The Acting Chairman welcomed the presentation
team led by Mr. K K Lee to the meeting. Mr. K K Lee informed
Members that the purpose of undertaking the preliminary management
measures was solely to facilitate the design of enhancement
measures for the fishponds at Lok Ma Chau. He emphasized that
the information paper sent to Members was not required as
part of the EIA report but to provide detailed information
on the preliminary management measures so as to enable Members
to better understand the enhancement measures. The enhancement
ratio of two was chosen to fulfill the compensation requirement
under the Technical Memorandum of the EIA Ordinance (TM).
In fact, KCRC was confident that a ratio of much higher than
two could be achieved with the enhancement measures proposed.
Mr. Paul Leader and Dr. Michael Leven then briefed Members
on the preliminary management measures carried out in fishponds
at Lok Ma Chau.
Bird number observed
2. A Member asked why the enhancement of the
fishponds at Lok Ma Chau was measured by the number of birds
observed. In response, Dr. Leven explained that there were
two main reasons. The first one was because water birds were
of primary ecological importance in the wetland system at
Lok Ma Chau and the second reason was that bird number was
a quantifiable and comparable unit for measurement. There
were many examples in which the carrying capacity of a wetland
habitat was measured by the number of birds observed.
3. In reply to a hypothetical question raised
by that Member, Dr. Leven said that if all the fishponds in
Deep Bay area other than those in Mai Po were filled, he would
expect a temporary increase in the number of birds observed
in Mai Po but the total number would decrease significantly
in the long run. That Member then said that if the increase
in the number of birds observed indicated enhancement of the
carrying capacity of a fishpond, then in the hypothetical
case the fishponds in Mai Po could be considered as "enhanced".
Dr. Leven disagreed with that Member's comments and said that
in the present EIA, the objective was to increase the carrying
capacity of the fishponds through enhancement measures in
a sustainable manner to ensure that no less number of birds
would continue to use the area in question.
Management measures on fishponds
4. A Member said that whilst she recognized
the need for the railway project, she shared Members' concern
over the possibly irreversible adverse impacts on the environment.
She asked whether there was a contingency plan in case the
proposed mitigation failed to achieve the objective. In reply,
Dr. Leven said that the enhancement measures involved simple
work of pond re-profiling, fish stocking in summer and progressive
drain-down of ponds in winter. They had full confidence in
the effectiveness of the enhancement measures which were neither
new nor unique and could be carried out by any professionals
that possessed the expertise. A further fallback action was
to stock fish directly into the ponds in winter to provide
adequate food for the birds. He assured Members that the project
proponent was legally obliged under the Environmental Permit
issued under the EIA Ordinance to implement the compensation
measures effectively.
5. A Member pointed out that the stocking
of fish in the manner described would not be sustainable as
the fish would be consumed in a few days after the ponds were
drained. In response, Dr. Leven said that the ponds would
be drained down sequentially to sustain throughout the winter
season.
6. A Member enquired about the existing land-use
of the proposed mitigation areas and whether they provided
desirable habitats for birds. He said that Tilapia was a large
fish and doubted if it was suitable for feeding the target
bird species. Having regard to some Members' concern over
the possibility of inadequate food supply during winter, he
suggested that the project proponent should use aqua farming
to produce fish fry for stocking purpose.
7. In response, Dr. Leven said that the mitigation
areas were currently used as commercial fishponds which would
lose their ecological value as a habitat for birds if left
unmanaged, as they would become too acidic for aquatic organisms.
The size of the Tilapia they obtained from fish farmers was
only 6cm to 8cm long and would be suitable for the target
species. As regards the supply of fish fry, the project proponent
would work closely with fish farmers to ensure adequate supply.
8. Mr. Paul Tang pointed out that the ecological
value of commercial fishponds would depreciate in the natural
course of development. Under the proposed enhancement programme,
the commercial fishponds would be actively managed by the
project proponent to preserve their value. In this context,
one could say that the project would result in ecological
gains instead of ecological loss for the fishponds concerned.
A Member said that fish farming was quickly phasing out in
Hong Kong. In his views, commercial fishponds would provide
little value, if any, to bird species in the long run if left
unattended. Regarding the management measures proposed for
the fishponds, he cautioned that too many birds might be attracted
to the area because of the management measures and that a
proper balance should be maintained.
