This Section presents the baseline condition of ecological resources
within the Study Area ([1]), and the results of an assessment of the
potential ecological impacts due to the construction, operation, restoration
and aftercare of the Extension.
Baseline
conditions for ecological components of the terrestrial and associated aquatic
environment were evaluated based on information from available literature
sources and focussed field surveys conducted for the purposes of this EIA. Measures required to mitigate
any identified adverse impacts are recommended, where appropriate.
A number of international conventions and
local legislation and guidelines provide the framework for the protection of
species and habitats of ecological importance. Those related to the Extension are as
follows:
·
Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap 96);
·
Town Planning Ordinance (Cap 131);
·
Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Cap 170);
·
Protection of Endangered Species of
Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap 586);
·
·
The Technical Memorandum on Environmental
Impact Assessment Process under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance
(EIAO-TM);
·
United Nations Convention on Biodiversity (1992); and
·
PRC Regulations and Guidelines.
The Forests
and Countryside Ordinance prohibits felling, cutting, burning or destroying
of trees and growing plants in forests and plantations on Government land. The subsidiary Forestry Regulations prohibit the picking, felling or possession of
listed rare and protected plant species.
The list of protected species in Hong Kong which comes under the Forestry Regulations was last amended on
11 June 1993 under the Forestry
(Amendment) Regulation 1993 made under Section 3 of the Forests and Countryside Ordinance.
Under the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance, designated wild animals are
protected from being hunted, whilst their nests and eggs are protected from
destruction and removal. All birds
and most mammals including all cetaceans are protected under this Ordinance, as
well as certain reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates. The Second Schedule of the Ordinance
that lists all the animals protected was last revised in June 1997.
The Protection
of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants Ordinance (Cap 586) was enacted
to align
The recently amended Town Planning Ordinance provides for the designation of areas such
as “Coastal Protection Areas”, “Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)”, “Green Belt” and "Conservation Area” to
promote conservation or protection or protect significant habitat. Chapter 10 of the HKPSG covers
planning considerations relevant to conservation. This chapter details the principles of
conservation, the conservation of natural landscape and habitats, historic
buildings, archaeological sites and other antiquities. It also addresses the issue of
enforcement. The appendices list
the legislation and administrative controls for conservation, other
conservation related measures in
Annex 16 of the EIAO-TM sets out the general approach and methodology for
assessment of ecological impacts arising from a project or proposal, to allow a
complete and objective identification, prediction and evaluation of the
potential ecological impacts. Annex 8 recommends the criteria that can
be used for evaluating ecological impacts.
The Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC) is a
Contracting Party to the United Nations
Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992. The Convention requires signatories to
make active efforts to protect and manage their biodiversity resources. The Government of the Hong Kong SAR has
stated that it will be “committed to meeting the environmental objectives” of
the Convention (PELB 1996).
In 1988 the PRC ratified the Wild Animal Protection Law, which lays
down basic principles for protecting wild animals. The Law prohibits killing of protected
animals, controls hunting, and protects the habitats of wild animals, both
protected and non-protected. The
Law also provides for the creation of lists of animals protected at the state
level, under Class I and Class II.
There are 96 animal species in Class I and 156 in Class II. Class I provides a higher level of
protection for animals considered to be more threatened.
The Study Area for the purpose of the terrestrial
ecological assessment included all areas within 500m of the boundary of the
Extension Site, including part of the existing SENT Landfill, Tseung Kwan O (TKO) Area 137 and Clear Water Bay Country
Park (CWBCP). For aquatic ecology,
the Study Area also covered Fat
Tong Tsui, Ti Cham Chau, Kwun
Tsai and Tai Miu Wan.
A literature review was conducted to
determine the existing ecological conditions within the Study Area as well as
the associated aquatic habitats to identify habitat resources and species of
potential importance. The local
literature reviewed included:
·
Porcupine! (Newsletter of Department of Ecology &
Biodiversity,
·
AFCD Biodiversity
Newsletters ([3]);
·
A Field Guide to the Terrestrial Mammals of
·
Annual
Reports of
·
·
A
Field Guide to the Amphibians of
·
A
Field Guide to the Dragonflies of
·
A
Field Guide to Butterfly Watching in
·
The
Avifauna of
·
Gymnosperms
and Angiosperms of
·
Orchidaceae of
·
A Field Guide to the Venomous Land Snakes
of
·
Ecological
Study for SENT Landfill Extension - Final Report ([14]);
·
Further Development of Tseung
Kwan O Feasibility Study ([15]);
·
SENT Landfill Study - Final Report ([16]);
and
·
Field Guide to Hard Corals of
·
SENT Operations and Environmental Monitoring Annual Report and Audit
(from years 2003 to 2006) ([18]) .
An ecological
study for the Further Development of Tseung Kwan O ([21])
indicated
that the habitats within the CWBCP (outside the Study Area of this EIA) are dominated
by grassland/shrubland
mosaic, with small patches of plantation at the valleys. Plant species of conservation interest
included the Yellow-eyed
Grass Xyris indica.
SENT Operations
and Environmental Monitoring reports for the period 2003 to 2006 ([22])
indicated
that native plant species, including Celtis
sinensis, Leucaena leucocephhala,
Bidens bipinnata, Litsea rotundifolia, Triumfetta bartramia, Uraria crinita, Phyllodium pulchellum and
Glochidon ericarpum, have been
recorded within the SENT Landfill plantation , although exotic trees dominated
the plantation.
From
the Ecological
Study of SENT Landfill Extension - Final Report ([24])
and
the Annual Report of Bird Watching ([25]),
there were 47 species recorded in the existing SENT Landfill area and in the
vicinity (including the Extension Site), these are shown in Table 1 of Annex D. Most of the
birds recorded were residential birds (eg bulbuls Pycnonotus spp. prinias Prinia spp.)
or common visitors or migrants (eg Swifts Apus spp.).
There were 6 Class II national protected species recorded in
the Annual Report of Bird Watching Society, including the Pacific Reef Egret Egretta sacra, Black Bittern Dupetor flavicollis,
Black-eared Kite Milvus lineatus,
There is limited information on herpetofauna within
the Study Area.
Seven amphibian
and nine reptile species were recorded in the Tseung
Kwan O area (but outside the Study Area of this EIA) during the Ecological
Study of Further Development of Tseung Kwan O ([26]). Most of the recorded species are common
and widespread in
There is limited information on dragonfly and butterfly species within the
Study Area.
There were 15
dragonfly and 44 butterfly species recorded in the Tseung
Kwan O area (but outside the Study Area of this EIA) during the Ecological
Study of Further Development of Tseung Kwan O ([27]). The majority of the recorded species are
common and widespread in
There is limited information on aquatic
fauna within the Study Area.
The CWBCP is located at the
The underwater dive surveys conducted in
1999 and 2003, with findings presented in the Area 131 Further Ecological Study
Report and the HATS Dive Survey Report respectively ([30]), indicated that Fat Tong Chau harboured
very few hard corals (ie, Porites sp. and Cyphastrea
sp.). Nevertheless, soft corals and
gorgonians including Echinomuricea
sp., Euplexaura
sp., Anthogorgia
sp., Dendronephthya
sp., Menella
sp. and Echinogorgia
sp., were frequent and occurred in moderate abundance.
As reported in
the HATS coral dive surveys in 2003, in
The surveys in
2003 also indicated that there was low coral abundance (<5% cover) and
diversity (8 species of hard coral and dominated by Cyphastrea seralia) recorded in the shallow coastal
waters of
Although
there are some ecological baseline information available in the Tseung Kwan O area as well as the CWBCP, the current Study
Area, in particular the additional 5.1 ha of the Extension Site within CWBCP,
has limited information. As a
consequence, detailed ecological surveys in this area were required.
To supplement the limited available
information, more than 9 months of terrestrial and aquatic ecology baseline
surveys were conducted to collect baseline information of
the Study Area. The surveys were
conducted during November 2005 to March 2006 (dry season) and April to July
2006 (wet season), which included habitat/vegetation, terrestrial mammal, bird,
herpetofauna, invertebrates (butterfly and dragonfly)
and stream fauna surveys for terrestrial ecology, and subtidal
(dive) surveys along the coastal habitats in the close proximity to the Study
Area, including Fat Tong Mun, Tit Cham Chau, Tai Miu Wan and Kwun Tsai.
A reconnaissance survey was undertaken in
October 2005 to update and field check the validity of the information gathered
in the literature review. A number
of more focussed baseline field surveys were then identified and carried out to
characterise the existing ecological conditions of the Study Area. The surveys were designed to fill the
data gaps identified in literature review.
Special attention was paid to the remaining natural habitats and those
areas which will be directly impacted by the proposed Extension, especially the
habitat and wildlife within the 5.1 ha of land to be developed into the
CWBCP. It should be noted that
there were some limitations to take surveys within the existing SENT Landfill
and TKO Area 137 due to safety concerns, and given that the areas are highly
disturbed due to the busy traffic and the current working activities.
The following baseline ecological surveys
were undertaken:
·
Terrestrial
habitat and vegetation surveys;
·
Bird
surveys (including night survey);
·
Mammal
surveys (including night survey);
·
Invertebrates
(butterflies and dragonflies) surveys;
·
Herpetofauna surveys (including night surveys);
·
Stream
macro-fauna survey; and
·
Subtidal (dive) surveys.
Habitat and vegetation surveys were
performed on 17 November 2005, 12 December 2005, 24 February 2006, 16 March
2006 and 21 July 2006. The aim of
the surveys was to establish the ecological profile of habitat and vegetation
within the Study Area. A habitat
map of the Study Area is shown in Figure 9.6a.
Habitats were mapped based on Government
aerial photographs (year 2004)([31]) and field ground truthing. Representative areas of each habitat
type were surveyed on foot. Plant
species within each habitat type and their relative abundance were recorded
with special attention to rare or protected species. Nomenclature and conservation status of
plant species follow Xing et al ([32]), Siu 2000 ([33])
and AFCD 2001 ([34]).
