The Secretary,
Town Planning Board, 15/F, North Point Government Offices, 333 Java Road, North Point, Hong Kong
(Email: tpbpd@pland.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 above-captioned draft plan (hereafter “the OZP”).
1. Green Power opine the following principles should be upheld for the OZP, in view of its scale and ecological sensitivity
(a) Conservation measures proposed, consulted publicly, approved and implemented first in prior to endorsement and commencement of development plans 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 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. The environmental considerations of the OZP are adopted fully from the EIA report for San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node. Regrettably, these important principles have been neither fully addressed nor clearly affirmed in this EIA report.
Underestimation of ecological impacts
3. 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:
(a) 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 planning scheme area and habitats is not mentioned and evaluated in the EIA report and not addressed in the OZP.
(b) <u>Eurasian Otter</u> (Lutra lutra) is a rare species of conservation importance <u>still inhabiting currently within the OZP</u> according to recent investigation but its population is not properly investigated in the EIA. Protection of its habitats, foraging and breeding grounds is not properly addressed in the OZP.
(c) 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.
(d) It is discovered that some avifauna species in the EIA are misidentified. We opine this issue severely undermines the <u>credibility of the EIA report</u> and potentially leads to underestimation of ecological impacts.
Unsatisfied mitigations to wetland loss
4. According to Planning Department’s Town Planning Board Guidelines No. 12C, the designation of Wetland Conservation Area (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 OZP proposes to develop large area of WCA and WBA without proven compensation measures. 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 development site at the edge connected to WCA and no high-density development should be allowed in the buffer.
5. Only several small-scale enhancement measures such as the establishment of “ecologically enhanced fishponds” are proposed to compensate the permanent loss of such a largely contiguous wetland habitat. We opine that the proposed compensations are insufficient and not scientifically sounded.
6. In the EIA Report, the assumption about “the functional value … can be increased by up to 45% upon the implementation of ecological enhancement measures” has not been empirically proven. It is unconvincing to apply this purely hypothesized number extracted from other EIA reports to estimate the compensation requirement for pond habitats in OZP. We criticized that such calculations, analyses and interpretation, which ecological compensation of lost wetlands is based on, has not presented in the EIA report. No scientific evidence is provided in the EIA report to support the “no-net-loss” of habitats to be achieved by the proposed ecological enhancement measures.
Ecological mitigations
7. Although the Mai Po Lung Village Egretry will be preserved, 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.
8. 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 I&T Park.
9. 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 SPS. Such animal passage should include terrestrial path and waterway.
Watercourses modification and revitalization
10. The baseline water quality data were not provided for the watercourses in the EIA report although they are identified as water sensitive receivers. The EPD’s monitoring data for Kam Tin River and DSD’s data for Ngau Tam Mei Channel cannot be taken as baseline date for water quality in the planning scheme area because they do flow through the impacted development sites and wetlands. As the water source for the fishponds depends on direct rainfall and drainage channels, the water quality of the watercourses in the planning scheme area, and particularly downstream of the area, is of ultimate importance to support the flora and fauna, habitat quality and healthiness, operation of fishery industry in future WCP.
11. <u>Omission of baseline watercourse water quality data, inaction to assess and monitor the water quality impacts</u> are unacceptable incompetent EIA practice that irresponsibly poses unnecessary burden to conservation works related to the OZP and planned SPS WCP.
12. The watercourses flowing through the pond areas in the planning scheme area are part of the integrated pond system whereas quite a number of these watercourses will be removed or modified, diverted or realigned under the OZP. However, the new alignments of watercourse and drainage network were not proposed to maintain the hydrological and hydraulic characteristics of wetlands downstream of the planning scheme area. 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.
13. The planning scheme area should not increase the flood loading downstream, nor induce river training works in wetlands, especially SPS WCP, owing to incapability of the EIA Report 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.
14. Impacts of heat pollution generated by district cooling system on the wetland ecology is not assessed in EIA Report and not addressed in the OZP.
Sustainability
15. While the OZP has claimed to strike a balance of development between nature conservation, we regret that the Administration still maintain confronting mentality towards development and conservation. Seldom are concerns for sustainability, even for Innovative and Technology Parks, addressed in the OZP, such as reduction of use of fossil fuels, systematic provision of district material reuse and recycling facilities, climate resilient living spaces, etc.
16. In view of incomplete monitoring data, neglected assessment for watercourses in planning scheme area, we are afraid that significant change on the flow regime and hydrology within the planning scheme area is expected.
