7. Ecological Impact Assessment

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 An Ecological Impact Assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Annex 8 and Annex 16 of the EIAO TM to address the requirements stipulated under Appendix E of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-362/2023, and the results of the assessment are presented in this section.

7.2 Legislations, Standards and Guidelines

7.2.1 The local ordinances and regulations relevant to this ecological assessment include the following.

§ Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499) and the associated Technical Memorandum (EIAO-TM), in particular Annexes 8 and 16;

§ EIAO Guidance Note No. 7/2010, 10/2023

§ Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap. 96) and its subsidiary legislation Forestry Regulations (Cap. 96A);

§ Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap. 170);

§ Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap. 586);

§ Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap .358)

§ Country Parks Ordinance (Cap. 208) and its subsidiary legislation;

§ Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131);

§ Development Bureau Technical Circular (Works) No. 4/2020; and

§ Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354).

7.2.2 This ecological assessment has also made reference to the following publications, guidelines, standards, or international conventions.

§ Biodiversity Information Hub of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD),

§ AFCD’s Biodiversity Newsletter,

§ Planning, Environment & Lands Branch Technical Circular (PELBTC) No. 1/97, Works Branch Technical Circular (WBTC) 4/97 - “Guidelines for Implementing the Policy on Off-site Ecological Mitigation Measures”,

§ Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (HKPSG) Chapter 10 - "Conservation”,

§ Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance Guidance Note (EIAO-GN) No. 5/2010 - Implementation Schedule for Mitigation Measures arising from the Environmental Impact Assessment Process,

§ Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance Guidance Note (EIAO-GN) No. 7/2010 - Ecological Baseline Survey for Ecological Assessment,

§ Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance Guidance Note (EIAO-GN) No. 10/2023 - Methodologies for Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecological Baseline Surveys,

§ Nature Conservation Practice Note No. 3 - The Use of Plant Names - by AFCD,

§ “Rare and Precious Plants of Hong Kong” published by AFCD,

§ Relevant Wildlife Protection Laws of the People’s Republic of China,

§ Latest Red List of Biodiversity in China – Higher Plant and Vertebrate (2020 version),

§ International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species,

§ List of National Key Protected Wild Animals (2021 version), and

§ List of National Key Protected Wild Plants (2021 version).

7.3 Assessment Methodology

Assessment Area

7.3.1 For the purpose of ecological impact assessment, the Assessment Area covers the areas within 500m from the Project Boundary (see Figure 7.1). The Project Boundary covers the Proposed WHS Crematorium Site and areas where works associated with construction of the proposed Crematorium (e.g. the works on the surrounding hillsides) occur.

7.3.2 Generally speaking, the Project is located in a small trough within the WHS Cemetery where the site has been heavily modified or disturbed in the past. In particularly, all of the three hillsides as well as the upper bottom of the trough are occupied by disused terraced graveyards. A man-made sand trap as well as a concreted-floored vacant land are located at the bottom of this trough and to west of the junction of the trough with the access road of WHS Cemetery.

7.3.3 Since access to other active areas of the cemetery in the vicinity of the Project Boundary is limited, human activities or disturbances are seldom within this trough area or the hillsides nearby, although, from an ecological perspective, the past disturbance would have had a significance influence on the ecological resources present within and around the Project Boundary.

Establishment of Baseline Ecological Profile

7.3.4 A literature review and ecological field surveys have been undertaken to establish the baseline ecological profile of the Assessment Area. The surveying/ sampling strategy and the methodological approach made reference to the latest Annex 16 of the EIAO-TM, the EIAO GN 7/2010 and GN 10/2023, as well as taken into account the accessibility and potential impact and vulnerability of the ecological resources within the Assessment Area.

Literature Review

7.3.5 The desktop study and literature review were conducted to investigate the existing ecological conditions within the Assessment Area and identify previously recorded habitats and species of conservation importance. The information relevant to this Project includes approved EIA reports, reports from government and private sectors, academic study reports and papers, as well as any unpublished data if available, such as the following:

§ Recent aerial photographs,

§ Hong Kong Biodiversity Database maintained by AFCD,

§ Hong Kong Biodiversity Newsletter published by AFCD (AFCD Newsletters),

§ Flora of Hong Kong (AFCD, 2009),

§ A Field Guide to the Freshwater Fish of Hong Kong (Lee et al., 2004),

§ A Field Guide to the Terrestrial Mammals of Hong Kong (Shek, 2006),

§ A Field Guide to the Amphibians of Hong Kong (Chan et al., 2005),

§ A Field Guide to the Venomous Land Snakes of Hong Kong (Chan et al., 2006),

§ The Avifauna of Hong Kong (Carey et al., 2001),

§ Freshwater Fish in Hong Kong (Lam, 2002),

§ Register of Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (Planning Department)

7.3.6 The information gathered from the literature review was evaluated and any information gap concerning the assessment of potential ecological impacts. Based on literature review and recent aerial photographs, a preliminary habitat map of the Assessment Area was prepared prior to the formal implementation of ecological surveys. This map was then verified and adjusted during the following surveys and served as the basis for preparation of the final habitat map.

Survey Periods and Locations

7.3.7 Based on the updated EIAO-TM, guiding principles stated in the Section 3.2 and 3.3 of the EIAO Guidance Note No. 7/2010, as well as the requirements set in the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-362/2023, a six-month ecological survey was conducted in 2022 and 2023, covering both the wet and dry seasons to generate a set of representative baseline data to support the following assessment of the potential ecological impacts caused by the Project. In addition, a supplementary survey was conducted in early May 2024 within the 500m Assessment Area.

7.3.8 The survey aimed to obtain updated ecological baseline within the Assessment Area. Habitat types, flora and fauna (incl. mammals, avifauna, herpetofauna, butterflies, odonates, aquatic fauna and fireflies) within the Assessment Area were surveyed. These habitat types and faunal groups were surveyed at the frequencies listed in Table 7.1. Surveys were undertaken during the time when the taxa groups to be surveyed are active to maximize the survey efficiency.

Table 7.1 Proposed Survey Programme (2022-24)

Survey	2022				2023		2024
Survey	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	May	Jun	May
Habitat and Vegetation	D	-	-	D	D	-	D
Mammal (Non-fly species)	D+N	D+N	D+N	D+N	D+N	D+N	D+N
Mammal (Bats)	N*	N*	N*	N*	N*	N*	N*
Avifauna	D*+N	D*+N	D*+N	D*+N	D*+N	D*+N	D*+N
Herpetofauna	D+N	D+N	D	D	D+N	-	D+N
Butterflies and Odonates	D	D	D	D	D	-	D
Aquatic Fauna (Fish and Freshwater Invertebrates)	D	D	D	-	D	-	D
Fireflies	-	-	-	-	N*	N*	N*

Notes:

1. D – day-time survey; N – night-time survey; D+N – both day and nighttime surveys.

2. Asterisk symbol (*) indicates the involvement of surveys at dawn/ dusk time.

7.3.9 Subject to accessibility, the ecological field survey covered representative areas of all habitat types identified within the Assessment Area, with particular focus on the areas likely to be directly and/or indirectly affected by the Project, as well as any breeding, foraging, roosting and/or potential refuge sites for wildlife of conservation concern (if any). For the surveys requiring transect and point sampling method, their locations are indicated in Figure 7.1. Efforts have been made to ensure that the field survey did not cause unnecessary stress or damage to the existing natural habitats and wildlife.

Survey Methods

7.3.10 Survey methods for local terrestrial and freshwater ecological assessment are recommended in the EIAO Guidance Note – Methodologies for Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecological Baseline Surveys (EIAO GN 10/2023). Methods adopted by this study are in accordance with those recommended in EIAO GN 10/2023.

Habitat and Vegetation Survey

7.3.11 The preliminary map showing habitats within the Assessment Area was prepared from satellite images / latest aerial photographs. Representative areas of each habitat type in the Assessment Area were then ground-truthed on foot, in order to ensure these reflected current conditions and to distinguish between habitats that cannot always be reliably distinguished from satellite images. Habitats were characterised and defined with reference to size, vegetation type, flora species present, dominant species, species diversity and abundance, community structure, seasonality and inter-dependence, as well as the presence of any feature of ecological importance. Representative colour photos were taken for each habitat type and any important ecological features identified.

7.3.12 In parallel with the habitat mapping survey, the vegetation specialist recorded the flora species encountered, with the relative abundance of plant species in each habitat recorded. Special attention was paid to species that are rare, protected or of ecological importance.

7.3.13 Locations of any flora species of conservation importance found were noted with photographic records where possible. Nomenclature and protection status of the plant species followed Xing et al. (2000), Wu and Lee (2000) and Siu (2000), as well as AFCD’s Hong Kong Biodiversity Database. A habitat-specific plant list was produced. Based on the collected information, a habitat map of a scale of 1:5,000 showing the types and locations of habitats and flora species of conservation importance in the Assessment Area was produced. Photographic records of habitats and plant species of conservation importance were taken wherever possible.

Wildlife Survey

Mammals

7.3.14 Since most mammals occur at low densities, the mammal survey included direct observation and active searching along transects at daytime for signs of mammal activities (such as potential tracks, burrows, footprints and droppings), as well as at night time for sightings of nocturnal mammals in order to establish the habitat use of this animal group within the Assessment Area. Locations of any mammal species of conservation importance were recorded by a GPS device and photographed as far as possible. Nomenclature of mammal species followed AFCD’s Hong Kong Biodiversity Database.

7.3.15 For bats, dusk surveys were conducted by direct observations and using a bat detector. All calls recorded were analysed to permit identification of species from their call structure, as far as possible. In addition, particular attention was paid to possible bat roost sites (such as clumps of Chinese Fan Palm potentially used by Short-nosed Fruit Bats) to determine whether there are bats roosting / breeding in the area.

Avifauna

7.3.16 The avifauna survey along transects shown in Figure 7.1 was undertaken in representative areas of all identified habitat types within the Assessment Area. It was conducted during the time when birds are more active such as early morning and dusk. Night surveys for avifauna were also conducted for nocturnal species.

7.3.17 All of the birds noted during the transect survey (either through direct sighting or calls heard) were recorded and quantified as far as possible. Any bird species encountered outside the transects but within the Assessment Area were also recorded to produce a comprehensive species list. In particular, signs of breeding (e.g. nests, recently fledged juveniles) within the Assessment Area, if any, were recorded. Locations of any avifauna species of conservation importance were recorded by a GPS device and photographed as far as possible. Nomenclature of avifauna species followed AFCD’s Hong Kong Biodiversity Database.

Herpetofauna

7.3.18 Herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians) surveys by means of direct observation and active searching at potential refuges (including but not limited to leaf litter, ground holes, underneath log or metallic plate, as well as stagnant/running water bodies) for signs or presence of either adult animals, sub-adults, eggs or shed body parts were undertaken. The surveys included night-time survey during the wet season for nocturnal species as well as auditory detection of species-specific amphibian calls. The locations of any reptile and amphibian species of conservation importance were recorded in a GPS device with their abundance established and photographed as far as possible. Nomenclature of herpetofauna species followed AFCD’s Hong Kong Biodiversity Database.