9. A Member cautioned that frequent draining
down of the fishponds would expose the sulphur-contained soil
to the air and increase the acidity of the water. On the other
hand, if pigeon faeces and peanut residue were added to neutralize
the acidity, the ponds would become deoxygenated and could
no longer support wildlife at the end of the day. In response,
Dr. Leven pointed out that the pH level of the water would
be normally set right when the ponds were drained and refilled.
Pigeon faeces and peanut residue would only be used when necessary.
Predictions on bird number
10. A Member asked why a factor of 98.5 was
adopted in Table 3 of the information paper to predict the
number of birds in the managed ponds at Lok Ma Chau. In response,
Dr. Leven explained that in fact a factor of 135, which was
the number of days in the period from 1 November 2000 to 15
March 2001, was adopted to predict the number of birds in
Mai Po ponds and gei wai. A smaller factor of 98.5 was adopted
for the Lok Ma Chau managed ponds because those ponds were
abnormally stocked four times during that period. It would
be more reasonable and conservative to use a reduced factor
for the Lok Ma Chau managed ponds.
11. In reply to a Member's enquiry, Dr. Leven
said that the managed ponds in Lok Ma Chau and the controlled
ponds in Pak Hok Chau referred to in Table 2 of the information
paper were broadly comparable in number and size. That Member
said that the predicted number of birds was impressive but
it was only based on a few months' trial. He asked whether
there would be any concrete management plan and contingency
plan for the fishponds. In response, Dr. Leven explained that
the preliminary management measures were carried out to form
the basis of the Habitat Creation and Management Plan (HCMP)
which would contain the action levels that trigger remedial
measures if necessary and the targets of the actions. The
HCMP was a document usually required as a permit condition
and which would be scrutinized and approved by the authority.
12. A Member asked whether there was any pre-managed
data on fishponds in Table 2. Dr. Leven replied that the data
was contained in the EIA Report but had to be disentangled
to get the pre-managed set of data.
13. A Member said that from a scientific point
of view and in view of the lack of statistics to support the
conclusion, he had serious doubts in the predicted number
of birds in the managed ponds (Table 3) which was purely based
on the observed bird number (Table 2). In response, Dr. Leven
explained that the preliminary management measures were intended
to gather experience to draw up the HCMP. The figures were
not presented as a rigorous scientific study as such.
14. A Member queried the accuracy of the predictions
which were solely based on Table 2. He said that the data
was only collected in one season and there could be many variables
other than the enhancement measures that affected the results.
An example was the different degrees of disturbance in different
ponds. Dr. Leven agreed that factors like disturbance would
affect the number of birds using the area but the objective
of the preliminary management measures was to ensure that
at least the same number of birds would continue to use the
area and that was demonstrated in the preliminary measures.
15. In reply to that Member's question on
which set of data would be adopted as the baseline for predictions,
Dr. Leven said that both the baseline data for Lok Ma Chau
area in winter 2000/2001 and the continuous data for existing
commercial fishponds were available to be used as the baseline.
The latter set of data was preferred because it reflected
recent changes in the number of birds.
16. A Member was not convinced that a reliable
set of baseline data could be established and therefore he
had no confidence in the predicted number of birds in the
Lok Ma Chau managed ponds. He said that it would be easy to
get a number that met the targets if the counting was done
right after the stocking of fish. However, there would be
no guarantee that the birds would stay throughout the season.
Dr. Leven stressed that Members would have to put in some
degree of confidence in the integrity of the project proponent
and the contractor. The Acting Chairman brought Members' attention
to s.5.5.1 of Annex 16 of the TM which stated that the Ecological
Monitoring and Audit (EM&A) Programme was "to verify
the accuracy of the predictions of the ecological assessment
study; ¡K and to recommend action plans in response to unpredicted
impacts, and/ore failed mitigation". He further said
that the issue on how to ensure that the proponent could deliver
the proposed mitigation results could be addressed when the
EM&A programme was drawn up.
17. Mr. K K Lee assured Members that the EM&A
Manual would be the next item on the action list and they
had committed themselves to the proposed mitigation work.
They welcomed the participation of green groups in that respect.
Other wildlife
18. A Member asked whether the impacts on
species other than water birds had been taken into account
in the mitigation proposal. In reply, Dr. Leven informed Members
that Table 4.2 to 4.7 of the EIA Report listed out all the
species of conservation importance in the area. Since the
Lok Ma Chau area comprised mainly fishponds which did not
provide a good environment for a lot of other wildlife, mitigation
for species other than water birds was less rigorous. He then
quoted the example of vegetation around the fishponds which
was quite common and heavily modified by local fish farming
activities. He informed Members that the draft HCMP proposed
a planting which aimed at bringing native species back into
the system and made it more valuable than the existing vegetation.
