Lantau North South Road Link between Tai Ho Wan and Mui Wo
Application for Approval of an EIA Report Submitted on 2 November 1999
(Application No. EIA - 035/1999)

Reasons for the EIA Report Submitted on 2 November 1999 Not Meeting the Requirements of the EIA Study Brief (the Study Brief) and the Technical Memorandum on EIA Process (TM)

1. The EIA report submitted on 2.11.99 indicated that the project would entail substantial habitat loss of about 15.4 ha, including 1.9 ha of marsh with high conservation value and 3.05 ha of natural woodland, and a total of 6.15 ha "temporary" loss. About 600 and 1300 metres of the proposed road alignment will encroach upon the Lantau North Country Park and its proposed extension. The alignment will also affect certain areas of ecological significance including Tai Ho Bay, which is recognized as one of the most ecologically valuable fresh water streams in Hong Kong with over 46 fish species, marshland/ mudflat/ mangrove at Tai Ho Wan and Luk Tei Tong, woodland at Lin Fa Shan and a number of streams crossed by the road alignment. The feasibility of the following proposed measures have not been adequately demonstrated:

   (a)	The EIA report has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the re-creation and enhancement of the Tai Ho East Marsh to mitigate the loss at Luk Tei Tong marsh is feasible. In addition, the management and maintenance requirements and responsibilities to ensure effective implementation were not included.
   (b)	The EIA report has not provided information on the subsequent management and maintenance responsibilities for the some 15 ha. compensatory planting, especially those plantings which are neither roadside planting nor within country park.
   (c)	There is insufficient information in the report to demonstrate that the risk to the seagrass at Tai Ho Wan and the Tai Ho Stream SSSI could be adequately protected from the project by the proposed measures. There is also insufficient justification for the assumption that Tai Ho Wan could effectively dilute and disperse the pollutants from the construction and operation stages. The report has not demonstrated the practicality of restricting the construction access to piers at east Tai Ho Wan to 5 m or less for excluding all areas of marsh, in particular where there is no provision for turning facility for construction vehicles.
   (d)	The EIA report has not demonstrated that the temporary steel bridge over Lung Mei Hang Stream will have no impact on the Hong Kong Newt, Short-legged Toad and Romer's Tree Frog present in the Stream.

   In view of the above, the overall conclusion that "the environmental impacts predicted can be reduced to acceptable levels with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures" cannot be substantiated, based on the information in the EIA report submitted on 2.11.99. The requirements under S.4, S.5, & S.6.1.5 of the Study Brief, and S.4.2, S.4.3, S.4.4.2, Annex 16 & Annex 20 of the TM have not been met.

2. Based on the information in the EIA report submitted on 2.11.99, there is insufficient information in the report to demonstrate the visual impacts are acceptable. The proposed project is located in a prominent location against a green field backdrop affecting Mui Wo and Tai Ho with planned population of about 10,000 and 82,000 respectively, and transient population including visitors using the Airport Gateway (e.g. Lantau & Airport Rail and North Lantau Highway), marine vessels and country park accounting to millions per year. The visual intrusion of the proposed project will be significant when viewed from both Tai Ho Wan and Mui Wo. With the deletion of reclamation in Tai Ho Wan and relocation of the hospital site and the service reservoir, the proposed road link will become a visually dominant man-made feature in the natural landscape setting at Tai Ho Bay as shown in Figures 9.20b and 9.21b of the EIA report. The EIA report has not adequately assessed the visual and landscape impacts and has not demonstrated that the residual visual impacts could be mitigated to an acceptable level. The responsibility, funding, implementation, management and maintenance of the proposed landscape and visual mitigation works have not be clearly defined in the report. Thus, there is insufficient information to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. This does not meet the requirements of S.4.2, S.4.3, S.4.4.2, Annexes 10, 11,18 & 20 of the TM and S.4, S.5 & S.6.2.5 of the Study Brief.

3. In the EIA report submitted on 2.11.99, there is no information on the details of the proposed works to be carried out within the slope stabilization area nor assessment of its environmental impacts and cumulative impacts with the road project. According to Appendix H of the report, the works area for the slope stabilization may extend to more than 3 times of the road works area studied in the report. The report has not demonstrated whether the potential environmental impacts of the slope stabilization works are acceptable or not. The likely combined environmental impacts arising from the road and the associated slope stabilization works might be far worse than those described in the EIA report. This fails to meet the requirements of S.1.3, S.3, S.4, S.5 & S.6 of the Study Brief and S.4.2, S.4.3, S.4.4, Annexes 11 & 20 of the TM.

4. The EIA report submitted on 2 November 1999 has not demonstrated that the adverse environmental effects are avoided to the maximum practicable extent. The report has not provided full information on the comparison of various corridors, including that of widening of Tung Chung Road, from environmental perspective, with environmental benefits and disbenefits of scenarios. The Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE) has expressed the same concern at its EIA Subcommittee meeting on 5 July 1999. The report has not provided future traffic demand figures with demand management measures to address the ACE's concern. The report has also not provided sufficient information on the consideration of the project's siting and alignment and the environmental comparisons of various alternatives or options. There is insufficient justification to demonstrate why the alignment of the road could not avoid the marine and intertidal habitats in Tai Ho Wan East by shifting the alignment to the east or by connecting the road to the Utility Reserve Road. The possible alternative to avoid direct disturbance to Tai Ho Stream has not been fully explored and considered. This does not meet the requirements of S.4 of the Study Brief and S.4.4.2 & Annex 20 of the TM.