Surveys of terrestrial mammals within the
Study Area were conducted on 17 November 2005, 14 January, 24 February, 27
April, 26 May and 21 July 2006 to cover both dry and wet seasons. Night surveys for mammals were carried
out on 14 January and 21 July 2006.
As most mammals occur at low densities,
all sightings, tracks, and signs of mammals were actively searched along the
survey transects (see Figure 9.6b). Nomenclature for mammals followed AFCD
(2006) ([35]).
No quantification of abundance of mammals in the Study Area was made,
due to the difficulties in translating sights and tracks (eg
burrows) to actual abundance.
Habitats and
areas of potential ecological importance for birds within the Study Area were
identified in a reconnaissance survey.
Baseline surveys of bird populations were undertaken within those
selected habitats using quantitative (point count) and qualitative (transect
survey) methods. Bird surveys were
conducted on 17 November, 12 December 2005, 14 January, 27 April, 26 May and 29
June, 2006 to cover both dry and wet seasons. Night surveys were conducted on 14
January 2006 and 26 May 2006.
Bird communities in each major habitat
type recorded within the Study Area, including plantation, shrubland,
grassland and disturbed/developed area were surveyed using the point count
method. A total of 18 sampling
points at the Study Area were selected and their locations are shown in Figure
9.6b. Ten minutes were spent counting birds at
each sampling point. All birds seen
or heard within 30m of the sampling points were counted.
Surveys of herpetofauna
within the Study Area were conducted on 17 November 2005, 14 January, 24
February, 27 April, 26 May and 21 July 2006 to cover both dry and wet
seasons. Night surveys of the
amphibians were carried out on 14 January and 21 July 2006. Herpetofauna
surveys were conducted through direct observation and active searching in all
major habitat types along the survey transects (see Figure 9.6b ) and
in potential hiding places such as among leaf litter, inside holes and under
stones and logs within the Study Area.
Auditory detection of species-specific calls was also used to survey
frogs and toads. During the
surveys, all reptiles and amphibians sighted and heard were recorded. Nomenclature and status used for
reptiles follows Karen et al 1998 ([37])
while that of amphibians
follows AFCD 2005 ([38]).
Surveys of butterfly and dragonfly species
within the Study Area were conducted on 17 November 2005, 14 January, 24
February, 27 April, 26 May and 21 July 2006 covering both dry and wet seasons,
along the survey transects (see Figure 9.6b). Nomenclature for butterflies follows Yiu 2004 ([39])
and dragonfly nomenclature
followed AFCD 2004 ([40]).
Stream fauna surveys were undertaken on 17
November 2005, 26 May and 21 July 2006 to identify the water bodies and aquatic
resources in the Study Area.
Streams identified within the Study Area were visited and stream fauna
were studied by direct observation and active searching for sensitive species
or individuals using hand nets.
In order to investigate the subtidal hard surface assemblages, as well as confirming the
abundance and diversity of corals, along the coastlines potentially affected by
the Landfill Extension, dive surveys in the form of Rapid Ecological Assessment
(REA) ([41])
were
conducted on 29 and 30
December 2005. The REA technique allows semi-quantitative
information on the ecological attributes of a subtidal
habitat to be obtained relatively simply without compromising scientific
rigour. The survey was divided into
five zones and each zone had one 100m transect, running parallel to the
shoreline (see Figure 9.6c). An initial qualitative reconnaissance surveys
were conducted along the coastlines of Zones
A to E. During the survey, the
position and number of transects were decided on site. The preferred location would be having
high coral abundance, or area of high epifaunal
density. The depth of transects was
adjusted accordingly based on the substrate habitat and the presence or absence
of hard and soft corals.
Zone A to E were surveyed referring to the
Rapid Ecological Assessment.
Information was recorded by observers experienced in the field identification
of sessile benthic taxa, swimming down-current at
each location using SCUBA gear.
Transects were determined with a portable geographic positioning system
(GPS) unit. A 100m transect was laid
out and video footage taken of the benthos along the transect/survey route
followed by an assessment of the benthic cover (Tier I) and taxon
abundance (Tier II) in a swathe ~ 4m wide, 2m either side of each transect.
Table 9.6a Co-ordination
of Survey Transects (Starting Point)
|
Transects |
Easting |
Northing |
Latitude |
Longitude |
|
A1 |
114-15-57 |
22-16-45 |
845423 |
815581 |
|
B1 |
114-15-53 |
22-16-31 |
845327 |
815161 |
|
C1 |
114-16-38 |
22-15-45 |
846596 |
813732 |
|
D1 |
114-16-48 |
22-15-53 |
846884 |
813983 |
|
E1 |
114-17-2 |
22-16-11 |
847139 |
814531 |
Upon the completion of each transect, seven
substratum and six ecological attributes were assigned to one of seven standard
ranked (ordinal) categories (Tables 9.6b and
9.6c).
Table 9.6b Categories
Used in the Surveys - Benthic Attributes
|
Ecological |
Substratum |
|
Hard coral |
Hard substrate |
|
Dead standing coral |
Continuous pavement |
|
Soft coral |
Bedrock |
|
Antipatharia |
Rubble |
|
Macroalgae |
Sand |
|
Turf algae |
Silt |
|
|
Boulders – large (>50cm), small (<50cm) |
Table 9.6c Categories
Used in the Surveys - Ordinal Ranks of Percentage Cover
|
Rank |
Percentage Cover (%) |
|
0 |
None recorded |
|
1 |
<5 |
|
2 |
6-10 |
|
3 |
11-30 |
|
4 |
31-50 |
|
5 |
51-75 |
|
6 |
76-100 |
An inventory of benthic taxa was compiled during each dive (ie
each transect).
Taxa were identified in situ to the following levels:
·
Scleractinian (hard) corals to species wherever possible;
·
Soft corals,
anemones and conspicuous macroalgae were recorded
according to morphological features and to genus level if possible; and
·
Other
benthos (including sponges, zoanthids, ascidians and
bryozoans) were recorded to genus level wherever possible but more typically to
phylum plus growth form.
At the end of each dive, each taxon in the inventory was ranked in terms of abundance in
the community (see Table 9.6d). These broad categories rank taxa in terms of relative abundance of individuals, rather
than the contribution to benthic cover along each transect. The ranks are subjective assessments of
abundance, rather than quantitative counts of each taxon.
Table 9.6d Ordinal
Ranks of Taxon Abundance
|
Rank |
Abundance |
|
0 |
Absent |
|
1 |
Rare |
|
2 |
Uncommon |
|
3 |
Common |
|
4 |
Abundant |
|
5 |
Dominant |
Photographs of representative coral
species located in the surveyed areas were taken and, where possible,
photographs of the seabed composition were taken. Video footage and photographs are taken
for all transects.
The information presented in the following
sections has been based on the findings of baseline surveys performed and the
requirement of the EIA Study Brief (ESB-119/2004,
Clause 3.4.7). The importance
of potentially impacted ecological resources identified within the Study Area
was assessed using the EIAO-TM
methodology. The potential impacts
(following the guideline of Annex 16
of the EIAO-TM) due to the
construction, operation and restoration, and aftercare of the Extension were
evaluated with respect to the criteria stipulated in Annex 8 in the EIAO-TM.
The Study Area consisted of highly disturbed
area (such as the TKO Area 137 and the existing SENT Landfill) at the south,
west and north, and natural habitats (within CWBCP) at the east. Terrestrial habitats found within the
Study Area include plantation, shrubland,
grassland, disturbed/ developed area and seasonal streams (see Figure
9.6a). A
narrow strip of sandy beach was also recorded at the south of the Study
Area. Colour photographs of all
recorded habitat types, as well as other features and species of conservation
interest, are presented in Figures
9.7a to 9.7g.
The photographs showing the current conditions of the proposed Extension
Site are presented in Figure 9.7h.
A total of 124 plant species were recorded
(see Table 2 of Annex D). The number of plant species and the size
of each identified habitat type are presented in Table 9.7a.
Table 9.7a Habitat
Types Recorded Within the Study Area
|
Habitat type |
Area or Length (hectare or m) |
Number of Plant Species Recorded |
|
|
25.0 ha |
14 |
|
Shrubland |
75.3 ha |
80 |
|
Grassland |
19.7 ha |
30 |
|
Disturbed/
Developed Area |
171.2 ha |
22 |
|
Seasonal
Stream |
154 m |
12 |
Exotic plantation was found at the north
of the Study Area, within the boundary of the existing SENT Landfill. A total of 14 plant species were recorded
in the plantation and all of them are commonly found in
The plantation is exotic woodland,
dominated by the tree species Acacia confusa with a canopy height of 3 to 5m. They were planted in the restored part
of the existing SENT Landfill. They
are young in age and the understorey was sparsely
occupied by weeds (expected to have invaded naturally), including Leucaena
leucocephala, Bridelia
tomentosa, Lantana
camara and Miscanthus
sinensis.
The plant species diversity and structural complexity of the plantation
are considered to be low. The
photographic records of plantation are shown in Figure 9.7a.
Shrubland was found on the
hill and mainly located within the CWBCP, in forms of continuous patch and
comprised a total area of approximately 75.3 ha. The shrubland
has rocky substrate, and shows evidence of occasional disturbance by hill
fires. Shrubland
patches found in the valleys are usually taller, with an average 2 to 3m in
height, while those on the hill slopes are generally shorter, 0.3 to 1.5m in
height. A total of 80 plant
species, which are commonly found in shrubland
habitat in
Grassland was recorded at the southeast of
the Study Area, mainly located within the CWBCP, comprising 19.7 ha. The grassland was
found on the hill ridges with rocky substrate, and exposed to the winds. It was disturbed by hill fires
occasional. A total of 30 grassy
and shrubby plant species were recorded in the habitat and all of them are
commonly recorded in
Seasonal
Stream
Two seasonal streams named S1 to S2 were
recorded within the Study Area. S1
(approximately 56m in length, with silty bottom) was
located at Ha Shan Tuk and S2 (approximately 98m in
length, with rocky bottom) was located at Hin Ha
Au. The photographic records of
streams are shown in Figure 9.7d. Both of them are small seasonal streams
with limited water flows during the wet season and no water flow during the dry
season. The riparian vegetation of
the two seasonal streams was densely vegetated and intermingled with the shrubland vegetation in the close vicinity. No stream fauna was recorded during the
survey. The ecological significance
of these two seasonal streams therefore considered to be low.
