Agenda Item 1 : Confirmation of Minutes of the 75th Meeting
held on 26 June 2000 |
Action |
2. The Chairmaninformed Members that no proposed amendment
to the draft minutes of the 75th meeting was received. The draft
minutes were confirmed. |
|
Agenda Item 2 : Matters Arising
Para. 5 : Briefing by Fill Management Committee
3. The Chairman informed Members that the Civil Engineering
Department would conduct a briefing for ACE on fill management
matters in September 2000. |
|
Para. 32 : Recommendations on relieving the EIA Subcommittee's
workload
4. The Chairman said that the Subcommittee would discuss
the matter in August with a view to offering suggestions to
the Council in September 2000. |
EIA Subcommittee |
Paras. 46, 51-52 Additional information regarding the Second
Railway Development Strategy (RDS-2)
5. Members noted that the additional information on RDS-2
requested at the last meeting was set out in the information
paper (ACE Paper 27/2000) tabled. |
|
Para. 61 : Bio-diversity survey
6. Members noted that AFCD was examining the recommendations
of Prof. David Dudgeon and Dr. Richard Corlett and was in the
process of verifying the land status and checking the site conditions.
AD(Conservation)/AFCD said that the Department would
present a consolidated plan to the Council in six months' time.
|
AFCD |
Agenda Item 3 : Report of the 55th EIA Subcommittee Meeting
KCRC Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line
(ACE Paper 23/2000)
7. The Chairman said that the discussion of the report
on briefing on SSDS Stage II would be deferred to the next meeting.
For the current meeting, Members would focus on the discussion
of the EIA report on the KCRC Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur
Line project.
8. The Chairman reminded Members that they should not
feel obliged to reach a decision on the item today. The statutory
deadline for the Council to forward comments to DEP was 10 August
2000. If necessary, Members could continue discussion on the
item at another meeting and 24 July 2000 had been reserved for
this purpose. The Chairman also referred to the unprecedented
number of communications received from local as well as overseas
people over the present proposal to use the Central Alignment
in Long Valley.
9. The EIA Subcommittee Chairman briefed Members on the
deliberations of the Subcommittee. He said that despite having
had three meetings, the Subcommittee could not come to a consensus
as to whether or not the EIA report should be recommended for
endorsement. He then summarized the major concerns of the Subcommittee
as follows
|
(a) |
all
Members agreed that Long Valley had significant ecological
value. This point was included in the EIA report and was
reiterated in the Strategic Environmental Assessment of
RDS-2 which was presented to the Council last month;
|
|
(b) |
the
proposed Central Alignment would cut across the heart
of Long Valley and this was not acceptable to some Members;
|
|
(c) |
some
were of the opinion that the EIA report had not seriously
considered all reasonable and practicable alternative
alignments;
|
|
(d) |
the
executive summary had not fully reflected the findings
in the EIA report;
|
|
(e) |
some
Members considered the EIA report flawed because there
was no baseline information on amphibians, reptiles and
mammals;
|
|
(f) |
some
Members were not convinced that the equivalent functional
value of the proposed compensatory measures had been scientifically
established;
|
|
(g) |
the
proposed mitigation measures were inadequate and the outcome
was not certain; and
|
|
(h) |
there
was confusion over the Town Planning Board (TPB) guidelines
on compensation for wetland lost. There was disagreement
on whether the principle should be no net loss in terms
of both area and function or in terms of either area or
function.
|
The EIA Subcommittee Chairman said that it was important
that the Council should consider the EIA report from the angle
of protecting the environment and on the basis of information
available.
Town Planning Board Guidelines |
|
10. Atg. DoP referred to the TPB guidelines on wetland
compensation and said that so far, the TPB had not approved
any development schemes in the Deep Bay area on the basis of
those guidelines. It would be up to individual landowners to
submit planning application to TPB which would then seek expert
advice before making a decision. Thus far, the TPB had not deliberated
on the issue of whether compensation should be made in terms
of both area and function or in terms of either area or function.
