CONTENTS
Page
1. Executive Summary 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Air
Quality 2
1.3 Noise
Impacts 2
1.4 Water
Quality 3
1.5 Solid
Waste Management 4
1.6 Landfill
Gas Hazard 4
1.7 Landscape
and Visual Impact 5
1.8 Environmental
Monitoring and Audit 8
1.9 Key
Environmental Outcomes 8
1.10 Conclusions 9
LIST
OF FIGURES
Figure E1
Study Area
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1.1
Roads
D1, D8, D10 and the extended Road P2 in Tseung Kwan O New Town are necessary to
provide an efficient means of district transport network, to connect the east
Tseung Kwan O area via the town centre south to Tseung Kwan O Area 72. (Figure
E1) These roads are proposed in order
to meet the targeted population intake for the long term and to enable road
link to Area 86 to be in operation for population intake.
1.1.2
Each
of these roads is a Designated Project (DP) under Schedule 2 Part 1, A.1 of the
EIAO. Under the EIAO, an EIA is a statutory requirement for Schedule 2 DP and
an Environmental Permit (EP) must be obtained before any construction works may
commence.
1.1.3
The
proposed construction period for Roads D1, D8 and D10 and the extended Road P2
is outlined as follows:
·
Road
D1 (Phase 1: September 2003 – December 2004, Phase 2: December 2003 – December
2006)
·
Road
D8 (December 2003 – December 2006)
·
Road
D10 (Phase 1: October 2003 – November 2005, Phase 2: May 2004 – May 2007)
·
Minor
road junction improvement works at road junction of Road D10/Wan Po Road, and
road junctions along Roads D1 and D8 (2002 – 2009)
·
Extended
Road P2 (December 2003 – December 2010)
1.1.4
The
nearby concurrent construction activities in between the construction period of
Roads D1, D8, D10 and the extended Road P2 include site development of Areas
65, 67 and 86, and possible future development to the south of Road D1. Details of the concurrent construction
activities have been taken into consideration in the construction phase impact
assessment to assess the cumulative impacts.
1.1.5
In
view of the speedy developments in Tseung Kwan O, this study has included a
worst case scenario where possible future development to the south of Road D1
and at Area 78 is assumed. On such basis, year 2030 is used as the planning
horizon.
1.1.6
Considering
that there is possible future development to the south of Road D1, two
assessments have been prepared to evaluate the noise, air quality, and
landscape and visual impacts. For Assessment 1, it is assumed that there will
be further development to the south of Road D1, whereas Assessment 2 assumes
that there will be no further development to the south of Road D1 based on the
approved OZP. Assessment 1 and thus the
proposed measures are for worst case assessment purpose, the package of the
proposed measures will need to be reviewed if further reclamation is put
forward in the future.
1.1.7
Construction
of Roads D1, D8, D10 and the extended Road P2 needs to take into account the
engineering feasibility and the environmental acceptability. Based on the
development works packages and programmes, the potential environmental impacts
arising from the development proposals have been assessed and the major
conclusions and recommended mitigation measures are summarized in the following
sections.
1.2
Air Quality
Construction
Dust
1.2.1
Cumulative
construction dust impacts have been assessed taking into the concurrent construction
activities in close proximity to the present project for the worst-case
scenario. Model calculations have shown
that dust concentrations at the nearby sensitive receivers are expected to
exceed the EIAO-TM Dust Criteria and the Air Quality Objectives with respect to
TSP. Watering the construction site
twice a day together with strict implementation of other dust suppression
measures as stipulated in the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust)
Regulation are recommended to reduce the dust nuisance. Good site practices and a comprehensive dust
monitoring and audit are also recommended.
It is anticipated that the Dust Criteria and Air Quality Objectives can
be achieved by the implementation of these dust suppression measures and no
adverse residual impact is expected.
OPERATIONAL
PHASE
1.2.2
During
operational phase, since the proposed noise mitigation measures under the
assumptions of the two assessments are different, air quality impact for the
two assessments was studied accordingly.
1.2.3
In
both Assessments 1 and 2, model results indicated that exceedance of 1-hour
average NO2, 24-hour average NO2 and 24-hour average RSP
concentrations as specified in the Air Quality Objectives is not expected at
any representative air sensitive receivers.
Thus, mitigation measures are not considered necessary.