Disturbed/
Developed Areas
Four mammal species, including two bat
species, Japanese Pipistrelle Pipistrellus abramus and the Brown Noctule Bat Nyctalus noctula, Tanezumi Rat Rattus tanezumi and Wild Boar Sus scrofa,
were recorded within the Study Area (see
Tables 3 and 4 of Annex D). Only the Japanese Pipistrelle
and Tanezumi Rat
were recorded within the 5.1 ha of the Extension Site within the
CWBCP. All bats are protected in
Fifty-five
bird species were recorded during the quantitative and qualitative surveys (see
Table 5 of Annex D). Four of them were recorded outside the survey points but within the Study Area. Thirty-three species were recorded
during the dry season and 36 species during the wet season (see Tables 6 and 7 of Annex D). No birds were recorded during the night
survey. There were seven bird
species of conservation interest, including Black Kite Milvus migran,
Greater Coucal Centropus sinensis, Commom
Buzzard Buteo buteo, Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus, Hwamei Garrulax canorus, Brown Hawk Owl Ninox scutulata and White-bellied Sea Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster,
encountered during the surveys, and they were mainly perching or soaring in the
sky within the Study Area. With the
exception of Hwamei, all of them are recognised as Class II protected species
in the PRC. White-bellied Sea Eagle and Hwamei are
listed in CITES Appendix II. The
locations of bird species of conservation value are shown in Figure
9.7f. Since
the Black Kites were commonly found soaring in the sky within the Study Area,
the exact locations of the bird were not shown.
Thirty
of the species encountered were resident to
Table 9.7b Mean
Abundance and Number of Bird Species in Different Types of Habitat in the Study
Area
|
Habitat |
Season |
|
Shrubland |
Grassland |
Disturbed/ Developed Area |
|
Survey
days |
Dry |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
Wet |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
Overall |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
|
|
Number
of individuals |
Dry |
65 |
280 |
57 |
90 |
|
Wet |
49 |
148 |
97 |
66 |
|
|
Overall |
114 |
428 |
154 |
156 |
|
|
Abundance
(no. of individuals/ ha/survey point/survey day) |
Dry |
4.3 |
18.5 |
3.76 |
5.95 |
|
Wet |
3.23 |
9.78 |
6.41 |
4.36 |
|
|
Overall |
3.77 |
14.2 |
5.09 |
5.15 |
|
|
No.
of species |
Dry |
19 |
26 |
15 |
17 |
|
Wet |
14 |
20 |
21 |
17 |
|
|
|
Overall |
26 |
33 |
28 |
24 |
Table 9.7c Butterfly
Species Recorded in Each Habitat of the Study Area
|
Habitat |
Season |
|
Shrubland |
Grassland |
Disturbed/ Developed Area |
|
No. of species |
Dry |
9 |
21 |
14 |
11 |
|
|
Wet |
14 |
17 |
23 |
2 |
|
|
Overall |
|
|
|
|
|
No. of individuals |
Dry |
15 |
75 |
110 |
65 |
|
Wet |
98 |
101 |
178 |
3 |
|
|
Overall |
113 |
176 |
288 |
68 |
|
|
No. of uncommon species |
|
|
5 |
2 |
|
|
No. of rare species |
|
|
3 |
3 |
|
Among
the 50 butterfly species, 6 are uncommon, 5 are rare species and the rest are
either common or abundant in
Table 9.7d Larval
Food Plants of Butterfly Species of Conservation Interests
|
Common Name |
Species Name |
Status |
Food Plant as Reported in Bascombe et al 1999 ([43]) |
|
Grass Demon |
Udaspes folus |
Rare |
Zingiber officinale, Hedychium
coronarium |
|
Common Dart |
Potanthus pseudomaesa |
Rare |
Cymbopogon tortilis, Miscanthus
floridulus |
|
Lesser Band Dart |
Potanthus trachala |
Rare |
Ischaemum indicum, Miscanthus
floridulus, M. sinensis, Phragmites karka |
|
Swallowtail |
Papilio xuthus |
Rare |
Zanthoxylum nitidum, Z. myriacanthum,
Citrus microcarpa, Fortunellla
hindsii, F japonica |
|
Dark Grass Blue |
Zizeeria karsandra |
Rare |
Amaranthus spinosus, A. tricolor, A. viridis |
|
Indian Palm Bob |
Suastus gremius |
Uncommon |
Phoenix hanceana, P. roebelinii, Rhapis excelsa |
|
Toothed Sunbeam |
Curetis dentate |
Uncommon |
Millettia reticulata, Pongamia
pinnata |
|
Small Grass Blue |
Famegana alsulus |
Uncommon |
Desmodium elegans, Flemingia
macrophylla, Phyllodium pulchellum |
|
Common Nawab |
Polyura athamas |
Uncommon |
Acacia sinuate, Albizia corniculata, A. lebbeck, Archidendron clypearia, Leucaena leucocephala |
|
Indian Fritillary |
Argyreus hyperbius |
Uncommon |
Viola betonicifolia, V. odorata |
|
White-edged Blue Baron |
Euthalia phemius |
Uncommon |
Mangifera indica |
Grassland has the highest number of
individuals of dragonflies while disturbed/developed area and plantation has
the highest number of species during the survey. The number of dragonfly species and
total number of individuals recorded in each habitat are summarised in Table 9.7e.
Table 9.7e Dragonfly
Species Recorded in Each Habitat of the Study Area
|
Habitat |
Season |
|
Shrubland |
Grassland |
Disturbed/ Developed Area |
|
No.
of species |
Dry |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
|
Wet |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
Overall |
3 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
|
No.
of individuals |
Dry |
|
31 |
|
3 |
|
|
Wet |
17 |
15 |
36 |
5 |
|
|
Overall |
17 |
46 |
36 |
8 |
A
total of five species of amphibian (Asian Common Toad, Gunther’s
Frog, Paddy Frog, Brown Tree Frog and Ornate Pygmy Frog), two species of
reptiles (Changeable Lizard and Common Rat Snake) were recorded in the Study
Area (see Tables 14 to 16 of Annex D). The location
of the common and widespread reptile, but listed in CITES Appendix II, the Common Rat Snake Ptyas mucosus was presented in Figure
9.7f. The remaining species are common
locally.
No aquatic fauna was recorded within the seasonal
streams, which may be due to the limited water flow during the surveys.
The survey was performed on 29 and 30
December 2005. The weather was
sunny and the sea was calm. The visibility
was poor, ranging between 0.5m and 1.5m.
The photographic records of the sub-tidal dive habitats are shown in Figure 9.7g.
The results of the qualitative survey are shown in Table 17 of Annex D.
Along each transect the seabed composition was identified and
conditions were shown in Table 18 of Annex D. The seabed attributes of the transects are shown in Table 19 of Annex D.
Coral
Assemblages
A total of nineteen species of hard coral
and five species of soft coral were recorded along the survey transects and in
their vicinity. All of them are
commonly found in Hong Kong except the hard coral species Acropora solitaryensis which is uncommon in
Table
9.7f Hard
Coral Species Recorded in Transects A1 – E1
|
Hard Coral Species |
Percentage Cover |
||||
|
A1 |
B1 |
C1 |
D1 |
E1 |
|
|
Acropora solitaryensis |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
|
Coscinaraea n sp. |
1 |
1 |
- |
- |
1 |
|
Cyphastrea serailia |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
|
Favia favus |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
|
Favia lizardensis |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
|
Favia rotumana |
- |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
|
Favia speciosa |
- |
- |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Favites abdita |
- |
- |
1 |
1 |
- |
|
Goniastrea aspera |
1 |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
|
Goniopora stutchburyi |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
1 |
|
Hydnophora exesa |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Leptastrea purpurea |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
|
Oulastrea crispata |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
1 |
|
Pavona decussata |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
|
Platygyra acuta |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
|
Plesiastrea versipora |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Porites sp. |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
- |
|
Psammocora superficialis |
1 |
- |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Turbinaria peltata |
- |
- |
1 |
1 |
- |
|
Total Number of
Species |
7 |
4 |
8 |
11 |
9 |
|
Note: (a) 1 = 1-10% Cover, 2 =
11-30% Cover, 3 = 31-50% Cover, 4 = 51-75% Cover, 5 = 76-100% cover. |
|||||
Table
9.7g Soft
Coral Species Recorded in Transects A1 – E1
|
Soft Coral Species |
Percentage Cover |
||||
|
A1 |
B1 |
C1 |
D1 |
E1 |
|
|
Cladiella sp. |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Dendronephtha sp. |
- |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Echinomuricea sp. |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Euplexaura sp. |
2 |
1 |
1 |
- |
- |
|
Tubastrea sp. |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Total Number of
Species |
4 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Note: (a)
1 = 1-10% Cover, 2 = 11-30% Cover, 3 = 31-50% Cover, 4 =
51-75% Cover, 5 = 76-100% cover. |
|||||
The benthic fauna recorded along the
survey transect included sponges, ascidians, rock oyster Saccostrea cucullata, Pinctada sp., the sea cucumber Holothuria leucospilota,
decorator urchins Temnopleura reevesi, sea
urchin Anthocidaris crassispina
and the long-spined sea urchins Diadema setosum.