Butterflies and Odonates

7.3.19 Odonate and butterfly surveys by means of direct observation and active searching for the adult or caterpillar/nymphs within 5m from either side of the transects and 5m ahead were undertaken within the Assessment Area. All of the odonates and butterflies encountered were recorded to species level as far as practicable, with their abundance recorded. In addition, any butterflies and odonates encountered outside the transects but within the Assessment Area were also recorded so as to supplement the transect survey findings. Locations of any odonate and butterfly species of conservation importance were recorded by a GPS device and photographed as far as possible. Nomenclature of odonate and butterfly species followed AFCD’s Biodiversity Database.

Fireflies

7.3.20 The firefly surveys commenced according to the sunset time specified by Hong Kong Observatory (HKO) and lasted for at least 180 minutes immediately after sunset to cover the active periods of both crepuscular and nocturnal species. In addition, any diurnal fireflies found during the day-time ecological surveys for the Project were also recorded to generate a more comprehensive firefly list of areas within Project Boundary and Assessment Area (if any).

7.3.21 The transect count method was used for the survey. The proposed transects covering different habitats within the Project Boundary and Assessment Area are shown in Figure 7.1. The surveyor(s) walked slowly along the transects, and fireflies that occurred on both sides of the transects were recorded. Given that some firefly species are only active for a short period after sunset, the survey prioritised and paid particular attention to potential habitats for fireflies (Cheng et al. 2020), as well as locations with less artificial lighting, along the transects. Any sightings of mass occurrence and/or breeding behaviour of fireflies, as well as their associated locations and habitats, would be recorded.

7.3.22 Fireflies were detected by their emission of light whilst in flight, on the ground or on plants. Headlamp/ torch was switched off as far as possible to enhance detection of fireflies, including flightless females and larvae on the ground.

7.3.23 Active search method by using sweep nets for adults in flight and hand searching on the ground or plants for flightless adults and larvae would be adopted if considered necessary, and the detected individuals, if any, would be identified to the lowest practicable taxa level. The field survey was conducted in a way that it did not cause any unnecessary stress or damage to the existing habitats and fireflies.

Aquatic Fauna

7.3.24 Sizable watercourses (natural and/or man-made) were surveyed for aquatic fauna including fish, invertebrates and macroinvertebrates, through direct observation and active searching by hand nets and standard field sampling techniques such as kick sampling using a D-framed net and trapping using fish traps where necessary and practicable. All of the freshwater fish would be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level with their abundance recorded, and the nomenclature for fish followed AFCD’s Hong Kong Biodiversity Database. The aquatic invertebrates and macroinvertebrate survey identified the assemblage of the surveyed watercourses with particular focus on the presence of freshwater crabs. The aquatic invertebrates captured were identified and quantified as far as possible (generally to a family level and supplemented by morphospecies where needed). The freshwater sampling points are shown in Figure 7.1.

Ecological Evaluation and Impact Assessment

7.3.25 The ecological value of the identified ecological resources, including both the habitats and species recorded within the Project Boundary and Assessment Area, has been evaluated against the criteria recommended in the Annex 8 of the EIAO-TM, and established to facilitate the ecological impact assessment.

7.3.26 Based on the latest available engineering information of the Project, the ecological impact assessment was undertaken in accordance with the process described in Annex 8 and Annex 16 of the EIAO-TM, and the potential direct, indirect, on-site, off-site, cumulative and residual ecological impacts to the ecological habitats and wildlife recorded within the Assessment Area during the construction and operation phases of the Project were addressed. All possible alternatives and practicable mitigation measures to avoid, minimize and/or compensate for any possible adverse ecological impacts, if applicable, were investigated and recommended in this report.

7.4 Baseline Ecological Profile

Recognised Sites of Conservation Importance

7.4.1 There are no recognized sites of conservation importance within the Assessment Area. Lam Tsuen Country Park and the Ecologically Important Stream at Kau Lung Hang are the closest recognized sites of conservation importance, in which the former is located more than 1.4 km to the southwest of the Project Boundary, and the latter flows through the lowland area at Nam Wa Po outside the Assessment Area.

Previous Data from Literature

Relevant Studies

7.4.2 The ecological resources within and around the WHS Cemetery have been described in a number of ecological studies. Those had survey efforts broadly covering the cemetery and/or of particular relevance to the current Project include the following:

§ EIA report no. AEIAR-119/2008: Provision of Cremators at Wo Hop Shek Crematorium (Hyder 2008),

§ Preliminary Environmental Review Report prepared for the Provision of Columbarium at Wo Hop Shek Cemetery Phase 2 (AECOM 2020),

§ Preliminary Environmental Review Report prepared under Agreement No. CE 54/2013(HY) “Road Widening Works for the Provision of Columbarium at Wo Hop Shek Cemetery – Phase II and III Development” (CH2M 2015), and

§ Ecological Impact Assessment Report prepared under Agreement No. CE 58/2018 (HY) Road Improvement Works at Wo Hop Shek Cemetery Phases 2 and 3 Columbarium Development - Investigation, Design and Construction (WSP 2023).

7.4.3 On the other hand, although parts of the Assessment Area, i.e., the hillside in between the WHS Cemetery and Nam Wa Po, have been described in the ecological sections of several documents in the EIAO Register, all of the survey efforts of those studies were concentrated on the lowland areas or the areas along Kiu Tau Road and did not cover the floral/ faunal communities on the hillsides within the current Assessment Area, and hence their findings would be of limited use in the current assessment. These documents include:

§ EIA report no. AEIAR-037/2000: Widening of Tolo Highway/ Fanling Highway between Island House Interchange and Fanling,

§ EIA report no. AEIAR-161/2011: Liantang / Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point and Associated Works,

§ EIA report no. AEIAR-175/2013: North East New Territories New Development Areas, and

§ Project Profile submitted for the Drainage Improvement Works at Nam Wa Po (PP-611/2020).

7.4.4 Nonetheless, two amphibian species of conservation importance, Lesser Spiny Frog Quasipaa exilispinosa and Brown Wood Frog Polypedates megacephalus, were recorded in the habitat south of Kiu Tau Road documented in AEIAR-175/2013, and a protected plant Incense Tree Aquilaria sinensis was also recorded in the woodland habitat in the immediate vicinity west of Nam Wa Po and south of Kiu Tau Road.

Previous Findings within Assessment Area

Habitats

7.4.5 Whilst the habitats within the current Assessment Area have been named differently in accordance with the nomenclature system adopted in the respective studies, they could be broadly classified into four habitat categories, namely woodland, developed area, shrubland and watercourse. The ecological value established for each habitat type by the previous studies is shown in the Table 7.2.

Table 7.2 Ecological Value of Habitats Established by Previous Studies

Habitat Category	Nomenclature*	Ecological Value
Woodland	Semi-natural Woodland (3)	Moderate
	Woodland (3) (4)	Moderate to High
	Mixed Woodland (1)	Moderate
Developed Area	Cemetery (3)	Low
	Urbanised Area (3) (4)	Low
	Developed Area (1)	Very Low
	Abandoned Land (4)	Low
	Orchard (4)	Low
Shrubland	Shrubland/grassland (1)	Low
Shrubland	Scrubland (4)	Low
Watercourse	Drainage channel/water course (3)	Low to moderate
	Natural watercourse (1)	Low to moderate
	Channelised watercourse (1)	Low
	Stream (4)	Low to moderate

*Note: The literature mentioned in Section 7.4.2 refer: (1) WSP (2023), (2) AECOM (2020), (3) CH2M (2015), and (4) Hyder (2008)

7.4.6 It is noted that the proposed WHS Crematorium Site was broadly categorized with the major habitats in the surrounding areas in previous studies, either marked as developed area (cemetery) under the CH2M’s report, or woodland habitat (i.e. mixed woodland or semi-natural woodland) in the other three reports. However, the ecological value established in these studies may not be applicable to that in the current Project Boundary, as their survey transects did not cover or covered only a very small area in the current Project Boundary.

Species of Conservation Importance

7.4.7 A number of species of conservation importance were recorded within the Assessment Area of the current assessment in the above mentioned studies, including the plants Incense Tree and Cibotium barometz, the mammals Japanese Pipistrelle Pipistrellus abramus, Pipistrellus sp., Short-nosed Fruit Bat Cynopterus sphinx, Leopard Cat Prionailurus bengalensis, Chinese Pangolin Manis pentadactyla (signs); the birds Collared Scops Owl Otus lettia, Crested Serpent Eagle Spilornis cheela, Asian Barred Owlet Glaucidium cuculoides, Japanese Paradise Flycatcher Terpsiphone atrocaudata, Grey-chinned Minivet Pericrocotus solaris, Greater Coucal Centropus sinensis, Chinese Hwamei Garrulax canorus, Black Kite Milvus migrans, the amphibians Short-legged Toad Xenophrys brachykolos, Lesser Spiny Frog Quasipaa exilispinosa and Brown Wood Frog Hylarana latouchii, as well as the butterflies Metallic Cerulean Jamides alecto and Forget-me-not Catochrysops Strabo.

7.4.8 Most of the above records were made in the woodland within the current Assessment Area, in particularly the woodland on the hillsides in between the cemetery and Nam Wa Po area.

Current Survey Findings

Habitats

7.4.9 Under the current assessment, five broad habitat types have been identified and delineated within the Assessment Area, i.e., mixed woodland, shrubland-grassland mosaic, grassland, developed area and watercourse (see the habitat map in Figure 7.2 for their distribution within the Assessment Area). Table 7.3 below shows their respective coverage within the Assessment Area and Project Boundary. The representative photos of each habitat types in the Assessment Area and Project Boundary are presented in Appendix 7.1A

Table 7.3 Ecological Habitat Recorded within Project Boundary and Assessment Area

Habitat	Within Project Boundary (ha)	Within Assessment Area (ha, excl. Project Boundary)
Mixed Woodland - Type A - Type B	1.18 0.12	13.50 53.01
Shrubland-grassland Mosaic	0.14	15.01
Grassland - Type I - Type II	1.25 0.09	3.07 0.92
Developed Area	0.24	25.46
Watercourse - Natural - Channelised	- Approx. 0.24km	Approx. 3.08km Approx. 0.54km

Mixed Woodland

7.4.10 Mixed woodland is the dominant habitat type within the Assessment Area and covers most of the natural hillsides or engineering slopes within or outside the cemetery, and the extensive canopy cover is generally dominated by one or a mix of exotic tree species (such as Acacia sp., Lophostemon confertus, Melaleuca cajuputi Roxb. Subsp. cumingiana and Eucalyptus sp.) at the height ranging from 6m to 14m. On the other hand, depending on site history and local terrain, a range of native tree species have also been found in the canopy layer, such as Celtis sinensis, Schefflera heptaphylla, Aporosa dioica, Sterculia lanceolata, Liquidambar formosana and Acronychia pedunculata, as well as other pioneer tree species such as Ficus hispida, Mallotus paniculatus and Macaranga tanarius var. tomentosa, etc.