1.2.4
For
the air quality inside the proposed two sections of the deckover for Assessment
1, results of the air quality modelling show full compliance of relevant air
quality standards hence adverse air quality impact is not expected.
Construction
Phase
1.3.1
Noise
assessment was carried out with respect to all construction works of Extended
Road P2, Roads D1 and D8. No assessment
for construction of Road D10 was undertaken as there was no existing NSR identified
near Road D10 during the construction phase.
Representative NSRs located in close proximity to the proposed works
were identified, taking into account the construction period of the work
packages of the project and other concurrent construction activities nearby the
NSRs.
1.3.2
Predicted
unmitigated noise levels at most NSRs would exceed the construction noise
standard stipulated in EIAO-TM.
However, with the implementation of using quieter plant, installation of
movable noise barriers and limiting the number of some PMEs, the mitigated
noise levels at all NSRs would be in compliance with statutory criteria. No adverse residual impacts is expected.
Operational
Phase
1.3.3
Traffic
noise from Road D1, D8, D10 and Extended Road P2 would give rise to adverse traffic
noise impacts to the nearby NSRs.
Deckovers (for Assessment 1) / semi-enclosures (for Assessment 2),
cantilevered barriers and vertical barriers were proposed at-source, as far as
practical, to alleviate noise impacts on the affected NSRs. Low noise surfacing was assumed at the
elevated section of Road P2 where the speed limit is 70 km/hr. With the implementation of the proposed
noise barriers, the
noise levels at most of the NSRs would comply with the traffic noise criteria. For those NSRs which overall exceedance of 70dB(A) is
predicted, noise contributions from the proposed new roads are less than 1.0dB
hence no further noise mitigation measures are recommended. or
noise sources from road junctions and roundabout, where noise barriers are
infeasible. Detailed
NIW Studies for the affected façades at residential buildings in Area 72 is
recommended to determine the exact extent of indirect mitigation measures. Indirect technical remedies in
the form of acoustic insulation and air conditioning have been recommended to
some NSRs at planned schools which full compliance of noise standard cannot be
achieved even when all practicable at-source noise mitigation measures is
exhausted. Residual impacts in future development
to the south of Road D1 should be reviewed based on the planned use of that
area and the layout available then.
Construction
Phase
1.4.1
The
identified potential sources of water quality impact include construction
runoff and drainage; debris, refuse and liquid spillages from general
construction activities; and sewage effluent from the construction
workforce. Minimisation of water quality deterioration can be achieved through
implementing adequate mitigation measures, such as control measures to minimise construction run-off and drainage
from the site. With the implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures, the construction works are not expected to result in any
unacceptable impacts on marine water quality.
1.4.2
During
construction of Road D10 adjacent to the TKO Stage 1 landfill at Area 77, the discharge of groundwater
pumped out during foundation works will not be permitted to be directly discharged into
the nearby drainage channel or coastal waters will not
be permitted. It is
recommended that the groundwater be stored temporarily on site as the volume is
anticipated to be small. An identified option for the treatment and disposal of
the collected groundwater is tankering of the groundwater to the TKO
Preliminary Treatment Works (PTW) at Area 85. Pre-treatment of the collected groundwater may be
required to meet the Technical Memorandum on Effluent Discharge Standards prior
to the groundwater being discharged to the TKO PTW. On-site pre-treatment of the collected groundwater, if required,
should be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Environmental
Protection prior to its discharge to the TKO PTW. The pile supports for the elevated section of Road D10
would not form a barrier to leachate seepage and thus it is expected that there
would not be any significant change to the leachate migration profile at the
landfill.
Operational
Phase
1.4.3
The
only source of potential water quality impact during the operation phase will
be runoff from the road surfaces. A
surface water drainage system with adequate grit interceptors will be provided
to collect the road runoff.
1.4.4
Assessments have shown that the placement of Road
D10 bridge piers in the Eastern Drainage channel is unlikely to result in significant
reduction in flushing capacity of the channel.
1.5.1
Wastes
generated by the construction works are likely to include construction and
demolition material, excavated material, workforce wastes
and chemical waste. Provided that the
identified waste arisings are handled, transported and disposed of using
approved methods and that the recommended mitigation measures are adhered to,
adverse environmental impacts would not be expected during the construction
phase. The recommended reuse and
disposal arrangements shall form the basis of the site Waste Management Plan to
be developed by the Contractor at the commencement of the construction phasedetailed design stage.