The results of the sub-tidal habitat
surveys indicated that hard corals were in low abundance and diversity, and
dominated by species which are commonly found in
The Extension Site comprised part of the
TKO Area 137, the existing SENT Landfill and the CWBCP area. Based on the literature review and the
field surveys, it was found that the habitats recorded in the Extension Site are dominated by
disturbed/developed areas (34.6 ha) and plantation (12.2 ha), with small
patches of shrubland (6 ha) and grassland (0.1
ha). For the areas within the
CWBCP, 5.1 ha of the existing habitats, including approximately 4.6 ha of shrubland, 0.1 ha of grassland and 0.4 ha of
disturbed/developed areas will be affected. The photographic records of habitats
within the Extension Site are shown in Figure 9.7h.
The shrubland was dominated by native shrubs at a height of 1.5
to 2m, with native shrubs such as Breynia
fruticosa, Bridelia tomentosa, Cratoxylum cochinchinensis and Rhodomrytus
tomentosa.
The species diversity of the shrubland is
considered as moderate and the structural diversity to be low to moderate.
The grassland was
dominated by grasses and sedges including Miscanthus
sinensis and Rhynchelytrum
repens at a height of
0.5 to 1m. The species diversity
and the structural complexity of grassland are considered as low.
The disturbed/developed
area is highly disturbed by human activities and limited vegetation cover was
recorded. The vegetation was
dominated by sedges and climbers such as Cyperus rutondus, Leucaena
leucocephala and Mikania micrantha and plants for landscape purposes (see
Table 2 of Annex D). The species diversity and structural complexity of the
disturbed/developed area are considered to be low.
A total of 88
plant species were recorded within the Extension Site, in which 62 plant
species were recorded within the 5.1 ha of the Extension Site within the
CWBCP. All of the recorded plant
species are common or very common in
The results of the field surveys indicated
that the wildlife abundance and species diversity recorded within the Extension
Site were relatively low in the plantation and developed areas, but moderate in
shrubland and grassland. The species diversity and wildlife
abundance recorded within the CWBCP area were low to moderate in the shrubland.
Species of conservation interests found within the Extension Site are
shown in Table 9.7h.
Table 9.7h Faunal
Species with Ecological Interest within the Extension Site
|
Species |
Location |
Activity |
Protection Status |
|
Mammals |
|
|
|
|
Japanese Pipistrelle
Pipistrellus abramus |
Shrubland within the encroached area of CWBCP and
developed area of the Extension Site |
Soaring |
Wild Animals and Plants (Cap 170) |
|
Brown Noctule
Bat Nyctalus noctula |
Developed area within the Extension Site |
Flying fast above the habitat |
Wild Animals and Plants (Cap 170) |
|
Birds |
|
|
|
|
Black Kite Milvus lineatus |
Shrubland, developed area and plantation within
the Extension Site, and shrubland within the
encroached area of the CWBCP |
Soaring |
Class 2
Protected Animal of PRC; |
|
Common Buzzard Buteo buteo |
Shrubland within
the encroached area of the CWBCP |
Perching, flight over |
Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC; |
|
Greater Coucal Centropus sinensis |
Developed area within the Extension Site |
Perching |
Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC |
|
Brown Hawk Owl Ninox scutulata |
Shrubland within
the encroached area of the CWBCP |
Perching |
Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC |
|
Butterflies |
|
|
|
|
Swallowtail Papilio xuthus |
Shrubland near
the top of the hill within the encroached area of the CWBCP |
Flying over |
Not protected |
|
Indian
Fritillary Argyreus hyperbius |
Shrubland near
the top of the hill within the encroached area of the CWBCP |
Flying over |
Not protected |
|
Toothed Sunbeam
Curetis dentate |
Shrubland within
the encroached area of CWBCP. |
Flying over |
Not protected |
|
White-edged
Blue Baron Euthalia
phemius |
Shrubland within
the encroached area of the CWBCP |
Flying over |
Not protected |
|
Reptiles |
|
|
|
|
Common Rat
Snake Ptyas mucosus |
Shrubland
within the encroached area of the CWBCP |
Resting |
Not protected
in CITES Appendix II |
In conclusion, the ecological value
of shrubland is considered to be moderate, low to
moderate for grassland, low for plantation and negligible for the
disturbed/developed area.
In this section the ecological importance
of the habitats and wildlife identified within the Study Area are evaluated in
accordance with the criteria stipulated in Annex
8 of the EIAO-TM. The
evaluation is based upon the information presented in Section 9.7. The ecological importance of each
habitat type within the Study Area and the habitats within the Extension Site
are presented in Tables 9.8a to
9.8g.
Table 9.8a Ecological
Evaluation of
|
Criteria |
|
|
Naturalness
|
Man-made habitat dominated by exotic plants. |
|
Size |
Exotic plantation with the overall size of 25.0
ha. Approximately 12.2 ha of
plantation located within the Extension Site. |
|
Diversity |
Low diversity of plant (14 species), low
diversity of birds (26 species), butterfly (18 species) and other fauna. |
|
Rarity |
Bird species Black Kite was recorded soaring in
the sky. |
|
Re-creatability |
Habitat characteristics and species composition
are easy to recreate. It will
take around 5 to 10 years for the plantation to be re-created. |
|
Fragmentation |
Not applicable. |
|
Ecological
Linkage |
Not functionally linked to any highly
valued habitat in close proximity. |
|
Potential
Value |
Low |
|
Nursery/
Breeding Ground |
None. |
|
Age |
Young (10 years) based on tree size, woodland structure
and species composition. |
|
Abundance/
Richness of Wildlife |
Low abundance for wildlife. |
|
Overall Ecological Value |
Low |
Table 9.8b Ecological
Evaluation of Shrubland
|
Criteria |
Shrubland |
|
Naturalness
|
Natural habitat with disturbance of hill
fires |
|
Size |
Shrubland has the overall size of approximately 75.3
ha. Approximately 6 ha of shrubland were found within the Extension Site in which
approximately 4.6 ha located within the CWBCP and outside of the existing
SENT Landfill. |
|
Diversity |
Moderate for vegetation (totally 80
species for the whole area, mostly native shrubs and climbers), moderate for faunal diversity |
|
Rarity |
Species of
conservation interest included Japanese Pipistrelle,
Black Kite, Brown Hawk Owl, Common Buzzard, Greater Coucal,
Hwamei, Common Rat Snake, Lesser Band Dart,
Swallowtail, Common Nawab, Common Dart, Indian
Fritillary, Toothed Sunbeam, White-edged Blue Baron and Indian Palm Bob |
|
Re-creatability |
Habitat
characteristics and species composition are easy to recreate. It will take more than 10 years for
the shrubland to be re-created. |
|
Fragmentation |
Shrubland mainly exists as a continuous patch |
|
Ecological
Linkage |
Not functionally linked to any highly
valued habitat in close proximity |
|
Potential
Value |
Medium to high |
|
Nursery /Breeding Ground |
No significant nursery/breeding ground
recorded. |
|
Age |
Young to moderate |
|
Abundance/ Richness of Wildlife |
Moderate for avifauna and butterflies,
low for dragonfly |
|
Overall Ecological Value |
Moderate |
Table
9.8c Ecological
Evaluation of Grassland
|
Criteria |
Grassland |
|
Naturalness
|
Semi-natural, disturbed by hill fire and
dominated by grasses and sedges |
|
Size |
Grassland was
approximately 19.7ha, with 0.1 ha encroached within the CWBCP and outside the
existing SENT Landfill |
|
Diversity |
Low for vegetation and low to moderate
for fauna |
|
Rarity |
Species of conservation interests
included Black Kite, Hwamei, Common Buzzard, Common
Kestrel, |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily creatable |
|
Fragmentation |
Not applicable |
|
Ecological
Linkage |
Not functionally linked to any highly
valued habitat in close proximity |
|
Potential
Value |
Low |
|
Nursery/ Breeding Ground |
No significant nursery/breeding ground
recorded |
|
Age |
Young |
|
Abundance/ Richness of Wildlife |
Wildlife abundance was low to moderate |
|
Overall Ecological Value |
Low to moderate |
Table
9.8d Ecological
Evaluation of Seasonal Streams
|
Criteria |
Seasonal Stream S1 at Tin Ha Au |
Seasonal Stream S2 at Tin Ha Au |
|
Naturalness |
Natural |
Natural |
|
Size |
The total
length was 56 m with silty substratum |
The total
length was 98 m with rocky substratum. |
|
Diversity |
Low for plant
and no aquatic fauna recorded |
Low for plant
and no aquatic fauna recorded |
|
Rarity |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Re-creatability |
Re-creatable |
Re-creatable |
|
Fragmentation |
Not applicable |
Not applicable |
|
Ecological Linkage |
Not
functionally linked to any highly valued habitat in close proximity |
Not
functionally linked to any highly valued habitat in close proximity |
|
Potential Value |
Low ecological
potential |
Low ecological
potential |
|
Nursery/Breeding Ground |
None |
None |
|
Age |
Not applicable |
Not applicable |
|
Abundance/ Richness of Wildlife |
Nil |
Nil |
|
Overall Ecological Value |
Low |
Low |
Table
9.8e Ecological
Evaluation of Disturbed/ Developed Area
|
Criteria |
Disturbed / Developed Area |
|
Naturalness |
Man-made habitat |
|
Size |
The overall size was approximately 171.2 ha. This habitat was dominant within the
Extension Site with approximately 34.6 ha. 0.4 ha of this habitat is located
within the encroached area of CWBCP. |
|
Diversity |
Low for flora and fauna. |
|
Rarity |
Species of conservation interests included Japanese Pipistrelle, Brown Noctule Bat,
Black Kite and Greater Coucal |
|
Re-creatability |
Readily re-creatable |
|
Fragmentation |
Not applicable |
|
Ecological Linkage |
Not functionally linked to any highly valued habitat in close
proximity |
|
Potential Value |
Low |
|
Nursery/Breeding
Ground |
None |
|
Age |
Not
applicable |
|
Abundance/Richness
of Wildlife |
Low |
|
Overall Ecological Value |
Negligible |
Table
9.8f Ecological
Evaluation of Subtidal Habitats
|
Criteria |
Subtidal Habitats |
|
Naturalness |
Natural |
|
Size |
Overall 500 m of survey transects were done for Zones A to E. None of the subtidal
habitats were found within the Project Site. |
|
Diversity |
Hard corals were in
low abundance and diversity. Zone
A found to have relatively high abundance of soft coral |
|
Rarity |
Uncommon coral species Acropora solitaryensis. |
|
Re-creatability |
The subtidal habitat may take 5 to 10 years
to re-establish. |
|
Fragmentation |
Not applicable |
|
Ecological Linkage |
Not functionally linked to any highly valued habitat in close
proximity |
|
Potential Value |
Low |
|
Nursery/Breeding
Ground |
None |
|
Age |
Not
applicable |
|
Abundance/Richness
of Wildlife |
Low |
|
Overall Ecological Value |
Low to
moderate |
Table
9.8g Ecological
Evaluation of the Extension Site
|
Criteria |
Extension Site |
|
Naturalness
|
Dominated by man-made habitat (disturbed/developed
area and plantation). Natural
habitats included shrubland and grassland but with
certain degree of disturbance (ie, hill fire) were
recorded. |
|
Size |
Approximately
34.6 ha of disturbed/ developed area, 12.2 plantation, 6 ha of shrubland and 0.1 ha of grassland recorded within the
Extension Site. 4.6 ha of shrubland, 0.1 ha of
grassland and 0.4 ha of disturbed/developed area were encroached upon the
CWBCP. |
|
Diversity |
Low to moderate for vegetation and fauna |
|
Rarity |
Species of conservation interest
included Japanese Pipistrelle, Brown Noctule Bat, Black Kite, Greater Coucal,
Brown Hawk Owl, Common Buzzard, Common Rat Snake, Swallowtail, Tooted
Sunbeam, White-edged Blue Baron and Indian Fritillary |
|
Re-creatability |
The shrubland
may take 10 years to be recreated, plantation may take 10 years to be
recreated, grassland may take 5 years to re-created |
|
Fragmentation |
Not applicable |
|
Ecological
Linkage |
Not functionally linked to any highly valued
habitat in close proximity |
|
Potential
Value |
Low |
|
Nursery/Breeding
Ground |
No significant nursery/breeding ground
recorded |
|
Age |
Young |
|
Abundance/Richness
of Wildlife |
Abundance and richness of wildlife was
low. |
|
Overall Ecological Value |
Low to moderate |
The
lists and evaluations of the floral and faunal species of ecological interest
recorded within the Study Area, according to the EIAO-TM, are given in Table
9.8h.