19. In reply to that Member's follow up question,
Dr. Leven said that a full vegetation survey was conducted
and included in the EIA Report.
20. A Member pointed out that the mitigation
programme appeared to have neglected species other than birds,
for example, the Eurasian Otter. In response, Dr. Leven explained
that there was a list of species of conservation importance
in the EIA Report. Mammals were definitely not neglected.
During the 18-month survey, the consultant had installed infra-red
cameras to record mammal activities but there were only two
sightings of Eurasian Otter. The conclusion was that the area
was probably not a primary habitat for that particular species.
The concept of "disturbance impacts"
21. A Member considered that doubling the
carrying capacity of the fishponds would not be sufficient
to compensate for the actual loss because in the EIA report
certain areas were not counted as habitat loss. At the same
time, the Black-faced Spoonbill, a globally endangered species,
should not be treated in the same way as other water birds.
It deserved more cautious mitigation measures. In response,
Dr. Leven clarified that under the "disturbance impact"
concept, some areas in close proximity to the border fence
where there was great disturbance were not counted as habitat
loss. But on the other hand, the concept would require the
project proponent to implement more measures to mitigate "disturbance
impacts" caused by the project. Regarding the Back-faced
Spoonbill, the buffer area for conserving this species of
birds was drawn up based on professional judgment and 30 years
of field experience.
22. A Member enquired about the change of
the enhancement factor if the buffer zone increased from 100m
to 200m. In response, Dr. Lynn Smith said that she could not
give an exact figure right away on this hypothetical situation.
However, if the disturbance distance from the station were
increased from 100m to 200m, then the area currently subject
to disturbance could correspondingly increase, encompassing
more of the Lok Ma Chau Station footprint. The impacted area
thus comprises a smaller part of the station footprint and
a slightly extended disturbance band around the station footprint.
The compensation requirement for the impacted area would still
be achievable within the compensation area available.
23. A Member said that if the concept of "disturbance
impact" was applied, the wetland compensation scheme
currently undertaken for mitigation of other railway or highway
projects might become unacceptable because more mitigation
measures would be required. In response, Dr. Leven said that
that the present project was the first one in Hong Kong that
had taken on board "disturbance impacts". He agreed
that the new approach would cut both ways. On one hand, the
proponent would be required to mitigate a larger area. On
the other hand, the total ecological value of the affected
areas might be reduced according to that concept.
Measurement of carrying capacity
24. A Member said that a good baseline and
an effective system were starting points of successful mitigation
measures. The World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong had been
managing Mai Po Nature Reserve since 1984 but there were no
targets set to manipulate the carrying capacity of the habitats.
The only quantitative scientific measure of the carrying capacity
of a habitat was done for the mud flats in the Shenzhen River
Regulation Study, in which the energetic production of food
that could be used to support birds as well as the energetic
requirements of individual species were adopted as the basis.
She wondered why the project proponent proposed to adopt the
approach of measuring the number of birds observed for the
present project. In response, Dr. Leven clarified that they
had adopted a conservation-based approach in which the species
of conservation importance was the major concern, therefore
the success of mitigation should be measured by the number
of those species in the area.
25. A Member asked if the enhancement of habitat
was possible, how it was measured in other countries. In reply,
Dr. Leven said that an international unit of measuring the
success of enhancement was the numbers of target species.
Mr. Elvis Au added that according to his experience in studying
ecological assessments conducted in other countries, EIA reports
produced in Hong Kong usually included very detailed ecological
assessment. One could say that Hong Kong was in the leading
front as far as ecological assessment in EIA reports was concerned.
Judgment of the EIA Appeal Board
26. A Member quoted from the Judgment of the
EIA Appeal Board regarding the previous Spur Line EIA report
that "the more ecologically important the site, the more
caution is necessary. The necessary test is, on balance, whether
a particular measure has a reasonably high chance of success."
Therefore he believed that the crux of the matter would be
whether Members considered that the proposed mitigation measures
had a reasonably high chance of success.
Other concerns
27. A Member reiterated that apart from compensation
measures at Lok Ma Chau, the project proponent should take
note of Members' concerns in other areas such as the inadequacy
of the hydrology modeling and the monitoring parameters for
groundwater table in Long Valley and surface/sub-surface settlement.