|
|
11. Atg. DEP pointed out that the Council's examination
of the EIA report should be conducted on the basis of the EIA
Ordinance and the relevant Technical Memorandum (TM). The TM
stated that off-site mitigation measures should be on a "like-for-like"
basis, to the extent that was practicable. Either the same kind
of species or habitats of the same size should be compensated,
or the project proponent should demonstrate that the same kind
of ecological function and capacity could be achieved. |
|
12. The Chairman asked whether EPD would consider it
acceptable if the off-site mitigation proposed by the proponent
was smaller in area terms but might be adequate in functional
terms. Atg. DEP said that he was not in a position to
say categorically whether or not he was satisfied. However if
Members were happy that the functionality of the wetland would
not be affected, there was no reason why they should reject
the mitigation proposed just because it was smaller in area.
|
|
13. AD(Conservation)/AFCD recalled that the issue was
discussed at the EIA Subcommittee and some Members considered
that there were discrepancies between the TPB guidelines and
the TM of the EIA Ordinance. Having regard to Atg. DoP and Atg.
DEP's explanation, it was now clear that the TM and the TPB
guidelines were consistent. |
|
Black-faced Spoonbill
14. A Member informed Members that other than the lack
of baseline information on amphibians, reptiles and mammals
in Lok Ma Chau and Chau Tau area, the EIA report had missed
out a species of conservation importance, i.e. the Black-faced
Spoonbill. According to the report of a survey conducted by
World Wide Fund For Nature (Hong Kong), 38 Black-faced Spoonbills,
equivalent to 5% of the entire world population of the species,
were spotted in Sam Po Shue area. The EIA report admitted that
Black-faced Spoonbills might use the project area as habitat.
But because the ERM report had not mentioned the Black-faced
Spoonbill, the EIA report had no recommendation in respect of
that species. As a result, the mitigation measures which were
designed on the basis of the baseline information available
failed to propose any mitigation for this important species.
On the basis of this omission alone, the Council could reject
the EIA report. |
|
15. A Member said that other than the omission of survey
on Black-faced Spoonbill, the project proponent had not dealt
with two other aspects, namely the use of mitigation areas under
the Main Drainage Channel project and the impingement of the
Lok Ma Chau station on the Shenzhen River Regulation Project
Stage II mitigation area. |
|
16. A Member was of the opinion that the consultant had
used a lot of second hand information and they had over-relied
on such data. As such the conclusion of the ecological assessment
was far from certain. |
|
Boundary of Long Valley
17. A Member enquired about the boundary of Long Valley
and which part of it was considered ecologically important.
In reply, another Member said that from the point of
view of protecting avian diversity, the central part of the
Valley and the river channel were the more important areas:
some 250 bird species had been recorded in that area. AD(Conservation)/AFCD
said that Long Valley was usually referred to as the triangular
area bounded by the Sheung Yue River, Shek Sheung River and
the arbitrary line crossing Yin Kong and Tsung Pak Long. As
far as wet agricultural land was concerned, some would include
the Ho Sheung Heung area as well. |
|
Status of the Spur Line Project
18. A Member said that though KCRC had clarified at the
EIA Subcommittee meeting on 27 June 2000 that the Sheung Shui
to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line was a stand-alone project, he was of
the understanding that a member of the KCRC intimated publicly
that if the Spur Line project could not proceed, they would
consider calling off the other two East Rail extension projects.
The Chairman suggested that that Member should raise
this with the KCRC team after they joined the meeting. |
|
19. The Chairman then invited the project proponent team
in. |
|
Remarks by Transport Bureau
20. PAS/TB said that he was grateful for the views and
comments of the EIA Subcommittee expressed at the last three
meetings. He stressed that since Lo Wu Station was over-stretched,
there was no doubt that a second railway crossing was urgently
needed. That said, they had full regard to the importance of
environmental protection. Transport Bureau was committed to
having an environmentally friendly transport system. Through
the exchange of views, he hoped that the Council and the project
proponent could come to a practicable solution and that should
the EIA report be endorsed, the Bureau would ensure that KCRC
would strictly abide by the conditions of the environmental
permit. |
|
21. In reply to the Chairman, PAS/TB confirmed that from
the transport angle, there was a demonstrated need for a second
railway crossing to address the ever-increasing passenger demand
at Lo Wu. According to record, the average daily cross boundary
passengers on a weekday in May 2000 was about 210,000. During
the last Easter holidays, there was a record high of 335,000
cross boundary passengers in one day. Due to physical constraints,
Lo Wu Station could not be further expanded. RDS-2 estimated
that by the year 2006, the daily cross boundary passenger demand
would increase to a level of 270,000 to 320,000 which would
stretch the capacity of Lo Wu to its limit. Indeed the present
situation at the Lo Wu station during holidays had given rise
to concerns about safety and operation. |
|
Presentation by KCR
22. SD(CP)/KCRC then briefed Members on the constraints
of the various alignments, the proposed mitigation measures
to be implemented for the gazetted alignment and how construction
work would be carried out on viaduct to minimize impact on Long
Valley. |
|
23. A Member requested KCRC to clarify once again whether
KCRC would consider calling off the other two East Rail extension
projects if the Spur Line project could not proceed as planned.