Table 9.8h Evaluation
of Faunal Species with Ecological Interest within the Study Area
|
Species |
Location |
Protection Status |
Distribution |
Rarity |
|
Mammals |
|
|
|
|
|
Japanese Pipistrelle
Pipistrellus abramus |
Shrubland and disturbed/developed area within
Study Area and the shrubland encroached within the
CWBCP |
Wild Animals and Plants (Cap 170) |
Widespread |
Very Common |
|
Brown Noctule
Bat Nyctalus noctula |
Flying fast above the developed area
within the Study Area |
Wild Animals and Plants (Cap 170) |
Scattered records in |
Common |
|
Birds |
|
|
|
|
|
White-bellied Sea Eagle Haliaeetus
leucogaster |
Flying above the grassland of Study
Area, perching |
Class 2 of Protected Animal of PRC; Appendix
2 in CITES |
Found in coastal area of |
An uncommon resident in HK |
|
Black-eared Kite Milvus lineatus |
In various habitats of the Study Area;
Soaring |
Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC |
Found in many types
of habitats; |
Common and widespread in HK |
|
Common Kestrel Falco tinnunculus |
Recorded in
flight over grassland of Study Area, perching |
Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC |
Widespread in |
Common and widespread
autumn migrant, less common winter visitor |
|
Common Buzzard Buteo buteo |
Recorded in
flight over shrubland within the encroached area of
CWBCP and grassland within the Study Area, perching |
Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC |
Widespread in |
Common winter
visitor to HK |
|
Greater Coucal Centropus sinensis |
Recorded in
disturbed/developed area of the Study Area, perching |
Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC |
Found in many
types of habitats in Oriental |
Common and widespread
in HK; Very rare in |
|
Hwamei Garrulax canorus |
Recorded in
grassland of the Study Area, perching |
Appendix 2 in CITES |
Found in shrubland in |
An uncommon
resident in HK; uncommon in |
|
Brown Hawk Owl Ninox scutulata |
In shrubland within the encroached area of CWBCP, perching |
Class 2 Protected Animal of PRC |
Can turn up in
various vegetated habitats during migration, Oriental |
Very rare
passage migrant in HK |
|
Butterflies |
|
|
|
|
|
Common Dart Potanthus pseudomaesa |
Shrubland within the encroached area of CWBCP |
Not protected |
Found in |
Rare |
|
Grass Demon Udaspes folus |
Grassland in
the valley within the Study Area |
Not protected |
Found in most
country parks |
Rare |
|
Lesser Band
Dart Potanthus trachala |
Grassland
within the Study Area and the shrubland at the
southern part of the Study Area |
Not protected |
Found in most
country parks |
Rare |
|
Swallowtail Papilio xuthus |
Shrubland near the top
of the hill within encroached area of CWBCP |
Not protected |
Ma On Shan,
Plover Cove, Tai Tam, Tai Lam, Pat Sin Leng, Sha Lo Wan, Kat O, Lung Kwu Tan |
Rare |
|
Dark Grass Blue
Zizeeria karsandra |
Grassland within the Study Area |
Not Protected |
Most country
parks |
Rare |
|
Common Nawab Polyura athamas |
Shrubland near the top of the hill within the
Study Area |
Not protected |
Most country
parks |
Uncommon |
|
Indian
Fritillary Argyreus hyperbius |
Shrubland near the top
of the hill within the encroached area of CWBCP and the shrubland
at the southern part of the Study Area |
Not protected |
Found in most
country parks |
Uncommon |
|
Indian Palm Bob
Suastus gremius |
Shrubland near the top of the hill within the
Study Area |
Not protected |
Found in most
country parks |
Uncommon |
|
Small Grass
Blue Famegana alsulus |
Grassland along the ridge within the Study Area |
Not protected |
Plover Cove. |
Uncommon |
|
Toothed Sunbeam
Curetis dentate |
Shrubland within the
encroached area of CWBCP |
Not protected |
Most country
parks |
Uncommon |
|
White-edged
Blue Baron Euthalia
phemius |
Shrubland within the
encroached area of CWBCP |
Not protected |
Found in most
country parks |
Uncommon |
|
Reptiles |
|
|
|
|
|
Common Rat
Snake Ptyas mucosus |
Shrubland near the top of the hill within the
encroached area of CWBCP |
Not protected
in CITES Appendix II |
Widespread in
HK |
Common |
|
Corals |
|
|
|
|
|
Acropora solitaryensis |
|
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Predominant
distribution in the southeastern sector of |
Uncommon |
|
Coscinaraea n sp. |
Shore of Fat Tong Chau and Tin Ha Au |
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
In northeastern, eastern, southeastern
and western waters of |
Common |
|
Cyphastrea serailia |
|
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Widespread in |
Dominant |
|
Favia favus |
|
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Widespread in |
Abundant |
|
Favia lizardensis |
Shore of Tin Ha Au |
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Widespread in |
Common |
|
Favia rotumana |
Shore of Tin Ha Au |
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Widespread in |
Abundant |
|
Favia speciosa |
Shore of Tit Cham Chau, Kwun Tsai and Tin Ha Au |
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Widespread in |
Abundant |
|
Favites abdita |
|
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Widespread in |
Dominant |
|
Goniastrea aspera |
|
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Widespread in |
Common |
|
Goniopora stutchburyi |
Shore of Fat Tong Chau and Tin Ha Au |
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Widespread in |
Common |
|
Hydnophora exesa |
|
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Widespread in |
Abundant |
|
Leptastrea purpurea |
|
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Widespread in |
Abundant |
|
Oulastrea crispata |
Shore of Tit Cham Chau and Tin Ha Au |
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Widespread in |
Common |
|
Pavona decussata |
|
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Widespread in |
Abundant |
|
Platygyra acuta |
|
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Widespread in |
Dominant |
|
Plesiastrea versipora |
Shore of Fat Tong Chau, Tit Cham Chau, Kwun Tsai and Tin Ha Au |
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Widespread in |
Abundant |
|
Porites sp. |
|
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Porites sp. recorded in |
Porites sp. recorded in |
|
Psammocora superficialis |
Shore of Fat Tong Chau, Tit Cham Chau, Kwun Tsai and Tin Ha Au |
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Widespread in |
Abundant |
|
Turbinaria peltata |
Shore of Tit Cham Chau and Tin Ha Au |
Protection of Endangered Species of Animals and Plants
Ordinance (Cap 586), |
Widespread in |
Common |
The construction of the Extension involves
removal of vegetation and land excavation for the construction of desired
landform. The construction works
are expected to be completed within 2 years and the operation/restoration
period will last for about 6 years.
The aftercare period for the Extension is estimated to last up to 30
years. During the Aftercare period,
the landfill contractor will continue to manage the final cap (including the
vegetation of top of the cap) and the leachate and
landfill gas generated from the Extension.
The potential ecological impacts due to the
construction of the Extension are described below.
·
Permanent
loss of plantation (approximately 12.2 ha), shrubland
(approximately 1.4 ha) and disturbed/developed area (approximately 34.2 ha)
within the existing SENT Landfill and TKO Area 137 during construction of the
Extension Site;
·
Permanent
loss of shrubland (approximately 4.6 ha), grassland
(approximately 0.1 ha) and disturbed/developed area (approximately 0.4 ha),
which are located within the CWBCP and outside the existing SENT Landfill, due
to the construction of the Extension;
·
Loss
of foraging and feeding ground of the associated wildlife, particularly the
natural habitats; and
·
No
direct loss of subtidal habitats is expected as it is
a land based project that no marine works would be involved and no marine
habitat/species would be affected.