Mr. K K Lee said that he noted that Member's comments and
would work on them. 28. The Acting Chairman also urged the
project proponent to pay attention to the monitoring of the
performance of contractors. Mr. K K Lee said that they would
set up an environmental committee to be chaired by the Senior
Director, Capital Projects and represented by members of the
public including green groups as well as the contractors.
The committee would closely monitor the environmental work
of the project. A Member commended the proponent's initiative
and said that it would set a good model for future projects.
29. The Acting Chairman thanked the proponent
for the presentation and the information provided.
Internal discussion
30. A Member considered that the principle
of "no-net-loss" in wetland as stated in the Town
Planning Board (TPB) Guidelines should be observed. Mr. C
C Lay made reference to paragraph 6.1 of the Guidelines and
advised that if the Spur Line was "an essential infrastructural
project with overriding public interest, it should be admissible
under the TPB guidelines if the proponent could demonstrate
that the project would not result in a net loss in wetland
functions. He said that the point would hinge upon whether
Members considered the Spur Line an essential infrastructural
project with overriding public interest. He further said that
there were a lot of overseas cases of compensation by enhancement
with compensation ratios comparable to that proposed in the
EIA report. In the present case, the proponent proposed to
compensate the loss in functions by enhancing the carrying
capacity of the fishponds through re-profiling and other management
measures that had been proved successful in Mai Po gei wai.
Mr. Elvis Au referred to s.5.4.1(c) of Annex 16 of the TM
and supplemented that under the TM, enhancement could be considered
as a means of compensation.
31. A Member said that the crux of the problem
was whether the proposed enhancement could make up for the
loss of wetland functions in the long run and preserve the
species of conservation importance. He considered that from
an academic angle, the data in Table 2 & 3 of the information
paper was over-interpreted and he had doubts on the effectiveness
of the enhancement measures. Another Member said that the
number of birds observed was an inaccurate and misleading
unit of measurement for "carrying capacity" or "ecological
functions" however narrowly that was defined. She suggested
that a relatively more effective and accurate measurement
would be the productivity of the habitat and the energetic
requirements of the target species.
32. Mr. Patrick Lai informed Members that
fishpond was a habitat that had been intensively studied in
Hong Kong. According to Dr. Lew Young, the ecological value
of commercial fishponds was most obvious during the drain-downs
for serving as foraging grounds for water birds. In that regard,
the proposed enhancement measures were simple and could be
carried out easily. A Member said that the fishpond system
might be well studied but not the behavior of Black-faced
Spoonbill. He maintained the point that the number of birds
observed could be manipulated easily.
33. A Member said that she was impressed by
the results of the trails but was concerned about the fall-back
arrangement if the proposed mitigation measures could not
deliver the specified results. Sharing that Member's views,
another Member said that ideally the effectiveness of the
proposed enhancement measures would be better verified if
more studies could be done but practically there was time
constraint in carrying out more trials. The whole issue therefore
boiled down to whether Members believed that the proposed
management measures for the fishponds at Lok Ma Chau would
have a high chance of success. If so, there would be no problem.
If not, the Subcommittee could only look for a sound monitoring
programme and contingency measure that could ensure further
compensation in case the proposed measures failed. A third
Member agreed with the second Member and suggested requiring
the proponent to implement further measures (e.g. to acquire
additional land) to compensate for the loss of fishponds if
the management measures failed to achieve the mitigation targets
through the proposed enhancement measures. Two other Members
expressed consent to the second and third Members' suggestions
and agreed that it was a more practical way to deal with the
issue.
34. In response to Members' enquiry, Mr. Au
confirmed that under the EIA Ordinance, the Director of Environmental
Protection (DEP) could require the project proponent to compensate
for any shortfall of mitigation measures. As regards monitoring,
DEP could require the proponent to employ qualified personnel
for the construction work; hire an independent environmental
checker (IEC); and make available the monitoring data on the
Internet for public inspection. DEP, with the consent of the
Secretary for the Environment and Food, could suspend the
environmental permit or issue a cessation order if the works
concerned violated the permit conditions and had resulted
in environmental damage. On the enforcement front, the Environmental
Protection Department was going to enhance manpower in 2002
to strengthen site inspection. In addition, EPD also planned
to tighten the control of IEC.
35. In response to a Member's enquiry, Mr.
Au said that the Council could propose a condition to require
the project proponent to report to the Council regularly on
the progress of the EM&A work and the findings.
|