7.4.11 Based on the characteristic of the canopy and sub-canopy vegetation, the mixed woodland within the Assessment Area could be differentiated into the following two types:

§ Type A Mixed woodland – the canopy of this woodland type is mostly semi-open and dominated by exotic tree species, and its sub-canopy growth is either sparsely vegetated or densely covered herbaceous plants. This mixed woodland type includes those woodland patches established on derelict land originated from disused terraced graveyards, as well as engineering slopes with signs of active vegetation maintenance.

§ Type B Mixed woodland – The canopy of this mixed woodland type is usually formed by a mix of native and exotic species, and its sub-canopy is often well vegetated and vigorously covered by a mix of woody plants that comprises of native shrubs (notably Psychotria asiatica and Litsea rotundifolia) and saplings/ young trees of the native canopy species, where active vegetation maintenance was found to be none or minimal. This mixed woodland type covers most of the hillsides of the Assessment Area.

7.4.12 Both of these two mixed woodland types are recorded within the Project Boundary – in which a patch of Type B Mixed Woodland is established on the natural terrain east of the drainage storage pond, and all of the other woodland patches are Type A Mixed Woodland with canopy either dominated by Acacia confusa or Melaleuca cajuputi Roxb. subsp. cumingiana established on disused terraced graveyards or engineering slope.

7.4.13 Three Incense Tree Aquilaria sinensis were recorded in this habitat during the baseline survey. Two of them are saplings and recorded in the Type B mixed woodland within and to east the Project Boundary respectively. The third one is a mature tree further east to the Project Boundary. Incense Tree is protected under Cap. 586, listed in Illustrations of Rare & endangered plant in Guangdong Province (Wu & Hu, 1988) and Threatened Species List of China's Higher Plants (Vulnerable, endemic species) (Qin et al., 2017), under State protection (Category II) in China and classified as "Vulnerable" on the IUCN Red List (2023). Furthermore, Cibotium barometz, a species also under State protection (Category II) in China and listed in Rare and Precious Plants of Hong Kong (AFCD, 2003), was also recorded in the Type B Mixed Woodland within the riparian area of natural watercourse, outside the Project Boundary.

Shrubland-Grassland Mosaic

7.4.14 Shrubland-grassland mosaic is scattered among the Assessment Area and mainly located on the hillsides in between the cemetery and Nam Wa Po, as well as the engineering slopes within the cemetery. This habitat type is usually densely covered by a thick blanket of the fern Dicranopteris pedata, and a number of native species were commonly found in those patches established on natural slopes, in particularly the shrubs Baeckea frutescens, Rhodomyrtus tomentosa, Litsea rotundifolia, Melastoma sanguineum and Melastoma malabathricum, as well as young trees of Zanthoxylum avicennae, Schefflera heptaphylla, Litsea cubeba, Aporosa dioica and Litsea glutinosa. On the other hand, common weedy species such as the exotic tree Leucaena leucocephala, the shrub Lantana camara, the herb Bidens pilosa, as well as a mix of grasses were commonly found on those patches grown on engineering slopes with vegetation maintenance.

Grassland

7.4.15 With respect to the site history and community structure, two types of grassland were differentiated within the Assessment Area, including the grassland established on wasteland that was originated from disused terrace graveyards (Type I), as well as those patches established on engineering slopes with maintenance (Type II).

7.4.16 The Type I grassland is usually established on the disused graveyard terraces and solely dominated by the dense clumps of Miscanthus floridulus; and among this thick and tall grass (average height >1.5m) is scattered with individual stand of tree such as Celtis sinensis, Ficus hispida and Macaranga tanarius, or small patches of exotic weedy plants such as Mikania micrantha, Lantana camara and Bidens pilosa.

7.4.17 Type II grassland is established on natural or engineered slope which is more open and subjected to vegetation maintenance, and this type of grassland is covered by a mix of grasses and herbaceous plants such as Microstegium ciliatum, Imperata cylindrica, Capillipedium parviflorum, Paspalum scrobiculatum var. orbiculare, Ageratum conyzoides and Emilia sonchifolia.

Developed Area

7.4.18 Developed area includes all of the village and industrial areas, buildings, graveyards, man-made structures, as well as landscape areas and roads in the Assessment Area. This habitat is either heavily modified and/or has prominent anthropogenic activities, and either barren with no vegetation cover, or covered by a mix of planted ornamental/ fruit trees and/or self-seeded native/exotic species with little ecological interest.

Watercourse

7.4.19 Based on their naturalness, the watercourses within the Assessment Area could be broadly categorised into natural watercourses and channelized watercourses, in which the former include most of the mountain streams especially those on the hillsides east of the cemetery, and the latter covers all of the engineering/ drainage channels of the stormwater drainage system within the cemetery or in the lowland area, including those located within, upstream, and in the immediate downstream of the Project Boundary.

7.4.20 The natural mountain streams within the Assessment Area are mostly small in size with narrow width, and the substrate in the upland area is mostly composed of bedrocks or gravels/ boulders relatively large in size, whereas those in the lowland area usually deposited with a mix of gravels of different sizes. Given the limited accessibility of the natural watercourses, anthropogenic disturbance was only observed in the sections close to the footpaths in the lowland area.

7.4.21 For the channelized watercourses, they are all concrete-lined and either rectangular or concave in shape. They have a water flow pattern similar to that described for the natural watercourses above. Pest (mosquito) control in the channelized watercourses within and downstream of the Project Boundary was observed during the baseline survey.

7.4.22 Except the natural watercourse in the southwestern corner of the Assessment Area where its catchment covers a vast area beyond the Assessment Area and continuous water flow was observed in dry season, the waterflow of all the other watercourses within the Assessment Area is sporadic due to their small catchment in the steep and hilly terrain, where their upper sections only receive fast and erratic waterflow in response to rain events, including those channelised watercourses within and upstream/downstream of the Project Boundary.

7.4.23 Nonetheless, stream pools, water seepage from sub-surface flow and occasionally slow water movement could still be observed in some of the natural watercourses in the lowland area in the dry season. Similarly, a sand trap within the Project Boundary, as part of the channelised drainage system within the cemetery, was also found to have a hydrological pattern resemblance of the stream pool. This sand trap is overgrown with patches of the fruit tree banana Musa × paradisiaca and herb Alocasia macrorrhiza, and the water flow within is mostly slow or gentle and sometimes stagnant even during the wet season.

7.4.24 Floral and fauna diversity within the watercourses habitat were found to be low and aquatic fauna species of conservation importance have not been recorded, but three amphibian species of conservation importance have been recorded in this habitat. In the natural watercourse downstream the drainage system of the Project Boundary, a group of >10 Chinese Bullfrog were once recorded, and calls of Short-legged Toad were also recorded around other stream pools of the same watercourse during night-time. Within the Project Boundary, calls of the Short-legged Toad and Lesser Spiny Frog were recorded from and/or near the drainage channel within the Project Boundary.

Flora and Fauna

7.4.25 A total of 326 flora species, 9 mammal species, 41 bird species, 8 amphibian species, 9 reptile species, 49 butterfly species, 9 odonate species and 7 aquatic fauna species have been recorded during the ecological baseline survey undertake for this Project. No fireflies were recorded during the survey. The species assemblages were found to be broadly similar to those recorded in other studies nearby, i.e., the areas are inhabited by common species typical to such habitat types in Hong Kong. Detail findings of the surveys are given in the Field Survey Report in Appendix 7.2. Table 7.4 below provides a brief summary of the recorded species of conservation importance, both from the current survey and reviewed literature, as well as the habitats/ locations where the sightings/ records were made, which are also illustrated in the Figure 7.2. Photographic record of those species, if available, are included in Appendix 7.1B.

