if
appropriate measures are not implemented properly during construction in
respect of storage and discharge.
Additional impacts would
also arise from runoff that is contaminated by chemical, oil, diesel,
lubricant, and solvent, etc. due to spillage or improper disposal. The
implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) by the contractor during the
project period is therefore important to control the release of these wastes.
In addition, wastewater could also be generated from other phases of works such
as site clearance, site preparation and completion of road construction.
The proposed residential
development is remote from Mai Po Marshes and is physically separated by the
existing Fairview Park. Thus, it has no direct disturbance to this natural
habitat.
During the operational stage, the sewage generated by the proposed
development (including residential development, club house and swimming pool in
the Southern Portion as well as the food and beverage and public toilets in the
Northern Portion of the Project Site) will be discharged to the public sewerage
system at Yau Pok Road. A discharge
licence under the WPCO will be applied and the discharge shall comply with the
terms and conditions of the licence. There will be no population in-take of
this Project until commissioning
of the public sewerage system. Future
management and maintenance issues will be further discussed with DSD. Details of the above are also discussed in Chapter 6 of this report.
In addition, drainage
system will be provided for the formed and paved road/areas in the proposed
development to drain stormwater runoff into the NTMDC. Sand traps will also be
provided at the discharge point before discharge.
The maintenance during
operation is mainly control of vegetation grown in the landscape pond and
general maintenance works of the passive recreational and supporting facilities. The concerned maintenance will not generate
significant amount of wastewater or alter the surface material types, thus it
would not generate any significant impact on water quality.
During operation, the
landscape pond will be self-contained and pond water will not be discharged to
the surrounding (see Section 5.6.2).
There will be no
alteration of any natural watercourse arising from implementation of the
Project. Therefore, there will be no
impact on natural water course.
The major impacts due to
construction works of this Project are surface runoff within the construction
site and soil erosion due to exposed surfaces.
As temporary drains, peripheral site drainage, sedimentation basins,
sand traps and similar facilities will be provided during the construction
works as per good practices, it is anticipated that the finally discharged
water quality can comply with relevant criteria. Good practices to be adopted
during construction phase are provided in Section 5.6.
Despite surface runoff from the Project Site
is currently discharged into two nearby engineered channels, namely Fairview
Park Nullah and NTMDC; during construction period, appropriate peripheral
drainage system will be constructed within the site to divert surface runoff from the construction site away
from the nearby Fairview Park Nullah, into the NTMDC only. To minimize impact on water quality, temporary drains, sedimentation basins, sand traps
and similar facilities will be provided during the construction works in
accordance with the Practice Notes for Professional Persons on “Construction
Site Drainage” (ProPECC PN 1/94).
Collected and treated surface runoff will be discharged into existing
stormwater drains nearby Yau Pok Road and via which into the NTMDC following
the existing flow regime. Together with
the adoption of proposed good practices on-site in Section 5.6.1, adverse water
quality impact is not expected. An indicative peripheral
drainage system, which is subject to detailed design, is shown in Figure 5-5. The
Contractor shall apply for a discharge licence under the WPCO and the
discharge shall comply with the terms and conditions of the licence. Discharge
of surface runoff from the Project Site should not be significant and is
negligible when compared with the capacity of the channel (over
500 m3/s for the trained NTMDC). Thus there will be no adverse water quality
impact as a result.
As discussed in Section 5.3.2, there is one small abandoned pond located
in the Northern Portion of the Project Site.
The concerned water pond is shallow in depth and almost in drought
condition, which will eventually dry out during the dry season. As a landscape water pond is also proposed at the
same location where the abandoned pond is located and the bottom level of pond before and after the construction is about
the same (~2mPD), no dredging
of sediment or pond filling activities will be required at this location. Excavation will only be carried out in
adjacent to the existing abandoned pond.
Proper temporary drainage system will be constructed to divert surface
runoff away from the concerned abandoned pond and discharge it to the nearby
existing storm drains nearby Yau Pok Road into the NTMDC through sand traps. Thus, no adverse impact is expected. Site formation works near the existing
pond can be arranged to be carried out
during dry season as far as possible, and where necessary
water at the existing
abandoned pond can be temporarily drained to the nearby newly constructed
pond. Thus, draining of pond water is
not expected.
As discussed in Section 7.3, there is
no historic and / or existing land uses at the Project Site that would result
in potential contaminatation of soil and underground water, thus land
contamination at the Project Site is not expected. As such, contaminated underground water is not
anticipated at the Project Site.
Foul water will be
discharged into the public sewers and would present no adverse impact. As the
sewage generated from the Project will be properly collected and disposed of to
planned public sewers, there will be no net increase
in pollution loading to Deep Bay. The
discharge requirement of the Project and the capacity of the sewerage system
have been evaluated in Chapter 6 of this report. The sewage
generated by the proposed development (including residential development, club
house, and swimming pool in the Southern Portion as well as the food and
beverage and public toilets in the Northern Portion of the Project Site) is
proposed to be discharged into the public sewerage system at Yau Pok Road. The discharge from the club house and
swimming pool in the Southern Portion as well as the food and beverage and
public toilets in the Northern Portion of the Project Site shall apply for a
discharge licence under the WPCO, and the discharge shall comply with the terms
and conditions of a licence as well as the standards for effluents specified in
the TM-Effluents. Thus, there will be no discharge of sewage
into nearby waterbodies during operational phase and no adverse impact is
anticipated. Surface runoff from the proposed development will be drained to
sand traps. The drainage outlet of the
indoor car parks will be connected to foul sewers via oil interceptors or similar facilities.
With regard to the existing
stormwater drainage condition before the proposed development, the Site is
generally low-lying unpaved land at about +2mPD to about +4mPD, together with a
paved area for open carpark at the southern end. The west end of the Site is bounded by a nullah
which drains to the northwest through Fairview Park. A few short sections of existing drainage
ditches are located at the Southern Portion of the Project Site, which collect
surface runoff from the Project Site only and discharge it to the Fairview Park
Nullah nearby. The concerned drainage
ditch within the Project Site will be removed, however, appropriate new
drainage system will be provided within the proposed residential development to collect surface runoff. Thus, no adverse water quality impact due to
removal of the existing drainage channels is expected. The east end of the Site
is bounded by Yau Pok Road, most of which is formed by embankment at +4.5mPD to
+6.5mPD. There are also stormwater
u-channels along roadside of Yau Pok Road with outfalls connected to the
NTMDC. Thus, surface runoff within the
Project Site is currently discharged into Fairview Park Nullah and the
NTMDC. No flooding blackspot is located
in the vicinity according to the information published by DSD.
The NTMDC is constructed
by Drainage Services Department with a 200-year design return period to cater
for the urbanization of the ultimate development scenario alongside. Stormwater in the roadside channel of Yau Pok
Road is discharged into NTMDC through 450mm diameter pipes, installed with flap
valves at the outfalls, across Yau Pok Road as shown in Figure 5-3.
The Project Site will
have a mean site formation level of about +5.4mPD as a protection measure
against flooding. Although the internal
surface runoff may be increased due to additional paved area of the
development, given the scale of this Project (for small
house development) and that the net increase in surface runoff is negligible when
compared with the capacity of NTMDC (over 500m3/s), the increase in pollution loading due to the
development is insignificant. Thus, there
will be no adverse water quality impact due to the discharge. In
addition, appropriate drainage system will be provided for the developable area
and paved road/areas to collect stormwater runoff. Collected surface runoff will be discharged
into existing stormwater drains nearby Yau Pok Raod through facilities such as
sand traps and via which into the existing NTMDC (i.e. following the
existing flow regime), which is
designed to collect surface runoff. The proposed schematic drainage system is
shown in Figure 5-4. Oil interceptor will
also be provided to collect any grease and oil generated from car park and
similar facilities. Moreover, regular cleaning and sweeping of the access road
and other paved areas is suggested in order to minimize exposure of pollutants
to stormwater. Stormwater gullies and
ditches provided will also be regularly inspected and cleaned. With the proposed facilities and regular
cleaning and removal of pollutants in the drainage system, the pollution levels
from stormwater would be greatly reduced and minimized, thus there will be no
increase in pollution loading to Deep Bay.
The above measures are also summarised in Section 5.6.2.
For the existing channels within the Project Site, as mentioned above, are
not receiving the runoff from the external area, therefore the removal of these
channels will not affect the flow regime of the surrounding. New drainage channels and pipes will be
provided surrounding the Project Site in order to replace the existing drainage
channel (Figure 5-4 refer), as such,
there will be no adverse water quality impact arising. The roadside channel along Yau Pok Road will
be retained and realigned as necessary to maintain the original flow path. Therefore, there will be no flooding or
hydrology issue arising from the proposed development, nor any significant water
quality impact on nearby water bodies during operation of the Project, is
anticipated.
The
proposed landscape pond has been designed so that water contained in the pond will
be self-contained, and there is no outlet connecting to nearby channel/inland water. The concerned landscape pond will be water
sealed so that there is no seepage of water into underground. During operation, pond water will be contained
within the pond and there will be no discharge from the pond. Surface runoff from the adjacent area will be
diverted away from the pond area by drainage channels in order to avoid overflow
of the pond under extreme weather condition (e.g. heavy rainfall). There will
be no chemicals/ pesticides to be applied during operation. Thus, no adverse water quality impact is
anticipated.
Thus, adverse impact on
WSRs due to operation of the Project is not expected. Drainage plan will be submitted to DSD and BD
for approval during detailed design stage.
As discussed in Section 1.9, potential
concurrent projects have been identified. There are two approved EIA projects
in adjacent to the Project Site.
According to the approved EIA report, namely the “EIA and TIA
Studies for the Stage 2 of PWP Item No. 215DS - Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage
and Sewage Disposal2”, a sewage pumping station (SPS) (Ngau Tam Mei SPS), has been
proposed at an offsite location about 345m northeast of the Project Site. Under the same project (current PWP Item 4235DS), a gravity trunk sewer
will be constructed along Castle Peak Road between Ngau Tam Mei and San Tin,
and a section of alignment will be constructed along the Ngau Tam Mei Channel in
adjacent to this development Project. The
location of the proposed sewage pumping station and the public sewers are also
shown in Figure 1-2.
The construction of the
above sewerage project has been assessed in the above-mentioned EIA
report. Currently, there is no solid
construction programme of the said sewage pumping system and the public
sewers. According to the EIA report of
the concerned sewerage project (Section 10.6 of the concerned EIA report refers),
potential water quality impacts of the sewerage works could arise as a result
of sediment laden carried by surface runoff and water pollution due to site
facilities such as toilets.
The EIA report has
stated that all the construction works will be carried out in small sections
within a short period of time. It has also recommended in the same report that the
construction works will be carried out in 50m segments (Section 8.5 of the same
EIA report refers). Thus, the exposed
surface in any one time that may carry sediment laden will be very small and
controllable during the construction phase.
In addition, the construction programme of that Project will also be
arranged to minimize surface excavation during rainy seasons. Furthermore, various practicable mitigation
measures have also been proposed in that EIA report to prevent the transportation
of sediment laden away from the works area (section 10.6.2 of the same EIA
report refers). The contractor is also
obliged to follow the procedures and requirements given in the Practice Notes
for Professional Persons on “Construction Site Drainage” (ProPECC PN 1/94). Efficient silt removal facilities will be
installed, and channels, earth bunds or sand bag barriers will be installed to
divert stormwater to silt removal facilities.
For construction workforce sewage, portable chemical toilets or sewage
holding tanks will be provided. With the
proposed mitigation measures, impacts on the nearby water environment are not
anticipated. Most importantly,
respective project specific Environmental Monitoring and Audit (EM&A)
programme will be implemented for the sewerage project to ensure and review the
effectiveness of the mitigation measures implemented.
Similarly, based on the
information in a separate EIA report for “Construction of Cycle Tracks and the
Associated Supporting Facilities From Sha Po Tsuen to
Shek Sheung River” (EIA Application No. EIA-159/2008), a cycle track will also
be provided along the Castle Peak Road and the Yau Pok Road as part of the
cycle track project between Tuen Mun and Sheung Shui under PWP Item 7259RS.
According to the
concerned cycle track EIA report, the identified primary potential impacts to water quality of the
project will be from pollutants in site run-off (suspended solids). Measures have been proposed in that EIA to
control/ prevent impacts to the water sensitive receivers (e.g. Sections 6.5
and 6.6 of the cycle track EIA report).
In particular, the
contractor is also obliged to follow the procedures and requirements given in
the Practice Notes for Professional Persons on “Construction Site Drainage”
(ProPECC PN 1/94). Surface run-off from the
construction sites will be directed into storm drains via adequately designed
wastewater treatment facilities such as sand traps, silt traps and sediment
settling basins. Wastewater from temporary site facilities (such as toilets)
will be discharged to foul sewer or chemical toilets will be provided.
In addition, according
to the concerned EIA report, the cycle track project will be constructed in
sections. Typically,
the working area will be 40 m long by 4 m wide and no adjacent sections (200m between two
neighbouring sections) will be constructed simultaneously. Thus, the exposed surface that may carry
sediment laden will be very small and controllable during the construction
phase. With the proposed control measures, stormwater runoff
will be adequately controlled and the project will not cause unacceptable
impact. Most importantly, respective project specific Environmental Monitoring
and Audit (EM&A) programme will be implemented for the sewerage project to
ensure and review the effectiveness of the mitigation measures implemented.
Given that the concerned
construction works of the two approved EIA projects are relatively small in
scale (i.e. laying sewers along existing road, and construction of a cycle
track), and the construction will only be carried out in small sections (less
than 50m for the public sewers, and 40m for the cycle track) with appropriate
mitigation measures in place, the
cumulative impact of runoff and polluting discharges from this Project will be
controlled through implementation measures described in this report and those
committed for the other projects. Thus, adverse cumulative water quality impacts due to
concurrent construction works are not expected.
As discussed in Section 1.9, there are two planned private residential
development projects in adjacent to the Project Site that has been identified
to overlap with this Project. They are:-
l Proposed Residential Development within “Residential (Group D)” zone at
various lots in DD 104, Yuen Long, N.T. (Study Brief No. ESB - 204/2009)
(hereinafter referred to as the “RD Site”);
l Proposed Low-rise and Low-density Residential Development at Various
Lots and their Adjoining Government Land in D.D. 104, East of Kam Pok Road, Mai
Po, Yuen Long, N.T.
(Study Brief No. ESB - 210/2009) (hereinafter referred to as the “Kam
Pok Road Site”); and
The location of the concerned planned development sites
are also shown in Figure 1-2. All of these concerned planned development
projects will be subject to EIA study. According
to the Study Brief issued for these projects, the nature of these development
projects will be similar to this Project (i.e. for residential development).
Since all of these planned development projects are
land-based development, their potential water quality impacts will be similar
to this Project (i.e. surface runoff with sediment laden, sewage generated from
construction workforce, etc. during construction; and discharge of surface
runoff and domestic sewage during operation).
With the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures such as those
stipulated in ProPECC PN 1/94
and proper design of drainage system, no adverse water quality impact or the
respective cumulative impact from these EIA projects is anticipated. In addition, since appropriate Environmental
Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) programme will need to be implemented to
closely monitor the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation in accordance with the
EP conditions of the respective EIA projects, cumulative impact of runoff and polluting discharges
from these projects will be properly controlled. Thus, adverse cumulative water quality impacts due to concurrent construction works of
these projects are not expected.
The following measures
are proposed and also summarisd in Chapter 14 of this EIA.
Control of potential
water quality impact arising from the construction works shall be affected
based on the following principles:
l Minimisation of runoff;
l Prevention or minimisation of the likelihood
of the identified pollutants being in contact with rainfall or runoff; and
l Measures to abate pollutants in the
stormwater runoff.
During the construction
of the landscape water pond in the Northern Portion of the Project Site, proper
temporary drainage system (e.g. following those in the Practice Notes for
Professional Persons on “Construction Site Drainage” (ProPECC PN 1/94)) shall be constructed to divert surface
runoff away from the existing abandoned pond for discharge into the Fairview
Nullah or NTMDC through sand traps.
Site formation works near
the existing abandoned pond should
be carried out during dry season as far as possible. Water contained at
the existing abandoned pond shall be temporarily drained to the newly
constructed pond.
Besides, Best Management
Practices (BMPs) given in the ProPECC PN
1/94 shall be implemented in
controlling water pollution during the whole construction phase. The
main practices provided in the above-mentioned document (i.e. ProPECC PN 1/94)
are also summarized in the following paragraphs which should be implemented by the contractor during the execution of
the site formation and road works, where practicable.
l High loading of suspended solids (SS) in
construction site runoff shall be prevented through proper site management by
the contractor;
l The boundary of critical work areas shall be
surrounded by ditches or embankment.
Accidental release of soil or refuse into the adjoining land should be
prevented by the provision of site hoarding or earth bunds, etc. at the site
boundary. These facilities should be
constructed in advance of site formation works and roadworks;
l Consideration should be given to plan
construction activities to allow the use of natural topography of the Project
Site as a barrier to minimize uncontrolled non-point source discharge of
construction site runoff;
l Temporary ditches, earth bunds should be
provided to facilitate directed and controlled discharge of runoff into storm
drains via sand/ silt removal facilities such as sand traps, silt traps and
sediment retention basin. Oil and grease
removal facilities should also be provided where appropriate, for example, in
area near plant workshop/ maintenance areas;
l Sand and silt removal facilities, channels
and manholes should be maintained and the deposited silt and grit should be
removed regularly by the contractor, and at the onset of and after each
rainstorm to ensure that these facilities area functioning properly;
l Slope exposure should be minimized where
practicable especially during the wet season.
Exposed soil surfaces should be protected from rainfall through covering
temporarily exposed slope surfaces or stockpiles with tarpaulin or the like;
l Haul roads should be protected by crushed
rock, gravel or other granular materials to minimize discharge of contaminated
runoff;
l Slow down water run-off flowing across
exposed soil surfaces;
l Plant workshop/ maintenance areas should be
bunded and constructed on a hard standing.
Sediment traps and oil interceptors should be provided at appropriate
locations;
l Manholes (including newly constructed ones)
should be adequately covered or temporarily sealed so as to prevent silt,
construction materials or debris from getting into the drainage system;
l Construction works should be programmed to minimize
soil excavation works where practicable during rainy conditions;
l Chemical stores should be contained (bunded)
to prevent any spills from contact with water bodies. All fuel tanks and/ or storage areas should be
provided with locks and be sited on hard surface;
l Chemical waste arising from the Project Site
should be properly stored, handled, treated and disposed of in compliance with
the requirements stipulated under the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General)
Regulation;
l Drainage facilities must be adequate for the
controlled release of storm flows;
l Appropriate peripheral drainage system shall
be constructed
along the Project Site boundary to divert away surface runoff in accordance
with requirements stipulated in ProPECC PN 1/94 to collect surface runoff and
discharge it into the nearby existing stormwater drains nearby roadside of Yau
Pok Road, and via which into the existing NTMDC;
l Temporary drains, sedimentation basins, sand
traps and similar facilities shall be provided during the construction works in
accordance with the ProPECC PN 1/94; and
l The Contractor shall apply for a discharge
licence under the WPCO and the discharge shall comply with the terms and
conditions of the licence.
l Sewage generated from the construction
workforce should be contained in chemical toilets before connection to public
foul sewer becomes available. Chemical
toilets should be provided at a minimum rate of about 1 per 50 workers. The
facility should be serviced and cleaned by a specialist contractor at regular
intervals;
l Vehicle wheel washing facilities should be
provided at the site exit such that mud, debris, etc. deposited onto the
vehicle wheels or body can be washed off before the vehicles are leaving the
site area;
l Section of the road between the wheel
washing bay and the public road should be paved with backfill to reduce vehicle
tracking of soil and to prevent site run-off from entering public road drains;
l Although use of bentonite in diaphragm wall
and bore-pile construction is not expected, in case bentonite slurries is generated it should be reconditioned and reused as far as practicable. Spent bentonite should be kept in a separate
slurry collection system for disposal at a marine spoil grounds subject to
obtaining a marine dumping licence from EPD.
If used bentonite slurry is to be disposed of through public drainage system,
it should be treated to meet the respective applicable effluent standards for
discharges into sewers, storm drains or the receiving waters.
·
Spillage
of fuel oils or other polluting fluids should be prevented at source. It is recommended that all stocks should be
stored inside proper containers and sited on sealed areas, preferably
surrounded by bunds.
The following measures
are proposed and also summarisd in Chapter 14 of this EIA.
During the operation of
the Project, all domestic sewage generated shall be discharged to the public
sewerage at Yau Pok Road as the Project will not have population intake until
the commissioning of the planned local public sewerage works. Details are provided in Chapter 6 of this EIA Report.
The sewage generated by the club house and swimming
pool in the Southern Portion as well as the food and beverage and public
toilets in the Northern Portion of the Project Site is proposed to be
discharged into the public sewerage system at Yau Pok Road. The discharge from these facilities is subject to issuance of a discharge
licence under the WPCO, and the discharge shall comply with the terms and
conditions of a licence as well as the standards for effluents specified in the
TM-Effluents.
The drainage system shall
be designed to avoid any case of flooding with provision of sand traps. The proposed schematic drainage system is
shown in Figure 5-4. The proposed new drainage channels and pipes
surrounding the Project Site shall collect surface runoff within the Site
for direct discharge into the existing stormwater drains nearby Yau Pok Road
and via which into Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel after passing through sand
traps. The drainage outlet of the indoor car parks shall be connected to foul sewers via oil interceptors or similar
facilities.
Regular cleaning and
sweeping of the access road and other paved areas are suggested so as to minimize
exposure of pollutants to stormwater. Stormwater gullies and ditches provided
among the residential development will be regularly inspected to ensure these
facilities function properly.
Soft landscaping will be
provided around the residential development where practicable. In the event of
emergency (e.g. car accident) where there is a major spillage of oil, chemical
or fuel, dispersants or firefighting foam, etc., a system of contaminant
bunding is recommended as far as practicable.
Water
in the proposed landscape pond shall be self-contained with no outlet connecting to nearby channel/inland
water. The concerned landscape pond will be water
sealed so that there is no seepage of water into underground. During operation, pond water will be
contained within the pond and there shall be no discharge from the pond. Surface
runoff from the adjacent area
shall be diverted away from the pond area by drainage channels in order to
avoid overflow of the pond under extreme weather condition (e.g. heavy
rainfall). There will be no chemicals/
pesticides to be applied during operation. With these measures, no adverse impact on
water quality is expected.
The water quality
assessment in the EIA indicated that no adverse impacts on water quality would
be expected from the construction phase, with proper implementation of the
recommended environmental mitigation measures. However, in order to ensure
proper implementation of mitigation measures, regular water quality monitoring
and site auditing programme is proposed to ensure the effectiveness of the
recommended mitigation measures. The
monitoring and audit details are given in the EM&A Manual.
The major impact during
construction works of this Project is surface runoff and soil erosion due to
exposed surfaces. Peripheral drainage is proposed to divert
surface runoff from the construction site away from the nearby Fairview Park
Nullah, into the NTMDC
only. Temporary drains, sedimentation basins, sand
traps and similar facilities shall be provided during the construction works in
accordance with the ProPECC PN 1/94. Collected
and treated surface runoff will be discharged into existing stormwater drains
nearby Yau Pok Road and via which into the NTMDC following the existing flow
regime. With the adoption of proposed good
practices on-site, adverse water quality impact is not expected. The Contractor shall apply for a discharge licence under the WPCO and the discharge
shall comply with the terms and conditions of the licence.
The proposed landscape
pond is self-contained and there will be no discharge from the pond. The concerned landscape pond will be water sealed
so that there is no seepage of water into underground. Surface runoff from the adjacent area will be
diverted away from the pond area by drainage channels. There will be no chemicals/ pesticides to be
applied during operation.
During operation, no
sewage from the proposed development will be discharged into nearby NTMDS as the Project will not have population intake until the commissioning
of the planned local public sewerage works. The sewage generated by the proposed development (including residential
development, club house, and swimming pool in the Southern Portion as well as
the food and beverage and public toilets in the Northern Portion of the Project
Site) will be discharged into the public sewerage system at Yau Pok Road. The discharge from club house and swimming
pool in the Southern Portion as well as the food and beverage and public
toilets in the Northern Portion of the Project Site shall apply for a discharge
licence under the WPCO, and the discharge shall comply with the terms and
conditions of a licence as well as the standards for effluents specified in the
TM-Effluents.
Surface runoff will be
discharged to the NTMDS if considered necessary, for instance during or after
rainstorm. Pollutants, if any, is
pre-treated and settled before discharge.
There will be no direct influence to the water quality in the Deep Bay.
Potential cumulative
impacts due to concurrent construction of nearby approved EIA projects as well
as planned development sites have been assessed. Since both the projects will
implement its own mitigation measures to ensure the discharge from construction
site can comply with the relevant WQOs, it is expected that there will not be
any unacceptable cumulative construction phase water quality impact.
Thus, no adverse cumulative
impact during operational phase of the Project is expected.
All sewage generated from the development will be discharged to the
public sewerage during operational phase as the
Project will not have population intake until the commissioning of the planned
local public sewerage works.
Mitigation measures and best practices to control water quality during
construction phase have been recommended.
No adverse residual impact is anticipated during the
construction and/ or operation of the Project.
The proposed development
includes a number of houses (106 nos.) at the southern part of the Site. Apart
from the residential houses, a landscaped open area,
landscape pond and some passive recreational
uses and supporting facilities, e.g. Food & Beverage (F&B) and public
toilet, are proposed at the northern part of the Site. The general layout of the
development is shown in Figure 6-1.
There is currently limited
existing public sewerage system in vicinity of the Project Site as shown in Figure 6-2. Nam Sang Wai Pumping
Station and the associated connection to Yuen Long Sewage Treatment Works
(YLSTW) have already been completed in 2010 by Drainage Services Department
(DSD) under PWP No. 4215DS, Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal
– Kam Tin Trunk Sewerage Stage 1 and Au Tau Trunk Sewers. Meanwhile, the proposed Ngau Tam Mei Trunk
Sewerage is being designed by DSD under PWP No. 4235DS. The implementation of the proposed sewerage
project hinges on the availability of funding and support from local
communities (such as Rural Committee and District Council).
Capacity analysis of the
sewage pipe, pumping station and sewage treatment plant was carried out to
assess the adequacy of the proposed sewerage system. The design assumption and
basis are shown in Table
6‑1.
Table 6‑1 Design Assumption and Basis
|
Design
Standard |
DSD
Sewerage Design Manual, Part 1& 2 |
|
Flow
Formula Used |
Colebrook
White Formula |
|
Roughness
Assumed, Ks |
1.5mm |
|
Unit
Flow Factor |
EPD
Guideline for Estimating Sewage Flows for Sewage Infrastructure Planning: 0.37 m3/day/head
(Domestic, housing type specific for Private), 0.28
m3/day/head (”Commercial
Employee” plus ”Community, Social & Personal Services”) 1.58
m3/day/head (”Commercial
Employee” plus ”Restaurants & Hotels”) Assumption
: 0.025m3/day/head
(Visitor to public toilet) |
|
Backwash
of swimming pool |
6
litre/s or 10.8m3/day for a daily operation of 30 minutes |
The
estimated population and additional sewage
flow from the Project Site are shown Table 6‑2.
Table 6‑2 Estimated
Sewage Flow from Project Site
|
Population Type |
No. of Population |
Unit Flow Factor (m3/d) |
Dry Weather Flow (m3/d) |
Dry Weather Flow (l/s) |
|
Southern Part: |
||||
|
Residential 1 |
287 |
0.37 |
106 |
1.229 |
|
Employee of Ancillary Recreational Activities (e.g. residents’ club house) |
27 |
0.28 |
8 |
0.088 |
|
Employee of F&B |
12 |
1.58 |
19 |
0.219 |
|
Backwash of sw. pool |
- |
- |
10.8 |
6 |
|
Sub-Total |
326 |
- |
144 |
7.536 |
|
|
||||
|
Northern Part: |
||||
|
Employee of Recreational & Supporting Uses |
5 |
0.28 |
1 |
0.016 |
|
Employee of F&B |
20 |
1.58 |
32 |
0.366 |
|
Visitors to Toilet |
100 |
0.025 |
3 |
0.029 |
|
Sub-Total |
125 |
- |
36 |
0.411 |
|
Total (Southern and Northern Parts) |
451 |
- |
180 |
7.95 |
Notes:
1. Based on the person per flat ratio of 2.7 as adopted by the
Government for private developments under the recently approved EIA for the NENT NDAs (EIA-213/2013).
The dry weather flow from the Site is 180 m3/day,
among which 144 m3/day is from Southern
Part and the remaining 36 m3/day is from Northern Part. These flows
will be used to calculate the adequacy of the proposed sewerage system.
Under PWP No. 4235DS, the following sewerage
components as shown in Figure 6-2
are being designed:
·
Ngau Tam Mei Sewage Pumping Station and its
associated rising main;
·
900mm diameter gravity sewer connecting the rising
main to Nam Sang Wai Sewage Pumping Station.
Under PWP No. 4215DS, the construction of Nam Sang Wai Sewage Pumping
Station and its associated rising main to the existing YLSTW as shown in Figure 6-2 has been completed in 2010.
The sewage generated
from the Southern Portion and Northern Portion of the Project Site will be
separately conveyed to two terminal manholes located at the eastern boundary of
the Site and it will further drain to the proposed trunk sewer at Yau Pok Road
via two new 150mm gravity sewers. The tentative location of terminal manholes
and the new 150mm gravity sewers are shown in Figure 6-1.
As shown in Table
6-3 additional flow from the Project Site will only occupy a very small
proportion of the capacity of the public sewerage system. The design average dry
weather flow (ADWF) of the existing YLSTW is 70,000m3/day.
Table
6‑3 Comparison
of Additional Sewage Flow with Capacity of Public Sewerage
|
Location |
Design Capacity [A] |
Peaking Factor |
Peak Flow from Project Site [B] |
[B]/[A] (%) |
||
|
(m3/day) |
(l/s) |
(m3/day) |
(l/s) |
|||
|
525mm pipe |
21,449 |
248 |
4 |
688 |
13.79 |
3.21 |
|
825mm pipe |
70,675 |
818 |
4 |
688 |
13.79 |
0.97 |
|
Ngau Tam Mei SPS |
48,902 |
566 |
3 |
518 |
11.84 |
1.06 |
|
900mm pipe |
51,173 |
592 |
3.01 |
519 |
11.85 |
1.01 |
|
Nam Sang Wai SPS |
127,526 |
1,476 |
2.85 |
493 |
11.54 |
0.39 |
|
YLSTW (existing) |
70,000 |
810 |
- |
- |
- |
0.26 |
Notes:
2. For pipe and SPS, the design
capacity and flow comparison refer to peak flow; For YLSTW, the design capacity
and flow comparison refer to ADWF.
3. ADWF from Project Site = 180m3/day or 7.95 l/s.
4. For peaking factor refer to Appendix 6-1.
A hydraulic assessment
is conducted in Appendix 6-1 to
assess the adequacy of the public sewerage network by combining the projected
flow at Year 2030 from other areas and the additional flow from the Project
Site. The projected sewage flow from other areas is based on the population
projection in the interim version of the HK2030 Planning Data (reference
Scenario), which is well beyond the population intake year of the project and
is therefore considered as a very conservative approach. The result shows that the capacities of
proposed sewers, pumping stations and sewage treatment plant are adequate to
handle additional sewage generated from the Project Site.
Though the Project is
planned for completion in 2020, the proposed development will not have
population intake until the commissioning of all the aforesaid public sewerage
works for connection.
In addition, discharge license under the Water Pollution Control
Ordinance (WPCO) will be applied for the Food and Beverages facilities and
public toilets in the Northern Portion as well as club house and swimming pool
in the Southern Portion of the Project Site prior to its discharge into the
planned public sewer and the discharge shall comply with the terms and
conditions of a licence as well as the standards for effluents specified in the
“Standards
for Effluent Discharged into Drainage and Sewerage Systems, Inland and Coastal
Waters” issued undere the WPCO.
All the sewers and sewerage facilities within the proposed development before the terminal manholes will be constructed, operated and maintained by the owners of the
Site. The maintenance responsibility of the sewers
outside the development connecting the terminal manholes to the future public sewer works will subject to
agreement with DSD in the detailed design stage.
As the sewage generated from the Project Site will be discharged into
planned public sewers, no adverse impact is anticipated and no EM&A
requirement is necessary.
The
Project Site with population of 451 is estimated to generate an additional dry weather flow of 180 m3/day to the newly completed and future public
sewerage network under PWP Nos. 4215DS and 4235DS respectively.
Hydraulic analysis shows that this public sewerage collection system has adequate
spare capacity to convey the additional sewage from the Project Site. The
future reduced capacity of the YLSTW is also capable of receiving the
additional flow from the Project Site.
Lastly, the
Project will not have population intake until the commissioning of the
aforesaid public sewerage works for connection. Hence, it can be concluded that no adverse
sewerage impact due to the development is anticipated.
This Chapter identifies
the quantity, quality and timing of wastes arising as a result of construction
and operation of the Project. The waste management implications and the
associated environmental impacts are evaluated and assessed in accordance with
the criteria and guidelines given in Annexes 7 and 15 of the EIAO-TM. Clause
3.9.5 of the EIA Study Brief sets out the scope and requirement of the
assessment.
No particular land
contamination issue was identified in the area.
There are no records of existing and/ or historic activities relating to
chemicals and hazardous substances in the area.
Thus, further assessment is not required.
As advised by the
Project Engineer, the construction method mainly involve the following
procedures: site clearance to remove the surface vegetation, construction of boundary
wall with piling, installation of vertical drains, import of inert filling
material, removal of the residual inert fill materials after completion of
preloading, and construction of infrastructure and superstructure. Foundation
of the superstructure will likely to be carried out through pilling.
The appropriate disposal
method for each type of waste generated from the above-mentioned construction
method was identified. Opportunities for reducing construction waste generation
and maximizing re-use on-site were evaluated. The potential impacts arising
from handling, collection, and disposal of wastes and the environmental
mitigation measures required to mitigate these environmental impacts were
identified and recommended.
As the development density of the proposed residential use within the Project Site is not high, the
operation of the development will generate limited amount of domestic waste. Waste may also be generated from the
passive recreational and supporting uses in the Northern Site mainly due to visitors. However, the
quantity is expected to be small given that only some passive recreational uses and ancillary
facilities are proposed in the Project. Standard
approach that is widely adopted in other parts of Hong Kong shall be adopted
for the handling and disposal of this small quantity of waste during the
operational phase. Waste generated will
be collected and disposed of properly by a licensed contractor using refuse
collection vehicles (RCV). It is
unlikely that there will be any significant residual environmental impact. Therefore,
the waste management implication during the operation of the residential
development is not evaluated further in this EIA study.
The principle
legislation governing waste management in Hong Kong is the Waste Disposal
Ordinance (Cap. 354) (WDO), and its subsidiary regulations. The Ordinance,
enacted in 1980, generally encompasses all stages of waste management, from
place of arising to final disposal point of waste. The Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General)
Regulation, enacted under the WDO in 1992, provides controls on all aspects of
chemical waste disposal, including storage, collection, transport, treatment
and final disposal.
In addition to the WDO
and its subsidiary regulation, the following legislations have some bearing on
the handling, treatment and disposal of wastes in Hong Kong, viz.:
l Dumping at Sea Ordinance (1995);
l Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap.
28);
l Public Health and Municipal Services
Ordinance (Cap. 132) Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances Regulation;
l Dangerous Goods Ordinance (Cap. 295); and
l Air Pollution Control (Open Burning)
Regulation (Cap. 311O).
There are also various
guidelines which are relevant to waste management in Hong Kong such as:
l Waste Disposal Plan for Hong Kong (December
1989), Planning, Environmental and Lands Branch Government Secretariat;
l New Disposal Arrangements for Construction
Waste (1992), Environmental Protection Department & Civil Engineering
Department;
l A Guide to the Registration of Chemical Waste Producers,
Environmental Protection Department, Hong Kong;
l A Guide to the Chemical Waste Control Scheme,
Environmental Protection Department, Hong Kong;
l Code of Practice on the Packaging, Labelling
and Storage of Chemical Wastes (1992), Environmental Protection Department;
l Works Bureau Technical Circular No. 12/2000, Fill
Management;
l Works Bureau Technical Circular No. 2/93, Public Dumps;
l Works Bureau Technical
Circular No. 2/93B, Public Filling Facilities;
l Work Bureau Technical circular No. 16/96, Wet Soil in
Public Dumps;
l Works Bureau Technical Circular No. 25/99,
Incorporation of Information on Construction and Demolition Material Management
in Public Works Subcommittee Papers;
l Works Bureau Technical Circular No. 4/98,
Use of Public Fill in Reclamation & Earth Filling Projects;
l Works Bureau Technical Circular No.19/2001,
Metallic Site Hoardings and Signboards; and
l ETWB TC(W) No. 33/2002, Management of
Construction/Demolition Materials including Rocks;
l ETWB TC(W) No. 31/2004, Trip-ticket System for
Disposal of Construction and Demolition Materials; and
l ETWB TC(W) No. 19/2005, Environmental Management
on Construction Sites
l ADV 21,
Management Framework for Disposal of Dredged/ Excavated Sediment, published by
Buildings Department (Note: there is also the ETWB TC(W) No. 34/2002, Management of Dredged/Excavated Sediment)
The following approach was used for the land
contamination assessment:
· Desktop study to review the current and historical land uses. The
objective is to identify any potential contaminative land uses within the Study
Area; and
· Site reconnaissance to identify the existing land uses and to confirm
the general environmental conditions associated with each of the identified
sites. This is a non-intrusive approach for making an initial determination of
the likely nature of any potential contamination, and, where identified, to
evaluate whether there were any significant land contamination concerns
associated with these properties.
In addition, other sources
of information such as historical aerial photos, historical Hong Kong survey
maps, previous applications for planning permission at the Town Planning Board,
records and photographs taken from site visits, have also been collated and
reviewed.
There are also previously approved EIA projects in
adjacent to the Project Site. This
include the construction of public sewers and a pumping station along the existing
Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel (NTMDC)[6] and construction of a cycle track[7] immediately adjacent to the Project
Site. Information in these approved EIA reports was also reviewed.
According to the
Study Brief, if any contaminated land uses as stated in
Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of Annex 19 in the EIAO-TM is identified, the Applicant
shall carry out a land contamination assessment as detailed from sub-section
3.9.5.2 (iv) (a) to (f) of the Study Brief and propose
measures to avoid disposal.
According to Section 3.1 of the EIAO-TM,
consideration shall be given to historic land uses which have the potential to
cause or have caused land contamination such as oil installations, gas works;
power plants; shipyards/ boatyards; chemical manufacturing/ processing plants;
steel mills/ metal workshops; car repairing and dismantling workshops; and
dumping ground and landfill.
If any potential contaminated soil is identified within
the Project boundary due to either current or historic land uses, further
investigation in accordance with sub-section 3.9.5.2 of the Study Brief will be
required. The major potential impacts from
contaminated soil are considered to be the following:
·
potential health risks to future users of the cycle tracks.
Historic Land
Uses
The Project Site was zoned “REC” and “R(C)” in the Draft Mai Po and
Fairview Park OZP No. S/YL-MP/1. There was no known historic land uses such as
factory or any industrial operations which may result in potential land
contamination. In addition, there were no historic
activities relating to chemicals and hazardous substances in the area.
According to the HKSAR Fire Services Department (FSD), neither records of
dangerous goods licence nor incidents of spillage/ leakage were found within or immediate
adjacent to the Project Site (Appendix
7-1 refers).
It is understood that lands near Fairview Park was
previously farmland before the construction of residential development at
Fairview Park. Historic TPB records of the Project Site have been reviewed, according
to the record there was no record of historic planning application approved by the
TPB at the Project Site except a golf driving range and related uses at the Southern Portion of the Project
Site (under planning application no. A/YL-MP/57), which was
approved by TPB in 1999 on a temporary basis. Application for further extension of the planning permission for this active
recreational use was subsequently rejected by TPB
in 2001 under application no. A/YL-MP/74. In addition, historic aerial photos show that the Project Site was previously farmland. Change of land use status in the area was only
observed around year 2001/2002 due to commencement of construction of the
existing Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel. As such, land use status since year 2002 has
been selected for further review. Historic
aerial photos taken in 2002, 2005 and 2010 were presented in Appendix 7-2 with legends showing the
land use status. There was no historic land contamination issues identified.
Asides from the above
information, information from the nearby approved EIA projects have also been
reviewed. They concern a proposed cycle track project
and a public sewer project along the existing Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel
(Section 1.9 of this report
refers). The Project Site is immediately
adjacent to a section of the proposed public sewer as well as the proposed
cycle track alignment. The locations of
the concerned nearby planned projects are also shown in Figure 1-2. The EIA reports6 & 7 of both the
proposed public sewer project as well as the proposed cycle track project have
already obtained approval under the EIAO.
The
approved public sewer EIA report6 has identified
potential land contamination sites on both sides of the proposed sewers through
site reconnaissance visits and review of historic land use
information including aerial photos in 1990s’ and in early 2000s’. A section of the proposed public sewer is
immediately adjacent to the Project Site.
According to the concerned EIA report, there was no site of potential
land contamination identified within or immediate adjacent to the Project Site
(Please refer to Appendix 7-3 for
details of information extracted from the above-mentioned public sewer project
EIA report).
In
addition, according to findings in the approved cycle track EIA report7, the reported
land uses along the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel (where the Project Site is
located immediately adjacent to a section of the proposed cycle track) was
mainly farmland with scattered village houses.
There was also low density residential areas such as Fairview Park and
Man Yuen Chuen located in the middle section of Ngau Tam Mei Drainage
Channel. Other than that, the approved
cycle track EIA report did not identify any site of potential land contamination within or immediately
adjacent to the Project Site (Please refer to Appendix 7-3 for details of information extracted from the
above-mentioned public sewer project EIA report).
Based on the information
reviewed, the Project Site was previously farmland and has never been used by
land uses that may result in potential land contamination. According to the EIA report of nearby
approved EIA projects, which cover historic land use information before year
2002, there was no site of potential land contamination within or immediate adjacent to the
Project Site. Thus, there is no concern
of land contamination issue at the Project Site. Change of land use status near
the Project Site was observed around year 2001/2002 due to commencement of
construction of the existing Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel, thus historic
aerial photos since year 2002 have been reviewed. Since no historic land contamination uses were
identified at the Project Site, potential land contamination issue due to
historic land uses is not expected.
Current Land Uses
A preliminary desktop review and site
reconnaissance have identified the various current land uses within and
adjacent to the Project Site. Currently, the majority of the Project Site
is vacant. The Southern Portion of the Project Site has been largely paved for the
previously approved golf driving range and related uses. Site reconnaissance visit
was undertaken in February 2009 and May 2009 to identify existing land uses. Project
Site was found to be vacant during the visit, and no particularly building
structures were identified. No vehicle
repairing activity or any activity stated in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of Annex 19
of the EIAO-TM, that would likely result in land contamination has been
identified on-site. The land use status
was found to be same during the subsequent visit undertaken in October 2011.
These findings support the desktop review mentioned above that the Project Site
was not developed previously. No trace
of potential land contamination was identified during the site reconnaissance visit.
A further site visit was undertaken in December
2013 (site photos are provided in Appendix
7-2). The Project Site is a green field site currently vacant and there is
no change in land use status at the Project Site to date.
The surrounding area of the Project Site is
characterized by a mixture of rural landscape and low-rise residential
developments. There are no factories or
industrial operations that are likely to result in land contamination in close
vicinity to the Project Site. The
western boundary of the Project Site is occupied by the large-scale residential
development known as Fairview Park and the existing Fairview Park Nullah. The
Project Site is also bounded by the existing Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel and
Yau Pok Road to the east. A small existing
petrol filling station is also located to the south-west of the Project Site outside
the Project boundary and is within the Fairview Park (Figure 7-1 refers). This
petrol filling station serves Fairview Park and is physically separated from
the Project Site by the existing Fairview Park Nullah, which is an engineering
concrete channel (about 6m wide) along the boundary of Fairview Park. Given the identified petrol filling station is
outside the Project boundary which is physically separated from the Project
Site by the existing Fairview Park Nullah, it is not further assessed.
There is one small
abandoned pond located in the Northern Portion of the Project Site (Figure 7-2 refers). The concerned water pond is shallow in depth
and almost in drought condition, which will eventually dry out during the dry
season. As the landscape water pond
is also proposed at the same location where the abandoned pond is located and the bottom level of pond before and after the construction is about
the same (~2mPD), which is about the same level of the proposed landscape pond (see Figure 11-24), no dredging of sediment or pond filling
activities will be required at this location.
During the construction of the remaining area
of the proposed landscape water
pond at the Northern Portion, excavation of soil will be carried out in
adjacent to the existing abandoned pond.
Properly temporary drainage system will be constructed to divert surface
runoff away from the concerned abandoned pond and discharge it to the nearby
existing drainage system such as the Fairview Nullah or NTMDC through sand
traps.
Since there is no
historic and/ or existing land uses at the Project Site that would result in
potential contamination of soil and underground water, land contamination at
the Project Site is not expected. Thus,
further assessment on this aspect is not required.
Construction of the
proposed development mainly involves construction of the proposed residential
development and associated infrastructures and facilities as described in
Section 1.3.
The majority of waste to
be generated as a result of the proposed development would be excavated
materials during site formation and filling.
Handling, transportation and storage of excavated materials will likely
be involved at this stage. Construction
of buildings, associated infrastructures and facilities would also generate waste,
but the quantity will be in small amount through the adoption of standard
construction methods and use of pre-fabricated materials as much as
practicable. The production of
construction waste due to over-ordering or as “side-products” of construction
activities should be minimized by the Contractor(s) through careful design,
planning, good site management, control of ordering
procedures, segregation and reuse of materials.
The
varieties of waste that may arise due to the construction activities mainly
include the followings:
l Waste due to site clearance
l Construction and Demolition (C&D)
materials;
l Chemical waste; and
l General refuse.
The
potential environmental impact arising from the handling, storage, transport
and disposal of these different categories of wastes are described below. The nature of each of these wastes and the
recommended waste management measures are identified.
In any case, landfill disposal shall only
be considered as a last resort of waste management for the non-inert portion of
the excavated materials.
The
Project Site is currently vacant.
Surface vegetation with the Project Site will be removed at the start of
the Project and set aside for reuse, if necessary.
The
amount of site clearance works within the Developable Area will be limited to
the removal of a thin layer of vegetation and top soil. Based on initial estimation, about 16,800m3
of materials would be generated during site clearance. Among which, about 13,440m3 of
inert top soil is intended to be sorted on-site and re-used at landscaping
areas subject to the satisfaction of engineering requirements (see Table 7-1). Any surplus inert materials will be disposed
of at public fill facility. It is
estimated that about 3,360m3 of non-insert materials (e.g.
vegetation) will be disposed of at landfill site. The above figures are based on preliminary
estimation and the exact quantity will be provided during the detailed design
stage later on. In any case, landfill disposal shall only be considered as a last
resort of waste management.
For the Developable Area, excavated materials will be generated during
the site formation of the Project site.
General speaking, the Project Site is topographically flat, rural in
character. The existing average ground
level at the Project Site is about +3mPD, which will be leveled up to the
proposed site formation level of +5.4mPD.
Inert materials excavated from one location will be used as filling
materials at another location during Site leveling, thus stockpiling of large
amount of excavated materials is not expected.
In case stockpiling of small amount of materials is required, the
stockpiling location will be covered by tarpaulin sheets and backfilled as soon
as possible.
Based on initial estimation, approximately
55,300m3 of excavated C&D material would be generated due to
excavation. The exact figure will be
provided during the detailed design stage later on. As mentioned above, the existing ground level
of the Project Site will need to be raised to the required site formation
level. Thus, these excavated C&D materials
will be re-used on-site as fill materials wherever possible subject to the
satisfaction of engineering requirements.
Asides from reusing excavated materials, it is also expected that
additional import fill materials (approximately 42,300m3) would be required for the site formation works in
question. For this reason, there is an
initiative for the Contractor(s) to re-use excavated materials on site as fill
materials as much as possible in order to minimize associated construction costs.