1.5.2
The
operation of the proposed Roads D1, D8, D10 and the extended Road P2 will
generate wastes associated with littering and road maintenance activities. The
potential environmental impacts arising from the handling and disposal of these
wastes is anticipated to be insignificant.
1.6.1
Comprehensive
restoration works for TKO Stage I Landfill (TKO Stage I) have been completed. A comprehensive monthly monitoring programme
also commenced in 1997. Although the
methane levels recorded from July 2000 to July 2001 at the monitoring wells
located near the boundary of TKO Stage I are very low, significant levels (>
5%) of carbon dioxide were recorded in some wells. As such, the source of LFG at TKO Stage I is considered major.
1.6.2
There
are no known lateral fault lines between TKO Stage I and Road D10, and no
existing utilities directly linking the landfill and Road D10. Therefore, there is a higher possibility for
potential LFG migration to Road D10.
Road D1 will be on reclaimed land and the Eastern Drainage Channel
situated between Road D1 and landfill will act as a barrier of LFG migration to
Road D1. There are no existing utilities
directly linking the landfill and Road D1.
As such, the possibility for potential LFG migration to Road D1 is
lower.
1.6.3
The
common targets of LFG migration at both Road D1 and Road D10 are temporary
excavations during the construction phase and confined space (e.g. utility
manholes, inspection chambers or ducts) during the operational phase. Since these areas are not accessible to
public and restricted to trained personnel, the risk level of these targets are
considered to be medium.
1.6.4
The
risk level for all the individual targets at the concerned section of Road D1
and Road D10 is medium. The overall
risk level for the concerned section of Road D1 and Road D10 is high. As suggested in the EPD’s Landfill Gas Hazard Assessment Guidance Note,
some engineering and detection measures should be provided to safeguard these
road sections.
1.6.5
The
following mitigation measures are recommended:
·
Prior
to and during development or construction, utility companies would be advised
of the possible presence of LFG in the subsurface for them to take into account
in the design, construction and maintenance of their works.
·
Void
around any service ducts, pipes or cables etc. within conduits would be filled
with gas resistant mastic. All ducts,
manholes, and chambers, either specific to the proposed developments or to
utility services shall be sealed off from the ground to prevent gas entry and
provided with vented covers to allow any gas that enters to dissipate
harmlessly to atmosphere.
·
During
site formation and construction works, portable gas detectors should be used to
regularly check the LFG level in depressions, trenches, and other
excavations. The monitoring shall be
undertaken at the beginning of each half working day (i.e. morning and
afternoon) for the entire period the excavation remains open. If high LFG level is measured, ventilation
of such excavations should take place and sources of ignition should be kept
away from areas where build-up of gas is possible.
1.6.6
The
following monitoring requirements are recommended: (i) Atmosphere within
utility manholes or chambers should be checked for methane, carbon dioxide, and
oxygen prior to entry. The pre-entry
monitoring shall be undertaken, where applicable, in accordance with the
requirements of the Factories and Industrial Undertaking (Confined Spaces)
Regulation; (ii) Routine monitoring should be conducted at the manholes and
chambers on a regular basis. The
frequency of the routine monitoring is recommended to be biweekly during the
initial stage (the first 3 months of the operational phase). The frequency shall be subsequently reviewed
on a quarterly basis through discussion with EPD, based on all the available
monitoring data for methane, carbon dioxide and oxygen (including that of
pre-entry monitoring).
1.7
Landscape and Visual Impact
1.7.1
An
assessment of the Landscape and Visual Impacts during the Construction and
Operational Phases of the construction of Roads P2, D1, D8 and D10 has been
undertaken. Potential landscape and
visual impacts have been identified. A prediction of their magnitude and
potential significance before and after the implementation of mitigation
measures has been undertaken and a prediction of their overall acceptability,
or otherwise has been made, according to the criteria in Annex 10 of the EIAOTM. It should be noted that the further
reclamation scenario and associated mitigation measures proposed are just for
the Worst Case Scenario assessment purpose – the package of proposed measures
would need to be reviewed if the further reclamation was put forward in future.
