INTRODUCTION
At its meetings on 27 June, 6 and 11 July 2000, the Subcommittee
considered the EIA report of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation
(KCRC) Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line (hereafter referred
to as the Project). At the meeting on 27 June, the Subcommittee
also received a briefing on the EIA report on Strategic Sewage Disposal
Scheme (SSDS) Stage II on an informal basis: this would be presented
in a separate paper and reported to the Council in August.
ADVICE SOUGHT
2.Members are invited to advise whether the EIA report of the KCRC
Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line should be endorsed.
THE PROJECT
Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation Sheung
Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line
(ACE-EIA Paper 4/2000)
3.The Project is proposed by KCRC to relieve the envisaged congestion
at Lo Wu Boundary Crossing. It was originally part of the West Rail
Project recommended under the Railway Development Strategy in 1994.
However rapid increase in the patronage of Lo Wu Boundary Crossing
in recent years requires the Project to be sped up; it is now pursued
as an extension of KCRC East Rail.
4.The key Project requirements are-
- to locate the Lok
Ma Chau Station to provide a cross boundary rail linkage with
the Mainland at the Huanggang and Futian areas;
- to provide a convenient
connection at Sheung Shui Station for interchanging passengers
to and from the Lo Wu line; and
- to serve the proposed
Kwu Tung Strategic Growth Area.
5.Construction work of
the Project is scheduled to start in 2001 for completion in 2004.
The Project involves a railway station at Lok Ma Chau and a railway
alignment of 7.4 km from Sheung Shui Station to the future Lok Ma
Chau Station. At the Lok Ma Chau Station, immigration and customs
facilities will be provided.
6.The Director of Environmental
Protection (DEP), in consultation with relevant authorities, considers
that the EIA report meets the requirements of the EIA Study Brief
and the Technical Memorandum (TM) on Environmental Impact Assessment
Process. Comments from ACE and the public will be taken into consideration
before DEP decides whether or not to approve the EIA report.
Views
and Recommendations of EIA Subcommittee Members
7.Subcommittee Members
discussed the report at three meetings held on 27 June, 6 and 11
July 2000. The main concerns were the need for a Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) on the impacts of planned or committed projects
in the region concerned; the compliance of the EIA report with the
requirements stipulated in the EIA Study Brief and the TM; the ecological
value of Long Valley; whether the Project proponent had thoroughly
studied all possible options with respect to the alignment and method
of construction; the area of compensation for wetland loss; the
proposed location of Lok Ma Chau Station; the adequacy and effectiveness
of ecological mitigation measures; the environmental performance
of the West Rail project; and the long-term management plan for
the proposed ecological mitigation measures.
Need
for Strategic Environmental Assessment
8.EPD advised that the
Project was categorized as a Schedule 2 designated project and an
EIA was required to be carried out under EIAO. Under Schedule 3
of EIAO, an EIA was required for urban development projects only
if the area is more than 20 ha or the population served is more
than 100 000. A Schedule 3 EIA for the area concerned was being
undertaken by the Territory Development Department and was scheduled
for completion in six months' time. On the other hand, an environmental
assessment (EA) had already been carried out under the Planning
and Development Study of North East New Territories (NENT) which
covered Long Valley. The EA of the NENT Study had taken into account
future railway developments and other planned or committed projects
in the NENT region. The Council was consulted on the EA of the NENT
Study at its meeting on 20 December 1999.
Compliance
with the EIA Study Brief and TM
9.Some Members of the
Subcommittee were doubtful whether the EIA report had complied with
the requirements of the EIA Study Brief and the TM. The Subcommittee
noted that ecological baseline data with respect to butterflies,
dragonflies, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals were
only adopted from a literature review of the Ecological Study conducted
by ERM in 1999. The literature review indicated that little was
known on the occurrence of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals in
the study area, in particular in Chau Tau and Lok Ma Chau. In view
of the information gap, the EIA Study Brief and the TM would require
carrying out necessary field surveys which should last at least
six months and covering both wet and dry seasons. The Subcommittee
noted that the Project proponent had not conducted such a survey.
The Project proponent explained that the records of the faunal groups
concerned as reported by ERM were taken primarily from literature
and discussions with ecologists who were familiar with the study
area. The literature review stated that a number of surveys for
these faunal groups had been conducted. While accepting that comparatively
speaking these faunal groups were not of as great concern as others
such as birds, some members opined that a survey on the reptiles
and mammals should have been undertaken.
