11. In
response to a Member's request, Mr. Elvis Au said that the
project proponent was not obligated to provide additional
information if it had been demonstrated in the EIA report
that the requirements set out under the EIA Ordinance and
the TM had been met. That said, Mr. T K Lee undertook to discuss
with the consultants about the information requested.
Cumulative
impacts from future road network
12. A
Member asked whether the cumulative impacts from the surrounding
transport network of DBL had been assessed. In response, Mr.
Lee from EML informed Members that CTS-3 from which traffic
data was drawn had taken into account existing and planned
transport developments in that area. Therefore, the EIA study
had included the assessment of cumulative impacts.
13. Mr.
Elvis Au drew the Acting Chairman's attention that the EIA
report had taken into account the cumulative effects from
other related projects including SWC. Information was available
in Table 7.31 on P. 7-51 of the EIA report.
Higher
fuel standard
14. A
Member noted that the Mainland fuel had a higher sulphur
content and asked whether the project proponent would make
any changes if the fuel standard in the Mainland was improved.
In response, Mr. McLearie pointed out that since the
assessment was based on the worst-case scenario, any improvements
in the fuel standard of the Mainland would only bring better
result on air quality and no mitigation measures would actually
be necessary.
Mitigation
for site run-off
15. A
Member understood that it was out of the project proponent's
remit to upgrade the fuel standard in the Mainland. He was
of the opinion that a dual 3-lane road might be inadequate
to ensure smooth traffic operation because a truck accident
could easily block up three lanes and cause traffic jam. He
also asked about the measures that would be taken to ensure
the quality of the nearby water bodies and to protect aquatic
organisms therein. In response, Mr. McLearie explained
that the major construction activity that would affect the
water quality would be bore piling. To avoid unacceptable
impact on the mudflats, there would be control on site run-off
which would be transmitted to treatment plants already in
use for other projects.
Fragmented
projects
16. A
Member said that as SWC, DBL and Route 10 were linked
and considered as one whole road network, it would be difficult
for Members to comment on DBL alone. She was concerned about
the extent that the proposed alignment of DBL would pre-empt
future consideration of options other than what the project
proponent would propose for SWC and the northern section of
Route 10.
17. In
response to a Member's comments, Mr. C M Chan said
that they were aware of the close relationship of the three
roads. However, due to the need for early preparation work,
the Administration wished to proceed with the consultation
on DBL while the EIA studies on SWC and Route 10 northern
section were being undertaken. The project proponent had informed
ACE of the related projects through informal consultation
in September 2001. Mr. McLearie supplemented that in
the cross border link study, the focus was on alternatives
landing points for SWC which essentially determined the alignment
of DBL. Of the three options considered, the currently proposed
landing point at Ngau Hom Shek would cause the least environmental
impacts. Mr. H M Wong brought Members' attention to
that during the Crosslinks Study by the Planning Department,
the cumulative effects of the projects had been assessed and
the ACE had been consulted including the choice of the SWC
landing point.
18. A
Member recalled that ACE endorsed the EIA report for Route
10 southern section in 2000 before the EIA for the northern
section was available. When there were subsequent changes
to the southern section of Route 10, ACE was criticized for
a lack of prudence in endorsing the EIA report. Therefore,
she felt that ACE should make it clear that the recommendations
in the EIA report were made in the absence of an overall environmental
assessment of the whole cross-border link network.
Cumulative
ecological impacts on Ramsar site
19. A
Member asked whether any assessment had been made on the
cumulative impact of the project on the ecology of Ramsar
site, including disturbance impact and if so, the results
and the proposed mitigation measures in particular in sensitive
areas like Mai Po and Deep Bay Ramsar site. In response, Mr.
C M Chan said that the Ramsar site was outside the site
boundary and study area of DBL. Dr. K L Pun informed
Members that the assessment would be covered by the EIA study
on SWC.
Adequacy
and effectiveness of mitigation measures
20. In
response to a Member's question, Mr. McLearie confirmed
that there was a mistake in annotation in Figure 7.5 of the
EIA report. Only pond no. 15 and 24 would be permanently lost
due to the project.
21. A
Member had reservations on the effectiveness of the mitigated
wetland created under the viaduct because the disturbance
from the traffic overhead would adversely affect the habitat
of species of conservation importance. In response, Mr.
