Dr. CHUI Ho Kwong, Samuel, JP
Director of Environmental Protection
EIA Ordinance Register Office
Environmental Protection Department
(E-mail: eiaocomment@epd.gov.hk)
Green Power, as a local charitable environmental group, would like to draw your kind attention to our profound comments and grave concerns about the EIA report of the above-captioned project (hereafter “the Project”).
1. Green Power opine the following principles should be upheld for the Project, in view of its scale and ecological sensitivity
(a) Conservation actions implemented first in prior to commencement of development works to avoid conservation being compromised and hijacked by development irreversibly,
(b) Comprehensive conservation plans and strategy in place with financial, administrative and technical support available that are executed in prior to commencement of development works,
(c) Avoidance of any direct, indirect and residual environmental, ecological and drainage impacts to the planned Wetland Conservation Parks (WCPs) and their study areas which are aimed to “proactive conservation”,
(d) Transparency and openness of the conservation measures and performance should be monitored by a working group(s) with membership comprising concerned environmental groups.
2. Regrettably, these important principles have been neither fully addressed nor clearly affirmed in the EIA report.
3. As a legal-bindling document that should be complied with accurate data and scientific analyses for public’s inspection, the parts of EIA report of the Project concerning upgrading the ecological functions and capacity, or “functional values”, in Sec. 10.11.3.15 to 10.11.3.31 in the EIA Report contain unproven and disinformed methodology and calculation for compensation of loss of globally important habitats to the Project. We <u>object to include the content of Section 10.11.3.15 to 10.11.3.31</u> and associated contents in Tables. Figures, Appendices, EM&A in the above-captioned EIA report.
4. In Table 10.42, the exact quantity(ies) of the <u>“functional value”</u> refer(s) to <u>have not been defined</u>. Also, the quantitative meaning of “abundance” is not clear. Is it equivalent to number of bird individuals or number of bird individuals per unit area (i.e. no. of birds/m2)? And what was/were the time span for the quantity “abundance”, i.e. per year or per month?
5. The methodology to obtain the quantitative value of “functional value” and the unit of measurement of “functional value” for the figures in Table 10.42 has not been provided. Is it unitless or no. of birds/m2?
6. It should be clearly stated that whether the figures in Table 10.42 are the <u>average, weighted or minimum/maximum values</u> of the data sets used for EIA study. Do(es) this/these data set(s) cover the whole year or certain seasons or months? If the data set(s) cover(s) a whole year, how the data can adequately be used for migratory birds should be well explained such as Black-faced Spoonbill, Grey Heron and Great Cormorant which are absent from the local wetlands from most of the time in a year. Also, part of the Great Egret population is migratory as well.
7. More importantly, such data set(s) cannot be found in the EIA report.
8. In Table 10.42, evidences are not provided to support the assumption “Functional value in RDZ will decrease to 50% of its original functional value before Project”. Under the precautionary principle, assumption of loss of functional value greater than 50% is logical and responsible.
9. In Sec 10.11.3.20, <u>baseline densities and abundance figures for the indicator species are not presented</u> which is the basis for calculation of “Increase in functional value” in Table 10.43. These numerical figures must be provided for public’s inspection.
10. While 45% increase in “functional value” has been adopted from Fung Lok Wai EIA Study (Sec. 10.11.3.21) under proposed four measures (bunds reprofiling, emergent vegetation growing, providing shallow water areas and islands in ponds, and modified pond drain-down), <u>no quantitative explanation, calculation or elaboration is provided</u> for substantial increase in “functional values” (Table 10.43) with additional measures proposed (Sec. 10.11.3.4 to 10.11.3.7) in this EIA report (244%, 229%, 173% and 232% for Black-faced Spoonbill, Grey Heron, Great Egret and Great Cormorant respectively in contrary to 45% quoted from Fung Lok Wai EIA report). Relevant calculation must be displayed for public inspection.
11. Regarding note (2) for the 3rd column in Table 10.43 (Sec. 10.11.3.25), the meaning of “peak dry-season survey data” is unclear? Does it mean the survey conducted in certain seasons/months? Or only peak values of data sets are used for assessment?
12. Also, in sixth column (i.e. overall change in functional value) in Table 10.43, the “overall change in functional value” is very marginal for Grey Heron and Great Egret, i.e. +2.0 from -146.0 and +0.9 from -44.0 respectively in terms of “functional value”. If the assumption in increase in “functional value” mentioned in paragraph 10 is lower than 45%, these two mitigation indicator species will fail to be compensated, and so do other less sensitive wildlife species mentioned in Sec. 10.11.3.17.
13. Owing to the lack of data (those based on which “functional values” are calculated), deficiency in displaying the methodologies, analyses and verification of the validity of “functional values” provided in the EIA report, no scientific evidence is provided to support “the enhancement should achieve a level that is adequate to support the existing ecological resources in the enhanced area, and on top of that, additional capacity to accommodate the ecological resources that are affected by the Project” (Sec.10.11.3.15). We urge that
(a) How the figures of functional values in Table 10.42 and 10.43 are generated from survey data must be presented for public’s inspection,
(b) The explicit methodology and calculation for increase in functional values, i.e. “Post-Project functional value” in 5th column in Table 10.43 must be presented for public’s inspection.