5. The EIA report submitted on 2.11.99 has not provided sufficient information on the consideration of what environmental effects will arise as a results of "consequential" development, i.e. whether additional development, which it would be difficult to resist, will be included in the area, leading to further environmental effects. While most land along the proposed road falls outside statutory planning control applied by the Outline Zoning Plan (OZP), only Mui Wo Fringe is covered by an OZP. As stated in Section 10.3.3.4, the development opportunities and constraints brought on by the proposed road will be a major factor which would need to be further investigated. Thus, the proposed road may induce "consequential" environmental pressures in Mui Wo and South Lantau area which is planned for conservation and recreation purposes. This does not meet the requirement of Annex 20 of the TM.

6. Apart from the above, there are other omissions or deficiencies in the EIA Report submitted on 2 November 1999, as described below:

   (a)	Based on the information in the EIA report submitted on 2.11.99, not all habitats to be affected were fully described and the impact on them fully evaluated. Section 8.7.1.33 of the report mentioned that a 100m stream within the woodland at Wong Kung Tin would be lost but there is no survey on the stream and no assessment of the loss other than the concern on the loss of habitat to the Romer's Tree Frog. Section 8.7.1.8 mentioned that 3 drainage outfalls would be constructed to direct all road surface discharge into Tai Ho Wan. However, there is no survey on Tai Ho Wan and no assessment of the impact on the aquatic environment. S.4.3, S.4.4.2 & Annex 16 of the TM and S.6.1.5 of the Study Brief have not been met.
   (b)	The ecological impacts have not been adequately assessed. The significance of ecological impacts should be evaluated with well-defined criteria. However, different reasons have been put forth to arrive at a "minor" impact conclusion for important ecological resources without the support of relevant data. Particular examples are the 0.4 ha. loss of Romer's Tree Frog habitat and 1.9 ha. loss of Luk Tei Tong marsh that were rated as "moderate" solely because of their small sizes relative to similar habitats in the study area. All criteria set down in Section 4.4.3 and Annex 8 of the TM should be reviewed before arriving at a conclusion. Size is only one of the criteria to be considered. S.4.4.3 and Annex 8 & Annex 16 of the TM and S. 6.1.5 of the Study Brief have not been met.
   (c)	The water quality assessment had not evaluated the impacts from spillage due to accidents, in particular on Tai Ho Wan area. Oil interceptors are only recommended in the road section within Tai Ho catchment, but not for Mui Wo area where small freshwater streams will be affected. Lung Mei Hang Stream in Mui Wo was identified as ecologically important. The report did not demonstrate that the adverse environmental effects were avoided to the maximum practicable extent. S.4.4.2 & Annex 20 of the TM and S.6.2.3 of the Study Brief have not been met.
   (d)	There was no adequate noise assessment of the bus terminus and open car/lorry parks, which are defined as fixed noise sources in the TM. Thus, this is premature to conclude that the noise levels were negligible in S5.5.3.1 of the report. The EIA report only considered the noise barriers for direct mitigation and recommended indirect mitigation for the operation of the road link. The report has not exhausted and identified noise mitigation measures to reduce the noise levels. Specific reasons for not adopting certain direct technical remedies (e.g. noise enclosures/low noise road surfacing) in the design to reduce the traffic noise are missing. There was insufficient information to determine the effectiveness of the recommended acoustic enclosures for construction noise works. S6.1.2, S.6.2.2 of the Study Brief, Annexes 13 & 20 of the TM have not been met.
   (e)	In the EIA report submitted on 2.11.99, the cumulative landscape impact assessment is inadequate because the proposed developments at Tai Ho North have not been adequately considered. The ACE has also specifically requested the Applicant to take into account the cumulative impacts caused by this project and the proposed Tai Ho development project. There is no sufficient information in the EIA report to conclude whether the cumulative landscape impact, in particular at Tai Ho, is acceptable or not. This does not meet S.4, S5, S6.2.5 of the Study Brief and Annexes 11, 18 & 20 of the TM.
   (f)	Visual impacts of road project including the proposed noise barriers have not been adequately presented and addressed. S.6.2.5 of the Study Brief, Annexes 11 & 20 of the TM have not been met.
   (g)	It is noted that seasonal pattern/variation was only given in Section 8.4.5 in the EIA report regarding mammals. Information on seasonal pattern of other wildlife groups is missing. This does not meet S.6.1.5 of the Study Brief and S.4.4.1 of the TM.
   (h)	The report has not provided colour photos of each habitat type and important ecological features identified, e.g. intertidal habitats, fishponds, bat roosting site and plantation woodland. Annex 16 of the TM and S.6.1.5 of the Study Brief have not been met.
   (i)	Pollution contours for construction dust impact assessment have not been provided. This does not meet Annex12 of the TM.
   (j)	The assessment of the effectiveness of the environmental management system, practices and procedures has not been provided in the environmental monitoring and audit programme. This does not meet Annex 20 & Annex 21 of the TM.

END