McLearie clarified that only a small section of the recreated
wetland was located under the viaduct and the species concerned,
i.e. Chinese Pond Heron and Little Egret, were tolerant to
disturbances caused by traffic and human activities. Mr. H
M Wong supplemented that the EIA report indicated that the
viaduct at that locality would be over 15m in height, higher
than ordinary flyovers.
22. A
Member disagreed with Mr. Wong because in the EIA on Sheung
Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line, the project proponent did take
into account the disturbance factor even for a viaduct of
25m high. In response, Mr. Y K Chan explained that
a more conservative approach was adopted for the Spur Line
project since it was within the Wetland Conservation Area.
Moreover, the EIA report on the Spur Line showed that the
exclusion zone for Chinese Pond Heron was zero, meaning that
the species were highly tolerant to disturbances.
23. In
the absence of quantitative assessment, a Member doubted
the adequacy of the recreated wetland to serve the same, if
not enhanced, ecological functions as the existing fishponds
which would soon be lost. In response, Mr. McLearie
pointed that the two affected fishponds were at present subject
to disturbances and were of low and degrading ecological value.
One of them (pond no. 24 at Ngau Hom Shek) was even dried
out and abandoned. On the other hand, the proposed mitigated
wetland would be actively managed to ensure a suitable habitat
for the affected species.
Two-striped
Grass Frog
24. A
Member pointed out that the Two-striped Grass Frog was
found in the project area but was not included in the list
of species of conservation importance. In response, Mr.
McLearie clarified that the frogs were not found in recent
surveys. Nonetheless, the proposed mitigated wetland would
provide a habitat for the frogs to re-establish themselves
if they were to be found later.
25. In
response to a Member's question, Mr. McLearie said
that the mitigated wetland would be in place towards the end
of the construction period. That Member then asked
whether there was any mitigation for the temporary loss of
habitats during the construction period. Mr. McLearie
said that the bamboo from the existing egretry would be transplanted
to Ngau Hom Shek wetland compensation area before construction
started, avoiding the breeding season. Given the small population
of Little Egrets using the existing egretry, they should be
able to move to nearby habitats. Mr. C C Lay added
that according to last year's survey, over one-third of egret
nests were located in areas which were subject to high disturbances.
The egrets affected by the project would be able to find alternative
habitats close by.
26. A
Member said that setting aside the issue of whether the
birds affected would use alternative habitats or the transplanted
bamboo for nesting site, the spirit of the EIA Ordinance was
to mitigate habitat loss, however insignificant it was, if
prevention was not an option. He was not satisfied that no
mitigation would be provided for the temporary loss of habitat
during the construction phase. Noting that the construction
period would last for two and a half years, another Member
concurred with Dr. Ng that temporary mitigation should be
provided. Mr. Y K Chan remarked that the need to provide
further mitigation measures would depend on whether the residual
impact was significant.
27. The
Acting Chairman asked whether the mitigated wetland could
be created before construction started. In reply, Mr. McLearie
said that even if the mitigated wetland were to be created
before the construction phase, birds would not use it due
to disturbances during construction.
Hydrology
of the mitigated wetland
28. In
response to a Member's question on how the hydrology and hence
the ecological functions of the mitigated wetland would be
maintained all year-round, Mr. McLearie said that the
detailed design of the mitigated wetland would be included
in the Habitat Management Plan which would be subject to endorsement
of the authority at a later stage.
List
of species of conservation importance
29. In
response to a Member's enquiry about the duration and methodology
of the survey to identify species of conservation importance,
Dr. Mark Shea said that the survey covered both wet
and dry seasons and was done according to the specifications
set out in the Study Brief and the guidelines issued by AFCD.
Mitigation
for construction noise impact
30. Noting
that six dwellings at Tsoi Yuen Tsuen would be subject to
residual noise impact for five weeks during construction,
a Member asked about further mitigation measures to
address the noise impact. In response, Mr. Lawrence Tsui
said that apart from mitigation measures proposed in the EIA
report, the contractor would be responsible for proposing
further measures to minimize the noise level. Details of the
proposal would be submitted to the authority for approval.
Mr. McLearie pointed out that exceedances of the noise
level would only be occasional during the five weeks of piling
activities. Another Member urged the project proponent
to minimize the annoyance caused to the residents during construction
period by say providing temporary accommodation for them.