(c) Satisfactory response from Project proponent should be sought regarding the comments and questions listed in paragraph 4 to 12 and a comprehensive document to present calculation and analyses of “functional values” enhanced by proposed ecological measures to meet the claim in Sec. 10.11.3.25, i.e. “the enhancement should achieve a level that is adequate to support the existing ecological resources in the enhanced area, and on top of that, additional capacity to accommodate the ecological resources that are affected by the Project”, must be provided before issue of Environmental Permit.
14. This Project is the first case under EIAO that loss of <u>massive</u> internationally well-recognised important wetlands is proposed to be compensated mostly by enhancement measurement in <u>functional</u> sense. Unfortunately, the relevant data and information are lacking. Analyses and interpretation are deficient and ambiguous. Methodology is not displayed clearly. This will be a <u>very bad precedent</u> that the future Designated Projects can follow such malpractice to destroy large area of important natural asset without a scientific, logical, transparent explanation to the public under the legal procedures of EIAO.
Misuse and abuse of procedures under EIAO
15. The Project area has undergone substantial expansion beyond its initial plan (from 340ha to 610ha), notably intruding into the Wetland Conservation Area (WCA) designated for the globally important Inner Deep Bay Ramsar system in which prominent amplification of environmental impacts (especially ecological impacts) is anticipated. Legality and validity of the Study Brief (No. ESB-340/2021) that was issued before such significant proposed changes are highly disputable. We opine that the <u>Study Brief is not applicable to the latest Project proposal</u> because the required studies are insufficient to fully assess the environmental impacts of the up-scaled development.
16. Since the WCA was not included in the original Project Profile for the first public inspection of the EIA process, the public’s right to comment on the permanent massive loss of the ecologically sensitive wetlands in WCA is deprived of. In this regard, it creates a bad perception that the Project proponent has intentionally circumvented public opinions upon the controversial part (i.e. the expansion) of the latest boundary of the Project.
17. This case may also be a very bad precedent for future Designated Projects to <u>evade the EIAO procedures</u> and the public inspection by obtaining a less demanding Study Brief with a less controversial Project Profile involving <u>substantially</u> smaller project area and/or fewer impacts than those proposed in EIA report.
Unjustified sacrifice wetlands of high ecological value
18. A largely contiguous area of wetland habitats in the northern portion of the Project will be subject to permanent irreversible loss. The ecological impact assessment (Section 10) has explicitly stated that these wetlands have high fauna diversity with large number of species of conservation importance recorded. The ecological values of such habitats are outstanding, well recognized and undeniable. The Project proponent has not demonstrated why <u>avoidance and minimisation</u> cannot be achieved but decided to sacrifice the wetlands. This violates EIA’s basic principle of avoidance, then minimisation, and finally compensation when it is unavoidable.
19. Besides, the reasons of choosing a development land expansion towards WCA (Section 2.3.2.12i) are not convincing. Alternative development options should be provided and fully assessed in the EIA in a scientific manner. We acknowledge the technical constrains and higher cost of developing the southeastern part of the Loop whereas the spirit of EIA is to identify the development plan with less environmental impacts but not simply the “easier and cheaper” option.
Underestimation of environmental impacts
20. The ecological values of the contiguous pond habitat, as well as the direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the permanent loss of these wetlands are underestimated in the EIA because of the following reasons:
21. Ponds serve as the water storage tanks to mitigate the flooding risk of the adjacent areas during the wet season in the Northwest New Territories floodplain. The direct loss of such function to the Project Site and habitats is not mentioned and evaluated in the EIA report.
22. <u>Eurasian Otter (Lutra lutra)</u> is a rare species of conservation importance <u>still inhabiting currently within the Project assessment area</u> according to recent investigation but its population is not properly investigated in the EIA. An updated comprehensive study and mitigation plan for the otters should be provided.
23. Some avifauna species, such as raptors, need a large space for territory. These species are highly affected by direct loss of large area of wetland habitats. However, no specific impact assessments and mitigations for these species are proposed in the EIA.
24. It is discovered that some avifauna species in the ecological assessment are misidentified. We opine this issue severely undermines the <u>credibility of the EIA report</u> and potentially leads to underestimation of ecological impacts. Regardless of the causes for these errors, the Project proponent should <u>revise the EIA report</u> for further consideration otherwise mislead and deception to EPD and the public might be constituted with legal consequence.
Unsatisfied mitigations to wetland loss
25. According to Planning Department’s Town Planning Board Guidelines No. 12C, the designation of WCA is for all existing continuous and adjoining active/abandoned fish ponds and the designation of Wetland Buffer Area (WBA) to protect the ecological integrity of the WCA. The buffer generally comprises the strip of land of about 500m wide along the landward side of the WCA. Unfortunately, the Project proposes to develop large area of WCA and WBA without proper compensation. Without a large pond area and buffer zone, the development will threaten the Ramsar wetland system. It is recommended to provide about 500m buffer within the project site at the edge connected to WCA and no high-density development should be allowed in the buffer.