17. We disagree that “The blue-green network also creates ecological linkages to enhance biodiversity”, especially for the area originally comprising mainly fishponds and wetlands. Continuous large area of fishponds and wetlands in Deep Bay area is proven of internationally ecological important. Blue-green network mentioned in the consultation materials is mainly to improve the urban living environment.
18. In this case, biodiversity in both qualitative, i.e. loss of internationally important wetlands, and quantitative sense, i.e. area of such wetlands reclaimed, is definitely lost rather than enhanced by blue-green network.
19. Scientifically, wetlands are well known for their carbon sequestration function. In this OZP, large area of fishponds will be reclaimed and lost, and their carbon sequestration function will be ceased totally. Even worse, development in this OZP will generate considerable amount of greenhouse gases through building energy consumption, vehicular exhaust gas, waste disposal, sewage treatment in view of the proposed development scale, population and activities.
20. The administration needs to rationalize how the OZP can “align with Hong Kong’s Climate Action Plan 2050’s call for green planning and developing carbon neutral community and to address climate change.” At least a broad-brush carbon audit should be done to demonstrate the carbon balance of foreseen “carbon neutral community” in the OZP. A formal carbon audit should be conducted in order to achieve a carbon neutral community in finalized development plan. In this regard, detailed and feasible measures should be in place to balance the carbon budget of the OZP.
Prevention of brownfields proliferation
21. Brownfield operations currently scattered in the planning scheme area of the OZP will be incrementally relocated to multi-storey buildings or other NDAs. 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 OZP due to unfavorable reallocation arrangements.
22. Hence, we urge the Administration to formulate concrete and effective brownfield relocation plan and grant consensus with the operators at the early stage of the development.
Transportation
23. 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 OZP. The OZP should effectively reduce private vehicle trips.
24. The proposed pedestrian walkway and cycle track network should not encourage the access to any ecologically-sensitive areas in the OZP, especially for I&T Park adjoining the proposed SPS WCP.
Residential Development in I&T Parks
25. Regarding “OU” for “Innovation and Technology’ only, as uses Flat (Staff Quarters only) has be included in Column 1, the uses Hotel and Residential Institution are considered as not only redundant but also hijacking the non-residential land use through alternative procedures which are designated for I&T uses.
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 above-captioned draft plan (hereafter “the OZP”).
1. Green Power opine the following principles should be upheld for the OZP, in view of its scale and ecological sensitivity
(a) Conservation measures proposed, consulted publicly, approved and implemented first in prior to endorsement and commencement of development plans 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 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. The environmental considerations of the OZP are adopted fully from the EIA report for San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node. Regrettably, these important principles have been neither fully addressed nor clearly affirmed in this EIA report.
Underestimation of ecological impacts
3. 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:
(a) 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 planning scheme area and habitats is not mentioned and evaluated in the EIA report and not addressed in the OZP.
(b) <u>Eurasian Otter</u> (Lutra lutra) is a rare species of conservation importance <u>still inhabiting currently within the OZP</u> according to recent investigation but its population is not properly investigated in the EIA. Protection of its habitats, foraging and breeding grounds is not properly addressed in the OZP.
(c) 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.
(d) It is discovered that some avifauna species in the EIA are misidentified. We opine this issue severely undermines the <u>credibility of the EIA report</u> and potentially leads to underestimation of ecological impacts.
Unsatisfied mitigations to wetland loss
4. According to Planning Department’s Town Planning Board Guidelines No. 12C, the designation of Wetland Conservation Area (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 OZP proposes to develop large area of WCA and WBA without proven compensation measures. 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 development site at the edge connected to WCA and no high-density development should be allowed in the buffer.
5. Only several small-scale enhancement measures such as the establishment of “ecologically enhanced fishponds” are proposed to compensate the permanent loss of such a largely contiguous wetland habitat. We opine that the proposed compensations are insufficient and not scientifically sounded.
6. In the EIA Report, the assumption about “the functional value … can be increased by up to 45% upon the implementation of ecological enhancement measures” has not been empirically proven. It is unconvincing to apply this purely hypothesized number extracted from other EIA reports to estimate the compensation requirement for pond habitats in OZP. We criticized that such calculations, analyses and interpretation, which ecological compensation of lost wetlands is based on, has not presented in the EIA report. No scientific evidence is provided in the EIA report to support the “no-net-loss” of habitats to be achieved by the proposed ecological enhancement measures.