He said that despite SD(CP)/KCRC's clarification at one of the
EIA Subcommittee meetings, he had heard that the same notion
about the dependency of the two East Rail extensions upon the
Spur Line project was raised during a telephone call to some
Council Members. In reply, SD(CP)/KCRC said that as far
as equity and commercial viability were concerned, the three
East Rail extensions were viewed as one entity. It was clear
that compared to the Spur Line, the Tsim Sha Tsui and Ma On
Shan extensions were not as strong from the commercial point
of view. That said, from an operational and construction point
of view and in the context of the EIA procedure, the Spur Line
project was a stand-alone project. Given the background mentioned,
the KCRC Managing Board would seriously consider the situation
if the Spur Line project was not to proceed. |
|
24. The Chairman said that it was not within the Council's
purview to question the need for the project but it was important
that KCRC should not in any way coerce the Council in accepting
its EIA report. |
Secretariat |
25. Upon enquiry from a Member, the Chairman said that
in the event the Council refused to endorse the EIA report,
it would be up to DEP to decide whether the report should be
accepted and an environmental permit issued after considering
the views of the Council and comments received from the public.
|
|
26. In reply to a Member, Con1/Binnie said that by carrying
out the measures stated in the EIA report, they could double
the carrying capacity of the existing 28.5 ha of fishponds in
Lok Ma Chau. The principle of enhancement was valid but the
exact calculation was theoretical to a certain extent. Hence,
they would allow for an error margin of 20% in their plan. Though
he could not guarantee the level of enhancement, he was confident
that the enhancement measures would work. That Member
further asked whether the plan was the result of subjective
estimation or whether it was backed up by scientific data. Con1/Binnie
said that it was a combination of the two. |
|
27. A Member followed up and asked whether there was
concrete data of enhanced habitat in Hong Kong and whether such
data was included in the EIA report. In reply, Con1/Binnie
said that they did not have direct comparable data in Hong Kong
because such comparable enhancement had not been undertaken
locally. |
|
28. The Chairman referred to the low reported success
rate of 27% in wetland re-creation overseas and asked about
the fallback position if the measures failed to work. In reply,
Con1/Binnie said that the US research covered a wide
range of habitats, some were relevant to Hong Kong and some
were not. A very high failure rate was recorded for those wetland
compensations which were provided on a one-off basis without
any subsequent management. Some other re-created wetlands were
unsuccessful because of a lack of resources. In the present
case, KCRC was fully committed to the proposed compensations.
They would provide funds and would ensure that there would be
proper management of the mitigation areas. Upon request from
the Chairman, SD(CP)/KCRC undertook to achieve the highest
standard in restoring the functionality of the habitats affected.
|
|
29. A Member said he was doubtful of Con1/Binnie's theory
of enhancing the function of the habitat. He considered that
though certain features of the habitat could be enhanced, say
the increase of food reserve, the loss of other characteristics
such as aerial space could not be compensated. Indeed, aerial
space was very important for bird activities and for mating
of certain species of birds. In reply, Con1/Binnie said
that that Member's point was valid and he agreed that there
was a limit to what can be done. However in Lok Ma Chau area,
the species concerned were not particularly sensitive to changes
in aerial space. |
|
30. A Member asked what could be done to conserve the
area in the event the alignment could avoid Long Valley. Given
the experience of Sha Lo Tung, she was not confident that zoning
could bring about the necessary conservation. She appreciated
the difficulty of the project proponent in getting land under
the Railways Ordinance for mitigation purpose. She wondered
whether the Administration could assist the proponent in that
respect. Another Member said that keeping Long Valley
as it was would at least preserve what we had at present. To
build a viaduct there would definitely destroy the ecology of
the area. |
|
31. SEF said that the Environment and Food Bureau was
working on the formulation of a conservation policy. As a first
step a document would be prepared for public consultation. She
then referred to page ES-2 of the Executive Summary of the EIA
report and asked what KCRC would do with regard to the longer
term management of the ecological compensation areas. In reply,
SD(CP)KCRC said that as far as implementation of the
mitigation measures and the setting up of re-created wetland
were concerned, KCRC had full responsibility. It would work
closely with green groups and ensure that the plan would work.