Mitigation
Measures
1.7.2
Extensive
landscape and visual mitigation measures will be undertaken during both the
construction and operation phases and these are detailed in chapter 8 of the
EIA report. The operation phase
mitigation measures are principally centred on sensitive aesthetic design of
all road-related structures and noise mitigation structures, attractive hard
landscape detailing, and extensive tree and shrub planting in the roadside
amenity areas.
1.7.3
All landscape mitigation measures
indicated in this report will be included in the works boundaries and the
landscape and visual mitigation measures implemented within these areas are
therefore considered to be “on-site”.
Construction
Phase – Assessment 1 – Worst Case Scenario (with further development)
1.7.4
Construction
Phase landscape and visual impacts would be as described for Assessment 2
below, except that if the deckovers over Road D1 are constructed separately,
after the completion of the other roadworks and amenity strips, then this would
result in some additional adverse construction impacts, comprising adverse
impacts of substantial significance on the future pedestrians and cyclists on
Road D1 (T6), users of open space in Area 66 (O5), residents in the planned
developments in Areas 65 (R6) & 67 (R7); and impacts of moderate
significance upon the future trees and shrubs in the planned amenity areas
along Road D1. However, these
additional impacts would be avoided if the deckovers are constructed at the
same time as the other roadworks.
Construction
Phase – Assessment 2 – Committed Development
1.7.5
No
physical landscape resources would be impacted. Residual landscape impacts would be minor and would be limited to
adverse impacts of moderate significance to the quality of landscape character
in Area 77 landfill and slight significance to the quality of the landscape
character of the Eastern Drainage Channel.
1.7.6
Residual
visual impacts during the construction phase would also be relatively minor and
would comprise mainly adverse impacts of moderate significance upon residents
in the residential development in Area 51 and occupants and users of the
commercial/residential development in Area 72.
All other visual impacts are slight or insubstantial.
Operation
Phase – Assessment 1 – Worst Case Scenario (with further development)
1.7.7
Residual
landscape impacts in the Operation Phase would be minor and as described for
Assessment 2 below, except that if the deckovers on Road D1 are built at a
later stage than the other roadworks, then this would result in adverse impacts
of slight significance on the future trees and shrubs in the planned amenity
areas along Road D1. However, these
additional impacts would be avoided if the deckovers are constructed at the
same time as the other roadworks.
1.7.8
The
principal residual visual impacts in the Operation Phase would be adverse
impacts of substantial significance caused by deckovers over Road D1 upon
pedestrians and cyclists adjacent to road D1 (east-west section) (T6). On the other hand, the deckovers would tend
to reduce long term visual impacts upon VSRs looking down from adjacent
residential properties in areas 65 and 67.
1.7.9
Some
residual adverse visual impacts of moderate significance, caused principally by
noise barriers and/or elevated road structures, would be felt VSRs located
immediately adjacent to the roads, mainly pedestrians, cyclists and users of
adjacent open spaces. All other residual impacts are assessed as slightly
adverse or insubstantial.
Operation
Phase – Assessment 2 – Committed Development
1.7.10
Residual
landscape impacts would be very minor and would only comprise adverse impacts
of slight significance to the landscape character of TKO New Reclamation Area,
Area 77 landfill, Area 86 Dream City and the Eastern Drainage Channel.
1.7.11
Residual
visual impacts would essentially be the same as for Assessment 1, with the
exception that VSR's in the possible future commercial and residential
development on an extended reclamation would not exist, and there would be
slightly less, although still substantial, adverse impacts on pedestrians and
cyclists on Road D1 (east-west section) next to Areas 65 and 67. The substantial significance of these
impacts would be due to the semi-enclosures over road D1 adjacent to Areas 65
and 67, which would be visually prominent. However, these impacts would be less
than those caused by the deckovers in Assessment 1, as they would be partially
mitigated by good aesthetic design of the structures and attractive tree and
shrub planting in roadside amenity areas.
Conclusion
1.7.12
In
general terms, the residual landscape impacts are relatively minor and can be
successfully mitigated. The most
significant residual visual impacts will be felt by VSRs located immediately
adjacent to the roads (i.e. pedestrians, cyclists and users of adjacent open
spaces) and will result from the visual prominence of the noise barriers,
semi-enclosures (in Assessment 2) and deckovers (in Assessment 1). Most of these visual impacts can be largely
mitigated by good aesthetic design of the structures themselves and by
attractive and extensive tree and shrub planting in the roadside amenity
areas.