Details are presented in Figure
9.9a and Table 9.9a.
Table 9.9a Overall
Habitat Loss due to the Construction of the Extension
|
Impacted Habitats |
Permanent Loss (ha) |
Ecological Value of the Affected Habitat |
|
|
12.2 |
Low |
|
Shrubland |
6 (4.6 ha) |
Moderate |
|
Grassland |
0.1 (0.1 ha) |
Low to moderate |
|
Disturbed/ Developed Area |
34.6 (0.4 ha) |
Nil |
|
Note: (a)
Habitats
located within the CWBCP and outside the existing SENT Landfill to be
affected are presented in bracket. |
||
·
Reduction
of wildlife species abundance/diversity and ecological carrying capacity is
expected to be minimal due to the loss of a relatively small area of natural
habitat (as compared with the large extent of similar habitats in the immediate
vicinity), and steep slope of the affected area limits the wildlife usage. Although species of conservation
interest including Japanese Pipistrelle, Brown Noctule Bat, Greater Coucal,
Brown Hawk Owl, Common Buzzard, Black Kite, Common Rat Snake, Swallowtail,
Tooted Sunbeam, White-edged Blue Baron and Indian Fritillary were recorded
within the Extension Site, the majority of the Extension Site is not the
preferred habitat of these species.
·
Impacts
to wildlife with high mobility such as birds, butterflies, dragonflies and herpetofauna is expected to be minimal as there is
relatively large area of similar natural habitats in the close vicinity. Impacts to wildlife with low mobility
such as insects will be a concern as the loss of habitat may reduce their
abundance and diversity. However,
with the compensatory planting of mixed woodland and shrubland,
the impacts to wildlife is expected to be minimal.
·
The
impacts due to the loss of foraging ground are also considered to be minimal
given that the large extent of similar habitats in the vicinity, and the
affected areas located next to the currently highly disturbed areas.
·
Given
that there was no aquatic fauna recorded in the seasonal streams and cut-off
channel will be effectively operated to avoid any discharge outside the
Extension Site prior to the extension works, impacts to aquatic life (in
particular corals in the surrounding coastal areas) due to the change in water
quality, sedimentation rate and pattern is expected to be minimal.
·
Habitat
fragmentation and isolation are not expected as the majority of the affected
habitats are either disturbed or located next to the developed areas, and the
natural habitats (mainly shrubland) are located at
the western end of the headland and most of the upland and surrounding habitats
will remain untouched. It should be
noted that the areas within the CWBCP are generally steep and are expected to
be mainly utilized by highly mobile wildlife such as birds and butterflies,
which are less affected by such fragmentation and isolation effects.
·
As no
streams or water gathering areas will be affected due to the Extension, and no
marine works are involved, the hydrology and hydrodynamic properties would not
be affected.
·
During
the first year of construction, works including site formation and construction
of site office buildings, workshops, landfill gas and leachate
treatment plant will be carried out.
Excavation is necessary for the construction of the new
infrastructure. It is anticipated that, with the implementation
of good construction practices, as stated in ProPECC
PN1/4, and appropriate mitigation measures including provision of a
perimeter cut-off channel around the Extension Site, intercepting channels and
silt removal facilities (see Section 6.8),
contamination of construction runoff will be minimal and there will be no
unacceptable water quality and ecological impacts to the receiving water bodies
(ie surface water including two seasonal streams S1
and S2, inshore waters in Junk Bay and Joss House Bay, as well as the coral
communities recorded in the subtidal habitats along
the coastlines in particular at Kwun Tsai where the
uncommon coral species Acropora solitaryensis recorded).
·
The
base of the landfill (either existing SENT Landfill or the Extension) has been
designed to be above the groundwater level (see Section 3), the hydrogeology of the area
is not expected to be influenced.
·
The blasting
works which generate very short-term instantaneous impacts, may affect the
wildlife, in particular birds, associated with the
natural habitats in the immediate vicinity. It should be noted that the quantity of
explosive used and the dimensions and spacings of shotholes will be carefully designed to minimise air
overpressure, flyrock generation and ground-borne
vibration. The loose material and
stones in the site will be removed before blasting to minimise the potential
for flying fragments to affect the surrounding areas. The blasting area will also be wetted
prior to blasting to minimise dust generation. With the use of fine blast nets, screens
and other protective covers, the impacts to the wildlife associated with the
surrounding habitats due to blasting are expected to be low. It should be noted that the formation of
rock slopes of the existing SENT Landfill adopted similar blasting works. No adverse ecological impacts were
observed due to the blasting works.
·
Secondary
impacts to the surrounding habitats (generally with low to moderate ecological
value, including the sub-tidal habitats in the vicinity) and associated
wildlife may arise from the potential for increased noise impact, human
activities and disturbance such as hill fire, import, storage or dumping of
construction materials and construction site runoff. The impacts are expected to be low owing
to the existing disturbed nature of the majority of the site, and given that
regular site audits on good construction practice (including the provision of
chain-link fence around the site boundary to restrict construction activities
within the site boundary) and surface water management systems will be employed
during the construction phase.
The operation and restoration of the
Extension will be implemented
concurrently. The main ecological
concern during this phase is related to the accidental leakage of leachate, other wastewaters and landfill gas, which may
result in:
·
potential
impacts to water quality and aquatic life particularly corals in the vicinity
due to leakage of leachate and wastewater; and
· potential impacts to the surrounding natural
habitat in CWBCP and associated wildlife due to an accidental fire caused by
accidental leakage of landfill gas.
With the incorporation of well designed and properly
implemented pollution control measures and systems, including landfill gas
management system, leachate management system and
surface water/groundwater system (see Section
3), as well as implementing a comprehensive environmental monitoring and
audit programme, accidental discharge of leachate
into surface water, and subsurface off-site migration of leachate
and landfill gas will be adequately controlled and the associated impacts to
the surrounding natural habitats, associated wildlife and aquatic life
particularly corals in the vicinity are not expected.
Operation/restoration phase impacts to terrestrial ecology may arise
from increased human activities in the area resulting in disturbance to the
surrounding natural habitats in
CWBCP and
associated wildlife, if uncontrolled.
Chain-link fence or boundary wall will be erected around the Extension
Site boundary to restrict the construction and operation/restoration activities
within the site boundary. Given
that general wildlife including species of conservation interest can still be
observed around the area of the existing SENT Landfill during the ecological
baseline surveys for this EIA it is not expected that unacceptable operation/restoration
phase impacts will occur.
The
aftercare phase will begin when the final filling and restoration of the
Extension are completed, and is estimated to last up to 30 years. The works to be performed during this
aftercare period will include maintaining
the control measures and systems functioning as designed and undertaking
routine environmental monitoring.
Similar to the operation/restoration phase, impacts to terrestrial
ecology may arise from increased human activities (ie,
vegetation management) in the area resulting in disturbance to the restored
habitats and the surrounding natural habitats in CWBCP and associated wildlife, if uncontrolled. Impacts to subtidal
habitats particularly the corals are not expected during the aftercare phase
with the proper control of landfill leachate. Given the generally low level of
disturbance required to manage the Extension Site it is not expected that the
aftercare of the Extension will cause adverse ecological impacts.
TKO Area 137 is planned to be developed
for deep waterfront industrial uses.
A C&D Material Handling Facility is currently committed to be
developed in the area. No adverse
cumulative ecological impacts are expected as the TKO Area is a disturbed/developed
area with negligible ecological value.
Table 9.9a Overall
Impact Evaluation for
|
Evaluation Criteria |
|
|
Habitat quality |
Low |
|
Species |
The potential exists for direct
and indirect impacts to the wildlife, particular species of less mobility |
|
Size/Abundance |
Area loss
is approximately 12.2 ha permanently |
|
Duration |
The impact will persist during the
construction and operation phases.
Compensatory planting will expect to be provided during restoration
and aftercare phases. |
|
Reversibility |
The plantation may take
approximately 5-10 years to be re-created |
|
Magnitude |
The scale of the habitat loss is
moderate in the context of the surrounding similar habitats |
|
Overall Impact Conclusion |
Low |
Table 9.9b Overall
Impact Evaluation for Shrubland within the Extension
Site (Excluded Areas located within the CWBCP and Outside the Existing SENT
Landfill)
|
Evaluation Criteria |
Shrubland |
|
Habitat quality |
Moderate |
|
Species |
The potential exists for direct
and indirect impacts to the wildlife, particular species of less mobility |
|
Size/Abundance |
Area loss
is approximately 1.4 ha |
|
Duration |
The impact will be temporary during
the construction and operation phases.