In the longer term, KCRC would commit to providing a sum and
setting up a Trust to cover expenditure needed for the management
of the compensation areas. |
Secretariat |
32. Upon enquiry from a Member on KCRC's specified objectives
for mitigation, Con1/Binnie said that they would first
identify the species which would use the habitats in question
and prioritize them in terms of conservation importance. The
objective was to ensure that the species would not suffer adverse
impacts. On that Member's follow-up question on quantifiable
objectives, Con1/Binnie said that they had drawn up a
table on each target species with detailed information on the
area of direct habitat lost, the degree of potential disturbance,
the value of each habitat types, the area of habitat to be re-created,
the total equivalent habitat value and the compensation calculation
for each target species. That Member noted that the information
was not included in the EIA report. In response, Con1/Binnie
said such a table was omitted at the request of the proponent.
The Chairman said that it should be re-inserted. |
|
33. A Member said that according to a recent survey,
there were up to 38 Black-faced Spoonbills in Sam Po Shue area.
He queried the absence of such information in the EIA report.
Since the Black-faced Spoonbill was not one of the targeted
species, there were no mitigation measures proposed. He considered
such omission unacceptable. In reply, Con1/KCRC explained
that the survey mentioned by that Member fell outside the data
collection period of the EIA study. That said, during detailed
design for the mitigation measures, he would take into account
the case of Black-faced Spoonbill. In fact, the proposed mitigation
measures for some other bird species would be suitable and relevant
for Black-faced Spoonbill as well. The Chairman and Members
expressed grave concern on such apparent omission and the implications
involved. |
|
34. EM/KCRC said that in his experience with the West
Rail project, it was necessary to formulate a habitat creation
and management plan. That plan could be revised to take into
account any new information which came to light subsequently.
He was prepared to work closely with the green groups on this.
|
|
35. PEPO(TA)/EPD said that in the light of comments received
from the public and from the Council, DEP may ask the proponent
to provide supplementary information. After taking into account
the additional information, DEP would form a view on the EIA
report. |
|
36. In reply to a Member's enquiry on the deadline for DEP to
give a definitive reply to the proponent, PEPO(TA)/EPD
said that according to the EIA Ordinance, the Council would
have until 10 August to comment on the EIA report. Within 14
days of receiving comments from the Council, DEP may ask the
proponent to give him additional information to decide whether
or not to approve the EIA report. Within 30 days of the receipt
of such information, DEP would have to decide whether to approve,
approve with conditions, or reject the EIA report.
|
|
37. A Member said that in her view the EIA report had
failed to identify the ecological and physical baseline data.
She had grave reservation on the quality of the EIA report.
|
|
38. A Member said that there seemed to be arguments on
whether the mitigation measures proposed were adequate. Given
that the Council would unlikely be able to reach a decision
today, he suggested the proponent to reflect on the measures
proposed and consider additional mitigation so Members would
be in a better position to decide at the next meeting. |
|
39. The Chairman asked whether there was any fall back
such as additional land for compensation. SD(CP)/KCRC
said that they had constraints in that respect. |
|
40. The Chairman said that Members had had much discussion
on the ecology. If Members had no further question, it would
be time to take a view on whether the Central Alignment was
acceptable and if so, what mitigation would be required. |
|
41. In response to a Member's enquiry that according to scientific
paper which suggested that it was possible to have a turnout
from a curve main line, D(ER)/KCRC explained that it
would be possible if the curve tracks were of the same direction
or in an area of low traffic density such as inside a station
or depot. But in the case of the Spur Line, the tracks were
of opposite directions and were in the main line and not inside
a station or depot. |
|
42. In response to a Member's enquiry in respect of noise problem
near Kwu Tung SGA, SD(CP)/KCRC said that the viaduct
multi plenum had noise barriers built into it to trap noise
and vibration. The actual noise emanated from the viaduct would
be minimal. However, there might be gaps and to resolve this,
further noise barriers could be built above the concrete parapets.
