Release of Environmental Impact Assessment Report for Cross Island MRT Line

13 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the impediments to releasing the Cross Island MRT Line (CIL) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Phase 1 report online; (b) what are the main environmental impact the EIA has identified about the site investigations preceding construction of the CIL through the Central Catchment Nature Reserve Area and how the Ministry intends to mitigate them; and (c) how is the "moderate" impact from the CIL (assuming successful mitigation measures) determined and what is the reasoning for why this is acceptable.

The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee) (for the Minister for National Development): Mdm Speaker, before I begin, may I have your permission to distribute handouts to Members, please?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]

Mr Desmond Lee: Thank you. Let me begin as Members await the notes that are coming around. Madam, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the two possible underground alignments of the Cross Island Line (CRL) consists of two phases.

Phase 1 of the EIA, which is where we are right now, focuses on the impact of site investigation on the two alignment options. The data and the findings from the site investigation are needed for Phase 2 of the EIA, which will provide a detailed assessment of the environmental impact of the construction and the operations of the CRL based on those two possible alignments.

When LTA first announced the possible alignment of the CRL in 2013, nature groups understandably, raised concerns about the potential serious environmental impact that this may have on the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR). Because of these concerns, LTA formed a working group to define the scope of the EIA study of the CRL. This working group included representatives of nature groups. NParks also participated in the working group to provide views, inputs and the expertise. Separately, a group made up of residents staying around the CCNR expressed concern about how the possible alignments may affect their homes and LTA has been engaging them as well.

Over the course of more than two years, LTA consulted the nature groups extensively in preparing for Phase 1 of the EIA. For example, in studying the impact of the proposed site investigation works on the water quality, ecology and biodiversity within the Nature Reserve, LTA's EIA consultant took into consideration a very useful baseline study on various aspects of the CCNR which was put together by our nature groups.

As indicated in the Phase 1 EIA report, the impact assessment framework adopted by LTA's EIA consultant has two criteria. One, the sensitivity of the receptor, which is the CCNR in this case, and two, the magnitude of the environmental impact on the ground. So, if Members look at the handout: look at the x-axis – it talks about the sensitivity of the receptor; the y-axis – refers to the magnitude of the environmental impact. It is a framework which the EIA consultant uses to band an impact.

LTA's EIA consultant has rated the sensitivity of the CCNR as "high", as it comprises primary rainforest with ecologically sensitive habitats. While this is so, the consultant has assessed the magnitude of impact due to the site investigation to be mainly "small". This is because of the adoption of stringent mitigating measures that had been proposed. These mitigation measures were arrived at in close consultation with several representatives of the nature groups and NParks. Both groups saw the report before it was published.

Let me briefly describe what the site investigation entails and what mitigation measures have been proposed.

The site investigation adopts two methods to determine the geological properties of the site. The first method is borehole drilling, by which, boreholes, about 10 centimetres in diameter, are drilled to extract vertical columns of soil and rock samples. To minimise these disturbances and damage to the forest environment, the number of boreholes to be drilled will be reduced from an earlier estimate of 72 down to 16. More importantly, these boreholes will be confined to existing trails so as not to affect any vegetation. And the drilling machine will be modified to reduce the noise level and prevent spillage of slurry and fuel.

To make up for the drastic reduction in the number of boreholes and because boreholes will be restricted only to the trails, a second method of site investigation will be carried out. This involves a non-intrusive geophysical survey. To carry this out, surveyors will venture off-trail into the forest to collect data using hand-held equipment. This will be of significantly lower impact than actual borehole drilling in the forest. So, they will manpack the equipment into the forest and they will place it on the ground to detect the signals and to determine the geology of the ground at the location.

One of the concerns is that the surveyors may inadvertently trample on plants on the forest floor as they move through dense vegetation off-trail. The geophysical survey is therefore limited to a 100-metre wide corridor and will not be carried out in sensitive locations such as streams, swamps and dense vegetation. NParks officers will supervise the surveyors full-time to ensure that they adhere to the strict rules for movements in off-trail forested areas and to reduce damage from trampling on plants and vegetation. All site investigation activities will be restricted to daylight hours, so as not to affect nocturnal animals.

These stringent measures have been incorporated into the Phase 1 EIA report, which will reduce the impact of the site investigation to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable. A great amount of effort has been put in by all parties – representatives of nature groups, NParks and LTA – to arrive at this set of mitigation measures. The on-going public consultation for the EIA report – and this report has been put online – allows the public an opportunity to provide further suggestions to LTA on what more can be done to further reduce the impact of the site investigation.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his very detailed reply. I just have two supplementary questions. The first is regarding the EIA itself. Will the Government, as a default position, be releasing future EIAs that are done in relation to other projects online, as the default stance of the Government?

The second question is in relation to the on-going studies that are going to be done over the next two years, as the Senior Minister of State mentioned. This is early days yet, but my question is: will the Government consider publishing all the information that is relevant to making this decision and evaluating the trade-offs, in a single document and releasing that document for public debate and public consultation? The information I am referring to includes all the costs, the environmental impact, the commuting time impact and so on and so forth, when the information is ready, when the Phase 2 of the EIA is done and so on and so forth.

Mr Desmond Lee: Madam, agencies will consider making these EIA reports in future projects more readily available online, especially when there is significant public interest involved, as was the case for the CRL.

As for the second question by the hon Member, we are still at Phase 1. Let us work through Phase 1, consider people's views, focus on what needs to be done for the soil investigation and, in tandem with the Ministry of Transport and LTA, let us consider the Member's suggestions as to what level of information would be useful for members of the public and interested persons to consider.