The Project Engineer shall also ensure excavated materials from the
Project Site are re-used on-site as much as practicable. Any surplus materials that are not suitable
for filling shall be disposed of at public fill facilities. In any case, landfill disposal shall only be considered as a last resort of
waste management for the non-inert portion of the excavated materials.
The estimated amount of materials to be generated, re-used, and disposed
of from the Project construction works is summarized in Table 7-1.
Construction
waste may comprise unwanted materials generated during construction, including
rejected structures/ materials which have been over ordered or are surplus to
requirements, and used materials. Generally
speaking, construction waste mainly arise from the construction of earth
retaining structures and other maintenance activities carried out by the
Contractor, which may include the followings:
l Wood from formwork and falsework;
l Equipment and vehicle maintenance parts;
l Materials and equipment wrappings;
l Unusable/surplus concrete/grouting mixes;
and
l Damaged/contaminated/surplus construction
materials.
Since
the Project Site is currently vacant and no major demolition works will be
required, the volume of demolition waste involved would be very minimum.
The
concerned Project construction works do not involve construction of any
high-density
residential development, thus construction works would unlikely involve any
deep excavation or significant piling activities that would generate
significant amount of waste. It is
expected the building construction will use standard construction practices,
thus significant amount of construction waste during building construction is
not expected.
The
amount of construction waste to be generated from this Project will be subject
to contractor(s)’ operating procedure and site practices, however, the contractor(s) will be required to reuse
materials on site as far as practicable and minimize waste arising. The generation of wastes could be minimized through
recovery, reuse and/ or recycling.
Whenever practicable, the production of construction waste due to
over-ordering or as “side-products” of construction activities should be minimized
by the contractor through careful design, planning, good site management, control of ordering procedures, segregation and reuse of
materials. These measures will also
assist the contractor in minimising costs associated with the construction
works. Prefabricated building
construction elements could also be used as appropriate to avoid generation of
surplus construction materials.
Wooden
boards can be reused on-site or off-site, though the reusability and quantity
of final waste will be subject to the quality, size and shape of the boards
proposed by the contractor(s). Timbers
which cannot be reused shall be sorted and stored separately from all other inert
waste before disposal.
Should
construction site hoarding be erected, metal fencing or building panels, which
are more durable than wooden panels, are recommended to be used as far as
practicable. Opportunity shall also be sought to re-use any wooden boards used
in site fencing on-site or off-site.
Concrete and masonry can be crushed and used as fill material if
practicable. On-site incineration of wooden waste is prohibited.
Cross
contamination of inert C&D materials by other waste categories shall be minimized
as far as practicable through provision of storage facilities for storage of different
categories of waste. Inert materials including soil, rock, concrete, brick,
cement plaster/ mortar, inert building debris, aggregates and asphalt should be
segregated from and stored separately from other waste categories to ensure
proper handling and reuse. The on-site temporary facilities should be equipped
with dust control measures where necessary.
By
reducing the quantity of C&D materials requiring off-site disposal through reuse
on-site, the potential traffic impacts due to transportation of materials can
be reduced. Thus, additional traffic
flow generated from transportation of construction materials due to movement of
vehicles in and out of the Project Site is considered to be insignificant.
Spent
bentonite slurries, if any, will be handled and disposed of properly in
accordance with the requirements set out in the Practice Note for Professional
Persons (PN1/94) Construction Site Drainage.
In
order to avoid dust, odour and erosion impacts, all stockpile areas within the Project
Site should be covered with tarpaulin or impermeable sheeting. Any vehicle
carrying C&D waste should have their load covered when leaving the works
area. Vehicles should be routed as far as possible to avoid sensitive receivers
in the area. Potential air and surface runoff
impacts and mitigation measures due to handling of excavated materials are
presented in the Sections 3.6, 3.9, 5.5 and 5.6, respectively.
As
defined under the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation,
chemical waste includes any substance being scrap material or unwanted
substances specified under Schedule 1 of the Regulation.
Chemical
waste that could be generated from construction works would primarily arise
from chemicals used in operation and maintenance of on-site equipment. These
may include fuel, oil, lubricants, cleaning fluids, and solvents arising from
leakage or maintenance of on-site equipment and vehicles. Chemical generated from daily operation of
the construction works shall be recycled/ reused on-site as far as practicable.
The
amount of chemical waste that will be generated from the construction works
will depend on the contractor’s on-site maintenance intention, age and number
of plant and vehicles used.
Nevertheless, chemical wastes such as lubricating oil or solvent
generated by workers are not expected to be in large quantity. The likely chemical waste types are readily
accepted at the chemical waste treatment centre at Tsing Yi or other licensed
waste oil recycling facilities in Hong Kong.
If off-site disposal of
chemical waste is required, they should be collected and delivered by a
licensed contractor, and disposed of strictly following the Waste Disposal
(Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation.
The
contractors shall register with EPD as chemical waste producers when disposal
of chemical waste is anticipated to be required.
Chemical
waste generated has to be
stored in
suitable containers and away from water bodies so that leakage or spillage is
prevented during the handling, storage, and subsequent transportation.
Handling,
storage and disposal of chemical wastes shall be in accordance with the Waste
Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation and the Code of Practice on the
Packaging, Labelling and Storage of Chemical Wastes, thus this will unlikely
cause an unacceptable environmental impact.
Fossil
fuel and used lubricants from trucks and machinery are classified as chemical
waste. The Contractor shall register
with EPD as a chemical waste producer and observe all the requirements under
the storage, labelling, transportation and disposal of chemical waste.
The
Contractor shall prevent fuel and lubricating oil leakage from plant and
storage sites from contaminating the construction site. All compounds in work areas shall be
positioned on areas with hard paving and served by drainage facility. Sand/ silt traps and oil interceptors shall
be provided at appropriate locations prior to the discharge points.
Throughout
the construction phase, the workforce on the construction site will generate a
variety of general refuse requiring disposal.
These refuse will mainly consist of food wastes, aluminum cans, empty
plastic bottles and waste paper, etc.
Nevertheless, estimates of general refuse generated from the Site
Formation works are dependent on the number of workers. As no information regarding the number of
workers on-site is available at this early project stage, it has been assumed
that about 180 workers in average will work on the Developable Area during site
formation at any one time. Based on a
generation rate of 0.65 kg per worker per day, the daily arising of general
refuse during site formation would be approximately 117 kg/ day.
General refuse
generated at the construction site should be stored separately from
construction and chemical wastes to avoid cross contamination. A reliable waste collector shall be employed
by the Contractor to remove general refuse from the construction site on a
daily basis where appropriate to minimize the potential odour, pest and litter
impacts.
Open burning for the
disposal of construction waste or the clearance of the Project Site in
preparation for construction work is prohibited under the Air Pollution Control
(Open Burning) Regulation.
Table
7‑1 Summary Table of Estimated Materials to
be Generated, Re-used and Disposed of
|
Waste Material Type |
Generated from works
item |
Total Quantity Generated |
Quantity to be disposed of
off-site |
Disposal Route |
|
C&D Material |
Site clearance |
~16,800m3
of excavated top soil |
3,360m3 (non-inert C&D waste) |
Inert portion of top soil to be reused at
landscaping area as much as possible (about 13,440m3). Non-inert C&D waste of approximate 3,360m3
that cannot be reused or recycled, to be disposed of at NENT landfill as last
resort (subject to confirmation). |
|
C&D Material |
Site formation and filling, etc. |
~97,600 m3 (about 55,300m3 during excavation; and additional
42,300m3 of imported fill materials) |
- |
It is expected that all C&D materials will be
reused on-site for site formation. Any
surplus inert C&D materials to be disposed of at public filling area in
Tuen Mun Area 38 (subject to confirmation). |
|
General Refuse |
Food waste, waste paper, empty container generated from workforce |
117kg/day (preliminary estimate) |
117kg per day |
Refuse
station for compaction and containerisation and then dispose of at NENT
landfill. |
|
Chemical Waste |
Cleansing fluids,
solvent, lubrication oil and fuel from construction plants and equipment |
Less than few
cubic meters/month (preliminary estimate) |
Less than few
cubic meters/month |
To be collected by licensed
chemical waste collector. |
To ensure the appropriate
handling of the C&D materials, it is recommended that a Waste Management
Plan (WMP) shall be developed by the contractor and incorporated in the
Environmental Management Plan (EMP) in accordance with ETWB TCW No. 19/2005 –
Environmental Management on Construction Sites at the commencement of the
construction works.
In formulating the EMP
in respect to waste management, the following hierarchy should be considered:
·
Avoidance
and minimization to reduce the potential quantity of C&D materials
generated;
·
Reuse
of materials as practical as possible;
·
Recovery
and Recycling as practical as possible; and
·
Proper
treatment and disposal in respect to relevant laws, guidelines and good
practice.
Such
a management plan should incorporate site specific factors, such as the
designation of areas for segregation and temporary storage of reusable and
recyclable materials. The EMP
shall be submitted to the Engineers’ Representative (RE) and the Project
Environmental Team Leader (ETL) for approval before commencement of
construction, and shall be implemented throughout the Project. The EMP shall cover the followings and
developed taking into account the recommended control measures given in this
Chapter where appropriate:
·
A waste
management policy, organization chart, and responsibility;
·
An
estimation on the location, type, nature, quality and quantity of different
waste streams to be generated from the Project works, and the corresponding
waste management methodology;
·
A
method statement for demolition and transportation of the excavated materials
and other construction wastes;
·
Potential
for recycling or reuse should be explored and opportunities taken if waste
generation is unavoidable;
·
Recommendations
for appropriate disposal routes if waste cannot be recycled;
·
A
system to control the disposal of C&D materials and C&D waste to public
fill reception facilities, sorting facilities and landfills respectively
through a trip-ticket system in accordance with the ETWB TC(W) No. 31/2004; and
·
A
system to record the C&D materials/ C&D waste to be generated, disposed
of, reused, and recycled, respectively.
The Project Proponent/
RE will ensure that the day-to-day operations comply with the approved EMP. The
Project Proponent/ RE shall require the contractor to separate public fill from
C&D waste for disposal at appropriate facilities. In addition, the Project
Proponent/ RE shall regularly audit Contractor(s)’ records for the disposal,
reuse and recycling of C&D materials for monitoring purposes.
Based on the above waste
management recommendations, a detailed management and control plan shall be
formulated during the detailed design stage. A good management and control can
prevent the generation of significant amount of waste. On-site sorting of construction wastes will
be recommended. Secondary on-site sorting can be achieved by avoiding the
generation of “mixed waste” through good site control. Construction wastes shall be sorted to remove
contaminants, with the inert materials broken up into small pieces before being
transported to Refuse Transfer Station (RTS) for subsequent delivery to
landfill sites.
Chemical and oily wastes
generated from the construction activities, vehicle and plant maintenance and
oil interceptors should be disposed of as chemical waste in strict compliance
with the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulations.
The demolition and
construction work shall be considered in the planning and design stages to
reduce the generation of C&D waste where possible. Landfill disposal shall only be considered as
the last resort.
Construction methods
with minimum waste generation quantity and other environmental impacts shall be
considered in the detailed design.
In addition, the Project
Proponent shall require the contractor to reuse inert C&D materials (e.g.
excavated soil) on-site or in other suitable construction sites as far as
possible, in order to minimize the disposal of C&D materials to public fill
reception facilities.
The Project Proponent
shall encourage the contractor to maximize the use of recycled or recyclable
C&D materials, as well as the use of non-timber formwork to further
minimize the generation of construction waste.
The following additional
control/ mitigation measures are recommended to be followed by the Contractor:
·
Storage
of different waste types – different types of waste should be segregated and
stored in different containers, skips or stockpiles to enhance reuse or recycling
of materials and their proper disposal.
An on-site temporary storage area equipped with required control
measures (e.g. dust control) should be provided;
·
Trip-ticket
system – in order to monitor the proper disposal of non-inert C&D waste to
landfills and to control fly-tipping, a trip-ticket system should be included
as one of the contractual requirements and audited by the Environmental Team;
·
Records
of Wastes – a recording system should be proposed to record the amount of
wastes generated, recycled and disposed of (including the location of disposal
sites);
·
Training
– The contractor should provide his workers with proper training of appropriate
waste management procedure to achieve waste reduction as far as practicable and
cost-effective through recovery, reuse and recycling and avoid contamination of
reusable C&D materials;
·
Incorporate
good practice in “Recommended Pollution Control Clauses for Construction
Contracts” published by EPD in respect to removal of waste material from the
construction site into the contract of the contractor.
In additional to the
above, the relevant construction waste pollution clauses to be included in construction
contracts are summarized in the Sections 7.5.1 to 7.5.3:
The Contractor shall
submit to the Engineer for approval a waste management plan with appropriate
mitigation measures including the allocation of an area for waste segregation
and shall ensure that the day-to-day site operations comply with the approved
waste management plan.
The Contractor shall minimize
the generation of waste from his work. Avoidance and minimisation of waste
generation can be achieved through changing or improving design and practices,
careful planning and good site management.
The Contractor shall
ensure that different types of wastes are segregated on-site and stored in
different containers, skips or stockpiles to facilitate reuse/recycling of
waste and, as the last resort, disposal at different outlets as appropriate.
The reuse and recycling
of waste shall be practised as far as possible. The recycled materials shall
include paper/cardboard, timber and metal etc.
The Contractor shall
ensure that Construction and Demolition (C&D) materials are sorted into
public fill (inert portion) and C&D waste (non-inert portion). The public
fill which comprises soil, rock, concrete, brick, cement plaster/mortar, inert
building debris, aggregates and asphalt shall be reused in earth filling, reclamation
or site formation works. The C&D waste which comprises metal, timber,
paper, glass, junk and general garbage shall be reused or recycled and, as the
last resort, disposal of at landfills.
The Contractor shall
record the amount of wastes generated, recycled and disposed of (including the
disposal sites).
The Contractor shall
implement a trip ticket system in accordance with the ETWB TC(W) No. 31/2004
for public fill, C&D
materials and C&D waste to public fill reception facilities, sorting
facilities and landfills respectively.
Training shall be
provided for workers about the concepts of site cleanliness and appropriate
waste management procedure, including waste reduction, reuse and recycling.
The Contractor shall not
permit any sewage, wastewater or effluent containing sand, cement, silt or any
other suspended or dissolved material to flow from the Project Site onto any
adjoining land or allow any waste matter [or refuse] which is not part of the
final product from waste processing plants to be deposited anywhere within the Project
Site [or onto any adjoining land. He shall arrange removal of such matter from
the Project Site [or any building erected or to be erected thereon] in a proper
manner to the satisfaction of the Engineer in consultation with the Director of
Environmental Protection.
The Contractor shall
observe and comply with the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General)
Regulation.
The Contractor shall
apply for registration as chemical waste producer under the Waste Disposal
(Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation when chemical waste is produced. All
chemical waste shall be properly stored, labelled, packaged and collected in
accordance with the Regulation.
The proposed residential
development will accommodate a residential population of about 287 after full
occupation. With reference to the Data from Monitoring in
Solid Waste in Hong Kong 1999, the capita generation rates of domestic waste
will be 1.48 kg/day in 2016. Based
on the above assumptions, the estimated quantity of wastes to be generated from
this Development during the operation will be about 424 kg/day. There will also be waste
generation (mainly by visitors and employees) from the passive recreational and
ancillary facilities in the Northern Portion of the Project Site. However, the quantity of waste generated will
not be significant.
Refuse collection
chambers (RCC) will be provided for the residential development as well as the passive
recreational facilities in the Northern Portion of the Project Site. A licensed waste collector shall be employed
to collect domestic waste on daily basis.
In order to comply with Building Regulation, mechanical ventilation will
be provided. The odour nuisance to the public can be minimized by incorporating
the odour absorption system. With proper management and maintenance of the
waste facilities, possible leachate impact from the RCC is not anticipated.
It is also recommended
that separate collection bins for used aluminum cans, waste paper and plastic
bottles should be provided at strategic locations within the residential
development area and adjacent to the passive recreational facilities in order to
promote and encourage recycling during the operational phase.
The waste streams that
would be generated during the construction phase of the Project include site
clearance, excavated soil, C&D materials, and chemical waste from the
maintenance of construction plant and equipment and general refuse from the
workforce. Opportunities for reduction in waste generation through recovery,
reuse or recycling have been identified in the assessment.
Provided that the
recommendations set out in this Chapter are implemented, no waste related
regulatory non-compliance and unacceptable environmental impacts are expected
as a result of handling, storage, transportation and disposal of construction
waste arising from the proposed residential development.
Domestic waste may be
generated during the operational phase of this Project. Waste may also be generated from the passive
recreational and supporting uses in the Northern Portion of the Project
Site. However, given the scale of this
Project the quantity of waste is expected to be small. Standard approach that is widely adopted in
other parts of Hong Kong for handling and disposal of waste shall be
adopted. Refuse collection chambers
shall be provided and a licensed waste collector will be employed to collect
domestic waste on daily basis. With
these measures in place, it is unlikely that there will be any significant
residual environmental impact.
An Ecological Survey and
Ecological Impact Assessment was conducted in an area that mostly, currently zoned as “Recreation”, with another portion zoned as “R(C)”, located
at various lots in D.D. 104 (see Figure
8-1).
The Project Site
(hereafter the PS) lies between
Fairview Park on the west and Yau Pok
Road on the east. The PS comprises two portions,
the Northern Portion, which also abuts an area zoned as OU (CDWPA) in the
northeast, and the Southern Portion. The entire western boundary of the PS is bordered by the Fairview Park Drainage
Channel which eventually leads into Deep Bay. The PS is mostly zoned as “Recreation” (“REC”), with another portion zoned as “R(C)”. According to
the prevailing Mai Po and Fairview Park Outline Zoning Plan (OZP No.S/YL-MP/6),
the planning intention of the “REC” zone is to encourage the development of
active and/or passive recreation and tourism/eco-tourism for the general use of
the public. The PS mainly comprises grassland/shrubland, a
small pond, a small area of inactive agriculture and a small area of reed. The PS falls within Deep Bay Buffer Zone 2 (DBBZ
2) and a 12-month ecological
baseline survey for the PS and habitats within 500 m of it was required.
The Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process
(TM-EIAO), particularly Annexes 8 and 16 of the TM, has been used as a
guideline for ecological impact assessment of the project. Other relevant
environmental legislation, guidelines and references include:
l
Environmental Impact
Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499);
l
Environmental Impact
Assessment Study Brief No. ESB-207/2009;
l
Ecological Baseline
Survey for Ecological Assessment (EIAO Guidance Notes No. 7/2010);
l
EIAO
Guidance Note No. 6/2010 and 10/2010;
l
Wild Animals Protection
Ordinance (Cap. 170);
l
Forestry Regulations (subsidiary
legislation of the Forests and Countryside Ordinance, Cap. 96);
l
Town Planning Ordinance
(Cap. 131);
l
Approved Mai Po and
Fairview Park Outline Zoning Plan No. S/YL-MP/6;
l
Town Planning Board
Guidelines for Application for Developments within Deep Bay Area under Section
16 of the Town Planning Ordinance (TPB PG-No. 12B)
In accordance with Section 3.9.6.2 of the Study Brief No.ESB-207/2009, the Assessment Area (AA) for the purpose of ecological impact assessment of the project includes all areas within 500 m distance from the
boundary of the PS (see Figure 8-2) and any
area likely to be impacted by the Project. In this context, PS
in the report refers to the area within the PS Boundary, whereas AA refers to the area within the 500 m radius
but excluding the PS.
More than half of the AA
comprises highly urbanized and disturbed environment (67.66%), including
extensive areas of low-rise residential development (Fairview Park to the west
and Palm Springs to the north), villages along Fairview Park Boulevard, Ha Chuk
Yuen Road and Castle Peak Road.
Two areas of ponds are located within the AA: ponds at the northwestern
periphery of the AA, which extends to Deep
Bay, and several isolated ponds southeast of Man Yuen Tsuen. However, most of
these ponds are degraded through abandonment and some have undergone habitat
conversion through natural vegetation colonization. Some of the ponds are
also fragmentized by the existing roads / residential developments. It should also be
noted that a water retention pond on the eastern side of Ngau Tam Mei Main
Drainage Channel (the one to the immediate north of Fung Chuk Road) is
concreted and for floodwater storage only.
The PS comprises an extensive area of
grassland/shrubland (67.03%), a pond (5.49%), a small area of reed (2.42%), urbanised area (22.424%) and other miscellaneous
areas such as agricultural land, seasonally wet grassland and an abandoned
irrigation ditch (total 2.64%).
Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site
The Mai Po Inner Deep
Bay Ramsar Site lies about 500 m away from the closest point of the PS. The Ramsar Site is of
particular significance for migratory waterbird species including a number of
globally-threatened species and was recognized as such in 1995 through the
designation as a Ramsar Site. The core area of the Ramsar Site comprises Mai Po
Nature Reserve and much of the intertidal mudflats which are protected further
by being included in the Mai Po Marshes and Inner Deep Bay Sites of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSIs).
Wetland Conservation Area (WCA)
Ponds continuous and
adjoining to the Ramsar Site are designated by TPB PG-No. 12B as the Wetland
Conservation Area (WCA); the aim of this is to protect the integrity of the
Deep Bay ecosystem. The WCA includes a strip
of ponds southeast of the Mai Po Nature Reserve, in-between two extensive
low-rise residential developments, namely Palm Springs and Fairview Park.
The WCA extends within
the northern part of the AA (excluding PS) for the current project, but no part
of the PS falls within the WCA.
Wetland Buffer Area (WBA)
The Wetland Buffer Area
(WBA) is also designated under TPB PG-No. 12B to include a
buffer area of about 500 m
landward from the WCA boundary.
Any development within the WBA is required to demonstrate that
ecological impacts to the WCA will be minimized and any negative ecological
impacts will be fully mitigated through positive measures. Residential
development which seeks to replace existing open storage area and/or include
pond restoration projects may be given sympathetic consideration by the Board
subject to satisfactory ecological and other impact assessments. The Northern Portion of the PS
falls within this area.
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Egretry
No SSSI or Egretry is located within the
AA. All of the SSSIs or Egretries are
relatively far away from the PS. There
are three SSSIs lie in the range of about 1000 m to 1900 m away from the PS: the Mai Po Marshes SSSI, the Inner Deep
Bay SSSI and the Mai Po Village SSSI.
For the egretries, there are two active egretries which lie within the potential foraging distance of
breeding egrets (Anon 2009); these are
Mai Po Village egretry (1,800 m from the PS) and Mai Po Lung egretry (2,300
m).
A literature review
based on existing reports from the Government and private sectors, and known
literature on different faunal and floral groups; these are outlined below:
·
Relevant
past Environmental Impact Assessment Reports;
·
Porcupine!
(Newsletter of Department of Ecology & Biodiversity, University of Hong
Kong);
·
Hong
Kong Biodiversity (AFCD publication);
·
Hong
Kong Bird Watching Society (HKBWS) study reports;
·
Memoirs
of Hong Kong Natural History Society;
·
Various
natural history field guides for Hong Kong.
According to the EIA
website of EPD (www.epd.gov.hk/eia), there are two approved EIAs covering the
PS. These are EIA 159/2008 (Cycle Track
EIA) and EIA 094/2004 (Sewerage EIA).
Approved EIA for the development at Wo Shang Wai (EIA 144/2008) was also
reviewed as this EIA also presents information relevant to the ecological
evaluation of the present Project.
Below are the ecological
values of the present PS assessed in relevant EIAs.
Table
8‑1 Ecological Values of the
PS Assessed in Relevant EIAs
|
|
Cycle
Track EIA (159/2008) |
Sewerage
EIA (094/2004) |
|
Survey period |
Nov 2006 to Apr 2007. |
June 2002 to January 2003. |
|
Habitat category for the present PS |
Wasteland and Built Areas (no other habitat/
wetland identified within the PS). |
Cultivated land and urbanised/ disturbed area (no
other habitat/ wetland identified within the PS). |
|
Habitat
value concluded for the present PS |
Both
habitats were considered to be of “Low to Negligible” value. |
Both habitats were considered to be of “Low”
value. |
|
No. of species of conservation concern recorded
within the PS |
No record. |
No record. |
The PS now contains no active agricultural
land. The agricultural activities have
been abandoned and now the PS is mainly covered with grassland/ shrubland
through occupation of weedy species (most of them are exotic; see Section 8.6
below). As compared to active
agricultural land, which would be continuously filled with water artificially,
grassland/ shrubland is drier and provides less feeding opportunities for
wetland bird species (further details will be discussed below).
Neither the Project Area nor the Study Area of Wo Shang Wai EIA covers the PS, but it is located in the
same region (next to Palm Springs) and is also within WBA. It also contains habitats similar to the
present PS. Thus the evaluation of its
ecological value can be used as a reference for the present Project.
Table
8‑2 Ecological Information
on Wo Shang Wai (based on EIA 144/2008)
|
|
Ecological
Information |
|
Wetland
area |
4.69 ha (22% of the Project Area), including a large (~ 4 ha)
and continuous piece of freshwater marsh, which was considered to be a large
area for this habitat type in Hong Kong. |
|
Dry area |
15.86 ha (74% of the
Project Area). |
|
Ecological
linkage |
The site abuts the WCA and has direct linkage
with the fish ponds of “moderate to high” ecological value. |
|
Overall value |
Ranged from low to moderate. |
The wetland
habitats of the project area were considered to be of ‘low to moderate’ and
‘moderate’ value due to the size and rarity of these habitats (0.69 ha of
seasonally wet grassland and 4.0 ha of freshwater marsh/reedbed). These two
habitats were found to be supporting moderate diversity of wildlife. Other key
impacts of the project include loss of feeding ground for ardeids (species and
number of wetland birds foraging within the Wo Shang Wai Project Area: Little
Egret (maximum 48), Cattle Egret (maximum 14) and Chinese Pond Heron (maximum
7)). The loss of the roosting habitat
for wetland birds was considered to be of low significance despite a loss of
11.05 ha of roosting area (i.e. grassland) as alternative roosting sites were
available nearby.
A 7-month field
survey has been undertaken from January
to July 2009 to cover the bird migratory season and the ardeid breeding season. The survey also included bird flight line
surveys in March and July 2009. In accordance with the Study Brief, a 12-month
ecological survey is required to accompany an EIAO submission; hence, an
additional 5-month survey was undertaken between August and December 2010. In
addition to these surveys, one habitat survey and one vegetation survey were
conducted in January 2011, and an extra habitat and botanical survey for only
the PS was conducted in July 2011. Table 8-3 below outlines the surveys
undertaken in these periods.
Survey findings are included in Appendices
8-1 to 8-6.
The methodologies used in these surveys are in line with normal EIA practices
and are described below.
Table
8‑3 Schedules for floral and faunal group
surveys undertaken between January and July 2009 and between August 2010 and
January 2011 within the AA and the PS
|
|
Jan 09 |
Feb 09 |
Mar 09 |
Apr 09 |
May 09 |
Jun 09 |
Jul 09 |
Aug10 |
Sep 10 |
Oct 10 |
Nov 10 |
Dec 10 |
Jan & Jul 11 |
|
Botanical |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Habitat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mammal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bird |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bird Flight Line |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Herpetofauna (day
time) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Herpetofauna (night
time) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Butterfly &
Dragonfly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A habitat map for the AA and the PS was prepared based on recent aerial photograph and detailed
ground-truthing. This map is provided in Figure
8-2. From this, the area of each habitat was calculated, and these are
presented in Table 8-4.
Transect surveys for
mammals were conducted in conjunction with other faunal groups (between March and May 2009, August and
October 2010). In addition to
any observations of mammals, suitable locations were searched for evidence of
mammal activity (footprints, scats, burrows or food remains). However, any
mammal sightings/ signs observed during other visits would also be recorded.
Monthly surveys were
undertaken in the AA and the PS between January and July 2009 and between August
and December 2010. All bird
surveys commenced within one hour of sunrise to coincide with peak bird
activity, and the methodology followed that of Bibby et al. (1998). All bird
species seen or heard during the survey were noted. Bird species of conservation
concern/wetland-dependent species (hereafter called “bird species of interest”)
were enumerated and details of the habitat in which these were observed was
recorded. Special attention was paid to disturbance-sensitive birds within the
PS and in areas where disturbance impacts may be predicted. Special attention
was also paid to the presence of any potential roosting, breeding and foraging
habitats to bird species of conservation importance. A standard transect route
as shown in Figure 8-3 was followed.
Bird flight line surveys
were conducted in March and in July
2009. A surveyor was positioned at a vantage point (Figure 8-3 refers) and any bird species of interest flying over the PS were recorded. The birds were identified,
enumerated and recorded. Observations of any obvious flight line during monthly
bird surveys were noted.
Herpetofauna (reptiles
and amphibians) transect surveys were conducted between March and May 2009 and between
August and October 2010. In
total, six day-time reptilian
surveys and six night-time amphibian
surveys were undertaken (refer also to Table 8-3). A transect route which covered all major habitat types present was
followed through the PS and the AA (as shown in Figure 8-3). In addition, active searching was conducted in
micro-habitats (such as under wooden boards or among piled material) where
reptiles/amphibians might be expected to take refuge. Any reptiles and
amphibians observed or heard (for amphibians) were identified, counted (or
estimated in the case of heard amphibians) and their location and habitat were
noted as well.
Butterfly and dragonfly
surveys were conducted between March and May 2009 and between August and
October 2010. In total, six butterfly and dragonfly surveys were
undertaken. A transect route (the same
as that used for other faunal surveys, Figure
8-3 refers) was walked and all adult butterflies and dragonflies
encountered were identified and enumerated, and their individual pond/habitat
were recorded as well.
Discussion of the
ecological value of each habitat types is presented in Section 8.6 below. Detailed lists of plant species
recorded within each habitat type are provided in Appendix 8-1. An overview of the habitats is given below.
8.5.1.1
Habitats in the Project Site
The
PS
comprises about 9.1 ha in total. Three major habitats are identified (Table 8-4, see Figure 8-2). Grassland/shrubland (6.1 ha, 67.03%) and
urbanised
area (2.04 ha, 22.42%) are
the dominant habitat types on-site. Other habitats within the PS include a small pond, a small area of inactive
agricultural land, a small piece of seasonally wet grassland, a small area of
reed and an abandoned irrigation ditch.
Grassland/shrubland
is a very common habitat type in the New Territories. In low-lying areas it is
often found on land which has been relatively recently disturbed, and is
usually dominated by exotic, invasive species which can easily colonize
such areas. Grassland/shrubland
in the PS is
believed
to have been formed from abandoned agricultural land over the past 10-15 years
following colonization of ruderal
and invasive species.
An abandoned pond (0.50 ha, 5.49%) adjoins Fairview Park in the
northwestern portion of the PS. Scattered, isolated and abandoned ponds are not
uncommon on the landward fringe of the Deep Bay area. The pond on-site is
largely dominated by exotic, invasive species such as Ipomoea cairica and Brachiaria mutica.
Small, scattered and isolated patches of reed
are common in the northwest New Territories. Reeds (especially Phragmites australis) can easily colonize and spread in
shallow water and are tolerant of periodic droughts. Reed habitat (totaling
0.22 ha, 2.42%)
is located in the northeastern portion of the PS (adjacent to Fairview Park); Phragmites australis is the dominant
vegetation in this habitat, and this patch is surrounded by exotic grass
species such as Panicum maximum and Mikania macrantha.
Slightly above 22% (2.04 ha) of the PS comprised of urbanised
area (i.e. paved waste
ground); these areas are characterized by
concreted ground, heavy anthropogenic disturbance and generally supported low
faunal or floral diversity and usage.
A very small
piece of seasonally wet grassland was found in the narrow portion of the site
between the Northern Portion and the Southern Portion. It was about 0.1 ha in size and dominated by
exotic herbs such as Panicum maximum
and Brachiaria mutica. Such small areas of this habitat are not
uncommon in northwestern New Territories.
8.5.1.2
Habitats in the Assessment Area
Eleven major habitat
types are identified in the AA. These include an extensive urbanised area (123.64 ha, 67.42%), which is mainly low-rise residential
areas, Fairview Park, and to a lesser extent, Palm Springs. Other dominant
habitat types in the AA include ponds (19.22 ha, 10.48%; including the
floodwater storage pond to the north of Fung Chuk Road: 0.92 ha) and grassland/shrubland (9.17 ha, 5.0%). Habitats (other than ponds) which
are permanently or seasonally flooded within the AA comprise drainage channel
(10.15 ha, 5.53%), active/inactive agricultural land (7.28 ha, 3.96%), scattered patches of seasonally
wet grassland (4.17 ha, 2.28%), reed (3.43 ha, 1.87%), reed/marsh mosaic (1.33
ha, 0.73%), marsh (1.31 ha, 0.71%) and small watercourses (0.47 ha, 0.26%). The AA also includes plantation
along roadsides and around villages, amounting to a total of 3.23 ha (1.76%).
Urbanised areas are
subject to high or very high levels of anthropogenic disturbance such as human
access, active management regime, traffic and noise. These areas generally
support lower floral and habitat diversity. Fauna utilizing these areas are in
general commensal and tolerant of such activities. Of these, extensive low-rise
residential developments (developed area) and roads are predominantly concreted
areas where habitat diversity is particularly impoverished. Fairview Park and
Palm Springs are the largest long-established low-rise residential complexes
situated in the Deep Bay Area which result in some fragmentation and
disturbance to adjacent habitats. Likewise, linear structures such as roads
fragment habitats and provide some disturbance to nearby habitats. Trees
planted along these roads largely comprise fast-growing exotic species which
serve landscape purposes but offer little habitat for wildlife.
Village area and
agricultural land are also habitats under constant human disturbance and
management, and vegetation in these areas is generally planted for ornamental,
commercial or fruit production purposes. On the western side of the San Tin
Highway, a number of villages are located along the Castle Peak Road; these
include three villages to the east of Ha Chuk Yuen Road, and one to the north
of Yau Pok Road. Northeast of the PS is a larger area of agricultural land, which is planted with mostly Lactuca sativa, Brassica chinensis and Ipomoea
batatas. Some
agricultural lands inside, however, were found to be inactive.
As discussed in Section
8.5.1.1 above, grassland/shrubland is formed after
vegetation colonization and succession in abandoned areas of pond, agricultural
land or newly disturbed/filled areas. In the absence of active human intervention, these habitats will eventually
undergo further successional maturation.
At the northern
periphery of the AA, further away from the PS, are several abandoned ponds which are
contiguous and continuous with the ponds of the Deep Bay Area. These ponds are believed to have been
abandoned for a long period of time; hence, vegetative encroachment by reed Phragmites australis and other exotics
such as Ipomoea aquatica (which may
eventually colonize the entire pond and change the habitat type) is apparent. Due to increased human disturbance from the
adjacent areas and their location at the landward side of the Deep Bay Area, ponds within the AA generally support a lower abundance and
diversity of wildlife than ponds in the Deep Bay Area. The ponds between Palm Springs and
Fairview Park show signs of vegetation encroachment from the edges by common
and/or exotic species such as Ipomoea
aquatica and Eichhornia crassipes. Bunds surrounding these ponds support
trees/shrubs such as Macaranga tanarius
and Leucaena leucocephala. Isolated
ponds within the AA are likewise dominated by common and widespread exotic
species such as Eichhornia crassipes,
Ipomoea aquatica and Leucaena leucocephala.
Drainage channels
occupy a total area of 10.15 ha (5.53%). These include the Fairview Park Drainage
Channel, which is tidal and highly polluted, the tidal Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel and several small,
scattered and concrete-lined drainage channels. While most drainage channels
are entirely or partly concreted, and therefore provide very little habitat for
floral or faunal use, tidal drainage channels may provide foraging
opportunities for birds during favourable tides. The banks of Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel have cellular concrete
blocks which allow some vegetation establishment (subject to routine
management), and species such as Ophiopogon
japonicas and Echinochloa crusgalli
are commonly found. Ha Chuk Yuen Drainage Channel is dominated by Ludwigia perennis and some exotic
invasive herbs. Watercourses
are also located within the AA, but they are all heavily polluted.
Habitats are discussed
in more details with regard to floral and faunal diversity, and their
respective ecological value for wildlife in Section 8.6 below.
Table
8‑4 Habitats
in PS and AA (ha)
|
Project
Site |
Assessment
Area |
Total |
||||
|
(ha) |
% |
(ha) |
% |
(ha) |
% |
|
|
Agricultural land |
0.12 |
1.32 |
7.28 |
3.96 |
7.40 |
3.84 |
|
Drainage Channel |
|
|
10.15 |
5.53 |
10.15 |
5.27 |
|
Pond |
0.50 |
5.49 |
19.22 |
10.48 |
19.72 |
10.24 |
|
Marsh |
|
|
1.31 |
0.71 |
1.31 |
0.68 |
|
Plantation |
|
|
3.23 |
1.76 |
3.23 |
1.68 |
|
Reed |
0.22 |
2.42 |
3.43 |
1.87 |
3.65 |
1.90 |
|
Reed/Marsh |
|
|
1.33 |
0.73 |
1.33 |
0.69 |
|
Seasonally Wet Grassland |
0.10 |
1.10 |
4.17 |
2.28 |
4.27 |
2.22 |
|
Grassland/Shrubland |
6.10 |
67.03 |
9.17 |
5.00 |
15.27 |
7.93 |
|
Abandoned Irrigation
Ditch/ Watercourse |
0.02 |
0.22 |
0.47 |
0.26 |
0.49 |
0.25 |
|
Urbanised Area |
2.04 |
22.42 |
123.64 |
67.42 |
125.68 |
65.29 |
|
TOTAL |
9.10 |
100 |
183.40 |
100 |
192.5 |
100 |
8.5.2
Faunal Survey
Findings
Two mammal species were recorded in the PS: Small Asian Mongoose Herpestes javanicus and Japanese Pipistrelle Pipistrellus abramus. These two species are common and widespread
in the territory (Shek 2006). One
individual of the former species was observed during a site visit in the grassland/shrubland at the PS in August 2010. The
second species was regularly seen flying over the PS and the AA.
8.5.2.2
Avifauna
A total of 77
bird species were recorded between January and July 2009 and between August and December 2010. Forty-five of
which were recorded in the PS, 17 of which are bird species of interest. The number of
individuals present was comparatively low in the context of Deep Bay Area.
Bird species of interest
recorded in the PS
and the AA are detailed in Table 8-5.
The respective conservation status follows that in Fellowes et al. (2002), IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species and Wang (1998). All birds recorded from the monthly surveys
and the habitats in which they were recorded are listed in Appendix 8-2.
No bird species
of interest
were recorded regularly within the PS in numbers potentially significant to the
Deep Bay population. Within the PS, a
higher diversity of birds was recorded in grassland/shrubland, but these
comprise mainly common and widespread species, with 15 bird species of interest recorded, all of which
from the Northern Portion, in very low numbers. A few ardeids were observed using the Northern
Portion of the PS; these include (max in parentheses): Grey Heron (4), Great
Egret (1), Intermediate Egret (1), Little Egret (3) and Chinese Pond Heron (8).
Most of these birds were observed either in the pond or recorded perching on
the overhead wire/trees, presumably to be birds disturbed either from the
adjacent agricultural land or the NTM MDC.
Habitats in the wider AA support a slightly more diverse bird community.
A total of 70
bird species was recorded in the AA, of which 32 are bird species of interest. Of the bird species of interest recorded, the Ngau Tam
Mei Main Drainage
Channel was shown to support a number of ardeids, including Little Egret (high count of 101 individuals was recorded in January 2009), Grey Heron (80) and Great Egret (65), both recorded in December 2010,
Chinese Pond Heron (five recorded in August 2010) and Black-faced Spoonbill (up
to six recorded in December 2010). Low
numbers of Great Cormorant and other waders were also occasionally recorded in
the channel. The
diversity of other bird species is low compared to other drainage channels such
as Yuen Long Bypass Floodway, and San Tin Main Drainage Channel. Other habitats
with similar bird
diversities
include agricultural land, grassland/shrubland, and pond. However, most species present are common
and widespread and are not of conservation importance. The channel, despite its concreted bottom and
regular human disturbance, supports a moderate number of foraging ardeids,
particularly in winter when
high numbers of ardeids congregate at favourable foraging sites.
Food items are brought in by tides and the channel offers such a site for opportunistic
birds like Little Egrets.
Table 8‑5 Mean number of individuals, number of
surveys and maximum count of bird species of interest recorded in the PS and
the AA during January to July 2009 & August to December 2010, and their
conservation status
|
Species Name |
Level of Concern |
Project Site |
Assessment Area |
||||
|
Survey* |
Mean |
Max |
Survey* |
Mean |
Max |
||
|
Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis |
Local Concern |
|
|
|
2 |
0.17 |
1 |
|
Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo |
Potential
Regional Concern |
|
|
|
5 |
2.17 |
16 |
|
Grey
Heron Ardea cinerea |
Potential
Regional Concern |
3 |
0.50 |
4 |
4 |
14.67 |
91 |
|
Purple
Heron Ardea purpurea |
Regional
Concern (Fellowes
et al. 2002), (1) |
|
|
|
1 |
0.17 |
2 |
|
Great
Egret Ardea alba |
Potential
Regional Concern |
1 |
0.08 |
1 |
8 |
12.00 |
65 |
|
Intermediate Egret Egretta intermedia |
Regional Concern (Fellowes et al. 2002), (1) |
1 |
0.08 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Little
Egret Egretta garzetta |
Potential
Regional Concern |
5 |
0.67 |
3 |
8 |
28.67 |
160 |
|
Chinese
Pond Heron Ardeola bacchus |
Potential
Regional Concern |
5 |
1.00 |
8 |
9 |
4.84 |
13 |
|
Black-crowned
Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax |
Local
Concern |
1 |
0.08 |
1 |
1 |
0.08 |
1 |
|
Black-faced Spoonbill Platalea minor |
Potential
Global Concern |
|
|
|
2 |
0.67 |
6 |
|
Common Teal Anas crecca |
Regional Concern |
|
|
|
1 |
0.42 |
5 |
|
White-breasted
Waterhen Amaurornis phoenicurus |
(1) |
4 |
0.42 |
2 |
9 |
1.59 |
5 |
|
Common
Moorhen Gallinula chloropus |
(1) |
|
|
|
2 |
0.58 |
4 |
|
Greater Painted Snipe Rostratula benghalensis |
Local
Concern |
|
|
|
3 |
0.67 |
6 |
|
Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus |
Regional Concern |
|
|
|
1 |
0.08 |
1 |
|
Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius |
Local
Concern |
1 |
0.08 |
1 |
6 |
2.42 |
10 |
|
Common Greensheak Tringa nebularia |
Regional Concern |
|
|
|
1 |
0.17 |
1 |
|
Pintail
Snipe/ Swinhoe’s Snipe (2) Gallinago stenura / G. megala |
Swinhoe’s Snipe: Local
Concern |
2 |
0.33 |
3 |
2 |
0.83 |
6 |
|
Green
Sandpiper Tringa ochropus |
(1) |
|
|
|
6 |
1.09 |
6 |
|
Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola |
Local
Concern |
|
|
|
2 |
0.25 |
2 |
|
Common
Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos |
(1) |
|
|
|
4 |
0.42 |
2 |
|
Greater
Coucal Centropus sinensis |
Vulnerable |
4 |
0.50 |
2 |
11 |
1.34 |
3 |
|
Common
Kingfisher Alcedo atthis |
(1) |
1 |
0.08 |
1 |
7 |
1.34 |
4 |
|
White-throated
Kingfisher Halcyon smyrnensis |
Local
Concern |
3 |
0.25 |
1 |
5 |
0.42 |
1 |
|
Yellow
Wagtail Motacilla flava |
(1) |
2 |
0.33 |
3 |
4 |
0.91 |
3 |
|
Grey
Wagtail Motacilla cinerea |
(1) |
|
|
|
2 |
0.17 |
1 |
|
Red-throated
Pipit Anthus cervinus |
Local
Concern |
|
|
|
3 |
0.83 |
7 |
|
Pallas’s
Grasshopper Warbler Locustella certhiola |
Local
Concern |
|
|
|
1 |
0.08 |
1 |
|
Blunt-winged
Warbler Acrocephalus
concinens |
(1) |
1 |
0.08 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Zitting
Cisticola Cisticola juncidis |
Local
Concern |
4 |
0.92 |
4 |
4 |
0.75 |
4 |
|
Bright-capped
Cisticola Cisticola exilis |
Local
Concern |
|
|
|
1 |
0.08 |
1 |
|
Yellow-billed Grosbeak Eophona migratoria |
Local
Concern |
|
|
|
1 |
0.08 |
1 |
|
Red-billed
Starling Sturnus sericeus |
Global
Concern (4) |
4 |
1.00 |
6 |
4 |
8.58 |
64 |
|
White-shouldered Starling Sturnus sinensis |
(Local Concern) |
1 |
0.17 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
Collared Crow Corvus torquatus |
Local
Concern |
|
|
|
2 |
0.17 |
1 |
*
Number of surveys recorded
(1) indicates wetland-dependent species.
(2) Pintail Snipe (which is of no conservation
concern) and Swinhoe's Snipe (which
is a species of Local concern) are not distinguishable in the field.
(3)
Greater Coucal is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ in China Red Data Book of Endangered
Animals and is protected as national second-grade wildlife of China.
(4)
Red-billed Starling is
considered by Fellowes et al. (2002) to be of Global Concern. Since
publication, however, the global population estimate has been revised and the
species is no longer considered globally threatened. (BirdLife
International 2010). A
listing of Regional Concern (RC), based on the importance of the large roost
present near Deep Bay, is considered to be more appropriate.
8.5.2.3
Bird Flight Line
For
the survey conducted in March 2009, a total of 15 observations (20 birds in
total) were recorded. One more survey
was conducted in July 2009 and 21 observations (73 birds in total) were recorded. Details of the findings are given in Appendix 8-3.
A flight line is defined
here as a pathway used regularly by one or more individuals of bird or bat over
a period of time between a breeding ground to a foraging area (such as during
egretry breeding season) and/or between a foraging area and a roosting site
(such as cormorant roost in winter). Based on observations during the two periods, we found that the number of
observations is low and no obvious direction was observed. It is concluded that there were no such
flights lines over the PS. The observed
birds in flight were mainly over the Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel and the
northern part of the PS; few observations were made over the southern
part. Birds in flight were mainly observed from the developed area on the
eastern side of Ngau Tam Mei Channel to the ponds on the northwestern side of
the AA, and most of them passed through Fairview Park.
8.5.2.4
Egrets Recorded During Breeding Season
The breeding season of
egrets in Deep Bay generally falls within the months of March to August but the
exact period varies slightly from year to year (primarily due to variation in
rainfall). In the surveying period, egretry breeding season was reported to
fall between April and July (Anon 2010).
The
Project Site lies within the potential foraging distance of two active egretries at Mai Po Village (1,800 m from the Site) and Mai Po Lung (2,300 m). Ardieds known to breed in these two egretries
include Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron.
Very low numbers of Little Egret (max 1) and
Chinese Pond Heron were recorded between April and July 2009. Table 8-6 below outlines the number of
birds of these two species recorded during the egret breeding season.
Table
8‑6 Number of Little Egret and Chinese Pond
Heron recorded on-site during the breeding season 2009
|
Species \ Habitat |
Apr |
May |
Jun |
Jul |
|
Little
Egret |
- |
- |
|
1 |
|
Chinese
Pond Heron |
1 |
- |
1 |
- |
8.5.2.5
Herpetofauna
(Amphibian)
A total of eight amphibian species were recorded
between March and May 2009 and between August
and October 2010, of which five were recorded in the PS. Summary of the survey findings is outlined in Table 8‑7 below, while details of these findings are provided in Appendix 8-4.
All species recorded are
common and widespread in Hong Kong (Chan et al. 2005) and no species of conservation importance were observed; all species were recorded in low to very low
numbers.