As a result of these measures, KCRC was confident that the noise
problem could be resolved. |
|
43. A Member asked whether it would be possible to turn
the temporary wetland during construction into permanent wetland.
In reply, EM/KCRC said that the land for the temporary
wetland was taken as a temporary occupation area during the
construction period and had to be restored to its original state
and handed back to the landowner on completion of the project.
|
|
44. In reply to the Chairman's enquiry whether KCRC could buy
land on the open market for compensation purpose, SD(CP)/KCRC
said that funds available to KCRC must be used for the purpose
of railway construction. On a Member's follow-up question on
the source of the seed money for the Trust Fund mentioned earlier,
SD(CP)/KCRC said that if it was made a condition under
the environmental permit, then KCRC could made available such
seed money. |
|
45. A Member pointed out that there was discrepancy in
the size of the temporary mitigation wetland in Long Valley
as reported in the EIA report and the executive summary. Con1/Binnie
said that the temporary wetland was 1.3 ha in area. It was meant
to compensate for the disturbance during the construction period
which would affect only a limited number of species. Hence,
a smaller area would suffice. Con2/Binnie added that
the temporary mitigation area was primarily to mitigate for
construction impacts to the marsh area in the centre of Long
Valley (about 1 ha in area), an area which was particularly
important as a feeding and resting area for the Greater Painted-snipe.
Con1/Binnie supplemented that the main objective of this
mitigation was to mitigate against loss of population of those
species which used the marsh area most (i.e. Greater Painted-snipe).
Other species may be affected by loss of feeding area due to
disturbance but this would not put the population of these species
at risk. |
|
46. A Member pointed out that the temporary wetland which
fell within the Kwu Tung SGA would be surrounded by high-rise
buildings when the Kwu Tung SGA development was completed. There
appeared no point making such wetland permanent. |
|
47. A Member was doubtful how the proponent could claim
that the functions of the Beas River meanders would be doubled
when Territory Development Department had not yet completed
work in the meanders. In reply, SD(CP)/KCRC said that
they had already provided detailed written answer to that point.
|
|
48. A Member asked Con1/Binnie whether taking into account
the uncertainties and the unquantified functional value of the
habitat, in his professional judgment the ecological mitigation
measures proposed were adequate or whether it was the best given
the constraints it had to operate. Con1/Binnie said that
in Long Valley, the proposed mitigation measures were the best
given the constraints. It would likely be proved adequate if
all the on-site and off-site mitigations could be implemented.
In the Lok Ma Chau area they had more leeway to implement mitigation
measures. |
|
49. In reply to a Member's enquiry, Con1/Binnie confirmed
that 1.4 ha of the Lok Ma Chau station footprint would directly
impinge upon the Shenzhen River Regulation Stage II mitigation
area. The total impingement area would be 3 ha if the associated
works area was taken into account. |
|
50. A Member asked whether the piling work in Long Valley
would have permanent damage on the soil and the water table,
etc and whether the Administration should help KCRC to provide
land for compensation. Con1/Binnie said that the ecologist
would ensure that the contractor would work within the area
permissible to the south side of Long Valley. They would purge
the water table and plant shallow rooted trees. |
|
51. On a Member's latter question, SPL said current policy
did not allow government to buy land in the market for ecological
compensation. The proponent may however acquire land through
resumption for a purpose related to railway development. |
|
52. In response to the suggestion to expand the Railways Ordinance's
ambit to enable resumption of land for conservation purpose,
PAS/TB informed Members that under the Railway Ordinance,
resumption of land must be strictly for railway development
purpose. While Transport Bureau would be prepared to consider
the views expressed by Members on the Spur Line, which was an
urgently required railway project, enactment of any proposed
legislation for conservation would take time and would not be
able to be in force in time for this project.