Table 7.4 Species of Conservation Importance Recorded within Assessment Area

Scientific Name	Common Name	Conservation and Protection Status ^{(Note 1)}	Distribution	Recorded Habitat (Assessment Area) ^{(Note 2)}	Recorded Habitat (Project Boundary)
Plant
Aquilaria sinensis	Incense Tree	Cap. 586, VU(2), State protection (cat. II)(4)	Common/Widely Distributed	1 sapling and 1 tree recorded in Type B Mixed Woodland, 1 sapling in shrubland-grassland mosaic, 1 tree recorded in developed area. Several clusters recorded by literature in Type A and B mixed woodland [i] [ii], as well as shrubland-grassland mosaic on hillside [i]	1 sapling in Type B Mixed Woodland
Cibotium barometz	Lamb of Tartary	Listed in Rare and Precious Plants of Hong Kong, State protection (cat. II))(4)	Common/Widely Distributed	Recorded in Type B Mixed Woodland within the riparian area of natural watercourse, 1 patch on shrubland/ grassland mosaic at engineering slope 1 patch recorded by literature in type B Mixed Woodland [i]	Nil
Mammal
Muntiacus vaginalis	Barking Deer	Cap 170, PRC(1)	Very widely distributed in countryside areas	One recorded feeding on Type II grassland, and calls also heard from Type B mixed woodland outside Project Boundary	Nil
Prionailurus bengalensis	Leopard Cat	Cap. 170 & 586, VU(2)	Widely distributed except for Lantau Island	One scat recorded in Type A mixed woodland. Some droppings recorded by literature (habitat and location unavailable) [iii]	One scat recorded on the footpath among Type I grassland
Hystrix brachyura	East Asian Porcupine	Cap. 170	Very widely distributed except for Lantau Island.	Nil	1 patch of scat recorded on the footpath among Type I grassland
Callosciurus erythraeus	Pallas’s Squirrel	Cap. 170	Fairly widely distributed	Two sightings in Type A and three sightings in Type B mixed woodland	Single sighting in Type A mixed woodland and single sighting in Type B mixed woodland
Viverricula indica	Small Indian Civet (scat)	Cap. 170, NT(2), Class II(4)	Very widely distributed except for Lantau Island.	One patch of scat recorded in Type I grassland north of Project Boundary.	Nil
Manis pentadactyla	Chinese Pangolin	Cap 170 & 586, CR(2)(3)	Thinly distributed in forested areas	Suspected burrow recorded by literature on hillside shrubland-grassland mosaic [i[	Nil
Pipistrellus abramus	Japanese Pipistrelle	Cap 170, (LC)(1)	Very Common	Echolocation detected in eight locations among Mixed Woodland (both types) and Developed Area. Detected one time by literature in Type A mixed woodland [ii]	Nil
Miniopterus fuliginosus	Common Bent-winged Bat	Cap 170, NT(2)	Widely distributed in countryside areas	Echolocation detected once in Type A Mixed Woodland and Developed Area.	Nil
Rhinolophus affinis	Intermediate Horseshoe Bat	Cap 170	Widely distributed in countryside areas	Echolocation detected once in Type A Mixed Woodland.	Nil
Cynopterus Sphinx	Short-nosed Fruit Bat	Cap 170, NT(2)	Very Common/Widely distributed	One record made in Type A and Type B mixed woodland by literature [i]	Nil
Bird
Ardea alba	Great Egret	Cap. 170, PRC(RC)(1)	Common resident and winter visitor. Widely distributed in Hong Kong.	One record made in the developed area near Nam Wa Po.	Nil
Egretta garzetta	Little Egret	Cap. 170, PRC(RC)(1)	Common resident. Widely distributed in coastal area throughout Hong Kong.	One record made in the developed area near Nam Wa Po.	Nil
Milvus migrans	Black Kite	Cap. 170 and Cap 586, RC(1)	Common resident and winter visitor. Widely distributed in Hong Kong.	One sighting each in Type A and Type B mixed woodland when the bird gliding over. One sighting made in Type B mixed woodland by literature [i].	Nil
Otus lettia	Collared Scops Owl	Cap 170 & 586	Common resident. Widely distributed	Calls detected in three Type B mixed woodland. Calls detected by literature once in Type A and Type B mixed woodland [ii].	Nil
Falco peregrinus	Peregrine Falcon	Cap. 170 & 586, Class II(4), LC(1), NT(2)	Locally common resident and winter visitor/Widely distributed	One sighting of the bird gliding eastward over mixed woodland (both types).	Nil
Spilornis cheela	Crested Serpent-Eagle	Cap. 170 & 586, NT(2), LC (1)	Common resident. Widely distributed in shrublands on hillsides throughout Hong Kong	1 recorded perching on tree at Type B mixed woodland. 4 sightings (3 at Type B Mixed Woodland and one at Type A Mixed woodland) were reported by literature [i].	Nil
Cyanoderma ruficeps	Rufous-capped Babbler	Cap. 170, LC(1)	Common resident	One recorded perching in Type B mixed woodland.	One recorded perching in Type A mixed woodland
Centropus sinensi	Greater Coucal	Cap. 170, Class II(2)	Common/Widely Distributed	Three sightings in Type A mixed woodland. One sighting by literature in same habitat [i].	Nil
Garrulax canorus	Chinese Hwamei	Cap. 170 & 586, NT(2)	Common resident. Widely distributed	2 sightings in Type I Grassland. Sightings in mixed woodland by literature (location unavailable) [iii].	Nil
Pericrocotus solaris	Grey-chinned Minivet	LC(1)	Locally common	Nil	One sighting recorded by other in Type A mixed woodland [i]
Terpsiphone atrocaudata	Japanese Paradise Flycatcher	LC(1), NT(2)	Uncommon passage migrant	One recorded by literature in Type A grassland [i].	Nil
Glaucidium cuculoides	Asian Barred Owlet	Cap. 170 & 586 Class II(4)	Locally Common/Widely distributed	One recorded by literature in Type B mixed woodland [i].	Nil
Herpetofauna
Ptyas mucosus	Common Rat Snake	Cap. 586, PRG(1), EN(2),	Widely distributed	One recorded in Type A mixed woodland.	One recorded in Type I grassland
Bungarus multicinctus multicinctus	Many Banded Krait	PRC(1), VU(2)	Common and widely distributed	Nil.	One recorded in developed area (roadside)
Gehyra mutilata	Four-clawed Gecko	VU(2)	Widely distributed	One record made in the developed area near Nam Wa Po.	Nil
Megophyris brachykolos	Short-legged Toad	VU(2), EN(3)	Widely distributed in upland forest streams	Call detected once from Type B mixed woodland and three times near natural watercourse. 4 records made at natural watercourse by others [i].	Calls detected once from Type A and Type B mixed woodland
Hoplobatrachus chinensis	Chinese Bullfrog	PRC(1), EN(2),	Widely distributed	>10 recorded once in a stream pool of a natural watercourse.	Nil
Quasipaa exilispinosa	Lesser Spiny Frog	PGC(1), VU(2)	Widely distributed in upland forest streams throughout Hong Kong.	Calls recorded once from Type A mixed woodland. One recorded by literature in channelized watercourse [ii] and mixed woodland (developed area in current study) [iv].	Call recorded once in Type A and Type B mixed woodland, as well as channelized watercourse
Hylarana latouchii	Brown Wood Frog	LC(1), LC (2), LC(3)	Widely distributed	One recorded by literature in mixed woodland (developed area in the current study) [iv].	Nil
Butterfly
Catochrysops Strabo	Forget-me-not	VR(5)	Restricted distribution in Hong Kong.	Recorded twice foraging in Type II grassland. One recorded by literature [i] in Type A mixed woodland type.	Nil
Jamides alecto	Metallic Cerulean	VR(5)	Restricted distribution in Hong Kong.	One recorded in Type I grassland and shrubland-grassland mosaic, and 2 recorded in Type II grassland. One recorded by other in Type B mixed woodland [i].	Nil
Pieris rapae	Small Cabbage White	R(5)	Restricted distribution in Hong Kong.	One record made in the developed area near Nam Wa Po.	Nil

Note 1:

* Information from AFCD Biodiversity Information Hub unless specified, #: Chan et. al, (2011)

** Reference for conservation status:

(1) Fellowes et al., 2002: LC - Local Concern, PRC - Potential Regional Concern, GC – Global Concern, (RC) – Regional Concern (restrictedness in breeding and/or roosting sites) (LC) - Local Concern for breeding population)

(2) Red List of China’s Vertebrates (2020 version): LC – Least Concern, NT – Near Threatened, VU – Vulnerable, CR – Critically Endangered

(3) The IUCN: LC – Least Concern, NT – Near Threatened, VU – Vulnerable, CR – Critically Endangered

(4) List of Wild Animals (2021 version) and Plants (2021 version) Under State Protection

(5) Chan et. al, (2011) A Review of the Local Restrictedness of Hong Kong Butterflies by AFCD, https://bih.gov.hk/filemanager/newsletter/en/upload/24/IssueNo21.pdf. VR = Very Rare, R = Rare.

Note 2: Review the literature including the following. The full names of the reports refer to Section 7.4.2.

[i] WSP (2023); [ii] AECOM (2020); [iii] Hyder (2008); [iv] Arup (2013).

7.5 Ecological Evaluation

7.5.1 The ecological value of the habitats identified within the Assessment Area is evaluated against the criteria recommended in the Annex 8 of the EIAO-TM and presented in Tables 7.5 to 7.9 below.

Table 7.5 Ecological Evaluation of Mixed Woodland

Criteria	Type A Mixed Woodland	Type B Mixed Woodland
Naturalness	Man-made habitat but with prominent signs of human activities in the sub-canopy layer	Man-made habitats but with no or limited signs of human activities/ disturbance in the sub-canopy layer
Size	13.50 ha in Assessment Area (excl. Project Boundary), 1.18ha in Project Boundary	53.01 ha in Assessment Area (excl. Project Boundary), 0.12ha in Project Boundary
Diversity	Low in flora and fauna diversity	Moderate in flora and low to moderate in faunal diversity
Rarity	This habitat type is common in rural Hong Kong but recorded with a number of species of conservation importance, such as Pallas’s Squirrel, Short-legged Toad, scats of Leopard Cat, Common Rat Snake, Lesser Spiny Frog, Common Bent-winged Bat, Japanese Pipistrelle, Intermediate horseshoe bat, Greater Coucal, Rufous-capped Babbler, Peregrine Falcon and Black Kite	This habitat type is common in rural Hong Kong but recorded with a number of species of conservation importance, such as Incense Tree, Lamb of Tartary, Pallas’s Squirrel, Collared Scops Owl, Short-legged Toad and Lesser Spiny Frog, Barking Deer, Japanese Pipistrelle, Rufous-capped Babbler, Peregrine Falcon, Black Kite, Collared Scops Owl and Crested Serpent-Eagle.
Re-creatability	This habitat is readily re-creatable with adequate resources, in particularly land
Fragmentation	This woodland habitat is fairly fragmented within the Assessment Area and Project Boundary	As a whole this woodland type is slightly fragmented within the Assessment Area, and a small and isolated patch of this woodlands type is recorded within the Project Boundary
Ecological linkage	No known significant ecological linkage to any resources of ecological importance.	No known significant ecological linkage to any resources of ecological importance, except those located in the riparian of the natural watercourses
Potential value	Low as limited by the site history	Moderate if undisturbed (in particularly hill-fire), but low for the patch within the Project Boundary for its small size and isolated nature
Nursery/breeding ground	No significant breeding or nursery ground noted
Age	With respect to the community structure as well as the height and size of the trees in canopy layer, ranged from semi-mature to mature for this habitat type
Abundance/ Richness of wildlife	Low	Low to moderate
Overall ecological value	Low	In general Moderate but Low to Moderate for the patch within the Project Boundary for its small size and isolated nature

Table 7.6 Ecological Evaluation of Shrubland-grassland Mosaic

Criteria	Shrubland-grassland Mosaic
Naturalness	Although no significant signs of disturbance were noted within this habitat except those on engineering slopes, presence of thick blanket of Dicranopteris pedata of this habitat type suggests it may be maintained by hill-fire
Size	15.01ha in Assessment Area (excl. Project Boundary), 0.14ha in Project Boundary
Diversity	Shrubland-grassland mosaic on hillsides: low to moderate floral and faunal diversity Shrubland-grassland mosaic on engineering slopes (without vegetation maintenance): low to moderate in floral diversity but low in faunal diversity
Rarity	A common habitat; Metallic Cerulean and Lamb of Tartary were recorded at shrubland-grassland mosaic on engineering slopes; Incense Tree (saplings) were recorded on shrubland-grassland mosaic at hillside.
Re-creatability	Readily re-creatable
Fragmentation	Shrubland-grassland mosaic on hillsides: slightly fragmented within the Assessment Area Shrubland-grassland mosaic on engineering slopes: fairly fragmented
Ecological linkage	Shrubland-grassland mosaic on hillsides: may serve as wildlife corridor and provide passage for wildlife inhabiting in the wooded slopes Shrubland-grassland mosaic on engineering slopes: no known significant ecological linkage to any resources of ecological importance
Potential value	Shrubland-grassland mosaic on hillsides: low to moderate Shrubland-grassland mosaic on engineering slopes: low
Nursery/breeding ground	No significant breeding or nursery grounds noted
Age	Not applicable
Abundance/ Richness of wildlife	Shrubland-grassland mosaic on hillsides: low to moderate Shrubland-grassland mosaic on engineering slopes: low
Overall Ecological Value	Shrubland-grassland mosaic on hillsides: Low to Moderate Shrubland-grassland mosaic on engineering slopes: Low

Table 7.7 Ecological Evaluation of Grassland

Criteria	Type I Grassland	Type II Grassland
Naturalness	Natural habitat established on heavily disturbed ground	Semi-natural as being horticulturally maintained
Size	3.07ha in Assessment Area (excl. Project Boundary), 1.25ha in Project Boundary	0.92ha in Assessment Area (excl. Project Boundary), 0.09ha in Project Boundary
Diversity	Low in both floral and faunal diversity
Rarity	Not a rare habitat and several species of conservation importance were recorded, such as the butterfly Metallic Cerulean, scats of East Asian Porcupine, Small Indian Civet and Leopard Cat, Common Rat Snake and Hwamei	Not a rare habitat and several species of conservation importance were recorded, such as the butterfly Metallic Cerulean, Forget-me-not and Barking Deer
Re-creatability	Readily re-creatable with adequate resources, in particularly land
Fragmentation	Slightly fragmented	Fairly fragmented
Ecological linkage	No known ecological linkage to any resources of ecological importance
Potential value	Low, due to its site history and simplicity in community structure	Low, due to its site history, simplicity in community structure active maintenance
Nursery/breeding ground	No significant breeding or nursery ground noted
Age	Not applicable
Abundance/ Richness of wildlife	Low
Overall Ecological Value	Low	Low