Ecological
value of Long Valley
10.The Project proponent
had no dispute over the high conservation value of the habitats
in that area. EPD pointed out that Long Valley at present had no
statutory conservation status. It was neither designated as a site
of conservation importance, nor was the area categorized as a "no-go
area" under the TM. The Subcommittee, however, noted from the report
of the Second Railway Development Study (RDS-2) Long Valley should
be an "absolute constraint" and that arrangements were in hand to
revise the Recommended Outline Development Plan of the Long Valley
area to rezone it as "Other Specified Uses (Nature Park)". KCRC
submitted that the RDS-2 was undertaken on the basis that the existing
and committed projects were in place, including the Spur Line.
Alignment
Options
(An A3 map showing the alignments will be tabled for reference.)
(a) Northern Route
11. The Project proponent advised that the Northern Route would
necessitate the re-alignment of a section of the existing East Rail
tracks and would encroach into a substantial part of the Shek Wu
Hui Sewage Treatment Works (STW) and the Sheung Shui Slaughter House
(SSSH). Drainage Services Department advised that this alignment
would seriously compromise the operations of the Shek Wu Hui STW,
and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department advised that this
would considerably affect the operation of the SSSH and hence fresh
meat supply to meet the public demand. The two departments considered
the impacts unacceptable.
(b) River Beas Route
12.The Project proponent stated that the River Beas Route would
also be constrained by the Shek Wu Hui STW and the SSSH. Since the
southbound track for this Route would cross the existing tracks
of the East Rail, it must be built as a viaduct, necessitating a
bridge with a span of approximately 250 meters to be built. However,
two trunk sewer inlet pipes to the Shek Wu Hui STW, a leachate pipe
from the NENT Landfill and the delivery sidings to the SSSH had
taken up all the available space between the railway and the STW,
making it impossible to construct the viaduct support column foundations.
(c) Southern Route 1
13.The southbound track of the Spur Line would clash with the Po
Shek Wu Road Bridge over the East Rail. As a result, the Po Shek
Wu Road Bridge would have to be demolished and reconstructed with
an increased height of eight metres. This would in turn necessitate
reconstruction of a number of connecting roads in the area, as well
as blocking access to numerous buildings and residences.
14.Highways Department and Transport Department advised that Po
Shek Wu Road Bridge formed a critical part of the road network in
the area, connecting to the Man Kam To boundary crossing with very
heavy traffic. The impact on Man Kam To in the event of demolition
and re-construction of the bridge would be unacceptable.
15.Other than the impact on Man Kam To, this alignment also had
engineering constraints in that there was no space to construct
a tunnel to facilitate the southern track of the Spur Line to cross
underneath East Rail.
16. Resumption of Jumbo
Plaza would also be required for the diversion of the Dongjiang water
mains: this would likely be strongly objected to by the owners of
the building.
(d) Southern Route 2
17.The Project proponent advised that it would conflict with the
existing Sheung Shui Station which had to be demolished. There was
no suitable location to build a new Sheung Shui Station. This alignment
option would also impact on Tai Tau Ling, Tsung Pak Long, and Yin
Kong, resulting in more private land being resumed.
(e) Route running along Fanling
Highway
18.The Project proponent stated that construction of the support
columns for the Spur Line would take up two lanes of the existing
highway as no railway reserve had been provided when planning the
Fanling Highway. The construction of the Spur Line by the side of
the Fanling Highway would impact on schools and cycle tracks. Like
Southern Route 2, this option also involved private land resumption
in Tai Tau Ling and Tsung Pak Long.
(f) Route branching off south
of Sheung Shui
19.On the possibility for the railway line to branch off south
of Sheung Shui, the Project proponent advised that there would be
operational constraints. Between Tai Po Market/Fanling and Sheung
Shui, the peak hour passenger travel demand required 20 trains per
hour per direction (tphpd). The Lok Ma Chau Spur Line would initially
require 6 tphpd, and ultimately 12 tphpd. If the Spur Line was to
branch off south of Sheung Shui Station, the tphpd between Fanling/Sheung
Shui and Lo Wu would have to be reduced and would be inadequate
to meet passenger demand.