(Note : The proponent team and the accompanying government officials
withdrew from the meeting at this juncture whilst Members proceeded
on internal discussion.) |
|
53. The EIA Subcommittee Chairman summed up the remaining
issues for consideration of Members as follows-
| |
(a) |
whether
Members were satisfied with the EIA report;
|
|
(b) |
whether
all issues were adequately addressed;
|
|
(c) |
whether
the Central Alignment was indeed the only option feasible;
|
|
(d) |
whether
Members were satisfied that compensation could be made
in terms of functionality; and
|
|
(e) |
whether
the problem of land constraint should be further explored.
|
|
|
The EIA report
54. A Member was not satisfied with the EIA report and
considered it flawed. In reply to another Member on whether
the EIA report was acceptable to DEP, Atg. DEP said that
the substantive Director of Environmental Protection, Mr. Rob
Law, had indicated in writing that the EIA report met the requirements
of the study brief and the TM, and was suitable for public inspection
and submission to this Council. The EIAO provided that DEP,
having taken account of any views expressed by this Council,
or members of the public who had commented on the EIA report,
may approve, approve with conditions or reject the report. However,
if he felt that there was still not sufficient information to
decide on the report, he might ask the applicant in writing
to give him supplementary information. |
|
55. A Member said that there were a lot of uncertainties
in the EIA report. No one, not even the consultant, could say
in definite terms whether the mitigation measures would work.
On alignment options, he would like to know more about the constraints
of the Northern Route. He was not sure to what extent were the
rail geometry problems linked to the perceived problems of the
Shek Wu Hui Sewage Treatment Works (SWHSTW) and the Sheung Shui
Slaughterhouse. He wondered whether the problems there should
be looked at in greater details to establish whether they were
genuine. |
|
56. SEF asked whether the Council had in the past sought
third party advice on the engineering constraints put forward
by the project proponent. In reply, the EIA Subcommittee
Chairman said that the Council did not have the resources
required, nor would time allow them to do so. |
|
57. A Member said that unless the Council could commission
experts from overseas, it would be very difficult to argue that
the other alignments were feasible. The problems alleged by
the proponent were related to railway safety and engineering
constraints and they were difficult to verify unless there was
expert advice. |
|
Whether Central Alignment was acceptable
58. A Member said that if the constraints outlined by
KCRC were genuine, he agreed that the Central Alignment was
the most viable route. He noted that the SWHSTW were there for
some 25 years and seemed to be in need of improvements anyway.
If the problem related to the SWHSTW could be resolved, the
Northern Route should be feasible as well. |
|
59. SEF asked whether Members would consider having a
second meeting so that the Council could ask the Drainage Services
Department for its views on the feasibility of the Spur Line
encroaching on SWHSTW. At the same time, KCRC might explain
in greater detail constraints other than the SWHSTW in the Northern
Route. |
|
60. A Member said that she was not in a position to judge
whether the constraints mentioned by the proponent were genuine
engineering constraints or not. A further meeting with the proponent
would unlikely be useful unless there was to be an independent
expert review. She preferred to wrap up the matter at this meeting.
Her view was that the EIA report was not acceptable. Another
Member said that if Members preferred other alignments,
the proponent had to do another EIA report. |
|
61. Comparing the Central Alignment with the option of selecting
another alignment which would involve additional cost and time
to the proponent, a Member asked whether it would be
preferable to ask the proponent to invest the time and money
to improve the Central Alignment instead, say to buy land for
more mitigation measures. Another Member did not think
the suggestion feasible.
62. A Member said that if Members were not comfortable
with the Central Alignment and the mitigation measures, they
should say so and look at other alignments. Personally, he thought
the Northern Route was feasible. |
|
63. A Member favoured the River Beas Route. Another Member
concurred with his views. |
64. In reply to SEF's enquiry on EIA procedures, Atg. DEP
said that if the Council would like to have supplementary information
on the other alignments, that could be done but the Council
would have to give DEP formal notification of their comments
on the current EIA report before the statutory deadline.
Proposed adjournment of the meeting
65. Given that Members were unlikely to be able to come to a
decision at the present meeting, a Member suggested the
Chairman to fix the date of the next meeting. He also proposed
that Members should list all the questions for the proponent
to answer one by one at the next meeting.
66. The Chairman sought Members' views on that Member's
suggestion to adjourn the meeting. The majority of the Members
indicated that they wanted to continue with the discussion.
The issue of area or functionality
67. A Member said that the proponent was unable to benchmark
the function of the existing areas proposed for mitigation.