Table 7.8 Ecological Evaluation of Developed Area

Criteria	Developed Area
Naturalness	Man-made habitat
Size	25.46ha in Assessment Area (excl. Project Boundary), 0.24ha in Project Boundary
Diversity	Moderate floral diversity due to ornamental planting and active management/ maintenance, poor faunal diversity
Rarity	Not a rare habitat and some species of conservation importance were recorded, such as Great Egret, Little Egret, Four-clawed Gecko, the butterfly Small Cabbage White, Common Bent-winged Bat, Japanese Pipistrelle, Many Banded Krait and Incense Tree.
Re-creatability	Readily re-creatable with adequate resources
Fragmentation	Fairly fragmented within the Assessment Area
Ecological linkage	No significant ecological linkage to any resources of ecological importance
Potential value	Low for the inherent disturbance and human activities within the habitat
Nursery/breeding ground	No significant breeding or nursery ground noted
Age	Not applicable
Abundance/ Richness of wildlife	Low
Overall Ecological Value	Low

Table 7.9 Ecological Evaluation of Watercourse

Criteria	Natural Watercourse	Channelized Watercourse
Naturalness	natural mountain streams with human disturbance noted in section next to footpath	Man-made engineered channel
Size	Total 3.08km in length in Assessment area, and mostly small to medium in size/length; none in Project Boundary	Total 0.54km in length in Assessment area (excl. Project Boundary), all relatively small in size; 0.24km in length in Project Boundary
Diversity	Low floral and faunal diversity	Low floral and faunal diversity
Rarity	Not a rare habitat and recorded with 2 species of conservation importance: Chinese Bullfrog and Short-legged Toad	Not a rare habitat and recorded and call of Lesser Spiny Frog, a species of conservation importance, was heard from a partially-covered section
Re-creatability	The physical characteristics of the watercourses would be readily re-creatable with adequate resources, but hydrologically may be infeasible and subject to the availability of suitable site
Fragmentation	Hydrologically, fairly fragmented for the upland sections of the mountain streams due to the ephemeral nature in water flow	Fairly fragmented hydrologically
Ecological linkage	Being one of the tributaries to the Kau Lung Hang Ecologically Importance Stream., moderate for the perennial mountain stream, low for the ephemeral watercourses	No significant ecological linkage
Potential value	Perennial mountain stream: high, Ephemeral mountain streams: low to moderate	Low.
Nursery/breeding ground	No significant breeding or nursery ground recorded but the stream pools of the mountain streams may be utilized as breeding site for the recorded amphibian species of conservation importance	None noticed
Age	Not applicable
Abundance/ Richness of wildlife	Generally poor	Generally poor
Overall Ecological Value	Perennial natural watercourse: Moderate; Ephemeral natural watercourse: Low to Moderate	Low.

7.5.2 A summary is presented in Table 7.10. Mixed Woodland Type B (in general) and perennial natural watercourse are considered to have a Moderate ecological value for their ecological potential and inhabitation by several species of conservation importance. Mix Woodland Type B in the Project Boundary, shrubland-grassland mosaic on hillsides and ephemeral natural watercourse are considered to have Low to Moderate ecological value. All of the other habitats are considered to have Low ecological value in view of their site/ disturbance history, simplistic in species composition and/ or structural diversity.

Table 7.10 Summary of Ecological Value of Recorded Habitats

Habitat	Ecological Value
Mixed Woodland	Type A: Low Type B: Moderate in general but Low to Moderate in Project Boundary
Shrubland-grassland Mosaic	Shrubland-grassland Mosaic on hillsides: Low to Moderate Shrubland-grassland Mosaic on engineering slope: Low
Grassland	Type I: Low Type II: Low
Developed Area	Low
Watercourse	Perennial natural watercourse: Moderate Ephemeral natural watercourse: Low to Moderate Channelised watercourses: Low

7.6 Identification of Ecological Impacts

7.6.1 Based on the latest available engineering information, including the general layout plan shown in Figure 2.2 and the work scope of the current Project as described in Section 2, the source and nature of potential ecological impacts during the construction and operation phases of the proposed WHS crematorium development are identified in the following sections.

Construction Phase

7.6.2 With respect to the major construction activities and processes to be involved during the construction phase of the Project, i.e. site clearance, site formation and slope works, superstructure, and other associated works, the potential ecological impacts during the construction phase would be either caused by the direct land-taking and site clearance process, or the construction disturbance associated with various process/ activities described above, including increased uses of heavy plants and machineries, as well as human presence/ activities within and in the vicinity of the Project Boundary during working hours.

7.6.3 Accordingly, the resulted potential ecological impacts could be broadly categorized into the following:

§ Direct and permanent loss of terrestrial and aquatic habitats within the Project Boundary, as well as potential direct loss of flora/ fauna established/ inhabited within the affected habitats from site clearance, slope works and various earthworks;

§ Indirect physical disturbance to the habitat and vegetation in the vicinity of the Project Boundary from construction activities, in particularly dust-coating from earthworks and movement of construction vehicles/ machineries, physical modification of the ecological habitats due to potential trespassing and increased anthropogenic activities, or discharged from the construction site; and

§ Indirect disturbance impact to the wildlife inhibiting the surrounding areas from audibled/ visual disturbance associated with the construction activities and increased human activities, as well as artificial lighting installed within and/or around the construction site.

Operation Phase

7.6.4 Given the nature of the proposed crematorium development and mode of its operation, almost all of the potential ecological impacts during the operation phase are similar to and perpetuated from the construction disturbance described in previous section, i.e. indirect disturbance due to the increased human presence and anthropogenic activities within and in the vicinity of the crematorium, in particularly noise and visual disturbance during the operation hours of the facilities, or use of artificial lighting in the evening hours. Nonetheless, except the artificial lighting where its use would likely be more substantial to serve other functional needs, the scale, intensity and magnitude of such disturbances would likely be in a much lesser extent than those occurred during the construction phase.

7.7 Impact Evaluation

Potential Impact to Recognized Sites of Conservation Importance

7.7.1 As discussed in Section 7.4.1 above, there is no recognized site of conservation importance (such as country parks, areas zoned as "Conservation Area" on the relevant Outline Zoning Plan) within the Project Boundary and Assessment Area. The permanent watercourse hydrologically linked to the Kau Lung Hang EIS downstream is distant from the Project Boundary and would not be affected by this Project. Therefore, any significant potential ecological impact of the Project to recognised sites of conservation importance is not anticipated.

Construction Phase

Permanent Habitat/ Species Loss from Land-taking/ Site Clearance

7.7.2 The land-taking and site clearance required for the construction of the Project would cause a direct habitat loss of the areas within the Project Boundary, approximately 3ha ecological habitats in total. These areas include the actual footprint of the proposed WHS Crematorium Site and the associated slope works on the surrounding hillsides. The size and respective ecological value of the directly affected habitats are presented in Table 7.11 below.

Table 7.11 Habitats to be Permanently Lost to the Project

Habitat	Size	Ecological Value
Mixed Woodland	Type A: 1.18 ha Type B: 0.12 ha	Low Low to Moderate*
Shrubland-grassland Mosaic	0.14 ha	Low
Grassland	Type I: 1.25 ha Type II: 0.09 ha	Low Low
Developed Area	0.24 ha	Low
Watercourse (Engineered Channel including the sand trap)	approx. 240m	Low
*Note: The Type B Mixed Woodland within Project Boundary is considered to have “Low to Moderate” ecological value for the isolated and fragmented nature of the patch within the Project Boundary

7.7.3 The severity of the ecological impact from this direct loss of ecological resources is evaluated in Table 7.12 and Table 7.13 below. With respect to the ecological value and the size of the affected habitats, the scale and magnitude of habitat loss for each habitat type or as a whole for the Project Boundary, as well as the distribution and abundance of species of conservation importance recorded, the overall ecological impact from direct habitat loss is considered as Low, including the loss of the small and isolated patch of Type B Mixed Woodland.

7.7.4 On a species level, the direct loss of plants of conservation importance during the site clearance, i.e., the Incense Tree sapling recorded in the mixed woodland habitat, is considered as Low to Moderate due to the conservation status of this plant species. However, given the mobility of most of the faunal species of conservation importance recorded within the Project Boundary, direct mortality may only occur to those species with restricted or limited mobility and unable to evade the work site during the site clearance or earthworks, including the Lesser Spiny Frog and Short-legged Toad recorded within the drainage system and/or in the leaf litter or cervices within the mixed woodland. The potential loss of these two species is considered as Low to Moderate, considering their commonness/ distribution and conservation status in Hong Kong.

Table 7.12 Assessment of Direct Loss of Terrestrial Habitat/ Species

Criteria	Comment
Habitat Quality	Except the Type B Mixed Woodland within the Project Boundary with a Low to Moderate ecological value, all of the other affected terrestrial habitats have a Low ecological value.
Species	A low abundance of floral species of conservation importance was recorded within the Project Boundary (i.e., a single sapling of Incense Tree). Most of the fauna species of conservation importance recorded are highly mobile and able to evade/ avoid the working area during site clearance, except the Short-legged Toad and Little Spiny Frog, which may find refuge in leaf litter and cervices within the woodland habitat
Size/abundance	The area being affected is relatively small for each individual habitat type and for the Project Boundary as a whole. A low abundance of flora/fauna species was recorded.
Duration	The impact would be permanent.
Reversibility	The impact is irreversible once the habitat is cleared and the proposed crematorium is constructed.
Magnitude	The magnitude of environmental change is considered moderate in a local context, but slight to moderate as a whole for the Wo Hop Shek cemetery, and also slight in view of the quantity of the concerned floral and faunal species of conservation importance.
Regional Significance	None of the habitat or species affected are rare or have a restricted distribution in the territory or region.
Impact Severity	With respect to the ecological value and the scale, the resulted impact of direct habitat loss is considered as of Low significance. On the species level, direct loss of both floral and faunal species of conservation importance recorded within the Project Boundary is considered as of Low to Moderate significance for their commonness, conservation status and abundance of recorded species within the Project Boundary.

Table 7.13 Assessment of Direct Loss of Aquatic/ Amphibian Habitat (i.e. Channelised Watercourse)/ Species

Criteria	Comment
Habitat Quality	The channelised watercourse (including the sand trap) has low ecological value
Species	Little Spiny Frog was recorded within a drainage structure of the engineering channel, and, to a lesser extent, Short-legged toad was recorded in the woodland habitat in the vicinity of this habitat within the Project Boundary; these two species may find refuge in leaf litter and cervices within the engineered watercourse
Size/abundance	The area of this habitat being affected is relatively small and only a low abundance of flora/ fauna species were recorded.
Duration	The impact would be permanent.
Reversibility	The impact is irreversible once the proposed crematorium is constructed.
Magnitude	The magnitude of environmental change is considered minimal given the small size of this habitat
Regional Significance	None of the habitat or species affected are rare or have a restricted distribution in the territory or region.
Impact Severity	With respect to the ecological value and the scale, the resulted impact of direct loss of aquatic habitat is considered as of Low significance. On the species level, the potential direct loss of amphibian species of conservation importance recorded within this habitat type is considered as of Low to Moderate significance for their commonness, conservation status and abundance of recorded species within the Project Boundary.