(g) Underground route
20.The Project proponent advised that because of gradient consideration,
the Spur Line would be well into Long Valley before it could go
underground. This would bring about serious construction impacts
and operational problems given the fact that the area was a flood
plain. On the suggestion for the Spur Line to start heading underground
after the Fanling Station, the Project proponent advised that this
was not feasible in view of railway land constraints and bearing
in mind the need to keep East Rail operational throughout the construction
period.
(h) Route branching off from
West Rail
21. The Project proponent indicated that originally West Rail Phase
2 would provide a second boundary crossing at Lok Ma Chau and another
link with East Rail at north of Sheung Shui Station. However, the
construction of Phase 2 had been deferred in 1997 subject to further
planning study. Since the cross boundary travel demand was anticipated
to exceed the carrying capacity of Lo Wu boundary crossing, a link
serving Lok Ma Chau was therefore urgently needed to relieve the
congestion at Lo Wu Station.
22. In view of all the engineering and operation constraints listed
above, the Project proponent believed that alternative options were
not feasible and therefore recommended that the Central Alignment
be pursued.
(i) Route proposed by a Member
23.A Subcommittee Member proposed an alternative routing which
could run between the Central Alignment and the River Beas Route.
The route would branch off at the same point of the Central Alignment,
run north as near as possible to River Beas, and heading south again
to join the western part of the Central Alignment. This route, if
feasible, could reduce the fragmentation of Long Valley and minimise
the landscape impact. A sketch of the proposed route is at Appendix
1.
24. The Project proponent doubted whether this route would reduce
fragmentation. They also advised that this was not feasible taking
into account railway safety and engineering considerations. However,
the Subcommittee was not convinced that the constraints could not
be overcome and believed that there would be a lot more flexibility
in the alignment if the train speed and the location of the future
station at Kwu Tung could be adjusted. The Project proponent undertook
to further investigate and report on the proposed route.
25. The Subcommittee noted that for any project that was likely
to result in adverse ecological impacts in an area of high conservation
value, the onus was on the proponent to demonstrate that no other
practical and reasonable alternatives were available and that adequate
on-site and off-site mitigation measures were employed. The Subcommittee
was not completely satisfied that the proponent had explored and
adequately evaluated, as required in the TM, all possible options
with respect to the construction methods or alignment.
The principle of "no-net-loss
in wetland"
26.The Subcommittee noted that some of the habitat lost or disturbed
would be compensated through enhancement of existing habitats. Some
Subcommittee Members pointed out that compensation should be in
terms of both area and function. Making use of existing fishponds
might compensate the ecological function but there would still be
a net loss in terms of area. They believed that hitherto compensation
had always been in terms of both ecological function and area. Some
members suggested that part of the proposed project would impinge
on the wetland conservation area in Lok Ma Chau and if the Subcommittee
were to depart from the past practice by accepting compensation
in terms of function, the matter should be thoroughly debated in
ACE meeting.
27.AFCD advised that the Town Planning Board Guidelines for Application
for Developments within Deep Bay Area stated that for an essential
infrastructural project with overriding public interest it should
not result in a net loss in wetland function and negative disturbance
impact. A practical wetland compensation scheme was required. According
to s.5.4.5(d) of Annex 16 of the TM, the Project proponent is required
to demonstrate no loss in ecological function and capacity which
can be achieved through compensation.
Location of Lok Ma Chau Station
28. The Subcommittee noted that the Project had taken into account
planned and committed developments in the area concerned. However,
one Member pointed out that the location of the proposed Lok Ma
Chau Station would impinge on the mitigation site of the Shenzhen
River Regulation Project Stage II. The Project proponent undertook
to clarify whether this was the case.
Adequacy and effectiveness of
mitigation measures
29. As regards long term mitigation, the Project proponent highlighted
that the 9.5 ha of fish ponds lost in Lok Ma Chau would be compensated
through 28.5 ha of enhanced wetland; for the 0.85 ha of agricultural
land under the viaduct in Long Valley, 2.4 ha of re-created wetland
underneath and parallel to the viaduct and 1.4 ha of enhanced meanders
along River Beas would be provided. For temporary mitigation during
construction in Long Valley, 1.8 ha of marshland would be enhanced
from an existing fish pond in the area.