Table 8‑7 Amphibian species recorded in the PS and
the AA during March - May 2009 & Aug – Oct 2010 and
their conservation status
|
Species Name |
Level of Concern |
Project Site |
Assessment Area |
|
Mean* |
Mean* |
||
|
Asian Common Toad |
- |
|
3.50 |
|
Spotted Narrow-mouthed Frog Kalophrynus interlineatus |
- |
0.17 |
|
|
Asiatic Painted Frog |
- |
0.34 |
0.50 |
|
Ornate Pigmy Frog |
- |
0.50 |
13.33 |
|
Marbled Pigmy Frog |
- |
|
0.67 |
|
Paddy Frog |
- |
|
3.67 |
|
Günther's Frog |
- |
1 |
3.50 |
|
Brown Tree Frog |
- |
0.50 |
4.50 |
* mean number recorded out of six surveys.
8.5.2.6
Herpetofauna
(Reptile)
Four reptile species were recorded between March and May 2009 and between August and October 2010. These species are widespread and common in
Hong Kong (Karsen et al. 1998) and of
no conservation concern. A summary of the survey
findings is outlined in
Table 8‑8 below, while details of these findings are provided in Appendix 8-4.
Table
8‑8 Reptilian
species recorded in the PS and the AA during March - May 2009 & Aug – Oct
2010 and their conservation status
|
Common Name |
Species
Name |
Level of Concern |
Project Site |
Assessment Area |
|
Mean* |
Mean* |
|||
|
Chinese
Gecko |
Gekko
chinensis |
- |
- |
0.33 |
|
Bowring’s
Gecko |
Hemidactylus
bowringii |
- |
- |
0.67 |
|
Chinese Skink |
Eumeces chinensis |
- |
- |
0.17 |
|
Reeves’
Smooth Skink |
Scincella
reevesii |
- |
0.17 |
0.17 |
* mean number recorded out of six
surveys.
8.5.2.7
Butterfly
A total of 34 butterfly species were recorded between March
and May 2009 and between August and October 2010; of which 13 were recorded in the PS. Two species of conservation concern were recorded – Pale Palm Dart Telicota colon and Danaid Egg-fly Hypolimnas
misippus; both are listed as ‘Local Concern’ by Fellowes et al. (2002). The former was recorded once at a marsh next to
Palm Springs (within AA, but outside PS) and the latter was
also recorded once in a plantation (also within AA, not PS). More recent
research into the local restrictedness of the butterflies in Hong Kong
indicated that Pale Palm Dart is considered locally rare (Chan et al. 2011). Both species are considered widespread in Hong Kong by Lo (2004). All species were recorded in low to very low numbers. Summary of the
survey findings are outlined in Table
8-9 below,
while details of these findings are provided in Appendix 8-5.
Table 8‑9 Butterfly species recorded in the PS and
the AA during March - May 2009 & Aug – Oct 2010 and their conservation
status
|
Common
Name |
Species Name |
Level of Concern |
Project Site |
Assessment Area |
|
Mean* |
Mean* |
|||
|
Pale
Palm Dart |
Telicota
colon |
Local Concern |
|
0.17 |
|
Greenish
Palm Dart |
Telicota
ancilla |
- |
|
0.33 |
|
Common
Straight Swift |
Parnara
guttata |
- |
|
0.17 |
|
Common
Bluebottle |
Graphium
sarpedon |
- |
|
1.17 |
|
Common
Jay |
Graphium
doson |
- |
|
0.17 |
|
Tailed
Jay |
Graphium
agamemnon |
- |
|
0.17 |
|
Common
Mime |
Chilasa
clytia |
- |
|
0.17 |
|
Red
Helen |
Papilio
helenus |
- |
|
0.17 |
|
Common
Mormon |
Papilio
polytes |
- |
0.33 |
2.00 |
|
Great
Mormon |
Papilio
memnon |
- |
|
0.17 |
|
Spangle |
Papilio
protenor |
- |
|
0.50 |
|
Paris
Peacock |
Papilio
paris |
- |
|
0.17 |
|
Indian
Cabbage White |
Pieris
canidia |
- |
0.50 |
3.50 |
|
Great
Orange Tip |
Hebomoia
glaucippe |
- |
|
0.17 |
|
Mottled
Emigrant |
Catopsilia
pyranthe |
- |
|
0.50 |
|
Lemon
Emigrant |
Catopsilia
pomona |
- |
|
0.17 |
|
Common
Gull |
Cepora
nerissa |
- |
3.34 |
0.17 |
|
Common
Grass Yellow |
Eurema
hecabe |
- |
2.00 |
6.50 |
|
Three-spot
Grass Yellow |
Eurema
blanda |
- |
0.34 |
|
|
Pale
Grass Blue |
Zizeeria
maha |
- |
0.67 |
5.17 |
|
Tailed
Cupid |
Everes
lacturnus |
- |
|
0.17 |
|
Quaker |
Neopithecops
zalmora |
- |
1.00 |
|
|
Common
Hedge Blue |
Acytolepis
puspa |
- |
|
0.17 |
|
Dark-brand
Bush Brown |
Mycalesis
mineus |
- |
0.67 |
2.67 |
|
Common
Five-ring |
Ypthima
baldus |
- |
|
0.17 |
|
Angled
Castor |
Ariadne
ariadne |
- |
0.83 |
1.33 |
|
Peacock
Pansy |
Junonia
almana |
- |
0.67 |
|
|
Grey
Pansy |
Junonia
atlites |
- |
0.33 |
2.17 |
|
Great
Egg-fly |
Hypolimnas
bolina |
- |
|
0.33 |
|
Danaid
Egg-fly |
Hypolimnas
misippus |
Local Concern |
|
0.17 |
|
Common
Sailer |
Neptis
hylas |
- |
0.17 |
0.17 |
|
Red-ring
Skirt |
Hestina
assimilis |
- |
|
0.17 |
|
Common
Tiger |
Danaus
genutia |
- |
|
0.50 |
|
Blue
Admiral |
Kaniska
canace |
- |
1.50 |
|
* mean number recorded out of six surveys.
8.5.2.8
Dragonfly
A total of 22 dragonfly species was recorded between March and May 2009 and between August and October 2010, of which 12 were recorded in the PS. Two species, Coastal
Glider Macrodiplax cora and Scarlet Basker Urothemis signata, are considered to be of “Local Concern” by Fellowes et al. (2002). The former species, however, is one of the most abundant and widespread
species globally and the latter is now considered to be common in Hong Kong
(Wilson 2004), while the latter has increased considerably in recent years and
is also considered to be common and widespread in overgrown pond areas in Deep
Bay Area (Wilson 2004). These two
species were not recorded inside the PS.
It should also be noted that, except Wandering Glider Pantala
flavescens, all species were recorded in
low numbers. Summary of the survey findings are outlined in Table 8-10 below, while details of these findings are provided in Appendix 8-6.
Table 8‑10 Dragonfly species recorded in the PS and
the AA during March - May 2009 & Aug – Oct 2010 and their conservation
status
|
Common Name |
Species Name |
Level of Concern |
Project Site |
Assessment Area |
|
Mean* |
Mean* |
|||
|
Wandering Midget |
Agriocnemis pygmaea |
- |
0.17 |
|
|
Orange-tailed Sprite |
Agriocnemis femina |
- |
0.17 |
0.17 |
|
Common Bluetail |
Ischnura senegalensis |
- |
1.67 |
0.33 |
|
Pale-spotted Emperor |
Anax guttatus |
- |
|
0.33 |
|
Common Flangetail |
Ictinogomphus pertinax |
- |
|
0.67 |
|
Asian Pintail |
Acisoma panorpoides |
- |
|
0.17 |
|
Blue Dasher |
Brachydiplax chalybea |
- |
1.00 |
1.00 |
|
Asian Amberwing |
Brachythemis contaminata |
- |
0.50 |
3.67 |
|
Crimson Darter |
Crocothemis servilia |
- |
0.50 |
4.00 |
|
Blue Percher |
Diplacodes trivialis |
- |
|
0.17 |
|
Amber-winged Glider |
Hydrobasileus croceus |
- |
0.17 |
0.34 |
|
Coastal Glider |
Macrodiplax cora |
Local
Concern |
|
0.33 |
|
Pied Percher |
Neurothemis tullia |
- |
1.84 |
4.50 |
|
Common Red Skimmer |
Orthetrum pruinosum |
- |
|
0.67 |
|
Green Skimmer |
Orthetrum sabina |
- |
0.17 |
5.84 |
|
Wandering Glider |
Pantala flavescens |
- |
28.00 |
77.17 |
|
Pied Skimmer |
Pseudothemis zonata |
- |
|
0.83 |
|
Variegated Flutterer |
Rhyothemis variegata |
- |
0.50 |
4.50 |
|
Evening Skimmer |
Tholymis tillarga |
- |
|
0.50 |
|
Saddlebag Glider |
Tramea virginia |
- |
0.17 |
0.50 |
|
Crimson Dropwing |
Trithemis aurora |
- |
|
0.33 |
|
Scarlet Basker |
Urothemis signata |
Local
Concern |
|
1.00 |
* mean number recorded out of six
surveys.
8.6.1
Habitats in the PS
A small piece of reed (0.22ha; 2.42-6% of PS
in total) was found within the PS. Two bird species, one herpetofauna species,
five butterfly species and six dragonfly species were recorded. Bird species of interest recorded in this
habitat was one Blunt-winged Warbler Acrocephalus concinens. This
species is an occasional visitor to Hong Kong and thus has even not been
assessed in Fellowes et al.
(2002). Other fauna species recorded
are all of no conservation concern.
Table
8‑11 Ecological evaluation of reed within the
PS
|
Criteria |
Reed |
|
Naturalness |
Natural
habitat through succession of abandoned agricultural land. |
|
Size |
Very small within the PS and negligible in a Hong Kong context. |
|
Diversity |
Very low. |
|
Rarity |
A fairly common habitat in the New
Territories.
Plants species recorded are mainly common/ very common species. 1
Blunt-winged Warbler Acrocephalus
concinens was recorded. This species
is an occasional visitor to Hong Kong and thus has even not been assessed in
Fellowes et al. (2002). Other fauna
species are of no conservation concern. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily
re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Fragmented. |
|
Ecological
linkage |
No
significant functional linkages with habitats of ecological significance. |
|
Potential
value |
Limited due to the isolated nature. |
|
Nursery
/breeding ground |
No
known significant nursery or breeding ground. |
|
Age |
Within
the past few years. |
|
Abundance
/Richness of wildlife |
Very low. |
|
Ecological
value |
Low. |
Grassland/shrubland is the predominant habitat
type within the PS, comprising 6.10 ha (67.03%). The PS comprised agricultural
fields and aquaculture in the early 1990s, but has been colonized by natural
succession of native and exotic species after site abandonment. Vegetation
comprised of exotic species, including Brachiaria mutica, Bidens alba, Panicum maximum, Mimosa pudica, and Wedelia
trilobata, and a few scattered tree species, including exotic Leucaena
leucocephala and native Macaranga tanarius and Celtis sinensis.
Fauna recorded using this habitat were
generally widespread and common species favouring open habitats. Forty-one bird
species were recorded at the Northern Portion, including 15 bird species of
interest (max. counts: three Grey Heron, one Intermediate Egret, three Little
Egret, eight Chinese Pond Heron, one Black-crowned Night Heron, two
White-breasted Waterhen, one Little Ringed Plover, three Pintail
Snipe/Swinhoe’s Snipe, two Greater Coucal, one Common Kingfisher, one
White-throated Kingfisher, three Yellow Wagtail, four Zitting Cisticola, six
Red-billed Starling and two White-shouldered Starling), while 22 bird species
were recorded at the Southern Portion, including five bird species of interest
(max counts: one Grey Heron, One Little Egret, One Little Ringed Plover, two
Zitting Cisticola and four Red-billed Starling).It should be noted that,
Pintail Snipe (which is of no conservation concern) and Swinhole Snipe are not
distinguishable in the field. Most of the ardieds recorded on-site were
recorded perching on the overhead wire and/or isolated trees; these were
presumed to be birds temporarily disturbed from either the adjacent
agricultural land or the NTM MDC. All these bird species are common and
widespread in the Deep Bay Area, and they are all recorded in low to very low numbers
in a Deep Bay context. Six herpetofauna, 11 butterfly and eight dragonfly
species were recorded. One Small Asian
Mongoose was also observed. All these
faunas, however, are common and widespread and of no conservation importance.
Table
8‑12 Ecological evaluation of grassland/shrubland
within the PS
|
Criteria |
Grassland/shrubland |
|
|
|
Southern
Portion |
Northern Portion |
|
Naturalness |
Natural
habitat through succession of abandoned agricultural land. |
Natural
habitat through succession of abandoned pond and agricultural land. |
|
Size |
Large
within the PS but small in a Hong Kong context. |
Large
within the PS but small in a Hong Kong context. |
|
Diversity |
Low bird diversity (22 species comprising of
mainly common birds and 5 bird species of interest). No other faunas were
recorded. |
Low to moderate bird diversity (41 species)
(comprising of mainly common birds and 15 bird species of interest). Diversities of other fauna were very low: 6 herpetofauna, 11 butterfly and 8
dragonfly species were recorded.
Invasive and ruderal species dominated the plant community with 50
species recorded. |
|
Rarity |
A common habitat in the New Territories. Flora
community was dominated by invasive and ruderal species. Five bird species of interest observed; all
re common and widespread in the Deep Bay Area and are all recorded in very
low numbers. |
A
common habitat in the New Territories. Flora community was dominated by invasive
and ruderal species. 15 bird species of interest observed; all are common and widespread in the Deep
Bay Area, and are all recorded in low to very low numbers in a Deep Bay
context. Other faunas
recorded are common and widespread and of no conservation importance. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily
re-creatable. |
Readily
re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Fragmented
by road networks and developed
areas. |
Fragmented
by road networks and developed
areas. |
|
Ecological
linkage |
No
significant functional linkages with habitats of ecological significance. |
No
significant functional linkages with habitats of ecological significance. |
|
Potential
value |
Very limited due to the isolated nature. |
Limited due to the isolated nature. |
|
Nursery
/breeding ground |
No
known significant nursery or breeding ground. |
No
known significant nursery or breeding ground. |
|
Age |
Within
the past decades. |
Within
the past few years. |
|
Abundance
/Richness of wildlife |
Low bird diversity (mainly consisted of common
species), but abundance was very low.
Diversities and abundances of other groups are very low. |
Low to moderate bird diversity (mainly consisted
of common species), but abundance was very low. Diversities and abundances of other groups
are very low. |
|
Ecological
value |
Low. |
Low to Moderate. |
Urbanised area within
the PS included mainly waste ground. It
is largely concrete-paved and is not of high ecological value. Eleven bird, three butterfly and one
dragonfly species were observed; all of them are common and of no conservation
importance. No
other fauna were recorded.
Table
8‑13 Ecological evaluation of urbanised area
within the PS
|
Criteria |
Urbanised Area |
|
Naturalness |
Derived
from abandonment of man-made habitats. |
|
Size |
Moderate
in size within the PS
(2.04 ha). |
|
Diversity |
Low plant diversity (30 species) and structural complexity;
low faunal diversity: 11 bird, 3 butterfly
and 1 dragonfly species. |
|
Rarity |
A
very common habitat in Hong Kong and edge of the Deep Bay wetlands. Plants species recorded are mainly common/
very common species. All fauna
species recorded are common and of no conservation concern. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily
re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Fragmented. |
|
Ecological
linkage |
No
significant linkages with habitats of ecological significance. |
|
Potential
value |
Limited
potential in its current form. |
|
Nursery
/breeding ground |
No
known significant nursery or breeding grounds. |
|
Age |
Unknown. |
|
Abundance
/Richness of wildlife |
Low
abundance and diversity of wildlife commensal with human activity. |
|
Ecological
value |
Very Low. |
There is one small pond
in the PS (0.5 ha), with very poor plant diversity. Two bird species were observed and they are
of interest (max counts: one White-breasted Waterhen and one Grey Heron). One
butterfly and four dragonfly species were also recorded, but they are all
common and of no conservation concern.
No other fauna were recorded.
Table
8‑14 Ecological evaluation of pond within the
PS
|
Criteria |
Pond |
|
Naturalness |
The
habitat is originally man made. |
|
Size |
Small
in size within the PS
(0.50 ha) and very small in a Hong Kong
context. |
|
Diversity |
Very low plant species diversity
(3 species) and structural complexity.
Very low faunal diversity: 2 bird, 1 butterfly and 4 dragonfly species. |
|
Rarity |
A common habitat type particularly in Deep Bay
Area. Plants species recorded are
mainly common/ very common species. Although
2 bird species of interest observed, they
are common and widespread in the Deep Bay Area, and are all recorded in very
low numbers in a Deep Bay context. Other faunas recorded are common and
widespread and of no conservation importance. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily
re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Highly
fragmented. |
|
Ecological
linkage |
Limited
linkages with adjacent habitats. |
|
Potential
value |
Limited
potential value due to small size and its
isolated nature. |
|
Nursery
/breeding ground |
No
significant nursery or breeding ground known. |
|
Age |
Unknown. |
|
Abundance
/Richness of wildlife |
Low
abundance and diversity of wildlife. |
|
Ecological
value |
Low. |
A small area of inactive dry agricultural
land (0.12 ha, 1.32%) is situated in the northeast corner of the PS. This small area is dominated by exotic weedy
grasses Brachiaria mutica and Paspalum conjugatum, and a few
isolated patches of weedy herbs such as Ageratum conyzoides and Conyza
canadensis. A few stems of reed Phragmites
australis were recorded in this dry habitat. Due to its past management
regime and small size, this habitat has limited ecological value for wildlife,
although the area is used by small numbers of migratory birds when the fields
are temporarily flooded. Ten bird
species were recorded and three are species of interest (max. counts: one
Little Egret, one Great Egret and one Chinese Pond Heron). No other fauna species were recorded in
this small agricultural land.
Table
8‑15 Ecological evaluation of agricultural land
within the PS
|
Criteria |
Agricultural Land |
|
Naturalness |
Anthropogenic. |
|
Size |
Very small in size within the PS (0.12 ha) and in a Hong Kong context. |
|
Diversity |
Very low
plant species diversity (14 species)
and structural complexity. Very low
faunal species diversity: only 10 bird
species. |
|
Rarity |
A common but decreasing habitat in the
New Territories. Plants
species recorded are mainly common/ very common species. Although 3 bird species of interest
observed, they are common and
widespread and are all recorded in very low numbers in a Deep Bay context. No
other faunas were recorded. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Somewhat fragmented by the drainage
channel/road network. |
|
Ecological linkage |
Not much
functional linkages. |
|
Potential value |
Low due to small size, frequent
disturbance and management regime. |
|
Nursery
/breeding ground |
Not suitable as a nursery or breeding
ground. |
|
Age |
Within the last few decades. |
|
Abundance /Richness of wildlife |
Low abundance and diversity of
wildlife. |
|
Ecological value |
Low. |
A small piece of seasonally wet grassland (0.1 ha, 1.10%) is situated in
the middle portion of the PS. Although it is called “seasonally” wet, we
consider that it would only be wet for a very short period of time (i.e. only
shortly after very heavy rain). Indeed,
during our site visit on 27 July 2011, this piece
of seasonally wet grassland was largely dry (only a small portion remained
wet), despite the fact that a heavy rainstorm had occurred in the previous
week. This piece of seasonally wet habitat is dominated by common grass species
(such as Panicum maximum and Pennisetum alopecurodies). Only a few
individuals of wetland plants, including
Commelina diffusa and
Cyperus exaltatus, which are tolerant to periodic drought condition, were recorded. No fauna were recorded in this habitat.
Table
8‑16 Ecological evaluation of seasonally wet grassland
within the PS
|
Criteria |
Seasonally wet grassland |
|
Naturalness |
Natural habitat through succession of
abandoned agricultural land. |
|
Size |
Very small in size within the PS (0.1 ha) and in a Hong Kong context. |
|
Diversity |
Very low
plant species diversity (8 species), no
fauna recorded. |
|
Rarity |
A common habitat in the New
Territories. Plants
species recorded are mainly common/ very common species. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Somewhat fragmented by the drainage
channel/road network. |
|
Ecological linkage |
Not much
functional linkages. |
|
Potential value |
Low due to small size, frequent
disturbance and management regime. |
|
Nursery
/breeding ground |
Not suitable as a nursery or breeding
ground. |
|
Age |
Within the last few months. |
|
Abundance /Richness of wildlife |
Very low abundance and diversity of
wildlife. |
|
Ecological value |
Very low. |
A very small ditch (0.02 ha, 205 m in length)
lies in the northern part of the PS.
This is likely to be an abandoned irrigation ditch and is largely
polluted; as such it is not favoured by wildlife. Only three bird species were
recorded, including two bird species of interest (one Chinese Pond Heron and
two Little Egrets (max. counts)).
No other fauna species were recorded. This habitat is dominated
by common grasses Brachiaria mutica
and Cynodon dactylon along the banks
of the ditch. A few small isolated patches of wetland herb Alternanthera sessilis and Commelina
diffusa, and other weedy herbs including Bidens alba and Mimosa pudica were also recorded.
Table
8‑17 Ecological evaluation of abandoned
irrigation ditch within the PS
|
Criteria |
Abandoned
Irrigation Ditch |
|
Naturalness |
Semi-natural. |
|
Size |
Small
(0.02 ha). |
|
Diversity |
Low plant (16 species) and very low fauna species (3 bird species only)
diversity and structural complexity. |
|
Rarity |
Small ditches are common in Hong Kong. Plants
species recorded are mainly common/ very common species. Although 2 bird species of interest
observed, they are common and
widespread in the Deep Bay Area, and are all recorded in low to very low
numbers in a Deep Bay context. No other faunas were recorded. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily
re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Isolated. |
|
Ecological
linkage |
Limited
linkages with the adjacent habitats. |
|
Potential
value |
Negligible as it is isolated. |
|
Nursery
/breeding ground |
No
significant nursery or breeding ground known. |
|
Age |
Within
the last few decades. |
|
Abundance
/Richness of wildlife |
Very
low abundance and diversity of wildlife. |
|
Ecological
value |
Very low. |
8.6.2
Habitats within the
Assessment Area
Reed habitats (3.43 ha) are presented in the
AA and most of them have developed from abandoned ponds in between Fairview
Park and Palm Springs. They are not
close to the PS, and are separated from the PS by developed areas such as
Fairview Park and the Main Drainage Channel.
Fifteen bird species were recorded and six are species of interest (max.
counts: two Great Cormorant, one Grey Heron, one
Purple Heron, one Little Egret, four White-breasted Waterhen and 13 Red-billed
Starling). It should be noted however,
that most of the sightings for this habitat came from one reed area developed
from an abandoned pond located between Palm Springs and Fairview Park. This reed is separated completely from the PS
by Fairview Park and is relatively far away from the PS (i.e. about 300
m). Other reed habitats did not support
high bird diversity. Six herpetofauna,
one butterfly and four dragonfly species were recorded. They are all of no conservation concern. No other fauna were recorded.
Table
8‑18 Ecological evaluation of reed within the
AA
|
Criteria |
Reed |
|
Naturalness |
Natural
habitat through succession of abandoned agricultural land/ponds. |
|
Size |
Small within the AA and in
a Hong Kong context. |
|
Diversity |
Low: 13 flora, 15 bird, 6 herpetofauna, 1
butterfly and 4 dragonfly species. |
|
Rarity |
A fairly common habitat in the New
Territories. Plants
species recorded are mainly common/ very common species. Although 6 bird species of interest
observed, they are common and
widespread in the Deep Bay Area, and are all recorded in low to very low
numbers in a Deep Bay context. Other faunas recorded are common and
widespread and of no conservation importance. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily
re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Reed in between Fairview Park and Palm Springs
would have some linkage to the Deep Bay Area. Others are largely isolated. |
|
Ecological
linkage |
Reed in between Fairview Park and Palm Springs
would have some linkage to the Deep Bay Area. |
|
Potential
value |
Reed in between Fairview Park and Palm Springs
would have some value due to their linkage to the Deep Bay Area. Others are
low. |
|
Nursery
/breeding ground |
No
known significant nursery or breeding ground. |
|
Age |
Within
the past few decades. |
|
Abundance
/Richness of wildlife |
Low abundance and diversity of wildlife. |
|
Ecological
value |
Reed in between Fairview Park and Palm Springs
would be low to moderate. Others are low. |
A single area of reed/marsh habitat (1.33 ha)
is present in the AA. Although it
qualifies as reed/marsh due to its plant community, its ecological function is
highly compromised by human activities which includes dumping and burning of
garbage by local villagers. This is
reflected in the low species diversity and abundance recorded: only 12 bird
species were recorded, including three bird species of interest: Zitting
Cisticola (maximum count, 1), Grey Heron (1) and White-breasted Waterhens (2)
were observed. Other fauna observed
included two butterfly and four dragonfly species. They are all of no conservation concern.
Table
8‑19 Ecological evaluation of reed/marsh within
the AA
|
Criteria |
Reed/Marsh |
|
Naturalness |
Natural
habitat through succession of abandoned pond. |
|
Size |
Very small within the AA and
negligible in a Hong Kong context. |
|
Diversity |
Low: 17 plant, 12 bird, 2 butterfly and 4
dragonfly species recorded. |
|
Rarity |
A fairly common habitat in the New
Territories. Plants species recorded are mainly exotic/ common/ very common
species. Although 3 bird
species of interest observed, they
are common and widespread in the Deep Bay Area, and are all recorded in low
to very low numbers in a Deep Bay context. Other faunas recorded are common
and widespread and of no conservation importance. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily
re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Fragmented. |
|
Ecological
linkage |
Limited linkages with habitats of
ecological significance. |
|
Potential
value |
Limited due to the relatively isolated nature. |
|
Nursery
/breeding ground |
No
known significant nursery or breeding ground. |
|
Age |
Within
the past few years. |
|
Abundance
/Richness of wildlife |
Very low. |
|
Ecological
value |
Low. |
The road network,
developed area and open storage within the AA are extensive, comprising 67.42%
of the AA (123.64 ha). These areas are characterized by high levels of
disturbance by anthropogenic factors and a low plant diversity containing a
large number of exotic species.
Fauna diversity found in
these highly disturbed, largely anthropogenic habitats is low. Only 13 bird
species were recorded within this area. Of these, two birds (max. counts: five
Greater Coucal and 43 Red-billed Starling) are species of interest. One frog, six butterfly and three dragonfly species were observed. All of them are of no conservation concern.
Table
8‑20 Ecological Evaluation of Urbanised Area
within the AA
|
Criteria |
Urbanised Area |
|
Naturalness |
Entirely
man-made. |
|
Size |
Large
within the AA
123.64 ha but small in a Hong Kong context. |
|
Diversity |
Low
habitat heterogeneity. plant
diversity moderate (156 species), but most are common/ very common species;
low fauna diversity: 13 bird, 1 frog, 6 butterfly and 3 dragonfly species
recorded. |
|
Rarity |
A
common habitat in Hong Kong. Plants species recorded are mainly common/
very common species. Although 2
bird species of interest observed, they
are common and widespread in the Deep Bay Area, and are all recorded in low
to very low numbers in a Deep Bay context. Other faunas recorded are common
and widespread and of no conservation importance. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily
re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Fragmented. |
|
Ecological
linkage |
No
significant linkages with habitats of ecological significance. |
|
Potential
value |
Low. |
|
Nursery
/breeding ground |
No
known significant nursery or breeding grounds. |
|
Age |
Within
the last few decades. |
|
Abundance
/Richness of wildlife |
Low
abundance and diversity of wildlife commensal with human activity. |
|
Ecological
value |
Very Low. |
Table
8‑21 Ecological Evaluation of Pond within the
AA
|
Criteria |
Pond |
|
Naturalness |
The
habitat is originally man-made. |
|
Size |
Relatively
large within the AA (19.22 ha) but small in a Hong
Kong context. |
|
Diversity |
Moderate plant species diversity (87 species), but most are common/ very common
species; moderate bird diversity (34) but other fauna low to moderate: 5
herpetofauna, 13 butterfly and 16 dragonfly. |
|
Rarity |
A
common habitat in Hong Kong but area is decreasing due to development. 16 bird
species
of interest and 1 dragonfly species of
conservation concern were recorded, but in low numbers as compared to the
Deep Bay populations. Plant species are
mainly common/ very common. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily
re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Ponds in between Palm Springs and Fairview Park
would be fragmented but may still have some linkages with Deep Bay Area. Ponds to the east of the Ngau Tam Mei
Channel can be considered as isolated. |
|
Ecological
linkage |
Ponds in between Palm Springs and Fairview Park
would have some linkages with Deep Bay Area.
Ponds to the east of the Ngau Tam Mei Channel are considered to have
little linkages with other high-valued habitats. |
|
Potential
value |
Ponds in between Palm Springs and Fairview Park
would have higher potential. Ponds to
the east of the Ngau Tam Mei Channel are considered to have low potential. |
|
Nursery
/breeding ground |
No
significant nursery or breeding ground known. |
|
Age |
Unknown. |
|
Abundance
/Richness of wildlife |
Moderate. |
|
Ecological
value |
Ponds in between Palm Springs and Fairview Park
would have moderate value. Ponds to the east of the Ngau Tam Mei
Channel are considered to have low
value. |
Several patches of grassland/shrubland (totaling 9.17 ha, 5.0%) were found within the AA. Grassland/shrubland is a common
habitat type in the New Territories, as abandoned pond, marsh, agricultural
land or wasteground are abandoned long enough for natural succession.
Vegetation in this kind of habitat within the AA is mostly comprised of exotic weed species, including Panicum maximum, Brachiaria mutica, and Bidens alba, and a few scattered tree species,
including exotic Leucaena leucocephala, Khaya senegalensis, Carica papaya
and native Macaranga tanarius, Ficus microcarpa and Celtis sinensis.
Fauna recorded using this habitat type were
generally widespread and common species favouring open habitats. 43 bird species were recorded, and 16 of them are species of interest (max. counts:
29 Grey Heron, two Little Egret, three Great Egret, four Chinese Pond Heron,
one White-breasted Waterhen, five Little Ringed Plover, five Green Sandpiper,
three Greater Coucal, one Greater Painted-snipe, four Pintail Snipe/ Swinhoe’s
Snipe, three Zitting Cisticola, one Pallas’s Grasshpper Warbler, two
White-throated Kingfisher, two Yellow Wagtail, one Yellow-billed Grosbeak and
one Red-throated Pipit). Two frog, eight
butterfly and 10 dragonfly species were recorded. One Coastal Glider, a dragonfly species of
conservation concern, was observed in a shrub to the east of the Ngau Tam Mei
Main Drainage Channel. Other fauna
species recorded are all of no conservation concern. All bird species of interest were recorded
in low to very low numbers, indicating the habitat within AA was not of high
ecological importance to these species. Most of the ardeids recorded on-site
were observed perching on overheaded wires or perching in trees.
Table
8‑22 Ecological evaluation of grassland
/shrubland within the AA
|
Criteria |
Grassland/Shrubland |
|
Naturalness |
Natural
habitat through succession of abandoned agricultural land. |
|
Size |
Moderate within the AA but small in a Hong Kong context. |
|
Diversity |
Bird diversity (43) can be considered as moderate
(but mainly consisted of common birds).
Diversities of other fauna were very low: 2 frog,
8 butterfly and 10 dragonfly). Plant
diversity moderate: 124, but dominated by invasive and ruderal species. |
|
Rarity |
A
common habitat in the New Territories.
Plants species recorded are mainly
common/ very common species. Although
16 bird species of interest and 1 dragonfly of conservation concern observed,
they are usually common and
widespread in the Deep Bay Area, and are all recorded in low to very low
numbers in a Deep Bay context. Other faunas recorded are common and
widespread and of no conservation importance. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily
re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Fragmented
by road networks and developed
areas. |
|
Ecological
linkage |
No
significant functional linkages with habitats of ecological significance. |
|
Potential
value |
Limited due to the isolated nature. |
|
Nursery
/breeding ground |
No
known significant nursery or breeding ground. |
|
Age |
Within
the past few years. |
|
Abundance
/Richness of wildlife |
Bird diversity was moderate (mainly consisted of
common species), but abundance was low.
Diversities and abundances of other groups are very low. |
|
Ecological
value |
Low to moderate. |
An area of active/ inactive agricultural land
is situated adjacent to the PS in the northeast, and occupies about 3.96% (7.28
ha) of the AA. Apart from a small field of wet agriculture (Water spinach Ipomoea
aquatica) the principal crop grown is lettuce Lactuca sativa.
However, based on the latest site observation, some of the area was found
inactive. This habitat has limited ecological value for wildlife due to its
management regime and small size. However, when the fields are temporarily
flooded and after rainy days, the area is used by small numbers of
wetland-dependent birds and amphibians.
Forty-three bird species were recorded and 22
of them are species of interest; these were recorded in low abundance (max. counts: one Great Egret, one
Black-crowned Night Heron, two Little Egret, one Grey Heron, five Chinese Pond
Heron, one White-breasted Waterhen, four Common Moorhen, five Common Teal,
three Yellow Wagtail, seven Red-throated Pipit, two Green Sandpiper, one Wood
Sandpiper, four Common Sandpiper, four Pintail Snipe/ Swinhoe’s Snipe, one
Bright-capped Cisticola, one White-throated kingfisher, three Greater
Painted-snipe, five Little Ringed Plover, three Greater Coucal, four Common
Kingfisher, one Collared Crow and one Zitting Cisticola). Ten herpetofauna, 12
butterfly and 11 dragonfly species were observed. Two dragonfly species are considered to be of
conservation concern: Coastal Glider and Scarlet Basker. However, again, the abundances were very low
(max. count for both: 1). Other fauna species recorded
are all common and widespread species of no conservation concern.
Agricultural areas within the AA, especially those to the north of the
Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel, contained some inactive wet agricultural
land. Other dry agricultural land would
also be temporarily flooded through normal farming practices. This could encourage feeding activities of
some wetland bird species (such as sandpipers).
Thus it could provide comparatively more diverse ecological function
than other dry habitats (i.e. Grassland/ Shrubland). On the other hand, the ecological linkage of
the agricultural land (those to the north of the Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage
Channel) with the Deep Bay Wetland System is also likely to be stronger than
other habitats fragmented by concreted structure (i.e. the PS).
Table
8‑23 Ecological Evaluation of Agricultural Land
within the AA
|
Criteria |
Agricultural Land |
|
Naturalness |
Anthropogenic. |
|
Size |
Moderate in
size within the AA (7.28
ha) but small in a Hong Kong context. |
|
Diversity |
Low
to moderate plant diversity (58
species). Moderate bird
diversity: 43 species; Low to moderate fauna diversities for others: 10
herpetofauna, 12 butterfly and 11 dragonfly species. |
|
Rarity |
A common but decreasing habitat in the
New Territories. Plants
species recorded are mainly common/ very common species. Although 22 bird species of interest
and 2 dragonfly of conservation concern observed, they are usually common and widespread in the Deep Bay Area, and are
all recorded in low to very low numbers in a Deep Bay context. Other faunas
recorded are common and widespread and of no conservation importance. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Somewhat fragmented by the drainage
channel/road network. |
|
Ecological linkage |
Not much
functional linkages. |
|
Potential value |
Low due to small size, frequent
disturbance and management regime. |
|
Nursery
/breeding ground |
Not suitable as a nursery or breeding
ground. |
|
Age |
Within the last few decades. |
|
Abundance /Richness of wildlife |
Low abundance and diversity of
wildlife. |
|
Ecological value |
Low to
moderate. |
In the AA, this habitat
is fragmented and disturbed by nearby villages.
Dumping in this habitat was frequently seen. Only three bird, two herpetofauna, nine
butterfly and six dragonfly species were recorded in this habitat. All of them are common and widespread and of
no conservation concern.
Table
8‑24 Ecological Evaluation of Seasonally Wet
Grassland within the AA
|
Criteria |
Seasonally Wet Grassland |
|
Naturalness |
Developed from anthropogenic
habitat. |
|
Size |
Small
in size (4.17
ha) and in a Hong Kong context. |
|
Diversity |
Low to moderate plant diversity: 44 species; very
low
fauna diversity: 3
bird, 2 herpetofauna, 9 butterfly and 6 dragonfly species. |
|
Rarity |
A
common and widespread habitat in the New Territories in Hong Kong. Plant
species are usually common/ very common.
Fauna species are all common and widespread. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily
re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Fragmented by developed areas. |
|
Ecological
linkage |
No
significant linkages with habitats of ecological significance. |
|
Potential
value |
Very
limited potential due to disturbance. |
|
Nursery
/breeding ground |
No
significant known nursery/breeding ground. |
|
Age |
Within
the last few decades. |
|
Abundance
/Richness of wildlife |
Low
abundance and diversity of wildlife. |
|
Ecological
value |
Very low. |
Drainage channels refer to artificial drains
designed to facilitate the removal of excess surface water to prevent flooding.
These are usually constructed with steep (or vertical) concrete sides and
bottoms. Within the AA, there are several drainage channels, including a
section of the Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel between Kam Pok Road and Yau
Pok Road, a drainage channel through Fairview Park, and a smaller channel east
of Kam Pok Road. All these lead into
Deep Bay. This habitat makes up 5. 51% of the AA (10.18 ha,
approximately 3 km in aggregate length).
Due to the concreted banks, high level of anthropogenic
disturbance and adjacent landuse (public roads), ecological value of this
habitat to wildlife is compromised.
Habitat complexity is low due to periodic weeding measures. Bird
abundance in Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel was, however, relatively higher
compared to other habitats, and supported high numbers of ardeids occasionally
during favourable tide conditions.
During the survey period, 101 Little Egrets (in January 2009), 80 Grey
Herons (in December 2010) and 65 Great Egrets (in December 2010), and up to six
Black-faced Spoonbills (November and December 2010) were recorded in this
channel. According to survey data, the number of foraging ardeids using this
channel during the egret breeding season was very low. Other channels
are mostly highly polluted and supported very few fauna.
Overall, 28 bird species were recorded and 17 are bird species of
interest (max. counts: one Great Cormorant, 81 Grey Heron, 65 Great Egret, 161
Little Egret, five Chinese Pond Heron, two White-breasted Waterhen, three
Little Ringed Plover, one Green Sandpiper, one Grey Wagtail, one Zitting
Cisticola, two Common Sandpiper, six Black-faced Spoonbill, one Black-winged
Stilt, two Common Greenshank, one Common Kingfisher, four Red-billed Starling
and one Collared Crow). Seven butterfly
and seven dragonfly species were recorded but all of them are common
species. No other fauna species were
observed.
Table
8‑25 Ecological Evaluation of Drainage Channels
within the AA
|
Criteria |
Drainage channel |
|
Naturalness |
Man-made habitat but with natural
tidal flow. |
|
Size |
Moderate
in size within the AA (10.15
ha). |
|
Diversity |
Moderate
plant species diversity (88) but very low structural complexity. Low to moderate bird
diversity (28); other fauna diversity
is low: 7 butterfly and 7 dragonfly. |
|
Rarity |
Channelised and concreted drainage
channels are a common habitat type in Hong Kong. Some bird
species of interest observed (17, mainly in Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage
Channel) and certain were in moderate abundances. Other
faunas recorded are common and widespread and of no conservation importance. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Somewhat fragmented from the Deep Bay
wetland system by adjacent landuse.
|
|
Ecological linkage |
Some functional linkages with the Deep
Bay area. |
|
Potential value |
Limited potential for increase in
value due to constraints imposed by artificial banks and management regime. |
|
Nursery /breeding ground |
Not a significant nursery or breeding
ground but used as a feeding area by some wetland species. |
|
Age |
Within the last decade. |
|
Abundance /Richness of wildlife |
High
abundance of certain bird species of interest in Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage
Channel (during favourable tides); others: low. |
|
Ecological value |
Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel: Moderate; Others: Low. |
Two areas of marsh were found between Palm
Springs and Fairview Park. These are
developed from abandoned ponds through natural succession. Within the AA, Cyclosorus
interruptus, Phragmites australis, Wedelia trilobata and Brachiaria
mutica are the dominant species in this habitat, and occupies a small area
(1.31 ha, 0. 71%). Species diversity and
abundance recorded were very low. Only
six bird species were recorded; two of them are species of interest (max.
counts: one Chinese Pond Heron and one Greater Coucal) but are also widespread in Hong
Kong. Two butterfly and one dragonfly
species were observed, with one butterfly of conservation concern: Pale Palm
Dart. It is listed as ‘Local Concern’ by
Fellowes et al. (2002) and one individual was recorded in the marsh next
to Palm Springs. This species is also
considered to be common in Hong Kong by Young and Yiu (2002). Other species are common and widespread and
of no conservation concern.
Table
8‑26 Ecological evaluation of marsh within the
AA
|
Criteria |
Marsh |
|
Naturalness |
Derived
from abandonment of man-made habitats. |
|
Size |
Small
within the AA (1.31
ha). |
|
Diversity |
Low plant and faunal species diversity: 27 plant, 6 bird, 2 butterfly and 1 dragonfly
species. |
|
Rarity |
A
common habitat in the New Territories.
Plant species are mainly common/ very common.
Although 2 bird species of interest observed, they are usually common and widespread in the Deep Bay Area, and are
all recorded in low to very low numbers in a Deep Bay context. The butterfly
species of conservation concern observed is also considered to be common in
Hong Kong. Other faunas recorded are
common and widespread and of no conservation importance. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily
re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Fragmented. |
|
Ecological
linkage |
May have some linkages with nearby habitats. |
|
Potential
value |
Limited
potential value if not managed. |
|
Nursery
/breeding ground |
No
known significant nursery or breeding grounds. |
|
Age |
Possibly
within the recent decade. |
|
Abundance
/Richness of wildlife |
Low
abundance and diversity |
|
Ecological
value |
Low. |
Plantation within the AA is found along San
Tin Highway and adjacent to village areas, totalling 3.23 ha (1.76%).
Plantations are generally low in ecological value due to early preference for
planting exotic species, including Acacia auriculiformis, Casuarina
equisetifolia and Albizia lebbeck, and fruit and ornamental tree
species including Longan (Dimocarpus longan), Mango (Mangifera indica),
White Jade Orchid Tree (Michelia x alba) and Rose Apple (Syzygium
jambos).
Fauna recorded in this habitat type is very
limited. Only 10 bird species were
recorded; all are common species of no interest. One herpetofauna, six
butterfly and one dragonfly species were recorded; one of the butterfly species
recorded, Danaid Egg-fly, was species of conservation concern and the single
individual was observed in a plantation to the east of Ngau Tam Mei Main
Drainage Channel. No other species of conservation concern were observed.
Table
8‑27 Ecological Evaluation of Plantation within
the AA
|
Criteria |
Plantation |
|
Naturalness |
Anthropogenic
habitat with a high proportion of exotic species. |
|
Size |
Small
in size within the AA (3.23 ha). |
|
Diversity |
Moderate plant diversity: 74 species. Low fauna diversity: 10 bird,
1 herpetofauna, 6 butterfly and 1 dragonfly recorded. |
|
Rarity |
A
common habitat in Hong Kong. Plant
species are mainly common/ very common.
1 Danaid Egg-fly was observed. Other faunas recorded are common and
widespread and of no conservation importance. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily
re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Highly
fragmented by developed areas and roads. |
|
Ecological
linkage |
No
significant linkages with habitats of ecological significance. |
|
Potential
value |
Limited
potential due to disturbance and high proportion of exotic species. |
|
Nursery
/breeding ground |
Not
a nursery or breeding ground of significance. |
|
Age |
Formed
within the last few decades. |
|
Abundance
/Richness of wildlife |
Low
abundance and diversity of wildlife comprising widespread and
disturbance-tolerant species. |
|
Ecological
value |
Very low. |
Small and scattered watercourses are present
in the AA (totaling 0.47ha). These watercourses are largely polluted, some with
partly-concreted banks and/or bottom, and are disturbed by adjacent
anthropogenic activities, such as farming or public roads. Fourteen bird
species common in the region were recorded; two of them are species of interest
but were recorded in low numbers (max. counts: three Chinese Pond Heron and
nine Red-billed Starling). No other fauna species were recorded.
Table
8‑28 Ecological Evaluation of Watercourse
within the AA
|
Criterion |
Watercourse |
|
Naturalness |
Semi-natural. |
|
Size |
Very small in size within the AA (0.47 ha) |
|
Diversity |
Low
plant diversity (46) and very low
fauna species diversity: only 14 bird
species. |
|
Rarity |
This kind of polluted lowland watercourse is
common in
Hong Kong. Plant species recorded are mainly common/
very common. Only 2 bird of interest
recorded; they are common in Hong Kong. |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily
re-creatable. |
|
Fragmentation |
Fragmented |
|
Ecological linkage |
Some
linkages with the adjacent habitats. |
|
Potential value |
Low in view of their small sizes and nearby
landuse. |
|
Nursery /breeding ground |
No
significant nursery or breeding ground known |
|
Age |
N/A |
|
Abundance /Richness of
wildlife |
Low
abundance and diversity of wildlife. |
|
Ecological
value |
Very low. |
8.7.1
Assessment methodology
Assessment of potential ecological impacts of
the development proposals used the following protocol. The Master Layout Plan
and development proposal occupying the PS as described in Section 2 of the
current report were reviewed, which stated that the Southern Portion of the
site will be developed into a residential area while the Northern Portion will
be developed into an area with the provision of a 0.6 ha landscape pond, landscaped
open area, and some passive recreational and supporting uses. Based on these and the findings presented in
Sections 8.5 and 8.6 above, potential ecological impacts in the absence of
ecologically-driven design changes or mitigation measures were identified,
quantified where possible and assessed. Ecological Impacts were categorized as
follows:
·
Direct
loss of habitats of ecological importance (permanent and temporary) due to
construction works;
·
Direct
mortality due to construction works (primarily affecting some non-vagile animal
groups);
·
Direct
impact to fauna of conservation importance;
·
Indirect
loss of habitats of ecological importance (permanent and temporary) through disturbance;
·
Indirect
impacts to fauna of conservation importance;
·
Indirect
impact to habitats close to/watercourses connected to
Deep Bay;
·
Cumulative
and fragmentation impacts.
The potential to reduce adverse ecological
impacts by design changes following the principle of Avoidance elucidated in
EIAO Technical Memorandum Annex 8 was then considered with respect to (a) their
technical feasibility and (b) their necessity, given the extent of the
predicted impacts.
Additional measures for Minimization and
Compensation of remaining ecological impacts are then described. Finally,
predicted unavoidable residual impacts, assuming implementation of all proposed
mitigation measures are detailed and quantified.
8.7.2
Identification of impacts
8.7.2.1
Construction Phase
Direct Habitat Loss
The PS occupies about 9.1 ha. No direct
habitat loss will result in the broader AA (excluding PS) outside of the PS.
Seven habitats that are identified in the PS comprise: agricultural land,
pond, reed, grassland/shrubland, seasonally wet grassland, abandoned
irrigation ditch and urbanised area. The majority of the PS is dominated by
grassland/shrubland which supports relatively few bird species of interest in
low abundances. As
aforementioned, this habitat is predominately dry and unlikely to provide
feeding and breeding habitat for wetland species. Based on survey findings, bird species of
conservation interest observed were largely roosting on-site. Although reed and pond provide important
habitats for species of conservation importance elsewhere in Hong Kong, the
reed and pond inside the PS are small, highly fragmented and were not found to
be ecologically important.
Ecological surveys have indicated that the
habitats reed, pond, agricultural land, abandoned irrigation ditch and
seasonally wet grassland are generally used by low number and diversity of
fauna, while grassland/shrubland in the south portion and that in the Northern
Portion of the PS respectively supported low diversity and low to moderate
diversity of bird species, number of bird species recorded were 22 and 41
respectively. Despite the low and low to moderate diversity of bird species,
birds recorded using both Southern and Northern Portions of the site were very
low in a Deep Bay context. Further, habitats on-site are not expected to be of
high significance to wetland fauna due to location and floral composition,
though some birds used the site as a roosting ground. Based
on the survey findings and experience and knowledge of the PS, the impacts to
these habitats are anticipated to be of low to very low significance.
Table
8‑29 outlines the Assessment Criteria and Discussion
for each of the Potentially Impacted Habitats in the Absence of Mitigation
Measures.