26. Only several small-scale enhancement measures such as the establishment of “ecologically enhanced fishponds” (Section 10.11.3.4) are proposed to compensate the permanent loss of such a largely contiguous wetland habitats. We opine that the proposed compensations are insufficient and not scientifically sounded (refer to para. 3 to 12).
27. In Section 10.11.3.17, only four larger wetland avifauna species (Black-faced Spoonbill, Grey Heron, Great Egret, Great Cormorant) have been seleced as indicators to estimate the compensation requirement for pond habitats. These are just limited to fish-eating and migratory avifauna species which cannot comprehensively represent the wetland avifauna species affected. Additional indicator species should be included, such as invertebrate-eating waders (e.g., Red-necked Stint (NT) and Little Ringed Plover), ducks (e.g., Northern Shoveler and Eurasian Teal) and insect-eating swallows (e.g., Red-rumped Swallow). Although it is mentioned in Section 10.11.3.27 that benefit of some of the above species may be gained by the compensation scheme, no scientific evaluation, both qualitative and quantitative, of the functional value change of these species (non-target species) has been conducted.
28. Regarding the proposed wetland compensations (Section 10.11.3.5 to 10.11.3.13), no concrete plan or quantitative targets have been set so that the outcomes of the measures are hard to be effectively evaluated. Besides, it is insufficient to monitor only four target waterbird species in auditing the wetland enhancement measures (EM&A Section 9.3.2.5). We urge to set specific population targets for additional different types of wetland species in the EIA and EM&A.
29. In Section 10.11.3.21, the assumption about “the functional value … can be increased by up to 45% upon the implementation of ecological enhancement measures” has not been empirically proved. It is <u>unconvincing to apply this purely hypothesized number extracted from other EIA reports</u> to estimate the compensation requirement for pond habitats in Section 10.11.3.25. Also, the estimation includes only four wetland avifauna species but neglects other living organisms, such as amphibians, reptiles, mammals and insects that are also benefited by the ponds and take integral parts of wetland food webs and ecosystem. We opine that such calculations, analyses and interpretation, which ecological compensation of lost wetlands is based on, has not presented in the EIA report. <u>No scientific evidence is provided in the EIA report to support the “no-net-loss” of habitats</u> to be achieved by the proposed ecological enhancement measures.
Ecological mitigations
30. Although the Mai Po Lung Village Egretry will be preserved (Sec. 10.11.2.2), it will be surrounded by intensive developments and a large area of the original feeding pond to the north of the egretry will be lost. The egrets and herons will need to fly further north beyond the developed areas from their nests to reach the feeding grounds. Hence, sufficient open areas should be carefully retained and designed to keep the flight corridor from egretries to the new feeding grounds.
31. The flight corridors mentioned in Section 10.11.6 are provided for waterbirds. Besides no buildings are allowed, open-water habitats should be maintained as far as possible. Compensatory tree planting should be avoided from the flight corridors (refer to para. 35).
32. The primary aim of the proposed Sam Po Shue (SPS) Wetland Conservation Park (WCP) is for ecological conservation. Therefore, we expect to have restricted conservation areas and visitor control measures to minimize human disturbances that should not be jeopardized by the Project.
33. The designs of building and noise barriers/canopies should be ecologically-friendly so that bird collision incidents can be avoided.
34. Animal passage across the roads must be properly designed to address the habitat fragmentation impacts on terrestrial, amphibious and aquatic fauna. The animal passage should avoid human disturbance, properly concealed and well connected to existing, known and potential habitats of target species. Target species served by the animal passage should include Eurasian Otter (Lutra lutra) for connection between Ecological Area/watercourse of Lok Ma Chau Loop and wetlands in San Po Shue. Such animal passage should include terrestrial path and waterway.
Precautions for woodland compensation
35. For the woodland compensation (Section 10.11.8) or any other tree compensation, compensated trees should not be planted in open-wetland areas such as pond bunds. The reason is that tree will attract perching of raptors, thus not favourable for small waterbirds using the ponds. This will change the natural habitat regarding bird usage.
36. The tree compensations should be kept within Project area as far as possible. The ecological functions of the landscape can be enhanced by planting native and wildlife-usable species, meanwhile exotic plant species should be avoided for the compensatory planting.
Prevention of brownfields proliferation
37. Brownfield operations currently scattered in the Project area will be incrementally relocated to multi-storey buildings or other NDAs (Section 2.3.2.14). However, it is unclear whether the new facilitates can satisfy the relocation demand of all the existing brownfield operators. We concern about any expansion of brownfields outside the Project site due to unfavorable reallocation arrangements.
38. Hence, we urge the Project proponent to formulate concrete and effective brownfield relocation plan and grant consensus with the operators at the early stage of the development.