30. The Subcommittee considered the proposed mitigation measures
inadequate and likely to be ineffective due to the lack of definition/
quantification of the functional value required to be mitigated.
It was noted that the meanders intended to be enhanced was already
intended as mitigation under the Main Drainage Channels (MDC) project.
Since the mitigation work concerned had not yet been carried out,
there could be no set benchmark of the functional value of the meanders.
Likewise, the intrinsic value of the 28.5 ha of existing fish ponds
in Lok Ma Chau had not been defined. Moreover, no information could
be found in the EIA report in respect of the definition/quantification
of the equivalent functional value needed for ecological compensation.
As a result, the Subcommittee had no basis to assess whether the
mitigation measures could compensate for the ecological loss. The
Project Proponent considered the recommendations in the EIA Report
to add value to the proposals of Territory Development Department
(TDD) by enhancing the meanders from seasonal wetland/ dry planting
areas to permanent wetland with a managed and controlled water supply
to be of considerably greater ecological value.
31. According to s.5.4.2 of Annex 16 of the TM, "the effectiveness
of the proposed mitigation measures shall be carefully evaluated
and the significance of any residual impacts after implementing
them shall be clearly stated." S.6.6 of Annex 20 of the TM requires
that "where the effectiveness is uncertain or depends on assumptions
about operating procedures, climatic conditions, etc. or where there
is a risk that mitigation will not work, this [should be] made clear
and data introduced to justify the acceptance of the assumption."
One Subcommittee Member cited overseas research findings which showed
that the failure rate of man-made wetland was about 50 to 73%, although
no further information was provided in the meeting on the scope
of review and the reasons for failure. There was concern whether
the enhancement measures proposed could achieve the functional value
required for mitigation. The Subcommittee therefore found it difficult
to be convinced that the proposed mitigation measures would be effective.
The Project proponent responded that the wetlands in Hong Kong were
predominantly man-made, constituted existing farmland and fishponds,
and that the chances of success rate in recreating this type of
wetland should be very high.
Environmental performance of
the West Rail project
32.The Project proponent advised that it had put in place a comprehensive
Environmental Monitoring and Audit Programme. The contractors were
required to set up a multi-disciplinary Environmental Team to monitor
the various potential environmental impacts arising from the construction
activities. An independent auditor was employed to verify the environmental
performance of the project. In addition, regular site inspections
and audits were conducted to ensure that construction activities
were carried out in accordance with environmental regulations and
requirements.
33.Apart from regular monitoring and inspection, any ad hoc environmental
issues were dealt with in an appropriate manner. In the sensitive
marsh area in Kam Tin, which was located on private land outside
the West Rail boundary, the Project proponent had taken appropriate
measures to rectify the water level of the marsh area and to remove
a herd of buffalos from the marsh area. Though not required under
the Environmental Permit, the Project proponent had initiated a
monitoring programme which had found Greater Painted Snipe in the
marsh area during the construction of West Rail. Site surveys and
radio telemetry were conducted to provide data on the use of the
habitat and to ensure that the marsh area would not be adversely
affected by the construction works.
34. The Subcommittee indicated that members would be interested
in actual environmental results rather than promises, and at the
request of the Chairman, the Project proponent undertook to provide
information on records of exceedances, including repeated exceedances,
of the West Rail project.
Long-term management plan for
ecological mitigation measures
35. The Project proponent advised that pending Government's decision
on the long term arrangement for managing wetlands, a "Trust" approach
would be adopted in which partnership with experienced management
agent would be established to manage the wetland concerned.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
36.The Subcommittee requested and the Project proponent undertook
to provide the following to facilitate discussion at this meeting
: -
- further assessment
of the proposed alignment between Central Alignment and River
Beas Route;
- clarification on agreed
ecological value of the three River Beas meanders under TDD MDC
project, and the ecological value of the proposed enhanced meanders
by the Spur Line project;
- clarification of whether
the location of the proposed Lok Ma Chau Station would impinge
on a mitigation site of the Shenzhen River Regulation Project
Stage II;
- information on records
of exceedances in environmental standards of the West Rail project;
and
- information to justify
the success rate of re-created wetlands.
EIA
Subcommittee Secretariat
July 2000
|