1.7.13
The
only substantial adverse residual impacts that would remain after mitigation
are the visual impacts identified on pedestrians and cyclists in road D1 who
will pass alongside and underneath the semi-enclosures (in Assessment 2) and
deckovers (in Assessment 1), and it is considered that because these impacts
are limited to one group of receivers who are relatively transient (as they
pass along the road), they do not justify a conclusion that the overall impacts
are unacceptable.
1.7.14
Therefore
it is considered that, in the terms of Annex 10 of the EIAO TM, the landscape
and visual impacts are acceptable
with mitigation measures for both Assessment 1 and Assessment 2.
Proposed
Landscape and Visual Mitigation measures
1.1.1The following landscape and
visual mitigation measures are proposed in the construction phase:
·Regular checks shall be carried
out to ensure that the work site boundaries are not transgressed, hoardings are
properly maintained and that no damage is being caused to the surrounding areas
(CM1). Any irregularities shall be brought to the attention of the appropriate
adjacent management and maintenance agencies (e.g. private land owner, or HyD,
LCSD, or AFCD, or HKHA etc.). Remedial
measures shall be designed and implemented as appropriate.
·Erection of decorative screen
hoarding particularly in areas adjacent to existing developments (CM2).
(Hoardings next to undeveloped areas / construction sites need not be
decorative).
·Storage of materials and plant
shall be limited to areas less visible to receivers (CM3).
·Control of night-time lighting
to prevent upward glare to visually sensitive receivers. Lighting should be directed to where it is
required for security purposes only (or night working if permitted) (CM4).
·Potential conflicts between
landscape works and other works shall be avoided. Utilities works in particular shall be checked to ensure that
they do not compromise landscape and visual mitigation measures. Where potential conflicts occur, engineering
and utility layouts shall wherever possible be redesigned to avoid conflicts
(CM5).
·For construction works
associated with the deckovers proposed in Assessment 1 - Worst Case Scenario,
minimise construction impacts on trees and shrubs located along Road D1, and
transplant any trees that will be affected by deckovers (CM6).
1.1.1The following landscape and
visual mitigation measures are proposed in the operation phase:
·Aesthetic design of elevated
structures on Roads P2 and D10 with particular regard to form and finishes so
as to create as slender and elegant an appearance as possible. ACABAS approval shall be required (OM1).
·Sensitive integration of road
embankments with surrounding ground levels (OM2) The engineering and landscape
designs should be prepared to create smooth changes in level at edges of
embankments, with rounded profiles wherever possible;
·Aesthetic design of all noise
barriers, noise enclosures and deckovers with particular regard to chromatic
treatments. ACABAS approval shall be
required (OM3);
·Aesthetic design of road
lighting with glare control measures (OM4). Light fittings and columns should
be of an attractive design suitable to the streetscape setting and the overall
style in TKO. The light fittings should
be of a type which efficiently projects light onto the intended areas, and does
not cause any glare to adjacent residents;
·Sensitive hard and soft
landscape design to edge of Area 77 and landfill beneath viaduct (OM5);
·Sensitive hard landscape design
along roadsides, with particular regard to the creation of an attractive and
user friendly pedestrian environment (OM6). The preferred width of amenity
areas should generally be 3m (but can be narrower e.g. at bus bay ingress /
egress);
·Tree, shrub and climber planting
adjacent to the roads and structures with particular regard to the softening
and screening of noise barriers, provision of shade trees along footpaths, and
climbing plants against abutment walls and viaduct columns (OM7);
·Tree, planting along roadside
amenity strips and central dividers to provide structure planting for the
townscape (OM8);
·In the Worst Case Scenario, the
two full deckovers over Road D1 adjacent to areas 65 and 67 shall be designed
as landscape decks. Structural design
of the deck shall allow for adequate soil depth to permit tree planting (1.5m
min). The appropriate maintenance agencies
shall be involved in the approval of the design of the deckover.
·Attractive design of pedestrian
footbridges and subways including murals.
ACABAS approval shall be required (OM10).
1.1.1TDD has not
yet identified the works boundaries.