Watercourses modification and revitalization
39. The baseline water quality data were not provided for the watercourses in the assessement area although they are identified as water sensitive receivers (Table 5.12). The EPD’s monitoring data for Kam Tin River (Section 5.3.3.1) and DSD’s data for Ngau Tam Mei Channel (Sec 5.3.3.2) cannot be taken as baseline date for water quality in the assessment area because they do flow through the Project Site and wetlands impacted by the Project. As the water source for the fishponds depends on direct rainfall and drainage channels (Section 10.11.3.8), the water quality of the watercourses in the assessment area, especially downstream of the Project Site, is of ultimate importance to support the flora and fauna, habitat quality and healthiness, operation of fishery industry in future WCP.
40. <u>Omission of baseline watercourse water quality data, inaction to assess and monitor the water quality impacts</u> by the Project are unacceptable incompetent EIA practice that irresponsibly poses unnecessary burden to conservation works of the Project and planned SPS WCP.
41. The watercourses flowing through the pond areas are part of the integrated pond system whereas quite a number of these watercourses in the Project area will be removed or modified, diverted or realigned under the Project (Section 5.4.1.16). However, the new alignments of watercourse and drainage network were not proposed to maintain the hydrological and hydraulic characteristics of wetlands downstream of the Project Site. These hydrological and hydraulic regimes should not compromise the water provision and drainage functions of the wetland system such that the operation of the remaining ponds (including the future SPS WCP will not be adversely affected. In particular, the connectivity of watercourses from the upper hill slope to the estuary should be maintained.
42. Since excavation works will be undertaken in the watercourses (Section 5.6.1.12), the construction materials, waste water, and sediment should be properly treated to prevent any polluted run-offs from discharging to the downstream and Deep Bay. In any occasion, zero-discharge policy in Deep Bay Area should be strictly observed for the Project.
43. Dykes or earth bunds at works site boundaries should be installed to intercept storm run-off from washing down to neighbouring fishponds, watercourses and wetlands.
44. Drainage channel bank revitalization and greening is proposed in the Project (Section 5.6.1.10), though the design of the “grasscrete” is not explained in the EIA report. We recommend to adopt conservation-based design to enhance the ecological values of the target channels.
45. The Project should not increase the flood loading downstream, nor induce river training works in wetlands, especially SPS WCP, owing to incapability of the Project to deal with the surface runoff. Although “flood retention lakes” and “underground storage tanks” are proposed to relieve flood risk, their location and capacity are not provided. Therefore, a comprehensive drainage plan should be in place and relevant stakeholders, including green groups, should be consulted and approved by related department before development works commenced.
46. Impacts of heat pollution generated by district cooling system (Sec. 5.6.2.57) on the wetland ecology is not assessed.
47. Therefore, in view of incomplete monitoring data, neglected assessment for watercourses in assessment area, we do not agree that “no significant change on the flow regime and hydrology within the assessment area is expected” (Sec. 5.6.2.51)
48. As toxic, ecologically harmful or hazardous/dangerous chemicals (i.e. Dangerous goods under Cap. 295) will be used, stored and discarded in the Project area (I&T zone) during construction and operation phase, Emergency Action Plan for chemical spillage in both construction and operation phase should be devised for approval of EIA report. Relevant facilities, equipment and personnel should be available before such chemicals are imported to the Project area.
Control of illegal dumping
49. The pond areas are usually the hotspots for illegal dumping. Filling of ponds are hardly be reinstated. To further safeguard the large area of remaining ponds surrounding the Project areas especially in WCA, “no-go” areas should be considered especially the restriction of dump trucks to prevent illegal and environmentally vandalistic dumping.
50. Despite the real time tracking and monitoring system equipped on Project’s dump trucks (Section 7.6.2.4), frequent checking of route data should be taken place to timely identify any suspected case of illegal dumping. Deterrent clauses should be incorporated in the work contracts to penalize any fly-tipping activities.
Reuse of resources
51. The reuse of treated sewage effluent (TSE) for non-potable uses within the Project (Sec. 6.4.1) to conserve freshwater resource is appreciated. It is worth exploring opportunities to expand the usage of TSE besides flushing and irrigation purposes.
52. Apart from the proposed food waste pre-treatment facilities (Sec. 6.9.1), it is also recommended to provide sufficient waste recycling facilities in the Project area.
53. Top soil should be reused for greening, tree planting and landscaping. However, storage of any reusable materials should not take place in existing habitats, especially fishponds, wetlands and farmlands outside the Project Site.
Transportation
54. To promote the use of public transportation networks and reduce the number of private cars, it is important to control the provision of private car facilities (such as parking spaces) within the Project area. The Project proponent should further explain how the proposed “smart and green mobility system” (Sec. 2.3.2.5) can effectively reduce private vehicle trips.
55. The proposed pedestrian walkway and cycle track network (Sec. 2.4.4.18) should not encourage the access to any ecologically-sensitive areas in the Project area.
56. The Project proponent should also address the potential roadkill problem by incorporating measures in road design to limit vehicle speed and to provide special crossings for wildlife wherever possible.
Thank you very much for your kind attention. For any inquiries, please contact the undersigned at Green Power (T: 3961 0200, F: 2314 2661, Email: info@greenpower.org.hk).