Table 8‑29 Potential
Direct Ecological Impacts to Existing Habitats within the PS
|
Habitat Type Criteria |
Reed |
Pond |
Grassland/Shrubland |
Agricultural Land |
Abandoned Irrigation Ditch |
Seasonally Wet Grassland |
Urbanised Area |
|
Habitat Quality |
Low |
Low |
Southern Portion: Low Northern Portion: Low to moderate |
Low |
Very low |
Very low |
Very low |
|
Species |
Very low
diversity; only 10 flora, 2 bird, 1
herpetofauna, 5 butterfly and 6 dragonfly species were recorded. Plants species recorded are mainly common/
very common species. 1 Blunt-winged Warbler was recorded. This species
is an occasional visitor to Hong Kong and thus has even not been assessed in
Fellowes et al. (2002). Other fauna
species are of no conservation concern. |
Very low fauna diversity: 2 bird species were observed and they are
of interest species (max counts: 1 each). 1 butterfly and 4 dragonfly species
were also recorded; they are all common and of no conservation concern. Very low plant species diversity (13
species). |
Southern Portion: Low faunal and floral diversity (22 birds including
5 species of interest). Northern Portion: Low to moderate bird diversity (41
birds including 15 of interest). Diversities of other fauna were low: 6 herpetofauna, 11 butterfly and 8
dragonfly species were recorded; and none of them are of conservation
concern. Invasive and ruderal
species dominated the plant community with 50 species recorded. |
Very low plant species diversity (14
species).
Very low
faunal species diversity: only 10 bird species, 3 are of interest (max. counts: 1 each). No other fauna species were recorded. Plants
species recorded are mainly common/ very common species. |
Only 3 bird species were recorded which included two bird of
interest. No other fauna species were recorded. Very low plant species diversity: 16 and
plants species recorded are mainly common/ very common species. |
Only 8 common/ very common and/ or exotic plant
species were found. No fauna was
recorded. |
Low
plant diversity (32 species); Plants species recorded are mainly common/ very common species. Low faunal diversity: 11 bird, 3 butterfly and 1 dragonfly
species. All fauna species recorded are common and of no conservation
concern. |
|
Size/ Abundance |
Very
small within the PS (0.22
ha) and very small in a Hong Kong context. Very low faunal abundance. |
Small in size within the PS (0.50 ha) and very small in a Hong Kong
context. Fauna abundance low. |
Relatively large in size within the PS
(6.1
ha) but very small in a Hong Kong context. Fauna abundance low. |
Very small in size within the PS (0.12 ha) and in a Hong Kong context. Fauna abundance low. |
Very small (0.02 ha). Fauna abundance low. |
Very small (0.1 ha). |
Moderate
in size within the PS
(2.04 ha). Fauna abundance low. |
|
Duration |
Permanent loss of existing habitat. |
Existing
habitat will be temporarily lost during the re-profiling, but will
be retained and slightly enlarged to serve as a landscape feature for visual enhancement. |
Permanent loss of existing habitat in the
Southern Portion; temporary loss of the habitat in the Northern Portion
during the enhancement work of landscaped open area. |
Permanent
loss of existing habitat. |
Permanent loss of existing habitat. |
Permanent loss of existing habitat. |
Permanent loss of existing habitat. |
|
Reversibility |
Habitat loss would be permanent and
irreversible. |
No
irreversible loss is anticipated under the current scheme |
Some of the
habitat
loss would be permanent and irreversible. |
Habitat loss would be permanent and
irreversible. |
Habitat loss would be permanent and
irreversible. |
Habitat loss would be permanent and
irreversible. |
Habitat loss would be permanent and
irreversible. |
|
Magnitude |
Existing
habitat would be completely lost. |
Existing habitat will be slightly enlarged under the current scheme. |
Existing
habitat would be lost but some of the habitat in the Northern Portion
would be replaced with a landscaped open area with a mixture of native/exotic
tree and shrub flowering and fruiting species. . |
Existing
habitat would be completely lost. |
Existing
habitat would be completely lost. |
Existing
habitat would be completely lost. |
Existing
habitat would be completely lost. |
|
Overall
Impact Severity |
Impacts to reed of Very Low Significance. |
Impacts
to pond of Very Low Significance. |
Impacts
to Southern Portion of grassland/shrubland of Very Low Significance and to Northern Portion of Low Significance due to
very low abundance of fauna to be impacted and replacement of landscape open area with tree/shrub planting in the
Northern Portion. |
Impacts
to agricultural land of Low Significance. |
Impacts to this ditch
of Very Low Significance. |
Impacts
to this grassland of Very Low Significance. |
Impacts
to urbanized area of Very Low to Negligible Significance. |
Direct mortality
Birds and mammals are highly mobile and will
not be significantly impacted by direct mortality. Less vagile animals may be impacted,
including herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians). No herpetofauna and insect species of
conservation importance were recorded within the PS, and all recorded species
were in very low to low numbers. A total of 77 plant species would be directly
impacted but none of the species were species of conservation importance. Based
on these findings, there is no evidence for significant impacts to any species
of conservation importance.
Direct impacts to fauna of conservation
importance
Seventeen bird species of interest were
recorded within the PS (Pintail Snipe/ Swinhoe’s Snipe was recorded; they
are undistinguishable on field, and Pintail Snipe is of no conservation
concern). Potential direct impacts to these species are discussed in details
below.
Recorded
Species of Conservation Importance
The Project will result in direct loss of
habitats. Some bird species of interest
were observed inhabiting some of these habitats. However, none of the species were recorded in
significant numbers (i.e. in relation to the Deep Bay population). In view of the small size of the habitats in
the PS (as compared with similar habitats elsewhere in Hong Kong), the
abundance of these species observed and the disturbance in surroundings, the
impacts on these species of concern are not considered to be significant.
Table 8‑30 Potential Direct Ecological Impacts to Species
of Interest within the PS
|
Impact Type Criteria |
Direct ecological impacts
to birds of Conservation Importance |
Impacts to Foraging Ardeids
During Breeding Season |
Impacts to Roosting
Waterbirds |
|
Species |
17 bird species of interest recorded within the PS. Details of
the species recorded are provided in Table
8-5. |
2 ardeid species known to breed in the nearby
egretries (i.e. Little Egret and Chinese Pond Heron). Details provided in Table 8-5. |
5 waterbird species are recorded using the
overhead wire/trees within the PS as a temporary roosting site. Details in
Section 8.5.2.2. |
|
Protection
Status |
All
wild birds are protected under Cap 170 in Hong Kong. |
||
|
Distribution |
None
of the species are considered to be restricted in range. |
Both
species are known to breed in a number of egretries in the New Territories,
while Little Egrets are also known to breed on the Hong Kong Island. |
None
of the species are considered to be restricted in range. |
|
Rarity |
Most of
the species are common and widespread in the northwest New Territories and/or
Hong Kong. Respective conservation
status are presented in Table 8-3 . |
None
of the species are particularly rare. For species conservation status, refer
to column under “Impacts to birds of conservation importance”. |
None
of the species are particularly rare. For species conservation status, refer
to column under “Impacts to birds of conservation importance”. |
|
Abundance |
Numbers
present in the PS are very small in comparison to the Deep Bay population. |
Very
low numbers were recorded (max count 1 for both species). |
Numbers
very low in comparison to the Deep Bay population. |
|
Duration |
Impacts
would be temporary and restricted to the construction of the landscape pond, landscaped open area and the
passive recreational and supporting uses. |
Impacts
would be temporary and restricted to the construction phase of the landscape
pond, landscaped
open area and the passive recreational and supporting uses. |
Impacts
would be temporary and restricted to the construction phase of the landscape
pond, landscaped
open area and the passive recreational and supporting uses.. |
|
Reversibility |
No
irreversible loss is anticipated under the current scheme. |
No
irreversible loss is anticipated under the current scheme. |
No
irreversible loss is anticipated under the current scheme. |
|
Magnitude |
Magnitude
to ardeids (Grey Heron, Great Egret, Little Egret, Intermediate Egret,
Black-crowned Night Heron) using the site as a temporary roosting area would
be low due to the small numbers recorded. Magnitude
to potential foraging ardeids (Chinese Pond Heron and Black-crowned
Night Heron) would be low due to the small numbers recorded. Magnitude
to other bird species of interest would be very low due to the small numbers
of individuals recorded, in particular in comparison to the populations in
Deep Bay, and the availability of similar and/or higher quality habitats in
Northwestern New Territories. |
Magnitude
would be very low due to the very small numbers of individuals recorded
compared to the egretry size. |
Magnitude
would be low due to the small numbers of individuals recorded compared to the
maximum number of birds of the species recorded using the
environ and also to the Deep Bay population. |
|
Overall
Impact Severity |
Impacts
are of Negligible to Very Low Significance due to very small number
recorded and temporary nature of the impact. |
Impact
to foraging egrets during the breeding season of Negligible to Very Low Significance given the small number
recorded. |
Impacts
to roosting waterbirds of Low
Significance given the small number recorded relative to the Deep Bay
population. |
* Red-billed
Starling is considered by Fellowes et al. (2002) to be of Global
Concern. Since publication, however, the global population estimate has been
revised and the species is no longer considered globally threatened. (BirdLife International 2010).
A listing of Regional Concern (RC), based on the importance of the large roost
present near Deep Bay, is considered to be more appropriate.
Indirect habitat loss through disturbance
(through construction and related activities)
Certain disturbance-sensitive species could
be impacted by a development as a result of increased disturbance to nearby habitats,
making the habitat less suitable for use by that species. The significance of
these impacts depends upon the distance from the source of disturbance, the
type and frequency of disturbance and the tolerance of species to disturbance.
In general, large waterbirds are the most disturbance-sensitive species in the
Deep Bay Area due to the open habitat preference, the large size of the species
and the large numbers present in Deep Bay (open country and large bird and
larger mammal species are generally more sensitive to disturbance than smaller
species or those utilizing closed habitats). Generally speaking, potential
impacts to the areas outside of a development site include indirect impacts due
to increased disturbance leading to a reduction in habitat value, pollution of
downstream watercourses and changes to the hydrology and/or construction
runoff. With regard to the current Project, only open habitats that are
adjacent to the PS within the AA (excluding PS) would potentially be subject to
increased disturbance from the development. This is due to the presence of
certain anthropogenic features providing a barrier between the source of
disturbance and the receptor site; these include existing large residential
areas and the road network (Yau Pok Road, Kam Pok Road, Castle Peak Road and
San Tin Highway). Potential areas where disturbance may arise from the proposed
development therefore only include the agricultural land immediately northeast
of the PS and Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel.
The PS is, in general, surrounded by
urbanized areas (basically Fairview Park and Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage
Channel). It is considered that, even in
the absence of any mitigation measures, construction conducted within the PS will
not create any significant adverse ecological impacts (i.e. through disturbance
such as noise, and dust).
There are ponds
and wetlands between Fairview Park and Palm Springs, located within WCA, which
are close to the Project Site.
Disturbance (such as noise and visual) and dust during the construction
phase may affect these habitats.
However, they are well-separated from the Site by Fairview Park, a large
existing residential area. According to the survey findings, 16 bird species of
interest were recorded in the adjacent ponds, but only 9 species are considered
disturbance-sensitive. These include (max count in paranthesis) Great Cormorant
(16), Grey Heron (4), Purple Heron (1), Great Egret (12), Little Egret (73),
Chinese Pond Heron (12), Common Sandpiper (1), Wood Sandpiper (1), and Green
Sandpiper (1). Based on the current proposal, though no ecological mitigation
measure is required, the existing pond in the Northern Portion of the Site,
which is closest to these habitats, would be retained and slightly enlarged to
serve as a landscape feature. No
large-scale construction activities will be carried out in the pond area. In view of this situation, these habitats are
unlikely to be significantly impacted (Table
8-31a).
Other habitats which
might be impacted indirectly through disturbance included three habitats
between Fairview Park and Palm Springs: reed (3 bird species of disturbance
sensitive: Grey Heron (1), Purple Heron (1), Little Egret (1)), marsh (1 bird
species of disturbance sensitive: Chinese Pond Heron (1)) and reed/marsh (1
bird species of disturbance sensitive: Grey Heron (1)).
Table
8‑31a Potential Indirect Habitat Loss through
disturbance within the AA
|
Habitat Type Criteria Criteria |
Potential
indirect impacts to habitats |
|||
|
Ponds in between Fariview Park and Palm Springs |
Reed in between Fariview Park and Palm Springs |
Marsh in between Fariview Park and Palm Springs |
Reed/ Marsh in between Fariview Park and Palm
Springs |
|
|
Habitat Quality |
Moderate |
Low to moderate |
Low |
Low |
|
Species |
16 bird species of interest and 9 are
disturbance-sensitive. |
6 bird species of interest and 4 are
disturbance-sensitive |
2 bird species of interest and only 1 is disturbance-sensitive. |
3 bird species of interest and 1 is
disturbance-sensitive. |
|
Size/ Abundance |
Small
in size within the AA
and in a Hong Kong context. Fauna number low. |
Small
in size within the AA
and in a Hong Kong context. Fauna number low. |
Very small in size within the AA and in a Hong Kong context. Fauna
number low. |
Very small in size within the AA and in a Hong Kong context. Fauna
number low. |
|
Duration |
Short-term. |
Short-term. |
Short-term. |
Short-term. |
|
Reversibility |
Reversible. |
Reversible. |
Reversible. |
Reversible. |
|
Magnitude |
Low
even no mitigation measures are implemented as this habitat is well-separated
from the Site by Fairview Park. |
Low
even no mitigation measures are implemented as this habitat is well-separated
from the Site by Fairview Park. |
Low
even no mitigation measures are implemented as this habitat is well-separated
from the Site by Fairview Park. |
Low
even no mitigation measures are implemented as the main construction area
(the southern portion, the residential area) is well-separated by urban
areas. Disturbance-sensitive fauna’s
abundance and diversity are very low. |
|
Overall Impact Severity |
Very Low. |
Very Low. |
Very Low. |
Very Low. |
^ Numbers in parentheses mean maximum counts within
all habitats mentioned in each column at the same time interval.
Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel next to
the PS, however, is considered to have some ecological value (as feeding ground
for ardeids). Although the level of the
PS is lower than the bund of this channel (i.e. level of Yau Pok Road is higher
than the level of PS) and thus the disturbance created within the PS will be
partially screened off, some bird species inside this channel are considered to
be disturbance-sensitive (such as large waterbirds). Disturbance-sensitive
species recorded included 11 species (max count in paranthesis): Great
Cormorant (1), Grey Heron (80), Great Egret (65), Little Egret (101), Chinese
Pond Heron (5), Green Sandpiper (1), Common Sandpiper (2) Black-faced Spoonbill
(6), Black-winged Stilt (1), Common Greenshank (2) and Collared Crow (1).These species are
generally sensitive to human presence and movement. Therefore, it is still
considered that appropriate measures to mitigate disturbance effect such as
from noise and visual should be adopted, e.g. the erection of a site hoarding
before the peak wintering period, the use of quiet type construction equipments,
scheduling of construction programme to avoid concurrent works.
Apart from the NTMMDC, the agricultural land
to the immediate northeast of the PS will also receive disturbance impact. Unlike the Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage
Channel, the fauna abundance of this agricultural land was much lower; however,
its bird diversity was relatively higher which included some
disturbance-sensitive species. Also,
since it is adjacent to the PS, construction workers can easily visit this
habitat and cause additional disturbance to disturbance-sensitive fauna. Aforestated m-easures should thus be applied
to prevent this habitat to be disturbed. Nine disturbance-sensitive species
were recorded, which include (max count in paranthesis): Black-crowned Night
Heron (1), Little Egret (1), Grey Heron (1), Chinese Pond Heron (5), Common
Teal (5), Green Sandpiper (2), Wood Sandpiper (1), Common Sandpiper (4) and
Collared Crow (1).
Dust and runoff would also become potential
disturbance and if not mitigated, can create impact on nearby habitats. Again, the channel in the close vicinity
(i.e. Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel) and the agricultural land to the
immediate northeast will be relatively prone to the concerned impact and preventive
measures would be proposed.
Except the two habitats mentioned above,
others are unlikely to be significantly impacted because: (1) they are well
separated from the PS by urbanized/ developed areas such as roads, residential
areas and villages, (2) the habitat value of some of these habitats are very
low (i.e. urbanised areas such as Fairview Park) and (3) fauna species recorded
were usually in relatively low to very low abundances.
Discussion on the
potential disturbance impacts during the construction phase is given in Table 8‑.
Table
8‑31b Potential Indirect Habitat Loss through
disturbance within the AA (during Construction
Phase)
|
Habitat Type Criteria |
Potential
indirect impacts to habitats During Construction Phase |
|
|
Adjacent
Agricultural Land |
Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel |
|
|
Habitat Quality |
Low to Moderate. |
Moderate. |
|
Species |
18
bird species of interest and 9 are considered to be sensitive to disturbance.
Other bird species of interest would also be affected by construction
runoff and dust. |
15
bird species of interest were recorded and 11 species are considered to be
sensitive to disturbance. Other bird
species of interest would also be affected by construction runoff and dust. |
|
Size/ Abundance |
Small
in size within the AA
and in a Hong Kong context. Fauna number low. |
Small in size (5.52 ha,
~1,500 m in length) within the AA and very small in a Hong Kong context.
Occasionally supports moderate abundance of Ardeids. |
|
Duration |
Short-term.
|
Short-term.
|
|
Reversibility |
Reversible. |
Reversible. |
|
Magnitude |
Would
be moderate before the implementation of mitigation measures. |
Would
be moderate before the implementation of mitigation measures. |
|
Overall Impact Severity |
Moderate Significance. |
Moderate Significance. |
8.7.2.2
Operational Phase
Indirect habitat loss through disturbance
(through human activities in future development)
With regard to the current Project, only open
habitats that are adjacent to the PS within the AA (excluding PS) would
potentially be subject to increased disturbance from the development. This is
due to the presence of certain anthropogenic features providing a barrier
between the source of disturbance and the receptor site; these include existing
large residential areas and the road network (Yau Pok Road, Kam Pok Road,
Castle Peak Road and San Tin Highway). Potential areas where disturbance may
arise from the proposed development therefore only include the agricultural
land immediately northeast of the PS and Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel.
As noted above, the Ngau Tam Mei Main
Drainage Channel could potentially be impacted due to the known importance of
the site for foraging ardeids, but the Channel is separated from the PS by Yau
Pok Road and has already been disturbed significantly by Kam Pok Road (through
the noise from heavy vehicles commuting between Castle Peak Road and open
storage areas close to Fairview Park).
As compared to this existing impact, disturbance associated with the
proposed development (i.e. increased passage of small vehicles on Yau Pok Road)
is considered to be much less in scale. Agricultural land to the immediate
northeast of the PS may be impacted in the form of increased human disturbance
during the operational phase; however, in view of the present landuse (i.e.
urbanized areas including houses and vehicle roads) in the close vicinity of
this agricultural land, the proposed development is unlikely to impose
significant additional disturbance impacts. Furthermore, under the current
proposal, the existing pond in
the Northern Portion of the site, which is of very low ecological significance
at present due to very low fauna and plant species diversity and abundance
(refer to Table 8-29), will be retained and slightly enlarged to about
0.6 ha to serve as a landscape feature for enhancement of the visual value of
the site [refer to Chapter 11 (Visual & Landscape) of the EIA Report
for details]. Though the landscape area
will enhance the amenity and landscape value as proposed under the LVIA, the
pond and the landscape area may be utilized by some freshwater and terrestrial
fauna at the landward periphery of Deep Bay.
Furthermore, a mixture of native/exotic tree and shrub flowering and
fruiting species will be planted at the interface between the landscaped open area
and the adjacent agricultural land, which would act as a buffer against any
potential disturbance. In view of this
situation, the agricultural land to the immediate northeast of the PS is
unlikely to be impacted. Discussion on these potential impacts is given in the table below.
Table 8‑32 Potential Indirect Habitat Loss through disturbance
within the AA (during Operational Phase)
|
Habitat Type Criteria |
Potential
indirect impacts to habitats during Operational Phase |
|
|
Adjacent
Agricultural Land |
Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel |
|
|
Habitat Quality |
Low to Moderate. |
Moderate. |
|
Species |
18
bird species of interest and 9 are considered to be sensitive to disturbance.
Other bird species of interest would also be affected by construction
runoff and dust. |
15
bird species of interest were recorded and 11 species are considered to be
sensitive to disturbance (species name and count are provided in Para.
8.7.2.1 under “Indirect Habitat Loss Through Disturbance Within the AA During
the Construction Phase). |
|
Size/ Abundance |
Small
in size within the AA
and in a Hong Kong context. Fauna number low. |
Small in size (5.52 ha,
~1,500 m in length) within the AA and very small in a Hong Kong context.
Support moderate abundance of Ardeids occasionally. |
|
Duration |
Permanent.
|
Permanent.
|
|
Reversibility |
Irreversible. |
Irreversible. |
|
Magnitude |
Degree
of disturbance would be low due to limited human access to the habitat. |
Some
additional disturbance is expected due to potentially more pedestrian/cyclist usage
of the public roads. |
|
Overall Impact Severity |
Low
Significance. |
Low
Significance. |
^ Numbers in parentheses mean maximum counts within
all habitats mentioned in each column at the same time interval.
Indirect impacts on fauna of conservation
importance
Impacts
to Birds
With regards to
potential indirect impacts (disturbance) to bird species, only bird species of
interest recorded in adjacent areas are potentially impacted by the proposed
development. Thirty-two bird of interest were recorded in the AA (excluding PS).
Table
8‑33 Potential indirect ecological impacts to
birds of conservation importance within the AA
|
Habitat Type Criteria |
Bird |
|
Species |
32 bird species of interest were recorded within the AA (Details
of the species recorded are provided in Table
8.3.) . |
|
Protection
Status |
All
wild birds are protected under Cap. 170 in Hong Kong. |
|
Distribution |
None
of the species are particularly restricted in range. |
|
Rarity |
All
of the species are common and widespread in the northwest New Territories
and/or Hong Kong. Respective conservation status are presented in Table 8-3 |
|
Abundance |
Numbers
present in the AA (excl. PS) are very small in comparison to the Deep Bay
population. |
|
Duration |
Impacts
would be permanent as the area is developed. |
|
Reversibility |
Irreversible
once the area is developed. |
|
Magnitude |
Magnitude
on adjacent habitats such as the agricultural
land would
be low due to the small numbers of individuals recorded, in particular in
comparison to the populations in Deep Bay, and the availability of similar
and/or higher quality habitats nearby; while magnitude to Ngau Tam Mei
Drainage Channel would be low due to existing anthropogenic barrier and
existing disturbance. |
|
Overall
Impact Severity |
Impacts
to species listed above are of Low Significance due to small numbers
present within the AA (excl. PS). |
. . (1) Red-billed Starling is considered by
Fellowes et al. (2002) to be of Global Concern. Since publication,
however, the global population estimate has been revised and the species is no
longer considered globally threatened. (BirdLife
International 2007). A listing of Regional Concern (RC), based on the
importance of the large roost present near Deep Bay, is considered to be more
appropriate.
(2) Assessment based on restrictedness
in breeding and/or roosting sites rather than in general occurrence.
Impacts
to Flight Lines
Although birds were
recorded in flight over the PS, no flight lines were detected. Birds in flight
were observed mainly on the northern part of the PS and on the Main Drainage
Channel.
In the current proposed
development, houses will be built and their heights will be similar to those
currently existing in the region. Also,
a large portion of the northern part of the PS will be maintained as an amenity
pond.
The birds observed in
the present surveys were found flying over Fairview Park and other developed
areas like Palm Springs, Royal Palms, and nearby village house
developments. Thus it is believed that
they can also fly over the future development within the PS, especially that
the PS will be developed into structures with heights (i.e. 6.6m) lower than
existing buildings in the vicinity (i.e. about 8.23m - 9m). Thus, no significant impact on bird flight
lines is expected.
Bird Collision Impact
The proposed Project involves
the provision of low-rise residential development and ancillary passive
recreational facilities. To mitigate
potential construction noise during construction phase, as well as traffic
noise and noise from industrial activities in the vicinity during the operation
phase, Temporary and permanent noise barriers are proposed as noise mitigation
measures of the Project. These barriers are at a height lower than the
buildings nearby (Details please refer to Chapter 4 of the report).
The design of these barriers
have incorporated elements which will reduce visual impact and the risk of bird
collision impacts by selecting materials which are opaque, non-reflective with colour
that would blend in with the environment. In addition, landscaping treatment
will be introduced in the landscape buffers in front the noise barrier to
further reduce the visual impact and the risk of bird collision (Figure
11-41). These measures will reduce the potential of creating an impression
for birds that a passageway exists.
Given the relative
heights of the existing buildings, and the design and landscape measures
adopted for the noise barriers, the indirect impact of bird collision during
construction are considered to be low significance during the construction
phase. Due to disturbed nature of the area, the relative low height and extent
of the permanent noise barrier, as well as the design and landscape measures
adopted for the noise barrier, the risk of bird collision is very low. Significant
bird collision impact is not anticipated.
Indirect Impacts
to Insects (Dragonfly/ Butterfly)
Only Low numbers of two
butterfly and two dragonfly species of conservation concern were recorded; none
of them were recorded within PS. In view
of the high mobility of these species and the low abundances observed, these
species are highly unlikely to receive any adverse impacts due to the
development.
Indirect Impacts
to habitats close to Mai Po and Deep Bay
The entire PS is largely
separated from habitats close to Mai Po (such as those ponds and reed between
Fairview Park and Palm Springs) by the presence of Fairview Park. In view of the development scale and nature
and most development is in the southern part, which is already surrounded by
developed areas. It is concluded that
the proposed development is unlikely to result in any indirect habitat loss on
habitats close to Mai Po and Deep Bay.
Indirect impact
on watercourses connected to Deep Bay
The proposed development
will not have population intake until the commissioning of the planned local
public sewerage works, and all the sewage generated from the PS will be
conveyed to public sewerage. Therefore
no sewerage pollution from the PS during operational phase is envisaged. However, increased water flow as a result of
increased surface runoff after heavy rainfall during operational phase is
envisaged, and it may potentially impact these downstream habitats. Water from these channels may also be used at
times for irrigation of adjacent agricultural land.
Given the fact that the
proposed developments (i.e. residential houses, a landscape pond, landscaped
open area and some passive recreational uses and supporting facilities) are
unlikely to create in-situ pollution, the amount of the increased surface
runoff from the PS is expected to be small, and the existing watercourse within
AA is already moderately polluted, major pollution on the Deep Bay system is
not envisaged from the proposed development.
8.7.2.3
Cumulative and Fragmentation Impacts
Cumulative Impact
from other Proposed Projects
Relevant
concurrent major projects in the adjacent area include:
·
Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou – Shenzhen – Hong
Kong Express Rail Link (EIA 169-2009); (construction period 2010 to 2015)
·
Construction of cycle track and associated
supporting facilities from Sha Po Tsuen to Shek Sheung River (EIA 159-2008);
(construction period 2009 to 2012)
·
Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai, Yuen Long
(EIA 144/2008); (construction period 2008-2012)
·
Proposed comprehensive development and wetland
protection near Yau Mei San Tsuen, Yuen Long (ESB-182/2008)
·
Proposed residential development within Residential
(Group D) Zone at various lots in DD104, Yuen Long, N.T. (ESB-204/2009)
·
Proposed low-density residential development at
various lots and their adjoining government land in D.D. 104, east of Kam Pok
Road, Mai Po, Yuen Long (ESB-210/2009)
Of these proposed
developments, EIA reports are available for the public for the first three
projects, while only SB are available for the latter
three. Therefore, anticipated cumulative
impacts of these projects are evaluated based on available information on these
sites.
According to the two EIA
reports that are available for public review, direct impact of both the Express
Rail Link and the Cycle Track involve mainly non-wetland habitats such as
grassland/shrubland, wasteground and existing road networks, which are of low
ecological significance for wildlife and do not contribute to the cumulative
loss of wetland habitats in the Deep Bay area. Only a very minor loss (two
patches of seasonal marsh of approximately 0.07 ha) of wetland habitats is
predicted at Hip Shing Wai, Mai Po and partial loss of 0.02 ha along the edge
of a marsh behind Mai Po Village under the Cycle Track. But findings indicate
that the impacted marshes are of low ecological value due to location, adjacent
land use and dumping by people from adjacent villages, while the affected marsh
area concerned an edge of stone-faced embankment. Thus, the cumulative impacts
of these two proposed developments are anticipated to be minimal.
The proposed
comprehensive development at Wo Shang Wai, Yuen Long involves the development
of 171 numbers of detached and semi-detached houses and 180 duplex units in 4-storey
buildings on 21.6 ha site within the Wetland Buffer Area close to adjoining
fish ponds in Mai Po Area. The proposed
development would result in a loss of 4.69 ha of wetland habitats for local
fauna, especially foraging egrets, but will be fully compensated by provision
of 4.74 ha of wetland habitat within the Wetland Restoration Area. Indirect impacts from disturbance to water
birds in adjacent pond habitats and impedance of flight paths for birds flying
over the development area would be minimized and mitigated by reduction of
building height, erection of site hoarding, good construction site practices.
For the potential
cumulative impacts from the proposed developments for which only a Study Brief
are available for public review (i.e. proposed development at Yau Mei San Tsuen,
ESB-182/2008, at various lots in Residential (Group D) Zone, ESB-204/2009 and
at various lots east of Kam Pok Road, ESB-210/2009), assessment is undertaken
based on information from the Study Briefs and survey findings. All these project sites are within the AA of
the present study. As revealed from
findings of the current survey, the site of the proposed project, ESB-204/2009,
contained mainly grassland/ shrubland.
The ecological value of the aforesaid site is
considered to be low to moderate as all species recorded inside, including some
bird species of interest, are usually common in the Deep Bay region and are
all recorded in low to very low numbers in a Deep Bay context. . The
site of the proposed development, ESB-210/2009, has been largely urbanised. Currently, it is mainly a paved ground for
parking heavy vehicles. Although a pond
is present, it is isolated and disturbed heavily by illegal dumping and
surrounding human activities (i.e. flea market, parking spaces for heavy
vehicles). The ecological value of this
site is considered to be very low. Also,
both sites are fragmented from the larger Deep Bay area by the presence of Kam
Pok Road, Yau Pok Road, other villages and residential areas and Castle Peak
Road. In view of their habitat quality,
isolated nature and the existing disturbance, these two sites are unlikely to
provide habitats which could support significant populations of species of high
conservation concern. Thus no cumulative
impacts are likely to be associated with these two projects.
Project area of
ESB-182/2008, although retains some ecological linkages with the Deep Bay area,
it is surrounded by two large residential areas, Palm Springs and Fairview
Park, and fragmented by roads on the east.
Some habitats within, as revealed from the results of the current study,
are of certain value and the loss of these habitats could have an ecological
impact. However, development projects in
the area are regulated by relevant guidelines and requirements in the
respective zonings in the OZPs, hence, loss of important habitats should be
fully compensated / mitigated. As such,
the cumulative impacts associated with this project are not expected to be
severe.
Permanent freshwater
habitats within the current PS are all very small and highly fragmented. Survey
findings indicated that the site supported low to moderate diversity of bird
species but none of them were recorded in any significant numbers. In view of
all the above, it is concluded that the potential cumulative loss of habitats and
ecological linkages with existing wetlands related to the current Project, is
considered to be insignificant.
Potential Fragmentation Impact from Current
Project
The current PS is nearly
completely enclosed by developed areas on the north and west by Fairview Park,
and to a certain extent on the south and east by Fairview Park Boulevard and
Yau Pok Road, respectively. Habitats
east of PS are considered to be of low ecological importance for the protection
and conservation of ecological integrity of the Deep Bay Area; while the
habitats west of PS are existing residential developments (i.e. Fairview
Park). Consequently, the current Project
is unlikely to result in fragmentation impact on the Deep Bay wetland ecosystem.
8.7.2.4
Summary of Predicted Impacts
Predicted potential
ecological impacts in the absence of mitigation measures are summarized in
below table.
Table 8‑34 Summary of predicted potential ecological
impacts in the absence of mitigation measures
|
Description of Impact |
Significance
of Impact |
|
Construction Phase |
|
|
Direct
habitat loss of reed |
Impacts to reed of Low Significance. |
|
Direct
habitat loss of pond |
Impacts to pond of Very Low Significance. |
|
Direct
habitat loss of grassland/shrubland |
Impacts to Southern Portion of
grassland/shrubland of Very Low Significance. |
|
Direct
habitat loss of agricultural land |
Impacts to grassland/shrubland of Low Significance. |
|
Direct
habitat loss of abandoned irrigation ditch |
Impacts to grassland/shrubland of Very Low Significance. |
|
Direct
habitat loss of urbanized area |
Impacts to grassland/shrubland of Very Low to Negligible Significance. |
|
Direct
mortality of species of conservation importance |
Impacts to species of conservation
importance of Negligible Significance |
|
Direct
impact on fauna of
conservation importance |
Impacts
are of Negligible to Very Low Significance due to very small number
recorded. |
|
Indirect habitat loss through disturbance from construction-related
activities) |
Impacts on Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel and
adjacent agricultural land would be Moderate.
Impacts on other habitats: Very Low. |
|
Operational Phase |
|
|
Indirect
habitat loss through disturbance
from human activities in future
development |
Impacts on Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel and
adjacent agricultural land would be Low.
Impacts on other habitats: Negligible. |
|
Indirect
impact on birds of interest |
Impacts
are of Low Significance due to small numbers present within the AA
(excl. PS). |
|
Impact on
egretries |
No
impacts are predicted. |
|
Indirect
impact on flight line |
No impacts are predicted as no major flight line
is identified over the PS. |
|
Indirect
impact on dragonflies/butterflies
of conservation importance |
Impacts
are Negligible. |
|
Indirect
impacts to habitats close to Deep
Bay |
No
impacts are predicted. |
|
Indirect
impacts to watercourses connected
to Deep Bay |
No
impacts are predicted. |
|
Cumulative
impacts |
No
impacts are predicted. |
|
Fragmentation
impacts |
No
impacts are predicted. |
Table 8-35 above summarises the findings of the potential
impacts identified in Section 8.7. Impacts identified with a Moderate or High Significance would require
mitigation measures to be carried out in order to bring these impacts to
acceptable levels.
From the above table, only indirect habitat
loss through disturbance due to construction activities is considered to be an impact
with a moderate significance. Hence,
with regard to this project, only the potential indirect habitat loss through
disturbance from construction-related activities, particularly that on the
adjacent Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel and the adjacent agricultural land,
requires mitigation measures.Therefore, this impact would have to be mitigated.
Potential
Disturbance Through Direct Disstrubance From
Construction Workers/Works
In general, as stated in above sections, the
disturbance can be in the form of noise, runoff, dust and direct disturbance
from construction workers. In order to
prevent noise and visual impact, the use of screening materials during the
construction will be adopted. A site hoarding will be in place before the peak
winter bird season between October and March to ensure that disturbance from
the proposed development is minimized. The workers should also be briefed
regarding the sensitivity of the areas before the commencement of the works,
and they should be requested not to disturb any areas nearby. Furthermore, the site boundary should be
clearly defined (i.e. fenced with the screening materials mentioned above) and
any works beyond the boundary would be strictly prohibited.
Potential
Disturbance Through Noise
In addition, other
source reduction mitigation measures such as the use of quiet
type construction equipments, use of movable noise barriers, scheduling of
construction programme to avoid concurrent works, and the provision of fixed
temporary noise barrier will also be implemented to reduce construction noise
and disturbances. Other measures proposed in compliance with the Noise Control
Ordinance and general good site practices would be enforced and monitored as a
mitigation measure under the Noise Impact Assessment (details see Chapter 4 of
this report); these all contribute to the minimization of potential disturbance
(through noise) to the adjacent habitats. With these measures
and other mitigation measures regarding construction noise issues stated in Table
14-1 (of the submitted EIA report), noise and direct disturbance impact
would be mitigated to an acceptable level and no residual impact is
anticipated.
Potential Disturbance
Through Site Runoff
It is proposed that a properly designed temporary drainage system within the site will be
implemented and direct discharge away from watercourses downstream to existing
stormdrain nearby. The drainage system
will be equipped with sand/silt removal facilities to treat the surface
runoff. The properly designed temporary
drainage system together with standard site practices
deployed during the construction phase will will minimize the chance of site
run-off and the chance of pollution to watercourses downstream. Further,
mitigation measures proposed under the Water Quality Impact Assessment (see
Chapter 5 of this report for details) contribute to the minimization of
potential disturbance (through impact to water quality downstream) to the
adjacent habitats.
Potential Disturbance Through Dust
In addition, all
the dust control measures e.g. hard paving of the haul road, frequent watering,
covering dusty materials, careful site formation scheduling etc. (details see
Chapter 3 of this report) will reduce dust impact to an acceptable level and minimize
disturbance too the adjacent habitats.
A summary of the proposed mitigation measures
are described in Table 14-1 (of the submitted EIA report) for air
quality, noise, and water quality. With
these measures, these impacts will be fully mitigated to acceptable levels and
no residual impact is anticipated.
With the implementation of the mitigation
measures as mentioned in Section 8.8, no residual impact is anticipated.
Table
8‑35 Summary of Ecological Baseline Update for
Current Project (before site
clearance and construction)
|
Group |
Ecological Baseline
Update |
|
Bird |
Monthly
for four months including the peak bird season (October to March) |
|
Dragonfly & Butterfly |
Monthly
for any four months in the period between March and November |
|
Herpetofauna |
Monthly
for any four months in the period between March and November |
Survey area should follow that of the current submission, with
emphasis placed on the immediate surrounding habitat which could be impacted
during the construction phase. These include but not limited to:
·
Agricultural land to the northeast of the
Project Site
Surveys should be undertaken by qualified ecologists and/or
professionals in the respective fauna group to be surveyed. Survey methodology
should follow that of the current submission and in compliance with the
relevant Government technical memorandums.
As a precautionary measure to verify the accuracy of impact assessment and detect any unpredictable impact arising from the proposed development, regular site visit and faunal survey should be undertaken at the immediate surrounding habitats and identified habitats downstream which might be affected; these should include but not limited to:
· Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel; and
· Agricultural land to the northeast of the Project Site
Surveys should be undertaken by qualified ecologists and/or professionals in the respective fauna group to be surveyed. Survey methodology should follow that of the current submission and in compliance with the relevant Government technical memorandums.
The survey shall cover the items listed in table below. Survey findings should be evaluated against the pre-construction baseline. Any adverse ecological impacts not addressed should be identified, if considered relevant to the current Project, remedial actions should be formulated and undertaken as appropriate. Findings of the surveys, evaluation of the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and/or report on any unforeseen ecological impacts and remedial actions taken should be submitted as part of the EM&A requirement.
Table
8‑36 Summary of Ecological Baseline Update for
Current Project (during
construction stage)
|
Group |
Construction Phase
Ecological Monitoring |
Operational Phase
Ecological Monitoring |
|
Bird |
Weekly |
Not
required. |
|
Dragonfly & Butterfly |
Once
per month between March and November |
Not
required. |
|
Herpetofauna |
Once
per month between March and November |
Not
required. |
|
Site Inspection |
Weekly |
Not
required. |
Existing habitats (pond, reed, agricultural land, grassland/shrubland, abandoned irrigation ditch, seasonally wet grassland and urbanized area), despite their ecological values ranging from “very low” to “low to moderate”, will be lost permanently or temporarily. However, as shown in survey findings, evaluation of the ecological value of each habitat and evaluation of potential ecological impacts outlined above, this area is not considered to be of sufficient ecological value that it should be avoided and retained in its present form. Furthermore, as demonstrated above, the predicted impacts from the proposed development are low. Therefore no mitigation measures for habitat loss are required.
Disturbance impact to the adjacent habitat is anticipated during the construction phase of the project. A site hoarding to be erected prior to the peak winter bird season between October and March is required. The workers should be briefed regarding the sensitivity of the areas. Screening and phasing of construction activities would be applied during construction, as mitigation measures for noise, air and other environmental aspects. Standard practices to control site runoff and other construction phase impacts will also be implemented. Further, design elements (by means of opaque, non-reflective materials) to the noise barriers in order to reduce bird collision impact with these structures will be in place. With these, no further mitigation measures during construction phase are necessary.
During the operational phase, the design elements required to reduce bird collision impact with noise barriers during the construction phase will also be adopted. As such there is no need for further mitigation measure especially given that adjacent habitats are already subject to existing disturbance due to the urbanized nature of the area (houses and roads). The Northern Portion of the PS will be developed as an area comprising a landscape pond, landscaped open area and some passive recreational uses and supporting facilities. Planting between this portion of the site and the adjacent agricultural land will be provided as part of the landscape enhancement measures. This landscape buffer will have the additional benefit of screening human activities and is anticipated to assist in further minimizing potential impact to adjacent habitats. Overall, no residual impacts are predicted.
Anon. 2010. Summer 2010 Report: Egretry Counts in Hong Kong with particular reference to the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site. Hong Kong Bird Watching Society to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.
Bibby, C., Martin, J. and Marsden, S. 1998. Expedition Field Techniques. Bird Surveys. Expedition Advisory Centre, Royal Geographical Society, London
BirdLife International. 2010. Species Factsheet: Sturnus sericeus. (available online at http://www.birdlife.org)
Chan, S. K.F., K.S. Cheung, C.Y. Ho, F.N Lam & W.S. Tam, 2005. A Field Guide to the Amphibians of Hong Kong. Cosmos Books Ltd., Hong Kong.
Fellowes, J.R, M.W.N. Lau, D. Dudgeon, G.T. Reels, G.W.I. Ades, G.J. Carey, B.P.L. Chan, R.C. Kendrick, K.S. Lee, M.R. Leven, K.D.P. Wilson & Y.T. Yu, 2002. Wild animals to watch: Terrestrial and freshwater fauna of conservation concern in Hong Kong. Memoirs Hong Kong Natural History Society 25: 123-160.
IUCN. 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. (available online at http://www.iucnredlist.org)
Karsen, S., M.W.N. Lau & A. Bogadek, 1998. Hong Kong Amphibians and Reptiles. Provisional Urban Council, Hong Kong
Shek, C.T. 2006. A Field Guide to the Terrestrial Mammals of Hong Kong. Cosmos Books, Hong Kong.
Wang, S., 1998. China Red Data Book of Endangered Animals (Aves). National Environmental Protection Agency. Science Press, Beijing.
Young, J.J. & Yiu, V., 2002. Butterfly Watching In Hong Kong. Wan Li Book Co. Ltd., Hong Kong.
This Chapter presents
the fisheries impact assessment for the Project. Baseline information on the fish ponds within
the AA (area within 500m radius but excluding the PS), assessment methodology, impact prediction and evaluation and mitigation measures (if
any) are included.
The
following legislation and guidance notes are applicable to the evaluation of
fisheries impact related to the Project:
·
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
(Cap. 499), Technical Memorandum on Environmental Impact Assessment Process
(TM-EIAO), Annexes 9 and 17;
·
Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, Chapter 10;
·
Mai Po and Fairview Park Outline Zoning Plan;
and
·
Fisheries Protection Ordinance (Cap. 171).
Literature review has been conducted to assess the baseline status of
pond fish culture activity within the territory as well as the Project Site and
the Assessment Area. Literatures and
information reviewed include:
·
AFCD’s annual
reports (1997-2011);
·
AFCD’s website;
(http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/fisheries/fish_aqu/fish_aqu.html);
·
Mott Connell
(2008) EIA report for the Proposed Comprehensive Development at Wo Shang Wai,
Yuen Long. An EIA report submitted to
the EPD; and
·
CEDD (2008) EIA
report for the Construction of Cycle Tracks and the Associated Supporting Facilities from Sha Po
Tsuen to Shek Sheung River. An EIA report submitted to the EPD.
Site visits have also been undertaken to investigate the actual fisheries status within the Project Site and the
Assessment Area from June to August 2009; meanwhile, local people, fish farmers
and pond owners were also interviewed. Ponds observed were categorized as
follows:
·
Active (which shows commercial aquaculture activities)
·
Inactive (which does not show any commercial aquaculture
activities, but there are no major physical constraints to its resumption,
including ponds with fish present in non-commercial quantities and ponds for
casual sport fishing or water sports)
·
Abandoned (which there is physical evidence that aquaculture
has not taken place for many years (i.e. overgrown) and/or where there are
obvious physical constraints to its resumption (i.e. fenced); concreted
ornamental ponds are also included in this category)
Pond fish culture has
been practiced in Northwestern Hong Kong for a long period of time. Traditionally, only primary freshwater fishes
and several brackish species, such as Bighead Carp Aristichthys nobilis, Edible Goldfish Carassius auratus, Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon
idellus, Mud Carp Cirrhinus chinensis,
Grey Mullet Mugil cephalus and
Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus were
farmed. However, in recent years,
certain marine species such as Giant Grouper Epinephelus lanceolatus, Yellowfin Seabream Acanthopagrus latus and Scat Scatophagus argus have also been
cultured in diluted seawater by fish farms close to the shoreline (e.g. at Mai
Po). In addition, AFCD has introduced
some exotic aquaculture species (e.g. Jade Perch Scortum barcoo) to Hong Kong.
Annual pond fish
production and fish pond area in the territory are listed in the following
table.
Table
9‑1 Annual pond fish production and fish
pond area.
|
Year |
Pond Fish
Production (tonne) |
Fish Pond
Area (ha) |
|
1997 |
5000 |
1125 |
|
1998 |
4900 |
1110 |
|
1999 |
4500 |
1094 |
|
2000 |
2817 |
1060 |
|
2001 |
2550 |
1059 |
|
2002 |
1989 |
1030 |
|
2003 |
2114 |
1029 |
|
2004 |
1977 |
1026 |
|
2005 |
1897 |
1026 |
|
2006 |
1943 |
1024 |
|
2007 |
1927 |
1160 |
|
2008 |
2266 |
1160 |
|
2009 |
2105 |
1160 |
|
2010 |
2190 |
1109 |
|
2011 |
2315 |
1130 |
|
2012 |
2306 |
1150 |
On the other hand, based
on the information from the AFCD, local pond fish production accounted for only
5% of local freshwater and brackish fish consumption in 2012. And most pond fishes consumed in the
territory are imported from the Mainland.
No active fish pond was
observed within the PS; only one pond is present
(Photo 6 of Appendix 8-7).
Throughout the survey period, no normal aquaculture practice (i.e.
drying, liming, re-profiling, fish fry releasing and large-scale harvesting
using seine nets) were observed within the whole AA. However, some fish ponds within the AA were
found to be managed for/ associated with the cultivation of ornamental carp,
and some were believed (by the survey team)/ claimed (by the pond owners) to be
commercially active in producing edible fishes (see Figure 9-1). Besides these
ponds, most ponds inside the AA are considered to be inactive or
abandoned. It should also be noted that
a floodwater storage pond is located within the AA (to the north of Fung Chuk
Road)
and this pond is not included in the present assessment. Sizes of different types of fish ponds within
the PS and AA are listed in Table
9‑2.
Table 9‑2 Sizes of different types of fish ponds.
|
Type of
Fish Pond |
Project
Site (ha) |
Outside
Project Site, Within Assessment Area (ha) |
Overall
(ha) |
|
Active (including ponds for ornamental carp) |
0 |
3.89 |
3.89 |
|
Inactive |
0 |
5.74 |
5.74 |
|
Abandoned |
0.50 |
7.89 |
8.39 |
There are two channels,
the Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel and the one surrounding the Fairview
Park, in the close vicinity of the PS.
They, however, always receive polluted sewage from nearby villages, and
their water qualities were very poor. The watercourse within the PS is only an
abandoned irrigation ditch. It would not
be used by fish farmers as water source.
There is
no access to the existing pond inside the PS, and the pond is 0.5 ha in size only. It is
further considered that due to accessibility issue (no vehicular access), the pond will have very limited capacity to be used as an
active commercial fish pond.
The existing pond on the Northern Portion of
the PS will be retained and slightly enlarged from 0.5 ha. to
0.6 ha. to serve as a landscape feature under the
present Project. The proposal will
unlikely cause any significant fisheries impact as the present pond is not
producing any fishes and it is very difficult to be reactivated (i.e. very low
potential to be reactivated).