Indirect Disturbance to Terrestrial Habitats from Construction Activities

7.7.5 Accidental or intentional trespassing of adjoining habitats for temporary access of site staff/ vehicles, parking, stockpiling, or refuse dumping etc. has the potential to cause a physical damage to the affected habitats and vegetation. The potential dust-coating of vegetation from the earthworks and movement of vehicles/ machineries may also disturb the physiological processes of the vegetation nearby and affect their ecological conditions and functions. These two disturbance impacts would be of particular concern for the Type B Mixed Woodland northeast of the Project Boundary and alongside the main access road of the cemetery.

7.7.6 On the other hand, given that the current anthropogenic activities within or in the surroundings of the Project Boundary are fairly low, and the increased noise level and visual disturbance caused by various construction activities such as construction traffics, ground breaking/piling, use of powered/heavy machineries and generator, etc., would inevitably affect the ambience and quality of the habitats in the vicinity of the Project Boundary, as well as their ecological value as a wildlife habitat. In addition, the potential impact of glare and sky glow due to the artificial lighting that may be installed for security and safety reasons at evening hours could be of concern as the cemetery is currently unlighted in evening hours.

7.7.7 However, occurrence of any direct physical damage described above is highly unlikely due to the limited accessibility of the area in the vicinity of the Project Boundary, and implementation of dust control measures should be in place to comply with the Air Pollution Control (Construction Dust) Regulation and readily mitigatable by good site management practices. Given the general low ecological value of the habitats in the vicinity of the Project Boundary, significance of these two potential disturbance impacts (i.e. physical damage and dust coating) would be considered as Lo (Table 7.14).

7.7.8 On the other hand, the proposed WHS Crematorium is located in a trough area within the cemetery, the extent of habitat potentially affected by the noise and visual disturbance during the construction stage of the Project should be mostly confined to the immediate surroundings of the site by the local terrain, especially during the site formation process when the noise disturbance could be more substantial. Furthermore, since most of the faunal species of conservation importance recorded in the vicinity of the Project Boundary are nocturnal and/or highly mobile, and habitats of similar nature and unaffected by the potential noise and visual disturbance are plentiful within the Assessment Area, the potential impact to the habitat quality of the surrounding areas from noise and visual disturbance during regular working hours is unlikely to be of any ecological significance and hence considered as Low (Table 7.14).

7.7.9 Nonetheless, although the artificial lighting for security and safety would normally targeting the ground level and would have a range that focuses and is confined to the immediate surroundings of the light sources, should it be poorly installed to generate excessive glare or sky glow, especially towards the woodland habitats in the vicinity, the resulted impact could be Moderate, given the unlighted environment at the Wo Hop Shek Cemetery in the evening hours (Table 7.14).

Table 7.14 Assessment of Construction Disturbances to Habitats Adjacent to Project Boundary

Criteria	Comment
Habitat Quality	All of the habitat in the immediate vicinity of the Project Boundary has a Low or Low to Moderate ecological value, except the Type B Mixed Woodland north and northeast of the Site with Moderate value.
Species	Faunal species of conservation importance recorded within the Assessment Area and their habitat use would be susceptible to construction disturbance include the mammals Leopard Cat, East Asian Porcupine and Small Indian Civet, as well as the birds Greater Coucal, Chinese Hwamei, Rufous-capped Babbler, Collared Scops-Owl and Barnlet Owl etc..
Size/abundance	The extent of habitat potentially affected would likely be localized and confined by the local terrain and within the trough where the Project is located, but the extent of woodland potentially affected by excessive glare could be substantial. Only a low abundance was recorded for all of the species of conservation importance potentially affected.
Duration	Physical damage and dust coating: expect to be short-term if occurred and readily rectified, Noise and visual disturbance: continuous during daytime hours until the end of the construction period, and Glare and sky glow: continuous during evening hours until the end of the construction period.
Reversibility	Reversible with or without remediation actions.
Magnitude	Physical damage and dust-coating: low and likely limited by local terrain, Noise disturbance: substantial during earthworks but moderate during superstructure works at the later stage of the Project, Visual disturbance: low to moderate, Glare and sky glow (light pollution): moderate, subject to the installation approach.
Regional Significance	None of the habitat or species affected are rare or have a restricted distribution in the territory or region.
Impact Severity	Physical damage and dust-coating: Low as the area potentially affected is likely to be small, in a limited scale and temporary only, Noise and visual disturbance: Low as the disturbance would be mostly confined to the trough and/or screened by the local topography, and unaffected habitats of similar nature adjacent to the Project Boundary are plentiful within the Assessment Area, and Glare and sky glow: Moderate, subject to the installation approach.

Indirect Disturbance to Aquatic Habitats Caused by Construction Activities

7.7.10 Based on the latest project information, although the open engineered channel within the Project Boundary will be permanent loss to the proposed crematorium, the existing hydrological connectively between the channels upstream and downstream of the Project Boundary will be maintained throughout the construction and during the operational period. Although engineering details of such connection will not be available until the detail design stage of the Project, it is anticipated that the water quality of the watercourses downstream of the Project Boundary would be susceptible to the potential construction disturbance of the Project, notably the potential discharge of untreated run-off and influx of contaminated surface runoff during rainstorm event. All these potential disturbance impacts to the existing drainage system would be of particular concern to the natural watercourses downstream, and the impact could be of Low to Moderate significance in the absence of any mitigation measures (Table 7.15).

Table 7.15 Assessment of Indirect Disturbance to Aquatic Habitats from Construction Activities

Criteria	Comment
Habitat Quality	The ephemeral and perennial natural watercourses downstream of the Project Boundary have Low to Moderate or Moderate ecological value respectively.
Species	Amphibian species of conservation importance including Chinese bullfrog and Short-legged Toad were recorded in the natural watercourses hydrologically linked to the Project Boundary downstream.
Size/abundance	The section of natural/channelized watercourses potentially affected is relatively short in length; and although only a low abundance of Lesser Spiny Frog or Short-legged Toad was recorded, but > 10 Chinese Bullfrog were once recorded in a stream pool of the natural watercourse.
Reversibility	Reversible with or without remedial measures.
Duration	The potential disturbance would be short-term and temporary with or without remedial measures.
Magnitude	The magnitude of environmental change would expect to be in a limited scale with respect to the small size of the site and the implementation of various precautious measures required by relevant legislation, but could be substantial if the hydrological properties or hydromorphological characteristics of the natural watercourses are severely disturbed or modified during the construction phase
Regional Significance	None of the habitat or species affected are rare or have a restricted distribution in the territory or region.
Impact Severity	Potential change of hydrodynamics and hydrological characteristics (general): Low Potential change of water quality: Low to Moderate

Indirect Disturbance Impact to the Wildlife Inhabiting Habitats Adjacent to Project Boundary due to Construction

Potential Audibled and Visual Disturbance

7.7.11 Various anthropogenic and site activities during the construction phase of the Project such as earthworks, use of powered plants and equipment, movements of construction vehicles, as well as increased human presence may potentially disturb the wildlife use of the habitats in the vicinity of the Project Boundary. The severity of those audible and visual disturbances is subject to the nature, intensity and duration of the disturbance events, as well as the tolerance and habit of the animals inhabiting the surrounding area.

7.7.12 Given the commonness and wide distribution range of most wildlife recorded in this study, and fact that the potential audibled and visual disturbances would be localized and confined within the trough, the potential impact to wildlife from these two construction disturbances would be considered as Low, in particularly to those wildlife species of conservation importance with high mobility or nocturnal in nature.

Potential Disturbance from Dust Coating on Vegetation

7.7.13 Potential dust-coating of vegetation, in particularly the vegetation species that support the three very rare butterfly species recorded in the vicinity of the Project Boundary, i.e., the Biden pilosa foraged upon by the Forget-me-not and Metallic Cerulean, and the host plant Lantana camara of Tiny Grass Blue, should have already managed by the dust-suppression measures implemented on-site. Therefore, the scale and magnitude of this potential impact would be very limited and not have significant impact to these three butterfly species of concern, especially all the plant species recorded are common in Hong Kong and widely distributed in their respective habitats within the Assessment Area.

Potential Disturbance from Artificial Lighting

7.7.14 During the construction phase of the Project, the glare and potential sky glow generated from artificial lighting installed for a safety and security purpose within or around the perimeter of the Project Boundary may affect the quality of the surrounding habitats and hence the wildlife associated with those areas, especially the upland areas of the cemetery are currently unlighted. Normally the lighting system for this purpose in a construction site is usually installed near the ground level and have a short range that confined to its immediate surroundings, as such it is highly unlikely to have any significant effect on the areas outside the trough where the Project Boundary is located. However, should the artificial lighting be poorly installed and generate excessive glare and potentially sky glow, the resulted ecological impact would be considered as Moderate.

Potential Fragmentation Impact

7.7.15 The Project is located within a trough area and the habitats within are all patchily distributed and fairly fragmented, as such the direct loss of habitats within the Project Boundary is unlikely to have any significant fragmentation impact that would interrupt the movement of ground-dwelling animal across the trough area, especially potential passage across the trough is available through the woodland or grassland corridor to southwest of the Project Boundary.

Potential Impact from Site Runoff

7.7.16 The potential impact to the aquatic habitat downstream from site runoff has already discussed in previous sections. Discharge of site runoff would has the potential to cause negative impact to the wildlife associated with natural watercourses in the area downstream of the Project Boundary. Such impact to the amphibian species of conservation importance recorded in the area could be of Low to Moderate significance.

Operation Phase

7.7.17 As discussed in earlier sections, with respect to the nature and mode of operation of the crematorium, the nature of the potential ecological impacts during the operation phase of the Project would be perpetuated from the construction phase but with different sources, including:

§ Indirect visual and audibled disturbances to the habitat and wildlife in the surrounding areas from increased human presence and anthropogenic activities at the crematorium during the operation hours of the facilities,

§ Potential disturbance from light glare and sky glow to wildlife use of the surrounding areas from artificial lighting installed on the multi-storey crematorium, and

§ Potential impact to water quality or the hydro-morphology of the watercourse downstream.

Visual and Audibled Disturbances

7.7.18 With respect to the latest layout and available architectural details of the proposed WHS crematorium, the potential audibled and visual disturbances to wildlife would be localised around the entrance and road access to the facility, and hence mostly shielded or buffered from the habitat in the surrounding areas by the building structures or local topography. As such, the scale, intensity and magnitude to these disturbances would be to a much lesser extent than those to be occurred during the construction phase, and considered as Low either during the operation or non-operation hours of the crematorium.