Green Power, as a local charitable environmental group, would like to draw your kind attention to our profound comments and grave concerns about the EIA report of the above-captioned project (hereafter “the Project”).
1. Green Power opine the following principles should be upheld for the Project, in view of its scale and ecological sensitivity
(a) Conservation actions implemented first in prior to commencement of development works to avoid conservation being compromised and hijacked by development irreversibly,
(b) Comprehensive conservation plans and strategy in place with financial, administrative and technical support available that are executed in prior to commencement of development works,
(c) Avoidance of any direct, indirect and residual environmental, ecological and drainage impacts to the planned Wetland Conservation Parks (WCPs) and their study areas which are aimed to “proactive conservation”,
(d) Transparency and openness of the conservation measures and performance should be monitored by a working group(s) with membership comprising concerned environmental groups.
2. Regrettably, these important principles have been neither fully addressed nor clearly affirmed in the EIA report.
3. As a legal-bindling document that should be complied with accurate data and scientific analyses for public’s inspection, the parts of EIA report of the Project concerning upgrading the ecological functions and capacity, or “functional values”, in Sec. 10.11.3.15 to 10.11.3.31 in the EIA Report contain unproven and disinformed methodology and calculation for compensation of loss of globally important habitats to the Project. We <u>object to include the content of Section 10.11.3.15 to 10.11.3.31</u> and associated contents in Tables. Figures, Appendices, EM&A in the above-captioned EIA report.
4. In Table 10.42, the exact quantity(ies) of the <u>“functional value”</u> refer(s) to <u>have not been defined</u>. Also, the quantitative meaning of “abundance” is not clear. Is it equivalent to number of bird individuals or number of bird individuals per unit area (i.e. no. of birds/m2)? And what was/were the time span for the quantity “abundance”, i.e. per year or per month?
5. The methodology to obtain the quantitative value of “functional value” and the unit of measurement of “functional value” for the figures in Table 10.42 has not been provided. Is it unitless or no. of birds/m2?
6. It should be clearly stated that whether the figures in Table 10.42 are the <u>average, weighted or minimum/maximum values</u> of the data sets used for EIA study. Do(es) this/these data set(s) cover the whole year or certain seasons or months? If the data set(s) cover(s) a whole year, how the data can adequately be used for migratory birds should be well explained such as Black-faced Spoonbill, Grey Heron and Great Cormorant which are absent from the local wetlands from most of the time in a year. Also, part of the Great Egret population is migratory as well.
7. More importantly, such data set(s) cannot be found in the EIA report.
8. In Table 10.42, evidences are not provided to support the assumption “Functional value in RDZ will decrease to 50% of its original functional value before Project”. Under the precautionary principle, assumption of loss of functional value greater than 50% is logical and responsible.
9. In Sec 10.11.3.20, <u>baseline densities and abundance figures for the indicator species are not presented</u> which is the basis for calculation of “Increase in functional value” in Table 10.43. These numerical figures must be provided for public’s inspection.
10. While 45% increase in “functional value” has been adopted from Fung Lok Wai EIA Study (Sec. 10.11.3.21) under proposed four measures (bunds reprofiling, emergent vegetation growing, providing shallow water areas and islands in ponds, and modified pond drain-down), <u>no quantitative explanation, calculation or elaboration is provided</u> for substantial increase in “functional values” (Table 10.43) with additional measures proposed (Sec. 10.11.3.4 to 10.11.3.7) in this EIA report (244%, 229%, 173% and 232% for Black-faced Spoonbill, Grey Heron, Great Egret and Great Cormorant respectively in contrary to 45% quoted from Fung Lok Wai EIA report). Relevant calculation must be displayed for public inspection.
11. Regarding note (2) for the 3rd column in Table 10.43 (Sec. 10.11.3.25), the meaning of “peak dry-season survey data” is unclear? Does it mean the survey conducted in certain seasons/months? Or only peak values of data sets are used for assessment?
12. Also, in sixth column (i.e. overall change in functional value) in Table 10.43, the “overall change in functional value” is very marginal for Grey Heron and Great Egret, i.e. +2.0 from -146.0 and +0.9 from -44.0 respectively in terms of “functional value”. If the assumption in increase in “functional value” mentioned in paragraph 10 is lower than 45%, these two mitigation indicator species will fail to be compensated, and so do other less sensitive wildlife species mentioned in Sec. 10.11.3.17.
13. Owing to the lack of data (those based on which “functional values” are calculated), deficiency in displaying the methodologies, analyses and verification of the validity of “functional values” provided in the EIA report, no scientific evidence is provided to support “the enhancement should achieve a level that is adequate to support the existing ecological resources in the enhanced area, and on top of that, additional capacity to accommodate the ecological resources that are affected by the Project” (Sec.10.11.3.15). We urge that
(a) How the figures of functional values in Table 10.42 and 10.43 are generated from survey data must be presented for public’s inspection,
(b) The explicit methodology and calculation for increase in functional values, i.e. “Post-Project functional value” in 5th column in Table 10.43 must be presented for public’s inspection.