The Ngau Tam Mei Main
Drainage Channel and the channel of the Fairview Park are watercourses closest
to the PS. Some farmers have been
observed abstracting water from the Ngau Tam Mei Main Drainage Channel to
irrigate their farmlands. Thus, if
pollutants arising from the construction works like construction runoff are not
properly treated, it may have a possibility to impose off-site impacts on
active fish ponds.
Nevertheless, standard
mitigation measures to control site runoff and other pollutants caused by
construction activities and good site practices will be implemented during the
construction phase of the Project.
Excavated material and other construction wastes produced will be
transferred to proper recipients. With
these measures, offsite impacts on fisheries due to the construction activities
will be controlled.
During the operational phase, sewage from
the residential area may cause impacts on nearby water bodies. However, the proposed development will not
have population intake until the commissioning of the planned local public
sewerage works, and all the sewage generated from the PS will be conveyed to
public sewerage. Therefore no sewerage
pollution from the PS during operational phase is envisaged.
Increased water flow as
a result of increased surface runoff after heavy rainfall during operational
phase is envisaged, and it may potentially impact nearby channels. Water from these channels may be used at
times for filling of fish ponds downstream; thus this runoff may cause
fisheries impacts. Nevertheless, as the
proposed developments are unlikely to create in-situ pollution (i.e. low-density residential
house / landscaped open area), the existing watercourse within AA is
already largely polluted, and the amount of the increased surface runoff from
the PS is expected to be small, major pollution on the channels is not
envisaged.
It is expected that the
water quality of the landscape pond in the northern part of the PS will be
similar to those existing ponds within the AA.
As compared with the ponds currently appearing in the AA, the landscape
pond is unlikely to create additional wastewater discharge, and may even
possess a better water quality than those existing ponds within the AA, and
thus its operation would not cause any additional adverse impact on nearby
water bodies. Therefore, there will be
no fisheries impact arising from the landscape pond. Overall, during the operational phase, no
fisheries impact is anticipated.
Impact evaluation based on the
criteria set in Annex 9 of TM-EIAO is listed in Table 9‑3 and Table 9‑4.
Table 9‑3
Evaluation of fisheries impact
|
Criteria |
|
|
Nature of impact |
Indirect impact arising from construction
activities (i.e. site runoff) and operation of the residential area and
amenity pond (i.e. site runoff only). |
|
Size of affected area |
No active fish ponds would be directly affected. |
|
Loss of fisheries resources/ production |
No active commercial fish ponds will be directly
impacted. With standard mitigation
measures and good site practices, impacts arising from construction
activities will be insignificant. No
significant operational phase impact is predicted. |
|
Destruction and disturbance of nursery and
spawning grounds |
NA |
|
Impact on fishing activity |
NA |
|
Impact on aquaculture activity |
Insignificant. |
Table 9‑4 Evaluation of fisheries impact due to the loss of the existing pond residue
within PS
|
Criteria |
|
|
Nature of impact |
The existing pond residue is abandoned and not
for producing fishes. Although
landscape pond will be created, it will not be used for producing fishes commercially. |
|
Size of affected area |
0.5 ha. |
|
Loss of fisheries resources/ production |
The potential for the pond residue to be
converted to active pond will be lost. This accounts for only < 0.05% of
the overall fish production. However,
as mentioned in Section 9.5.1 above, the potential for this pond residue to
be converted into an active pond is very low. |
|
Destruction and disturbance of nursery and
spawning grounds |
No. |
|
Impact on fishing activity |
No. |
|
Impact on aquaculture activity |
Negligible. |
Since no significant
fisheries impact would be arisen due to the present project, no significant
cumulative impact is predicted.
With the measures for
mitigating the impacts from construction activities (as described in Table 14-1 of the submitted EIA
report), indirect impacts during the construction phase would be
insignificant. During the operational phase, no significant
impact is anticipated and thus no specific measure for fisheries impact has to
be implemented.
No significant fisheries
impacts are predicted as a result of the proposed Project; hence the
development and implementation of a monitoring and audit programme for
assessing the effects on fisheries resources and operations is not considered
necessary. However, an emergency response plan for any water pollution in the
water bodies surrounding the Project Area will be implemented. Also, good site
practices will be implemented during the construction phase of the Project.
Excavated material and other inert construction wastes produced will be
transferred to proper recipients (i.e. public fill or landfill site where
appropriate.
During the operational phase, no significant
impact is anticipated and thus no specific measure for fisheries impacts has to
be implemented.
No active fish pond
would be directly impacted due to this project.
Indirect impacts during construction and operational phases would also be
insignificant given that appropriate mitigation measures (i.e. measures for
water quality impact) are implemented.
Therefore, no significant fisheries impact is anticipated.
A Cultural Heritage
Impact Assessment (CHIA) has been carried out for the Project, which comprises an Archaeological
Impact Assessment (AIA) and a Built Heritage Impact Assessment (BHIA). The assessment has been undertaken according
to Technical Memorandum on the Environmental
Impact Assessment Process (EIAO-TM) and Appendix 4 of the EIA Study Brief (i.e. Guidelines for
Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment). The assessment covers the Project Site and an
Assessment Area of 500m from the boundary of the Project.
There is no known of site of archaeological interest located within Assessment
Area (including Project Site). Thus, no direct and indirect impacts to any
terrestrial archaeology are anticipated during the construction of the
Project. In addition, no land use
features that may carry specific cultural meanings were identified, thus there
is no cultural element concerned. The
Antiquities and Monuments Office should be informed immediately in case of
discovery of antiquities or supposed antiquities in the course of construction
work.
The following
legislation and guidelines are relevant to the cultural heritage impact
assessment (CHIA) in Hong Kong:
l Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
(Cap. 499);
l Technical Memorandum on EIA Process (Annex
10 and 19, EIAO-TM);
l Guidelines for Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment;
l Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines
(HKPSG); and
l Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (AM
Ordinance) (Cap. 53);
Further details of the relevant legislation
and guidelines are provided in the CHIA report in Appendix 10-1.
A CHIA has been undertaken for the Project by
a qualified professional and followed the criteria and
guidelines for CHIA as set out in Annexes 10 and 19 of the TM. A report
detailing the assessment methodology and results is also provided in Appendix 10-1.
Based on the findings of desktop review and
field scanning, it was found that a temple constructed in the 1980s is located at
Chuk Yuen Tsuen. However, it is about
300 m from the Project Site to the east of existing Ngau Tam Mei Drainage
Channel. It was found that the Assessment
Area (incl. Project Site) contains no archaeological potential, and there is no declared monuments/ historic buildings within or in
adjacent to the Project Site. There is
also no cultural element such as fung shui pond identified. Therefore, there are no direct or indirect
impacts on any terrestrial archaeology or heritage resources that may arise as a result of the construction and
operation of this Project.
As there are no
associated impacts identified, no mitigation measure is therefore required. No specific
EM&A requirements would be required for the terrestrial archaeology and
heritage resources during construction and operational phases of the Project.
Cultural heritage resources within Assessment Area have been reviewed
through literature review and field surveys. From the surveys and examination
of records it has been identified that a temple built in the 1980s is located
at Chuk Yuen Tsuen, other than that no archaeological potential, declared or
deemed monuments or graded historic buildings or other cultural elements such
as fung shui ponds are located within the Project Site and Assessment Area. Given that the temple at Chuk Yuen Tsuen is
about 300 m away from the Project Site, green field would act as
soft buffers, and no substantial pilling works will be adopted in construction
phase, potential indirect impacts including vibration and temporary
visual impacts are therefore not anticipated during construction phase. The construction activity wouldn’t result in
vibration and visual effect on this temple.
It is therefore concluded that there is no anticipated effect on
cultural heritage resources as a result of this Project.
This section of the
report outlines the landscape and visual impacts associated with the Proposed
Residential cum Passive Recreational Development at Various
Lots in DD104 near Fairview Park, Yuen Long, N.T. in
accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) which
became law in Hong Kong on 1st April 1998. Both construction and
operation phase impacts are assessed in accordance with the requirements of the
Study Brief Section 3.9.9.
This assessment
includes the following items:
l
A listing of the relevant environmental
legislation and guidelines;
l
A definition of the scope and contents of the
study, including a description of the assessment methodology;
l
A review of the relevant planning and
development control framework;
l
A review of comments on landscape and visual
issues received during previous consultation with the public and/or advisory
bodies and how these have been addressed in the design;
l
A baseline study providing a comprehensive and
accurate description of the baseline landscape and visual character;
l
Identification of the potential landscape and
visual impacts and prediction of their magnitude and potential significance,
with and without the mitigation measures; and
l
Recommendation of appropriate mitigation
measures and associated implementation programmes.
All potential
impacts and proposed mitigation measures are mapped in colour and illustrated
with clear annotation and cross-referencing between text, tables and
illustrations. Colour photographs showing baseline conditions, and
photomontages and illustrative materials supporting conclusions are provided and
the locations of all viewpoints are clearly mapped. Photomontages at
representative locations provide comparison between existing views; proposals
on day 1 of operation without mitigation; on day 1 with mitigation; and after
year 10 with mitigation.
During construction
the impacts on the nearby visually sensitive receivers in Fairview Park are
assessed as Slight Adverse. However, the creation of a recreational area in the
northern portion of the site and its related landscape and pond creation,
substantial new tree planting and the coherent development of the currently
derelict site will result in a Slight Positive impact on the landscape
resources (or character) within the Project Site, once operational and when
mitigation planting has had time to mature. The landscape and visual impacts of
this proposal are considered to be acceptable with the implementation of
mitigation measures.
Option 1 –This
option was considered to evaluate the effect of implementing a similar model of
suburban development as seen in neighbouring developments (see Section 2), with residential /
recreational development and restored ponds split equally between the northern
and southern portions of the Project Site. Overall, this option was considered
to have the greatest potential for adverse landscape and visual impacts because
of residential development along much of the Project boundary and smaller, less
effective landscape areas.
Option 2 –This
option inverts the layout of Option 3, by placing the residential development
in the northern portion of the Project Site and the landscape pond and
recreational areas in the south. This option was not taken forward for a number
of reasons. The northern portion is subject to a greater number of residential
VSRs, and thus would result in greater visual impacts due to the villa
development. It is also considered more appropriate to maintain direct links to
the ponds and wetland areas to the north of the Project by placing the
landscape pond adjacent to the northern boundary.
Option 3 –This
option concentrates the residential development in the southern portion of the
Project Site. The northern portion is entirely given over to recreational uses
and a landscape pond area in the approximate location of the existing degraded
pond. This option was considered the most favourable in terms of landscape and
visual impact because it concentrated development in the southern portion of
the Project site, which is subject to fewer and less sensitive VSRs than the
northern portion. In landscape terms it is also preferable to provide an
opportunity to link the landscape pond to the pond areas further north.
In terms of their effects on landscape character, landscape resources
(particularly their mitigation effects) and on the views of VSRs, the above
options were evaluated in terms of performance (Good / Medium / Poor) against a
series of landscape and visual criteria, as follows:
l
Visual impact of the completed Project;
l
Location of built structures in relation to
neighbouring VSRs;
l
Building height, spacing and layout;
l
Pond re-provision/ retention;
l
Impact upon existing landscape resources;
l
Provision of landscape buffer outside boundary
walls and noise barriers;
l
Provision of amenity landscape within the
Project;
l
Compliance with OZP layout requirements and
relevant guidelines.
Table
11‑1 Assessment of Layout Options against
Landscape / Visual Criteria
|
Landscape / Visual
Factor |
Metrics (Good / Medium / Poor) |
||
|
|
Option 1 |
Option 2 |
Option 3 (Preferred Scenario) |
|
Location of houses relative to boundary |
P |
P |
M |
|
Building height |
G |
G |
G |
|
Spacing & layout |
P |
M |
M |
|
Pond re-provision/retention |
M |
G |
G |
|
Impact upon existing landscape resources |
M |
M |
G |
|
Provision of landscape buffer |
M |
G |
G |
|
Amenity landscape |
M |
G |
G |
|
Compliance with OZP requirements |
M |
M |
G |
Generally, it can be
seen from Table 11-1 that the Option
3 was considered the most appropriate option given that:
l It scored
more ‘Good’ performances than the other two options;
l It did
not score ‘Poor’ against any criterion;
l It scored
at least ‘Moderate’ against every criterion.
Option 3 is shown in
Figure 11-16.
The
following legislation, standards and guidelines are applicable to the
evaluation of landscape and visual impacts associated with the construction and
operation of the proposed Residential and Passive Recreational Development
Project:
l
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap.
499, section 16) and the Technical Memorandum on EIA Process (EIAO-TM),
particularly Annexes 10, 11, 18, 20 and 21;
l
Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
Guidance Note (EIAO GN) 8/2010;
l
ETWB TC No. 29/2004 – Registration of Old &
Valuable Trees and Guidelines for their Preservation;
l
ETWB TC No.3/2006 – Tree Preservation;
l
LAO PN No.7/2007 – Tree Preservation and Tree
Removal Application for Building Development in Private Projects;
l
Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap. 96) and
its subsidiary legislation the Forestry Regulations;
l
Mai Po and Fairview Park Outline Zoning Plan No.
S/YL-MP/6, and
l
Town Planning Board Guideline No. 12B – Application for Developments
within Deep Bay Area.
The study makes reference to the Approved Mai Po
and Fairview Park Outline Zoning Plan No. S/YL-MP/6, an
extract of which is shown in Figure
11-01. The limit of the landscape impact assessment area is 500m beyond
the boundary of the site as shown in Figures
11-02 and 11-06. The limit of
the visual impact study is the Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI), i.e. Visual Envelope of the Project, which is illustrated in Figure 11-09.
Landscape and visual impacts have been assessed separately for the
construction and operation phases, following the methodology set out in EIAO GN
8/2010 and as detailed below.
The assessment of landscape impacts has involved
the following procedures:
Identification
of the baseline physical and cultural landscape resources (LRs) and landscape
character areas (LCAs) found within the assessment area: This is
achieved by site visits and desk-top study of topographical maps, and other
information databases and photographs.
Assessment
of the degree of sensitivity of the landscape resources: This is
influenced by a number of factors including whether the resource/character is
common or rare, whether it is considered to be of local, regional, national or
global importance, whether there are any statutory or regulatory limitations/
requirements relating to the resource, the quality of the resource/character,
the maturity of the resource, and the ability of the resource / character to
accommodate change.
The
sensitivity of each landscape feature and character area is classified as
follows:
|
High: |
Important LR or
LCA of particularly distinctive character or high importance, sensitive to
relatively small changes. |
|
Medium: |
LR or LCA of
moderately valued landscape characteristics reasonably tolerant to change. |
|
Low: |
LR or LCA, the
nature of which is largely tolerant to change. |
Identification of potential sources of landscape impacts: These
are the various elements of the construction works and operational procedures
that will generate landscape impacts.
Identification
of the magnitude of change: The magnitude of change depends on a number of
factors including the physical extent of the impact, the landscape and visual
context of the impact, the compatibility of the Project with the surrounding
landscape; and the time-scale of the impact – i.e. whether it is temporary
(short, medium or long term), permanent but potentially reversible, or
permanent and irreversible. Landscape impacts have been quantified wherever
possible.
The
magnitude of landscape changes is classified as follows:
|
Large: |
The LR or LCA would undergo a major change. |
|
Intermediate: |
The LR or LCA would undergo a moderate change. |
|
Small: |
The LR or LCA would undergo slight or barely perceptible changes. |
|
Negligible: |
The LR or LCA would undergo no discernible change. |
Prediction of Acceptability of Landscape Impacts:
Landscape impacts are products of magnitude of change and the relative
sensitivity of the landscape sensitive receiver. Ultimately, the acceptability
of the Project is dependent upon the significance of the residual impacts in
accordance with the five criteria set out in Annex 10 of the EIAO-TM, namely
‘beneficial’, ‘acceptable’, ‘ acceptable with mitigation measures’,
‘unacceptable’ and ‘undetermined’.
Prediction of the significance of landscape impacts before the
implementation of the mitigation measures: By synthesising the
magnitude of the various impacts and the sensitivity of the various landscape resources
it is possible to categorise impacts in a logical, well-reasoned and consistent
fashion. Table 11-2 shows the
rationale for dividing the degree of significance into four thresholds, namely
insubstantial, slight, moderate, and substantial, depending on the combination
of a negligible-small-intermediate-large magnitude of change and a
low-medium-high degree of sensitivity of landscape resource/character. Impact
significant is taken to be adverse unless stated otherwise as beneficial.
|
Table
11‑2
Evaluation of Significance of Landscape and Visual Impacts |
||||
|
Magnitude of Change |
Large |
Moderate |
Moderate / Substantial |
Substantial |
|
Intermediate |
Slight / Moderate |
Moderate |
Moderate / Substantial |
|
|
Small |
Slight |
Slight / Moderate |
Moderate |
|
|
Negligible |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
|
|
Low |
Medium |
High |
|
|
|
Sensitivity (of
Landscape Resource, Landscape Character Area or VSR) |
||
The
degree of Impact significant thresholds are defined as follows:
|
Substantial: |
Adverse / positive
impact where the proposal would cause significant deterioration or
improvement in existing landscape quality. |
|
Moderate: |
Adverse / positive
impact where the proposal would cause a noticeable deterioration or
improvement in existing landscape quality. |
|
Slight: |
Adverse / positive
impact where the proposal would cause a barely perceptible deterioration or
improvement in existing landscape quality. |
|
Insubstantial: |
No discernible
change in the existing landscape quality. |
The assessment of visual impacts has involved
the following procedures:
Identification
of the Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) during the construction and operation
phases of the Project: This is achieved by site visit and desk-top
study of topographic maps and photographs, and preparation of cross-sections to
determine visibility of the Project from various locations.
Identification
of the Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSRs) within the ZVI at construction and
operation phases: These are the people who would reside within,
work within, play within, or travel through, the ZVI.
Assessment
of the degree of sensitivity of the VSRs: This includes a
consideration of the following factors:
·
Value and quality of existing views;
·
Availability and amenity of alternative
views;
·
Type and estimated number of receiver
population;
·
Duration or frequency of view; and
·
Degree of visibility.
The type of VSR, is
classified according to whether the person is at home, at work, at play, or
travelling. Those who view the impact from their homes are considered to be
highly sensitive as the attractiveness or otherwise of the outlook from their
home will have a substantial effect on their perception of the quality and
acceptability of their home environment and their general quality of life.
Those who view the impact from their workplace are considered to be of low
sensitivity as the attractiveness or otherwise of the outlook will have a less
important, although still material, effect on their perception of their quality
of life. The degree to which this applies may vary depending on whether the
workplace is industrial, retail or commercial. Those who view the impact whilst
taking part in an outdoor leisure activity may display varying sensitivity
depending on the type of leisure activity. Those who view the impact whilst
travelling on a public thoroughfare will also display varying sensitivity
depending on the speed of travel. The degree to which this applies is also
influenced by the value and quality of existing views; the availability and
amenity of alternative views; the duration or frequency of view, the degree of
visibility and the numbers of receivers. The sensitivity of each VSR is
classified as follows:
This is
influenced by the type of VSRs, which is classified according to whether the
person is at home, at work, at play, or travelling. The sensitivity of each VSR
is classified as follows:
|
High: |
The VSR is highly sensitive to any change in their viewing experience. |
|
Medium: |
The VSR is moderately sensitive to any change in their viewing
experience. |
|
Low: |
The VSR is only slightly sensitive to any change in their viewing
experience. |
Identification of potential sources of visual impacts: These
are the various elements of the construction works and operational procedures
that would generate visual impacts.
Assessment of the potential magnitude of change: This
includes consideration of the following factors:
l the
compatibility with the visual character of the surrounding landscape;
l the
duration of the impact;
l scale of
the development in the view;
l the
reversibility of the impact;
l the
distance of the source of impact from the viewer; and
l the change / blockage to the character of existing views.
The
magnitude of change is classified as follows:
|
Large: |
The VSRs would experience a major change in the character of their
viewing experience. |
|
Intermediate: |
The VSRs would experience a moderate change in the character of their
viewing experience. |
|
Small: |
The VSRs would experience a small change in the character of their
viewing experience. |
|
Negligible: |
The VSRs would experience no discernible change in the character of
their viewing experience. |
Identification of potential sources of visual impacts: These
are the various elements of the construction works and operational procedures
that would generate visual impacts.
Identification
of potential visual mitigation measures: These may take the
form of adopting alternative designs or revisions to the basic engineering and
architectural design to prevent and/or minimise adverse impacts; remedial measures
such as colour and textural treatment of building features; and compensatory
measures such as the implementation of landscape design measures (e.g. tree
planting, creation of new open space etc.) to compensate for unavoidable
adverse impacts and to attempt to generate potentially positive long term
impacts. A programme for the mitigation measures is provided. The agencies
responsible for the funding, implementation, management and maintenance of the
mitigation measures are identified and their approval-in-principle has been
sought. Tables 11-7A and 11-7B identify these mitigation measures and they are illustrated
in Figures 11-16 to 11-26.
Prediction of Acceptability of Visual Impacts: Visual
impacts are products of magnitude of change and the relative sensitivity of the
visual sensitive receiver. Ultimately, the acceptability of the Project is
dependent upon the significance of the residual impacts in accordance with the
five criteria set out in Annex 10 of the EIAO-TM, namely ‘beneficial’, ‘acceptable’,
‘ acceptable with mitigation measures’, ‘unacceptable’ and ‘undetermined’.
Prediction
of the significance of visual impacts before the implementation of the
mitigation measures: By synthesising the magnitude of the various
visual impacts, the sensitivity of the VSRs and the numbers of VSRs that are
affected, it is possible to categorise the degree of significance of the
impacts in a logical, well-reasoned and consistent fashion. Table 11-1 shows the rationale for
dividing the degree of significance into four thresholds, namely,
insubstantial, slight, moderate and substantial, depending on the combination
of a negligible-small-intermediate-large magnitude of change and a
low-medium-high degree of sensitivity of VSRs. Consideration is also given to
the relative numbers of affected VSRs in predicting the final impact
significance – exceptionally low or high numbers of VSRs may change the result
that might otherwise be concluded from Table
11-1. Photomontages showing views of the Project from key VSRs at day 1
without mitigation, and at day 1 and year 10 with mitigation, are shown in Figures 11-35 to 11-40. Impact significant is taken to be adverse unless stated
otherwise as beneficial.
The
significance of the visual impacts is categorised as follows:
|
Substantial: |
Adverse / positive impact where the proposal would cause significant
deterioration or improvement in existing visual character. |
|
Moderate: |
Adverse / positive impact where the proposal would cause a noticeable
deterioration or improvement in existing visual character. |
|
Slight: |
Adverse / positive impact where the proposal would cause a barely
perceptible deterioration or improvement in existing visual character. |
|
Insubstantial: |
No discernible change in the existing visual character. |
A review has been undertaken of the current planning goals and
objectives, statutory land-use and landscape planning designations for the
assessment area.
The relevant OZP is the Mai Po and Fairview Park Outline Zoning Plan No.
S/YL-MP/6, an extract of which is shown in Figure 11-01. Under this Plan
the Project Site is largely zoned as “Recreation” with a small portion of the
site zoned “R(C)”. The
planning intention of the “REC” zone is primarily for recreational developments for the use of the general
public. It encourages the development of
active and/or passive recreation and tourism/eco-tourism. Uses in support of the recreational
development may be permitted subject to planning permission.
The Project Site falls outside the Wetland
Conservation Area (WCA), but the northern portion lies within the Wetland
Buffer Zone (WBA). Accordingly, reference has been made to the Town Planning
Board Guidelines for Application for Developments within Deep Bay Area under
Section 16 of the Town Planning Ordinance (TPB PG-No.12B). The layout of the
Project provides a landscape pond area and outdoor recreational facilities in
the northern portion of the Project. Consideration has also been
given to minimising any potentially adverse impacts on the visual
amenity of the area, and it is expected that the Project will result in an
overall enhancement of landscape amenity.
The Project Site is surrounded by a number of low-rise
residential developments and village settlements, these include Fairview Park to the west,
southwest and northwest; two R(D) sites (with planning permissions for
residential developments) and a number of existing villages to the east; and Palm Springs, Royal Palms, Yau Mei San Tsuen and
Wo Shang Wai to further north. It is therefore considered
that the Project would be compatible with the residential developments in the
locality. The Project would also be in
accordance with the “Town Planning Board Guidelines for Application for
Developments within Deep Bay Area” (TPB PG-No.12B) in that the Project provides
for landscape pond creation within the WBA portion of the site. The Project would be
carefully designed to minimise any potentially adverse impacts on the landscape
and the visual amenity of the area. A separate planning application
for the Project will be submitted to the Town Planning Board for approval.
A review of concurrent projects in the area indicates that the
Construction of Cycle Tracks and the Associated Supporting Facilities from Sha
Po Tsuen to Shek Sheung River (EIA-159/2008) will
have some impact on the landscape and visual assessment of this Project. Another project in the area is described under Yuen
Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal Stage 2 (EIA-094/2004). However, this is not expected to affect this
LVIA. Furthermore, there are a number of other residential projects in planning
within the immediate area which will be considered as future VSRs
(Approved Application Nos.
A/YL-MP/170 and A/YL-MP/205). In the longer term, the character of the area is
likely to become more residential than rural as a result of these other
residential projects, a change with which the Project will be compatible.
Approved
Planning Application Nos. A/YL-MP/170 and
A/YL-MP/205 lie within the “Residential (Group
D)” (“R (D)”) zone to
the east of the Ngau Tam Mei Channel. Residents in these developments will
constitute potential VSRs for the project. However, the developments will also
block some existing views of the Project from other existing VSRs. Over time
these developments will collectively contribute to a transition towards a more
suburban residential landscape character for the area with which the Project
would be compatible.
The cycle track project forms part of the New
Territories Cycle Track Network which connects local cycle track networks in
various new towns and is primarily intended for recreational purposes. The
implementation programme for the cycle track has yet to be confirmed. However,
this study is based on the assumption that the cycle track will be implemented
and that cyclists will constitute VSRs.
It is not considered that the public sewerage
works, (PWP No. 4235DS), located along Yau Pok Road outside the Project
boundary, would be affected by the proposed Project in terms of landscape and
visual impacts, and has therefore not been included in this assessment.
The existing landscape and visual resources and sensitive receivers are
detailed below.
The baseline physical, human and cultural landscape resources that will
be affected during the construction phase and operation phase, together with
their sensitivity are described below. The locations of the landscape resources
are mapped in Figure 11-02.
Photographic views illustrating the landscape resources are illustrated in Figures 11-03 to 11-05 inclusive. Broad brush tree survey plans and schedules for each landscape resource
are provided in Appendix 11-1. For ease of
reference and co-ordination between text, tables and figures, each landscape
resource is given an identity number.
Table
11‑3 Summary of existing trees within the
Project Site (in order of decreasing abundance)
|
Botanical Name |
Quantity |
Percentage (rounded to 1 decimal place) |
|
Macaranga
tanarius |
46 |
31.1% |
|
Cinnamomum
camphora |
29 |
19.6% |
|
Melia
azedarach |
16 |
10.8% |
|
Celtis
sinensis |
12 |
8.1% |
|
Dimocarpus
longan |
8 |
5.4% |
|
Ficus
microcarpa |
6 |
4.1% |
|
Albizia
lebbeck |
5 |
3.4% |
|
Ficus
benjamina |
5 |
3.4% |
|
Bauhinia
purpurea |
3 |
2.0% |
|
Clausena
lansium |
3 |
2.0% |
|
Leucaena
leucocephala |
3 |
2.0% |
|
Mangifera
indica |
3 |
2.0% |
|
Sapium
sebiferum |
3 |
2.0% |
|
Archontophoenix
alexandrae |
1 |
0.7% |
|
Artocarpus
macrocarpa |
1 |
0.7% |
|
Bombax ceiba |
1 |
0.7% |
|
Ficus virens var.
sublanceolata |
1 |
0.7% |
|
Morus alba |
1 |
0.7% |
|
Syzygium
jambos |
1 |
0.7% |
|
GRAND TOTAL |
148 |
100.0% |
Several landscape
resources (LRs) are identified within the Project Site and will potentially be
affected by the proposed development. [Refer to Figure 11-02A for map of the LRs
within Project Site, and Figures 11-03 for photos of the LRs within the Project
Site. Refer to TSP-01
and Schedule 1 in Appendix 11-1 for broad brush tree survey
information within Project Site].
LR3.A – Open Storage/Vacant Lot (within Project
Site): This LR consists of 1.8 ha of mostly
hard-paved area at the southern part of the Project Site. There is no other
vegetation other than existing trees within this LR. Most of the existing trees within this LR are grouped into TG1 which has a total of around 59 nos. of trees, with heights of 3-11m
and spread of 3-11m and are generally in poor to fair condition with only a few
good specimens. The area was
once used as a golf driving range and ancillary facilities. Ornamental tree species such as Archontophoenix alexandrae, Bauhinia purpurea, Bombax ceiba, Cinnamomum
camphora, Crateva unilocularis,
and Ficus species are found and are
believed to have been planted by the owner of the golf driving range. After the golf driving range closed down and the area
became abandoned, invasive species started to grow in the area,
and today some Leucaena leucocephala,
Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa and Melia azedarach that are commonly found on disturbed land, can be
found.
Although this LR has a fair number of ornamental trees, this LR is
considered to have low landscape quality. Vacant lots are commonly found in
Hong Kong, particularly in the New Territories, and are not of particular
landscape importance. Therefore,
changing this LR into a residential use will not cause significant change in
both the local and regional contexts. As
noted above, the existing trees are generally of only poor to fair condition
and contain many invasive species. The trees can be easily replaced by
compensatory planting. The sensitivity of this LR is considered to be low.
LR6.A – Grassland/shrubland (within Project Site): Much of the land inside the Project Site covering of 6.3ha was
previously cultivated fields. With the discontinuation of agricultural
activities, these fields became abandoned and tall grass
and weeds have colonized comprised of exotic species, including Brachiaria
mutica, Bidens alba, Panicum maximum, Mimosa pudica, and Wedelia
trilobata that are generally in poor condition, and a few scattered tree
species with a total of approximately 45 nos. of trees within this LR and are
grouped into TG2, TG3, and TG4. TG2
consist approximately 8 nos. of trees that are
part of a larger group of trees planted by the government as roadside amenity
landscape. Tree species include Albizia lebbeck, Ficus microcarpa, and Syzygium
jambos of 3-6m height and 2-5m spread that are in fair to good
condition. TG3 and TG4 together consist
of a total of approximately 37 nos.
of trees (24 nos. in TG3 and 13 nos. in TG4), of 3-15m height and 3-15m spread and generally
poor to fair condition.
They include some fruit tree species such as Dimocarpus longan, Mangifera indica and Artocarpus heterophyllus, as well as species that are commonly
found on cultivated fields, like Bombax
ceiba, Morus alba and Ficus microcarpa. Over time,
some weedy and invasive species have grown in this area, including, and Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa and Melia azedarach. During the site maintenance period, the
undesirable planting species of Leucaena
leucophelala within this LR has been removed.
This type
of rural landscape resource is
fairly common in the New Territories, and has
no particular significance in a local or regional
context. Furthermore, this LR has a high
tolerance to change due to its abandoned and unkempt nature. Therefore, this LR is considered to have low sensitivity.
LR7.A – Ponds and Pond Edge (within Project
Site): This LR
at the northern part of the Project Site includes an abandoned pond of around
0.5ha and 0.2ha of other vegetation located along
the pond edge. Within
this 0.2ha comprised common grass/shrub species, including Brachiaria
mutica, Bidens alba, Panicum maximum, Mimosa pudica, and Wedelia
trilobata that are generally in poor condition and a few scattered tree
species comprise some fruit
trees, such as Clausena lansium, Dimocarpus longan and Mangifera indica, left by villagers can still
be found on the edge of the pond.
Alongside these trees are also pioneer species Macaranga
tanarius var. tomentosa and Melia azedarach, as the area has long
been abandoned. All these trees are
within TG5 which has approximately 44
nos. of medium to large sized trees with generally in poor to fair
condition with only a few good specimens.
The pond and its surroundings offer certain degree of landscape amenity.
Although freshwater
ponds are in general intolerant to change, this particular pond within the
Project Site is has been abandoned by villagers, unlike the active, well-maintained fish ponds outside the Project Site
(LR7.B). The dominance of fruit trees and invasive
tree species with generally poor to fair form and health and low to medium
amenity value gives this LR a medium landscape quality. This LR is considered to have medium sensitivity.
For
all LRs within the Project Site, no
protected species listed under Forestry Regulations (Cap. 96 Forestry and
Countryside Ordinance sub. leg.) were found.
No “Old and Valuable Trees” as defined in the “Registration of Old and
Valuable Trees” (ETWB TC(W) No. 29/2004) were
found. No “Champion Trees” as defined in
the book “Champion Trees in Urban Hong Kong” were found.
[Refer to Figure
11-02B for map of the LRs outside the Project Site, and Figures 11-03 and 11-05
for photos of the LRs. Refer to TSP-02
and Schedule 2 in Appendix 11-1 for broad brush tree survey
information outside Project Site but within Assessment Area].
LR1.B – Local Roads: Major roads outside the Project Site but within
the Assessment Area include Yau Pok Road, Kam Pok Road, and
Castle Peak Road. Approximately 500 nos.
of existing trees were identified with average 3-12m height and 2-10m spread
with generally Poor form, Poor to Fair health and have Low amenity value. These
trees comprise mostly ornamental species like Bauhinia spp., Bischofia javanica, Bombax ceiba, Cassia fistula,
Cleistocalyx nervosum, Delonix regia, Eucalyptus citiodora, Ficus microcarpa,
Hibiscus tiliaceus, Lagerstroemia speciosa, Leucaena leucocephala, Macaranga
tanarius var. tomentosa, Melia azedarach, Melaleuca cajuputi subsp. cumingiana,
Peltophorum pterocarpum, Pterocarpus indicus, Spathodea campanulata, and Syzygium jambos. Several large mature Melaleuca
cajuputi subsp. cumingiana were
found along Castle Peak Road (one of which is identified as “Old and Valuable
Trees” (OVT) (registration no. LCSD YL/7) as defined in ETWB TC (W) No. 29/2004
- “Registration of Old and Valuable Trees”) [refer to Schedule 2 in Appendix
11-1 for information on this OVT]. No protected species listed under Forestry
Regulations (Cap. 96 Forestry and Countryside Ordinance sub. leg.) were
found. No “Champion Trees” as defined in
the book “Champion Trees in Urban Hong Kong” were found. Overall, this landscape resource has relatively low
landscape and amenity value and is able to accommodate extensive change. Moreover, considering the presence of a large
amount of roadside vegetation of common species in the vicinity, the existence of
only one roadside OVT will not significantly raise the overall landscape and
amenity value of the LR. Therefore,
overall this LR is considered to have a medium sensitivity.
LR2.B1 –
Comprehensive Residential Settlements (outside Project Site): This LR has a total of around 1,500 nos. of trees, in various
comprehensive residential developments as described below.
Planting located outside the Project Site to the north within the
southern portion of Palm Springs and Royal Palms residential developments: approximately 600 nos. of existing trees with an average 3-10m height
and 4-8m spread, Poor form, Poor to Fair health and with Low amenity value. The
planting comprises Aleurites moluccana,
Araucaria heterophylla, Archontophoenix alexandrae, Bauhinia spp., Ficus
benjamina, Ficus microcarpa, Hibiscus tiliaceus, Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa, Melaleuca cajuputi subsp.
cumingiana,
Michelia x alba, Musa spp. and
Roystonea regia. All the species are exotic except for Bauhinia spp., Ficus
microcarpa, Hibiscus tiliaceus, and
Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa which are native to Hong
Kong.
Planting located
within Fairview Park residential development including approximately 700 nos. of roadside
trees comprising mainly Aleurites
moluccana, Bauhinia spp., Cinnamomum burmannii, Delonix regia, Juniperus chinensis, Grevillea
robusta and Melalueca cajuputi subsp.
cumingiana and
approximately 150 other trees in the school and pocket
parks which comprise: Acacia confusa,
Albizia lebbeck, Araucaria heterophylla, Archontophoenix
alexandrae, Bauhinia spp., Bombax ceiba, Callistemon
viminalis, Celtis sinensis, Chrysalidocarpus
lutescens, Delonix regia, Ficus microcarpa, Ficus virens var.
sublanceolata, Hibiscus tiliaceus, Juniperus chinensis, Khaya senegalensis,
Lagestromia speciosa, Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa, Melaleuca
cajuputi subsp. cumingiana, Melia azedarach, Phoenix
roebelenii, Roystonea
regia, Salix babylonica, Sapium
sebiferum and Taxodium distichum.
The trees have an average height of 3-13m and 3-10m spread, Poor
form, Poor to Fair health and have low amenity
value.
Additionally, there
are approximately 50 nos. of
trees scattered around Man Yuen Chuen, Helene Terrace, Villa Camellia, Royal
Camellia, Greenery Garden, Kamease Garden and Meistar House, with an average
4-13m height and 3-10m spread, comprising: Araucaria
heterophylla, Archontophoenix alexandrae, Bauhinia spp., Bischofia
javanica, Bombax ceiba, Cinnamomum camphora, Ficus benjamina, Ficus microcarpa, Hibiscus tiliaceus, Juniperus chinensis var. Kaizuca, Lagerstroemia speciosa, Livistona chinensis Mangifera indica, Melaleuca cajuputi subsp.
cumingiana, Michelia x alba,
and Terminalia mantaly.
All trees within these residential
developments were planted for amenity purposes and are maintained by the
private residential management. No protected
species listed under Forestry Regulations (Cap. 96 Forestry and Countryside
Ordinance sub. leg.) were found. No “Old
and Valuable Trees” as defined in the “Registration of Old and Valuable Trees”
(ETWB TC(W) No. 29/2004) were found. No “Champion Tree” as defined in the book
“Champion Trees in Urban Hong Kong” were found.
No trees are affected by the proposed development. Overall, this landscape
resource has a relatively medium landscape and amenity value and is considered
to have medium sensitivity.
LR2.B2 – Village
Settlements (outside Project Site): Village settlements comprising clusters of two
to three-storey houses in organic, ad-hoc layouts are scattered along the edge
of eastern and southern portions of the assessment area. There are approximately
180 nos. trees scattered around the village at Chuk Yuen Tsuen (Hang
Fok Garden and Ha San Wai) comprising Averrhoa
carambola, Bombax ceiba, Celtis sinensis, Citrus maxima, Clausena
lansium, Delonix regia, Dimocarpus longan, Dracontomelon duperreanum, Ficus
microcarpa, Hibiscus tiliaceus, Litchi chinensis, Macaranga tanarius var.
tomentosa, Mangifera indica, Melaleuca cajuputi subsp.
cumingiana, Melia azedarach, Michelia x alba, Morus alba, Psidium
guajava, Sapium sebiferum and Syzygium jambos between 3-10m height and
4-8m spread. Planting within this village area is predominantly of fruit trees and indigenous vegetation. No protected species listed under Forestry
Regulations (Cap. 96 Forestry and Countryside Ordinance sub. leg.) were
found. No “Old and Valuable Trees” as
defined in the “Registration of Old and Valuable Trees” (ETWB TC(W) No. 29/2004) were found. No “Champion Trees” as defined in the book
“Champion Trees in Urban Hong Kong” were found.
No trees are affected by the proposed development and this landscape resource
comprises common species and is considered to have low sensitivity.
LR3.B – Open
Storage/Vacant Lot (outside Project Site): While these areas are largely
hard-paved open storage / vacant sites outside the Project Site, parts of them
are covered with grass and naturally seeded vegetation. Approximately 650 nos. existing trees were identified
with an average 4-12m height and 3-8m spread, Poor form, Poor
to Fair health and Low amenity value. Planting species comprise Archontophoenix alexandrae, Artocarpus
heterophylla, Bauhinia spp., Bombax ceiba, Casuarina equisetifolia, Ficus
microcarpa, Leucaena leucocephala, Macaranga tanarius var.
tomentosa and Melaleuca cajuputi subsp.
cumingiana. Trees, mainly Bombax ceiba and Ficus microcarpa are in a degraded condition, having been
persistently disturbed by human activities.
Self-seeded Macaranga tanarius
var. tomentosa and Leucaena leucocephala are also
occasionally found at the fringe of these areas. No protected species listed under Forestry
Regulations (Cap. 96 Forestry and Countryside Ordinance sub. leg.) were
found. No “Old and Valuable Trees” as
defined in the “Registration of Old and Valuable Trees” (ETWB TC(W) No. 29/2004) were found. No “Champion Trees” as defined in the book “Champion
Trees in Urban Hong Kong” were found. As planting lies within an area of temporary
storage use, it is considered that this landscape resource has a low sensitivity.
LR4.B – Agricultural
Fields (outside Project Site): Agricultural fields lie in the
north-eastern portion of the assessment area and are cultivated with common
fruit trees and vegetable crops. The
fields contain approximately 350 nos.
of existing trees with an average height of 4-6m and 5-7m spread with Poor to
Fair form, Poor to Fair health and Low amenity value. The dominant species are
fruit trees such as Litchi chinensis
and Dimocarpus longan planted by
local villagers. Some self-seeded
species like Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa and Leucaena
leucocephala can also be found. No protected species listed under Forestry
Regulations (Cap. 96 Forestry and Countryside Ordinance sub. leg.) were
found. No “Old and Valuable Trees” as
defined in the “Registration of Old and Valuable Trees” (ETWB TC(W) No. 29/2004) were found. No “Champion Trees” as defined in the book
“Champion Trees in Urban Hong Kong” were found.
The landscape
quality of this LR is considered to be medium due to the expansive, rural and
open environment. However, abandoned and
active agricultural lands are in fact fairly common in New Territories, and so
changes to this LR will not be of any significance in a regional context. Furthermore, agricultural lands are
reasonably easy to re-establish, and have a high ability to accommodate
changes. Given these factors, this LR is
considered to have medium
sensitivity.
LR5.B – Plantation (outside Project Site): This takes the form of buffer
planting between village settlements and major corridors such as Kam Pok Road,
Castle Peak Road, and San Tin Highway. The arrangement of this planting
contributes to the local landscape by providing green edges and buffers. Approximately 250 nos. of existing trees were surveyed with an average height of
3-12m, 3-13m spread and generally Poor form, Poor to
Fair health and Low amenity value. The planting comprises Averrhoa carambola, Bombax ceiba, Celtis
sinensis, Clausena lansium, Cleistocalyx nervosum, Delonix regia, Eucalyptus
spp., Ficus altissima, Ficus benjamina, Ficus binnendijkii, Ficus microcarpa,
Hibiscus tiliaceus, Lagestromia speciosa, Leucaena leucocephala, Litchi
chinensiss, Macaranga tanarius var.tomentosa, Melaleuca cajuputi subsp. Cumingiana, Spathodea campanulata, and Syzygium jambos. The predominant species are Bombax
ceiba, Eucalyptus spp., Ficus benjamina, Hibiscus tiliaceus, Lagerstroemia speciosa and Melaleuca
cajuputi subsp. cumingiana. No
protected species listed under Forestry Regulations (Cap. 96 Forestry and
Countryside Ordinance sub. leg.) were found.
No “Old and Valuable Trees” as defined in the “Registration of Old and
Valuable Trees” (ETWB TC(W) No. 29/2004) were
found. No “Champion Trees” as defined in
the book “Champion Trees in Urban Hong Kong” were found. This landscape resource is considered to have
a medium sensitivity as it comprises common species that could easily be
reinstated.
LR6.B – Grassland/Shrubland (outside Project
Site): The grassland area located outside
the Project Site to the east of the nullah channel comprises disturbed former
agricultural land which has been colonised by common grass species such as Panicum maximum and Pennisetum
purpureum, with
some shrubs and trees, mainly the invasive Leucaena
leucocephala, growing around the margins. Approximately 150 nos. of trees with an average height of 3-5m height and 5-6m spread
have generally Poor form, Poor health and Low amenity value. These comprise
mainly Leucaena leucocephala, and Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa. No protected species listed under Forestry
Regulations (Cap. 96 Forestry and Countryside Ordinance sub. leg.) were
found. No “Old and Valuable Trees” as
defined in the “Registration of Old and Valuable Trees” (ETWB TC(W) No. 29/2004) were found. No “Champion Trees” as defined in the book
“Champion Trees in Urban Hong Kong” were found. The resource has a relatively low amenity value
and its disturbed and incidental nature makes it reasonably tolerant to change
and hence, is considered to have a low
sensitivity.
LR7.B – Ponds and Pond Edge (outside Project
Site): Ponds including fishponds
were once commonplace in the Northwest New Territories and are now becoming
significant landscape resources due to their increasing loss. There
are several areas of existing ponds within the assessment area. Most of them
are abandoned and are colonized by local vegetation. There are approximately 420 nos. of trees surrounding the ponds with an average
2-10m height and 3-9m spread and
generally Poor form, Poor to Fair health and Low amenity value. Approximately
26 species were surveyed:- Acacia
auriculiformis, Albizia lebbeck, Aleurites moluccana, Annona squamosa,
Artocarpus heterophyllus, Bauhinia spp., Bombax ceiba, Callistemon viminalis,
Carica papaya, Casuarina equisetifolia,
Celtis sinensis, Cinnamomum camphora, Citrus maxima, Clausena lansium,
Dimocarpus longan, Diospyros kaki, Ficus hispida, Ficus microcarpa, Khaya
senegalensis, Litchi chinensis, Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa, Mangifera indica, Melia azedarach, Peltophorum pterocarpum,
Syzgium cumini, and Syzgium jambos. All the trees are exotic except for Celtis sinensis, Cinnamomum camphora, Ficus
microcarpa and Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa which
are native to Hong Kong. All the trees are on embankment environments and have
been planted for quite some time. Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa can be found at the fringe of the ponds, while pond
embankments are used by local villagers as spaces for cultivating fruit trees,
predominantly Litchi chinensis and Dimocarpus longan. No
protected species listed under Forestry Regulations (Cap. 96 Forestry and
Countryside Ordinance sub. leg.) were found.
No “Old and Valuable Trees” as defined in the “Registration of Old and
Valuable Trees” (ETWB TC(W) No. 29/2004) were
found. No “Champion Trees” as defined in
the book “Champion Trees in Urban Hong Kong” were found.
Freshwater ponds are often associated with agricultural lands and are
used for irrigation. Although most of
the trees of this LR are common fruit trees that are in poor conditions, the
landscape quality of this LR is considered to be high due to the relationship
of pond and planting. Its aquatic nature
also makes this LR very intolerant to change despite being largely
manmade. Given these factors, this LR’s sensitivity is considered to be high.
LR8.B – Modified Watercourse (outside Project Site): Three watercourses, namely a channel
flowing through the area (about 35m wide and 1000m length), a nullah cutting
through Fairview Park (about 20m wide and 700m length), and a nullah along Ha
San Wai Road, are former natural watercourses that were modified to reduce
flooding hazards in the low-lying district. They are now essentially man-made
channels which vary in width and edge treatment. Banks of the channel flowing through the area
are largely covered with grass and understory shrubs, with the weedy Leucaena leucocephala found. Meanwhile, Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa and Leucaena leucocephala are found banks of the nullah along Ha San
Wai Road. In total,
within this LR, there are approximately 140
nos. of trees with an average height
of 2-3m height and 3-4m spread with generally Poor form, Poor health and Low
amenity value, consisting mainly of Leucaena
leucocephala. No protected species listed under Forestry Regulations (Cap. 96 Forestry
and Countryside Ordinance sub. leg.) were found. No “Old and Valuable Trees” as defined in the
“Registration of Old and Valuable Trees” (ETWB TC(W)
No. 29/2004) were found. No “Champion
Trees” as defined in the book “Champion Trees in Urban Hong Kong” were found.
Although artificial
in nature, this LR is largely considered to have medium landscape quality due
to the pleasant environment created by the combination of water and edge
planting along the channels. Its quality
is also augmented by the growth of grass and weeds which have naturalized the
artificial banks of the channels.
However, such landscape is not of any particular importance and is
fairly commonly seen in Hong Kong.