As such it would not be possible to judge whether the intended
enhancement had been achieved. He stressed the need to maintain
the principle that compensation should be in terms of both area
and function. n.
Whether the mitigation measures were adequate
68. A Member said that the agricultural land in Long
Valley was privately owned and could be turned into storage
area anytime. If the proponent could improve the ecological
value of the land and improve the diversity of habitats, that
would sound attractive.
69. In response to that Member's remarks, another Member
explained that the proponent's proposal was to add value to
the habitats in question. However, the proponent had not defined
what the baseline value was and what the compensation value
should be. Moreover having regard to the West Rail experience,
she had doubts on the commitment and capability of the proponent.
She said that in the Kam Tin marsh, the target species which
the proponent planned to protect decreased from 13 to 1 in just
10 days. She was not convinced that proposed measures would
be effective to fully mitigate the impacts.
70. A Member informed Members that a number of ecological
experts and academics had written in to raise objections to
the Central Alignment and express grave concerns about the effectiveness
of the mitigation measures. They considered that Long Valley
too important ecologically to risk any damage.
Summing-up
71. The Chairman summed up the discussion of the meeting
as follows-
| |
(a) |
Members
had no doubt about the high ecological value of Long Valley
and at the same time appreciated the constraints faced
by the project proponent.
|
|
(b) |
Considering
that the project would impinge on an area of ecological
importance and that freshwater wetlands were diminishing
in Hong Kong, some members opined that a cautious approach
should be taken. Accordingly, the onus lay with the proponent
to demonstrate that all reasonable and practicable attempts
to avoid Long Valley had been made and that the mitigation
measures were adequate and capable of achieving desired
results with a high degree of certainty.
|
|
(c) |
Certain
parts of the EIA report particularly that relating to
ecological baseline information needed to be strengthened
and updated; for example, there had been no field survey
on reptiles, amphibians, and mammals and little information
on the Black-faced Spoonbill which was found in the Lok
Ma Chau area. The availability of such additional information
might have bearing on the selection of design and alignment,
and might even necessitate revision of the mitigation
measures proposed which should be target and species specific.
|
|
(d) |
Some
members including those representing the green groups
had much concern that the Central Alignment would bring
serious ecological impacts and significant habitat fragmentation
to Long Valley. They felt that cutting into the centre
of Long Valley was not acceptable and were not convinced
that the project proponent had exhausted all possible
alignment options and that the constraints (e.g. the problem
with the SWHSTW) mentioned in the alternative alignments
explored were indeed insurmountable. To minimise the impact
on Long Valley, they would prefer an alignment either
running close to River Beas or to the north of the River.
|
|
(e) |
Some
members were concerned about the lack of information on
benchmark functional value, both for the meanders and
for the existing Lok Ma Chau fishponds which were proposed
for compensation. In the case of the meanders, the mitigation
proposed to be carried out by Territory Development Department
had not yet been implemented; there was therefore no way
to measure the benchmark value there. Given the lack of
information on the benchmark ecological value, some members
therefore preferred ecological compensation on a "like-for-like"
basis in terms of area.
|
|
(f) |
Some
members were not satisfied that the proponent had produced
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation
measures would work and could attain with certainty the
stated ecological functionality, noting in particular
information available overseas that the failure rate of
re-created wetland has been as high as 50% to 73%. In
view of this high failure rate overseas and the lack of
comparable experience in Hong Kong, the proposed mitigation
measures, which allowed for an error margin of only 20%,
were considered insufficient. The project proponent had
also failed to provide adequate contingency or fallback
plans in the event of failure. |
The Chairman suggested that there was no need to vote on the
matter and said that if the above was the consensus of Members,
this would be conveyed to DEP.
72. A Member supported the Chairman's suggestion that
the above should be conveyed to DEP. Another Member seconded
the proposal.
73. The Chairman welcomed the project proponent team
and the accompanying government officials back to the meeting
and informed them of the above views.
Agenda Item 4 : Any Other Business
Tentative Schedule of Work for ACE in 2000
74. Members noted the tentative schedule of work tabled.
Agenda Item 5: Date of Next Meeting
75. Members noted that the next meeting would be held
on 28 August 2000. |
|
Environment and Food Bureau
July 2000 |
|
|