Light Glare and Sky Glow

7.7.19 The severity of the potential glare impact to nocturnal wildlife would depend on whether a wildlife-friendly design approach would be incorporated into the design of the lighting and illumination system without conflicting with the aesthetic and other functional needs of the facilities. Such design includes the distribution, amount, illuminance and colour of light sources, as well as the direction and amount of the desired glare. Given that the upland areas of the Wo Hop Shek Cemetery are currently unlighted, if the artificial lighting is excessively installed and generate substantial amount of glare and sky glow, the habitats in the surrounding of the Project Boundary could be substantially affected and preclude their use by wildlife, especially such installation may also cover the chimney and roof of the crematorium at higher mPD levels, and the potential glare or sky glow would have a longer or wider range of coverage to area beyond the trough area. This potential impact to the habitat quality in the vicinity of the Project Boundary would then be considered as Moderate to High.

Surface Runoff from the Crematorium

7.7.20 Although the design details of the drainage and sewage systems of the proposed WHS crematorium would not be available until later stage of the Project, should the surface runoff of the facility be discharged into the retained drainage system without pre-treatment, the pollutants carried in the water, such as oil and dirt from vehicles, detergents, fertilizers and pesticides used for maintenance, landscaping work and pest control, etc., would affect the water quality of the natural watercourses in the downstream area. With respect to the ecological value and functions of the natural watercourses downstream, including providing habitat(s) for three amphibian species of conservation importance, this potential impact is considered as Moderate if there is no pre-treatment of the runoff before the discharge. Nonetheless, relative to the size of the catchment of the existing drainage system, the potential change of the volumetric flow rate during and after raining event, either resulted from the increase of impermeable surface from the crematorium development or the surface runoff within the Project Boundary being diverted elsewhere, should have limited impact to the hydro-morphological characteristics of the watercourses downstream.

Summary

7.7.21 The results of the ecological impact assessment in the absence of mitigation measures are summarised in the Table 7.16 below.

Table 7.16 Summary of Potential Ecological Impacts in Absence of Mitigation Measures

Sources of Impact	Nature of Impact	Impact Significance
Construction Phase
Land-taking and site clearance	Direct loss of terrestrial habitats	Low
	Direct loss of terrestrial species of conservation importance	Low to Moderate for terrestrial floral and faunal species of conservation importance
	Direct loss of aquatic habitats (i.e. channelised watercourse)	Low
	Direct loss of aquatic/ wetland species of conservation importance	Low to Moderate for amphibian species of conservation importance
Construction activities	Deterioration in quality of terrestrial habitats resulted from
	- Physical damage and dust coating - Noise and visual disturbance - Glare and sky glow	- Low - Low - Moderate
Construction activities	Deterioration in quality of aquatic habitats resulted from
	- Change of water quality - Change of hydrodynamics and hydrological characteristics (general)	- Low to Moderate - Low
Construction activities	Disturbance to Wildlife from - Audibled and visual disturbances - Dust coating on vegetation - Artificial lighting - Habitat fragmentation - Construction site runoff	- Low - Low - Moderate - Low - Low to Moderate
Operation Phase
Daily operation of the crematorium	Deterioration in quality of terrestrial habitats and potential disturbance to wildlife from audibled and visual disturbances	Low
Artificial lighting at evening hours	Deterioration in quality of terrestrial habitats and disturbance to Wildlife due to light glare and sky glow	Moderate to High
Surface runoff of the crematorium	Deterioration in quality of aquatic habitats and potential disturbance to wildlife resulted from - Change of water quality - Change of hydrodynamics and hydrological characteristics of natural watercourse	- Moderate, without pre-treatment - Very Low

7.8 Ecological Mitigation Measures

General

7.8.1 The sources, nature and severity of the potential ecological impacts from the proposed development have been identified and evaluated in previous sections in accordance to the criteria suggested in Annex 8 of the EIAO-TM. With respect to the ecological value of the affected habitats, the distribution of wildlife of conservation importance recorded within the Assessment Area, as well as the location and scale of the proposed WHS Crematorium, most of the potential direct and indirect ecological impacts identified for the Project are considered to be minor. Especially, the potential disturbance is expected to be localised and contained within the trough where the Project is located, and/or will be managed by precautious measures required to fulfil the statutory requirements in dust control, water discharge and chemical disposal of construction site etc.

7.8.2 Nonetheless, given the conservation status of the species potentially affected by the Project (especially the less mobile species), the ecological sensitivity of the natural watercourses downstream of the Project Boundary, as well as the currently dark ambience of the upland environment within WHS Cemetery during the evening hours, mitigation measures would be required to address the following impacts during the construction and operation phases of the Project:

Construction Phase

§ Potential Low to Moderate impact resulted from the loss of floral/ faunal species of conservation importance during site clearance and earth works,

§ Potential Low to Moderate indirect disturbance to the natural watercourses downstream of the Project Boundary and the associated amphibian species of conservation importance due to deterioration in the water quality of their inhabiting streams during construction, and

§ Potential Moderate impact to habitat quality of terrestrial habitats and wildlife from the glare and sky glow generated from artificial lighting during construction.

Operation Phase

§ Potential Moderate to High impact to habitat quality of terrestrial habitats and wildlife resulted from excessive glare and sky glow generated from artificial lighting during operation of the proposed WHS Crematorium, and

§ Potential Moderate impact to the water quality of the natural watercourses downstream of the Project Boundary, including the inhabited amphibian species of conservation importance, from the untreated surface runoff of the crematorium.

Construction Phase

Mitigation Measures for Potential Loss of Floral Species of Conservation Importance

7.8.3 Floral species of conservation importance have been recorded within the Project Boundary during the ecological surveys undertaken for the Project, and the following mitigation measures are recommended to avoid, minimize and if necessary compensate their loss under the Project.

7.8.4 Before commencement of site clearance, a detailed baseline vegetation survey with the objective to update the presence and location(s) of floral species of conservation importance, including but not limited to Incense Tree Aquilaria sinensis recorded in this Study, should be undertaken by an experienced Plant Ecologist with at least 3 years’ experience in vegetation survey before the commencement of construction works. The survey should cover all works areas to be directly affected by the proposed crematorium development as well as 5m from its site boundary, and earmark the location(s) regardless of size and growth habit of the concerned plant species. The detail vegetation survey should follow the numbering, tagging and reporting requirements of tree survey as stipulated under the DEVB TC(W) No. 4/2020 as far as practicable, and the results should be presented in a plant schedule and location plan.

7.8.5 Suitability for transplanting the plants to be affected by the works should be assessed on an individual basis and make reference to the evaluation criteria listed in the “Guidelines for Tree Transplanting” issued by the Tree Management Office, DEVB as far as applicable. A “Preservation and Transplanting Proposal for Flora of Conservation importance (the Proposal)” should be prepared by the Plant Ecologist and submitted to AFCD and the future maintenance department for agreement before the commencement of the transplanting work. In the Proposal, the details of the preservation measures, transplanting arrangement including program, operation, location(s) of the receptor site(s), site preparation work required etc., as well as monitoring requirements (including trigger-action plan) and maintenance arrangement should be presented. Wherever applicable, the administrative procedures regarding tree felling as stipulated in the DEVB TC(W) No. 4/2020 should be followed, and compensatory planting of any felled species of conservation importance should also be undertaken wherever practical and feasible.

Mitigation Measures for Potential Loss of Faunal Species of Conservation Importance

7.8.6 Most of the faunal species of conservation importance recorded within and adjacent to the Project Boundary are highly mobile (such as the mammals, birds, butterflies and dragonflies) and they are able to elude the Project Boundary when disturbed, as such any direct loss of these animals is not anticipated. However, capture and relocation of the Lesser Spiny Frog and Short-legged Toad (both tadpoles or adults) would be necessary for their habits and generally lower mobility.

7.8.7 Accordingly, before commencement of site clearance, an Ecologist with relevant experience in surveying herpetofauna should undertake a precautionary check for the presence of these two species of conservation importance in the woodland habitat and drainage system within the Project Boundary. Should any of the two species and/ or other fauna species of conservation importance with lower ability to elude the Project Site be found, an “Animal Capture Survey and Relocation Plan” should be prepared by the Ecologist and submitted to AFCD for approval prior the commencement of the site clearance.

7.8.8 The plan should detail the methodology program, logistics and equipment required for capturing and handling of the concerned species, the location(s) and justification of the recommended receptor site(s). In order to avoid the relocated animals from re-entering areas within the Project Boundary and prone to other planned developments within the Wo Hop Shek Cemetery, the receptor site(s) should be located in a distance from the Project Boundary. Taking into account the locations of other concurrent projects. Subject to a closer examination in the precautionary check stage, the riparian woodland areas of natural watercourse(s) in the northern or southwestern parts of the Assessment Area could be considered.

7.8.9 It is recommended to translocate the concerned fauna species just prior to the commencement of site clearance. Following the translocation, it is essential to promptly install effective fences and barriers along or within the Project Boundary. Considering that the Project Site does not serve as a critical habitat for these species and the previous woodland areas and ditches will no longer exist, the probability of amphibians or other less mobile species entering the Project Site after the site clearance is deemed to be low.

Mitigation Measures for Potential Impact to Wildlife of Conservation Importance Associated with Natural Watercourses Downstream of Project Boundary

7.8.10 With respect to the potential impact to the water quality of the concerned aquatic habitats, preventive measures to manage the water discharge and waste (chemical) disposal of the construction site should be in place and implemented to comply with the Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap. 358) and Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap. 354). Coupled with the implementation of appropriate construction run-off control practices as stated in the ProPECC PN 2/23 Construction Site Drainage, occurrence of deterioration in water quality of the downstream aquatic habitat should be avoided or only be temporarily and in a limited scale.

7.8.11 Despite the ephemeral nature of the concerned watercourses, in order to avoid any substantial disturbance to their hydrological characteristics and hence the habitat quality and potential use by the amphibian species of conservation importance recorded, the water flow from its upland catchment should be maintained as far as practicable in the construction phase, and if necessary the surface runoff upstream of the Project Boundary should be directly diverted to the downstream area without bypassing any natural watercourse section.

Mitigation Measures for Potential Excessive Light Glare/ Sky Glow during Construction

7.8.12 Whilst this potential impact may not be totally avoided due to the functional needs of artificial lighting during the construction phase of the Project, the following measures are recommended to minimize the potential disturbance to the surrounding habitats:

§ Construction activities should only be scheduled within the daytime hours as far as practicable;

§ All of the light sources to be installed within the Project Boundary should not be directed towards the canopy of the terrestrial habitats in the surrounding areas, and any directional lighting should be pointing inwards and downwards;

§ Do not provide excessive lighting along the boundary of the site and keep the intensity and duration of lighting to a strictly necessary minimum, and if applicable automatic systems to turn off or dim the light at certain times, or alarm system or short circuit video based on infrared lighting should be installed;

§ Minimise potential light spill by avoiding the use of bare bulbs or upwards pointing light as far as practicable, and outdoor lighting fixture should be shielded so that little or no light is emitted above the horizontal plane;

§ Light source that has emissions in the ultraviolet spectrum and adjacent short visible wavelengths (blue and purple), which known to attract insect, should be avoided as far as practicable; and

§ Narrow-spectrum lights are preferable to broad-spectrum sources, and if full-spectrum lighting is required then the lowest possible colour temperature should be used.