Furthermore, the artificial nature of the water channels can be easily
reinstated. Therefore, this LR is considered to have a medium sensitivity.
LR9.B – Public Amenity Area (outside Project Site): There is a public amenity area
located at the corner between the Kam Pok Road and the nullah watercourse
channel in the north-eastern portion of the assessment area. This public
amenity area is maintained by the District Office and has been planted for
quite some time. There
are approximately 60 nos. of trees in this area. The
predominant species comprise Cassia
fistula, Melaleuca cajuputi subsp.
cumingiana and Peltophorum
pterocarpum with an
average height of 3-5m height and 2-4m spread with generally Good form, Good
health and Medium amenity value. No
protected species listed under Forestry Regulations (Cap. 96 Forestry and
Countryside Ordinance sub. leg.) were found.
No “Old and Valuable Trees” as defined in the “Registration of Old and
Valuable Trees” (ETWB TC(W) No. 29/2004) were
found. No “Champion Trees” as defined in
the book “Champion Trees in Urban Hong Kong” were found. The area and associated planting are considered to have a medium sensitivity due to its amenity
value within the landscape.
LR10.B – Highway
(outside Project Site): The only
feature of this LR outside the Project Site is the San Tin Highway and the
associated slip roads and roundabouts.
There are approximately 150 nos.
of existing trees in this LR, with the majority of them being Eucalyptus spp. of around 15m height and
6-8m spread that are densely planted along both sides of San Tin Highway. There are also a few Lagerstoremia speciosa and Bombax
ceiba that are planted as ornamental trees at the slip road area. No “Old and Valuable Trees” as defined in the
“Registration of Old and Valuable Trees” (ETWB TC(W)
No. 29/2004) were found. No “Champion
Trees” as defined in the book “Champion Trees in Urban Hong Kong” were found.
Although the
existing trees in this LR are generally large, the vast majority of them are Eucalyptus species which are
fast-growing and short lived species. The generally large size of these trees
indicates that they have already reached maturity. They are mostly in generally
poor condition with low amenity value and are an exotic species that can be
replaced relatively easily. Therefore
this LR is considered to have a low sensitivity.
Several landscape character areas (LCAs) have
been identified within the assessment area which will potentially be affected
by the Project. These areas and their sensitivity to change are described
below. [Refer to Figure 11-06 for map of the LCAs. Refer to Figures 11-07 and 11-08 for
photographs of the LCAs].
LCA1 –
Rural Open Landscape at Active / Abandoned Agricultural Lands / Fish Ponds: This
LCA, which occupies a total area of approximately 55 ha, is characterized by a
combination of active and inactive agricultural lands, including cultivated
fields and fish ponds. Crops, ponds,
grasses, trees, and a few temporary structures/ shelters are found on flat,
open areas. Some areas that have been
long abandoned have been heavily invaded by tall grasses, shrubs and weeds,
concealing much of the traces of previous agricultural activities. This rural landscape character is relatively
common in New Territories nowadays.
7 ha out
of the total 55 ha of this LCA will be affected by the proposed development.
Due to the high percentage of abandoned and generally unkempt areas found in
this LCA, the landscape quality of this LCA is considered to be medium and it
is largely tolerant to changes. Overall,
the sensitivity of this LCA is assessed as medium.
LCA2 –
Semi-Rural Open Landscape along Manmade Water Channels: This LCA
has a total area of approximately 14 ha and is characterized by open landscape
along major water channels (or nullahs).
Although manmade in nature, grasses and weeds have colonized some of the
dry banks and on some of the wetted areas inside the water channels where
sufficient silt has deposited. Roadways
with low traffic flow and amenity planting are often found along both sides of
the water channels, providing a pleasant landscape experience when travelling
(whether on foot, on bicycle or in cars) through the semi-rural space.
Although
this LCA is artificial in nature, this LCA is considered to have medium to high landscape
quality due to the pleasant environment created by the vast and open landscape
and predominance of roadside amenity planting in a semi-rural setting. Its quality is also augmented by the growth
of grass and weeds which have naturalized the artificial banks of the water
channels. Despite its qualities, the
artificial water channels and the roadways and the associated amenity
plantations can be reinstated easily. This LCA is therefore assessed as having
a medium sensitivity.
LCA3 –
Comprehensive Low Density Residential Areas: This LCA
is approximately 78 ha in total and is characterized by built structures and
residential landscape in major low-rise residential developments, such as
Fairview Park and Palm Springs. Similar
low-rise residential developments can also be found in Villa Camellia, Villa
Camellia, Royal Camellia, Man Yuen Chuen, and Greenery Gardens, although they
appear to be less well managed and maintained than Palm Springs and Fairview
Park. But in any case, residential
dwellings of similar architectural design, colour scheme and building height
lie within a rectilinear network of roadways creating a well-defined and
structured character area. Common
facilities such as schools, shops and clubhouses within these developments
create a self-contained community.
Roadways of low vehicular and pedestrian usage are landscaped with
amenity planting such as palm and ornamental tree species, creating a sense of
tranquillity.
As this
LCA is not particularly unique and is entirely man-made, its sensitivity is
assessed as medium.
LCA4 –
Village House Areas: This LCA, which has
a total area of approximately 7 ha, consists of various small to medium scale
village settlements commonly seen in New Territories. The buildings are typically two to three
storeys, varying in height, architecture, colour and age, and are arranged in
an irregular form. Village houses and
temporary (some possibly illegal) structures, alongside other structures such
as temples and schools, are built along rather random footpaths or lanes of
varying widths. Small informal restaurants, stores, car parks and sitting areas
with temporary structures are occasionally found at the edge of the village
facing public roads.
Unlike
some historical villages found in other places of the New Territories, this
kind of relatively recent disorganized village development is very common, and
thus it is not of any particular landscape significance in the local and
regional context. Therefore, this LCA is assessed as
having a low sensitivity
LCA5 –
Major Transportation Corridors: This LCA is defined by the San Tin Highway
and associated slip roads and roundabouts, occupying a total of approximately 4
ha. Although fairly large amenity and
screen tree plantings are found, extensive road surfaces and the high volume of
vehicular traffic flow make the space rather unpleasant and unfriendly for
pedestrians and cyclists.
The
unpleasant, noisy, dusty environment along the roads significantly reduces the
overall landscape quality. Also, given
the generally urbanized environment of Hong Kong, major transportation
corridors with associated planting on both sides are common and not of any
particular significance in both local and regional contexts. Therefore, this LCA is assessed as
having a low sensitivity.
LCA6 –
Open Storage / Workshops / Utility Areas: This LCA
is approximately 37 ha and is characterized by hard-paved areas and
disorganized temporary structures that are used as open storage, workshops, and
parking lots. It also includes public
service facilities, most notably the Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station,
which has a rather dull, utilitarian design.
The LCA is mostly disturbed, with little planting, and the fringes are
occasionally invaded by grasses, weeds and weedy tree species.
The
disjointed mix of industrial and human activities, together with the overall
greyish tone and general lack of greenery, give this LCA a low landscape quality. Thus this LCA is assessed as having a low sensitivity.
To the south of the
Site, the ZVI is defined by the buildings of the residential and commercial
developments along Fairview Park Boulevard.
To the west, the
edge of the ZVI is largely defined by the 2 and 3-storey houses of Fairview
Park.
To the north, the
ZVI is defined by the residential developments of Palm Springs and Royal Palms.
To the east, the ZVI
is contained by dense, tall roadside tree planting along Castle Peak Road and
the San Tin Highway. This means that there are no significant views of the
Project Area from the San Tin Highway or from the developments and villages
east of the San Tin Highway.
Within the ZVI key Visually Sensitive Receivers (VSRs)
have been identified for the construction and operation phases. For ease of
reference, each VSR is given an identity number, which is used in the text
tables and figures in this assessment. These VSRs are mapped in Figure 11-09 while the section showing
the derivation of ZVI is illustrated in Figure
11-10. They are listed below, together with their
sensitivity in views as a result of the Project, in Table 11-4.
Photomontages have been prepared from 6 viewpoints to
illustrate a range of scenarios from key VSR’s. The six photomontage viewpoints
are mapped in Figure 11-09.
The viewpoints include public/ local vantage points for both kinetic and
static VSR’s. The viewpoints also include a representative range of distances
within the ZVI. The views currently experienced by VSRs are shown in Figures 11-35 to 11-40.
Table 11‑4 Sensitivity of VSRs
|
ID
No. |
Visually
Sensitive Receiver |
VSR
Type & Number (Very
Few, Few, Many, Very Many) |
Quality
of Existing Views (Good,
Fair, Poor) |
Alternate
Views & Amenity (Poor,
Fair, Good) |
Frequency
of View (Very Frequent, Frequent, Occasional, Rare) |
Degree
of Visibility (Full,
Partial, Glimpse) |
Sensitivity
(Low, Medium, High) |
|
R1a & R1b |
Residents
of Fairview Park |
Residential
(Few) |
Good |
Yes (Few) |
Very
Frequent |
Full |
High |
|
R2 |
Residents
of Palm Springs and Royal Palms |
Residential (Few) |
Good |
Yes (Few) |
Frequent |
Partial |
High |
|
R3 |
Residents
of Yau Mei San Tsuen |
Residential (Very
Few) |
Fair |
Yes (Fair) |
Frequent |
Partial |
Medium |
|
R4 |
Residents
of Chuk Yuen Tsuen, Tai Yuen Villa and Hang Fook Garden |
Residential (Few) |
Fair |
Yes (Fair) |
Occasional |
Glimpse |
Medium |
|
R5 |
Residents
of Ha San Wai |
Residential (Few) |
Fair |
Yes (Fair) |
Rare |
Glimpse |
Medium |
|
R6 |
Residents
of Helene Terrace and Villa Camellia |
Residential (Very
Few) |
Fair |
Yes (Fair) |
Frequent |
Partial |
Medium |
|
R7 |
Future
Residents under Approved Planning Application A/YL-MP/205 |
Residential (Very
Few) |
Fair |
Yes (Fair) |
Frequent |
Full |
High |
|
R8 |
Future
Residents under Planning Application A/YL-MP/170 |
Residential (Very
Few) |
Fair |
Yes (Fair) |
Frequent |
Full |
High |
|
T1 |
Travellers
on Ha Chuk Yuen Road and Fung Chuk Road |
Travelling (Very
Few) |
Fair |
Yes (Fair) |
Rare |
Glimpse |
Low |
|
T2 |
Travellers on Yau Pok Road, Kam Pok Road and
Proposed Cycle Track |
Travelling (Few) |
Fair |
Yes (Fair) |
Very
Frequent |
Full |
Low |
|
ID
No. |
Visually Sensitive Receiver |
VSR
Type & Number (Very
Few, Few, Many, Very Many) |
Quality
of Existing Views (Good,
Fair, Poor) |
Alternate
Views & Amenity (Poor,
Fair, Good) |
Frequency
of View (Very
Frequent, Frequent, Occasional, Rare) |
Degree
of Visibility (Full,
Partial, Glimpse) |
Sensitivity (Low,
Medium, High) |
|
T3 |
Travellers
on Castle Peak Road and San Tin Highway |
Travelling (Very
Many) |
Fair |
Yes (Fair) |
Rare |
Glimpse |
Low |
|
T4 |
Pedestrians
on Footbridges over San Tin Highway |
Travelling (Very
Few) |
Fair |
Yes (Fair) |
Rare |
Glimpse |
Low |
|
T5 |
Travellers
on Fairview Park Boulevard |
Travelling (Very
Few) |
Fair |
Yes (Fair) |
Frequent |
Partial |
Low |
|
O1 |
Staff
and Pupils at Wong Chan Sook Ying Memorial School and Commercial Premises |
Occupational (Very
Few) |
Fair |
Yes (Fair) |
Frequent |
Partial |
Low |
|
O2 |
Staff
and Pupils at Bethel High School |
Occupational (Very
Few) |
Good |
Yes (Fair) |
Frequent |
Full |
Medium |
|
O3 |
Workers
on Commercial Farmland and Fish Ponds |
Occupational (Very
Few) |
Fair |
Yes (Fair) |
Frequent |
Partial |
Low |
|
O4 |
Workers
at Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station |
Occupational (Very
Few) |
Fair |
Yes (Fair) |
Very
Frequent |
Full |
Low |
|
O5 |
Workers
in Yau Mei San Tsuen |
Occupational (Very
Few) |
Fair |
Yes (Fair) |
Occasional |
Glimpse |
Low |
|
O6 |
Workers
in Open Storage and Other Premises east of Castle Peak Road |
Occupational (Very
Few) |
Fair |
Yes (Fair) |
Occasional |
Glimpse |
Low |
The proposed development will be the source of impacts inducing adverse
landscape and visual impacts during the construction phase and the operation phase. It should be noted that some sources
may actually induce positive impact.
The proposed Project will involve the following sources of construction
impacts:
l
Presence of the construction sites and the commencement of construction
activities (e.g. site clearance/ removal of existing vegetation/ vegetated
surface and conversion to bare soil, gravel or hard paved surface, site
formation works/ excavation works/ basement works, presence of construction
equipment, machinery and plant, temporary storage of construction materials,
setting up of construction site offices, parking and yards, and night-time
security lighting etc.);
l
Erection of temporary 3m high hoarding and 5.5m and
9m high temporary noise barrier. Whilst the barriers will create temporary visual
obstruction, they will effectively screen adverse views of the construction
activity. Provided the barriers are sensitivity designed, the overall visual
benefit should be positive (refer to Figure
11-33).
l
Potential damage to existing trees to be retained due to construction
activities;
l
Presence of incomplete structures and;
l
Slightly enlargement of existing pond by excavation at the edge of the
existing pond and impact on the surrounding soil.
Sources of operation phase impact will be:
l
Slight enlargement of existing abandoned pond into a Landscaped
Pond;
l
Presence of permanent noise barrier along part
of the development boundaries; located along the southern portion
of the proposed development with varies high and length of noise barrier of
2.5m (H) with approx.88m (L); 4m (H) with approx.142m (L); and 4.5m (H) with
approx.49m (L). Please refer to Figure
11-34.
l
Presence of new building structures (e.g.
residential houses, residents’ communal clubhouse) and roads in the southern
portion of the site;
l
Presence of new landscape features and
associated facilities in the recreational grounds in the northern portion of
the site; and
l
Night-time domestic and street lighting.
There will be a
number of impacts on LRs during the construction and operation phases. However, these impacts will be confined to
areas within the Project Site. They are described below and are tabulated in Table 11-6:
LR3.A – Open Storage/Vacant Lot (within Project
Site): This LR has low sensitivity. The proposed development will result in the
permanent loss of all (approx. 1.8 ha) open
storage/ vacant
lots. No other vegetation (e.g. shrub/grass) other than existing trees is found
within this LR.
All 59 nos. of the existing trees within tree
group TG1 will be affected by the proposed development and need to be removed, either by felling or transplanting.
During construction before mitigation, the entire area of the LR will
become part of the construction site when site formation and building works
commence. The existing open storage/
vacant lot have a low sensitivity. Its
conversion to a construction site will result in Intermediate Magnitude of Change, producing a Slight Impact Significance before mitigation.
During operation before mitigation, the entire area of the LR will have
been converted from open storage/ vacant lot to a residential house development
with private gardens and communal landscape areas. The Magnitude of Change is
considered to be Intermediate, and
the resulting Impact Significance is considered to be Slight.
LR6.A – Grassland/Shrubland (within Project
Site): The sensitivity for this LR is low.
The proposed development will cause permanent loss of all (approx. 6.3 ha) of this
LR comprised of common grass/shrub species.
Out of the 45 nos. of trees within this LR, a
total of 29 nos. of trees (1 no. in TG2 + 24 nos. in TG3 + 4 nos. in TG4) will
be directly affected by the proposed development
(partly due to the proposed houses and the basement carpark in southern portion
of the site and partly due to the proposed recreational facilities in the
northern portion of the site), and will need to be removed, either by felling
or transplanting.
During construction before mitigation, the entire 6.3 ha area of the LR
will be converted from grassland/ shrubland to a construction site with some
existing retained trees when site formation/ building works for the proposed
houses in the southern portion of the site and landscape works for the
recreational ground in the northern portion of the Project Site commence. The Magnitude of Change is considered to be Large and the resulting Impact
Significance before mitigation is considered to be Moderate.
During operation before mitigation, the entire area of the LR will have
been converted from grassland/ shrubland to a residential house development in
the southern portion of the site and a recreational ground to the northern
portion of the site. Although there will
be a reduction of total vegetated surface due to the hard paving of the
proposed internal roads and footpath, it is believed that proposed trees and
shrubs of better health and higher amenity value within the recreational ground
will to some extent offset the negative effects of the loss of existing
vegetation, although some of the grassland cannot be compensated. Therefore, the Magnitude of Change is
considered to be Intermediate, and
the Impact Significance before mitigation is considered to be Moderate.
LR7.A – Ponds and Pond Edge (within Project
Site): This LR has medium sensitivity. Works in this area will involve enlarging the
existing abandoned pond (approx. from 0.5 ha) and pond edge (approx. from 0.2ha) and it
causes permanent loss of 0.2ha of the pond edge
which comprises common grass/shrub species. However, this loss is offset by the
creation of new pond edge for the expanded pond.
All 44 nos. of existing trees within this LR are
grouped within TG5. Most of these trees
are growing by the concrete wall of the existing nullah and the enhanced
landscape pond will not affect these trees.
A central island within the enhanced pond area will allow further
preservation of existing trees.
During construction before mitigation, the excavation work for enlarging
the pond will adversely affect the water quality of the existing abandoned
pond. The Magnitude of impact is
considered to be Intermediate, and
the Impact Significance before mitigation is considered to be Moderate.
During operation before mitigation, the enlarged pond will have a
greater water capacity than the existing abandoned pond, which will be managed
and circulated suitably, enhancing the water quality and the amenity and
wildlife value of the pond. The
Magnitude of Change is considered to be Intermediate,
and the resulting Impact Significance before mitigation is considered to be Moderate.
Unaffected LRs: All other LRs inside the Assessment Area (i.e.
LR1.B, LR2.B1, LR2.B2, LR3.B, LR4.B, LR5.B, LR6.B, LR7.B, LR8.B, LR9.B, and
LR10.B) are located entirely outside the Project Site and will not be affected
by the works. The magnitude of change for these LRs is therefore Negligible, and the resulting impact significance
is thus Insubstantial during the
construction and operation phases.
The impacts on LCAs
as a result of the proposed development are assessed as follows and are
tabulated in Table 11-6.
LCA1 – Rural Open Landscape at Active /
Abandoned Agricultural Lands / Fish Ponds – This LCA has medium sensitivity and occupies a
total of around 55 ha within the Assessment Area. Approximately
7 ha of this LCA lies within
the Project Site and will be permanently converted
to residential development with houses, private communal landscape areas, and
internal roads in the southern portion of the Project Site. Part of it will also be converted to an
extensive recreation/ open space in the northern portion.
During construction before mitigation, the entire area of the LCA within
the Project Site will be converted to a construction site where site formation/
building works for the proposed houses in the southern portion of the site and
landscape works for the recreational ground in the northern portion of the site
commence. This represents approximately 13% of the LCA as a whole. Therefore, the Magnitude of Change is considered
to be Intermediate, and the Impact
Significance before mitigation is considered to be Moderate.
During operation before mitigation, the entire area of the LCA will have
been converted to Comprehensive Low Density Residential Area in the southern portion
of the site and to extensive recreation/ open space in the northern portion of
the site. Although the new landscape
character will be substantially different from the existing one, it is
compatible with the landscape character of adjacent Comprehensive Low Density
Residential Areas (LCA3) which forms a large part of the Assessment Area (and beyond). Therefore, the Magnitude of Change is
considered to be Intermediate, and
the Impact Significance before mitigation is considered to be Moderate.
LCA6 – Open Storage / Workshops / Utility Areas – This LCA has a low sensitivity and occupies a
total of around 37 ha within the Assessment Area. Approximately 2 ha of this LCA (approximately 5% of the LCA area as a whole) lies
within the Project Site and will be
permanently changed from relatively unpleasant
open storage/ workshops/ utility areas to a residential development with
houses, private communal landscape areas, and internal roads.
During construction before mitigation, the portion of the LCA within the
Project Site which is not of much inferior quality than storage/ workshop/
utility areas will be converted to a construction site. Therefore, the Magnitude
of Change is considered to be Small, and the Impact Significance before mitigation is
considered to be Slight.
During operation before mitigation, the portion of the LCA within the
Project Site will be converted to a residential development with houses,
private communal landscape areas, and internal roads. Therefore, overall the Magnitude
of Change to the LCA as a whole is considered to be Small, and the Impact
Significance before mitigation is considered to be Slight.
Unaffected LCAs: All other LCAs (i.e. LCA2, LCA3, LCA4, and LCA5)
within the Assessment Area are entirely outside the Project Site and therefore
will not be affected by the works. The magnitude of construction and operation
phase impacts for these LCAs is therefore Negligible,
and the resulting impact significance is thus Insubstantial during the construction and operation phases.
To minimise impacts
on landscape resources, a number of measures are proposed to be implemented
including consideration of different design options and the provision of
mitigation measures to directly offset unavoidable impacts associated with the
construction and operation phases. These are discussed further below.
Mitigation measures
including strategies for reducing, offsetting and compensating impacts are
proposed to be implemented during construction and operation phases. These are
identified in Tables 11-5A and 11-5B below
and are illustrated in Figures 11-16
to 11-26.
The assumption has
been made in the assessment that all mitigation proposals in this Report are
practical and achievable within the known parameters of funding, implementation,
management and maintenance. The suggested agents for the funding and
implementation (and subsequent management and maintenance, if applicable) are
also indicated in Tables 11-5A and
11-5B.
Table
11‑5A Proposed Landscape Enhancement / Mitigation
Measures – Construction Phase
|
ID No. |
Landscape Mitigation Measures |
Funding Agency |
Implementation Agency |
|
CCM1 |
Proper protection of existing trees
designated to be retained in-situ Existing trees designated to be retained in-situ
will be properly protected. This may include
the clear demarcation and fencing-off of tree protection zones, tight site
supervision and monitoring to prevent tree damage by construction activities,
and periodic arboricultural inspection and maintenance to uphold tree health. A total of around 60 nos. of trees will be
retained in-situ. |
Project proponent |
Project proponent (via Contractor) |
|
CCM2 |
‘One-go’ Tree Transplanting within
Site Affected existing trees designated to be transplanted
will be transplanted ‘one-go’ within the Site instead to an offsite holding
nursery as is typically done. The
transplanted trees will provide some instant greenery during construction. In total, around 8 nos. of trees will be
transplanted. |
Project proponent |
Project proponent (via Contractor) |
|
CCM3 |
Innovative Construction Method of Pond
Expansion Existing abandoned pond (approx. 0.5ha) with pond
edge (approx. 0.2ha) will be slightly expanded and enhanced into a larger landscape
pond (0.6ha pond and 0.3ha pond edge).
Conventional method of pond expansion by excavating at the existing
pond edge will substantially pollute the existing pond. An innovative design and construction
method will be employed in this project: (1) excavating a new pond at a slightly
higher elevation adjacent to the existing pond without breaking the existing
pond edge, (2) suitably prepare the surface of the new pond bottom, (3) fill
the new pond with water and let it stabilized for several weeks, (4) connect
the recirculation system to the existing pond, (5) create a gentle water
cascade between the existing pond and the new pond by increasing the new pond
water level to flood over and water will be circulated between these two
ponds. As a result, two ponds
functionally and aesthetically appear as one will be created. (The gentle water cascade will also provide
aeration to ensure water quality and details of the construction method of
pond will be subject to detailed design).
|
Project proponent |
Project proponent (via Contractor) |
|
CCM4 |
Early Commencement & Completion of
the Recreational Area The proposed basements and houses in the southern
portion of the site will require an extensive construction period while the
proposed works for the landscape pond, landscape open area and recreational area
in the northern portion of the site is relatively simpler. Upon possession of the site, the proposed
works in the recreational area will be fast-tracked. It is expected that the recreational area
will be properly vegetated within a short period, offsetting the negative
impact arising from the construction works in the rest of the Project Site. Approximately 200 nos. of heavy-standard to
semi-mature size trees will be planted in the northern site. Moreover, there will be around 2 ha of lawn
area. |
Project proponent |
Project proponent (via Contractor) |
Table
11‑5B Proposed Landscape Enhancement / Mitigation
Measures – Operation Phase
|
ID No. |
Landscape Mitigation Measures |
Funding Agency |
Implementa-tion Agency |
Management Agency |
Maintenance Agency |
|
OOM1 |
Maximizing Tree Preservation Effort Healthy existing trees that are not affected by the
proposed development will be retained in-situ. Affected existing trees that are of high to
medium amenity value and high to medium survival rate after transplanting
will be transplanted. |
Project proponent |
Project proponent |
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent
|
|
OOM2 |
Provision of New Trees and Mass
Planting Compensatory tree and shrub planting shall be
provided for soft landscape in the proposed development. The tree compensation to tree loss ratio
shall be at least 1:1 in term of quantity and quality within the Project
Site. Furthermore, a continuous belt
of landscape planting, featuring trees and shrubs will be provided along the
boundary of the development. |
Project proponent |
Project proponent |
Project Proponent |
Project Proponent
|
|
OOM3 |
Suitable Design for Recreational Area The landscape design for the recreational area in
the northern portion of the Site will adopt a rural, naturalistic approach
with vast open space to match the original landscape character. Emphasis will be placed on a balanced
approach between trees and grass/herbs.
Use of native species will be the planting design theme. Natural materials, such as timbers, will be
mostly used for landscape hardworks. |
Project proponent |
Project proponent |
Owners Committee |
Management Company |
The
construction phase measures listed in Table
11-5A shall be adopted from the commencement of construction and shall be
in place throughout the entire construction period. The operation phase
measures listed in Table 11-5B shall
be adopted during the detailed design, and be built as part of the construction
works so that they are in place at the date of commissioning of the Project.
However, it should be noted that the full effect of the soft landscape
mitigation measures will not be realised for several years until planting
matures.
A list of species appropriate
for mitigation planting is provided in Appendix
11-2. The list is not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive, but is
indicative of the type of planting which would be provided subject to detailed
design.
The existing pond in the north of the site will be enhanced to
compliment proposed passive recreational facilities to the south of the area.
It will consist of open water and a central island, planted with Nymphea spp. (water lily) and fringed by
emergent vegetation, tree and shrub planting.
The Project Proponent
will be responsible for the creation, enhancement and management of the
landscape pond area and other landscape features as well as associated
facilities during the construction phase. During the operation phase, a
separate organization will be set up, with the backing of the Project
Proponent, to manage and maintain the landscape areas, including the landscape
pond, and associated facilities such as communal landscape area, plaza, sitting
area, walking/jogging trail and children’s play areas.
The significance of
residual landscape impacts after mitigation is evaluated below. All impacts are
Adverse unless otherwise specified.
Proposed landscape
enhancement / mitigation measures during construction and operation phases are
identified in Tables 11-5A and 11-5B. The potential
significance of the impacts on landscape resources and landscape character
areas during the construction and operation phases, before and after
mitigation, are provided in Table 11-6
and mapped in Figures 11-27 to 11-32.
Proposed landscape
enhancement / mitigation measures during construction are listed in Table 11-5A. Residual impacts on the LRs are mapped in Figures 11-27. Residual impacts on the
LCAs are mapped in Figure 11-30.
LR3.A – Open Storage/Vacant Lot
(within Project Site): Since
there is no other vegetation (e.g. grass/shrub) beside existing trees found
within this LR, proposed treatments to existing trees within LR3.A are describe
as follows:
|
Retain |
0 nos. |
|
Transplant |
7 nos. |
|
Fell |
52 nos. |
|
Total |
59 nos. |
All 59 nos. of
existing trees in TG1 of this LR will be affected by the proposed development,
particularly by a proposed noise barrier along the southern boundary of the
Project Site. Of these trees, 7 nos. will be transplanted, while 52 nos. will be felled. Those affected trees that are designated for
transplanting will be transplanted “one-go” to recipient locations within the
Project Site (CM2).
Feasibility of
transplanting trees has been assessed.
Potentially transplantable trees in this LR are Ficus benjamina, Celtis
sinensis, Archontophoenix alexandrae,
Cinnamomum camphora, and Bombax ceiba. Out of the many Cinnamomum camphora trees found in this LR, only 3 no. them
are expected to be transplantable, with the others spaced very close to each
other, which makes them difficult to transplant because of severe overlapping
of tree crowns and difficulties in formation of rootball for
transplantation. Some of them are also
growing at the edge of the paving area which also makes them difficult to
transplant. Similarly, only 1 no.
of Ficus benjamina and 1 no.
of Celtis sinensis are expected to be
transplantable, with the others growing at or near hard pavement which makes
them difficult to form a rootball for transplanting. Alongside 1 no. of Archontophoenix alexandrae and 1
no. of Bombax ceiba, a total of 7
nos. are therefore proposed to be transplanted.
The impact
significance for this LR will remain to be Slight
after mitigation measures as compensatory planting will have a limited effect
due to lack of maturity during the construction phase.
LR6.A – Grassland/shrubland (within Project
Site): Proposed
treatments to existing trees and shrub/grass within LR6.A are as follows:
|
Retain |
16 nos. |
|
Transplant |
2 nos. |
|
Fell |
27 nos. |
|
Total |
45nos. |
Of the 45 nos. of existing trees in TG2, TG3 and
TG4 of this LR, unaffected 16 nos.
of existing trees will be unaffected and retained in-situ. Only 2
nos. of trees within this LR will be suitable for transplanting and will be
transplanted “one-go” to recipient locations within the Project Site
(CM2). The remaining 27 nos. will be felled and will be
replaced by compensatory planting.
Approx. 6.3 ha of the existing grass/shrub within this LR will be
affected by the proposed development and replace by lawn/grass and shrub
planting.
Trees that are designated for retention will be
properly protected by means of demarcation and fencing off of tree protection
zones, tight site supervision and monitoring to prevent tree damage by
construction activities, and periodic arboricultural inspection and maintenance
to uphold tree health (CM1).
Feasibility of transplanting trees has been
assessed, with potentially transplantable species in this LR being Ficus microcarpa and Celtis sinensis. There is a total of 5 nos. of Ficus microcarpa in this area. One of them is found to be
transplantable. The others found growing
very close to adjacent existing trees with crown overlapping. Transplanting them will require substantial
pruning of the crown and roots, thus adversely affecting the long term health
of the tree after transplantation. As
for Celtis sinensis, only one of the total of 7 nos. is expected to be transplantable. The others are growing in the concrete wall
of the existing nullah, posing great difficulties in formation of rootball for
transplantation and given their existing poor condition, it will not be worthwhile
transplanting them. Therefore, only 2
nos. of tree within this LR will be suitable for transplanting.
Apart from preserving and transplanting trees, a
recreational ground is proposed in the northern portion of the Project
Site. Proposed works in this
recreational ground will be fast-tracked and properly vegetated within a short
period, so that impacts arising from the construction works in the southern
portion of the Project Site will be somewhat offset by the vegetation
plantation inside the recreation ground (CM4).
Within the recreational ground, around 200 nos. of trees are proposed,
and around 2 ha of lawn/shrub area to compensate for the loss of
grassland/shrubland.
Furthermore, the northernmost part of this LR
will be the area for enhancing an existing abandoned pond (in the adjacent
LR7.A) into a landscape pond of high amenity value. Instead of using the conventional excavation
method, the pond will be enhanced by adopting an innovative approach which will
minimize pollution the existing pond.
Enhancement works will result in an increase of the pond area from the
current 0.5ha to around 0.6ha.
With these mitigation measures implemented, the
Moderate impact significance of this LR before mitigation will be remain Slight after mitigation measures as
compensatory planting will have a limited effect due to lack of maturity during
the construction phase.
LR7.A – Pond and Pond Edge (within Project Site): Proposed treatments to existing trees within
LR7.A are as follows:
|
Retain |
44 nos. |
|
Transplant |
0 nos. |
|
Fell |
0 nos. |
|
Total |
44 nos. |
The existing abandoned pond (approx. 0.5ha) and
pond edge (approx. 0.2ha) will be enhanced. The pond will be slightly enlarged
to 0.6ha and the pond edge to 0.3ha into a high visual amenity landscape pond
(although the enhancement works will be carried out within LR6.A). The
enhancement of the pond area causes permanent loss of 0.2ha of the existing pond edge which is comprised of existing
shrub/grass. However, this loss is offset by the creation of new pond edge for
the expanded pond. All 44 nos. of the existing trees within
tree group TG5, located mostly near the concrete wall of the existing nullah,
will be unaffected and will be retained in-situ. These trees will be properly protected by
means of fenced off tree protection zones, tight site supervision and
monitoring to prevent tree damage by construction activities, and periodic
arboricultural inspection and maintenance to uphold tree health (CM1).
An innovative design and construction method
on enlarging the existing pond area (CM3) will be engaged in this project: (1)
excavating a new pond at a slightly higher elevation adjacent to the existing
pond without breaking the existing pond edge, (2) suitably prepare the surface
of the new pond bottom, (3) fill the new pond with water and let it
stabilized for several weeks, (4) connect the recirculation system to
the existing pond, (5) create a gentle water cascade between the existing pond
and the new pond by increasing the new pond water level to flood over and water
will be circulated between these two ponds.
As a result, two ponds functionally and aesthetically appear as one
will be created. (The gentle water
cascade will also provide aeration to ensure water quality and details of the construction method of pond
will be subject to detailed design).
The
Moderate unmitigated impact significance during construction phase will be
reduced to Slight after mitigation.
Unaffected LRs: All the other Landscape Resources (i.e. LR1.B,
LR2.B1, LR2.B2, LR3.B, LR4.B, LR5.B, LR6.B, LR7.B, LR8.B, LR9.B, and LR10.B)
are outside the Project Site and thus will not be affected by the works. Therefore, these LRs will experience Insubstantial residual impacts during
construction as noted in Table 11-6 note
[4].
Residual impacts on
LCAs during the construction phase will be as follows:-
LCA1 –
Rural Open Landscape at Active / Abandoned Agricultural Lands / Fish
Ponds: The proposed development will cause irreversible
changes to approximately 13% of this LCA.
However, part of this loss will be replaced by the recreational ground
at the northern portion of the Project Site.
Works on the recreational ground will commence and be completed early.
The recreational ground will be properly vegetated early, such that impacts
arising from the construction works in other parts of the Project Site will be
somewhat offset (CM4). The recreational ground will incorporate an amenity
landscape pond, around 200 nos. of proposed trees, and around 2 ha of
lawn/shrub area to compensate for the loss of grassland/shrubland with emphasis
placed on a balance approach between trees and grass/herbs.
Apart
from provision of the recreational ground, some trees of this LCA will be
unaffected and will be retained in-situ.
These trees will be properly protected by tree protection zones; tight
site supervision and monitoring, and periodic arboricultural inspection and
maintenance (CM1). Affected trees that
are proposed for transplantation will be transplanted “one-go” to recipient
locations within the Project Site, to maximise survival rates and to maintain
good form and high value after transplanting (CM2).
It is
expected that the recreational ground, retained existing trees and transplanted
trees will provide some greenery and positive landscape character enhancement
during the construction period, and so the Moderate impact significance before
mitigation will be reduced to Slight
after mitigation.
LCA6 – Open Storage / Workshops / Utility Areas: Affected trees that are designated for
transplanting will be transplanted “one-go” to recipient locations within the
Project Site (CM2), to maximise survival rate within the Project Site Area
after transplanting. As the proposed
transplanted trees constitute only a small proportion of the affected trees and
as the effects of compensatory planting will only be experienced right at the
end of the construction period, the impact significance for this LR will remain
as Slight
after mitigation during the construction phase.
Unaffected LCAs: All the other LCAs (i.e. LCA2, LCA3, LCA4, and
LCA5) are entirely outside the Project Site and are therefore not affected by
the works. Therefore they will
experience Insubstantial residual
impacts during construction phase as noted in Table 11-6 note [4].
Proposed landscape
enhancement / mitigation measures during operation are listed in Table 11-5B. Residual impacts on
the LRs are mapped in Figures 11-28 and
11-29. Residual impacts on the LCAs are mapped in Figures 11-31 and 11-32.
LR3.A – Open Storage/Vacant Lot (within Project
Site): Approximately 7 nos. of existing trees within
this LR are proposed to be transplanted within the
site (OM1). The 52 nos. of felled trees
will be compensated by the provision of new tree planting, with compensatory
ratio being no less than 1:1 in terms of quantity and quality (OM2). Residual impact significance will become Slight on day 1 and Slight (beneficial) at year 10 during the operation phase as
the compensatory planting matures.
LR6.A – Grassland/shrubland (within Project
Site): Approximately
2 nos. of existing trees within this LR will be transplanted within the site
(OM1) and approximately 27 nos. of felled trees will be compensated by the
provision of new tree planting. New trees and shrub planting will be planted to
provide soft landscape within the proposed development to compensate the loss
of tree and shrub. The tree compensation ratio will be provided no less than
1:1 in terms of quantity and quality (OM2).
Apart from maximizing the tree preservation
effort, the recreational ground will adopt a rural, naturalistic landscape
design with native species, natural hardworks materials and vast open space, to
match the original landscape character (OM3).
Emphasis will be placed on a balanced approach between trees and
grass/herbs. With these mitigation
measures in place, the residual impact significance will remain Slight on day 1 and become Slight (beneficial) in year 10 of the operation phase as the
compensatory planting matures.
LR7.A – Ponds and Pond Edge (within Project
Site): The
overall amenity landscape value of this LR will be enhanced by the
aesthetically pleasing and enlarged landscape pond. The 44 nos. of existing trees within this LR
will be unaffected and will be retained in-situ (OM1). New trees and shrub
planting will be planted within this enlargement of the pond and pond edge area
to provide soft landscape and to compensate the loss of existing tree and
shrub/grass (OM2). Residual impact after
implementation of this mitigation measure is expected to be Slight on day 1 and Slight (beneficial) in year 10 of the
operation phase with the maturing of the compensatory tree planting.
Unaffected LRs: All other LRs within the Assessment Area (i.e.
LR1.B, LR2.B1, LR2.B2, LR3.B, LR4.B, LR5.B, LR6.B, LR7.B, LR8.B, LR9.B, and
LR10.B) are entirely outside the Project Site and thus will not be affected by
the works. Therefore, these LRs will
experience Insubstantial residual
impacts on day 1 and year 10 respectively as noted in Table 11-6 note [4].
Residual impacts on
LCAs during the operation phase following the implementation of the proposed
mitigation measures will be as follows:-
LCA1 –
Rural Open Landscape at Active / Abandoned Agricultural Lands / Fish Ponds: The
impacted portion of this LCA within the Project Site will be replaced with the recreational
ground and expanded landscape pond in the north, and low density residential
development in the south. The design in the north will adopt a rural,
naturalistic landscape design with native species (emphasis on planting will be
placed on a balanced approach between trees and grass/herbs), natural hardworks
materials and vast open space, to match the original landscape character
(OM3). Together with the tree
preservation measure to retain and transplant existing trees where practicable
(OM1) and the planting of new trees to compensate for the loss of existing
trees (OM2), the Moderate residual impacts before mitigation during the
operation phase will become Slight on
day 1. By year 10 of operation, the
residual impacts will become Slight
(beneficial) due to the maturing existing trees within the proposed
development and maturing vegetation in the recreational ground and planting in
and around the residential area, providing established greenery.
LCA6 – Open Storage
/ Workshops / Utility Areas: Some
of the trees of this LCA will be affected, particularly by the proposed noise
barrier along the southern boundary of the Project Site. Those affected trees that are of high to
medium value and survival rate will be transplanted (OM1). Trees that are lost within this LCA will be
compensated by planting new trees for soft landscape in the proposed
development, with the
compensation-to-tree loss ratio being no less than 1:1 in terms of quantity and
quality (OM2). Residual impacts on this LCA will be Slight on day 1 and Slight (beneficial) at year 10 as the
compensatory planting matures and integrates the new development into the
landscape.
Unaffected LCAs: All the other LCAs within the Assessment Area
(i.e. LCA2, LCA3, LCA4, and LCA5) are entirely outside the Project Site and are
therefore not affected by the works.
Therefore these LCAs will experience Insubstantial residual impacts
during operation phase as noted in Table 11-6 note [4].
|
Table
11‑6 Significance of Landscape Impacts in Construction and
Operational Phases |
|||||||||||||
|
ID |
Landscape Resource / Landscape Character Area |
Sensitivity (Low, Medium, High) [1] |
Total
Area of LR/LCA (Approx. ha) |
Affected
Area (Approx. ha) (Affected %) |
Magnitude of Change BEFORE Mitigation (Negligible, Small, Intermediate, Large)
[1][4] |
Impact Significance BEFORE Mitigation (Insubstantial, Slight, Moderate,
Substantial) [2][4] |
Recommended Mitigation Measures [5] |
Residual Impact Significance AFTER
Mitigation (Insubstantial, Slight, Moderate,
Substantial) [3][4] |
|||||
|
Construction |
Operation |
||||||||||||
|
Construction |
Operation |
Construction |
Operation |
DAY
1 |
YEAR
10 |
||||||||
|
Part 1 – Landscape Resources |
|||||||||||||
|
LR1.B |
Local Roads (outside Project Site) |
Medium |
8.9 ha |
0 ha (0%) |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
N/A |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
LR2.B1 |
Comprehensive Residential Settlements (outside Project Site) |
Medium |
78.8
ha |
0 ha (0%) |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
N/A |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
LR2.B2 |
Village Settlements (outside Project Site) |
Low |
5.8 ha |
0 ha (0%) |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
N/A |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
LR3.A |
Open Storage/Vacant Lot (within
Project Site) |
Low |
1.8 ha |
1.8 ha (100%) |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
Slight |
Slight |
CM2, OM1, OM2 |
Slight |
Slight |
Slight Beneficial |
|
|
LR3.B |
Open Storage/Vacant Lot (outside Project Site) |
Low |
30.8 ha |
0 ha (0%) |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
N/A |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
LR4.B |
Agricultural Field (ouside Project Site) |
Medium |
8.8 ha |
0 ha (0%) |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
N/A |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
LR5.B |
Plantation (outside Project Site) |
Medium |
2.0 ha |
0 ha (0%) |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
N/A |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
LR6.A |
Grassland/Shrubland (within Project Site) |
Low |
6.3 ha |
6.3 ha (100%) |
Large |
Intermediate |
Moderate |
Moderate |
CM1, CM2, CM4 OM1, OM2, OM3 |
Slight |
Slight |
Slight Beneficial |
|
|
LR6.B |
Grassland/Shrubland (outside
Project Site) |
Low |
9.0 ha |
0 ha (0%) |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
N/A |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
LR7.A |
Ponds and Pond Edge (within Project Site) |
Medium |
0.7 ha |
0.2ha
(29%) |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
Moderate |
Moderate |
CM1, CM3 OM1, OM2 |
Slight |
Slight |
Slight Beneficial |
|
|
LR7.B |
Ponds and Pond Edge (outside Project Site) |
High |
27.3 ha |
0 ha (0%) |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
N/A |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
LR8.B |
Modified Watercourse (outsite Project Site) |
Medium |
10.5 ha |
0 ha (0%) |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
N/A |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
LR9.B |
Public Amenity Area (outsite Project Site) |
Medium |
0.8 ha |
0 ha (0%) |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
N/A |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
LR10.B |
Highways (outside Project Site) |
Low |
2.0 ha |
0 ha (0%) |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
N/A |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
Part 2 – Landscape Character Areas |
|||||||||||||
|
LCA1 |
Rural Open Landscape at Active / Abandoned Agricultural Lands / Fish
Ponds |
Medium |
55 ha |
7 ha (13%) |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
Moderate |
Moderate |
CM1, CM2, CM3, CM4 OM1, OM2, OM3 |
Slight |
Slight |
Slight Beneficial |
|
|
LCA2 |
Semi-rural Open Landscape along Manmade Water Channels |
Medium |
14 ha |
0 ha (0%) |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
N/A |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
LCA3 |
Comprehensive Low Density Residential Areas |
Medium |
78 ha |
0 ha (0%) |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
N/A |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
LCA4 |
Village House Areas |
Low |
7 ha |
0 ha (0%) |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
N/A |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
LCA5 |
Major Transportation Corridors |
Low |
4 ha |
0 ha (0%) |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
N/A |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
|
LCA6 |
Open Storage / Workshops / Utility Areas |
Low |
37 ha |
2 ha (5%) |
Small |
Small |
Slight |
Slight |
CM2, OM1, OM2 |
Slight |
Slight |
Slight Beneficial |
|
|
[1] Detailed description
of the other key aspects of the Project contributing to the Magnitude of
Change are provided in the written descriptions of impacts for each LR and
LCA [2] Detailed description
of the other key aspects of the Project contributing to LR and LCA
sensitivity are provided in the written descriptions of impacts for each LR
and LCA [3] All impacts are
adverse unless otherwise stated [4] Not applicable to LRs
and LCAs that are entirely outside the Project Site. [5] Recommended Landscape
Mitigation Measures: Refer to Table 11-5A and Table 11-6A. |
|||||||||||||
An assessment of the
potential significance of the visual impacts during the construction and
operation phases, before and after mitigation, is briefly described below, and
listed in detail in Table 11-9. This
follows the methodology outlined above and assumes that the appropriate visual
landscape measures identified in Tables
11-7A and 11-7B will be
implemented, and that the full effect of the soft landscape mitigation measures
will be realised after ten years. Photomontages of the proposed development
before and after mitigation are illustrated in Figures 11-35 to 11-40
inclusive.
All impacts are
Adverse unless otherwise specified.
To minimise impacts
on visual resources, a number of measures are proposed to be implemented
including consideration of different design options and the provision of
mitigation measures to directly offset unavoidable impacts associated with the
construction and operation phases. These are discussed further below.
Mitigation measures
including strategies for reducing, offsetting and compensating impacts are
proposed to be implemented during construction and operation phases. These are
identified in Tables 11-7A and 11-7B below and are illustrated in Figures 11-16 to 11-26.
The assumption has
been made in the assessment that all mitigation proposals in this Report are
practical and achievable within the known parameters of funding,
implementation, management and maintenance. The suggested agents for the
funding and implementation (and subsequent management and maintenance, if
applicable) are also indicated in Tables
11-7A and 11-7B.
Table
11- 7A Proposed Visual Enhancement / Mitigation
Measures – Construction Phase
|
ID No. |
Visual Mitigation Measures |
Funding Agency |
Implementation Agency |
|
CM5 |
Height of temporary noise barriers along boundary
facing Bethel High School and some residences in Fairview Park be to minimum required. Barrier finishes be sensitively
selecting and designing to reduce visual impact. Materials to be opaque and
non-reflective material with colour blending in with the environment to
minimize visual impact and to avoid bird strike. |
Project proponent |
Project proponent (via Contractor) |
|
CM6 |
Advance screen planting of fast growing tree and
shrub species to temporary noise barriers and hoardings. Trees shall be
capable of reaching a height >10m within 10 years. |
Project proponent |
Project proponent (via Contractor) |
|
CM7 |
Control of night-time lighting by hooding all
lights. |
Project proponent |
Project proponent (via Contractor) |
|
CM8 |
Reduction of construction period to practical
minimum. |
Project proponent |
Project proponent (via Contractor) |
Table 11‑7B Proposed Visual Enhancement / Mitigation Measures – Operation Phase
|
ID No. |
Visual Mitigation Measures |
Funding
Agency |
Implementa-tion Agency |
Management Agency |
Maintenance Agency |
|
OM4 |
Use appropriate (visually unobtrusive and
non-reflective) building materials and colours in built structures. |
Project proponent |
Project proponent |
Private Owners |
Private Owners |
|
OM5 |
Streetscape elements (e.g. paving, signage, street
furniture, lighting etc.) sensitively designed in a manner that responds to
the local context, and minimizes potential negative landscape and visual
impacts. Lighting units to be directional and minimizing unnecessary light
spill. |
Project proponent |
Project proponent |
Owners Committee |
Management Company |
|
OM6 |
Suitable Design and Landscape Treatment of Noise
Barrier and Along Boundary Height
of permanent noise barriers along boundary be to minimum required. Barrier finishes be sensitively
selecting and designing to reduce visual impact. Materials to be opaque and
non-reflective material with colour blending in with the environment to
minimize visual impact and to avoid bird strike. Screen tree, shrub and climber
planting to be provided in front of permanent noise barrier to minimise
visual intrusion. |
Project
proponent |
Project
proponent |
Owners
Committee |
Management
Company |
The
construction phase measures listed in Table
11-7A shall be adopted from the commencement of construction and shall be
in place throughout the entire construction period. The operation phase
measures listed in Table 11-7B shall
be adopted during the detailed design, and be built as part of the construction
works so that they are in place at the date of commissioning of the Project.