For the purposes of the assessment it is assumed that all designated
amenity strips alongside the roads are included in the works boundaries and
that landscape and visual mitigation measures implemented within these amenity
strips are therefore “on-site”. There are no mitigation measures proposed beyond the extent of
the designated amenity areas.
Predicted
Residual Impacts
Construction
Phase – Assessment 1 – Worst Case Scenario (with further development)
1.1.1Residual landscape impacts would
be as described for Assessment 2 below, except that there would be additional
impacts associated with the construction of the noise mitigation measures on
Road D1, which would result in an adverse impact of substantial significance on
the landscape character of the Road D1 corridor (LCA7), and the future trees
and shrubs in the planned amenity areas along Road D1 (LR1).
1.1.1Residual visual impacts would be
as described for Assessment 2 below, except that there would be additional
impacts associated with the construction of the noise mitigation measures on
Road D1, which would result in adverse impacts of substantial significance on
the future pedestrians and cyclists on Road D1 (T6); users of open space in
Area 66 (O5); and residents in the planned developments in Areas 65 (R6) and 67
(R7).
Construction
Phase – Assessment 2 – Committed Development
1.1.1No physical landscape resources
would be impacted. Residual landscape
impacts would comprise adverse impacts of moderate significance to the quality
of landscape character area LCA8 – Area 77 landfill and slight significance to
the quality of landscape character area LCA12 – Eastern Drainage Channel.
1.1.1Residual visual impacts during
the construction phase would comprise adverse impacts of moderate significance
upon residents in the residential development in Area 51 (R1) and occupants and
users of the commercial/residential development in Area 72 (C/R1); and adverse
impacts of slight significance users of the landfill in Area 77 (O1); walkers
in the upland areas (O2); residents in Area 74 (R4); occupants of the
commercial/residential development in Area 56 (C/R2); workers in the industrial
estate in Area 85 (I2); users of the G/IC development in Area 56 (G/IC1); and
travellers on Tseung Kwan O Bay (S1), the road from Cheung Leung Tin to Tai Wan
San Tsuen (T1), and Wan Po Road (T2).
Operation
Phase – Assessment 1 – Worst Case Scenario (with further development)
1.1.1The operation phase residual
landscape impacts would be as for Assessment 2 below, except that the deckovers
on Road D1 would result in adverse impacts of substantial significance on the
landscape character of the Road D1 corridor (LCA7) and the future trees and
shrubs in the planned amenity areas along Road D1 (LR1).
1.1.1Operation phase residual visual
impacts would include adverse impacts of substantial significance upon
pedestrians and cyclists adjacent to road D1 (east-west section) and
roundabouts (T6). The substantial
significance of these impacts would be due principally to the nature of the
full deckovers over road D1 adjacent to Areas 65 and 67, which would be very
visually overpowering and prevent tree planting and soft landscape treatment
underneath the decks. The total area under the decks, including road area,
would be approximately 1.8ha.
1.1.1Residual adverse impacts of
moderate significance, caused principally by noise barriers and/or elevated
road structures, would be felt by pedestrians and cyclists adjacent to extended
road P2 (T5); pedestrians and cyclists adjacent to road D1 (north-south
section) (T7); pedestrians and cyclists adjacent to road D8 (T8); pedestrians
and cyclists adjacent to road D10 (T9); users of the open space adjacent to
road D8 (O4); users of the open space adjacent to road D1 in Areas 66 (O5); and
users of the open space adjacent to road D1 adjacent to the Eastern Drainage
Channel (O6).
1.1.1Residual adverse impacts of
slight significance would be felt by users of the restored landfill in Area 77
(O1); occupants and users of the commercial/residential developments in Area 72
(C/R1), Area 74, (C/R4), Area 56 (C/R5), Area 86 (C/R6) and the possible future
development south in the extended reclamation south of Road D1 (C/R7); and
residents in the residential developments in Area 51 (R1), Area 65 (R6), and
Area 67 (R7).
Operation
Phase – Assessment 2 – Committed
Development
1.1.1Residual landscape impacts would
comprise adverse impacts of slight significance to the landscape character of
landscape character areas LCA7 – TKO New Reclamation Area, LCA8 – Area 77
landfill, LCA10 – Area 86 Dream City and LCA12 – Eastern Drainage Channel.