(c) Satisfactory response from Project proponent should be sought regarding the comments and questions listed in paragraph 4 to 12 and a comprehensive document to present calculation and analyses of “functional values” enhanced by proposed ecological measures to meet the claim in Sec. 10.11.3.25, i.e. “the enhancement should achieve a level that is adequate to support the existing ecological resources in the enhanced area, and on top of that, additional capacity to accommodate the ecological resources that are affected by the Project”, must be provided before issue of Environmental Permit.
14. This Project is the first case under EIAO that loss of <u>massive</u> internationally well-recognised important wetlands is proposed to be compensated mostly by enhancement measurement in <u>functional</u> sense. Unfortunately, the relevant data and information are lacking. Analyses and interpretation are deficient and ambiguous. Methodology is not displayed clearly. This will be a <u>very bad precedent</u> that the future Designated Projects can follow such malpractice to destroy large area of important natural asset without a scientific, logical, transparent explanation to the public under the legal procedures of EIAO.
Misuse and abuse of procedures under EIAO
15. The Project area has undergone substantial expansion beyond its initial plan (from 340ha to 610ha), notably intruding into the Wetland Conservation Area (WCA) designated for the globally important Inner Deep Bay Ramsar system in which prominent amplification of environmental impacts (especially ecological impacts) is anticipated. Legality and validity of the Study Brief (No. ESB-340/2021) that was issued before such significant proposed changes are highly disputable. We opine that the <u>Study Brief is not applicable to the latest Project proposal</u> because the required studies are insufficient to fully assess the environmental impacts of the up-scaled development.
16. Since the WCA was not included in the original Project Profile for the first public inspection of the EIA process, the public’s right to comment on the permanent massive loss of the ecologically sensitive wetlands in WCA is deprived of. In this regard, it creates a bad perception that the Project proponent has intentionally circumvented public opinions upon the controversial part (i.e. the expansion) of the latest boundary of the Project.
17. This case may also be a very bad precedent for future Designated Projects to <u>evade the EIAO procedures</u> and the public inspection by obtaining a less demanding Study Brief with a less controversial Project Profile involving <u>substantially</u> smaller project area and/or fewer impacts than those proposed in EIA report.
Unjustified sacrifice wetlands of high ecological value
18. A largely contiguous area of wetland habitats in the northern portion of the Project will be subject to permanent irreversible loss. The ecological impact assessment (Section 10) has explicitly stated that these wetlands have high fauna diversity with large number of species of conservation importance recorded. The ecological values of such habitats are outstanding, well recognized and undeniable. The Project proponent has not demonstrated why <u>avoidance and minimisation</u> cannot be achieved but decided to sacrifice the wetlands. This violates EIA’s basic principle of avoidance, then minimisation, and finally compensation when it is unavoidable.
19. Besides, the reasons of choosing a development land expansion towards WCA (Section 2.3.2.12i) are not convincing. Alternative development options should be provided and fully assessed in the EIA in a scientific manner. We acknowledge the technical constrains and higher cost of developing the southeastern part of the Loop whereas the spirit of EIA is to identify the development plan with less environmental impacts but not simply the “easier and cheaper” option.
Underestimation of environmental impacts
20. The ecological values of the contiguous pond habitat, as well as the direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the permanent loss of these wetlands are underestimated in the EIA because of the following reasons:
21. Ponds serve as the water storage tanks to mitigate the flooding risk of the adjacent areas during the wet season in the Northwest New Territories floodplain. The direct loss of such function to the Project Site and habitats is not mentioned and evaluated in the EIA report.
22. <u>Eurasian Otter (Lutra lutra)</u> is a rare species of conservation importance <u>still inhabiting currently within the Project assessment area</u> according to recent investigation but its population is not properly investigated in the EIA. An updated comprehensive study and mitigation plan for the otters should be provided.
23. Some avifauna species, such as raptors, need a large space for territory. These species are highly affected by direct loss of large area of wetland habitats. However, no specific impact assessments and mitigations for these species are proposed in the EIA.
24. It is discovered that some avifauna species in the ecological assessment are misidentified. We opine this issue severely undermines the <u>credibility of the EIA report</u> and potentially leads to underestimation of ecological impacts. Regardless of the causes for these errors, the Project proponent should <u>revise the EIA report</u> for further consideration otherwise mislead and deception to EPD and the public might be constituted with legal consequence.
Unsatisfied mitigations to wetland loss
25. According to Planning Department’s Town Planning Board Guidelines No. 12C, the designation of WCA is for all existing continuous and adjoining active/abandoned fish ponds and the designation of Wetland Buffer Area (WBA) to protect the ecological integrity of the WCA. The buffer generally comprises the strip of land of about 500m wide along the landward side of the WCA. Unfortunately, the Project proposes to develop large area of WCA and WBA without proper compensation. Without a large pond area and buffer zone, the development will threaten the Ramsar wetland system. It is recommended to provide about 500m buffer within the project site at the edge connected to WCA and no high-density development should be allowed in the buffer.