However, it should be noted that the full effect of the soft landscape mitigation
measures will not be realised for several years until planting matures.
Proposed visual
enhancement / mitigation measures during construction are listed in Table 11-7A. Residual visual
impacts in the construction phase are mapped in Figure 11-33. After all visual mitigation measures are implemented;
there will be no adverse residual visual impacts of Substantial significance.
Key issues
determining the magnitude of change on existing views will be the proximity of
the VSRs to the works, the degree of visibility of the site and changes to the
character of the existing views of a largely derelict, open and vegetated rural
fringe area with village type developments. Rural fringe features include an
agglomeration of visually unrelated structures and landscape elements such as
village houses, residential development, utilities, tree clumps, etc.
Construction work will introduce artificial construction features such as
construction machinery, temporary noise barriers, site clearance, site
formation and partially completed buildings, as listed in Table 11-8.
The proposed
temporary noise barriers will be provided along a short section of the western
boundary of the southern site of the Project facing the Bethel High School and
some of the houses in Fairview Park to mitigate the construction noise from
project site (refer to Figure 4-6 in Chapter 4). This short of section of the
temporary noise barrier will be 9m in height with approx. 337m in length and will be designed using an opaque and non-reflective material with colour
blending in with the environment to minimize visual impact and to avoid bird strike to be determined at
the detailed design stage (to be determined at the detailed design stage).
During construction,
no VSR will be subject to Substantial residual impacts. Residual visual impacts
of Moderate
significance will be experienced by only one VSR group after mitigation:
R1(a) – Residents of Fairview Park – Only the residents of approximately 40
properties along the south-western boundary of the development will experience
views from short distances of buffer planting, completed 2-storey buildings and
temporary noise barrier. Other residents further away from the boundary may
experience more distant, oblique glimpses of the construction works, although
these will be largely obscured by the intervening buildings. There will be a 9m
high of temporary noise barrier provided facing the Bethel High School and its
adjacent houses (about 20 nos) using an opaque and
non-reflective material with colour blending in with the environment (CM5). Changes from existing open views in the
foreground with rural fringe features including village housing and open
storage in the middle distance, to relatively close views of construction
elements will constitute an Intermediate
magnitude of change, resulting in Moderate residual impacts for the
most seriously affected VSRs within this group. Residents in properties further
away from the boundary will be unaffected.
During construction, residual visual impacts of Slight
significance will be experienced by the following VSRs after
mitigation:
R1(b) –Residents of Fairview Park – Residents in approximately 75 properties along
the north-eastern boundary of the development will experience views from short
distances of the enhanced pond area (CM3) and passive recreational facilities
(CM4); erection of the temporary site hoarding (CM5) with buffer planting at
the boundary and within the site along the western edge of the pond (CM6),
further screening the leisure facilities. Other residents further away from the
boundary may experience more distant, oblique glimpses of the construction
works, although these will be largely obscured by the intervening buildings.
Changes will result from existing open views in the foreground with rural
fringe features including village housing and open storage in the middle
distance to relatively close views of the landscape amenity features which will
create a Moderate magnitude of
change, resulting in Slight residual impacts.
R2 – Residents of Palm Springs and Royal Palms – Residents in the upper floors of houses along
the southern boundary of these two developments will potentially experience
views from a moderate distance of enlargement work for the pond (CM3), erection
of temporary site hoardings (CM5) with buffer planting at the boundary and
within the site along the northern edge of the pond (CM6), partially completed
2-storey buildings. Key issues affecting visual impacts include the panoramic quality
of existing views in which the Project Site is only one element, as well as
intervening rural fringe features such as fish ponds, commercial farmland and
temporary structures. Given the above and the fact that most views will be of
the less visually-intrusive pond slightly enlargement works, the magnitude of
change resulting from construction elements will be Small. Residual impacts after implementation of mitigation including
visual treatment of noise barriers and buffer planting at the site perimeter
will be Slight.
R3 – Residents of Yau Mei San Tsuen – Residents in the upper floors of houses along
the south-western boundary of this village will potentially experience views
from a moderate distance of erection of temporary site hoarding (CM5) with buffer
planting along the eastern site boundary (CM6), site clearance and formation
works, construction machinery and partially completed 2-storey buildings. To
the extent that the Project Site is currently visible through intervening rural
fringe features such as fish ponds, commercial farmland and temporary
structures, and given the fact that most views will be of the less
visually-intrusive pond creation works, the magnitude of change resulting from
construction elements will be Small for this VSR group. Residual impacts after
implementation of visual mitigation measures will be Slight.
R4 – Residents of Chuk Yuen Tsuen, Tai Yuen
Villa and Hang Fook Garden –
Residents in the upper floors of houses along the western boundary of this
village will potentially experience views from a moderate distance of erection
of temporary site hoarding (CM5) with buffer planting along the eastern site
boundary (CM6), site clearance and formation works, construction machinery and
partially completed 2-storey buildings. There are no views of the Project Site
from the temple or ground floor flats located on the village due to intervening
vegetation, temporary structures and future residential buildings (under Approved
Planning Applications A/YL-MP/205). The
Project Site is currently visible through intervening rural fringe features
such as abandoned farmland and temporary structures, the magnitude of change
resulting from construction elements will be Small for this VSR group.
Residual impacts after implementation of visual mitigation measures will be Slight.
R5 – Residents of Han San Wai Village – Residents in the upper floors of houses along
the western boundary of this village will potentially experience views from a
moderate distance of erection of temporary site hoarding (CM5) with buffer
planting along the eastern site boundary (CM6), site clearance and formation
works, construction machinery and partially completed 2-storey buildings. There
are no views of the Project Site from the temple or ground floor flats located
on the village due to intervening vegetation, temporary structures and future
residential buildings (under Approved Planning Applications A/YL-MP/205). The Project Site is currently visible through
intervening rural fringe features such as abandoned farmland and temporary
structures, the magnitude of change resulting from construction elements will
be Small for
this VSR group. Residual impacts after implementation of visual mitigation
measures will be Slight.
R6 – Residents of Helene Terrace and Villa
Camellia –
Residents in the upper floors of houses along the western boundary of this
development will experience views from short distances across Ngau Tam Mei
Channel of temporary site hoarding erection (CM5) with buffer planting along
the eastern site boundary (CM6), site clearance and formation works,
construction machinery and partially completed 2-storey buildings. Other
residents further away from the boundary are unlikely to have clear views of
the Project. Changes from existing views of the vacant Project site in the
foreground with the Fairview Park development directly behind, to relatively
close views of construction elements will constitute an Intermediate magnitude of change, resulting in Slight residual impacts
after mitigation for the most seriously affected VSRs within this group.
R7 – Future Residents
under Approved Planning Applications A/YL-MP/205 – Future residents in properties along the
western boundary of this planned development will experience views from short
distances across Ngau Tam Mei Channel of temporary site hoarding erection (CM5)
with buffer planting along the eastern site boundary (CM6), site clearance and
formation works, construction machinery and partially completed 2-storey
buildings. Other residents further away from the boundary are unlikely to have
clear views of the Project. Changes from existing views of the vacant Project
site in the foreground with the Fairview Park development directly behind, to
relatively close views of construction elements will constitute an Intermediate magnitude of change,
resulting in Slight residual
impacts after mitigation for the most seriously affected VSRs within this
group.
R8 – Future Residents
under Planning Applications A/YL-MP/170 – Future residents in properties along the
western boundary of this planned development will experience views from short
distances across Ngau Tam Mei Channel of temporary site hoarding erection (CM5)
with buffer planting along the eastern site boundary (CM6), site clearance and
formation works, construction machinery and partially completed 2-storey
buildings. Other residents further away from the boundary are unlikely to have
clear views of the Project. Changes from existing views of the vacant Project
site in the foreground with the Fairview Park development directly behind, to
relatively close views of construction elements will constitute an Intermediate magnitude of change,
resulting in Slight residual impacts after mitigation for the most seriously
affected VSRs within this group.
T2 – Travellers on Yau Pok Road, Kam Pok Road
and Proposed Cycle Track – These
travelling VSRs will experience visual impacts of an Intermediate magnitude due to their close proximity to the source
of impacts. However, the indifferent quality of existing views in which the
Project Site is a relatively small feature set against the existing Fairview
Park development in the background, and the fact that for the most part the
VSRs are travelling parallel to the site rather than towards it, as well as the
transient nature of views mean that residual visual impacts will be Slight on this low number of VSRs of
generally low sensitivity.
T5 – Travellers on Fairview Park Boulevard – Travellers along the portion of this road
near the junction with Yau Pok Road and Kam Pok Road will experience impacts of
a Small magnitude due to the small
portion of the Project Site which is visible from the road and the existing
intervening features such as the petrol station. The fact that motorists are
travelling parallel to the site rather than towards it, and the generally low
sensitivity of motorists mean that residual impacts will be Slight.
O1 – Staff and
Pupils at Wong Chan Sook Ying Memorial School and Commercial Premises – Those VSRs facing the Project Site will
experience views from relatively short distances of temporary site hoardings
(CM5) with buffer planting along the eastern site boundary (CM6), site
clearance and formation works, construction machinery and partially completed
structures. Because only a limited number of VSRs within this group of relatively
Low sensitivity have direct views of the Project, this Small magnitude of change will result in Slight residual impacts.
O2 – Staff and Pupils at Bethel High School – Those VSRs in rooms facing the Project Site
will experience views from short distances of temporary noise barrier erection,
site clearance and formation works, construction machinery and partially
completed 2-storey buildings. There will
be a 9m high of temporary noise barrier provided facing the Bethel High School
by using an opaque and
non-reflective material with colour blending in with the environment (CM5).
Changes from existing open views in the foreground with rural fringe
features including village housing and open storage in the middle distance, to
views of construction elements will constitute an Intermediate magnitude of change. Mitigation measures and the fact
that most VSRs in this group only experience oblique views of the site will
reduce this somewhat, resulting in Slight residual impacts.
O3 – Workers on Commercial Farmland and Fish
Ponds – These
workers will potentially experience views from close distance of enlargement
work for the pond (CM3), erection of temporary site hoardings (CM5) with buffer
planting at the boundary and within the site along the northern edge of the
pond (CM6). To the extent that the Project Site is currently visible through
intervening rural fringe features such as fish ponds, commercial farmland and
temporary structures, the magnitude of change resulting from construction
elements will be Small
for this VSR group. Given the low sensitivity of these VSRs and the fact that
most views will be of the less visually-intrusive pond creation works, the
residual impact significance resulting from construction elements after
mitigation will be Slight.
O4 – Workers at Chuk
Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station – Workers will potentially experience views from across Ngau Tam Mei
Channel of the erection of temporary site hoarding (CM5) with buffer planting
along the eastern site boundary (CM6), site clearance and formation works,
construction machinery and partially completed 2-storey buildings. The
magnitude of change resulting from construction elements will be Intermediate
for this very small and low-sensitivity VSR group. Residual impacts after
implementation of visual mitigation measures will be Slight.
During construction,
residual visual impacts after mitigation for all other VSRs will be Insubstantial.
Proposed visual
enhancement / mitigation measures during operation are listed in Table 11-6B. Residual visual
impacts during the operation phase are mapped in Figure 11-34. Due to the difference in visual impact between the
northern and the southern portions of the Project Site, R1 has been divided to
allow this to be reflected in the results for its Residual Visual Impact during
operation.
The proposed noise
barriers that will be provided along the southern boundary of the Project Site
to mitigate the traffic noise from Fairview Park Boulevard and Yau Pok Road and
operational noise from the PFS within the Fairview Park will be approximately
2.5m, 4m and 4.5m in height with approx. 88m, 142m and 49m in length
respectively. It will be designed to have a solid barrier to the bottom 1.5m of
this barrier with the remaining height constructed of an opaque and non-reflective material with colour
blending in with the environment. When
mitigation buffer planting has matured, they will be substantially obscured by
vegetation and it is illustrated in Figure
11-41.
At Day 1 of
operation, mitigation planting will still be relatively small and there will be
visual impacts on a number of VSRs. With the maturing of landscape planting and
screening trees, residual impacts will tend to diminish further by Year 10 of
operation.
There will be no
Substantial residual visual impacts during operation. Residual visual impacts
of Moderate
significance will be experienced by only one VSR group at Day 1 after
mitigation, reducing to Slight after Year 10:
R1(a) – Residents of Fairview Park – Only the residents of approximately 40
properties along the south-eastern boundary of the development will experience
views from short distances of proposed buffer planting (OM6) and completed
2-storey buildings using appropriate (visually unobtrusive and non-reflective)
building material and colours in building structure (OM4). Other residents of
this visual zone, who are further away from the Project Site boundary, have
their view impeded to a great extent by the intervening buildings. They may experience
more distant, oblique glimpses of the proposed green buffer and buildings
beyond. This will greatly reduce the effect on them by the proposed
development. Key issues determining the magnitude of change for these VSRs
include the relative proximity of the Project and the somewhat incoherent
character of existing views of rural fringe features including derelict land,
low-rise residential development and village housing which will be partly
replaced by views of the more coherent residential character and landscape
elements of the completed Project. Rural fringe features include an
agglomeration of visually unrelated structures and landscape elements such as
village houses, low-rise residential development, utilities, tree clumps,
derelict land, etc. At night, residential and street lighting may also be
visible, but this will not significantly change views which are already
characterised by residential lighting at Fairview Park itself as well as other
nearby developments. This will constitute an Intermediate magnitude of change,
resulting in Moderate residual impacts for the affected VSRs within this
group at Day 1 of operation. As mitigation and amenity landscaping matures and
buffer trees along the boundary grow to form an effective visual screen, residual
impacts will reduced to Slight at Year 10.
At Day 1 of operation, when mitigation planting
is not yet mature, residual visual impacts of Slight significance will
be experienced by the VSRs within this group after mitigation. This will
reduced to Slight (beneficial) after Year 10 as buffer and landscape
planting matures for the following groups:
R1(b) – Residents of Fairview Park – Residents in approximately 75 properties
along the north eastern boundary of the development will experience views from
short distances of the enhanced pond area and passive recreational facilities
(OM3), with buffer planting at the boundary and within the site along the
eastern edge of the pond (OM6), further screening the leisure facilities. Other
residents further away from the boundary may experience more distant, oblique
glimpses. Key issues determining the magnitude of change for these VSRs include
the relative proximity of the Project and the somewhat incoherent character of
existing views of rural fringe features including derelict land, low-rise
residential development and village housing which will be partly replaced by
views of the more coherent residential character and landscape elements of the
completed Project. Rural fringe features include an agglomeration of visually
unrelated structures and landscape elements such as village houses, low-rise
residential development, utilities, tree clumps, derelict land, etc. At night,
street lighting may also be visible, but this will not significantly change
views which are already characterised by residential lighting at Fairview Park
itself as well as other nearby developments. This will constitute a small
magnitude of change. There would be a Slight residual
impacts for the affected VSRs within this group at Day 1 of operation. As the
amenity landscaping and landscape pond matures, and buffer trees along the
boundary grow, there would be a Slight (beneficial) visual gain for
this visual zone.
Residual visual
impacts of Slight significance will be experienced by this VSR group at
Day 1 after mitigation, reducing to Insubstantial after Year 10.
R6 – Residents of Helene Terrace and Villa
Camellia – Only
residents along the western boundary of this development will experience views
from short distances across Ngau Tam Mei Channel of proposed streetscape
elements design (OM5) with buffer planting along the eastern edge of the site
boundary (OM6), and partially completed 2-storey buildings using appropriate
(visually unobtrusive and non-reflective) building material and colours in building
structure (OM4). This VSR located
relatively proximity of the Project site and unlikely have clear view of
incoherent character of rural fringe features including degraded open
storage/vacant lot, in active agricultural land and abandoned grassland land
which will be replaced by views of the more coherent residential character and
landscape elements of the completed Project, and the fact that the Project will
be viewed across the bunds of the Ngau Tam Mei Channel against the backdrop of
the Fairview Park Development. Changes from existing views of the vacant
Project site in the foreground with the Fairview Park development directly
behind, to relatively close views of the completed Project will constitute an Intermediate magnitude of change. This
will resulting in Slight residual impacts on Day 1 operation after mitigation and
gradually reduces to Insubstantial after Year 10.
R7 – Future
Residents under Approved Planning Application A/YL-MP/205 and
R8 – Future
Residents under Planning Application A/YL-MP/170 -
Future residents in properties along the western
boundary of this planned development will experience views from short distances
across Ngau Tam Mei Channel of proposed streetscape elements design (OM5) with
buffer planting along the eastern edge of the site boundary (OM6), and a
completed 2-storey buildings using appropriate (visually unobtrusive and
non-reflective) building material and colours in building structure (OM4).
Other residents further away from the boundary are unlikely to have clear views
of the Project. Key issues determining the magnitude of change for these VSRs
include the relative proximity of the Project and the somewhat incoherent
character of existing views of rural fringe features including derelict land,
low-rise residential development and village housing which will be partly
replaced by views of the more coherent residential character and landscape
elements of the completed Project, and the fact that the Project will be viewed
across the bunds of the Ngau Tam Mei Channel against the backdrop of the
Fairview Park Development. Changes from existing views of the vacant Project
site in the foreground with the Fairview Park development directly behind, to
relatively close views of the completed Project will constitute an Intermediate
magnitude of change, resulting in Slight residual impacts on Day 1 operation after mitigation and gradually
reduce to Insubstantial after Year 10.
O2 – Staff and Pupils at Bethel High School – Those VSRs in portions of the school directly
facing the Project Site will experience a change in views from existing rural
fringe features including derelict land, low-rise residential development and
village housing, to views, broken by buffer planting at the boundary (OM6) and
more coherent residential character comprising completed 2-storey buildings
using appropriate (visually unobtrusive and non-reflective) building material
and colours in building structure (OM4), and landscape elements (OM5) of the
completed Project. Key issues determining the magnitude of change to these VSRs
will be the relatively close proximity of the Project and changes to the rural
fringe character of the area. These VSRs will not be affected. The Project will
introduce new development features into the foreground of these views. This
will constitute an Intermediate magnitude of change, resulting in Slight
residual impacts for the most affected VSRs within this group. However, all residual visual impacts
experienced by the concerned VSRs after mitigation will be Slight at Day 1 during
operation and gradually reduce to Insubstantial by Year 10 of
operation.
O4 – Workers at Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping
Station –
Workers will potentially experience views from a relatively close distance of
completed 2-storey buildings using appropriate (visually unobtrusive and
non-reflective) building material and colours in building structure (OM4) and
proposed streetscape elements design (OM5) with buffer planting along the
eastern edge of the site boundary (OM6), as well as residential traffic on Yau
Pok Road and Kam Pok Road. The magnitude of change resulting from the completed
Project will be Intermediate for this very small and low-sensitivity VSR group.
Residual impacts after implementation of visual mitigation measures will be Slight
at Day 1 of operation phase and these will gradually reduce to Insubstantial
by Year 10.
All other residual
visual impacts experienced by concerned VSRs after mitigation at Day 1 of
operation and after Year 10 of operation will be Insubstantial.
Table
11‑8 Magnitude of Change in Views for VSRs
|
ID No. |
Visually Sensitive Receiver |
Compatibility of Project with
Surroundings (High, Medium, Low) |
Scale of Development (Large, Medium,
Small) |
Reversibility of Change (Yes, No) |
Minimum Viewing Distance (Meters) |
Blockage of View (Small, Partial,
Major) |
Duration of Impacts (Short, Long) |
Magnitude of change (Negligible,
Small, Intermediate, Large) |
||
|
Construction |
Operation |
Construction |
Operation |
|||||||
|
R1a & R1b |
Residents of Fairview Park |
High |
Large |
No |
5 |
Partial |
Short |
Long |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
|
R2 |
Residents of Palm Springs and Royal Palms |
High |
Large |
No |
330 |
Small |
Short |
Long |
Small |
Small |
|
R3 |
Residents of Yau Mei San Tsuen |
High |
Large |
No |
200 |
Small |
Short |
Long |
Small |
Small |
|
R4 |
Residents of Chuk Yuen Tsuen, Tai Yuen Villa and Hang Fook Garden |
High |
Large |
No |
300 |
Small |
Short |
Long |
Small |
Small |
|
R5 |
Residents of Ha San Wai |
High |
Large |
No |
350 |
Small |
Short |
Long |
Small |
Small |
|
R6 |
Residents of Helene Terrace and Villa Camellia |
High |
Large |
No |
100 |
Partial |
Short |
Long |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
|
R7 |
Future Residents under Approved Planning Applications A/YL-MP/205 |
High |
Large |
No |
70 |
Partial |
Short |
Long |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
|
R8 |
Future Residents under Planning Application A/YL-MP/170 |
High |
Large |
No |
60 |
Partial |
Short |
Long |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
|
T1 |
Travellers on Ha Chuk Yuen Road and Fung Chuk Road |
Medium |
Small |
No |
60 |
Small |
Short |
Long |
Negligible |
Negligible |
|
T2 |
Travellers on Yau Pok Road, Kam Pok Road and Proposed Cycle Track |
Medium |
Small |
No |
10 |
Major |
Short |
Long |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
|
T3 |
Travellers on Castle Peak Road and San Tin Highway |
Medium |
Small |
No |
350 |
Small |
Short |
Long |
Negligible |
Negligible |
|
T4 |
Pedestrians on Footbridges over San Tin HighwayMedium |
Medium |
Small |
No |
500 |
Small |
Short |
Long |
Negligible |
Negligible |
|
T5 |
Travellers on Fairview Park Boulevard |
Medium |
Small |
No |
10 |
Partial |
Short |
Long |
Small |
Small |
|
O1 |
Staff and Pupils at Wong Chan Sook Ying Memorial School and Commercial
Premises |
Medium |
Small |
No |
20 |
Small |
Short |
Long |
Small |
Small |
|
O2 |
Staff and Pupils at Bethel High School |
Medium |
Small |
No |
10 |
Small |
Short |
Long |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
|
O3 |
Workers on Commercial Farmland and Fish Ponds west of Yau Mei San
Tsuen |
Medium |
Small |
No |
0 |
Partial |
Short |
Long |
Small |
Small |
|
O4 |
Workers at Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station |
Medium |
Small |
No |
60 |
Major |
Short |
Long |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
|
O5 |
Workers in Yau Mei San Tsuen |
Medium |
Small |
No |
300 |
Small |
Short |
Long |
Negligible |
Negligible |
|
O6 |
Workers in Open Storage and Other Premises east of Castle Peak Road |
Medium |
Small |
No |
370 |
Small |
Short |
Long |
Negligible |
Negligible |
|
O7 |
Workers in Open Storage / Godowns west of Castle Peak Road |
Medium |
Small |
No |
70 |
Small |
Short |
Long |
Small |
Small |
Table
11‑9 Significance of Visual Impacts in
Construction and Operational Phases
|
VSR Type & ID |
Key Visually Sensitive Receiver (VSR) |
Degree of Visibility of Source(s) of
Visual Impact (Full, Partial, Glimpse) & Min Distance Between VSR & Nearest Source(s) of
Impact [1] |
Magnitude of Change before Mitigation (Negligible, Small, Intermediate,
Large) [1] |
Receptor Sensitivity (Low, Medium, High) [2] |
Impact Significance BEFORE Mitigation (Insubstantial, Slight, Moderate,
Substantial) [3] |
Recommended Mitigation Measures |
Residual Impact Significance AFTER
Mitigation (Insubstantial, Slight, Moderate,
Substantial) [3] |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction |
Operation |
|
|
|
|
Construction |
Operation |
Construction |
Operation |
Construction |
Operation |
Construction |
Operation |
|
|
DAY
1 |
YEAR
10 |
|
Residential VSRs |
|||||||||||||
|
R1(a) |
Residents of Fairview Park |
Full 5m |
Full 5m |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
High |
High |
Moderate |
Moderate |
CM1 – CM2, CM5 – CM6, OM1 –
OM2 OM4, OM6 |
Moderate |
Moderate |
Slight |
|
R1(b) |
Residents of Fairview Park |
Full 5m |
Full 5m |
Small |
Small |
High |
High |
Moderate |
Moderate |
CM1 – CM2, CM5 – CM6, OM1 –
OM4, OM6 |
Slight |
Slight |
Slight (beneficial) |
|
R2 |
Residents of Palm Springs
and Royal Palms |
Partial 330m |
Partial 330m |
Small |
Small |
High |
High |
Moderate |
Moderate |
CM3 – CM8, OM1 – OM4, OM6 |
Slight |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
R3 |
Residents of Yau Mei San
Tsuen |
Partial 200m |
Partial 200m |
Small |
Small |
Medium |
Medium |
Moderate |
Moderate |
CM3 – CM8, OM1 – OM4, OM6 |
Slight |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
R4 |
Residents of Chuk Yuen
Tsuen, Tai Yuen Villa and Hang Fook Garden |
Glimpse 300m |
Glimpse 300m |
Small |
Small |
Medium |
Medium |
Moderate |
Moderate |
CM3 – CM8, OM1 – OM4, OM6 |
Slight |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
R5 |
Residents of Ha San Wai |
Glimpse 350m |
Glimpse 350m |
Small |
Small |
Medium |
Medium |
Moderate |
Moderate |
CM3 – CM8, OM1 – OM4, OM6 |
Slight |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
R6 |
Residents of Helene
Terrace and Villa Camellia |
Partial 100m |
Partial 100m |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
Medium |
Medium |
Moderate |
Moderate |
CM5 – CM8, OM1 – OM3, OM4 – OM6 |
Slight |
Slight |
Insubstantial |
|
R7 |
Future Residents under
Approved Planning Applications A/YL-MP/205 |
Full 70m |
Full 70m |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
High |
High |
Moderate |
Moderate |
CM3 – CM8, OM1 – OM3, OM4 – OM6 |
Slight |
Slight |
Insubstantial |
|
R8 |
Future Residents under
Planning Application A/YL-MP/170 |
Full 60m |
Full 60m |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
High |
High |
Moderate |
Moderate |
CM3 – CM8, OM1 – OM3, OM4 – OM6 |
Slight |
Slight |
Insubstantial |
|
Travelling VSRs |
|||||||||||||
|
T1 |
Travellers on Ha Chuk Yuen
Road and Fung Chuk Road |
Glimpse 60m |
Glimpse 60m |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Low |
Low |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
None |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
T2 |
Travellers on Yau Pok
Road, Kam Pok Road and Proposed Cycle Track |
Full 10m |
Full 10m |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
Low |
Low |
Moderate |
Moderate |
CM3 – CM8, OM1 – OM3, OM4 – OM6 |
Slight |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
T3 |
Travellers on Castle Peak
Road and San Tin Highway |
Glimpse 350m |
Glimpse 350m |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Low |
Low |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
None |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
T4 |
Pedestrians on
Foot-bridges over San Tin Highway |
Glimpse 500m |
Glimpse 500m |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Medium |
Medium |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
None |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
T5 |
Travellers on Fairview
Park Boulevard |
Partial 10m |
Partial 10m |
Small |
Small |
Low |
Low |
Slight |
Slight |
CM3 – CM8, OM1 – OM3, OM4 – OM6 |
Slight |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
Occupational VSRs |
|||||||||||||
|
O1 |
Staff and Pupils at Wong
Chan Sook Ying Memorial School and Commercial Premises |
Partial 20m |
Partial 20m |
Small |
Small |
Low |
Low |
Slight |
Slight |
CM1 – CM2, CM5 – CM6, OM1 – OM2, OM4, OM6 |
Slight |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
O2 |
Staff and Pupils at Bethel
High School |
Full 10m |
Full 10m |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
Low |
Low |
Moderate |
Moderate |
CM1 – CM2, CM5 – CM6, OM1 – OM2, OM4, OM6 |
Slight |
Slight |
Insubstantial |
|
O3 |
Workers on Commercial
Farmland and Fish Ponds |
Partial 0m |
Partial 0m |
Small |
Small |
Low |
Low |
Slight |
Slight |
CM1 – CM2, CM5 – CM6, OM1 – OM2, OM4 –OM6 |
Slight |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
O4 |
Workers at Chuk Yuen
Floodwater Pumping Station |
Full 60m |
Full 60m |
Intermediate |
Intermediate |
Low |
Low |
Moderate |
Moderate |
CM3 – CM8, OM1 – OM6 |
Slight |
Slight |
Insubstantial |
|
O5 |
Workers in Yau Mei San
Tsuen |
Glimpse 300m |
Glimpse 300m |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Low |
Low |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
None |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
O6 |
Workers in Open Storage
and Other Premises east of Castle Peak Road |
Glimpse 370m |
Glimpse 370m |
Negligible |
Negligible |
Low |
Low |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
None |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
|
O7 |
Workers in Open Storage/
Godowns west of Castle Peak Road |
Partial 70m |
Partial 70m |
Small |
Small |
Low |
Low |
Slight |
Slight |
CM3 – CM8, OM1 – OM2, OM4, OM6 |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
Insubstantial |
The detailed
landscape and visual assessment above is briefly summarised below:
Residual landscape
impacts in the construction phase are listed in Table 11-6 and mapped in Figures
11-27 and 11-30. Residual visual impacts in the construction phase are
listed in Table 11-9 and mapped in Figure 11-33.
During the
construction phase, there will be Slight
residual landscape impacts for LR3.A (Open
Storage/Vacant Lot), LR6.A (Grassland/Shrubland),
LR7.A (Ponds and Pond Edge), LCA1 (Rural Open Landscape at Active /
Abandoned Agricultural Lands / Fish Ponds) and LCA6 (Open Storage / Workshops / Utility Areas). All others LRs and LCAs are entirely outside
the Project Site and will experience Insubstantial
residual landscape impacts during the construction phase.
Potentially the most
significant visual impacts during the construction phase will be Moderate impacts on R1(a) – Residents of Fairview Park.
In addition, there
will be impacts of Slight significance on R1(b) – Residents
of Fairview Park; R2 –
Residents of Palm Springs and Royal Palms; R3
– Residents of Yau Mei San Tsuen; R4
– Residents of Chuk Yuen Tsuen, Tai Yuen Villa and Hang Fook Garden; R5 – Residents of Ha San Wai; R7 R6 – Residents of
Helene Terrace and Villa Camellia; R7
– Future Residents under Approved Planning Application A/YL-MP/205; R8 – Future Residents under Planning Applications
A/YL-MP/156 and A/YL-MP/170; T2 – Travellers on Yau Pok Road, Kam Pok Road and Proposed Cycle Track; T5 – Travellers on Fairview park
Boulevard; O1 – Staff and Pupils at
Wong Chan Sook Ying Memorial School and Commercial Premises; O2 – Staff and pupils at Bethel High
School; O3 – Workers on Commercial
Farmland and Fish Ponds and O4 –
Workers at Chuk Yuen Floodwater Pumping Station.
All other visual
impacts will be Insubstantial.
Residual landscape
impacts in the operation phase are listed in Table 11-6 and mapped in Figures
11-28 to 11-29 and 11-31 to 11-32.
Residual visual impacts in the operation phase are listed in Table 11-9 and mapped in Figure 11-34.
Within the Project
Site, residual impacts after 10 years of operation will be Slight (beneficial) for LR3.A (Open Storage/Vacant Lot); LR6.A (Grassland/shrubland) and LR7.A (Ponds and Pond Edge). LCA6 (Open Storage / Workshops /
Utility Areas) within the Project Site and LCA1
(Rural Open Landscape at Active / Abandoned Agricultural Lands / Fish Ponds),
which is partially inside the Project Site, will experience Slight (beneficial)
residual impacts during operation. All
other LCAs lie entirely outside the Project Site and will experience Insubstantial residual impacts during operation.
Residual visual
impacts after year 10 of operation on almost all receivers will be
Insubstantial. For more distant VSRs, this will be because their oblique or
distant views of the Projects will be largely screened by a belt of trees or
because the Project will appear generally in keeping with the existing
residential character of existing views and will not represent a significant
change to their character. There will be Slight visual impacts on a small number of VSRs within R1(a) – Residents of Fairview Park, who look directly onto the site
from close proximity. Impacts to all other VSRs, except R1(b),
will be Insubstantial. For
certain VSRs at R1(b) – Residents of
Fairview Park, as they are facing directly to the proposed landscaped pond with
landscape amenity, there would be a Slight (beneficial) visual gain for this group.
The landscaped pond
area, recreational landscape facilities, substantial new tree planting and the
coherent development of the currently derelict site will result in a Slight Beneficial impact on the
landscape resources within the Project Site, once operational and once proposed
landscape planting has had time to mature. The overall conclusion is therefore
that the landscape and visual impacts are acceptable and may contribute a small
landscape / visual enhancement effect to the neighbourhood with the
implementation of landscape improvement measures as detailed above.
In accordance with
the criteria and guidelines for evaluating and assessing impacts as state in
Annex 10, Clause 1.1(c) of the EIAO-TM, overall, it is considered that the
residual landscape and visual impacts of the proposed development are Acceptable with Mitigation during
the construction and operation phases: “there
will be some adverse effects, but these can be eliminated, reduced or offset to
a large extent by specific measures”.
Through implementation
of dust control measures required under the Air Pollution Control (Construction
Dust) Regulation;
recommended specific measures in this EIA report; and good housekeeping practices by the works contractors, construction dust
impacts can be controlled to an acceptable
level. Practical mitigation
measures have already been proposed for this Project to alleviate potential
impacts. The concerned site formation
works will only be short-term and potential air quality impacts have been reduced to a minimal through recommended mitigation measures
and can comply with the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs. Thus, no adverse impact is anticipated. As a result, there is no residual impact.
Appropriate precautionary measures (e.g.
peripheral setback from the site boundaries) have been incorporated in the
layout, which can satisfy the buffer distance requirements stated in
the HKPSG for both active and passive recreational uses. No unacceptable air quality impacts due
to industrial emissions are expected as no industrial
emission sources were identified within the Assessment Area. During the operational stage, the sewage
generated by the proposed development will be discharged to the planned public sewers at Yau Pok Road. As such, no operational air
quality impacts are anticipated.
The Noise Control
Ordinance will be complied with throughout the Project. With the proposed noise mitigation measures, the
predicted noise levels due to industrial noise sources and that of road
traffic noise at the proposed development can fully comply with the noise
criteria.
The
major impact during construction of this Project will be surface runoff and
soil erosion due to exposed surfaces. Peripheral drainage, temporary drains,
sedimentation basins, sand traps and similar facilities will be provided during
the construction works in accordance with the ProPECC PN 1/94. Surface runoff from the construction site will be diverted away from the
nearby Fairview Park Nullah, thus there will be no discharge into the
nullah. Together with the adoption of proposed good
practices on-site, adverse water quality impact is not expected. The Contractor will be required to apply for a discharge
licence under the WPCO and the discharge shall comply with the terms and
conditions of the licence.
During operation, there
is no adverse impact on nearby WSRs expected as effluent during operation of
the Project will be discharged into public sewerage system. Discharge from the Project Site shall apply
for a discharge licence under the WPCO, and the discharge shall comply with the
terms of conditions of the licence as well as the standards for effluents
specified in the relevant TM under the WPCO.
Drainage system of the Project Site will be properly designed so that
surface runoff from the Project Site will be collected by the proposed new
drainage channels and pipes surrounding the Project Site. The proposed landscape pond will be self-contained and
there is will be no discharge from pond. Surface runoff from the adjacent area
will be diverted away from the pond area by drainage channels.
The water quality
assessment in the EIA indicated that with proper implementation of the
recommended environmental mitigation measures, no adverse impacts on water
quality would be expected from the construction and operational phase of the
Project.
All sewage generated
will be discharged to the public sewerage system. The proposed development will not have population intake until the
commissioning of all the planned local public sewerage works mentioned in Chapter 6.
No waste related
regulatory non-compliance and unacceptable environmental impacts are expected
to arise from the proposed residential.
The Project will result
in permanent or temporary loss of 9.1 ha of habitats which are currently “very
low” to “low to moderate” ecological value for wildlife. No residual ecological
impacts are expected to arise from the proposed development after the
implementation of the recommended measures.
No active fish pond would be directly impacted due
to this project. Indirect impacts during
construction and operation phases would also be insignificant given that
appropriate mitigation measures (i.e. measures for water quality impact) are
implemented. Therefore, no significant
fisheries impact is anticipated.
There is no anticipated
effect on cultural heritage resources as a result of the Project.
The landscape pond area, passive recreational and supporting uses, substantial new tree planting and the coherent
development of the currently derelict site will result in a Slight Positive impact on the landscape
resources within the Project Site, once operational and once proposed landscape
planting has had time to mature. The overall conclusion is therefore that the
landscape and visual impacts are acceptable and may contribute a small
landscape / visual enhancement effect to the neighbourhood with the
implementation of landscape improvement measures as detailed above.
In accordance with the criteria and guidelines for evaluating and
assessing impacts as state in Annex 10, Clause 1.1(c) of the EIAO-TM, Overall,
it is considered that the residual landscape and visual impacts of the proposed
development are acceptable with
mitigation during the construction and operation phases: “there will be some adverse effects, but
these can be eliminated, reduced or offset to a large extent by specific measures”.
A detailed EM&A
Manual has been prepared for this project as required under the Study Brief and
the requirements as stipulated in Annex 21 of the TM. The following Chapters provide a summary of
the need for monitoring and auditing of the individual environmental aspects.
Although the Project is
not expected to generate excessive dust, an EM&A program is recommended to
demonstrate compliance with relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs during the
Project construction phase, and the proper implementation of mitigation
measures. The corresponding implementation schedule is tabulated in Table
14‑1.
The EM&A program will include monitoring the air quality during the Project construction phase, and the
implementation of good practices by the works contractor. Details of the EM&A requirements are
provided in the Project EM&A Manual.
No particular monitoring
is required during the Project operational phase.
Construction noise
Based on the results of noise assessment, implementation of noise
mitigation measures and good practices will be necessary in order to make sure
the construction noise levels can comply with the relevant noise criteria. With implementation of proper noise mitigation
measures, no residual noise impact is expected.
The type of noise mitigation measures and their implementation schedule
are tabulated in Table
14‑1. EM&A programme would be required for the
Project construction works, which is detailed in the Project EM&A Manual.
Operational Noise
Operational phase noise impacts due to road traffic noise levels and
that due to fixed noise sources have been examined. Noise mitigation measures have also been
proposed accordingly. As the predicted mitigated
noise levels can comply with the relevant noise criteria, no further noise
mitigation measures are considered to be necessary and no residual noise impact
is anticipated. The concerned
precautionary measures that need to be considered during the detailed design
are tabulated in Table
14‑1.
No adverse residual impact
is anticipated during the construction and/ or operation of the Project. The required precautionary/ mitigation
measures during from design, to construction and operation of the Project is
tabulated in Table
14‑1.
A water quality
monitoring and site auditing programme is proposed, to ensure implementation of
mitigation measures during construction phase to protect the nearby sensitive
water bodies from being degraded.
Details of the water quality impact
mitigation measures are tabulated in Table
14‑1.
There is currently limited
existing public sewerage system in vicinity of the Project Site. However,
the proposed
development will not have population intake until the commissioning of all the
planned local public sewerage works mentioned in Chapter 6. Therefore, no EM&A requirements are considered to be necessary.
According to the waste
impact assessment results, no unacceptable environmental impacts are expected
as a result of handling, storage, transportation and disposal of construction
waste arising from the proposed development or due to operation of the
Project. Details of the recommended
mitigation measures are tabulated in Table
14‑1.
An EM&A programme is
recommended to be in place to check that the waste generated from the construction
site are being managed in the accordance with the recommended procedures. The programme is detailed in the Project
EM&A Manual.
As no significant ecological impact is
anticipated, operational phase ecological monitoring is not required. However, as a precautionary
measure to verify the accuracy of impact assessment and detect any
unpredictable impact arising from the proposed development, construction phase
ecological monitoring is proposed in Section 8.10 and in Table
14‑1.
As no significant
fisheries impact is anticipated, monitoring for fisheries is not required.
As there are no direct
or indirect impacts on any terrestrial archaeology or heritage resources that
may arise as a result of the construction and operation of this Project, no
monitoring is necessary.
It is recommended that EM&A for landscape
and visual resources is undertaken during the design, construction and
operational phases of the project. The design,
implementation and maintenance of landscape mitigation measures should be
monitored to ensure that they are fully realised and that potential conflicts
between the proposed landscape mitigation measures and any other project works
and operational requirements are resolved at the earliest possible stage
without compromise to the intent of the mitigation measures. Implementation
management and maintenance of the mitigation measures recommended by the EIA
will be monitored through the site audit programme. Audits shall be carried out
by a Registered Landscape Architect as detailed in the EM&A Manual.
Details of the recommended mitigation measures are tabulated in Table 14‑1.
Based on the findings of
this EIA, boundary noise barriers have been proposed in order to alleviate road
traffic noise and potential noise impact due to nearby fixed noise sources
(Sections 4.7.2 and 4.7.3 refer).
Various noise mitigation measures have been
proposed for different noise sources and representing different scenarios,
noise mitigation measures proposed have also been summarised and presented in Figure 4-7.
During operational
phase, sewage generated from the development will be discharged to the public
sewerage as the Project will not
have population intake until the commissioning of the planned local public
sewerage works.
In addition, other
mitigation measures have also been proposed for both the construction and
operational phase of the Project and are presented in the respective Chapters of this EIA
report. The implementation schedules for the recommended mitigation measures
for each environmental aspect covered in this EIA are given in Table
14‑1 as appropriate.
Table 14‑1 Implementation
Schedule of Recommended Mitigation Measures
|
EIA Ref. |
EM&A Manual Ref. |
Recommended Environmental Protection Measures/
Mitigation Measures |
Objectives of the recommended measures & main
concerns to address |
Who to implement the measures? |
Location / Timing of implementation of Measures |
What requirements or standards for the measures
to achieve? |
|
Air Quality |
||||||
|
During
Detailed Design: |
||||||
|
3.6.2.1 |
4.9.1 |
During the operational phase, the
sewage generated by the proposed development will be discharged to the planned
public sewerage system at Yau Pok Road, which is to be constructed under PWP
No. 4235DS by Hong Kong SAR Government Drainage Services Department
(DSD). The Project will not have population
intake until the commissioning of the planned local public sewerage works. |
Odour
control during operation |
Project
architect and Project Proponent |
During
detailed design stage |
EIA |
|
3.6.2.1 |
4.9.2 |
The layout of the facilities for the
proposed development will be carefully planned such that the refuse
collection point (a potential odour source) will be away from the residential
area but will be close to the main access area connecting the main road.