Compensatory planting will expect to be provided during restoration
and aftercare phases. |
|
Reversibility |
The shrubland
may take approximately 10 years to be re-created |
|
Magnitude |
The scale of the habitat loss is
small in the context of the surrounding similar habitats |
|
Overall Impact Conclusion |
Low to moderate |
Table 9.9d Overall
Impact Evaluation for Disturbed/ Developed Area within the Extension Site (Excluded
Areas located within the CWBCP and Outside the Existing SENT Landfill)
|
Evaluation Criteria |
Disturbed/
Developed Area |
|
Habitat quality |
Nil |
|
Species |
The potential exists for direct and
indirect impacts to the wildlife, particular species of less mobility and
species of conservation interests including Japanese Pipistrelle |
|
Size/Abundance |
Area loss
is approximately 34.2 ha permanently |
|
Duration |
The impact will persist during the
construction and operation phases |
|
Reversibility |
The disturbed/ developed area is
readily re-creatable |
|
Magnitude |
The scale of the habitat loss is
small in the context of the surrounding similar habitats |
|
Overall Impact Conclusion |
Negligible |
Table 9.9e Overall
Impact Evaluation for Shrubland, Grassland and
Developed Area within the CWBCP (Outside the Existing SENT Landfill)
|
Evaluation Criteria |
Shrubland Encroached
within the CWBCP |
Grassland Encroached within the CWBCP |
Disturbed/
Developed Area Encroached
within the CWBCP |
|
Habitat quality |
Moderate |
Low to
moderate |
Negligible |
|
Species |
The potential exists for direct and
indirect impacts to the wildlife, particular species of less mobility and
species of conservation interests including Japanese Pipistrelle,
Common Buzzard, Brown Hawk Owl, White-edged Blue Baron, Indian Fritillary,
Swallowtail and Common Rat Snake. |
The potential exists for direct
and indirect impacts to the wildlife, particular species of less mobility |
The potential exists for direct
and indirect impacts to the wildlife, particular species of less mobility |
|
Size/Abundance |
4.6 ha of shrubland will be lost. |
Area loss
is approximately 0.1 ha |
Area loss
is approximately 0.4 ha |
|
Duration |
The impact will be temporary
during the construction and operation phases. Compensatory planting and habitat
enhancement is expected to be provided during restoration and aftercare
phases. |
The impact will be temporary
during the construction and operation phases. Compensatory planting and habitat
enhancement is expected to be provided during restoration and aftercare
phases. |
The impact will be temporary
during the construction and operation phases. Compensatory planting and habitat
enhancement is expected to be provided during restoration and aftercare
phases. |
|
Reversibility |
The shrubland
may take approximately 10 years to be re-created. |
The grassland may take
approximately 5 years to be re-created
|
Readily reversible |
|
Magnitude |
The scale of the habitat loss is
small in the context of the surrounding similar habitats. |
The scale of the habitat loss is small
in the context of the surrounding similar habitats |
The scale of the habitat loss is
small in the context of the surrounding similar habitats |
|
Overall Impact Conclusion |
Low to moderate |
Low |
Low |
Impacts on Wildlife: Reduction
of wildlife species abundance/diversity and ecological carrying capacity is
expected to be minimal due to the loss of a relatively small area of natural
habitat. The steep slope of the
affected area also limits wildlife usage.
In addition, the majority of the Extension Site is highly disturbed and
is not the preferred habitat for general wildlife.
The impacts due to
the loss of foraging ground are also considered to be minimal given the
presence of large area of similar habitats in the vicinity. It should be noted that the affected
area is located next to currently highly disturbed areas.
Given that there
was no aquatic fauna recorded in the seasonal streams and the perimeter surface
water cut-off channel will be effectively operated to avoid any discharge
outside the Extension Site, impacts to aquatic life due to the change in water
quality, sedimentation rate and pattern are expected to be minimal.
Table 9.9f Overall
Impact Evaluation for the Species of Conservation Interest
|
Species of Conservation Interest |
Impacts |
Impacts to
Wildlife |
Location
Recorded |
|
Mammals |
|
|
|
|
Japanese Pipistrelle |
A part of their associated habitat
(approximately 34.6 ha of disturbed/developed area and 6 ha of shrubland) will be affected. There are extensive similar
habitats in proximity. |
Low |
Disturbed/developed area within
Extension Site and Shrubland within the encroached
area in CWBCP. |
|
Brown Noctule Bat |
A part of their associated habitat
(approximately 34.6 ha of disturbed/developed area) will be affected. There
are extensive similar habitats in proximity. |
Low |
Disturbed/Development area within
the Extension Site |
|
Birds |
|
|
|
|
Brown Hawk Owl |
A small part of their associated
habitat (approximately 4.6 ha of shrubland) will be
affected. There are extensive
similar habitats in proximity. |
Low |
Shrubland within the encroached area of CWBCP. |
|
Greater Coucal |
A small part of their associated
habitat (approximately 4.6 ha of shrubland) will be
affected. There are extensive
similar habitats in proximity. |
Low |
Shrubland within the encroached area of CWBCP. |
|
Common Buzzard |
A small
part of their associated habitat (approximately 4.6 ha of shrubland)
will be affected. There are
extensive similar habitats in proximity. |
Low |
Shrubland
within the encroached area of CWBCP.
|
|
Black Kite |
A part of
their associated habitat (approximately 34.6 ha of disturbed/developed area,
12.2 ha of plantation and 6 ha of shrubland) will
be affected. There are extensive similar habitats in proximity. |
Low |
Soaring
over a variety of habitats within the Study Area. |
|
Butterflies |
|
|
|
|
White-edged Blue Baron |
A small part of their associated habitat
(approximately 4.6 ha of shrubland) will be
affected. There are extensive
similar habitats in proximity. |
Low |
Shrubland within
the encroached area of CWBCP |
|
Indian Fritillary |
A small part of their associated habitat
(approximately 4.6 ha of shrubland) will be
affected. There are extensive
similar habitats in proximity. |
Low |
Shrubland within
the encroached area of CWBCP |
|
Swallowtail |
A small part of their associated habitat
(approximately 4.6 ha of shrubland) will be
affected. There are extensive
similar habitats in proximity. |
Low |
Shrubland within
the encroached area of CWBCP |
|
Tooth Sunbeam |
A small part of their associated habitat
(approximately 4.6 ha of shrubland) will be
affected. There are extensive
similar habitats in proximity. |
Low |
Shrubland within
the encroached area of CWBCP |
|
Reptiles |
|
|
|
|
Common Rat Snake |
A small part of their associated habitat
(approximately 4.6 ha of shrubland) will be
affected. There are extensive
similar habitats in proximity. |
Low |
Shrubland within the encroached area in CWBCP |
|
Corals |
|
|
|
|
A total of nineteen species of hard corals recorded |
Indirect impact to coral communities from potential
leakage of landfill leachate expect to be minimal |
Low |
Subtidal habitats along the coastlines in the vicinity |
Habitat Fragmentation and Isolation:
Habitat fragmentation and isolation are not expected as the majority of
the affected habitats are either disturbed or located next to developed
areas. It should be noted that the
areas within the CWBCP are generally steep and are expected to be mainly
utilized by birds and butterflies, which are less affected by such
fragmentation and isolation effects.
Impacts on Habitats and Associated Wildlife within
Encroached Area of CWBCP and Outside the Existing SENT Landfill:
The impacts of the loss of habitats within the encroached area of CWBCP
are considered low to moderate in view of the high mobility of the species of
conservation interest and general wildlife, and large extent of similar habitat
in the vicinity. The construction
of the Extension Site will temporarily restrict the habitat utilisation of
general wildlife within the encroached area of CWBCP; however, no unacceptable
impacts are anticipated. With the
provision of enhanced habitats of higher ecological value (ie
woodland) after the restoration of the impacted areas and under a proper
planting scheme and management, the wildlife diversity and abundance are
expected to be enhanced.
Operation/Restoration Phase
Ecological impacts associated with the operation
and restoration of the Extension due to the accidental leakage of leachate,
other wastewater and landfill gas are not expected by implementation of properly
designed and operated landfill
gas, leachate and surface water/groundwater
management systems (see Section 3). A comprehensive environmental monitoring
and audit programme will be implemented.
Other Impacts: As no streams
or water gathering areas will be affected due to the Extension, and no marine
works will be required, the hydrology and hydrodynamic properties of the Study
Area would not be affected.
The base of the landfill (either existing SENT
Landfill or the Extension) has been designed to be kept above the groundwater
level (see Section 3), the hydrogeology of the area is not expected to be
influenced.
Secondary
impacts to the surrounding habitats (generally with low to moderate ecological
value), including the sub-tidal habitats (coral communities) in the vicinity
and associated wildlife may arise from the potential for increased noise
impact, blasting works, human activities and disturbance such as hill fire,
import, storage or dumping of construction materials and construction site
runoff. The impacts are expected to
be low owing to the current disturbed nature of the majority of the site, and
given that regular site audits on good construction practice and surface water
management system will be employed during the construction, and
operation/restoration phases.
Given the generally low level of disturbance required to manage the
restored Extension it is not expected that aftercare activities will cause
adverse ecological impacts.
Annex 16 of the EIAO-TM
states that the general policy for mitigation of significant ecological
impacts, in order of priority, is:
Avoidance:
Potential impacts should be avoided to the maximum extent practicable by
adopting suitable alternatives;
Minimisation:
Unavoidable impacts should be minimised by taking appropriate and
practicable measures such as constraints on intensity of works operations or
timing of works operations; and
Compensation:
The loss of important species and habitats may be provided for elsewhere
as compensation. Enhancement and
other conservation measures should always be considered whenever possible.
At each stage, residual impacts are to be
re-assessed to determine whether there is a need to proceed to the next stage
of mitigation. The following
measures have been developed in accordance with this approach to mitigate the
impacts.
Five different extension options have been reviewed (refer to Section 2.3). With reference to Annex 16, Section 3.1(a) of the EIAO-TM, areas of ecological
importance (in this case the Country Park) shall be conserved as far as
possible. Options without the
encroachment of CWBCP were considered first. However, these options can only provide
limited void capacity which will not be able to accommodate the waste generated
in the forecast period, even with effective waste reduction and recycling
measures as stated in the Policy Framework for the Management of MSW
(2005-2014). Extending the SENT
Landfill with these options would not enable the Government to make adequate
provision for future waste management in the catchment
area and at strategic level (see Section
2.2). Engineering measures have
been considered to maximize the void space offered by these non-encroachment
options. However, it was found that
massive retaining wall/earth bunds (in the order of 40m) will be required which
will be visually intrusive and technically very challenging and would still not
increase the void space to meet the demand. Furthermore, the feasibility of this
solution is uncertain as there is no precedent of building a sanitary landfill
with such a depth of retaining structure.