Ecological mitigations
7. Although the Mai Po Lung Village Egretry will be preserved, 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.
8. 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 I&T Park.
9. 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 SPS. Such animal passage should include terrestrial path and waterway.
Watercourses modification and revitalization
10. The baseline water quality data were not provided for the watercourses in the EIA report although they are identified as water sensitive receivers. The EPD’s monitoring data for Kam Tin River and DSD’s data for Ngau Tam Mei Channel cannot be taken as baseline date for water quality in the planning scheme area because they do flow through the impacted development sites and wetlands. As the water source for the fishponds depends on direct rainfall and drainage channels, the water quality of the watercourses in the planning scheme area, and particularly downstream of the area, is of ultimate importance to support the flora and fauna, habitat quality and healthiness, operation of fishery industry in future WCP.
11. <u>Omission of baseline watercourse water quality data, inaction to assess and monitor the water quality impacts</u> are unacceptable incompetent EIA practice that irresponsibly poses unnecessary burden to conservation works related to the OZP and planned SPS WCP.
12. The watercourses flowing through the pond areas in the planning scheme area are part of the integrated pond system whereas quite a number of these watercourses will be removed or modified, diverted or realigned under the OZP. However, the new alignments of watercourse and drainage network were not proposed to maintain the hydrological and hydraulic characteristics of wetlands downstream of the planning scheme area. 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.
13. The planning scheme area should not increase the flood loading downstream, nor induce river training works in wetlands, especially SPS WCP, owing to incapability of the EIA Report 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.
14. Impacts of heat pollution generated by district cooling system on the wetland ecology is not assessed in EIA Report and not addressed in the OZP.
Sustainability
15. While the OZP has claimed to strike a balance of development between nature conservation, we regret that the Administration still maintain confronting mentality towards development and conservation. Seldom are concerns for sustainability, even for Innovative and Technology Parks, addressed in the OZP, such as reduction of use of fossil fuels, systematic provision of district material reuse and recycling facilities, climate resilient living spaces, etc.
16. In view of incomplete monitoring data, neglected assessment for watercourses in planning scheme area, we are afraid that significant change on the flow regime and hydrology within the planning scheme area is expected.
17. We disagree that “The blue-green network also creates ecological linkages to enhance biodiversity”, especially for the area originally comprising mainly fishponds and wetlands. Continuous large area of fishponds and wetlands in Deep Bay area is proven of internationally ecological important. Blue-green network mentioned in the consultation materials is mainly to improve the urban living environment.
18. In this case, biodiversity in both qualitative, i.e. loss of internationally important wetlands, and quantitative sense, i.e. area of such wetlands reclaimed, is definitely lost rather than enhanced by blue-green network.
19. Scientifically, wetlands are well known for their carbon sequestration function. In this OZP, large area of fishponds will be reclaimed and lost, and their carbon sequestration function will be ceased totally. Even worse, development in this OZP will generate considerable amount of greenhouse gases through building energy consumption, vehicular exhaust gas, waste disposal, sewage treatment in view of the proposed development scale, population and activities.
20. The administration needs to rationalize how the OZP can “align with Hong Kong’s Climate Action Plan 2050’s call for green planning and developing carbon neutral community and to address climate change.” At least a broad-brush carbon audit should be done to demonstrate the carbon balance of foreseen “carbon neutral community” in the OZP. A formal carbon audit should be conducted in order to achieve a carbon neutral community in finalized development plan. In this regard, detailed and feasible measures should be in place to balance the carbon budget of the OZP.
Prevention of brownfields proliferation
21. Brownfield operations currently scattered in the planning scheme area of the OZP will be incrementally relocated to multi-storey buildings or other NDAs. 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 OZP due to unfavorable reallocation arrangements.
22. Hence, we urge the Administration to formulate concrete and effective brownfield relocation plan and grant consensus with the operators at the early stage of the development.
Transportation
23. 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 OZP. The OZP should effectively reduce private vehicle trips.
24. The proposed pedestrian walkway and cycle track network should not encourage the access to any ecologically-sensitive areas in the OZP, especially for I&T Park adjoining the proposed SPS WCP.
Residential Development in I&T Parks
25. Regarding “OU” for “Innovation and Technology’ only, as uses Flat (Staff Quarters only) has be included in Column 1, the uses Hotel and Residential Institution are considered as not only redundant but also hijacking the non-residential land use through alternative procedures which are designated for I&T uses.
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