The Chairman requested Members to forward
their comments on the draft minutes of the 53rd meeting to
the Secretariat after the meeting. The minutes would be confirmed
in the next meeting.
(Post-meeting note: No comments on the draft
minutes of the 53rd meeting were received by the Secretariat.)
Agenda Item 2 : Matters Arising
2. There were no matters arising from the
last meeting.
Agenda Item 3 : Tai O Sheltered
Boat Anchorage
(ACE EIA Paper 7/2000)
3. The Chairman welcomed the presentation
team and invited Members to raise their concerns on the report.
Design of the Breakwater
4. A Member enquired whether the project proponent
had considered any alternative configurations for the proposed
breakwater which would enhance the flushing effect within
the Anchorage and so reduce the potential water quality impact
to the Tai O Bay. SE(PMB)/CED stated that the layout
of the entire project including the breakwater was found satisfactory
to all relevant authorities, in particular the Marine Department.
According to the findings of the EIA report, he was confident
that there would not be any exceedance of the statutory Water
Quality Objectives with the existing design of the breakwater
as a continuous rubble mound structure. D/SW supplemented
that with the dredging for the Anchorage and the Approach
Channels, the water quality modeling indicated no exceedance
of the Water Quality Objectives, and there would be adequate
flushing.
5. ES/SW further pointed out that the
flushing effect suggested to be incorporated in the design
of the breakwater was insignificant to the water quality impact
of the project, since the breakwater would be located to ensure
that flows from the Tai O Creek would not be embayed.
6. To address the concerns of the Members,
SE(PMB)/CED however agreed to consider the feasibility
of coming up with a design of the breakwater which incorporated
the flushing effect during the detailed design stage of the
project.
Designed Capacity of the Anchorage
7. In response to the enquiry of a Member,
SE(PMB)/CED clarified that the Anchorage was designed
for the maximum capacity of 220 boats for not only accommodating
the existing fishing vessels but also allowing future growth
in the fishing industry of Tai O, which was indeed one of
the key objectives of the project.
8. ES/SW supplemented that the designed
capacity of the Anchorage would neither cause any adverse
impact on the water quality of the Tai O Bay nor hinder the
proposed mangrove planting scheme. He pointed out that the
risk of oil spill within the Anchorage was very low and such
events, if they occurred, would be taken care by the Oil Pollution
Contingency Plan coordinated between the Marine Department
and relevant authorities. On the other hand, the findings
of the EIA study indicated that the resultant water quality
of the Anchorage with that designed capacity was well with
the required standards for mangrove planting.
Feasibility of the Mangrove Planting Scheme
9. Upon the query of a Member, SE(PMB)/CED
confirmed that it was recommended that a buffer zone of 30
- 50 m should be maintained between the Anchorage and the
mangrove planting area. The upper limit of 50 m had been adopted
for the project to ensure the effectiveness of the mangrove
planting scheme. He stated that the recommendation was based
on the advice of the consultant of the Agriculture, Fisheries
and Conservation Department. AD(Conservation)/AFCD
also confirmed that the survival of the planted mangrove would
not be at risk as long as the water quality in the area would
not deteriorate as a result of the project.
10. E/SW clarified that as the project
would involve substantial dredging for channels to facilitate
access of fishing vessels, the current circulation and conveyance
of water pollutants from Tai O Creek out of Tai O Bay would
in effect be enhanced. Instead of causing any detrimental
effect to the mangrove habitat, improvement in the water quality
of Tai O Bay arising from the project was expected.
11. In response to the concern of a Member,
AD(Conservation)/AFCD confirmed that while recommendations
for the mangrove planting scheme were made in the EIA report
of the project, the detailed design, actual planting and monitoring
would be carried out by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation
Department. Every effort would be made to ensure the best
integration of the planting scheme and the project.
Tai O Revitalisation Study
12. A Member was concerned about the
coordination between the project and the on-going Tai O Revitalisation
Study conducted by the Planning Department. SE(PMB)/CED
confirmed that the Anchorage was recognized as an integral
part of the revitalization. The layout of the project, including
the preparation of the area for subsequent mangrove planting,
had been taken into account in the Study.
13. SEPO/EPD supplemented that the
Study was still in a conceptual stage with its first round
public consultation exercise just completed. Depending on
the finalized scope of the Study, a separate EIA report might
be required under the Schedule 3 of the EIA Ordinance.
14. The Chairman proposed and Members
agreed to recommend to the Council that the report be endorsed
without condition.
Agenda Item 4 : Widening of Tolo
Highway/Fanling Highway between Island House Interchange and
Fanling
(ACE EIA Paper 8/2000)
15. The Chairman welcomed the presentation
team and invited Members to raise their concerns on the report.
Need for Further Widening
16. In response to the enquiry of the Chairman,
SE(Tolo/N)/HyD clarified that the widening project
for the section of Tolo Highway between Island House Interchange
and Ma Liu Shui Interchange, which was currently under construction
for completion in early 2002, was first proposed in 1993,
long before the need for the present project was identified.
17. Upon the enquiry of a Member, SE(Tolo/N)/HyD
confirmed that according to the findings of the Third Comprehensive
Transport Study, there was no foreseeable problem on the traffic
capacity of the section of Fanling Highway to the north of
Wo Hop Shek Interchange. Hence, the Administration currently
had no plan for widening this section of Fanling Highway.
SE(Project/NTE)/TD added that the completion of the
Fanling Bypass would attract some traffic from the Fanling
Highway and alleviate traffic congestion problems arising
from projected increase of traffic flow in that area.
18. In response to a Member, SE(Tolo/N)HyD
stated that according to the estimation made in the EIA report,
about 10% to 16% of the vehicles using the concerned road
section were heavy vehicles. That Member commented
that while the practical problems for restricting heavy vehicles
from using the roads are recognized, the traffic demand generated
by private vehicles should be managed by measures other than
road widening option.
Landscaping Measures
19. To address a Member's concerns on shotcreting
as a slope protection measure and the landscaping measures
on the affected slopes, CE(MW2-3)/HyD undertook that
apart from shotcreting, planting of trees and shrub with appropriate
mix on the slopes would be implemented for minimizing the
potential visual impact of the road widening work as far as
practicable. The proposed landscaping measures would be further
studied in detail amongst relevant departments and were subject
to the proposed EM&A programme.
20. In response to the Chairman, D/MC
confirmed that the landscaping measures would be applicable
to the proposed noise barriers to be constructed along part
of the widened road section. Specific proposals would be worked
out in the detailed design stage. LA/ACL added that
apart from the use of a combination of transparent and non-transparent
panels, suitable colourings would be applied to the noise
barriers to further enhance the aesthetical effect.
Potential Congestion Problem
|