1.1.1Residual visual impacts would
essentially be the same as for Assessment 1, with the exception that VSR C/R7
would not exist, and there would be slightly less, although still substantial,
negative impacts on VSR T6 (pedestrians adjacent to road D1 (east-west section)
next to Areas 65 and 67) due to the fact that there would not be full deckovers
spanning the road as there would be in the Worst Case Scenario. Instead of the deckovers there would be a
semi-enclosures adjacent to Areas 65 and 67.
These structures would still create substantial negative impacts on
pedestrians and cyclists, even after mitigation.
Overall
Assessment of the Acceptability of Impacts
1.1.1Overall, it is considered that,
in the terms of Annex 10 of the EIAO TM, the landscape and visual impacts are
acceptable with mitigation measures for both Assessment 1 and Assessment 2..
1.8
Environmental Monitoring and Audit
1.8.1
Environmental monitoring and audit (EM&A)
requirements have been specified in an EM&A Manual. The requirements and principles in preparing
the EM&A Manual have been briefly outlined in the EIA report. The Manual has been prepared with reference
to the EIAO-TM and EPD’s Generic EM&A Manual. The EM&A Manual contains full details of proposed baseline
and compliance monitoring programmes, as well as performance specifications,
audit requirements and procedures for air quality, noise, landfill gas
monitoring, waste management, water quality, landscape and visual.
1.9
KEY ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES
1.9.1
The proposed Roads D1, D8, D10 and the extended Road
P2 in Tseung Kwan O New Town will provide an efficient means of district
transport network connecting the east TKO area via the town centre south to TKO
Area 72 and also enabling road link to Area 86. The proposed project is necessary to facilitate the rapid
developments in TKO and the target population intake.
1.9.2
Two scenarios have been assessed for the study,
namely: Assessment 1 – with possible further development to the south of Road
D1; and Assessment 2 – committed development without further development to the
south of Road D1. The key environmental
outcomes and benefits arising from the study include:
·
Existing
air sensitive receivers in the TKO New Town will be protected from cumulative
construction dust impact by the recommended dust control measures during the
construction phase.
·
No
adverse air quality impacts were predicted during the operational phase at
existing and planned air sensitive receivers in the TKO New Town.
·
Existing
noise sensitive receivers in the TKO New Town will be protected from adverse
noise impact during the construction phase by adopting quiet plant,
installation of movable noise barriers and limiting the number of some PMEs.
·
Adverse
traffic noise impact to existing and planned noise sensitive receivers will be
ameliorated by the proposed mitigation measures including deckovers (for Assessment
1)/semi-enclosures (for Assessment 2), cantilevered barriers, vertical barriers
and low noise road surface where applicable.
Indirect technical remedies have also been recommended to some NSRs at
planned schools which full compliance of noise standard cannot be achieved even
when all practicable at-source noise mitigation measures are exhausted.
·
Adverse
water quality impact during the construction phase will be prevented by
adopting the recommended mitigation measures such as minimising construction run-off
and drainage from the site, and also on-site pre-treatment of groundwater prior
to disposal.
·
Operational
phase water quality impact would be insignificant and it has been recommended
that grit interceptors be provided to collect road runoff.
·
Environmental
impacts due to waste generation during the construction phase would be avoided
by the development of a Waste Management Plan.
The potential impacts arising from operational waste generation is
anticipated to be insignificant.
·
The
hazards of landfill gas at concerned road sections have been assessed and the
common risk would be associated to confined spaces and temporary
excavations. For the construction
phase, engineering and detection measures have been recommended. For the operational phase, regular
monitoring of LFG has been recommended.
·
The
landscape and visual impacts for both Assessments 1 and 2 have been assessed
and are acceptable with the recommended mitigation measures.
1.10
Conclusions
1.10.1
The EIA of Roads D1, D8, D10 and the extended Road P2 has
identified potential environmental impacts of various nature including water
quality, air quality, noise, waste management, landfill gas hazard, and
landscape and visual impacts. The
potential environmental impacts are expected to arise during both construction
and operational stages.
1.10.2
The results of the EIA indicate that the environmental
impacts identified are generally within acceptable environmental
standards. Where exceedances of
environmental standards are observed, appropriate mitigation measures have been
recommended to meet the acceptable environmental standards and significant
residual impacts after mitigation are not expected. Environmental Monitoring and Audit requirements have also been
specified in an EM&A manual to ensure proper implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures.