TKO Area 137 is designated for deep waterfront uses and the ongoing landuse planning reveals that the demand for land within
this area is high and only 15 ha can be allocated for the landfill
extension. With the 15 ha of
available land in TKO Area 137 plus using the piggyback approach onto the
existing SENT Landfill to maximize the available void space for the Extension,
the landfill extension can only provide around 10Mm3 (around 4 years
of landfill life), which does not allow sufficient time for the new generation
of waste management facilities to be developed.
It is understood
that there is a public need for both adequate landfill space and Country
Parks. Landfill disposal at SENT is
necessary until such time as South East Kowloon Transfer Station and
Construction Waste Handling Facility are all operational (see Section 2.2). Under an optimistic set of conditions to
form a target programme at the present stage, they
could all be in place by 2017, at the earliest. With SENT expected to be full by 2012,
at least six years of additional void space is necessary. This can only be achieved by the
encroachment option 3b. It is important to extend the lifespan of
the SENT Landfill based on Option 3b so that the Government can have time to
plan and develop these new waste handling facilities.
The proposed encroachment area of approximately
5.1 hectares of land into the CWBCP, is primarily a
coastal slope that is not easily accessible. The habitats (grassland and shrubland) are not of high ecological value. All of the species of conservation
interest recorded within the area were found to be of high mobility and were
found to have access to large extent of similar habitats close by and within
the CWBCP area. Hence, no adverse
ecological impacts are expected.
When the encroached area is restored together with the fully restored landfill
after the completion of landfilling operation, it is
anticipated that the whole restored areas would be enriched to enable a higher
amenity value for public enjoyment and higher ecological value under a proper
planting scheme and management.
Hence, while
encroachment cannot be avoided, an encroachment of 5.1 ha into the CWBCP is
considered to be a balanced option, maximizing void capacity to meet the
landfill space demand while minimizing disturbance to natural habitats. It should be noted that the boundary of
CWBCP will not be changed and access to the affected area will only be
temporarily restricted. The habitat
quality will be enhanced as a result of habitat enhancement, compensatory
planting and proper management which will form an integral part of the SENT
Landfill Extension Project.
The previous discussion in Section 9.9
has indicated that the potential ecological impacts due to the
construction, operation, restoration and aftercare of the Extension are considered
to be low to moderate. The
following measures are recommended to further reduce the potential impacts and
disturbance to the surrounding habitats.
·
According
to the option selection for the Extension (for details please refer to Section 2), this proposed option
involves partial encroachment into areas within the CWBCP in order to maximise
the total volume of the Extension.
The disturbance of the existing area within CWBCP will comprise 4.6 ha of
shrubland, 0.1 ha of grassland and 0.4 ha of
disturbed/developed area only.
Measures
for Controlling Construction Runoff
·
Exposed
soil areas will be minimised to reduce the contamination of runoff and erosion;
·
To prevent
stormwater runoff from washing across exposed soil
surfaces, perimeter channels will be constructed in advance of site formation
works and earthworks and intercepting channels will be provided, for example
along the edge of excavation;
·
Silt
removal facilities, channels and manholes will be maintained and the deposited
silt and grit will be removed regularly to ensure they are functioning properly
at all times;
·
Temporary
covers such as tarpaulin will also be provided to minimise the generation of
high suspended solids runoff;
·
The
surface runoff contained any oil and grease will pass through the oil
interceptors; and
·
Control
measures, including implementation of excavation schedules, lining and covering
of excavated stockpiles will be implemented to minimise contaminated stormwater
run-off from the Extension site.
·
Fences
along the boundary of the Extension Site will be erected before the
commencement of works to prevent vehicle movements, and encroachment of
personnel, onto adjacent areas;
·
The
work site boundaries will be regularly checked to ensure that they are not
breached and that damage does not occur to surrounding areas;
·
The
quantity of explosive used and the dimensions and spacings
of shotholes will be carefully designed to minimise
air overpressure, flyrock generation and ground-borne
vibration;
·
Use
of fine blast nets, screens and other protective covers to prevent the
projection of flying fragments and material resulting from blasting. The loose material and stones in the
site will be removed before blasting to minimise flying fragments affecting the
surrounding areas and the blasting area will also be wetted prior to blasting
to minimise dust.
·
Leachate will be contained within the Extension by the
proposed impermeable leachate containment system and
collected by the installation of drainage system to prevent potential leakage
of leachate to habitats in the vicinity. The implementation details of managing leachate can be referenced to Section 5 - Water Quality Assessment.
·
Disturbance
to habitat in the vicinity and associated wildlife due to leakage of landfill
gas will be prevented by proper management of the landfill gas generated from
the Extension. Ignition fires will
be prohibited to occur within the boundary of the Extension Site. Surface emission and off-site migration
of landfill gas will be regularly monitored, which are detailed in Section 7 - Landfill Gas Hazard assessment.
As the Extension will encroach into the
·
Provision
of 6 ha of mixed woodland planting to compensate for the loss of shrubland. To
enhance the ecological value of the encroached area within CWBCP, mixed
woodland will be planted on the affected areas (approximately 6 ha, originally shrubland); and
·
Provision
of a mosaic of grassland and shrubland in the
remaining areas of the Extension Site.
The mixture of grassland, shrubland and woodland habitats is recommended to diversify
the habitats to support various wildlife, in particular butterflies, birds and herpetofauna and blend into the existing undisturbed
ecological environment. A
conceptual planting plan is presented in Section
10 – Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment section (see Figure
10.6a). This recommendation
also complies with the mitigation measures proposed in the existing SENT
Landfill EIA, which suggested compensatory planting of native woodland ([44]).
Indigenous plant species with a shallow
root system, softwood in nature and adaptive to sea shore habitat ([45]),
([46])
are recommended to be used in
the restoration plan, such as Gordonia axillaris, Phyllanthus emblica, Celtis sinensis and Macaranga tanarius, which have been well established in coastal
areas with exposure to strong wind and salt spray, and with a sandy soil base.
Indigenous tree species Celtis sinensis and Ficus microcarpa have also been recorded in the SENT Landfill
site (from years 2003 to 2006) ([47])
and during the baseline
surveys of this Project, although they occurred in low abundance in SENT
Landfill and some individuals were distorted in tree form due to competition by
exotic tree species on the crown layer. With special care and management in place
and the optimal planting matrix with other plant species, native
tree species could be used for restoration in landfill site. Taking into consideration the relatively poor
substrate and the difficulties of establishment of some native trees in
It is also recommended that a trial
nursery for native plant species be set up in advance during the construction
phase in order to fine tune the planting matrix and management intensity of the
recommended indigenous tree species.
It should be noted that native shrubs and tree species have been used
for restoration of the existing SENT Landfill, native plant species that could
not successfully be established on the existing SENT Landfill should be
reviewed before the preparation of the compensatory planting list. Special care and intensive management of
native plants should be implemented in order to ensure proper establishment of
the native plants.
Compensatory planting and restoration of
the Extension can be implemented progressively according to the filling plan of
the Extension. Planted and restored
areas will serve their ecological function once completed.
There will be a permanent loss of
approximately 6 ha of shrubland, 0.1 ha of grassland,
12.2 ha of plantation and 34.6 ha of developed area due to the Extension. None of habitats is of high ecological
value. Due to the loss of low to
moderate quality habitats and the high mobility of the faunal species to be
impacted, the residual impacts are considered to be low. With the implementation of compensation planting
of a mosaic of grassland and shrubland, and mixed
woodland plantation (total 6 ha) on the Extension, no adverse residual impact
due to the construction, operation, restoration and aftercare of the Extension is expected.
The implementation of the ecological
mitigation measures stated in Section
9.10 will be checked as part of the environmental monitoring and audit
procedures during the construction phase.
The implementation of the ecological
mitigation measures stated in Sections
9.10 and 9.11 will be checked as
part of the environmental monitoring and audit procedures during the
operation/restoration phase.
The ecological resources recorded within
the Study Area include plantation shrubland,
grassland, disturbed/developed area and seasonal stream, as well as associated
wildlife. Of these habitats, shrubland has moderate ecological value. The remaining habitats are of low or low
to moderate ecological value with the ecological value of disturbed/developed
area as negligible.
A total of 21 terrestrial wildlife species
of conservation interest were recorded within the Study Area, including 2 bat
species (Japanese Pipistrelle and Brown Noctule Bat), 7 bird species (Black
Kite, Common Buzzard, Common Kestrel, Greater Coucal,
White-bellied Sea Eagle, Hwamei and Brown Hawk Owl), 5 rare and 6
uncommon butterfly species (Common Dart, White-edged Blue Baron, Lesser Band Dart, Swallowtail, Common
Nawab, Dark Grass Blue, Indian Palm Bob, Small Grass
Blue, Toothed Sunbeam, Grass Demon and Indian Frilitary),
one reptile species (Common Rat Snake)
and 19 hard coral species.
The majority of
the proposed Extension will be located in habitats which have already
disturbed/developed including the existing SENT Landfill and the fill bank in
TKO Area 137. The potential impacts
on these habitats are considered to be low to moderate. The proposed Extension will encroach
into a small strip (5.1 ha) of CWBCP, comprising shrubland
and grassland habitats. The potential impacts on these natural
habitats within the CWBCP are considered to be low to moderate. Impacts on the wildlife species of
conservation interest are expected.
However, they are highly mobile and there is a large extent of similar
foraging habitats in the vicinity.
As no marine works will be involved, no marine habitats/species will be
affected. Indirect impacts to the subtidal habitat and coral communities is
expected to be minimal. No adverse
residual impacts on both habitats including the coral communities and species
of conservation interest are expected after the implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures.
The measures include the adoption of good construction practices,
properly designed surface water, leachate,
groundwater and landfill gas management systems, and provision of compensatory
tree planting. These measures will
minimise potential ecological impacts.
Regular site inspections as part of the overall environmental monitoring
and audit programme of the Extension are recommended.
Herpetofauna Working Group(AFCD). A Field Guide to the Venomous
Land Snakes of