26. Only several small-scale enhancement measures such as the establishment of “ecologically enhanced fishponds” (Section 10.11.3.4) are proposed to compensate the permanent loss of such a largely contiguous wetland habitats. We opine that the proposed compensations are insufficient and not scientifically sounded (refer to para. 3 to 12).
27. In Section 10.11.3.17, only four larger wetland avifauna species (Black-faced Spoonbill, Grey Heron, Great Egret, Great Cormorant) have been seleced as indicators to estimate the compensation requirement for pond habitats. These are just limited to fish-eating and migratory avifauna species which cannot comprehensively represent the wetland avifauna species affected. Additional indicator species should be included, such as invertebrate-eating waders (e.g., Red-necked Stint (NT) and Little Ringed Plover), ducks (e.g., Northern Shoveler and Eurasian Teal) and insect-eating swallows (e.g., Red-rumped Swallow). Although it is mentioned in Section 10.11.3.27 that benefit of some of the above species may be gained by the compensation scheme, no scientific evaluation, both qualitative and quantitative, of the functional value change of these species (non-target species) has been conducted.
28. Regarding the proposed wetland compensations (Section 10.11.3.5 to 10.11.3.13), no concrete plan or quantitative targets have been set so that the outcomes of the measures are hard to be effectively evaluated. Besides, it is insufficient to monitor only four target waterbird species in auditing the wetland enhancement measures (EM&A Section 9.3.2.5). We urge to set specific population targets for additional different types of wetland species in the EIA and EM&A.
29. In Section 10.11.3.21, the assumption about “the functional value … can be increased by up to 45% upon the implementation of ecological enhancement measures” has not been empirically proved. It is <u>unconvincing to apply this purely hypothesized number extracted from other EIA reports</u> to estimate the compensation requirement for pond habitats in Section 10.11.3.25. Also, the estimation includes only four wetland avifauna species but neglects other living organisms, such as amphibians, reptiles, mammals and insects that are also benefited by the ponds and take integral parts of wetland food webs and ecosystem. We opine that such calculations, analyses and interpretation, which ecological compensation of lost wetlands is based on, has not presented in the EIA report. <u>No scientific evidence is provided in the EIA report to support the “no-net-loss” of habitats</u> to be achieved by the proposed ecological enhancement measures.
Ecological mitigations
30. Although the Mai Po Lung Village Egretry will be preserved (Sec. 10.11.2.2), it will be surrounded by intensive developments and a large area of the original feeding pond to the north of the egretry will be lost. The egrets and herons will need to fly further north beyond the developed areas from their nests to reach the feeding grounds. Hence, sufficient open areas should be carefully retained and designed to keep the flight corridor from egretries to the new feeding grounds.
31. The flight corridors mentioned in Section 10.11.6 are provided for waterbirds. Besides no buildings are allowed, open-water habitats should be maintained as far as possible. Compensatory tree planting should be avoided from the flight corridors (refer to para. 35).
32. The primary aim of the proposed Sam Po Shue (SPS) Wetland Conservation Park (WCP) is for ecological conservation. Therefore, we expect to have restricted conservation areas and visitor control measures to minimize human disturbances that should not be jeopardized by the Project.
33. The designs of building and noise barriers/canopies should be ecologically-friendly so that bird collision incidents can be avoided.
34. Animal passage across the roads must be properly designed to address the habitat fragmentation impacts on terrestrial, amphibious and aquatic fauna. The animal passage should avoid human disturbance, properly concealed and well connected to existing, known and potential habitats of target species. Target species served by the animal passage should include Eurasian Otter (Lutra lutra) for connection between Ecological Area/watercourse of Lok Ma Chau Loop and wetlands in San Po Shue. Such animal passage should include terrestrial path and waterway.
Precautions for woodland compensation
35. For the woodland compensation (Section 10.11.8) or any other tree compensation, compensated trees should not be planted in open-wetland areas such as pond bunds. The reason is that tree will attract perching of raptors, thus not favourable for small waterbirds using the ponds. This will change the natural habitat regarding bird usage.
36. The tree compensations should be kept within Project area as far as possible. The ecological functions of the landscape can be enhanced by planting native and wildlife-usable species, meanwhile exotic plant species should be avoided for the compensatory planting.
Prevention of brownfields proliferation
37. Brownfield operations currently scattered in the Project area will be incrementally relocated to multi-storey buildings or other NDAs (Section 2.3.2.14). However, it is unclear whether the new facilitates can satisfy the relocation demand of all the existing brownfield operators. We concern about any expansion of brownfields outside the Project site due to unfavorable reallocation arrangements.
38. Hence, we urge the Project proponent to formulate concrete and effective brownfield relocation plan and grant consensus with the operators at the early stage of the development.