General Measures Recommended for Terrestrial Habitats during Construction Phase

7.8.13 Besides effective implementation of the mitigation measures for dust suppression, noise reduction, as well as water quality and waste management as detailed in the relevant chapters of this EIA Report, from an ecological perspective, the following good site practices are recommended to avoid and minimize the potential disturbance to habitats and wildlife:

§ Well-defined and fenced works area with hoarding to prevent intentional or accidental encroachment or trespassing for access, parking and operation of plants/ machineries, or stockpiling of construction material/ waste nearby;

§ Cut down vegetation in stages before groundwork takes place to disperse any wildlife that is sheltering in the immediate areas of the works;

§ Wherever feasible, the site clearance and ground work should be proceeded towards the trough and preferably in one direction as such to minimize the temporal habitat fragmentation during the site clearance process and maintain a passage for wildlife;

§ Prohibit feeding of wild animals, and any attractant to wild boars, especially fruits and food remains, should be properly stored in appropriate receptacles, and disposed of daily;

§ Wherever feasible, noise curtain should be installed around noisy plants machineries to minimize the potential audibled disturbance to wildlife in adjacent habitats;

Operation Phase

Mitigation Measures for Potential Indirect Impact to Watercourses Downstream of Project Boundary and Associated Wildlife of Conservation importance from Untreated Surface Runoff from the Crematorium

7.8.14 In order to avoid any potential deterioration in the water quality of the natural watercourses downstream of the Project Boundary from the untreated surface runoff of the proposed crematorium, surface runoff generated during the operation of the Project will be discharged to the nearby existing government drainage system, which could cope with a design return period of 1 in 50 years. Peripheral drain will be provided to collect all surface runoff across the site. Therefore, no water quality impact caused by the surface runoff during the operation phase is anticipated.

Mitigation Measures for Potential Excessive Light Glare/ Sky Glow during Operation

7.8.15 All of the mitigation measures recommended to manage the potential light pollution during the construction phase of the Project are also transferrable to the operation phase. Moreover, other than the potential functional needs of the artificial lightings of the facility (e.g. aesthetic purposes), it is also recommended that the amount of artificial lightings installed within the open space (including the rooftop area) or high ground of the crematorium should be minimized as far as possible, and the amounts of any upward-pointing directional lighting if required (such as for the chimney) should avoid any woodland habitats nearby.

7.9 Residual and Cumulative Ecological Impacts

Residual Ecological Impacts

7.9.1 Ecological mitigation measures corresponding to the identified significant ecological impacts have been recommended in the previous sections, including measures to avoid any direct impact on floral/ faunal species of conservation importance, as well as avoidance/ minimization measures for the potential disturbance impact to habitat and associated wildlife in the vicinity of the Project Boundary from potential light pollution and any changes in the hydrological and ecological condition of the natural watercourses downstream of the Project Boundary . Furthermore, good site practices from an ecological perspective have also been recommended to avoid or minimize the potential construction and operational disturbance to habitat/wildlife potentially affected by the Project in the surrounding habitats.

7.9.2 With the effective implementation of the ecological mitigation measures recommended for the Project, as well as those recommended in other sections of the EIA Report in managing the potential air, noise, water pollution, waste generation and light glare etc., any unacceptable residual ecological impact would not be anticipated.

Cumulative Ecological Impacts

7.9.3 The concurrent projects identified in the vicinity of the Project Boundary have been discussed in Section 2. The following two proposed developments within the 500m Assessment Area would have cumulative ecological impact with the current Project:

§ Road Improvement Works at Wo Hop Shek Cemetery for Phases 2 and 3 Columbarium Development by CEDD,

§ Provision of Columbarium at Wo Hop Shek Cemetery – Phase 2

7.9.4 It is noted that the tentative construction period of these two projects would be largely overlapped with the proposed Crematorium in this assessment, i.e., the construction phase covers the period from 2026 to 2029/2030; and the nature of the potential ecological impact resulted from these two concurrent projects, i.e., the direct loss of habitats and species of conservation importance, as well as direct and indirect disturbance to the habitat and wildlife in surrounding areas, are similar to that of this Project but would be in a different scale and magnitude.

7.9.5 With respect to the location and ecological habitats to be affected, this Project is in a trough and all of the affected habitats within the Project Boundary except a small patch of mixed woodland are habitats of low ecological value, and the construction disturbance is expected to be largely localised and contained within the trough area by the terrain in the surrounding area. When based on the best available information during the time of reporting and comparing the habitat types to be directly affected by the two concurrent projects, the proposed road works will directly affect about 5ha of woodland of moderate ecological value, and a section of the natural watercourse downstream of the current Project will be loss to the proposed Columbarium – Phase 2. Furthermore, the potential disturbance impact raising from the construction activities of these two projects would potentially be more substantial compared to the proposed Crematorium given the length and coverage of the road works and proximity of the proposed columbaria to the natural watercourse of moderate ecological value.

7.9.6 Therefore, relative to these two concurrent projects, the construction of the proposed crematorium would have a much lower significance in the potential cumulative impact to the ecological resources within the Wo Hop Shek Cemetery, in particularly the woodland and natural watercourse habitat of ecological concern.

7.9.7 On the other hand, the cumulative impact with the two concurrent Projects during the operation phase is considered to be minor because the altitudinal difference between the proposed crematorium and the concurrent projects, and hence lack of synergy from the respective sources of disturbance, i.e., disturbance from increased human activities and traffic. In particular, the proposed crematorium and columbaria are >200m apart and will be shielded from each other by the steep local terrain.

7.10 Ecological Monitoring and Audit

7.10.1 With respect to the nature and significance of the predicted ecological impacts and mitigation measures recommended above, ecological monitoring would be required should any floral species of conservation importance be preserved or transplanted under the Project.

7.10.2 Whilst, if applicable, the details of the monitoring will be proposed in the “Preservation and Transplanting Proposal for Flora of Conservation importance” after the completion of a detailed baseline vegetation survey, monitoring of the plants preserved in the Project (if any) should cover the whole construction period with a frequency not less than once every two months, whereas post-transplanting monitoring if required should be conducted monthly for at least a 12-month period.

7.10.3 The necessity of post-translocation monitoring for any frog or other fauna species of conservation importance will be determined after the precautionary check. Should the translocation of any fauna species be required, details of the post-translocation monitoring will be discussed in the Animal Capture Survey and Relocation Plan.

7.10.4 Finally, wherever appliable and feasible, implementation of the good site practices recommended from an ecological perspective above should be included in the regular site audits scheduled under the EM&A Program of this Project.

7.11 Conclusion

7.11.1 In order to meet the requirements specified in the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-362/2023, an ecological impact assessment has been undertaken for the Project in accordance to the Annex 8 and Annex 16 of the EIAO-TM. The baseline ecological profile of the Assessment Area has been established through a comprehensive literature review and a six-month ecological survey that covered both of the wet and dry seasons. The impact assessment referenced to the best available engineering and architectural information during the time of reporting, and the source, nature and significance of the potential ecological impacts associated with the Project were identified and evaluated.

7.11.2 It is concluded that impact from direct habitat loss or construction disturbance to terrestrial habitats and wildlife outside the Project Boundary is considered as Low due to the ecological value, size and fragmented nature of habitats within the Project Boundary, as well as its trough environs and hence the localised nature of the predicted disturbance. Nonetheless, any direct loss of floral/ faunal of conservation importance due to the site clearance of the Project would have a Low to Moderate impact, whereas the impact from potential indirect disturbance to the natural watercourses downstream of the Project Boundary from handling untreated surface runoff of the crematorium, or deterioration in habitat quality nearby from light glare/ sky glow emitted by artificial lighting, may range from Low to Moderate to High if unmanaged.

7.11.3 Significance of the cumulative ecological impact caused by the Project and other concurrent projects within the Assessment Area is considered as minor when comparing the scale of the development and/or the habitats to be directly and indirectly affected.

7.11.4 Ecological mitigation measures corresponding to those significant impacts where mitigation is required have been recommended for both construction and operation phases, including avoidance measures for any direct loss of floral/ faunal species of conservation importance, avoidance/ minimization measures for the potential indirect disturbance to natural watercourses and associated wildlife, as well as minimization measures for potential light glare and sky glow. Furthermore, good site practices from an ecological perspective have also been recommended to avoid and minimize the potential disturbance to the wildlife and habitat nearby. With effective implementation of the recommended ecological mitigation measures, unacceptable residual ecological impact is not anticipated.

7.11.5 In conclusion, with effective implementation of the proposed ecological mitigation measures, the Project would not have adverse ecological impact during its construction and operation phases.

7.12 References

AECOM (2020) Preliminary Environmental Review Report prepared for the Provision of Columbarium at Wo Hop Shek Cemetery Phase 2;

AFCD (2003) Rare and Precious Plants of Hong Kong. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, the Government of the HKSAR

CH2M (2015) Preliminary Environmental Review Report prepared for the Agreement No. CE 54/2013(HY) “Road Widening Works for the Provision of Columbarium at Wo Hop Shek Cemetery – Phase II and III Development”;

Chan et al. (2011) A Review of the Local Restrictedness of Hong Kong Butterflies. Hong Kong Biodiversity. 21: 1 - 12

Cheng et al. (2020) Habitat Characteristics of Fireflies in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Biodiversity. 26: 19 - 24

Fellowes et. al. (2002) Wild animals to watch: Terrestrial and freshwater fauna of conservation concern in Hong Kong. Memoirs of the Hong Kong Natural History Society 25: 123-159.

Huihui Zhao, Zhanfeng Shen and Huiping Huang (2023). Red list assessments of Chinese higher plants, International Journal of Digital Earth, 16:1, 2762-2775.

Hyder (2008) The EIA report ref. AEIAR-119/2008 - Provision of Cremators at Wo Hop Shek Crematorium,

Ministry of Ecology and Environment and Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2023. Red List of China’s Vertebrates (2020) and Red List of China's Vascular Plant, 2020. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences 2023, No. 15

National Forestry and Grassland Administration (2021) List of Protected Wild Plant Species. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bulletin No. 15, 2021

National Forestry and Grassland Administration (2021) List of Protected Wild Animal Species. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bulletin No. 3, 2021

Qin, H.N. et al. (2017) Threatened Species List of China’s Higher Plants. Biodiversity Science 25: 696-744.

Siu, G. L. P. (2000). Orchidaceae of Hong Kong. Memoirs of the Hong Kong Natural History Society 23: 137-148.

WSP (2023) Ecological Impact Assessment Report prepared under the Agreement No. CE 58/2018 (HY) Road Improvement Works at Wo Hop Shek Cemetery Phases 2 and 3 Columbarium Development – Investigation, Design and Construction

Wu, D.L. & Hu, C.X. (1988) Illustrations of Rare and Endangered Plants in Guangdong Province. China Environmental Science Press, Beijing.

Wu, S. H. and W. T. C. Lee. (2000). Pteridophytes of Hong Kong. Memoirs of the Hong Kong Natural History Society 23: 5-20.

Xing, F. W. et al (2000) Gymnosperms and angiosperms of Hong Kong. Memoirs of the Hong Kong Natural History Society 23: 21-136.

Yiu, V. (2020) Methodologies for monitoring fireflies in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Entomological Society12(2): 40 – 50.