Visual
impact of noise barriers during operational stage
31. In
response to a Member's enquiry about measures apart from noise
barriers to mitigate the noise impact, Mr. Tsui explained
that in the early stages of the project, the proponent had
considered alternative alignments so as to identify one which
would impose the minimum impact to sensitive receivers. Mr.
McLearie supplemented that they had proposed the use of
special road surfacing and speed limit to reduce the noise
level.
32. In
response to a Member's enquiry about measures to mitigate
the visual impact of the 5.5 m high noise barriers, Mr.
McLearie said that there would be planting adjacent to
the barriers to soften the overall visual impact. Noting that
the planting would not be able to cover the viaduct, the
Acting Chairman suggested the project proponent to consider
means that would make the noise barriers less obtrusive.
Implications
of future development in the area
33. A
Member expressed concern over the future environmental
impacts of commercial and residential developments that might
be brought about by DBL. The Acting Chairman shared
Prof. Hedley's concern but reckoned that the matter was out
of the scope of the EIA report. Mr. Elvis Au suggested
that the concern be conveyed to the Planning Department which,
according to his understand, was carrying out some related
studies.
Planting
at Lam Tei Interchange
34. In
response to a Member's enquiry about the existing trees in
the area earmarked for the proposed Lam Tei Interchange, Mr.
Craig Doubleday clarified that there was not much greenery
in that area (Fig 10.7.27a) but planting was proposed there
after construction (Fig. 10.7.27b).
35. Noting
in Table 7.32 that "Native, ornamental and exotic pioneer
tree planting would be undertaken on verges to compensate
for losses of these habitats", a Member asked whether
the project proponent would undertake to minimize the cutting
of trees and use native species for planting as far as possible.
In response, Mr. Doubleday said that the majority of
the proposed planting was of native species. Mr. T K Lee
added that the existing Government polices supported the planting
of native species as far as possible. Another Member
urged the project proponent to transplant as far as possible
the mature trees instead of cutting them.
36. The
Acting Chairman invited the project proponent to retire
from the meeting while the Subcommittee had internal discussion.
[The proponent
left the room at this juncture.]
Internal
discussion - Submission of EIA report of related projects
37. The
Acting Chairman said that the Administration should be
reminded that EIA studies of closely related projects should
not be submitted to ACE separately. Mr. Elvis Au explained
that the EIA report did cover, in Table 7.31 of the report,
the cumulative impacts of other projects such as SWC. A
Member pointed out that the project proponent admitted
that the cumulative impact on the ecology of Ramsar site would
only be addressed in the EIA of SWC. It was then suggested
that a condition be drawn up to require the project proponent
not to commence works until the EIA of SWC was submitted to
and endorsed by ACE. Another Member considered that
each project should be considered on its own merits and should
not be assessed together with another project.
Health
impact
38. The
Acting Chairman shared Members' concern over the health
impact arising from the air pollutants caused by the DBL traffic,
but was aware that the EIA had met the AQOs and the requirements
set out in the TM. A Member suggested that the project
proponent should provide figures of the background and after-project
air pollutant concentrations to the Subcommittee for reference.
Temporary
mitigation measures
39. Two
Members reiterated that there should be mitigation measures
to compensate for the temporary loss of habitat during the
construction stage. If on-site mitigation was impossible,
the project proponent should consider off-site measures.
40. Mr.
Lay indicated that the impacts on Chinese Pond Heron and
Little Egret would be small due to two reasons, namely the
small number of nests identified in the affected area and
the high mobility of the birds. Long-term mitigation was comparatively
more important and the proposed mitigation was acceptable.
Instead of off-site temporary measure during the construction
phase, the project proponent could be asked to provide the
mitigated wetland as soon as possible.
41. Given
the strong sentiment of Members to request for temporary mitigation
during the construction phase, the Acting Chairman
proposed that off-site mitigation should be provided if on-site
mitigation was not possible. Or alternatively the works in
pond no. 24 should be scheduled to start earlier so that the
mitigated wetland could be created as early as possible.
Noise
barriers
42. As
regards the visual impact of the noise barriers, a Member
suggested and Members agreed that the project proponent should
be advised not to adopt the conspicuous colour scheme for
noise barriers on Tolo Highway.
[The project
proponent joined the meeting at this juncture.]
43. The
Acting Chairman informed the project proponent that after
deliberation among Members, the Subcommittee would recommend
the full Council to endorse the EIA report with the following
conditions:
|