Watercourses modification and revitalization
39. The baseline water quality data were not provided for the watercourses in the assessement area although they are identified as water sensitive receivers (Table 5.12). The EPD’s monitoring data for Kam Tin River (Section 5.3.3.1) and DSD’s data for Ngau Tam Mei Channel (Sec 5.3.3.2) cannot be taken as baseline date for water quality in the assessment area because they do flow through the Project Site and wetlands impacted by the Project. As the water source for the fishponds depends on direct rainfall and drainage channels (Section 10.11.3.8), the water quality of the watercourses in the assessment area, especially downstream of the Project Site, is of ultimate importance to support the flora and fauna, habitat quality and healthiness, operation of fishery industry in future WCP.
40. <u>Omission of baseline watercourse water quality data, inaction to assess and monitor the water quality impacts</u> by the Project are unacceptable incompetent EIA practice that irresponsibly poses unnecessary burden to conservation works of the Project and planned SPS WCP.
41. The watercourses flowing through the pond areas are part of the integrated pond system whereas quite a number of these watercourses in the Project area will be removed or modified, diverted or realigned under the Project (Section 5.4.1.16). However, the new alignments of watercourse and drainage network were not proposed to maintain the hydrological and hydraulic characteristics of wetlands downstream of the Project Site. These hydrological and hydraulic regimes should not compromise the water provision and drainage functions of the wetland system such that the operation of the remaining ponds (including the future SPS WCP will not be adversely affected. In particular, the connectivity of watercourses from the upper hill slope to the estuary should be maintained.
42. Since excavation works will be undertaken in the watercourses (Section 5.6.1.12), the construction materials, waste water, and sediment should be properly treated to prevent any polluted run-offs from discharging to the downstream and Deep Bay. In any occasion, zero-discharge policy in Deep Bay Area should be strictly observed for the Project.
43. Dykes or earth bunds at works site boundaries should be installed to intercept storm run-off from washing down to neighbouring fishponds, watercourses and wetlands.
44. Drainage channel bank revitalization and greening is proposed in the Project (Section 5.6.1.10), though the design of the “grasscrete” is not explained in the EIA report. We recommend to adopt conservation-based design to enhance the ecological values of the target channels.
45. The Project should not increase the flood loading downstream, nor induce river training works in wetlands, especially SPS WCP, owing to incapability of the Project to deal with the surface runoff. Although “flood retention lakes” and “underground storage tanks” are proposed to relieve flood risk, their location and capacity are not provided. Therefore, a comprehensive drainage plan should be in place and relevant stakeholders, including green groups, should be consulted and approved by related department before development works commenced.
46. Impacts of heat pollution generated by district cooling system (Sec. 5.6.2.57) on the wetland ecology is not assessed.
47. Therefore, in view of incomplete monitoring data, neglected assessment for watercourses in assessment area, we do not agree that “no significant change on the flow regime and hydrology within the assessment area is expected” (Sec. 5.6.2.51)
48. As toxic, ecologically harmful or hazardous/dangerous chemicals (i.e. Dangerous goods under Cap. 295) will be used, stored and discarded in the Project area (I&T zone) during construction and operation phase, Emergency Action Plan for chemical spillage in both construction and operation phase should be devised for approval of EIA report. Relevant facilities, equipment and personnel should be available before such chemicals are imported to the Project area.
Control of illegal dumping
49. The pond areas are usually the hotspots for illegal dumping. Filling of ponds are hardly be reinstated. To further safeguard the large area of remaining ponds surrounding the Project areas especially in WCA, “no-go” areas should be considered especially the restriction of dump trucks to prevent illegal and environmentally vandalistic dumping.
50. Despite the real time tracking and monitoring system equipped on Project’s dump trucks (Section 7.6.2.4), frequent checking of route data should be taken place to timely identify any suspected case of illegal dumping. Deterrent clauses should be incorporated in the work contracts to penalize any fly-tipping activities.
Reuse of resources
51. The reuse of treated sewage effluent (TSE) for non-potable uses within the Project (Sec. 6.4.1) to conserve freshwater resource is appreciated. It is worth exploring opportunities to expand the usage of TSE besides flushing and irrigation purposes.
52. Apart from the proposed food waste pre-treatment facilities (Sec. 6.9.1), it is also recommended to provide sufficient waste recycling facilities in the Project area.
53. Top soil should be reused for greening, tree planting and landscaping. However, storage of any reusable materials should not take place in existing habitats, especially fishponds, wetlands and farmlands outside the Project Site.
Transportation
54. To promote the use of public transportation networks and reduce the number of private cars, it is important to control the provision of private car facilities (such as parking spaces) within the Project area. The Project proponent should further explain how the proposed “smart and green mobility system” (Sec. 2.3.2.5) can effectively reduce private vehicle trips.
55. The proposed pedestrian walkway and cycle track network (Sec. 2.4.4.18) should not encourage the access to any ecologically-sensitive areas in the Project area.
56. The Project proponent should also address the potential roadkill problem by incorporating measures in road design to limit vehicle speed and to provide special crossings for wildlife wherever possible.
Thank you very much for your kind attention. For any inquiries, please contact the undersigned at Green Power (T: 3961 0200, F: 2314 2661, Email: info@greenpower.org.hk).
Yours faithfully,
CHENG Luk-ki
Director, Green Power
Yours faithfully,
CHENG Luk-ki
Director, Green Power