During the detailed design phase, the minimisation of odour at the refuse
collection point will be considered to further reduce any localized impact. |
Odour
control during operation |
Project
architect and Project Proponent |
During
detailed design stage |
EIA |
|
During
Construction Phase: |
||||||
|
3.9.1 |
4.10.2 |
Good
site management practices are important in reducing potential air quality
impacts. As a general guidance, the contractor shall maintain high standard
of housekeeping to prevent emission of fugitive dust emission. Loading, unloading, handling and storage of
fuel, raw materials, products, wastes or by-products should be carried out in
a manner so as to minimize the release of visible dust emission. |
Air
Quality (fugitive dust) Control during Construction Phase |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
Annex
4 and Annex 12 of EIAO -TM, Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust)
Regulation |
|
3.9.1 |
4.10.3 |
The
speed of the trucks travelling on haul roads within the Project Site will be
controlled at 10 kph or below in order to reduce dust impact and for safe
movement around the Project Site. Any
piles of materials accumulated on or around the work areas shall be cleaned
up regularly. Cleaning, repair and maintenance
of all plant facilities within the work areas shall be carried out in a
manner without generating fugitive dust emissions. The material shall be
handled properly to prevent fugitive dust emission before cleaning. |
Air
Quality (fugitive dust) Control during Construction Phase |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
Annex
4 and Annex 12 of EIAO -TM, Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust)
Regulation |
|
3.9.1 |
4.10.5 |
All
the relevant dust control measures stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation would be
fully implemented: |
Air
Quality (fugitive dust) Control during Construction Phase |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
Annex
4 and Annex 12 of EIAO -TM, Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation |
|
3.9.1 |
4.10.5 |
· The designated haul
road should be hard paved to minimize fugitive dust
emission; · During
the site formation works, the active works
areas should
be water sprayed with water browser or sprayed manually eight times
during day-time from 0800 to 1800 hours including
holidays. The Contractor(s) should ensure that the amount of water spraying is just enough to dampen the exposed
surfaces without over-watering which could result in surface water runoff; ·
Dump trucks for material transport should be totally enclosed using
impervious sheeting; ·
Any excavated dusty materials or stockpile of dusty materials should
be covered entirely by impervious sheeting or sprayed with water so as to
maintain the entire surface wet, and recovered or backfilled or reinstated as soon as possible; · Dusty materials
remaining after a stockpile is removed should be wetted with water; · The area where
vehicle washing takes place and the section of the road between the washing
facilities and the exit point should be paved with e.g. concrete, bituminous
materials or hardcore or similar; · The Contractor(s)
shall only transport adequate amount of fill materials to the Project Site to
minimize stockpiling of fill materials on-site, thus reducing fugitive dust
emission due to wind erosion; · Should temporary
stockpiling of dusty materials be required, it shall be either covered
entirely by impervious sheeting, placed in an area sheltered on the top and
the 3 sides; or sprayed with water so as to maintain the entire surface wet; |
Air
Quality (fugitive dust) Control during Construction Phase |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
Annex
4 and Annex 12 of EIAO -TM, Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust)
Regulation |
|
3.9.1 |
4.10.5 |
·
All
dusty materials shall be sprayed with water prior to any loading, unloading
or transfer operation so as to maintain the dusty material wet; ·
Vehicle
speed to be limited to 10 kph except on completed access roads; ·
The
portion of road leading only to a construction site that is within 30 m of a
designated vehicle entrance or exit should be kept clear of dusty materials; ·
Every
vehicle should be washed to remove any dusty materials from its body and
wheels before leaving the construction sites; ·
The
load of dusty materials carried by vehicle leaving a construction site should
be covered entirely by clean impervious sheeting to ensure that the dusty
materials do not leak from the vehicle; ·
The
working area of excavation should be sprayed with water immediately before,
during and immediately after (as necessary) the operations so as to maintain
the entire surface wet; |
Air
Quality (fugitive dust) Control during Construction Phase |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
Annex
4 and Annex 12 of EIAO -TM, Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust)
Regulation |
|
3.9.1 |
4.10.5 |
· Use of effective
dust screens, sheeting or netting to be provided to enclose dry scaffolding
which may be provided from the ground floor level of the building or if a
canopy is provided at the first floor level, from the first floor level, up
to the highest level (maximum three floors high for
this Project) of the scaffolding where scaffolding is erected around the
perimeter of a building under construction. |
Air
Quality (fugitive dust) Control during Construction Phase |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
Annex
4 and Annex 12 of EIAO -TM, Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust)
Regulation |
|
3.9.1 |
4.10.6 |
In order to minimize
potential cumulative dust impacts, the Contractor(s) shall carry
out site formation works for the Northern Portion and
Southern Portion of the Project Site separately without overlapping in
construction programme. In addition, to minimize dust emission,
the site formation works is expected to carry out in phases and there will be
only one zone under construction in any one time. Once construction for a
zone is completed, the works area will be compacted, covered by tarpaulin
sheet and hydroseeded before construction of another zone. Watering will also
be applied on regular basis. Works area shall be properly
covered at the end of working day to minimize wind erosion. |
Air
Quality (fugitive dust) Control during Construction Phase |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
Annex
4 and Annex 12 of EIAO -TM, Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust)
Regulation |
|
3.9.1 |
4.10.8 |
No excavation of
pond sediment is expected during the construction and no significant odour
impact due to excavation of sediment is therefore anticipated. However, as a precautionary measure, should
any excavation of sediment be required during the construction the followings
measures shall be implemented: |
Odour
control during construction |
Contractors |
During
excavation of sediment in the Northern Portion of the Project Site |
EIA |
|
3.9.1 |
4.10.8 |
·
Exposed
surface shall be immediately filled by filling materials; ·
All
malodorous excavated material, if any, should be placed as far as possible
from any ASRs; ·
The
stockpiled malodorous materials should be removed from Project Area within 24
hours or as soon as practicable; ·
The
stockpiled malodorous materials should be covered entirely by plastic
tarpaulin sheets; and ·
Odour
patrol during excavation of pond sediments to examine the effectiveness of
the above control measures. ·
Should
disposal of excavated sediment be required, it shall follow the requirements
stated in Buildings Department’s PNAP No. 252 for “Management Framework for
Disposal of Dredged/ Excavated Sediment”. |
Odour
control during construction |
Contractors |
During
excavation of pond sediment in the Northern Portion of the Project Site |
EIA |
|
During
Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
nil |
nil |
nil |
nil |
nil |
nil |
nil |
|
Noise Quality |
||||||
|
During
Detailed Design |
||||||
|
4.7.4 |
5.8.4 |
To summarise the findings, Figure 4-7 summarises the proposed noise mitigation measures during
operational phase. |
Noise
control during operation |
Project
architect and Project Proponent |
During
detailed design stage |
EIA,
Noise Control Ordinance |
|
During
Construction Phase |
||||||
|
4.8.1 |
5.7.3 |
EPD’s quality powered mechanical
equipment (QPME) inventory is proposed to be used wherever possible as a
noise mitigation measure. The
Contractor of this Project should diligently seek equivalent models of quiet/
silenced PMEs. |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.2 |
5.7.5
& 5.7.6 |
Asides
from QPMEs, additional noise mitigation measures in terms of movable noise
barriers are also proposed to shield construction plants from NSRs (see plant
inventory in Appendix 4-4). The movable noise barriers should have
sufficient surface density of at least 10 kg/m2 or material
providing equivalent acoustic performance to block the line of sight from the
sensitive receivers. There should not be any gaps and openings at the noise
barriers and site hoardings to avoid noise leakage. The design of the noise barriers shall be
proposed by the work contractor(s), and approved by the Engineers
Representative (RE) and the Environmental Team. |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.3 |
5.7.7
& 5.7.8 |
In addition to the above-mentioned noise mitigation
measures, fixed temporary noise barrier is also proposed in adjacent to the
school (i.e. NSR N10) in order to alleviate the elevated construction noise
level over there. The existing NSR N3,
N4 nearby will also be benefited by the proposed fixed temporary noise
barrier. In order to ensure construction noise is controlled
throughout the construction period, fixed noise barriers shall be erected
before the commencement of construction works. It is estimated that 9m high temporary
fixed noise barriers (with top level at 14.4mPD level) shall be sufficient to
shield the concerned school from construction activities within the Project
Site. Temporary fixed noise barrier (5.5m tall and with top level at 10.9mPD)
can also provide additional noise shielding to adjacent NSRs such as N3 and
N4.Also, standard site hoarding of 3m tall will also be erected along the
site boundary. Since site hoarding will be erected along the site boundary,
the concerned noise barrier may be combined with the site hoarding. |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas near the specified locations during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.3 |
5.7.9 |
Figure 4-6 shows the indicative location of the proposed temporary noise
barriers. Since site hoarding will be
erected along the site boundary, the concerned noise barrier may be combined
with the site hoarding. The exact alignment and design is subject to the
contractor(s) and the prior approval from the Resident Engineer (RE). As the proposed temporary fixed
noise barrier will be 9m tall, there will be excavation and filling
activities to level up the existing ground level for the foundation of the
noise barrier. To minimize potential
impact, erection of temporary fixed noise barriers will be carried out
section by section and precast units will be used for the foundation of the
noise barrier. These noise barriers shall be erected before the commencement
of construction works. |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas near the specified locations during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.3 |
5.7.9 |
To minimize potential impact,
erection of temporary fixed noise barriers will be carried out by section,
and precast units will be used for the foundation of the noise barrier. These noise barriers shall be erected
before the commencement of construction works and prior to any site formation
works. |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas near the specified locations during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.3 |
5.7.11 |
The temporary fixed noise
barriers should have sufficient surface density of at least 10 kg/m2
or material providing equivalent acoustic performance. There should not be
any gaps and openings at the noise barriers and site hoardings to avoid noise
leakage. The design of the noise
barriers shall be proposed by the work contractor(s), and approved by the
Engineers Representative (RE) and the Environmental Team in accordance with
the Project EM&A Manual. |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas near the specified locations during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.4 |
5.7.12 |
It is also recommended that good housekeeping
activities shall also be carried out to further minimize the potential
construction noise impact, and these are summarised below. The following good site practices are also
recommended for incorporation into the contractual requirements: |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.4 |
5.7.12 |
·
Contractor shall
comply with and observe the Noise Control Ordinance (NCO) and its current
subsidiary regulations; |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.4 |
5.7.12 |
·
Before the
commencement of any work, the Contractor shall submit to the Engineer for
approval the method of working, equipment and sound-reducing measures intended
to be used at the Project Site; |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.4 |
5.7.12 |
·
Contractor shall
devise and execute working methods that will minimize the noise impact on the
surrounding environment; and shall provide experienced personnel with
suitable training to ensure that these methods are implemented; |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.4 |
5.7.12 |
·
Only
well-maintained plants should be operated on-site; |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.4 |
5.7.12 |
· Plants should be serviced regularly during the
construction programme; |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.4 |
5.7.12 |
· Machines that may be in intermittent use should be
shut down or throttled down to a minimum between work periods; |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.4 |
5.7.12 |
· Silencer and mufflers on construction equipment
should be utilised and should be properly maintained during the construction
programme; |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.4 |
5.7.12 |
·
Noisy activities
can be scheduled to minimize exposure of nearby NSRs to high levels of
construction noise. For example, noisy
activities can be scheduled for midday or at times coinciding with periods of
high background noise (such as during peak traffic hours); |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.4 |
5.7.12 |
· Noisy equipment such as emergency generators shall
always be sited as far away as possible from noise sensitive receivers; |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.4 |
5.7.12 |
· Provision of mobile noise barriers in adjacent to
construction plants (e.g. Continuous Flight Auger) shall also be considered
by the Contractor(s) where necessary; |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.4 |
5.7.12 |
· Mobile plants should be sited as far away from NSRs
as possible; and |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.4 |
5.7.12 |
· Material stockpiles and other structures should be
effectively utilised as noise barrier, where practicable. |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.8.4 |
5.7.12 |
· The contractor(s) is also encouraged to arrange
construction activities with care so that concurrent construction activities
are avoided as much as possible. The
contractor(s) should closely liaise with the school so that noisy activities
are not undertaken during school’s examination period. |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.9.4 |
5.7.12 |
· during the construction the Contractor will be required to avoid noisy works
near N4 when there is any known concurrent construction due to the approved
public sewer project. The Project Environmental Team shall closely monitor
contractor(s)’ performance and residual noise level at nearby sensitive
receivers. Should unacceptable
construction noise level be identified during the construction, the concerned
construction works shall be stopped temporarily and necessary actions
following the standard Event and Action Plan specified in the Project
EM&A Manual, shall be implemented.
The above requirement will be included in the EM&A manual of this
Project for implementation. |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
4.9.4 |
5.7.10 |
A short section of fixed temporary noise barrier (5.5m tall above a
site formation level of 5.4mPD) (i.e. dotted green line as shown in Figure 4-6 of EIA), is also proposed
in adjacent to N4 in order to alleviate cumulative noise impact due to the approved
projects of public sewer and cycle track. The temporary fixed noise barriers should have
sufficient surface density of at least 10 kg/m2 or material
providing equivalent acoustic performance. There should not be any gaps and
openings at the noise barriers to avoid noise leakage and can be combined
with the site hoarding of Project Site.
The design of the noise barriers shall be proposed by the work
contractor(s), and approved by the Engineers Representative (RE) and the
Environmental Team in accordance with the Project EM&A Manual. It shall be noted that the concerned noise barrier
will only be required should there be concurrent construction activities with
the approved projects of public sewer and cycle track. This is also stated in Figure 4-6 of EIA as well. |
Noise
control during construction |
Contractors,
ER |
Construction
areas during the construction period |
EIA,
Contractual requirements, Annex 5 and Annex 13 of EIAO-TM. |
|
During
Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
4.7.4 |
5.8.5 |
To summarise the findings, Figure 4-7 summarises the proposed noise mitigation measures
during operational phase. |
Noise control during operation |
Project
Proponent |
During operational stage |
EIA,
Noise Control Ordinance |
|
Water Quality |
||||||
|
During
Design Stage: |
||||||
|
5.6.2.1 |
6.3.2 |
The
drainage system shall be designed to avoid any case of flooding with
provision of sand traps. The proposed
schematic drainage system is shown in Figure
5-4. The proposed new drainage
channels and pipes surrounding the Project Site shall collect surface runoff
within the Site for direct discharge into the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel
and Fairview Park Nullah after passing through sand traps. The drainage
outlet of the indoor car parks shall be connected to foul sewers via
petrol interceptors or similar facilities. |
Drainage
system during operation |
Project
architect and Project Proponent |
During
detailed design stage |
EIA,
WPCO, Contractual requirements, |
|
5.6.2.2 |
6.3.2 |
Water
in the proposed landscape pond shall be self-contained with no outlet connecting
to nearby channel/inland water.
During operation, pond water will be contained within the pond and
there shall be no discharge from the pond. Surface runoff from the adjacent
area shall be diverted away from the pond area by drainage channels in order
to avoid overflow of the pond under extreme weather condition (e.g. heavy
rainfall). |
Drainage
system during operation |
Project
architect and Project Proponent |
During
detailed design stage |
EIA,
WPCO, Contractual requirements, |
|
During
Construction Phase |
||||||
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.5 |
During
the construction of the landscape
water pond in the Northern Portion of the Project Site, proper temporary
drainage system (e.g. following those in the Practice Notes for Professional
Persons on “Construction Site Drainage” (ProPECC PN 1/94)) shall be
constructed to divert surface runoff away from the existing abandoned pond
for discharge into the Fairview Nullah or NTMDC through sand traps |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.6 |
Site
formation works at the existing abandoned pond should be carried out during
dry season as far as possible. Water
contained at the existing abandoned pond shall be
temporarily drained to the newly constructed pond |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
Best
Management Practices (BMPs) given in the ProPECC PN 1/94 shall be implemented
in controlling water pollution during the construction phase. The main
practices provided in the above-mentioned document (i.e. ProPECC PN 1/94) are
also summarized in the following paragraphs which should be implemented by
the contractor during the execution of the site formation and road works,
where practicable : |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
· High loading of suspended solids (SS) in
construction site runoff shall be prevented through proper site management by
the contractor; |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
· The boundary of critical work areas shall be
surrounded by ditches or embankment.
Accidental release of soil or refuse into the adjoining land should be
prevented by the provision of site hoarding or earth bunds, etc. at the site
boundary. These facilities should be
constructed in advance of site formation works and roadworks; |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
· Consideration should be given to plan construction
activities to allow the use of natural topography of the Project Site as a
barrier to minimize uncontrolled non-point source discharge of construction
site runoff; |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
· Temporary ditches, earth bunds should be provided to
facilitate directed and controlled discharge of runoff into storm drains via
sand/ silt removal facilities such as sand traps, silt traps and sediment
retention basin. Oil and grease
removal facilities should also be provided where appropriate, for example, in
area near plant workshop/ maintenance areas; |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
· Sand and silt removal facilities, channels and
manholes should be maintained and the deposited silt and grit should be
removed regularly by the contractor, and at the onset of and after each
rainstorm to ensure that these facilities area functioning properly; |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
· Slope exposure should be minimized where practicable
especially during the wet season.
Exposed soil surfaces should be protected from rainfall through
covering temporarily exposed slope surfaces or stockpiles with tarpaulin or
the like; |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
· Haul roads should be protected by crushed rock,
gravel or other granular materials to minimize discharge of contaminated
runoff; |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At all
construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
· Slow down water run-off flowing across exposed soil
surfaces; |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
· Plant workshop/ maintenance areas should be bunded
and constructed on a hard standing.
Sediment traps and oil interceptors should be provided at appropriate
locations; |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
· Manholes (including newly constructed ones) should
be adequately covered or temporarily sealed so as to prevent silt,
construction materials or debris from getting into the drainage system; |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
· Construction works should be programmed to minimize
soil excavation works where practicable during rainy conditions; |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
· Chemical stores should be contained (bunded) to prevent
any spills from contact with water bodies.
All fuel tanks and/ or storage areas should be provided with locks and be sited on hard surface; |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
· Chemical waste arising from the Project Site should
be properly stored, handled, treated and disposed of in compliance with the
requirements stipulated under the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General)
Regulation; |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
· Drainage facilities must be adequate for the
controlled release of storm flows. |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
·
Appropriate
peripheral drainage system shall be constructed along the Project Site
boundary to divert away surface runoff in accordance with requirements
stipulated in ProPECC PN 1/94 to collect surface runoff and discharge it into
the nearby existing stormwater drains near roadside of Yau Pok Road, and via
which into the existing NTMDC. |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
·
Temporary
drains, sedimentation basins, sand traps and similar facilities shall be
provided during the construction works in accordance with the ProPECC PN
1/94. |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
·
The Contractor shall apply for a discharge
licence under the WPCO and the discharge shall comply with the terms and
conditions of the licence. |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
·
Sewage
generated from the construction workforce should be contained in chemical
toilets before connection to public foul sewer becomes available. Chemical toilets should be provided at a
minimum rate of about 1 per 50 workers. The facility should be serviced and
cleaned by a specialist contractor at regular intervals; |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
·
Vehicle
wheel washing facilities should be provided at the site exit such that mud,
debris, etc. deposited onto the vehicle wheels or body can be washed off
before the vehicles are leaving the site area; |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
·
Section
of the road between the wheel washing bay and the public road should be paved
with backfill to reduce vehicle tracking of soil and to prevent site run-off
from entering public road drains; |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
·
Although
use of bentonite in diaphragm wall and bore-pile construction is not
expected, in case bentonite slurries is generated it should be reconditioned
and reused as far as practicable.
Spent bentonite should be kept in a separate slurry collection system
for disposal at a marine spoil grounds subject to obtaining a marine dumping
licence from EPD. If used bentonite
slurry is to be disposed of through public drainage system, it should be
treated to meet the respective applicable effluent standards for discharges
into sewers, storm drains or the receiving waters. |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.1 |
6.3.7 |
·
Spillage
of fuel oils or other polluting fluids should be prevented at source. It is recommended that all stocks should be
stored inside proper containers and sited on sealed areas, preferably
surrounded by bunds. |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
ProPECC
PN1/94, WPCO,
EIA, Contractual requirements |
|
During
Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
5.6.2 |
6.3.8,
6.3.13 |
During
the operation of the Project, all sewage generated shall be discharged to the
public sewerage at Yau Pok Road as the Project will not have population intake until the commissioning of
the planned local public sewerage works. The sewage generated by the club house
and swimming pool in the Southern Portion as well as the food and beverage
and public toilets in the Northern Portion of the Project Site is proposed to
be discharged into the public sewerage system at Yau Pok Road. The discharge from these facilities shall
apply for a discharge licence under the WPCO, and the discharge shall comply
with the terms and conditions of a licence as well as the standards for
effluents specified in the TM-Effluents. |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Project
Proponent |
During
operation |
EIA,
WPCO, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.2 |
6.3.9 |
The
proposed new drainage channels and pipes surrounding the Project Site shall
collect surface runoff within the Site for direct discharge into the Ngau Tam
Mei Drainage Channel and Fairview Park Nullah after passing through sand
traps. The drainage outlet of the indoor car parks shall be connected to foul sewers via petrol interceptors or
similar facilities |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Project
Proponent |
During
operation |
EIA,
WPCO, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.2 |
6.3.10 |
Regular
cleaning and sweeping of the access road and other paved areas are suggested
so as to minimize exposure of pollutants to stormwater |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Project
Proponent |
During
operation |
EIA,
WPCO, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.2 |
6.3.11 |
Stormwater
gullies and ditches provided among the residential development will be
regularly inspected to ensure these facilities function properly. |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Project
Proponent |
During
operation |
EIA,
WPCO, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.2 |
6.3.12 |
Soft
landscaping will be provided around the residential development where
practicable. In the event of emergency (e.g. car accident) where there is a
major spillage of oil, chemical or fuel, dispersants or fire fighting foam,
etc., a system of contaminant bunding is recommended as far as practicable |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Project
Proponent |
During
operation |
EIA,
WPCO, Contractual requirements |
|
5.6.2.2 |
6.3.14 |
Water
in the proposed landscape pond shall be self-contained with no outlet connecting to nearby channel/inland
water. The concerned landscape pond will be water
sealed so that there is no seepage of water into underground. During
operation, pond water will be contained within the pond and there shall be no
discharge from the pond. Surface
runoff from the adjacent area shall be diverted away from the pond area by
drainage channels in order to avoid overflow of the pond under extreme
weather condition (e.g. heavy rainfall).
There will be no chemicals/ pesticides to be applied during operation. |
Stormwater
and Non-point Source Pollution Control |
Project
Proponent |
During
operation |
EIA,
WPCO, Contractual requirements |
|
Waste Management |
||||||
|
During
Detailed Design: |
||||||
|
7.5 |
8.2.1 |
The
demolition and construction work shall be considered in the planning and
design stages to reduce the generation of C&D waste where possible. Landfill disposal shall only be considered
as the last resort. |
Waste
management during construction |
Project
architect/ engineer, Project Proponent |
During
detailed design stage |
EIA,
Contractual requirements |
|
7.5 |
8.2.2 |
Construction
methods with minimum waste generation quantity and other environmental
impacts shall be considered in the detailed design |
Waste
management during construction |
Project
architect/ engineer, Project Proponent |
During
detailed design stage |
EIA,
Contractual requirements |
|
7.6 |
8.2.3 |
Refuse
collection chambers (RCC) will be provided for the residential development as
well as the passive recreational facilities in the Northern Portion of the
Project Site. A licensed waste
collector shall be employed to collect domestic waste on daily basis. In order
to comply with Building Regulation, mechanical ventilation will be provided.
The odour nuisance to the public can be minimized by incorporating the odour
absorption system. |
Waste
management during construction |
Project
architect/ engineer, Project Proponent |
During
detailed design stage |
EIA,
Contractual requirements |
|
During
Construction Phase: |
||||||
|
7.4.4. |
8.3.31 |
Chemical
waste that could be generated from construction works would primarily arise
from chemicals used in operation and maintenance of on-site equipment. These
may include fuel, oil, lubricants, cleaning fluids, and solvents arising from
leakage or maintenance of on-site equipment and vehicles. Chemical generated from daily operation of
the construction works shall be recycled/ reused on-site as far as
practicable |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
|
7.4.4. |
8.3.32 |
If
off-site disposal of chemical waste is required, they should be collected and
delivered by a licensed contractor, and disposed of strictly following the
Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
|
7.4.4. |
8.3.33 |
The
contractors shall register with EPD as chemical waste producers when disposal
of chemical waste is anticipated to be required |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
|
7.4.4. |
8.3.34 |
Chemical
waste generated has to be stored in suitable containers and away from water
bodies so that leakage or spillage is prevented during the handling, storage,
and subsequent transportation |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
|
7.4.4. |
8.3.35 |
The
Contractor shall prevent fuel and lubricating oil leakage from plant and
storage sites from contaminating the construction site. All compounds in work areas shall be
positioned on areas with hard paving and served by drainage facility. Sand/ silt traps and oil interceptors shall
be provided at appropriate locations prior to the discharge points |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
|
7.4.4. |
8.3.36 |
Fossil fuel and used lubricants from
trucks and machinery are classified as chemical waste. The Contractor shall register with EPD as a
chemical waste producer and observe all the requirements under the storage,
labelling, transportation and disposal of chemical waste |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
|
7.4.4. |
8.3.37 |
The Contractor shall prevent fuel and
lubricating oil leakage from plant and storage sites from contaminating the
construction site. All compounds in
work areas shall be positioned on areas with hard paving and served by
drainage facility. Sand/ silt traps
and oil interceptors shall be provided at appropriate locations prior to the
discharge points |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation |
|
7.4.5 |
8.3.9 |
General refuse generated at the
construction site should be stored separately from construction and chemical
wastes to avoid cross contamination. A reliable waste collector shall be
employed by the Contractor to remove general refuse from the construction
site on a daily basis where appropriate to minimize the potential odour, pest
and litter impacts |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal Ordinance, Air Pollution Control (Open Burning)
Regulation |
|
7.4.5 |
8.3.10 |
Open
burning for the disposal of construction waste or the clearance of the
Project Site in preparation for construction work is prohibited under the Air
Pollution Control (Open Burning) Regulation |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractors |
At
all construction areas of the site during the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal Ordinance, Air Pollution Control (Open Burning)
Regulation |
|
7.5 |
8.3.11 |
To
ensure the appropriate handling of the C&D materials, it is recommended
that a Waste Management Plan (WMP) shall be developed by the contractor and
incorporated in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) in accordance with
ETWB TCW No. 19/2005 – Environmental Management on Construction Sites at the
commencement of the construction works. |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.12 |
The
EMP shall be submitted to the Engineers’ Representative (RE) and the Project
Environmental Team Leader (ETL) for approval, and shall be implemented
throughout the Project. |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.14 |
Such a management plan should incorporate site specific factors, such
as the designation of areas for segregation and temporary storage of reusable
and recyclable materials. The EMP shall be submitted to the Engineers’
Representative (RE) and the Project Environmental Team Leader (ETL) for
approval before commencement of construction, and shall be implemented
throughout the Project. The EMP shall
cover the followings and developed taking into account the recommended
control measures given in this Chapter where appropriate: |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.14 |
·
A
waste management policy, organization chart, and responsibility |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.14 |
· An
estimation
on the location, type, nature, quality and quantity of different waste
streams to be generated from the Project works, and the corresponding waste
management methodology. |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.14 |
· A method statement
for demolition and transportation of the excavated materials and other
construction wastes. |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.14 |
· Potential for
recycling or reuse should be explored and opportunities taken if waste
generation is unavoidable. |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.14 |
· Recommendations for
appropriate disposal routes if waste cannot be recycled. |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.14 |
· A system to control
the disposal of C&D materials and C&D waste to public fill reception
facilities, sorting facilities and landfills respectively through a
trip-ticket system in accordance with the ETWB TC(W) No. 31/2004. |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.15 |
· The Project
Proponent/ RE will ensure that the day-to-day operations comply with the
approved EMP. The Project Proponent/ RE shall require the contractor to
separate public fill from C&D waste for disposal at appropriate
facilities. In addition, the Project Proponent/ RE shall regularly audit
Contractor(s)’ records for the disposal, reuse and recycling of C&D
materials for monitoring purposes |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.16 |
· Based on the above
waste management recommendations, a detailed management and control plan
shall be formulated during the detailed design stage. A good management and
control can prevent the generation of significant amount of waste. On-site sorting of construction wastes will
be recommended. Secondary on-site sorting can be achieved by avoiding the
generation of “mixed waste” through good site control. Construction wastes shall be sorted to
remove contaminants, with the inert materials broken up into small pieces
before being transported to Refuse Transfer Station (RTS) for subsequent
delivery to landfill sites |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.17 |
In addition, the
contractor(s) shall be required to reuse inert C&D materials (e.g.
excavated soil) or in other suitable construction sites as far as possible,
in order to minimize the disposal of C&D materials to public fill
reception facilities |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.18 |
The project
proponent shall encourage the contractor to maximize the use of recycled or
recyclable C&D materials, as well as the use of non-timber formwork to
further minimize the generation of construction waste |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.38 |
Chemical and oily
wastes generated from the construction activities, vehicle and plant
maintenance and oil interceptors should be disposed of as chemical waste in
strict compliance with the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General)
Regulations |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.13 |
In formulating the EMP in respect to waste
management, the following hierarchy should be considered: · Avoidance and
minimization to reduce the potential quantity of C&D materials generated; · Reuse of materials as
practical as possible; · Recovery and Recycling as
practical as possible; and · Proper treatment and
disposal in respect to relevant laws, guidelines and good practice. |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.19 |
The
following additional control/ mitigation measures are recommended to be
followed by the Contractor |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.19 |
·
Storage of different waste types – different types of waste should be
segregated and stored in different containers, skips or stockpiles to enhance
reuse or recycling of materials and their proper disposal. An on-site temporary storage area equipped
with required control measures (e.g. dust control) should be provided; |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.19 |
·
Trip-ticket system – in order to monitor the proper disposal of
non-inert C&D waste to landfills and to control fly-tipping, a
trip-ticket system should be included as one of the contractual requirements
and audited by the Environmental Team; |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.19 |
·
Records of Wastes – a recording system should be proposed to record
the amount of wastes generated, recycled and disposed of (including the
location of disposal sites); |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.19 |
·
Training – The contractor should provide his workers with proper
training of appropriate waste management procedure to achieve waste reduction
as far as practicable and cost-effective through recovery, reuse and
recycling and avoid contamination of reusable C&D materials; |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.19 |
·
Incorporate good practice in “Recommended Pollution Control Clauses
for Construction Contracts” published by EPD in respect to removal of waste
material from the construction site into the contract of the contractor. |
Waste
management during construction |
ER,
Project Proponent |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
WBTC
31/2004 “Trip Ticket System for Disposal of Construction and Demolition
Material |
|
7.5 |
8.3.20
– 8.3.27 |
In
additional to the above, the following construction waste pollution clauses
shall be included in construction contracts: |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal Ordinance, WBTC 31/2004, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.1 |
8.3.20 |
·
The
Contractor shall submit to the Engineer for approval a waste management plan
with appropriate mitigation measures including the allocation of an area for
waste segregation and shall ensure that the day-to-day site operations comply
with the approved waste management plan. |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal Ordinance, WBTC 31/2004, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.1 |
8.3.21 |
·
The
Contractor shall minimize the generation of waste from his work. Avoidance
and minimisation of waste generation can be achieved through changing or
improving design and practices, careful planning and good site management. |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal Ordinance, WBTC 31/2004, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.1 |
8.3.22 |
·
The
Contractor shall ensure that different types of wastes are segregated on-site
and stored in different containers, skips or stockpiles to facilitate
reuse/recycling of waste and, as the last resort, disposal at different
outlets as appropriate |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal Ordinance, WBTC 31/2004, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.1 |
8.3.23 |
·
The
reuse and recycling of waste shall be practised as far as possible. The
recycled materials shall include paper/cardboard, timber and metal etc. |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal Ordinance, WBTC 31/2004, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.1 |
8.3.24 |
· The Contractor shall
ensure that Construction and Demolition (C&D) materials are sorted into
public fill (inert portion) and C&D waste (non-inert portion). The public
fill which comprises soil, rock, concrete, brick, cement plaster/mortar,
inert building debris, aggregates and asphalt shall be reused in earth
filling, reclamation or site formation works. The C&D waste which
comprises metal, timber, paper, glass, junk and general garbage shall be
reused or recycled and, as the last resort, disposal of at landfills. |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal Ordinance, WBTC 31/2004, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.1 |
8.3.25 |
· The Contractor shall
record the amount of wastes generated, recycled and disposed of (including
the disposal sites) |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal Ordinance, WBTC 31/2004, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.1 |
8.3.26 |
· The Contractor shall
implement a trip ticket system in accordance with the ETWB TC(W) No. 31/2004
for public fill, C&D materials and C&D waste to public fill reception
facilities, sorting facilities and landfills respectively |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal Ordinance, WBTC 31/2004, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.1 |
8.3.27 |
· Training shall be
provided for workers about the concepts of site cleanliness and appropriate
waste management procedure, including waste reduction, reuse and recycling |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal Ordinance, WBTC 31/2004, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.2 |
8.3.28 |
· The Contractor shall
not permit any sewage, wastewater or effluent containing sand, cement, silt
or any other suspended or dissolved material to flow from the Project Site
onto any adjoining land or allow any waste matter [or refuse] which is not
part of the final product from waste processing plants to be deposited
anywhere within the Project Site [or onto any adjoining land]. He shall
arrange removal of such matter from the Project Site [or any building erected
or to be erected thereon] in a proper manner to the satisfaction of the
Engineer in consultation with the Director of Environmental Protection |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal Ordinance, WBTC 31/2004, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.3 |
8.3.29 |
· The Contractor shall
observe and comply with the Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) (General)
Regulation |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal Ordinance, WBTC 31/2004, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
7.5.3 |
8.3.30 |
· The Contractor shall
apply for registration as chemical waste producer under the Waste Disposal
(Chemical Waste) (General) Regulation when chemical waste is produced. All
chemical waste shall be properly stored, labelled, packaged and collected in
accordance with the Regulation |
Waste
management during construction |
Contractor |
Throughout
the entire construction period |
Waste
Disposal Ordinance, WBTC 31/2004, and ETWB TC(W)
No. 19/2005. |
|
During
Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
7.6 |
8.4.1 |
Refuse
collection chambers (RCC) will be provided for the residential development as
well as the passive recreational facilities in the Northern Portion of the
Project Site. A licensed waste
collector shall be employed to collect domestic waste on daily basis. In order
to comply with Building Regulation, mechanical ventilation will be provided.
The odour nuisance to the public can be minimized by incorporating the odour
absorption system. |
Waste
management during operation |
Project
Proponent |
During
operation |
EIA,
Waste Disposal Ordinance |
|
7.6 |
8.4.2 |
separate
collection bins for used aluminum cans, waste paper and plastic bottles
should be provided at strategic locations within the residential development
area and adjacent to the passive recreational facilities in order to promote
and encourage recycling during the operational phase |
Waste
management during operation |
Project
Proponent |
During
operation |
EIA,
Waste Disposal Ordinance |
|
Ecology |
||||||
|
During
Construction Phase: |
||||||
|
8.8 |
10.1 |
In order to prevent
noise and visual impact, the use of screening materials during the construction
will be adopted. A site hoarding will be in place before the peak winter bird
season between October and March to ensure that disturbance from the proposed
development is minimized. The workers should also
be briefed, before the commencement of the works, the sensitivity of the
areas, and they should be requested not to disturb any areas nearby Furthermore, the site
boundary should be clearly defined (i.e. fenced with the screening materials
mentioned above) and any works beyond the boundary should be strictly
prohibited. |
To further mitigate construction noise impact. |
The Contractor |
Within the PS, during the construction phase. |
EIA |
|
8.8 |
10.1 |
Standard site practice
during the construction phase shall be deployed, which will minimize the
chance of site run-off and the chance of pollution to watercourses
downstream. |
To further mitigate construction noise impact. |
The Contractor |
Within the PS, during the construction phase. |
EIA |
|
8.9 |
10.1 |
Undertake baseline
ecological monitoring prior to site clearance. |
Update faunal usage of the site. |
Project Proponent |
Four months prior to site clearance and
construction. |
EIA |
|
8.9 |
10.1 |
Undertake ecological
monitoring |
A precautionary measure and also to verify the
accuracy of impact assessment and detect any unpredictable impact arising
from the proposed development. |
Project Proponent |
Adjacent habitats of high ecological value
including but not limited to the Ngau Tam Mei Drainage Channel and the
adjacent agricultural land. |
EIA |
|
During
Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Fisheries |
||||||
|
During
Construction Phase: |
||||||
|
9.7 |
10.5 |
With
the measures for mitigating the impacts from construction activities (as
described in Table 14-1 of the
submitted EIA report), indirect impacts during the construction phase would
be insignificant. |
To prevent runoff and other water quality impacts
affecting surrounding watercourses and ponds downstream. |
The Contractor |
Within the PS, during the construction phase. |
EIA |
|
During
Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Cultural Heritage |
||||||
|
During
Construction Phase: |
||||||
|
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
During
Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Landscape and Visual |
||||||
|
During
Detailed Design |
||||||
|
11.10.2
to 11.11.1 |
9.2 |
The landscape and visual mitigation measures listed in Tables 11-5A, 11-5B, 11-7A and 11-7B of the EIA shall be adopted
during the detailed design, and be built as part of the construction works so
that they are in place at the date of commissioning of the Project. |
Avoid impacts on adjacent landscape and visual. |
Project
architect and Project Proponent |
During
detailed design stage |
EIA |
|
During
Construction Phase: |
||||||
|
11.10.2 and 11.11.1 |
9.2 |
Mitigation measures including strategies for reducing,
offsetting and compensating for impacts have been designed into the Project,
to be implemented during construction and operation phases, and are also
included in Tables 11-5A, 11-5B, (landscape mitigation measure)
and Table 11-7A and 11-7B of the EIA report as
followings: |
Avoid landscape and visual impacts |
Project Proponent (via Contractor) |
At all construction areas of
the site during the entire construction period. |
EIAO & Annex 10, 11, 18, 20 and 21 of
EIAO-TM |
|
11.10.2 |
9.2 |
CM1-
Proper protection of existing trees designated to be retained in-situ Existing
trees designated to be retained in-situ will be properly protected. This may include the clear demarcation and
fencing-off of tree protection zones, tight site supervision and monitoring
to prevent tree damage by construction activities, and periodic arboricultural
inspection and maintenance to uphold tree health. A total of 60 nos. of trees will be
retained in-situ. |
Avoid impacts on adjacent existing trees. |
Project Proponent (via Contractor) |
At boundary of the site
during the entire construction period. CM1 in Figures 11-16 to 11-18. |
EIAO & Annex 10, 11, 18,
20 and 21 of EIAO-TM ETWB TC 3/2006 LAO GN 7/2007 |
|
11. 10.2 |
9.2 |
CM2
- ‘One-go’ Tree Transplanting within Site Affected
existing trees designated to be transplanted will be transplanted ‘one-go’
within the Site instead of typically to an offsite holding nursery. The transplanted trees will provide some
instant greenery during construction.
In total, 8 nos. of trees will be transplanted. |
Avoid impacts on trees. |
Project Proponent (via Contractor) |
Within boundary of the site
during the entire construction period. CM2 in Figures 11-16 to 11-18. |
EIAO & Annex 10, 11, 18,
20 and 21 of EIAO-TM ETWB TC 3/2006 LAO GN 7/2007 |
|
11. 10.2 |
9.2 |
CM3
- Innovative Construction Method of Pond Expansion Existing
abandoned pond (approx. 0.5ha) with pond edge (approx. 0.2ha) will be
slightly expanded and enhanced into a larger landscape pond (0.6ha pond and
0.3ha pond edge). Conventional method
of pond expansion by excavating at the existing pond edge will substantially
pollute the existing pond. An
innovative design and construction method will be employed in this project: (1)
excavating a new pond at a slightly higher elevation adjacent to the existing
pond without breaking the existing pond edge, (2) suitably prepare the
surface of the new pond bottom, (3) fill the new pond with water and let it
stabilized for several weeks, (4) connect the recirculation system to the
existing pond, (5) create a gentle water cascade between the existing pond
and the new pond by increasing the new pond water level to flood over and
water will be circulated between these two ponds. As a result, two ponds functionally and
aesthetically appear as one will be created.
(The gentle water cascade will also provide aeration to ensure water
quality and details of the construction method of pond will be subject to
detailed design). |
Avoid impacts on adjacent water bodies |
Project Proponent (via Contractor) |
At boundary of the site
during the entire construction period. CM3 in Figures
11-16 to 11-18. |
EIAO & Annex 10, 11, 18,
20 and 21 of EIAO-TM |
|
11. 10.2 |
9.2 |
CM4
- Early Commencement & Completion of the Recreational Ground The
proposed basements and houses in the southern portion of the site will
require an extensive construction period while the proposed works in the recreational
ground in the northern portion of the site is relatively simpler. Upon possession of the site, the proposed
works in the recreational ground will be fast-tracked. It is expected that the recreational ground
will be properly vegetated within a short period, offsetting the negative
impact arising from the construction works in the rest of the Project
Site. Approximately 200 nos. of
heavy-standard to semi-mature size trees will be planted in the recreational ground. Moreover, there will be around 2 ha of lawn
area. |
Avoid impacts on trees. |
Project Proponent (via Contractor) |
Within boundary of the site
during the entire construction period. CM4 in Figures 11-16 to 11-18. |
EIAO & Annex 10, 11, 18,
20 and 21 of EIAO-TM ETWB TC 3/2006 LAO GN 7/2007 |
|
11. 11.1 |
9.2 |
CM5 - Height of temporary
noise barriers along boundary facing Bethel High School and some residences
in Fairview Park be to minimum required. Barrier finishes be sensitively
selecting and designing to reduce visual impact. Materials to be opaque and non-reflective material with
colour blending in with the environment to minimize visual impact and to
avoid bird strike.. |
Minimise visual impacts of
works area. |
Project Proponent (via Contractor) |
At boundary of the site
during the entire construction period. CM5 in Figures 11-16 to 11-18. |
EIAO & Annex 10, 11, 18,
20 and 21 of EIAO-TM |
|
11. 11.1 |
9.2 |
CM6 - Advance
screen planting of fast growing tree and shrub species to noise barriers and
hoardings. Trees shall be capable of reaching a height >10m within 10
years. |
Minimise visual impacts of
works area. |
Project Proponent (via Contractor) |
At boundary of the site
during the entire construction period. CM6 in Figures 11-16 to 11-18. |
EIAO & Annex 10, 11, 18,
20 and 21 of EIAO-TM ETWB TC 3/2006 LAO GN 7/2007 |
|
11. 11.1 |
9.2 |
CM7 - Control
night-time lighting by hooding all lights. |
Minimise night-time visual
impacts. |
Project Proponent (via Contractor) |
At all construction areas of
the site during the entire construction period. CM8 in Figures
11-16 to 11-18. |
EIAO & Annex 10, 11, 18,
20 and 21 of EIAO-TM |
|
11. 11.1 |
9.2 |
CM8 - Reduction
of construction period to practical minimum. |
Minimise duration of
landscape and visual impacts. |
Project Proponent (via Contractor) |
At all construction areas of
the site during the entire construction period. CM9 in Figures
11-16 to 11-18. |
EIAO & Annex 10, 11, 18,
20 and 21 of EIAO-TM |
|
During
Operational Phase: |
||||||
|
11. 10.2 |
9.2 |
OM1
- Maximizing Tree Preservation Effort Healthy existing
trees that are not affected by the proposed development will be retained
in-situ. Affected existing trees that
are of high to medium amenity value and high to medium survival rate after
transplanting will be transplanted. |
Enhance landscape and visual
resources of the site. |
Project Proponent |
Whole site,
implemented at beginning of construction and maintained throughout operation
period. OM1 in Figures 11-16 to 11-18. |
EIAO & Annex 10, 11, 18,
20 and 21 of EIAO-TM ETWB TC 3/2006 LAO GN 7/2007 |
|
11. 10.2 |
9.2 |
OM2
– Provision of New Trees Compensatory
tree planting shall be provided for soft landscape in the proposed
development. The tree compensation to
tree loss ratio shall be at least 1:1 in term of quantity and quality within
the Project Site. Furthermore, a continuous belt of landscape
planting, featuring trees and shrubs, will be provided along the boundary of
the development. |
Compensate for loss of
existing trees. |
Project Proponent |
Site boundary, implemented at
early stage of operation period and maintained throughout operation period.
OM2 in Figures 11-16
to 11-18. |
EIAO & Annex 10, 11, 18,
20 and 21 of EIAO-TM ETWB TC 3/2006 LAO GN 7/2007 |
|
11. 10.2 |
9.2 |
OM3
– Suitable
Design for Recreational Ground The
landscape design for the recreational area in the northern portion of the
Site will adopt a rural, naturalistic approach with vast open space to match
the original landscape character.
Emphasis will be placed on a balanced approach between trees and
grass/herbs. Use of native species
will be the planting design theme.
Natural materials, such as timbers, will be mostly used for landscape
hardworks. |
Minimise visual impact of the
Project and enhance landscape and visual resources of the site |
Project Proponent |
Site boundary, implemented at
early stage of operation period and maintained throughout operation period.
OM3 in Figures
11-16 to 11-18. |
EIAO & Annex 10, 11, 18,
20 and 21 of EIAO-TM ETWB TC 3/2006 LAO GN 7/2007 |
|
11. 11.1 |
9.2 |
OM4 - Use
appropriate (visually unobtrusive and non-reflective) building materials and
colours in built structures. |
Minimise visual impact of the
Project. |
Project Proponent |
Whole site, during detailed
design. OM5 in Figures 11-16 to 11-18. |
EIAO & Annex 10, 11, 18,
20 and 21 of EIAO-TM HKPSG |
|
11. 11.1 |
9.2 |
OM5 -
Streetscape elements (e.g. paving, signage, street furniture, lighting etc.)
sensitively designed in a manner that responds to the local context, and
minimises potential negative landscape and visual impacts. Lighting units to
be directional and minimising unnecessary light spill. |
Minimise visual impact of the
Project, including night-time impacts. |
Project Proponent |
Whole site, implemented
during detailed design. OM6 in Figures 11-16 to 11-18. |
EIAO & Annex 10, 11, 18,
20 and 21 of EIAO-TM HKPSG |
|
11.11.1 |
9.2 |
OM6 – Suitable Design and Landscape Treatment of Noise Barrier and Along
Boundary Height
of permanent noise barriers along boundary be to
minimum required. Barrier finishes be sensitively selecting and designing to
reduce visual impact. Materials to be opaque and non-reflective material with
colour blending in with the environment to minimize visual impact and to avoid bird strike. Screen tree, shrub
and climber planting to be provided in front of permanent noise barrier to
minimise visual intrusion. |
Minimise visual impact of the
Project . |
Project Proponent |
Site boundary, implemented at
early stage of operation period and maintained throughout operation period.
OM6 in Figures
11-16 to 11-18. |
EIAO & Annex 10, 11, 18,
20 and 21 of EIAO-TM HKPSG |
Through proper implementation of dust control measures required under the applicable regulations and good site practices, construction dust impacts can be controlled
to acceptable level.
Practical mitigation measures have already been
proposed for this Project to alleviate potential impacts during construction. The concerned site formation works will only
be short-term and potential air quality impacts have been
reduced to a minimal through recommended mitigation measures and can
comply with the relevant air quality criteria/ AQOs. Thus, no adverse impact is anticipated. As a result, there is no residual impact.
There will be no unacceptable operational
phase impacts due to this Project.
With the implementation of noise mitigation measures, construction noise
levels at the NSRs can comply with the noise standard.
Compliance with the noise standard during the operational phase is
predicted with the implementation of precautionary measures in the design.
The water quality
assessment in the EIA indicated that with proper implementation of the
recommended environmental mitigation measures, no adverse impacts on water
quality would be expected from the construction and operational phase of the
Project. Adverse residual impact is not anticipated during the construction or operation
of the Project.
The
future public sewerage and pumping stations have adequate spare capacity for
conveying the overall sewage generated (including the additional sewage from
the Project Site). It is concluded that no adverse sewerage impact due to the
development is anticipated.
With the implementation
of recommended measures, no waste related regulatory non-compliance and
unacceptable environmental impacts are expected to arise during the
construction phase.
Opportunities for
reduction in waste generation through recovery, reuse or recycling are also
identified.
No major ecological
impacts are expected of the current project. Although some habitats would be
directly affected, they are of “very low” to “low to moderate” ecological value
to wildlife based on survey findings and direct impacts due to habitat loss
from the proposed development are predicted to be insignifanct. Erection of
site hoarding prior to the peak winter bird season between October and March as
well as screening and phasing of construction activities as mitigation measures
for noise, air and other environmental aspects would be applied to ensure that no adverse impact would be
resulted. Standard practices to control
site runoff and other construction phase impacts will also be implemented. The temporary and permanent noise barrier
will include design elements to minimize bird collision potential such as by
use of non-reflective and non-transparent materials and shrub planting. With these, no further mitigation measures during
construction phase are necessary. No mitigation measure during operation is
required.
No active fish pond would be directly impacted due
to this project. Indirect impacts during
construction and operation phases would also be insignificant given that
appropriate mitigation measures (as
described in Table 14-1 of the
submitted EIA report) are implemented. Therefore, no significant fisheries impact is
anticipated.
Cultural heritage resources within Assessment Area have been reviewed
through literature review and field surveys. From the surveys and examination
of records it has been identified that a temple built in the 1980s is located
at Chuk Yuen Tsuen. Other than that no archaeological
potential, declared or deemed monuments or graded historical buildings or other
cultural elements such as fung shui pond are located within the Project Site
and Assessment Area. Potential
indirect impacts due to vibration and temporary visual impacts are not
anticipated during construction phase given the distance (>300m) between a
temple at Chuk Yuen Tsuen and the Project Site. Therefore, it is concluded that
there is no anticipated effect on cultural heritage resources as a result of
this Project.
Overall, it is considered that, in the terms of Annex 10, Clause 1.1(c)
of the EIAO-TM, the landscape and visual impacts are acceptable with mitigation
measures: “there
will be some adverse effects, but these
can be eliminated, reduced or offset to a large extent by specific measures”. There will in fact be a Slight Beneficial impact to the landscape resources within
the Project Site itself, once operational and when proposed landscape planting
has had time to mature. The overall conclusion is therefore that the landscape
and visual impacts are Acceptable with the
implementation of proposed landscape measures.
[1]
According to information available on Planning Department’s website (available
at: http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/tp_plan/index.html),
the Project Site is not covered by existing Development Permission Area
Plans. Instead, it is currently covered
by the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) No. S/YL-MP/6.
Records of both the adopted and draft departmental plans in the area
were obtained from Planning Department.
According to the records obtained, relevant plans were reviewed such as
the “L/YL-FP/1C
Residential Layout - Fairview Park Access Road, Yuen Long” adopted in year
1982; as well as the draft departmental plan “DP/NWNT/1C North West New
Territories - Development Plan” approved in year 1984. As all of these plans were prepared in
1980s’, planned uses indicated in these plans are outdated and are superseded
by the existing OZP. As advised by
Planning Department, the existing OZP is the latest version regarding planned
land uses in the area.
[2]
Agreement No. CE 66/2001(EP), EIA and TIA Studies for the Stage 2 of PWP Item
No. 215DS -
Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal (YLKTSSD), Environmental
Impact Assessment (Final), Mar.,
2004.
[3]
According to information available on Planning Department’s website (available
at: http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/info_serv/tp_plan/index.html),
the Project Site is not covered by existing Development Permission Area
Plans. Instead, it is currently covered
by the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP) No. S/YL-MP/6.
Records of both the adopted and draft departmental plans in the area were
obtained from Planning Department.
According to the records obtained, relevant plans were reviewed such as
the “L/YL-FP/1C
Residential Layout - Fairview Park Access Road, Yuen Long” adopted in year
1982; as well as the draft departmental plan “DP/NWNT/1C North West New
Territories - Development Plan” approved in year 1984. As all of these plans were prepared in
1980s’, planned uses indicated in these plans are outdated and are superseded
by the existing OZP. As advised by
Planning Department, the existing OZP is the latest version regarding planned
land uses in the area
[4]
River Water Quality In Hong Kong
(various years), HKSAR Government Environmental Protection Department.
[5]
River Water Quality in Hong Kong in
2009, HKSAR Government Environmental Protection Department.
[6]
Agreement No. CE 66/2001(EP), EIA and
TIA Studies for the Stage 2 of PWP Item No. 215DS -
Yuen Long and Kam Tin Sewerage and Sewage Disposal (YLKTSSD), Environmental
Impact Assessment (Final), March 2004 (EIA
Application No. 094/2004). Sections 12.4 and 12.5 and
Figures 12.9 and 12.10.
[7]
Construction
of Cycle Tracks and the Associated Supporting Facilities From Sha Po Tsuen to
Shek Sheung River,
December 2008 (EIA Application No.
EIA-159/2008). Section 8.6 and Figures 2-1, 8-1 to 8-3.